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.
There is NO correlation between urban sprawls and rising ghousing prices; California has been hamstrung for decades by zoning laws and rampant environmentalism which has resulted in millions of acres be8ing off-limits to homebuilders and developers, and as we all learned in our 10th grade economics class, when you restrict the availability of something, the price goes into the stratosphere.
San Francisco is in even worse shape because the open-growth and slow-growth buffoons have been in charge for decades, and the fixation with infill development (more transit-oriented development) at the behest of LA's mayor will undoubtedly yield similar results.
Where zoning regulations are nonexistent (think Texas), you can buy a nice 3BR or 4BR home in a nice neighborhood with top-notch schools for substantially less than in Irvine, Rancho Cucamonga, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley or any of dozens of other California cities worth mentioning.
Those same environmentalists and their outsized clout in Suckramento are also 100% responsible for the $.70/gallon or (thereabouts) difference in the price of gasoline between San Francisco and Dallas.
Start with that certified treehugger in the Governor's mansion if you want to blame someone.
There is NO correlation between urban sprawls and rising ghousing prices; California has been hamstrung for decades by zoning laws and rampant environmentalism which has resulted in millions of acres be8ing off-limits to homebuilders and developers, and as we all learned in our 10th grade economics class, when you restrict the availability of something, the price goes into the stratosphere.
San Francisco is in even worse shape because the open-growth and slow-growth buffoons have been in charge for decades, and the fixation with infill development (more transit-oriented development) at the behest of LA's mayor will undoubtedly yield similar results.
Where zoning regulations are nonexistent (think Texas), you can buy a nice 3BR or 4BR home in a nice neighborhood with top-notch schools for substantially less than in Irvine, Rancho Cucamonga, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley or any of dozens of other California cities worth mentioning.
Those same environmentalists and their outsized clout in Suckramento are also 100% responsible for the $.70/gallon or (thereabouts) difference in the price of gasoline between San Francisco and Dallas.
Start with that certified treehugger in the Governor's mansion if you want to blame someone.
Actually in the case of SF, the cost of housing has more to do with it being a city that is roughly seven miles by seven miles.
I think city planners and liberals, especially here in California, are pushing to stick people in dense housing developments or multi-residential units in urban areas.
First, I hope liberals realize those projects are extremely costly for someone to live there and second not everyone wants to live in an urban environment. Telling people to not use cars is just not going to happen. Most of this nation is built around roadways and suburbanization. If people liked it back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and it still works for people then great!
Secondly, liberals always blame the rich and corporations for getting tax breaks. A democrat's definition of "rich" is way different than mine. If one person makes $100,000+ you are considered upper middle class and rich in my books. And not all corporations are evil. Given some are, but not all.
Anyways back to the main point. Too many liberal cities and towns are becoming too costly to live in. Colleges+lots hiking+lack of affordable housing=a place only meant for rich and liberals.
I would rather take a brand new sprawled out development with homes at affordable cost. I want a nice big beautiful house to have bbqs and my own space! God Bless the American dream!
This environment damage information - no one cares. I am a Bible believer, and this Earth is going up in flames one day. So until then I'm going to live in a suburban, cheap home close to affordable and accessible big box centers and malls and large churches. Yes that's right! I said it! Get over it! I can't stand downtown shopping if there is a parking cost involved. And I am also not interested in the beauty of downtown developments or the liberal belief that cookie cutter homes are ugly. Because I think hills covered in homes are beautiful. It's peaceful and the sound of the freeway is relaxing!
Lastly, if tearing out nature for a new tax-generating business park or college or some sort of business comes up, please take your "save the environment" elsewhere. Europe perhaps?
In the mean time, please keep our liberal cities seperate from our conservative cities. Thanks!
If you live like there is no tomorrow, there won't be a tomorrow.
The "Apocalypse" will happen, but only as a self-fulfilled prophecy made reality by bible thumpers who expected it and deep down even even look forward to it.
I think city planners and liberals, especially here in California, are pushing to stick people in dense housing developments or multi-residential units in urban areas.
First, I hope liberals realize those projects are extremely costly for someone to live there and second not everyone wants to live in an urban environment. Telling people to not use cars is just not going to happen. Most of this nation is built around roadways and suburbanization. If people liked it back in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, early 2000s, and it still works for people then great!
Secondly, liberals always blame the rich and corporations for getting tax breaks. A democrat's definition of "rich" is way different than mine. If one person makes $100,000+ you are considered upper middle class and rich in my books. And not all corporations are evil. Given some are, but not all.
Anyways back to the main point. Too many liberal cities and towns are becoming too costly to live in. Colleges+lots hiking+lack of affordable housing=a place only meant for rich and liberals.
I would rather take a brand new sprawled out development with homes at affordable cost. I want a nice big beautiful house to have bbqs and my own space! God Bless the American dream!
This environment damage information - no one cares. I am a Bible believer, and this Earth is going up in flames one day. So until then I'm going to live in a suburban, cheap home close to affordable and accessible big box centers and malls and large churches. Yes that's right! I said it! Get over it! I can't stand downtown shopping if there is a parking cost involved. And I am also not interested in the beauty of downtown developments or the liberal belief that cookie cutter homes are ugly. Because I think hills covered in homes are beautiful. It's peaceful and the sound of the freeway is relaxing!
Lastly, if tearing out nature for a new tax-generating business park or college or some sort of business comes up, please take your "save the environment" elsewhere. Europe perhaps?
In the mean time, please keep our liberal cities seperate from our conservative cities. Thanks!
Well, hey, given that this entire country (U.S.) is one hot mess of sprawl, requiring lots of cars and gasoline for even doing the most basic things, you should be delighted and have nothing to whine about!
That is very true, SF is the only city in California I would ever live in. I always love the time I spend there, it is a great city overall.
Sadly it's so expensive now that it has priced many people out (including yours truly)
One would think that the high demand for that sort of housing model would result in more development along those lines in California, but unfortunately zoning and lenders' preferences are still stuck in 1970
Either you should be given the sarcasm week of the award or you are a real hothouse flower. Get real; people go where the jobs are so SF is a very popular place. The popularity raises prices so the lower paid folks either move out or live with fewer luxuries. BTW - Not all of the bay area is all that prosperous or expensive. Try Richmond across the Bay as an example.
Extensive suburban development is a LUXURY that we can no longer afford. I grew up in a semi rural area that rapidly suburbanized. The places we went squirrel hunting as kids (!) are now offices, box stores or parking lots. Would I live there? Not if I could help it. It has the “toos”. Too much traffic, too much noise, too much pretension, too much cost for transport.
I live in a condo development with over 30 acres of lawn over the leach fields. This place provides moderate costs with decent space. After we retire I am looking forward to moving, at least part time, to a small town in the southwest reasonably close to medical facilities and, preferably, a college. I want a small house on a small lot with a decent enough winter climate I can ride a bicycle or scooter to wherever I need to go.
This is not a new huge suburb on the endless prairie east of Denver.
I think living in a city without the need for a vehicle is liberating.
It's liberating if you never want to leave the concrete jungle!
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.
the city
