California bans building parking lots near transit stops

PostmodernProphet said:
fair.....so long as they have enough water for everyone to drink they should be allowed to have as many people as they want......
Click to expand...

Water issues are not a "lib"problem, moron. It's worldwide. Wait 'till Saudi Arabia runs out of water - WWIII will commence soonafter I guarantee you, troll.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
If your business is within a half mile of a transit (eg., bus) stop, you will no longer be able to build parking spaces or a parking lot to accommodate your customers. If you are building apartments, you can't provide parking spaces for your tenants. If you are a car dealer... Well, you get the idea here. The state of California expects you to take the bus or other public transit everywhere like a good little peasant.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...pc=U531&cvid=7fedf37f9f904a52a529775aa0a4710b

So, I guess this means people won't need those mandated electric cars after all...
Click to expand...

As a State's Rights supporter, you should whine less and pack for moving more.

What kind of fucking moron constantly whines about a state when 1) it's not going to change anything and 2) it's smarter to move to Texas?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Until you realize that you can't do everything on public transit and need a car. Then it becomes a major problem...
Click to expand...

I'll throw this out as well and then I'll stop. Admittedly I'm projecting here but I think you saw this article and 1) misunderstood it - because it's not banning parking near public transit and 2) just instantly thought because California is doing it it must be bad.

Now I'll be the first to admit the latter part is not an unreasonable reaction to have. It's one I often have. But in this case this legislation is pro-growth and pro-development (usually things people on the right support). Developers have wanted this for a long time because the unreasonable parking requirements previously made new development difficult to pencil out. And for a state with a housing crisis this will help with the supply side (again, something people on the right generally support).

You have people on the left who dislike this because they often don't like new market rate developments and think government doing anything a developer wants is bad. But I don't understand right-wing opposition to this.
 
cawacko said:
I'll throw this out as well and then I'll stop. Admittedly I'm projecting here but I think you saw this article and 1) misunderstood it - because it's not banning parking near public transit and 2) just instantly thought because California is doing it it must be bad.

Now I'll be the first to admit the latter part is not an unreasonable reaction to have. It's one I often have. But in this case this legislation is pro-growth and pro-development (usually things people on the right support). Developers have wanted this for a long time because the unreasonable parking requirements previously made new development difficult to pencil out. And for a state with a housing crisis this will help with the supply side (again, something people on the right generally support).

You have people on the left who dislike this because they often don't like new market rate developments and think government doing anything a developer wants is bad. But I don't understand right-wing opposition to this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for a clear reading of the OP link. I don't know if it will work or not, but I support their right to choose.

IMO, California is more fucked up than a screen door on a submarine, but I support their right to pass their own local laws. The fact the Alt-Right is against State's Rights and supports Federal authoritarianism disturbs me because that means neither of the two major US political parties support the 10th Amendment...more than lip-service.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...Saudi Arabia's problems aren't mine either, dumbfuck......
Click to expand...

Excellent example of why I know you aren't a Christian and lean hard toward evil.

Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Mark 12:31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

4bq9vt.jpg
 
cawacko said:
In a certain sense we are pushing businesses out of the state with our high taxes, unfavorable business environment etc. etc. but I don't follow the logic that we should not allow new businesses here or encourage new businesses to start here or move here. That's how a state dies.

We are not full. People claimed the state was full when we had 20 to 30 million and now we have 40 million. There is room to grow here. You need smart growth like allowing more density in urban areas such as legislation in the OP is all about.
Click to expand...

running out of water and building in natural wildfire areas is also a good way to kill a state.
 
Celticguy said:
running out of water and building in natural wildfire areas is also a good way to kill a state.
Click to expand...

One reason we build in natural wildfire areas is because of how hard it is to build in the more urban areas. Instead of building up in urban areas around public transportation we force people to build further and further out. This legislation specifically addresses that by allowing more density around public transportation in urban areas.
 
cawacko said:
This legislation prevents no one from having a car. If you choose to live in the City without a car you can rent Zip cars or whatever the service is that lets you get cars for the hour or however long you need. You can borrow a friend's car. Lots of people live in SF without cars. But whether people choose to have a car or not isn't really relevant to this legislation.
Click to expand...

This is an argument to moderation fallacy. Okay, you can still own a car. Where do you keep it when not using it? The rest of this is just reductio ad absurdum arguments. Something like 99% of Americans don't live in San Francisco. So, what works for San Fran isn't a model that should be forced on everyone else.
Having a car in most parts of the US is a necessity, not an option. Same goes for California.

Under this law any construction within just shy of 1000 yards of a bus stop is not going to be able to have parking. The average single family home lot in the US is 100' on a side, give or take. That puts several blocks of such homes within that distance. In urban areas--like San Fran-- it pretty much eliminates all new parking from any new construction.
 
cawacko said:
I don't think you understand how this legislation works (hence your title being incorrect). The legislation says nothing about not being able to build parking. It says cities can't mandate the same amount they previously did for developments next to public transportation. Developers can still build more parking if they want to pay for it. But people who will live in this housing are the type that are less likely to use cars. If you're a family with kids and you want multiple parking spots you'll probably choose to live in one of thousands of other apartment buildings.
Click to expand...

No, they can't. What it effectively does is make it difficult to impossible for a developer to build in parking into a project. What the likely outcome is, is that businesses and people will simply move elsewhere and not deal with this.
 
cawacko said:
One reason we build in natural wildfire areas is because of how hard it is to build in the more urban areas. Instead of building up in urban areas around public transportation we force people to build further and further out. This legislation specifically addresses that by allowing more density around public transportation in urban areas.
Click to expand...

the point is the state should not allow residences in wildfire areas. fires are GOING to happen property loss is assured and costs A LOT to attempt to fight. Its why other places dont allow building in flood planes.

If you are out of space, you are out of space. Period.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
This is an argument to moderation fallacy. Okay, you can still own a car. Where do you keep it when not using it? The rest of this is just reductio ad absurdum arguments. Something like 99% of Americans don't live in San Francisco. So, what works for San Fran isn't a model that should be forced on everyone else.
Having a car in most parts of the US is a necessity, not an option. Same goes for California.

Under this law any construction within just shy of 1000 yards of a bus stop is not going to be able to have parking. The average single family home lot in the US is 100' on a side, give or take. That puts several blocks of such homes within that distance. In urban areas--like San Fran-- it pretty much eliminates all new parking from any new construction.
Click to expand...

For starters this is a state law, not national. I’m not sure if you’re purposefully misrepresenting it or still don’t understand it. It doesn’t ban parking. It bans parking mandates, which were excessive and prevented development. BART stops in the Bay Area, or trains in LA, aren’t next to single family homes. This legislation has no effect on single family homes
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, they can't. What it effectively does is make it difficult to impossible for a developer to build in parking into a project. What the likely outcome is, is that businesses and people will simply move elsewhere and not deal with this.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, it is 100% the opposite. In your defense you don’t live in California so it’s understandable you don’t understand the dynamics at play here. Much needed new development wasn’t getting built because of ownerous parking ratios. Now developers can put in what the market desires. Again, the free market at play (if that’s what you support)
 
Last edited:
Celticguy said:
the point is the state should not allow residences in wildfire areas. fires are GOING to happen property loss is assured and costs A LOT to attempt to fight. Its why other places dont allow building in flood planes.

If you are out of space, you are out of space. Period.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that’s a separate discussion. There is plenty of room here to build with more density. That’s what this legislation helps with
 
Celticguy said:
the point is the state should not allow residences in wildfire areas. fires are GOING to happen property loss is assured and costs A LOT to attempt to fight. Its why other places dont allow building in flood planes.

If you are out of space, you are out of space. Period.
Click to expand...

...or hurricane areas, amirite? LOL
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...Saudi Arabia's problems aren't mine either, dumbfuck......
Click to expand...

Well, when the nuclear cloud floats our way across the ocean you might feel differently. I kind of feel like we should protect our allies there.

By the way, even though you're a MAGA, twumptard and we'll never agree, I do appreciate you're taking the time to debate. Insults don't bother me. People refusing to back up what they say do, and you're not one of those, usually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top