It would help if she actually gave any argument on why it would be bad. As is, fuck her
Not just me, then. I didn’t find an actual reason, just “please no, this will do something bad about diversity I think”.
Too much local control gives too much power to NIMBYs that constantly stop any and all housing developments.
New Zealand managed to lower rent prices by removing zoning control from local governments.
https://www.governance.fyi/p/auckland-new-zealand-zoning-reform
Zoning in general is rife with NIMBY abuse, and almost universally leads to car-centric designs. If an entire square mile is zoned as residential, then residents will be forced to drive in and out of their neighborhood for anything.
Groceries? Entertainment? Corner store? Yeah, all of it is prohibited within the area due to zoning. Residents should be able to walk to their local corner store within 5 minutes, not 25.
Anyone know enough to give a steelman of her argument? Not much in this letter to go off of.
No but I’ll pretend: “If I don’t send this letter, my real estate donors will know and give their money to somebody else”.
Based on similar reactions to legislation I have been interested in locally an attempt to spread a successful goal elsewhere often hamstrings the location where it was first implemented by adding extra requirements.
For example, if you want to create a new city park with limited funds, you might want to start with some landscaping and then add in other features like water fountains, picnic tables, trees, and whatnot based on feedback over time when funds become available. But if a county or state law supersedes your local approach by requiring all of those things to be planned for and implemented at the same time it might not be possible to even do the landscaping so it can be used for sports.
I’m not even talking about accessibility features or things like that, just more complicated planning and time restrictions that are aimed at larger communities but implemented universally.
She could be talking about that kind of thing or blowing smoke, hard to tell since people like to use things that could be valid when they aren’t.
Are there similar provisions in this bill? I thought it was more about blocking local zoning from stopping development along transit corridors.
The bill has a ton of specific minimums for things like units per acre, max square footage of a dwelling, and a bunch of other stuff. I don’t know which things conflict with the local efforts or if she might be pushing back against the idea, but the law does seem to be aimed at some very specific locations and cumbersome for a lot of others.
california residents who want more housing near public transit:
tell governor newsom that senate bill 79 is important to us.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/
you can mark a “pro” radio button on SB79 and enter a comment if you wish.
“pro-housing city like Los Angeles”.
Fucking lol.
That being said, it is, at the very least, unfortunate, how this is turning out. Yet again, the state is imposing a policy overwhelmingly opposed by the people most directly affected by it - in this case, the people actually living in the locations that will be open to high density housing.
(I get that California needs more high density housing and the logical place to put high density housing is near public transit hubs. I also get that people living in single family neighborhoods don’t want their neighborhoods turned into high density housing. And I’m torn between the genuine need for housing in California and my belief that letting a majority of voters who aren’t impacted by a policy impose it on a minority of voters who are is a shitty way to run a government.)
also get that people living in single family neighborhoods don’t want their neighborhoods turned into high density housing
I get why they want it. But you can’t just let a few stand in the way of progress. Single family no business housing shouldn’t have a place in urban environments.
And I’m torn between the genuine need for housing in California and my belief that letting a majority of voters who aren’t impacted by a policy impose it on a minority of voters who are is a shitty way to run a government.)
That kind of logic is how you get less taxes on the rich.
I get why they want it. But you can’t just let a few stand in the way of progress. Single family no business housing shouldn’t have a place in urban environments.
I’m sympathetic with that argument. But I also remember that’s what they said when they ran highways through thriving Black neighborhoods and gentrified Katrina climate refugees out of New Orleans. The likelihood that this bill will replace struggling minority neighborhoods with empty storefronts and investment condos for the ultra rich deserves some consideration.
That kind of logic is how you get less taxes on the rich.
I’d argue that the real impact of a higher marginal tax rate on someone who already has more money than he could ever spend is far less than the real impact of putting in an apartment complex down the street from someone. If anything, the poor should have a greater voice in government tax policy and welfare policy than the rich, since they’re much more strongly impacted by both.
Letting the majority of voters who have to deal with the consequences of our collective decisions impose their will on the minority of self-centered rich people is a great way to run a government.
Oh, this was on the news here. Apparently it’s an interesting bedfellows case where parties don’t matter so much at location. Not even city vs rural, but more complex than that.
So. Cal is generally on the side against this bill, although aside from NIMBYS, I’m not really sure why. We need it more than anyone else, frankly.
