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.
That's not the whole truth. Growth has been in suburbs close to the cities and the places in red states that are growing are Blue liberal cities inside red states (Austin, Atlanta, New Orleans, Nashville, etc). These places are growing because true liberal cities like SF, LA, and NYC simply don't have room and so the liberal heaven next tier down are getting love.
.
You're conflating the networking effects of cities with liberal politics. Most people move to cities because of the jobs, not the politics.
Cities have more jobs because they have more investors and wealth. Wealth spawns liberal politics, since people resent the wealthy and want them to share, and it also spawns jobs.
You will probably say that liberal politics produces wealth and urbanization, but the history of the development of American cities, which you yourself described, is wealth -> investment -> urbanization -> liberal politics. Liberal politics comes about when a local economy is "built out" and breakneck growth ends. The people who never rode the wave get resentful.
So you are confusing cause and effect, claiming that liberal politics drives growth. Liberal politics is a reaction to growth.
Hmmmm... California's lefty NIMBY bigots don't want the poor, unwashed masses living amongst them. I'm shocked, I tell ya... Shocked!
Always confused with what side they leaned. Use to always think NIMBYism was a right thing. Guess it's limo left? Because Republicans seem to admire the 1950s aesthetic of the suburban household.
Always confused with what side they leaned. Use to always think NIMBYism was a right thing.
Oh, good grief, no. Why do you think Pelosi lives in a gated community? She's a NIMBY bigot. Always has been. Why do you think the costly blue cities have such strict housing density regulations? They're NIMBY bigots. Always have been.
Quote:
Guess it's limo left?
Yep. How long did they have you fooled?
This is how ugly that lefty NIMBYism can get... an interesting fact that few know about very blue city of Chicago...
White Democrats in Chicago insisted that Chicago's "Equity Insurance" program be implemented.
VERY important to read the Chicago Magazine article. Much of the info is just simply jaw-dropping. For example, it was White Democrats who in the 1980s insisted the City of Chicago implement "equity insurance" in case they had to sell their homes at a loss because Blacks had moved into the neighborhood and torpedoed property values. The "equity insurance" program is still in place to this day.
The media never mentions it because the City of Chicago equity insurance program benefits White Democrat voters. They're protected from the loss of equity in their homes caused by what they've identified as "minority creep" into their lily White neighborhoods.
More background info on Chicago's "equity insurance" program:
1988, the inception of Chicago's "equity insurance" program was fairly recent, not pre-Civil Rights. And, as I said, the "equity insurance" program still exists to this day....
Location: Born in L.A. - NYC is Second Home - Rustbelt is Home Base
1,607 posts, read 1,085,674 times
Reputation: 1372
OP, they should build L.A. up massively. Some cities have laws that mandate building be 3 or 4 floors as a minimum. That is what it should be for L.A. Large hi rises are mandated. People seem to be OK with the traffic jams, so start building up like NYC.
OP, they should build L.A. up massively. Some cities have laws that mandate building be 3 or 4 floors as a minimum. That is what it should be for L.A. Large hi rises are mandated. People seem to be OK with the traffic jams, so start building up like NYC.
I could care less what they do in LA to be honest I hate that city but that will never fly in other parts of CA.
Hmmmm... California's lefty NIMBY bigots don't want the poor, unwashed masses living amongst them. I'm shocked, I tell ya... Shocked!
I'll respond if I'm going to spend a lot of money for a home I want to ensure that the property values rise and that I live comfortably. I don't want low income high rises built around the corner from me. I don't care about me neighbors religion, race, ethnicity etc but when you place low income housing close to upper middle class neighborhoods you are asking for a disaster.. I like to go for walks and not be harassed in my neighborhood by panhandlers, people arguing or listen to loud music. I'm willing to pay more to be out of that cesspool.
Some of these people have never been to California, and some likely have not been too far from the small towns they live in... and certainly some have never visited a Foreign Country. some just talk to be talking...
No, L.A.'s building codes are outdated. It's a well known fact. It's a common study among urban planners on how planning a city can go wrong. It was built on a premise that you can live in a city where you have an acre a land a car a front yard etc.
People flocked for that.
Huh? Maybe out in the sticks..definitely not true in LA though - LA lot sizes have never been that large...the standard lots have been small, 5000 sq ft. And the recent changes to building ordinances have been in favor of even smaller lots. So how are these examples of a plan gone wrong, if the idea is to encourage density?
Are you aware that the LA metro is more dense than the NYC metro? How would that have come about if the plan was all wrong? Planners couldn't account for an invasion of millions of Mexicans and other Latin Americans, obviously. You don't plan for mass illegality. You plan for orderly growth.
Furthermore, during the biggest boom periods in LA, the preferences were actually for high-density housing. Where do you think all those residential hotel buildings came from, that have now all gone condo? Or the bungalow homes? Or the "bungalow court" developments you can find in LA's core...Perhaps the most iconic example that someone under 40 might be familiar with, was the building used for the show Melrose Place. Which was built in the 1930s and is in a neighborhood in Central LA that at the turn of the century had only 25 structures in it. That's the prototypical environment of LA expansion. It isn't multi-acre lots in Holmby Hills or Beverly Hills or Bel Air. Those are the exception to development, not the rule.
So, maybe you read it somewhere (probably on the YIMBY agitator site you have been reading!), but its just not true. It's a kind of myth of this 50's aesthetic of a quasi-suburban lifestyle that was associated (And still is) with outlying areas. Which is the opposite of what you (and the YIMBY agitators) have suggested - the desire for space is the defining common impulse of the urban *exodus*, specifically the many East Coast and Midwest city-dwellers escaping congested, cold winter environments for the relatively bucolic suburban warm climates of California. In any case, that certainly wasn't any part of the city's urban planning, nor was it ever envisioned to be that way. There are outlying areas constructed around the whole suburban escape thing, of course. But it wasn't the case for LA itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X
It's like advertising a peaceful spot in the beach and now everyone wants to come and it no longer is what it was.
The dream collapsed under it's own weight and is no longer sustainable.
We are all aware of "the tragedy of the commons".
It's why we're having this conversation in the first place. Its the overpopulation crisis that has done all of this, and in the last 50 years, that has mostly (80% or so) been powered by immigration, not by organic growth, as was the case in the previous 100 years before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicano3000X
As for immigrants, California wouldn't be California without some great Mexican food. Haven't lived til' you tried it.
Dude, I live here. You don't need to lecture me about food. And btw, have you ever heard of a recipe?
Everytime liberals are asked to name the "benefits of diversity", they always come up with food first. Like there is some kind of genetic requirement to cook food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
California should just allow ICE to deport all their illegals and foreign workers. That would solve a lot of the problems besides just housing.
Yes, but it would decimate the political power of the left, so they're absolutely enraged at the thought. Plus it is a step backwards in their Genocide Against Whites agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beb0p
Why do you keep repeating this absolutely pointless line?
Even if getting rid of 3M illegals will solve the problem (it won't) how do you even begin to do it? Even Trump has never endorsed this stupid idea. Do you know how many billions and decades it would take to carry it out, assuming it is even remotely possible? You may as well just use that money and time to build more housing.
And oh. Most illegals LIVE WITH legal citizens. Say you kick out a man who is illegal; there are still his cousin, her husband, her kids, her parents living the house and they're all legal. You're not creating housing, you are just kicking out a guy while the house is still being occupied.
Stupid right-wing logic.
.
So you're apparently claiming that freeing up the housing stock occupied by 3M illegals won't solve the "housing crisis" ? How does that work? They aren't occupying any housing?
We don't have a housing crisis in CA. We have an illegal alien crisis. And they are contributing heavily to the overpopulation crisis. But we absolutely haven't got a housing crisis. Plenty of housing for all citizens.
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.
some just talk to be talking...