California banning single family homes.

Jun 2018
5,810
1,349
South Dakota
#11
The net effect would be, if it even got enacted, to promote higher density housing. It would not "ban" single family homes.
Actually your post is just more RW hyperventilating about a non-issue. It is a proposed change to zoning. It is not going to outlaw or ban single family homes.
If you knew anything about the housing in California, you would realized that the City of LA has been trying to promote greater density housing by allowing home-owners to add additional residences on their property. This is the trend and should be encouraged.
Dear Biff, I lived in so Cal for over 40 yrs and bouht and sold 4 homes while i was there. The worst thing that can happen to the values and quality of life in the cities is to encourage denser population. Allowing "granny flats" was a popular idea until it was learned that "granny" wasn't living there. The 700-900 square foot mini houses were occupied by up to 20 illegals and immigrant families. Allowing second story additions became a viable solution. Parking became a real problem too. I lived in a neighborhood in N. Long Beach in a house built in 1925 and saw all these issues first hand. We know that the libs have an answer for every objection but what they don't have is the answer that maintains quality of life and the neighborhoods integrity to remain intact. Doing this is a prelude to more destruction of the inner cities and the revamping of suburbs to ghettos. Notice the comments by the leaders ofthe high end enclaves of very rich and most likely very influential liberals. When this kind of stuff hits the limo libs it either stops or they move.
Another city I lived in was expanding single family dwellings in former agricultural land. The game then was where are we going to put the apartments? That caused a huge uprising in the whole south side of the city. One of the phrases used was, when it was learned that it woud be home to 500 section 8 housing units, move the felons closer so they won't have so far to walk to rob our houses. Racist you say? The most vocal group was a mostly Black development that consisted of families who got buy outs of their south central homes and move en masse to out fair city.
The Calif legislators are donning their rose colored glasses and ignoring the fact that they will simply create cesspools like the ones that exist in Chicago and NYC. As it is, have you been to the Pico Union area recently?
 
Apr 2013
38,070
26,080
La La Land North
#12
WHOOOOOSH!
That's the sound made by a point flying over your head.
The resident libs here seem to all suffer from the format that uses gaslighting on most posts.
Did all ya'all get the same training?
Your crap isn't a feeble attempt at gaslighting?
 
Mar 2018
1,065
189
Grayson
#13
The net effect would be, if it even got enacted, to promote higher density housing. It would not "ban" single family homes.
So Donald Trump is going to let Nancy Pelosi have all the undocumented foreigners she can handle. Higher density housing will be used to give them a place to live. But, Trump wants to cut all federal funding for states that refuse to get rid of the undocumented.

It's a most interesting situation, but if Pelosi and her team could win in the courts, most of the high density housing will be used for the people that don't want to work and foreigners. Would that be a win / win for Trump and Pelosi?
 
Jul 2018
4,394
1,977
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#14
WHOOOOOSH!
That's the sound made by a point flying over your head.
The resident libs here seem to all suffer from the format that uses gaslighting on most posts.
Did all ya'all get the same training?
First off, as you know, I am a republican.

2nd, you did not answers my questions.

3rd, I obviously understood the intent of your spoke but took it to the motivation for it instead. ;)
 
Nov 2018
4,216
2,204
Inner Space
#16
Dear Biff, I lived in so Cal for over 40 yrs and bouht and sold 4 homes while i was there. The worst thing that can happen to the values and quality of life in the cities is to encourage denser population. Allowing "granny flats" was a popular idea until it was learned that "granny" wasn't living there. The 700-900 square foot mini houses were occupied by up to 20 illegals and immigrant families. Allowing second story additions became a viable solution. Parking became a real problem too. I lived in a neighborhood in N. Long Beach in a house built in 1925 and saw all these issues first hand. We know that the libs have an answer for every objection but what they don't have is the answer that maintains quality of life and the neighborhoods integrity to remain intact. Doing this is a prelude to more destruction of the inner cities and the revamping of suburbs to ghettos. Notice the comments by the leaders ofthe high end enclaves of very rich and most likely very influential liberals. When this kind of stuff hits the limo libs it either stops or they move.
Another city I lived in was expanding single family dwellings in former agricultural land. The game then was where are we going to put the apartments? That caused a huge uprising in the whole south side of the city. One of the phrases used was, when it was learned that it woud be home to 500 section 8 housing units, move the felons closer so they won't have so far to walk to rob our houses. Racist you say? The most vocal group was a mostly Black development that consisted of families who got buy outs of their south central homes and move en masse to out fair city.
The Calif legislators are donning their rose colored glasses and ignoring the fact that they will simply create cesspools like the ones that exist in Chicago and NYC. As it is, have you been to the Pico Union area recently?
I have no idea what your point is here.
You object to dense housing in cities, apparently, but think that efforts to deal with housing in geographically limited areas should not be pursued. The live for old folks like you require the services of the young. You should be encouraging solutions that improve the infrastructure efficiently. Too many cars? mass transit. Too many people? more housing options. Too little agricultural land? make the cities more efficient and discourage strip-malls and acres of single family homes.
Your concern about dense housing means that bare land must be committed to new inefficient housing or forests need to be invaded by fire-susceptible housing that consume resources to protect. I think your primary concern is that the world is not like it was 40 years ago. Grow up and deal with it rather than whine about government efforts to make urban environments more efficient.
 
Nov 2018
4,216
2,204
Inner Space
#17
So Donald Trump is going to let Nancy Pelosi have all the undocumented foreigners she can handle. Higher density housing will be used to give them a place to live. But, Trump wants to cut all federal funding for states that refuse to get rid of the undocumented.

It's a most interesting situation, but if Pelosi and her team could win in the courts, most of the high density housing will be used for the people that don't want to work and foreigners. Would that be a win / win for Trump and Pelosi?
Complete nonsense. You must be also be concerned about the Russkies trying to steal your precious bodily fluids:

 
Jun 2018
5,810
1,349
South Dakota
#18
I have no idea what your point is here.
You object to dense housing in cities, apparently, but think that efforts to deal with housing in geographically limited areas should not be pursued. The live for old folks like you require the services of the young. You should be encouraging solutions that improve the infrastructure efficiently. Too many cars? mass transit. Too many people? more housing options. Too little agricultural land? make the cities more efficient and discourage strip-malls and acres of single family homes.
Your concern about dense housing means that bare land must be committed to new inefficient housing or forests need to be invaded by fire-susceptible housing that consume resources to protect. I think your primary concern is that the world is not like it was 40 years ago. Grow up and deal with it rather than whine about government efforts to make urban environments more efficient.
I guess you missed the comment about libs "We know that the libs have an answer for every objection but what they don't have is the answer that maintains quality of life and the neighborhoods integrity to remain intact."
You also must have mised the comment I made on another post about gaslighting becoming the Libs modus operandi. Libs are so good at telling others how we need to live to fix a problem they created.
You're right, the world isn't like it was 40 yrs ago. My fix was to find a place that I could live the way I wanted to live, not change to a way a bunch of legislators think I should because they have no other solutions. If it were my choice to live the way they dictate I'd still be there living in an aluminum box in a retirement communty. It isn't my choice so I'm not there any more.
Grow up? Already did that. Deal with it? I did that too. Problems is the govts efforts to make anything more efficient neer seem to make it to the advertised goal. Urban environments sound so good. They were, before the libs started changing the definition of urban to inner city ghetto.
 
Apr 2013
38,070
26,080
La La Land North
#19
I have no idea what your point is here.
You object to dense housing in cities, apparently, but think that efforts to deal with housing in geographically limited areas should not be pursued. The live for old folks like you require the services of the young. You should be encouraging solutions that improve the infrastructure efficiently. Too many cars? mass transit. Too many people? more housing options. Too little agricultural land? make the cities more efficient and discourage strip-malls and acres of single family homes.
Your concern about dense housing means that bare land must be committed to new inefficient housing or forests need to be invaded by fire-susceptible housing that consume resources to protect. I think your primary concern is that the world is not like it was 40 years ago. Grow up and deal with it rather than whine about government efforts to make urban environments more efficient.
Plus he loves pavement and gas burning. People are going to have to accept that the whole picket fence concept is an anachronism.
 
Dec 2015
17,011
15,945
Arizona
#20
Your title indicates a completed action and the implied action has little to do with reality and the actual proposal.

Single family homes are not banned currently.
The legislation is proposed, not enacted.
The actual legislation does not "ban" single family homes.

Are you incapable of actually posting something that accurately reflects the event and reality?
NO. He is not capable of posting something accurate.The title is a complete falsehood. This article clearly states that:
The bill would not spell the end of single-family housing in the state. Developers could continue to build such homes on their land if they chose, and the legislation prohibits the demolition of single-family homes to build fourplexes without further government review. Even so, allowing as many as four homes on parcels of land where now just one is permitted would trigger significant change compared with how California has grown over much of the last century.

California could bring radical change to single-family-home neighborhoods
 
Likes: Biff

Similar Discussions