Posted on 03/03/2018 4:14:37 PM PST by artichokegrower
Taking aim at climate change, highway gridlock and soaring housing costs, a California lawmaker has ignited a red-hot debate with a proposal that would force cities to allow more apartments and condominiums to be built a short walk from train stations and bus stops.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Local zoning and planning will be tossed out for centralized dictates coming from Sacramento
Agenda 21 —> The Matrix
There is a very dangerous movement across North America to replace family homes with small / cramped / Third-World-Style housing units.
It’s a wonderful day in my neighborhood...
(sounds of earth movers outside)
A few trees and yards less everyday in my neighborhood...
(Jackhammer and chainsaw sounds)
Would you be mine, could you be mine, won’t you be my several thousand new neighbors?
battle over single-family zoning near transit, artichokegrower wrote:
“Soviet-style master planning with raging crony capitalism.”
Local zoning and planning will be tossed out for centralized dictates coming from Sacramento
_______________________________________________________
Like local zoning isn’t centralized corrupt central planning as it is? Why is it that property the Mayor owns has 1 acre zoning and the rest around it is 5? What makes the Mayor’s property more special? Oh wait, he is crony and gets what he wants, while the rest are told to f-off.
Zoning in general should be illegal.
I don’t see the Town on my deeds nor the State, nor the Feds
All zoning is central planning, doesn’t matter if it your local piss pot dictators doing it, the state dopes or Uncle Sam
I’d say tiny homes, which are hithertoo entirely elective, are much less worrisome than the movement that everyone must be attached to approved of public works.
“Already, the bill has electrified supporters — including the pro-development YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) coalition sponsoring it — who believe California’s attachment to single-family neighborhoods is strangling the state”
The single family home where the kids can go out into the backyard and play. Mom can have her garden and dad can mow the lawn. What a horrible model for a society.
There’s another dangerous movement where cities enact zoning laws that prevent the development of denser housing, anti-sprawl laws that prevent the construction of housing in new areas, and then poverty programs to construct subsidized housing because housing is too expensive.
I don’t know which worries me more.
If you don’t like zoning don’t complain when the build the homeless shelter next door to you.
Putting high density and moderate income housing next to commuter rail stations should be a no brainer. Amazing that so many people are sputtering about it.
If you don’t like zoning don’t complain when the build the homeless shelter next door to you.
Zoning wouldn’t prevent that, they would just get variance and if the right people are involved and the right amount of money is passed around, it will get approved.
Zoning is to prevent YOU from profiting from YOUR property and puts 100% control of YOUR property into the hands of local politicians who are the most corrupt people in the political world because nobody is focus on them.
Local tyranny is the worse kind of tyranny
Nothing new for communists controlled California.
Build the ghettos and they will force you into them.
“Mom can have her garden and dad can mow the lawn. “
Now dad will have to find another acceptable reason to drink copious amounts of beer.
It’s part of Agenda 21.
That said, one wonders how many Cali lawmakers live in gated communities as opposed to the human cages for which they promote through zoning.
I agree...learned that recently when I subdivided some land, for a purpose I wanted, yet their control prevents me from using land, as it is best suited. Committees spend lots of time talking, and accomplish little!
Suspecting that they’ll force single family homes out is the issue.
Frankly, unless the population density is already high and geography already constrained so that you can serve a large number of people with minimal infrastructure things like local commuter trains shouldn’t even be considered.
They certainly shouldn’t be developed into the excuse to force higher population density where it doesn’t occur on its own.
I read article the other day, that CA areas are NOT fixing roads because they want people to quit using cars, and them to agree to build more public transportation. That makes zero sense, some autos are necessary for grocery shopping, etc. Bus/trains do not always run convenient schedules.
No, we should all strive for a cramped apartment block where the stairwells are dangerous and smell bad (as in public housing in NYC and Chicago, or any big city that has tried this model.) s/off
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.