Bay Area NIMBY Cities must pursue Enclave Status or embrace the inevitable YIMBY Future (Sacramento: middle-class, 2014)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Dave Coe]

Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer

People with knowledge and experience are generally elected to Planning Commissions, and it takes time to gain knowledge and experience. Those elected tend also to be people who can listen to all sides and to keep a level head. You obviously cannot do that. You just want what you want when you want it, no patience at all. Just ageism and name-calling.

The zoning meetings I attended were to protest a road being built where residents would be impacted, never protested apartments.

However, if anyone were to attempt to bulldoze the single family residences in my already-built-up neighborhood on smallish lots in order to put up apartments instead, you better believe I would protest that.
Most of the neighborhoods in the Bay Area are, in fact, already built up. So what is it that you want to do and where do you want to do it?



You need to take everything into consideration, including that many women did not work outside the home in the 70's and when they did, they earned far less than men. There were very few truly two-income households. The interest rates were much higher than now, as I mentioned before. Also, people were happy to buy smaller 3-bedroom 2-bath houses on smaller lots, then, and to erect their own perimeter fences with their neighbors and then to do all the landscaping of their properties, and all the mowing thereafter. No one went to Starbucks and spent a bundle on specialty coffees. No one had cell phones or computers. Your generation wants to—EXPECTS TO—have everything.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to keep zoning that maintains single family homes separate from high density apartments.

These maps show that the majority of the Bay Area is zoned for single family housing.

https://belonging.berkeley.edu/bay-area-zoning-maps

[Dave Coe]

There really is this mentality where boomer liberals think its ok to exclude people by raising the cost but would never consider enclavism.

[mgforshort]

For every three Californian who moves away or drops dead five others want to move here and most of them are from another country. You can eliminate zoning laws and replace single-family homes with three-story apartments. When these fill up in the next "housing shortage" we'll replace these with ten-story buildings like New York City. The circle is endless until everyone is packed like rats in a cage and miserable. When the water runs out we'll import it from China because that's the American Way.

We live in a single-family home, happily, and when we can't afford to pay the taxes and insurance we'll move to another state in our seventies.

Mutt is right on this one, and he owes me another beer for repping him.

[Dave Coe]

Originally Posted by mgforshort

For every three Californian who moves away or drops dead five others want to move here and most of them are from another country. You can eliminate zoning laws and replace single-family homes with three-story apartments. When these fill up in the next "housing shortage" we'll replace these with ten-story buildings like New York City. The circle is endless until everyone is packed like rats in a cage and miserable. When the water runs out we'll import it from China because that's the American Way.

We live in a single-family home, happily, and when we can't afford to pay the taxes and insurance we'll move to another state in our seventies.

Mutt is right on this one, and he owes me another beer for repping him.

Not that many people are moving to California from other parts of the nation, compared to those leaving. Many immigrants yes but they have their own existing enclaves.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

Not that many people are moving to California from other parts of the nation, compared to those leaving. Many immigrants yes but they have their own existing enclaves.

So what? Really. People keep citing this domestic migration thing as if it is a bad thing. In what way is this a problem?

[ketch89]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

So what? Really. People keep citing this domestic migration thing as if it is a bad thing. In what way is this a problem?

Climate for one. Building apartments in California would result in far less carbon emissions than building single-family sprawl in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Climate for one. Building apartments in California would result in far less carbon emissions than building single-family sprawl in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc.

What ?? Your comment makes no sense. Non sequitur.

My question was: why is domestic out-migration a problem? The poster I was responding to was saying that more Californians move to other states than Americans from other states move in (to California). Which is true … but foreign immigration and in-state births continue to increase the overall population numbers.

You answer that “ Building apartments in California would result in far less carbon emissions than building single-family sprawl in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc. …

Makes no sense.

[verybadgnome]

Three things I always keep in mind.......Zoning is constitutional until the Euclid decision is overturned. Of course states and cities can opt for less or even no zoning if they like. Second, YIMBY isn't so much woke as it is Libertarian. YIMBYism enhances private property rights at the expense of governmental control and is therefore "old school" and not progressive. Third, even with upzoning there will be significant numbers of people priced out of more desirable neighborhoods since demand and costs (labor, soft costs, regulatory costs, materials, etc.) are high.

[Eli34]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

What ?? Your comment makes no sense. Non sequitur.

My question was: why is domestic out-migration a problem? The poster I was responding to was saying that more Californians move to other states than Americans from other states move in (to California). Which is true … but foreign immigration and in-state births continue to increase the overall population numbers.

You answer that “ Building apartments in California would result in far less carbon emissions than building single-family sprawl in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, etc. …

Makes no sense.

Sprawling out into the Central Valley causes longer commutes, and thus more CO2 output.