Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like they build homes for $64 per square foot in parts of Texas. California could due the same if the liberals did away with red-tape, overreaching regulations and gave much of the unused open space to builders to build like never before.
Odd, how great, solid, sturdy partly brick homes can be built for $64 per square foot and yet in California they pay several times more than that for similar construction but pay more just because of fake scarcity from land that isn't used to it's highest purpose and open space that liberal environmentalists want to keep their home values high.
According to this article, liberal regulations add 40% to the cost of housing alone not to mention all the open space that environmentalists want in California.
There is so much open-space in populated areas of California that they could build on, but the liberal environmentalists don't want built because it would lower the housing values.
The thing about California is high property taxes don't matter as they thankfully they have Proposition 13 which saves seniors and hard-workers from being taxed out of their homes by rich politicians, wealthy union elites and their donors.
Looks like they build homes for $64 per square foot in parts of Texas. California could due the same if the liberals did away with red-tape, overreaching regulations and gave much of the unused open space to builders to build like never before.
Many of the new houses in Texas were built using cheap (and sometimes free) labor of illegal immigrants. That's why they are so cheap.
Is THAT what you are telling California to do???????
Looks like they build homes for $64 per square foot in parts of Texas. California could due the same if the liberals did away with red-tape, overreaching regulations and gave much of the unused open space to builders to build like never before.
Odd, how great, solid, sturdy partly brick homes can be built for $64 per square foot and yet in California they pay several times more than that for similar construction but pay more just because of fake scarcity from land that isn't used to it's highest purpose and open space that liberal environmentalists want to keep their home values high.
According to this article, liberal regulations add 40% to the cost of housing alone not to mention all the open space that environmentalists want in California.
There is a huge problem with zoning and how individual municipalities control regulate their space for the good of their current residents and not for the good of the metropolitan area as a whole. However this whole finger-pointing about liberals is worthless because this happens everywhere not just liberal areas. I know plenty of conservatives who care about preserving park space and are opposed to new development. Let's just close the thread and move on.
There is so much open-space in populated areas of California that they could build on, but the liberal environmentalists don't want built because it would lower the housing values.
The thing about California is high property taxes don't matter as they thankfully they have Proposition 13 which saves seniors and hard-workers from being taxed out of their homes by rich politicians, wealthy union elites and their donors.
The majority of the open space is not really great for building on, especially dense housing.
A far better solution is to densify in the built environment. Something that does get a lot of push back from local NIMBYs. A lot can be done here - but this gets at property rights and things like Prop 13 (which, conservative or liberal, if you're a homeowner, you DON'T want to be repealed).
Not a liberal thing at all - in fact, many "liberals" are quite in favor of building and densifying more.
NIMBYism exists in all areas of the country, and transcends political parties. Some of the NIMBYiest of NIMBYs I've ever met were in very conservative communities (think: wealthy suburban towns).
You try to oversimplify a lot of issues down to "liberals" - and this is yet another example of that. The world is a little more complicated than that - sorry.
So, now the housing model for the future - according to the infinite ignorance of the far right - should lack any green spaces and be densely packed slums? Ironically, this is come from right-wingers, who often spout off about how much they hate cities and crowds! I don't see them lining up to live cheek by jowl in squalor. No, they'd rather move to some empty county in a red state that is a net taker from the tax payer because it has no jobs or industry and cost a fortune to maintain.
Meanwhile, we can also ponder the wonders of Houston, a place without those dirty zoning rules, that turned a bad situation worse because of "do whatever you want" right-wing policies. Another success story from the far-right.
Sure, NO city would have fared well with what they went through, but their lack of zoning made the situation worse. Gee, who'd have thunk that you need rules to have a functioning society?
I know I want to be more like Houston. Who needs regulations. Texas is great!
That's more like Detroit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
