Posted on 12/30/2021 6:25:09 AM PST by artichokegrower
Given the latest state rules and mandates on all new housing in California, the terms “new housing” and “affordable housing” spoken together represent an oxymoron.
My guess is that to approach being “affordable”, even though not quite making it there, the housing would have to be apartments, not single family homes, each unit with no more than two bedrooms with one bath, less than 1,200 square feet, and many amenities, like laundry facilities, placed in communal locations.
But knowing what the pols in California are like, they will build properties that cannot be sold or rented as “affordable” unless the sale price or rent is also directly subsidized.
Bookmark
Hell yes.
This is out and out land appropriation.
Municipal golf courses are city owned.
Public housing does not work. It merely gives criminals a
place to run their operations from. These courses are
located in the older areas of the cities. They will bring
crime into otherwise stable bedroom communities.
People need a way to get out into the cool morning air and
exercise. Golf is a good pass-time.
Clubs are exclusive. It’s hard for folks to pay today’s
fees anyway. The state should stay out of it.
I wonder why developers would want to close golf courses.
Can anyone guess?
The thing that sucks about this the most, is there is no
one in Sacramento to stand up and say no anymore.
What the Communists want, they get.
Will society ever get those large land parcels back?
Hell no.
Oppose this.
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.