4 ms·

Seems like this would create a whole host of problems which restrictive zoning solves. In other words we already learned that lesson and people generally do no

Seems like this would create a whole host of problems which restrictive zoning solves. In other words we already learned that lesson and people generally do not like unappealing entities being right next door. It allows the public an extra check on something not appropriate. Why does California not have a wider range of political ideas to solve their problems? It appears Cali is chasing its tail by their brand and experiment in democracy when they try to "solve" their glaring issues. Credit where due -- many times other states have benefited from California being so big and mandated certain safety laws. But like the famous saying many citizens of the Golden State will soon be able to answer the question for Newsom (uberkind-liberal-idiot-when-it-suits): What have you done for me lately?

0xB31B1B 5y ago
"unappearling entities being nextdoor", "allows the public an extra check on something not appropriate" You're openly advocating for segregation in 2021, this is almost verbatim how segregation advocates advocated for housing segregation ~100 years ago
- sirmike_ 5y ago
  Bluster is what you say! OK then I am sure you would be ok with zoning being changed to allow for a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood whenever someone(s) with big piles of cash comes through. Yeah, no thanks mate. Where I live the last heads of our county council, where openly corrupt with sweetheart deals handed out to local construction and developer companies. The one before last ended up in jail thanks to the feds investigating these type crimes. This is in the US no less. No way buddy. The public has a right to decide who can built what where and for what purpose. Yes there should be defining discrimination which rightly limits a free for all when it comes to zoning. How naïve are you?
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Sub 100 with a much smaller number.
kevinqiu1 5y ago
And yet all of the desirable(aka expensive) places to live are mixed use dense neighborhoods built before the concept of Euclidean zoning? Eg. Old pre-zoning, pre-car neighborhoods in Toronto, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, ect.

0xB31B1B 5y ago

"unappearling entities being nextdoor", "allows the public an extra check on something not appropriate" You're openly advocating for segregation in 2021, this is almost verbatim how segregation advocates advocated for housing segregation ~100 years ago

sirmike_ 5y ago
Bluster is what you say! OK then I am sure you would be ok with zoning being changed to allow for a nuclear power plant in your neighborhood whenever someone(s) with big piles of cash comes through. Yeah, no thanks mate. Where I live the last heads of our county council, where openly corrupt with sweetheart deals handed out to local construction and developer companies. The one before last ended up in jail thanks to the feds investigating these type crimes. This is in the US no less. No way buddy. The public has a right to decide who can built what where and for what purpose. Yes there should be defining discrimination which rightly limits a free for all when it comes to zoning. How naïve are you?
UncleMeat 5y ago
Sub 100 with a much smaller number.

kevinqiu1 5y ago

And yet all of the desirable(aka expensive) places to live are mixed use dense neighborhoods built before the concept of Euclidean zoning? Eg. Old pre-zoning, pre-car neighborhoods in Toronto, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, ect.