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.
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!
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. And 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!
And 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!
And 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!
And 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!
Your posts is also filled with a bunch of random thoughts that have nothing to do with the topic. What does the environmental impact of starting a college, be it rural, urban or in between, have to do with the 'new urbanism'?
To your point, don't like urban housing developments? Don't buy one. Why are you whining about them? People probably make cars, food, art, clothes, etc, that you don't like. Should we start hearing about that all in another post tomorrow?
You noted that, "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." Where's your proof of this? Are you telling me that there's no sprawl in California? I've driven all over the state. I mean all over it. There's a ton of sprawl. Your post seems to accuse city planners of preventing this.
Good for you, you want to live in suburbia. There's a ton of that in California. While you're sitting in your car, I'll be actually BBQing and while you're wasting time on your lawn on the weekend I'll be getting drunk with some human scenery around me.
I get it, your emotions tell you that you're conservative and you want to write something to make yourself feel better and whine about liberals. Perhaps you can have some coherent point to your writing in the future.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-06-2013 at 01:43 PM..
Reason: off topic
It's really not a great practice to start a sentence with and. You also listed second, about 5 times. You might want to be less worried about housing and more about grammar.
Your posts is also filled with a bunch of random thoughts that have nothing to do with the topic. What does the environmental impact of starting a college, be it rural, urban or in between, have to do with the 'new urbanism'?
To your point, don't like urban housing developments? Don't buy one. Why are you whining about them? People probably make cars, food, art, clothes, etc, that you don't like. Should we start hearing about that all in another post tomorrow?
You noted that, "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." Where's your proof of this? Are you telling me that there's no sprawl in California? I've driven all over the state. I mean all over it. There's a ton of sprawl. Your post seems to accuse city planners of preventing this.
Good for you, you want to live in suburbia. There's a ton of that in California. While you're sitting in your car, I'll be actually BBQing and while you're wasting time on your lawn on the weekend I'll be getting drunk with some human scenery around me.
I get it, your emotions tell you that you're conservative and you want to write something to make yourself feel better and whine about liberals. Perhaps you can have some coherent point to your writing in the future.
There is plenty of sprawl and suburban development, but the lack of new housing and infill developments and making suburban areas denser is raising prices for housing.
Wake up and smell the coffee. California is the sprawl capital of the world. The state is 99% sprawl. If your idea of the good life is endless freeway congestion, strip malls, McMansions, fast food chains, trailer parks, shopping at Crap-Mart and China-Mart I mean Wal-Mart and all the other typical suburban crap then you should definitely move to California because that's all there is out there. You'll be in white trash heaven!
He actually lives in California. Where there's a ton of sprawl. I'm not sure what he's rambling about. I'm guessing he's mad that he can't afford to live in the nicer areas of the state. It's hard to tell. It's sort of like someone who lives in Hawaii complaining that there's not much ocean around.
Look at the Bay Area. And what's happened there. There are desirable places in California where people want to live, but can't because all the new development is in downtown or urban areas.
We need to stop building inward and built outward. Too many people are trying to stop growth in California. Too many taxes and regulations on housing developers and businesses to build.
There is a local suburban development having a hard time in my area because they gave them hell about protecting local hills.
And yes, I'm a city boy and I like the city, I just don't like downtown growth. Orange County - that's how new developments should look like.
San Francisco was built a long time ago. You're talking about the 'new urbanism'. Thus, where's your proof that the new urbanism is the cause of the high prices in San Francisco.
It's rather basic to point this out, but did you ever stop to think that the population density in places like New York and San Francisco are due to the value of the land? There's a pretty strong correlation between land value and population density.
The example of your little town doesn't prove much of anything. They're trying to protect hills. That has nothing to do with urbanism. I'm sorry that the people planning your development are morons. Perhaps you could find a better company to do that for you.
Quote:
Orange County - that's how new developments should look like.
I think you mean WHAT and not how. Given that you can't even write here at a grade school level, I'm not so sure you should be telling the world about urban development.
San Francisco was built a long time ago. You're talking about the 'new urbanism'. Thus, where's your proof that the new urbanism is the cause of the high prices in San Francisco.
It's rather basic to point this out, but did you ever stop to think that the population density in places like New York and San Francisco are due to the value of the land? There's a pretty strong correlation between land value and population density.
The example of your little town doesn't prove much of anything. They're trying to protect hills. That has nothing to do with urbanism. I'm sorry that the people planning your development are morons. Perhaps you could find a better company to do that for you.
I think you mean WHAT and not how. Given that you can't even write here at a grade school level, I'm not so sure you should be telling the world about urban development.
I said it should look like OC, not be priced like OC.
You keep missing the point that we continuously need new sprawl development to keep prices lower.
Maybe you should go back to grade school? It's a simple economic principle, when demand is high and supply is low. Prices go up.
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.
