4 ms·

I think you should have to physically own all the surrounding land if you directly don't want it to develop. You weren't promised anything, beyond the agency of

I think you should have to physically own all the surrounding land if you directly don't want it to develop. You weren't promised anything, beyond the agency of your own plot: that's what ownership means, right? The choice do decide its destiny. If you wanted that choice for a full square mile around you, should've bought the land to ensure it never, ever was developed. > Why should anyone who has no rights to an asset have a say in how it should be treated? That's my point: you have no rights to your neighbors land. You property rights begin and end at the physical demarcation of your parcel. You never paid for the promise of immutable zoning laws (I would be shocked if your deed made such claims). I may not agree with your position, but I do definitely understand the thought processes regarding it, which I did not before, and for that I am appreciative.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago
But that’s the point. The city’s general plan okays zoning before developments are built. Single family homes bought in to preserve that density to avail the share in resources. The city council is supposed to get people’s input before they change zoning. If property owners want to change it, put it to a referendum, but that never happens. Of course, those who don’t have property want those who have it to part with it so they can own too. The government is just manufacturing drama by pointing to their begging bowl and painting the tax paying citizens as villains. The only beneficiary is the govt and redistribution of income. And twenty years from now, it will be the turn of the Silicon Valley youth who are hoping to displace Silicon Valley senior citizenry because their property is coveted. It should be by referendum. But this is not what’s happening in California. People should understand how regional governance works. There is no more local governments for cities. ABAG(Bay Area cities need to have mandatory membership) and MTC(metropolitan transport Corp) have been merged. Both are highly inefficient and bought in by the real estate mafia. There is a revolving door for politicians who were elected at city level and in the boards of non profits and housing advocacy groups. They are changing zoning and erasing CEQA without public input. They are purposely NOT improving transport and infrastructure and increasing density around existing inefficient transport hubs so more property taxes from dense areas can be distributed to the rest of California. Meanwhile they keep everyone on poverty sustenance and keep high density/high income Bay Area cities unsustainable. Why should they? When it’s easy enough to bleed just a highly productive population for taxes? Meanwhile seniors are hindering and it’s easy to cast them as scapegoats In this lovely large state, there is enough places to become the next Bay Area..but it’s not happening. If you dig deeper..and I have..you will see that this is all a vile coverup of unsustainable unfunded public sector pension liabilities and backed by unions. It is appalling the youth clamoring to scapegoat ‘boomers’ and NIMBYs are so easily brainwashed that they don’t ask the right questions. It’s very easy to go all forensic on California budget. I think it’s worth it. There are laws in place but individual votes have no more value. It’s mob rule manufactured by the government. There is no transparency or accountability. Not just in America..in every country, the richest demographic is the most vulnerable. Even globally every oil producing country is poor or is ruled by totalitarian govt or has sanctions. In the United States, cattlemen and ranchers and farmers are rich because of land. Guess who is the the most bankrupt today? Land rich and cash poor farmers and ranchers. This is systematic raid on the one resource that can’t be manufactured. Land. You can’t print land, but you can print money. Land is being taken away from those that the PTB who feel like they don’t deserve it. That’s why there are so few people of colour who are land owning farmers. There are so few middle class who own property and it’s made more and more expensive to own property by way of taxes and parcel taxes and supplemental taxes. It’s driven by fear and uncertainty that is being fed at school. When the govt offers to play nanny and thinks that you can’t manage your assets as well as they can, it’s time to start shaking in your boots with fear.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

But that’s the point. The city’s general plan okays zoning before developments are built. Single family homes bought in to preserve that density to avail the share in resources. The city council is supposed to get people’s input before they change zoning. If property owners want to change it, put it to a referendum, but that never happens. Of course, those who don’t have property want those who have it to part with it so they can own too. The government is just manufacturing drama by pointing to their begging bowl and painting the tax paying citizens as villains. The only beneficiary is the govt and redistribution of income. And twenty years from now, it will be the turn of the Silicon Valley youth who are hoping to displace Silicon Valley senior citizenry because their property is coveted. It should be by referendum. But this is not what’s happening in California. People should understand how regional governance works. There is no more local governments for cities. ABAG(Bay Area cities need to have mandatory membership) and MTC(metropolitan transport Corp) have been merged. Both are highly inefficient and bought in by the real estate mafia. There is a revolving door for politicians who were elected at city level and in the boards of non profits and housing advocacy groups. They are changing zoning and erasing CEQA without public input. They are purposely NOT improving transport and infrastructure and increasing density around existing inefficient transport hubs so more property taxes from dense areas can be distributed to the rest of California. Meanwhile they keep everyone on poverty sustenance and keep high density/high income Bay Area cities unsustainable. Why should they? When it’s easy enough to bleed just a highly productive population for taxes? Meanwhile seniors are hindering and it’s easy to cast them as scapegoats In this lovely large state, there is enough places to become the next Bay Area..but it’s not happening. If you dig deeper..and I have..you will see that this is all a vile coverup of unsustainable unfunded public sector pension liabilities and backed by unions. It is appalling the youth clamoring to scapegoat ‘boomers’ and NIMBYs are so easily brainwashed that they don’t ask the right questions. It’s very easy to go all forensic on California budget. I think it’s worth it. There are laws in place but individual votes have no more value. It’s mob rule manufactured by the government. There is no transparency or accountability. Not just in America..in every country, the richest demographic is the most vulnerable. Even globally every oil producing country is poor or is ruled by totalitarian govt or has sanctions. In the United States, cattlemen and ranchers and farmers are rich because of land. Guess who is the the most bankrupt today? Land rich and cash poor farmers and ranchers. This is systematic raid on the one resource that can’t be manufactured. Land. You can’t print land, but you can print money. Land is being taken away from those that the PTB who feel like they don’t deserve it. That’s why there are so few people of colour who are land owning farmers. There are so few middle class who own property and it’s made more and more expensive to own property by way of taxes and parcel taxes and supplemental taxes. It’s driven by fear and uncertainty that is being fed at school. When the govt offers to play nanny and thinks that you can’t manage your assets as well as they can, it’s time to start shaking in your boots with fear.