It puzzled me how in 1977 some judges in California forced bussing on our school children and led to the mass exodus of millions of people, families, into suburbs safe from the Los Angeles Unified School Board.
It again puzzled me how one judge overturned our Proposition 187 that denied benefits to the illegal aliens that moved into our abandoned city.
I couldn’t figure out why nobody with authority in city, state or federal government could stop this sanctuary city and how could it survive from administration through administration including our present Republican congress and Senate.
When you think about it, most of the laws we fought for were attacked by the DOJ and overturned by courts, marriage is between one man and one woman, voter ID laws, immigration laws, laws against illegal aliens soliciting work at Home Depot.
Yet when a mayor or governor invites illegals and gives them drivers licenses, jobs, welfare and housing, and subsidized higher ed, nobody can do anything about it.
As the jobs changed to the service industry with low skilled illegal aliens, our Environmental Protection Agency decided that manufacturing caused pollution, so they closed manufacturing and energy down.
Then we went from trying to ease the traffic on our streets to making higher density housing and taking lanes out of our streets for bikes and busses.
I found the answer here
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/drivingandbuiltenvironment20090901.pdf
Or here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12747&page=R9
It’s titled Driving and the Built Environment, 2008
They are saying that Hispanics are a growing population and love living in clusters in the inner cities, taking public transportation, walking and riding bikes. That is why they are spending money building all these high density high rise apartments, building the High Speed Rail, light rail, building walkways and bicycle paths.
Page 82
Uses and development are regulated to create a more intense builtup environment, oriented to pedestrians, and ensuring a density and intensity that is transit supportive.” Actions include prohibition of parking garages within a specified distance of a station, a 50 percent reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces required within 500 feet of a light rail alignment, and required streetscape landscaping to a very high level.
Page 86
The foreign-born share of the population is projected to continue to grow to between 13 and 16 percent of the U.S. population by 2030, and to as much as 20 percent of the population by 2050. Immigrant populations, particularly Hispanics, the dominant group, have different housing preferences and travel patterns from those of native-born populations. Recent immigrants tend to live in multifamily housing, Hispanics locate disproportionately in central cities, and all immigrant groups are heavy users of public transportation where it is available. As they become assimilated, however, immigrant groups tend to converge toward the population mean in their housing and transportation preferences.
Page 88
land use policies aimed at effecting sweeping changes in metropolitan area development patterns are likely to be slowed by political resistance from existing homeowners and local governments that reflect their interests, a lack of metropolitan and state government initiatives that could provide incentives on a large enough scale to counter local resistance
Page 115
Housing Choices and Costs
A potential cost of more compact development is the investment in transit, particularly rail transit, necessary to support high-density development. These costs could, at least in part, offset some of the savings from expanding highway infrastructure. The studies cited earlier note some of the other costs of more compact development. One of the first mentioned is the preference of many Americans for single-family homes and lower density suburban settings that are often associated with related benefits, such as greater privacy, less noise, more access to open space and recreation, and in some cases, less congestion and pollution than more densely developed urban settings. Restricting the amount of single-family housing through zoning or other measures that increase compact development could raise the cost of that housing, contributing to housing affordability problems. These affordability problems may be mitigated, however, as the Baby Boomers withdraw from their suburban single-family homes, increasing the supply of such housing. As noted in Chapter 4, moreover, it is unclear that more compact development would greatly restrict housing choices or increase single-family housing prices because exclusionary zoning may have forced a greater mix of single-family housing units than consumers wanted in the past. Moreover, building more compact, mixed-use developments does not necessarily mean building only multifamily housing. Reducing the lot size of single-family housing should also result in VMT reductions. Finally, housing preferences may change with the aging of the population and the withdrawal of the Baby Boomers from their suburban homes; the coming of age of succeeding (albeit smaller) generations of young single-person households who may prefer urban living; and the socioeconomic circumstances and cultural preferences of growing immigrant populations, who often favor high-density locations.
Page 137 (The new federal zoning laws by HUD)
In addition to the scope outlined above and with the agreement of the sponsor, the study will also assess the potential reduction in GHG/CO2 emissions from more dense development patterns. The study will describe development patterns in the context of past and recent population and employment trends that affect residential and business location and travel in a region. In addition, it will consider future demographic changes and trends in immigration that may provide opportunities for development patterns that reduce VMT or for the use of alternative transport modes, as well as the political and institutional challenges (e.g., zoning) that likely would need to be addressed to take advantage of these opportunities. Finally, the study will offer estimates of the potential VMT reductions, energy savings, and GHG/CO2 emissions reductions from various development scenarios and the likely time period over which they might occur.
This was executed by Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood
U.S. Department of Transportation
Transportation for a New Generation
Strategic Plan Fiscal years 2012-2016
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/990_355_DOT_StrategicPlan_508lowres.pdf
Page 40
“STRATEGIES TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESSES IN THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR, ESPECIALLY SMALL, WOMEN-OWNED, AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES”
And then here in California they executed there plan with the same discrimination against white male owned businesses.
I think Trump understands this, but I don’t think Cruz does.