To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#2They might be better off banning short term rentals such as AirBnB, and banning investment and foreign SFH ownership.
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#3This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can make more money on units on established areas with highly rated schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further out. It’s no different than the school redistricting initiatives democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of ‘equity,’ so that more housing can be built near highly rated schools for a higher profit. There’s no noble cause here. It’s plain corruption.
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#4i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there
any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#5This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can make more money on units on established areas with highly rated schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further out. It’s no different than the school redistricting initiatives democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of ‘equity,’ so that more housing can be built near highly rated schools for a higher profit. There’s no nob…
Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use.
Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#6i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
I suspect the downvotes are more about your passive-aggressive reframing of the subject, and also your bullshit "I never understood" opening. Act like a child and you'll get treated like one.
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#7i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
I suspect the downvotes are more about your passive-aggressive reframing of the subject, and also your bullshit "I never understood" opening. Act like a child and you'll get treated like one.
> Act like a child and you'll get treated like one.
reply
+1. Succint, and great response
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#8i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
I suspect the downvotes are more about your passive-aggressive reframing of the subject, and also your bullshit "I never understood" opening. Act like a child and you'll get treated like one.
so what you're saying is you don't have an argument. i genuinely have never understood the claim that residents of an area are obligated to change it in order for more people to move there and change their existing quality of life
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#9This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can make more money on units on established areas with highly rated schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further out. It’s no different than the school redistricting initiatives democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of ‘equity,’ so that more housing can be built near highly rated schools for a higher profit. There’s no nob…
Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use. Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas. higher density only benefits developers who can now get revenue on the N plots of land they converted from 1.
Re: To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs to Development
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the downvotes are more about your passive-aggressive reframing of the subject, and also your bullshit "I never understood" opening. Act like a child and you'll get treated like one.
so what you're saying is you don't have an argument. i genuinely have never understood the claim that residents of an area are obligated to change it in order for more people to move there and change their existing quality of life
You keep posting strawman after strawman, and that's why you're getting downvoted.
> newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there
Nobody said that besides you.
> residents of an area are obligated to change it in order for more people to move there and change their existing quality of life
Again, nobody said that besides you.