3 ms·
The people that do currently have housing should not have their view ruined just so you don't have to sleep in the street. Particularly if they are in a histori
by local_crmdgeon 3y ago
The people that do currently have housing should not have their view ruined just so you don't have to sleep in the street. Particularly if they are in a historic neighborhood, a wealthy neighborhood, a poor neighborhood, a majority white neighborhood, or a majority minority neighborhood.
No housing should be built in any of those. Or sprawl, don't do that. Or buildings over 2 stories. Also, all new units need 3 parking spaces, even if they're on top of a subway or train station.
This message is brought to you by SF, Boulder, and the State of California.
- fragmede 3y agoHah, pretty good one, you almost had me. I will note though, that SF actually has parking maximums for new construction - you're not allowed to put a ginormous parking garage under that new high rise, basically trying to force people to not have cars.
- Tagbert 3y agoSo people end up parking on the streets. The stick approach doesn't change behavior.
- plussed_reader 3y agoSB-35 would disagree with your notion of aesthetics. Building is definitely happening in Nimbyville, just not anything affordable for the rest of us.