Holy cow! California may get rid of single-family zoning

submitted by HeyImSancho from latimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeyImSancho[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I'll go layman description: it's a push governed under the UN to move existing rural populations into cities; making the rural areas cordoned off no go zones.

Like in California, due to the fires, that have occurred there, the state was holding talks in regards to not letting people back in some of the areas to live, as now it's too expensive to protect them so far out; hence the need for the drive to push towards cities.

[–]EddyInTheFlow 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Lmao. Or maybe it's an attempt at cracking down on the rampant NIMBYism keeping real estate prices sky-high, rather than a plot by the UN, an organization with very little real power.

[–]HeyImSancho[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

NIMBYism; not in my back yard; had to look that one up. How would the non issuance of single family home permits, lower the cost of real estate? If everything was multifamily, then there are more intense codes, and regulations; meaning only those with money can pay to have them built.

I would love to hear how this will lower real estate prices; please explain.

[–]Mirdala 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

In this case it's a matter of land. There is a finite amount of land(shrinking in some cases) and an ever-increasing amount of people, especially in California. The reasoning is that if we reduce the overall land usage per person, more land to go around will lower prices of housing. Whether that actually happens, who knows.

[–]HeyImSancho[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What of the people who own homes now? When do we allow 'necessity' to overrule rights, and who decides what's truly necessary?

[–]Mirdala 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Oh don't get me wrong. This is definitely well past what is necessary. California loves to be overly proactive about this kind of thing. They are also requiring all new homes be fitted with solar panels. Which is nice and all but doesnt do any favors for housing prices.

As far as necessity overruling rights and who decides it, this is exactly why i vote. Because you are choosing the people that make those decisions.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Alt account??

[–]Mirdala 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hmm?

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Are you laughing your ass off?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But they's say okay to mining its resources.