What a long, sparse on content article.
In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
351–360 of 380 posts
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#352Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man "entitlement" is such a weird word, and such a weird way to frame the issue. There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. And being told they're not allowed to because rich people like the aesthetic. There's poor people being priced out of their own city because of this. Who's entitled? And this is hardly the first time a US city has experienced growth.
> There are property owners who would like to build on their own property, not hurting anyone. If they are impairing their neighbors' views, it seem pretty obvious they are actually hurting someone. San Franacisco has already experienced the extreme: Charles Crocker's spite fence on Nob Hill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spite_fence#San_Francisco
"Ownership of a view" is a pretty dubious argument. It amounts to no being allowed to construct anything anywhere because it will always change someone's view. A taller building is not the same as a spite fence, at all.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
The high cost of housing is simply due to the transformation of land into a 'gold-like' asset. This was done by untaxing it and reducing interest rates to zero (propelling demand for more 'gold' like assets). It wasn't a market inefficiency that made land hard to create and intentionally drove up its value. It was neoliberals.
> This was done by untaxing it We never had a full land value tax in our country (or anywhere in the world, for that matter). What does this refer to, exactly?
Reduction of property taxes.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until you have a property system there is no "other people's" stuff.
Well we do have a property system so what are you trying to say?
That expecting there to be "your stuff" is already inherently selfish, so trying to argue that particular reallocations of "your stuff" are selfish is kind of ridiculous.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#356There are so many nice places to live in the US, why is remote work not more prevalent? Yes, it's nice to meet face to face, but there are many jobs where remote is perfectly possible and saves a lot of resources. Also it's a lot more fun if you only meet face to face occasionally.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
DC's architecture is converging on 12-14 stories steel and glass and it looks great while allowing a lot of density.
Speak for yourself. Considerations of urban policy and planning aside, I think the massive identical condo blocks popping up everywhere, and especially the developments in Navy Yard, are awful to look at and unpleasant to live around.
I agree. DC is really unfriendly at street level in a lot of areas. Giant blank-walled buildings that take up multiple entire blocks.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#358I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. That's a bad idea, too. For example, in Fremont right now, there's a development that was built without being placed in a school district. So the students who will live there have no real school. Also, there are serious environmental impacts that need to be considered every time you build a…
The perfect example of what you are talking about: the suburbs of Charlotte, NC (the ones I'm thinking of are actually near the SC/NC border).
Wild grow with little planning for transportation and water. It's a complete mess. You can sit in traffic jams in the middle of nowhere. And the crazy thing, they are still building like crazy so it's only going to get much worse than it is now.
I've been visiting the area for 15 years (my Dad lives there), and each year I go back I'm amazed how much worse it is. 15 years ago it was lush forests. Now: mall and housing developments are everywhere, and the roads are mostly the same--there have been some upgrades to roads, but not nearly enough.
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#359I say this as a conservative: Building limits are systemically classist and racist. They maintain a geographical segregation system. If you want to fix the country then remove all limits, let developers develop whatever and whereever they deem there is demand. Remove occupancy laws where they're not about safety. Remove property line setbacks. End parking requirements. End requirements about private kitchens and bath…
So basically make life cramped and awful for everyone instead of just some?
Re: In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I thought. It is in fact a major flaw of the entire USA public school concept that "kids will only be covered by one such domain", but you can't blame developers for that. School districts partition the state, and they do so in every state. Therefore this objection amounts to "the school district in which this development is located didn't prepare for new students while it was being built", and that objec…
> but you can't blame developers for that. You can, when the developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees that would have been used to add capacity to schools.
Because "developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees" (stipulating, for the sake of discussion, a premise not in evidence), they can be blamed for the asinine concept of public school districts? That is not logical.