3 ms·
Forgive me, but who's being forced out and how?
by nrr 3y ago
Forgive me, but who's being forced out and how?
- nullc 3y agoNo forgiveness required. Who? People who chose to live in an area in due to its low density (or more specifically because of the living conditions allowed by the low density), being subjected to intensification against their preferences would find themselves forced to move to maintain the conditions they originally purchased. It's doubly so a concern where established future land use and other policy set a reasonable expectation that these increases would not occur, only to have that overridden by distant politicians in furtherance of a arguably blunt objective. It may well be that in a specific situation the increase is still the best option but that in no way invalidates the preferences someone who prefers things how they were or makes their loss any less real. And its only from a perspective of mutual understanding and empathy can good compromises be found, to the extent that they're possible.
- nrr 3y agoI appreciate the follow-up, but I must confess that I'm still scratching my head here. Is this legislation outlawing building sparsely? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems meant to strengthen Sacramento's ability to get California cities to meet the RHNA targets that they consistently miss, not make rural California urban. What living conditions are a priori being imperiled by densification and where?
- tstrimple 3y agoThe tax base in the suburbs needs to increase to the point that it can actually support the massive amount of infrastructure needed to support their desired lifestyle. Much like rural areas, the suburbs are heavily subsidized by urban residents and businesses. If low density housing had to realize all of their actual costs, it would probably be a lot less desirable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI