4 ms·

Why must they want to get denser? What is wrong with liking the density they have and wanting no more? Go live somewhere else! Surely there's got to be some ans

Why must they want to get denser? What is wrong with liking the density they have and wanting no more? Go live somewhere else! Surely there's got to be some answer to the tech giant jobs by now. I do not want to live in a high rise or even a 5 story, but if I did, I cannot imagine going some place that doesn't have them and challenging "why don't you have a borg cube for me to live in?"

Fernicia 4y ago
It's nice to live in walking distance of your job, friends, and favourite restaurants. It's nice to be able to visit bars and not worry about how to get home. It's nice to not be stuck on a virtual island without your car.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Sure, but so what? To me that means you don't want to live in some parts of California. So don't.
janosett 4y ago
Who is “they” in this situation? The issue in this article is developers wanting to build housing being blocked by misuse of an environmental quality law. If you live in a city with a large and growing population it’s natural to build more housing to accommodate the growth. If you don’t like it you’re also free to “Go live somewhere else!” Right?
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  The newcomer has the superior moral right to the land? Although the entire US is the result of newcomers bulldozing the natives, I thought we at least on paper recognize that was not a good thing. I wasn't sure about expressing an argument that even hints conservative sympathy, but this completely amazing thing you just said removes all doubt. I don't live there and probably never will, but now I say good for them. I hope they tell anyone coming along with the attitude you just expressed to gfys.
  - nluken 4y ago
    Rezoning empowers the existing landowner to do what they want with the land, within reason. Newcomers don't have any "moral right" over the land but neither do existing residents have an absolute right to dictate what happens on land that isn't theirs. Nobody's forcing people to bulldoze existing housing to increase density, but lifting arbitrary density restrictions give the current set of owners more power over their own property.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      If nobody wants to force anyone then what's the complaint? If the municipalities are maintaining their desired zoning, it's for a reason and they perfectly well have that right. Clearly the communities as a whole are trying to maintain an environment they like, and which they already have, not trying to create in anyone else's place to suit themselves, and the zoning is doing exactly the job it exists to do. I see no reason that more people have to cram in to a place that is already full to capacity according to it's desired density level, until such time as the country runs out of space anywhere else.
      - midoridensha 4y ago
        I don't see why municipalities have any right to enact zoning, or really anything at all. Municipalities are just conveniences for the state, and municipalities should only have the power that the state gives them.
      - nluken 4y ago
        Should a community be able to vote to exclude people who don't make a certain amount of money? How about people of a certain race or sexual orientation? These are freedoms that supersede the desires of the community, and since the single-family zoning laws are roughly paramount to gatekeeping by income, it makes sense to eliminate them. I will note again that eliminating the restrictive zoning also doesn't equal a mandate over what landowners must to do with their land. You're welcome to keep your plot as-is. You just can't tell your neighbor what to do with their land.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
I agree with your aesthetic, but don't see why the government needs to be involved. People who want borg cubes should build and live in borg cubes. People who want spacious suburbs should build and live in spacious suburbs. Nobody should be able to force someone else to live how they want. Things only get difficult when people try to use the government as a cudgel to impose their wants on other people and their land. If you don't want to live next to someone's Cube or Suburban House, sucks to suck. It's not your land.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Ah but zones have always existed. Even in don't-tread-on-me Texas you aren't free to just do anything just anywhere. If you don't like that we all have to share the space and that some places get earmarked for particular uses, and no you aren't free to build a pig farm or even a human farm just anywhere, even if you buy the land, sucks to suck. Buy all the land in the entire municipality and populate it with people who all vote to change the zoning. Or don't. But complaining that the current residents won't let you in is just not very defensible.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    first off, zone have not always existed, and in practice, have always been subject to reclassification, which occurs routinely. You dont have to go back far to find that most areas that are now single family zoning were something else, often agriculture outside of large metros. You raise a fair question regarding what the appropriate level of government and consensus should be to make or change zoning back in reality. However, it doesnt address the question of how to the reality of populations with mixed opinions on zoning change. Are you talking about a 51% vote threshold, 100% consensus, or simply based on the whim of an unelected official. I don't like complaining as much as the next guy and dont think anyone has a defacto right to "get in". Rather, Im talking about what rights I have if I'm already in, and maybe always have been.
  - 0xBDB 4y ago
    "Even in don't-tread-on-me Texas you aren't free to just do anything just anywhere." Texas has "normal" zoning laws everywhere but the city of Houston. You will often see people say that Houston has de facto zoning because of deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants, and this is sort of true, but a lot of Houston does allow for more mixed use than other places and the city seems visibly different than L.A. (or Dallas). Lots of restaurants in industrial areas, etc. Houston is ugly to my eye but I don't think this is why. On the other hand, I don't want pig farms in residential neighborhoods. On the third hand, the in the U.S. the state government (depending on the state constitution) has the legal right to take those decisions away from municipalities and neighborhoods and probably should. It really is too easy to be in favor of building things that are genuinely necessary and beneficial (not pig farms) in the abstract as long as you can't see them.

Fernicia 4y ago

It's nice to live in walking distance of your job, friends, and favourite restaurants. It's nice to be able to visit bars and not worry about how to get home. It's nice to not be stuck on a virtual island without your car.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
Sure, but so what? To me that means you don't want to live in some parts of California. So don't.

janosett 4y ago

Who is “they” in this situation? The issue in this article is developers wanting to build housing being blocked by misuse of an environmental quality law. If you live in a city with a large and growing population it’s natural to build more housing to accommodate the growth. If you don’t like it you’re also free to “Go live somewhere else!” Right?

Brian_K_White 4y ago
The newcomer has the superior moral right to the land? Although the entire US is the result of newcomers bulldozing the natives, I thought we at least on paper recognize that was not a good thing. I wasn't sure about expressing an argument that even hints conservative sympathy, but this completely amazing thing you just said removes all doubt. I don't live there and probably never will, but now I say good for them. I hope they tell anyone coming along with the attitude you just expressed to gfys.
- nluken 4y ago
  Rezoning empowers the existing landowner to do what they want with the land, within reason. Newcomers don't have any "moral right" over the land but neither do existing residents have an absolute right to dictate what happens on land that isn't theirs. Nobody's forcing people to bulldoze existing housing to increase density, but lifting arbitrary density restrictions give the current set of owners more power over their own property.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    If nobody wants to force anyone then what's the complaint? If the municipalities are maintaining their desired zoning, it's for a reason and they perfectly well have that right. Clearly the communities as a whole are trying to maintain an environment they like, and which they already have, not trying to create in anyone else's place to suit themselves, and the zoning is doing exactly the job it exists to do. I see no reason that more people have to cram in to a place that is already full to capacity according to it's desired density level, until such time as the country runs out of space anywhere else.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      I don't see why municipalities have any right to enact zoning, or really anything at all. Municipalities are just conveniences for the state, and municipalities should only have the power that the state gives them.
    - nluken 4y ago
      Should a community be able to vote to exclude people who don't make a certain amount of money? How about people of a certain race or sexual orientation? These are freedoms that supersede the desires of the community, and since the single-family zoning laws are roughly paramount to gatekeeping by income, it makes sense to eliminate them. I will note again that eliminating the restrictive zoning also doesn't equal a mandate over what landowners must to do with their land. You're welcome to keep your plot as-is. You just can't tell your neighbor what to do with their land.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

I agree with your aesthetic, but don't see why the government needs to be involved. People who want borg cubes should build and live in borg cubes. People who want spacious suburbs should build and live in spacious suburbs. Nobody should be able to force someone else to live how they want. Things only get difficult when people try to use the government as a cudgel to impose their wants on other people and their land. If you don't want to live next to someone's Cube or Suburban House, sucks to suck. It's not your land.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
Ah but zones have always existed. Even in don't-tread-on-me Texas you aren't free to just do anything just anywhere. If you don't like that we all have to share the space and that some places get earmarked for particular uses, and no you aren't free to build a pig farm or even a human farm just anywhere, even if you buy the land, sucks to suck. Buy all the land in the entire municipality and populate it with people who all vote to change the zoning. Or don't. But complaining that the current residents won't let you in is just not very defensible.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  first off, zone have not always existed, and in practice, have always been subject to reclassification, which occurs routinely. You dont have to go back far to find that most areas that are now single family zoning were something else, often agriculture outside of large metros. You raise a fair question regarding what the appropriate level of government and consensus should be to make or change zoning back in reality. However, it doesnt address the question of how to the reality of populations with mixed opinions on zoning change. Are you talking about a 51% vote threshold, 100% consensus, or simply based on the whim of an unelected official. I don't like complaining as much as the next guy and dont think anyone has a defacto right to "get in". Rather, Im talking about what rights I have if I'm already in, and maybe always have been.
- 0xBDB 4y ago
  "Even in don't-tread-on-me Texas you aren't free to just do anything just anywhere." Texas has "normal" zoning laws everywhere but the city of Houston. You will often see people say that Houston has de facto zoning because of deed restrictions and neighborhood covenants, and this is sort of true, but a lot of Houston does allow for more mixed use than other places and the city seems visibly different than L.A. (or Dallas). Lots of restaurants in industrial areas, etc. Houston is ugly to my eye but I don't think this is why. On the other hand, I don't want pig farms in residential neighborhoods. On the third hand, the in the U.S. the state government (depending on the state constitution) has the legal right to take those decisions away from municipalities and neighborhoods and probably should. It really is too easy to be in favor of building things that are genuinely necessary and beneficial (not pig farms) in the abstract as long as you can't see them.