4 ms·
> But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neigh
by mnm1 7y ago
> But opponents of the legislation argued that the changes anticipatedunder SB 50 would have unalterably diminished the quality of life in many California neighborhoods dominated by single-family home development.
Interesting. The quality of life in such neighborhoods seems to me to be some of the lowest in the nation. Sure there are worse places but overall, in my experience, such neighborhoods have no stores, no desirable public lands where people spend any time, and really nothing at all other than houses and ghost streets. One needs a car to go anywhere. There is nothing to do, no one to see, and no one to interact with. It's no wonder people who live there end up using drugs and coping with a ton of anxiety and depression. It's one of the worst places to raise teenagers and young adults especially ones not old to drive. Having lived in such neighborhoods all my life, I still can't understand what people are talking about in regards to the quality of life. The quality of life is shit. But I can see putting up with that for more money. I guess that's what they mean by quality of life. Low taxes and home value appreciation.
- notJim 7y agoBased on what I see on Nextdoor and from anti-housing groups in Seattle, I suspect quality of life is coded language for "undesirable" types moving in. If you make your city affordable, you don't get to live in an enclave where everyone has a 7-figure net worth and went to Stanford.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoYes, and the effects of that on local schools as well.
- sbov 7y agoOur local school in California busses in out of district students. By their claim, they can offer higher quality education with more students because the state funding scales faster than the burden.
- thowfaraway 7y agoThat's atypical of most high income, high quality districts in California. E.g., Palo Alto is currently fighting with Stanford over a housing expansion because of the impact of additional students at local schools.
- WillPostForFood 7y agoIt’s totally fine you don’t like it, but many people do. They are choosing to live that way because they like the lifestyle, not for the money. If they wanted money, they’d do better by the passing of SB50, and developing multi unit dwelling on their lot. I don’t think you are helping push the discussion forward by mischaracterizing the opposition.
- kelnos 7y agoGiven that the majority of residential areas outside cities (and even some inside cities) are not sufficiently walkable to do without a car, you're basically suggesting that the vast majority of the US has poor quality of life. That may be true (I'd doubt it), but an extraordinary claim like that requires extraordinary evidence. I personally prefer to live in a place where I can live my life through walking and transit, but I know quite a few people who prefer open, spread-out, commercial/industrial-free neighborhoods, and either don't mind or actively enjoy having a car and driving places.