4 ms·

You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property. Why? And if there are many people who want ur

You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property. Why? And if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them, or is this an attack on your preferences?

pdonis 3y ago
> You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property. I have said no such thing. I have said that in a suburb, most people won't want to do that. But that doesn't mean nobody will. In every suburb I've lived in, there has been a mix of single family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Some suburbs are even evolving to the point where they have a core area that is basically urban, with almost all buildings being high rise. I have already said that such things are to be expected over time. > if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them If the urban area is already fully built out, and it acquires the additional land legally on the open market, sure. But much so-called "urban" area is nowhere near fully built out. For example, much of the city of San Francisco is still fairly low density, with little or no high rise and many lots still being single family homes, and is kept that way by restrictive zoning, even though there are multitudes of people clamoring to live there. Before expanding the city out into the suburbs, I would say the city should first allow more people to live in the land that is already part of the city, and adjust its zoning to make that possible.
- fnimick 3y ago
  The whole point I'm making is that many suburbs are zoned by law to be exclusively single family. That's a problem. Expanding that zoning doesn't mandate density, but it will allow it where it is currently banned.

pdonis 3y ago

> You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property. I have said no such thing. I have said that in a suburb, most people won't want to do that. But that doesn't mean nobody will. In every suburb I've lived in, there has been a mix of single family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Some suburbs are even evolving to the point where they have a core area that is basically urban, with almost all buildings being high rise. I have already said that such things are to be expected over time. > if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them If the urban area is already fully built out, and it acquires the additional land legally on the open market, sure. But much so-called "urban" area is nowhere near fully built out. For example, much of the city of San Francisco is still fairly low density, with little or no high rise and many lots still being single family homes, and is kept that way by restrictive zoning, even though there are multitudes of people clamoring to live there. Before expanding the city out into the suburbs, I would say the city should first allow more people to live in the land that is already part of the city, and adjust its zoning to make that possible.

fnimick 3y ago
The whole point I'm making is that many suburbs are zoned by law to be exclusively single family. That's a problem. Expanding that zoning doesn't mandate density, but it will allow it where it is currently banned.