3 ms·
> I cracked up at your Brisbane example...people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restric
by tmh79 9y ago
> I cracked up at your Brisbane example...people choose not to live in Brisbane because it's inconvenient to everywhere, not because Brisbane has zoning restrictions.
That's not true at all. Brisbane is sitting on a huge plot of undeveloped land right next to caltrain (the baylands). The developer came to them with a plan to build a lot of housing on it, and the city told them they would only accept offices on the site, that they didn't want any residential development. The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. Pricies for crappy single family homes in brisbane are in the millions, that is clearly a sign that people want to live there.
http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-contro...
- dragonwriter 9y ago> The developer (aka, the best party to judge flows of money and profitability) wants housing, the nimby residents say no. The developer is the best party to judge the flow of money into their pockets from initial sale of the property, but not the long-term flow of costs and benefits of development, which they give fuck-all about since it doesn't effect them. Cities are concerned with balancing tax revenue vs. ongoing service costs (and, yes, with political concerns of voters like NIMBYism, but those thingd aren't entirely unrelated to each other.)