List of housing projects that will be banned if Measure S passes — 19,000 UNITS AND COUNTING... (Los Angeles: apartment, rent)

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

Voting No will give developers free reign to build on open space and to do their own environmental impact reviews without any third party oversight. So if you hate the environment vote NO. A NO vote can potentially cause the loss of precious little open space we have left, have major impacts on our local wild life and greatly increase pollution with more people, more cars, more strain on utilities etc. Everyone doesn't have to live in Los Angeles. Let's get immigration sorted out first and see how many people are actually left here and then other people that are legal and can't afford it here can move to a less expensive place. We really don't have to destroy our environment to acomondate more people that can easily live elswhere

You do realize that development and urbanization leads to more walking and less driving right?
Am Inthe only one that has actually done some research on urban planning? You dont have to be a genius to figure it out. The reason more people drive is because of the way LA was already built during the automobile boom. Most were just conditioned to think that this was the right way to live. We just became slaves to our cars. If more people can live in the city in a more dense area closer to markets and work, less will drive.


And "easily live elsewhere"? You having to ndure 4hr traffic just to get to work and back? If S passes, traffic will not change, and will be worse. And we will b arguing about the same thing all over again.

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

You do realize that development and urbanization leads to more walking and less driving right?
Am Inthe only one that has actually done some research on urban planning? You dont have to be a genius to figure it out. The reason more people drive is because of the way LA was already built during the automobile boom. Most were just conditioned to think that this was the right way to live. We just became slaves to our cars. If more people can live in the city in a more dense area closer to markets and work, less will drive.


And "easily live elsewhere"? You having to ndure 4hr traffic just to get to work and back? If S passes, traffic will not change, and will be worse. And we will b arguing about the same thing all over again.

How long will it take to walk from Hollywood to Santa Monica? Or Studio City to Culver City? Sorry, not everything is black and white and what applies in other cities doesn't apply to LA. How about spending time, planning and money on completely revitalizing the public transit system and then we can talk about adding people. If you add people to LA now then you are adding cars...PERIOD. What you are talking about is what is called "putting the cart before the horse". That doesn't even account for all of the water we need to support the people that will live here (we're still in a drought and probably will be forever). That doesn't account for all of the electricity we'll need which in turn pollutes the environment to generate. And don't forget noise and light pollution.

And when I say live somewhere else I mean more like TX or KS or another state that has a better economy and job market then CA (especially for the all of the people with no particular skills) and much lower costs of living. If my career was in retail, general office, a trade, construction etc I would never choose to live in someplace so expensive.

[anrev]

Originally Posted by Western Urbanite

3. Yes people want to live here to experience the wonderful life the rest of us have, and it is utterly amoral to tell them they can't have that too.

We don't need measure S. We just need you and those who think like to you to become extinct.

[anrev]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

And "easily live elsewhere"? You having to ndure 4hr traffic just to get to work and back? If S passes, traffic will not change, and will be worse. And we will b arguing about the same thing all over again.

How about work elsewhere too. You can't affrod to live in LA then get the **** out.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by anrev

How about work elsewhere too. You can't affrod to live in LA then get the **** out.

Im from here. Can't live in the city I was born in?

This is the whole "I gots mines! Screw the next generation!" mentality..

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Im from here. Can't live in the city I was born in?

This is the whole "I gots mines! Screw the next generation!" mentality..

What's your point? I'm from Boston and I don't live there anymore. Nobody has a god given right to live here. People can have the money it takes to live here or be willing to sacrifice things to afford being here. But honestly, everyplace has a capacity and we are at capacity here. Irresponsible construction is not a good answer

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

Voting No will give developers free reign to build on open space and to do their own environmental impact reviews without any third party oversight. So if you hate the environment vote NO. A NO vote can potentially cause the loss of precious little open space we have left, have major impacts on our local wild life and greatly increase pollution with more people, more cars, more strain on utilities etc. Everyone doesn't have to live in Los Angeles. Let's get immigration sorted out first and see how many people are actually left here and then other people that are legal and can't afford it here can move to a less expensive place. We really don't have to destroy our environment to acomondate more people that can easily live elswhere

Good point . There is an estimated 1 million illegals between la and orange counties .

That would free up quite a bit of housing .

No matter how much the politicians say it L.A won't ever be affordable for everyone that wants to live here .

They keep repeating that lie because of course everyone wants cheap housing in L.A but its not going to happen . It's a carrot they repeat to get votes .

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

Voting No will give developers free reign to build on open space and to do their own environmental impact reviews without any third party oversight. So if you hate the environment vote NO. A NO vote can potentially cause the loss of precious little open space we have left, have major impacts on our local wild life and greatly increase pollution with more people, more cars, more strain on utilities etc. Everyone doesn't have to live in Los Angeles. Let's get immigration sorted out first and see how many people are actually left here and then other people that are legal and can't afford it here can move to a less expensive place. We really don't have to destroy our environment to acomondate more people that can easily live elswhere

LA, just a few days ago, already passed a law that community plans are required to be updated every 6 years, and developers are no longer allowed to hire their own consultants for EIR's. These are two things that measure S was trying to accomplish, that are now being implemented, and all without a damaging 2-year moratorium.

Voting yes ensures that sprawl will continue, seeing as how the surrounding communities will now have to pick up the slack of LA not building for 2 years, which exacerbates the problems you mentioned. Voting No will actually slow down the degradation of the environment.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Im from here. Can't live in the city I was born in?

This is the whole "I gots mines! Screw the next generation!" mentality..

Being born somewhere doesn't entitle you to live there . Same thing has happened to many that were born in NYC .
Why should people subsidize others to live in a certain city ?

There are many affordable cities and towns in America.

It's not like someone will die if they don't live in L.A

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

LA, just a few days ago, already passed a law that community plans are required to be updated every 6 years, and developers are no longer allowed to hire their own consultants for EIR's. These are two things that measure S was trying to accomplish, that are now being implemented, and all without a damaging 2-year moratorium.

Voting yes ensures that sprawl will continue, seeing as how the surrounding communities will now have to pick up the slack of LA not building for 2 years, which exacerbates the problems you mentioned. Voting No will actually slow down the degradation of the environment.

Seriously a no brainer..