31–40 of 1001 posts
Soon the peaceful suburbs of California will look like congested cities like Seoul or Mumbai with a whole bunch of slums thrown in between.
If you want your own undisturbed 10,000 sqft domain, like a British lord of old, you can move to Idaho. Or pay a huge premium to compete for a limited pool of available low density land.
How did this authority come to be in the first place? How did cities magically get this authority to dictate how people should build. I imagine such laws didn’t always exist, how far back does this stuff go? Likewise how did states get authority over the cities on local matters that have to be obeyed?
Then, they get approved.
Then the city gets it's zoning laws in place and regrets the approval of your massive ugly development.
But then you go to the city with an offer... Send in a new, more reasonable plan. If they approve the new plan, great. If they don't, you're gonna build what they originally approved, and they hate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> reduce homelessness Is the homeless problem due to the cost of housing? Or is it moreso due to fentanyl?
Well, we are going to find out. Something tells me everyone who's homeless isn't a fentanyl addict. Especially given housing costs.
SF/LA has numerous programs that will give you housing if you're homeless. The issue is that many of the homeless refuse to take up these programs and insist on staying in their tents.... because they're mentally ill.... because of drugs.
Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…
For what it's worth, most zoning is created by property owners, too. Gotta preserve their investment at the expense of our nation's growth.
If the city booms, land value goes up. E.g. Manhattan. Trying to keep your small suburb a small suburb isn't maximizing investor value.
edit: to responders, yes I'm aware houses have other value. My comment is in response the parent comment that specifically addresses investment value protection aspect.
Wow that's great news! The level of bureaucratic creep that has been imposed on property owners is actually unbelievable to me. I obviously understand some regulations (you can't built a chemical processing plant in a residential neighborhood, obviously), but cities have creeped themselves into all-powerful overseers. Most cities now have the power to tell you what kind of house you can build, how you can paint it, h…
> how you can landscape it, what kinds of cars you can keep in your own driveway These two at least make some sense. The former, landscaping restrictions, can be used to prevent people from creating groundwater issues or flood risks, and the latter... no one wants a neighbor in a residential zone keeping broken-down trash cars out in the open. Some things have to be regulated even in a relatively free society because…
Yes, society probably won't crumble if we cave to your whining and regulate your pet issue of the minute but regulating in this manner is like littering in the park, if everyone does it the park is ruined.
If people are poisoning the groundwater or creating other "off their property" problems then fine them accordingly. If they aren't then screw off. None of this "the thing you want to isn't already on the approved list so you have to go through an onerous and expensive process of proving it won't hurt anything" garbage.