3 ms·

> More handouts for developers Just like giving homeless people food is just handouts to farmers. > targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of man

> More handouts for developers Just like giving homeless people food is just handouts to farmers. > targeting already-residential neighborhoods instead of mandating the redevelopment of blighted formerly-industrial and -commercial areas and dying malls with boarded-up Macy's and Fry's. No neighborhood should ever allowed to be only restricted single family home. There is absolutely no justification for that what so ever. Things like four-plex are the very minimum that should be allowed. In addition to that you should also rearrange the tax and fee structures. The reality is, single family homes never actual pay their own way. They are a subsidy from the poor to the rich. Single family homes should pay more taxes and more fees. And in addition to that, you shouldn't allow housing only zones, no zone should be without low-impact commercial. In Japans system, there is no purely housing zone for example. But you are also correct that there is far to much commercially zoned. All commercial zones should be approved for mixed use zoning. > "The ensuing housing shortage caused mass homelessness." What a crock. That doesn't even make sense. They are called homeless. Not enough people have housing. But I'm sure actual houses have nothing to do with it.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago
False equivalency galore there. Talk about ridiculous. There's plenty of justification for allowing people to choose what type of neighborhood they want to live in. Downtown L.A. is not "full." If you want high-density living, that's already available. There's no reason to destroy already-residential neighborhoods when there are tracts of disused non-residential areas to convert into housing, or high-density areas that aren't fully occupied. Nothing in these laws helps the homeless. Nothing. If you're eating from garbage cans, you're not going to be able to buy the "luxury" housing that developers are going to build, nor the ONE "affordable" unit they're required to include to get all kinds of waivers.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Your perspective that allowing things like four-plexes is 'destroying' neighberhoods is just complexly delusional. Having four-plexes is not 'high density', not even closes. And nobody is destroying anything, the existing houses mostly stay there and most will remain single family homes. What we are talking about is going from ridiculously low density that was literately created to keep out 'negros' to another form of low density zoning. That the actual reality, acting like 2 families living is the same as Hong Kong is just fearmongering. > Nothing in these laws helps the homeless. Nothing. If you're eating from garbage cans, See the problem is you don't actually understand homelessness. You have one image in your head of what homeless is, and you can't see beyond that. There are lots of people who have jobs and live in their cars. And there are plenty of people who start out that way and their situation gets worse. You have people now living in cheap apartment blocks, those people might have the money to move to a newly built four-plex. That leaves an opening in an apartment block. Then somebody from a shelter might be able to move in. People go from older buildings into newer, leaving those housing units available. This is the actual mechanism that you need to employ on all level to lower rents and make more space available for affordable apartments. > nor the ONE "affordable" unit they're required to include to get all kinds of waivers. Forcing developers to build 'affordable' units is the wrong approach.

NoPedantsThanks 3y ago

False equivalency galore there. Talk about ridiculous. There's plenty of justification for allowing people to choose what type of neighborhood they want to live in. Downtown L.A. is not "full." If you want high-density living, that's already available. There's no reason to destroy already-residential neighborhoods when there are tracts of disused non-residential areas to convert into housing, or high-density areas that aren't fully occupied. Nothing in these laws helps the homeless. Nothing. If you're eating from garbage cans, you're not going to be able to buy the "luxury" housing that developers are going to build, nor the ONE "affordable" unit they're required to include to get all kinds of waivers.

panick21_ 3y ago
Your perspective that allowing things like four-plexes is 'destroying' neighberhoods is just complexly delusional. Having four-plexes is not 'high density', not even closes. And nobody is destroying anything, the existing houses mostly stay there and most will remain single family homes. What we are talking about is going from ridiculously low density that was literately created to keep out 'negros' to another form of low density zoning. That the actual reality, acting like 2 families living is the same as Hong Kong is just fearmongering. > Nothing in these laws helps the homeless. Nothing. If you're eating from garbage cans, See the problem is you don't actually understand homelessness. You have one image in your head of what homeless is, and you can't see beyond that. There are lots of people who have jobs and live in their cars. And there are plenty of people who start out that way and their situation gets worse. You have people now living in cheap apartment blocks, those people might have the money to move to a newly built four-plex. That leaves an opening in an apartment block. Then somebody from a shelter might be able to move in. People go from older buildings into newer, leaving those housing units available. This is the actual mechanism that you need to employ on all level to lower rents and make more space available for affordable apartments. > nor the ONE "affordable" unit they're required to include to get all kinds of waivers. Forcing developers to build 'affordable' units is the wrong approach.