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.
Homeowners and people in deeply discounted rent controlled units voting their personal interest to the strong detriment of society more broadly. Benefit to those groups is far less than the damage done to market rate renters and prospective homebuyers, but votes are equal (this is a general failure of democracy, vote one way of someone who is weakly impacted is worth as much as the vote another of someone hugely impacted). The people priced out of voting areas entirely don't get a vote at all.
California is a huge state, much of it unoccupied or sparsely so. The Sierra Nevadas are beautiful, huge areas of desert are unoccupied. No reason that these locales can't be built on. Not everyone is entitled to live in some of the most expensive cities in the nation just because they want to.
Because you understand that you have to share the world with other human beings? And they also need a place to live?
No one should assume that a community is going to stay the same over decades. That's just unrealistic.
What's wrong with where they're currently living? They don't have a right to live anywhere they want, if they can't afford it and/or there isn't enough housing they need to live somewhere else. Seattle has the same problem and people making the same arguments. If you can't afford to live there you'll have to live somewhere else.
The entire human population could fit in just New Zealand at Manhattan population densities if it was developed that way. They don't HAVE to live in Los Angeles or Seattle and the people who live there now don't HAVE to share their small piece of the world.
California is a huge state, much of it unoccupied or sparsely so. The Sierra Nevadas are beautiful, huge areas of desert are unoccupied. No reason that these locales can't be built on. Not everyone is entitled to live in some of the most expensive cities in the nation just because they want to.
Its expensive because people vote to keep the prices artificially inflated.
What's wrong with where they're currently living? They don't have a right to live anywhere they want, if they can't afford it and/or there isn't enough housing they need to live somewhere else. Seattle has the same problem and people making the same arguments. If you can't afford to live there you'll have to live somewhere else.
The entire human population could fit in just New Zealand at Manhattan population densities if it was developed that way. They don't HAVE to live in Los Angeles or Seattle and the people who live there now don't HAVE to share their small piece of the world.
Some places have the careers people go for. Thst your nlt gonna find in your home town. People do have a right to move and have a shot.
The probelm is that theres this whole mentality of “eff these kids, I gots mines!”.
My philosophy is that I get mines too, but I also don’t want to make it near impossible for our next generations to have the same opportunities.
Its expensive because people vote to keep the prices artificially inflated.
People in the most desired cities have every reason to have ordenances in place to protect their quality of life and property values. Just because you want to live somewhere doesn't give you the right to demand that others supply you with housing.
Outside of the L.A. forum, what do folks think of this issue? And not just in L.A.
Is this just old folks trying to keep L.A. the same? Terrified of change?
There is only so much land so it would mean lots of skyscrapers. And with the potential of a huge earthquake at some point in the future I am not sure that would be a good idea. I remember the Northridge earthquake well and that was in the 5's.
There is only so much land so it would mean lots of skyscrapers. And with the potential of a huge earthquake at some point in the future I am not sure that would be a good idea. I remember the Northridge earthquake well and that was in the 5's.
Well we’re not China thankfully. We have engineering codes and technology to address that issue.
Of course California should build more housing. Whether that's edge sprawl or dense infill, the market should decide.
I don't like illegal immigration as much as the next guy, but housing politics in California is 100% driven by existing residents using all the tricks in the book to avoid losing their homes, including freezing the tax basis, making that frozen tax basis heritable, and using all the zoning tricks suburbs use to keep out undesireables.
Attacking illegals is scapegoating. Even if we stopped all immigration legal and otherwise California would face housing pressure.
The market should decide who lives in California, not politics.
Much of the current focus on earthquake planning is acted out in building regulations. Californian construction codes are based on satisfying a target of 90% probability that a building does not collapse. In other words, there is a tacit acceptance that 10% of buildings could collapse in the vicinity of the next maximum credible earthquake. Such earthquakes hit California once every three centuries or so.
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.
