3 ms·
I take issue with the “too much protected land” stance. The protected land is a treasure. And paving it over with suburbs will not fix housing. See LA. Vast spr
by mint2 6y ago
I take issue with the “too much protected land” stance. The protected land is a treasure. And paving it over with suburbs will not fix housing. See LA. Vast sprawl and still sky high housing. Oh it’s a wee bit better prices? Let’s pave everything. Turning the Bay Area into la or Phoenix sounds like an awful idea.
Densifying I can get behind, turning the protected lands into a concrete wasteland of parking lots and hoa developments of boxes and mandated office parkish landscaping is not something to advocate. Is that really the best we can do?
- spothedog1 6y agoThey're not talking about protected nature preserves and national parks, they're talking about protected single family zoning which prohibits density increases.
- opportune 6y agoI'm talking about both, but separately. For example Marin County has a lot of natural areas where development is verboten but it's also a big part of the appeal of the area (well, the fact that it's a wealthy white suburban area is a lot of the appeal too, and NIMBY policies keep housing expensive so it stays that way). I just wanted to bring it up because I feel it's yet another piece of the puzzle behind housing costs in the area - but I'm aware it's even more a contentious subject than zoning so it's not a hill I would die on. The biggest problem, by far, is single family zoning though.