3 ms·
I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there a
by timr 9y ago
I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there are reasonable arguments that the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad, and seems like something the state could actually fix, instead of attempting to engage in central planning.
If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them just because Scott Weiner thinks there should be more development (and no, invoking "NIMBYism" isn't a counterargument).
[1] "Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes."
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control...
- ak217 9y ago> I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either I do, because I've been following the issue, the Brisbane city council meetings, and the reasons that the Brisbane city council has been citing. It's not a secret. > the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad The city is not entitled to hypothetical future tax income. > If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them Wishing for more tax revenue and property value appreciation is not a legitimate local concern. The city is not entitled to arbitrarily decide who can lawfully move in or build on privately owned land within its limits.