This way, "bad comrade bees" can be controlled and their behavior can be modified by simply turning off their power, heat, A/C and water.
Posted on 11/20/2013 5:51:06 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
A plan to squeeze most residents of the San Francisco Bay Area into multifamily housing offers a test case of whether land-use bureaucracies nationwide, encouraged by the Obama administration, should be allowed to transform American lifestyles under the pretext of combating climate change.
Currently, 56 percent of households in the nine-county Bay Area live in single-family homes. That number would drop to 48 percent by 2030, under a high-density development blueprint called Plan Bay Area, recently enacted by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Plan Bay Area has already drawn several legal challenges, and the debate could spread nationwide if, as may happen, it becomes a model for regulators in other parts of the country.
Owning a single-family home has long been part of the American dream, but Plan Bay Area embraces a dramatically different vision of the ideal community: crowded rows of high-rises and mass-transit platforms.
Population density in the region’s urban areas would increase by 30 percent during the next two decades under the plan. Nearly 80 percent of all new housing and 62 percent of new jobs would be located in just 5 percent of the region’s surface area.
Planners admit this will make single-family housing in the already high-priced Bay area even less affordable.
To be sure, the plan isn’t the first attempt to herd families into condominiums and apartments. Since at least the 1970s, urban planners around the country have argued that the single-family-home lifestyle results in people driving too much, which supposedly wastes energy and pollutes the air. Thus, 17 years ago, Portland, Ore., adopted a scheme to reduce the share of residents living in single-family homes from 65 percent to 41 percent. In some neighborhoods, if a house burns down, ~snip~ replaced only with an apartment structure.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I totally reject these socialist schemes, the people who propose them, and the Obama Administration for entertaining such schemes.
> Do single-family homes threaten the planet?
Answer. NO. They don’t threaten the planet. They do, however, threaten the goals of global socialism.
BINGO!
CC
They will exempt themselves, however.
Do single-family homes threaten the planet?
No
Environmentalism is like a watermelon. Green on the outside but red on the inside. It has nothing to do with clean air and clean water ( which I support ) but about Globalist/New World Order/Agenda 21 dismantling of the American Middle-class and the total control of human activity on Earth.
Bio-spheres, less “fossily” transportation, human-free zones, drones to monitor these zones, easy monitoring of the peons crammed in to the 200 sq/ft sleep cells. Gee, kinda sounds more and more like the 13 zones in the hunger games.
The allure of the San Francisco Bay area is that housing is unaffordable except for a few small pockets where the poor people are.
Unaffordable housing is generally a good thing because the criminals and rift raft can’t live there.
This way, "bad comrade bees" can be controlled and their behavior can be modified by simply turning off their power, heat, A/C and water.
It would be so much easier to dictate where and how people can build their homes and live their lives than to have all this (dirty word) “freedom”. Perhaps these enlightened [sarc] governments can shuffle the people into state farms to avoid the sprawl, and run things the way they like.
After all, the San Fran area in particular holds high the values that most of the country holds dear [snark].
- and we can SAVE THE PLANET!
Wow. Gates and Eisenberg sharing a bathroom. Who would have thunk it?
and where do Randal O’Toole and Damien Schiff live?
Tell you what.
Where I live in Maryland (SW of Baltimore area) Dems control EVERY branch of government and developers are destroying every square foot of forest, fields, undeveloped land, with their blessing.
New housing developments are popping up everywhere to replace the living green, due to $$$$ green.
New residents = new tax increases on us to pay for roads, schools, traffic lights,...
New residents = more Democrats.
I came up with the idea of a land development tax well over a decade ago rather than to keep raising MY taxes.
“Sustainable Development” is nothing but SOCIALSIM rebranded:
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=558
In the long term it’s the earth that threatens anything man has made.
This should convince anyone with half a brain that “climate change” has nothing to do with the environment and is all about redistribution of wealth and social control. These are the acts of the Beast.
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.