Posted on 01/15/2007 7:50:38 PM PST by SmithL
Geez - to get to this location from the highway is a 15 minute drive on a two lane @ 30 mph. Then when they say that these houses will hurt the values, who are the kidding adding ten times these 4 houses would not stop the pricing for a town with views, of San Francisco Bay and the City, that take your breath away. Only Carmel has a better climate and downtown, in Kalifornia, than this tiny town. Cry babies.
If you read the article on Drudge they are going to build 4 approx. 6000 sq. ft. houses on most of the acreage and 4 1450 sq.ft. houses on the "remaining .85 acres." I'd call that "slamming" them in.
Well that means that each house/condo/zero lot line has a little less than a 1/4 acre of land for 1,450 ft house. Since an acre is 43,000+ sq ft. our house will be on 8,000 sq ft, not exactly slum lord size property for a 1,450 ft house. I'd take a house that size for under 100K in Tiberon in a heartbeat - local politics be darned.
Liberals don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood but they’ll tax you to put affordable housing in someone else’s neighborhood.
Conservatives don’t want affordable housing in their neighborhood, they won’t tax you to put it in someone else’s neighborhood, and if it never gets built anywhere, they’re cool with that.
My general perception of high-end places is fiscally conservative, socially liberal (and thus more libertarian than liberal), and extremely protective of their community lifestyle, i.e. NIMBY-minded.
But NIMBY issues rarely come to high-end communities because the land is so pricey - just about any undesirable development that would offend NIMBYs could be more cheaply and more easily pursued somewhere else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.