4 ms·
>> Sure if you plan to pave over huge swaths of currently protected wilderness you can find more land That's exactly my point. You don't have a shortage of lan
by rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> Sure if you plan to pave over huge swaths of currently protected wilderness you can find more land
That's exactly my point. You don't have a shortage of land in the Bay Area. You have progressives who would rather have people sleep on the street than build on that land.
- m-ee 5y agoPaving over forests and wetlands to make more suburbs will not solve homelessness. I legitimately don’t understand how that seems like a more reasonable choice than infill, changing zoning, and public transit improvements within existing urban and suburban areas.
- rufus_foreman 5y ago>> I legitimately don’t understand how that seems like a more reasonable choice than infill, changing zoning, and public transit improvements within existing urban and suburban areas That's called false dichotomy. If you took all the land in the bay area that people aren't allowed to build on and you allowed developers to build single family homes on all that land, that's what, a million homes? You tell me. You could do infill, zoning, transit, all that, and still build a million new houses too. It's a choice. And the choice people are making is let's do none of that, let's do precisely none of that. Which is fine, but just stop with the whining. People made choices.