5 ms·

Relevant: https://fiftythree.studio/blogs/news/lets-talk-about-why-la-cant-build-new-housing https://fiftythree.studio/blogs/news/lets-talk-about-why-la-... "T

by Lammy 5y ago

Relevant: https://fiftythree.studio/blogs/news/lets-talk-about-why-la-cant-build-new-housing https://fiftythree.studio/blogs/news/lets-talk-about-why-la-... "The small apartment buildings that triggered this revolt are called are called 'dingbats'. They're those boxy buildings you see all over the place with pompous names like 'La Traviata' or 'Chateau Antoinette'. These kinds of housing weren't pretty, but they were no-frills apartments you could afford if you were an actor, or a grocery clerk, or a secretary. This scared the hell out of homeowners in rich neighborhoods, because apartments were for poor people and minorities. So, we voted for politicians who reduced the zoning of LA bit by bit, effectively freezing the status quo in place. And after 1970, rich communities just stopped building new housing, period. You can see the results from the population table below."

dheera 5y ago
From TFA > But while the movement to allow multifamily buildings in zones previously limited to single-family homes How is this even a thing? Couldn't two families just define themselves as a big extended family? They could for example just have two people marry for a day, move into the upstairs and downstairs respectively, and then get divorced the next day to hack the system.
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  It's 100% a thing in law. Denver up until very recently only allowed 2!!! They shouldn't have to. That's a ton of work. At one point in time black people could vote if they 'hacked the system' by paying or passing a test.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 5y ago
  “Single family” is a property of the building, not the people living in it. A multi-family building has separately locking units with their own kitchens. Where there are too many large houses and not enough apartments, many of the houses end up with would-be apartment dwellers living communally. You do sometimes here about communities trying to enforce prohibitions on unrelated people living together in single family homes, but where the zoning itself is almost universal in America, such enforcement is very rare.
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
This is more pro-developer shilling. "This scared the hell out of homeowners in rich neighborhoods, because apartments were for poor people and minorities" Bullshit. The fact is that they're ugly, they block out the sun from neighboring structures and yards, and they promote an influx of people that the community may not be prepared to handle. These "good" bills are full of developer handouts like this: "Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances: (A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel." These bills regard a single bus stop as "transit," knowing full well that it's useless to the vast majority of people. And that "car share vehicle" provision is straight-up insulting. WTF, a single shared car for FOUR BLOCKS of apartment buildings? And what happens when that car gets removed or wrecked? Tear the buildings down? So now you have a shitload of new people and cars taking all the street parking from existing residents. The country isn't "full." What kind of fool promotes rolling out the welcome mat for MORE people in an area headed into yet another historic drought? We can't support the people who are already here, and these shills want to pack MORE in? Insulting and stupid.

by Lammy 5y ago

dheera 5y ago

From TFA > But while the movement to allow multifamily buildings in zones previously limited to single-family homes How is this even a thing? Couldn't two families just define themselves as a big extended family? They could for example just have two people marry for a day, move into the upstairs and downstairs respectively, and then get divorced the next day to hack the system.

dillondoyle 5y ago
It's 100% a thing in law. Denver up until very recently only allowed 2!!! They shouldn't have to. That's a ton of work. At one point in time black people could vote if they 'hacked the system' by paying or passing a test.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 5y ago
“Single family” is a property of the building, not the people living in it. A multi-family building has separately locking units with their own kitchens. Where there are too many large houses and not enough apartments, many of the houses end up with would-be apartment dwellers living communally. You do sometimes here about communities trying to enforce prohibitions on unrelated people living together in single family homes, but where the zoning itself is almost universal in America, such enforcement is very rare.

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

This is more pro-developer shilling. "This scared the hell out of homeowners in rich neighborhoods, because apartments were for poor people and minorities" Bullshit. The fact is that they're ugly, they block out the sun from neighboring structures and yards, and they promote an influx of people that the community may not be prepared to handle. These "good" bills are full of developer handouts like this: "Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances: (A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code. (B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel." These bills regard a single bus stop as "transit," knowing full well that it's useless to the vast majority of people. And that "car share vehicle" provision is straight-up insulting. WTF, a single shared car for FOUR BLOCKS of apartment buildings? And what happens when that car gets removed or wrecked? Tear the buildings down? So now you have a shitload of new people and cars taking all the street parking from existing residents. The country isn't "full." What kind of fool promotes rolling out the welcome mat for MORE people in an area headed into yet another historic drought? We can't support the people who are already here, and these shills want to pack MORE in? Insulting and stupid.