A certain poster’s dream. Merry Christmas

[everysurfer]

Silly Ifall,

Builders build what sells, and makes the most profit.

If the govt changes the zoning, and the folks don't like it, vote them out.

My town is about to vote out our supervisor for not enforcing the weed zoning rules and making Carpinteria smell like skunk.

Elections have consequences

 

[FecalFace]

So naive

Merry Christmas

Hint: read GDaddys post. Also, most developers choose to build more profitable single family homes, when the government is only allowing them to build multi family homes, you’re seeing regulatory handcuffing in action

So where the fvck are you going to put all the new single family homes?

Like single person to a car, it's not sustainable.

But please enjoy the utopian dream.

Merry Christmas.

Also, I'm very honored that you're thinking of me on Christmas.

 

[Surfdog]

I've been noticing here in O'side, each new residential development filling in all the little plots left out back inland O'side, are making the lots smaller if not duplex or more in given area the last 10-15 years. We bought new back in the early 90's when lots still had a fair bit of space between homes. Our lot is exceptional, along with a neighbors. We bought it specifically because it had much more space between homes (on a rounded street). Ours was the last in a phase, so we didn't know for sure what the next house over would be like for a year or 2. We have large side to side distance on both sides. It feels so much more open.

Now, if they were to build homes here today, they'd probably squeeze 4 homes where we currently share 2 lots. These new homes now, people can practically shake their neighbors hand outside the 2nd story windows. Might as well be conjoined as duplexes or more at this point. This trend is already dense and bad enough on local infrastructure. SD will not be happy until it looks like LA/OC metro. I hope to be outta here before that happens.

 

[manbearpig]

There’s the fecalizing again. They’re REPLACING single family zoning with multi family zoning and not ALLOWING single family zoning.

Wrong.

they are now allowing owners and builders to renovate or build homes that are two family.

the single family homes aren’t going anywhere.

I’m genuinely surprised you’re not giving that a thumbs up.

there’s so much fear mongering and fallacies in that article it’s beyond laughable.

 

[Surfdog]

Silly Ifall,

Builders build what sells, and makes the most profit.

If the govt changes the zoning, and the folks don't like it, vote them out.

My town is about to vote out our supervisor for not enforcing the weed zoning rules and making Carpinteria smell like skunk.

Elections have consequences

California Dems will NEVER vote down city councils that favor denser development at this point. It's like the cool new trend to be Agenda 21 "environmentally aware".

Let's pile more people in a given area that can't handle the traffic, reduce parking for them, and not improve infrastructure (water, sewage, etc). Seems the days of extreme water conservation have gone away with a couple good winters of rain/snow.

Why are we now OK adding millions of new homes, and not adding new reservoirs to handle those millions (enviros want to actually tear down some)? Weren't we in extreme dire straits only a few years ago? Couldn't handle the existing population without fining for watering lawns or sprinkler overshoot?

Now, we seem to have PLENTY of water for even more millions? Which is it, Dems in control of Sacmo?

 

[Ifallalot]

Silly Ifall,

Builders build what sells, and makes the most profit.

If the govt changes the zoning, and the folks don't like it, vote them out.

My town is about to vote out our supervisor for not enforcing the weed zoning rules and making Carpinteria smell like skunk.

Elections have consequences

Your idealism is quant and cute

 

[manbearpig]

My idealism is quant and cute

Fxd

 

[GDaddy]

The other thing that's a little annoying about doing it this way is that if you're really a greenie then you want the high density to occur where the existing services and transportation already exist so you can maximize what we already have. You want more people using the existing public transit and the existing roads and schools and such. You don't want to spread the new development out everywhere at the same time in a manner that causes both the people and demand for services to continue to sprawl.

IMO the smarter way to do it would be to work from the inside-out, and to control the upzoning in a way that only a relative few of the properties get upzoned at any one time. The comparable scarcity of the newly upzoned parcels will limit the supply of potential projects and increase their value to those property owners who are inclined to sell or expand. Even a little incentive will go a long way. You don't have to make the new units so scarce that it significantly adds to their costs.

By contrast, giving every residential parcel in the state the same opportunity reduces the premium the developers will pay for the acquisition, so all you get are the extra units, with none of the people who are currently holding the property gaining anything from it.

The example is that upzoning 5000 parcels will create more competition in those areas than will upzoning 100,000 at the same time. You want to introduce *some* advantage to the existing property holders to motivate them to consider their alternatives, while at the same time not letting it get so carried away that the increase in land costs significant;y affects the finished unit costs.

 

[GDaddy]

So the example would be that if you started with a 3-mile diameter and upzoned then the developers would flock to that opportunity and start adding more units there. Once that area gets saturated you move the redevelopment ring out another mile and repeat; and so on. In the L.A Basin you might want to start in the blighted areas like So Central or Compton or downtown San Bernardino and maybe half a dozen other spots, and then work outward from each and into the burbs. You add more services and mass transit as the demand naturally increases.

 

[manbearpig]

You guys are using some very extreme and unlikely scenarios as some kind of gotcha.

I live in an area with two family homes and have yet to die.

 

[Leaverite]

My dream is to have a home where my closest next door neighbor is two miles away.

People svck. The closer you get jammed in together, the more they suck. And they breed and multiply.

Peace Profound...

 

[FecalFace]

Your idealism is quant and cute

Hilarious.

Your idiotic idealism that one person to a car is a sustainable mode of transport in Southern California is what?

Same with single family homes. Where do you think these will be built in 30-40 years time?

Fucking stupid is what it is.

 

[everysurfer]

Hilarious.

Your idiotic idealism that one person to a car is a sustainable mode of transport in Southern California is what?

Same with single family homes. Where do you think these will be built in 30-40 years time?

Fucking stupid is what it is.

Single family homes are what the people want. It is the ideal.

If you've never had one, with some land, you have no idea what you are missing.

 

[FecalFace]

Single family homes are what the people want. It is the ideal.

If you've never had one, with some land, you have no idea what you are missing.

I know it's been an American ideal for the past century but how is it physically possible with a fast growing population of Southern California?

It's not.

The roads can't even sustain the current population.

Building more single family housing away from where people work and shop will make things many times worse.

This unsustainable romantic idea created the car clustefuck we have now and it will only get worse especially if we don't invest in alternative transportation and start being smart about how and where we build.

Ifailalot thinks it's "what I want", it's actually the only choice we have. Ignoring the problem is just beyond utopian.

 

[everysurfer]

I know it's been an American ideal for the past century but how is it physically possible with a fast growing population of Southern California?

It's not.

The roads can't even sustain the current population.

Building more single family housing away from where people work and shop will make things many times worse.

This unsustainable romantic idea created the car clustefuck we have now and it will only get worse especially if we don't invest in alternative transportation and start being smart about how and where we build.

Ifailalot thinks it's "what I want", it's actually the only choice we have. Ignoring the problem is just beyond utopian.

Imagine if I tried to teach you about photography. If I didn't know what I was talking about, but forcefully put out my opinion. How would you reply to Me?

This is kind of like that...

Roads and transportation are not issues. The fees to get a building permit fully pay for the infrastructure. Property taxes pay for the maintenance. A tract developer builds the streets, and infrastructure, up to government requirements, and then grants (dedicates) the property to the government. Again, property taxes and gas taxes are supposed to pay for the upkeep.

A side topic could be the diversion of those funds, but maybe later.

Developers don't build away from markets and employment. A great example is thousand oaks. Single family homes surrounding industry and shopping complexes. You could live your entire life in a five mile radius.

High density residential also has a place for those who either don't want yard maintenance, or can't afford it. Common areas are for the community.

The actual problem is folks who can't be bothered to take care of their stuff, and want someone else to pick up after them.

It's a big free world. Vote for the county/ city leaders who share your vision. Work hard to afford what you want.

But sniveling that the other guy needs to agree with your vision is tyranny.

Don't be a tyrant.

 

[FecalFace]

I'm not trying to teach you anything, I'm just stating the obvious.

Where in California can you do anything without a car?

Literally, there are no alternatives but to drive for every little thing.

And it's predominantly 1 person to a car.

Are you denying that a traffic problem exists and that is caused by perpetuating the unsustainable way of how and where the residential homes are being built?

I thought this was common knowledge.

 

[FecalFace]

Here's somebody who gets it:

The ghastly tragedy of the suburbs

In James Howard Kunstler's view, public spaces should be inspired centers of civic life and the physical manifestation of the common good. Instead, he argues, what we have in America is a nation of places not worth caring about.

www.ted.com

 

[everysurfer]

I'm not trying to teach you anything, I'm just stating the obvious.

Where in California can you do anything without a car?

Literally, there are no alternatives but to drive for every little thing.

And it's predominantly 1 person to a car.

Are you denying that a traffic problem exists and that is caused by perpetuating the unsustainable way of how and where the residential homes are being built?

I thought this was common knowledge.

I just gave you the example of thousand oaks.

The "car problem" is that people want to live away from their employment. Nobody wants to live next to a factory. Just because you build apartments next door, people don't want to live there.

That's why rent is cheap near industrial zones.

Don't make people do what they don't want. That is tyranny

 

[GDaddy]

I very much like the idea of redevelopment via upzoning. I just think it's dumb to mindlessly disperse the effect everywhere in the state at the same time. We have a chance to actually make the existing mass transit and bus lines viable and then eventualy expanding them by targeting the areas within walking distance of those connections and simply allowing the market - including the sellers - to do their thing as market conditions allow. If scaled per demand nobody loses money, the current owners who choose to hold instead of sell can always change their minds and get some compensation for moving instead of getting nothing at all.

Plus, leaving more control at the local level instead of the People's Central Planning Bureau in Sacramento has it's own virtues as well.

The people who decline to share a common wall with their neighbor should be able to retain that liberty.

 

[FecalFace]

I just gave you the example of thousand oaks.

The "car problem" is that people want to live away from their employment. Nobody wants to live next to a factory. Just because you build apartments next door, people don't want to live there.

That's why rent is cheap near industrial zones.

Don't make people do what they don't want. That is tyranny

You can do simple daily tasks in Thousand Oaks without a car? I don't believe that but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

It's not about what people want, it's about what's physically possible.

There's only so many extra lanes we can build, the roads are not infinitely expandable.

And seriously how many people work in factories in California in 2020?

You are talking about 19th century when this whole thing began.