Reply With QuoteFlash (05-15-2019)
Insane Level of Addiction
He doesn't live here and he had no idea about this legislation until reading the article in the OP. This current proposal, and the one in its prior form that didn't pass, have been in the news here on a daily/regular basis for a couple of years now.Originally Posted by Flash
Here's a great read from Housing Is A Human Right who opposed this legislation.
The first sentence of the article: ""California State Sen. Scott Wiener’s real estate deregulation bill...""
Then they also make this reference: ""SB 50, which advances a trickle-down housing agenda...""
https://www.apnews.com/Business%20Wi...9cd95d817922f7
In his world supporting tariffs are now a conservative thing as well as fighting against new development.
Flash (05-15-2019)
Let's go Brandon!
I don't care what the state of California does. They can go full commie for all I care.
#SEEYOUINCOURT
Well if you knew your history, you would know that tariffs are how the country funded its priorities.
Tariffs also aren’t a tax in the way other taxes are levied. You only pay the tariff IF and only IF you buy Chinese goods.
Many businesses will seek products elsewhere.
But you are a Chamber of Commerce guy and they tell you what to think.
You want cheap oranges so you support illegal immigration and damn everything else
You want cheap headphones so you don’t care that China fucks us over.
Like I said you enjoy that central government control I am sure it will work out swell.
All you have to look at is reason for doing it and you know it will be a flop.
You don’t support it because you think you will personally benefit making money off of duplexes
Earl (05-16-2019)
#SEEYOUINCOURT
Agreed. But I can still make fun of them.
And also post their bullshit as a cautionary tale
Earl (05-16-2019)
Insane Level of Addiction
ILA joining all the California liberal activist groups to oppose new development. Truth is stranger than fiction.
#SEEYOUINCOURT
Ahhh the cocksucking liar is at it again. Tell me again where I said I never voted for Bush 43 in 2004?
I didn't say I oppose new development. I oppose the gobblement getting involved. You love big gobblement. You think they know better where to put this housing. Be hones, you think you can make a buck. You are a crony capitalist
Insane Level of Addiction
You oppose the government getting involved yet support California’s government preventing needed housing from being developed. Sure ILA, makes total sense.
I make money by the status quo, not new legislation encouraging development.
You chimed in on an issue you don’t follow or understand and are now siding with the environmentalists, anti development, anti gentrifiers and Housing Is A Human Right folks. Well done ILA. They say politics makes strange bedfellows well I guess the alt right and those groups coming together proves that point
#SEEYOUINCOURT
Dumb lying cocksucker is at it again
I never said anything you claim.
I merely pointed out the folly of the gobblement trying to do that which the market can do on its own
Insane Level of Addiction
In the Jordan & Peele voice “you done messed up ILA” so now you have to lash out.
Verified User
Too bad, so sad.
Sanctuary state, sanctuary cities. Let as many people as possible into this state. Give these politicians what they want and see the voter throw these guys out of power.
How will the homeless and illegals afford to live in California. Nancy will you welcome them into your home. You can get cheap labor for your vineyard.
Earl (05-16-2019)
Insane Level of Addiction
Too bad? Why? What in your conservative thought process says reducing restrictions on development is a bad thing?
Insane Level of Addiction
Where Are All the Republican YIMBYs?
Some party officeholders are removing barriers to urban housing growth—and more should join them.
The 2016 election exposed, among other things, the gradual extinction of the urban Republican, who, like the Southern Democrat, has virtually vanished from the political scene. While Donald Trump swept rural areas, he struggled in suburbs and failed to find traction in cities. Less than a quarter of America’s 100 largest cities are currently run by Republicans.
This is a big problem for the GOP. It’s also a problem for urban residents. After all, political competition is good for cities. Partisan competition brings in fresh ideas and better policymaking. Though New York is a Democrat-dominated city, Republican administrations played a critical role in its revitalization. Even for those skeptical of conservative policy solutions, it’s hard to deny that Chicago could use some fiscal prudence or that San Francisco badly needs some good-government street cleaning.
Take the issue of housing affordability. There’s growing agreement now that restrictive land-use regulations like zoning—which limit the size, use, and density of buildings and require costly public reviews—are a key factor in the housing-affordability crisis. The burgeoning YIMBY movement—Yes in My Backyard, an answer to the older Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) instinct—looks to make it easier to build more housing where it’s most needed. The movement has already racked up important victories, such as legalizing granny flats statewide in California and ending single-family zoning in Minneapolis.
Republicans have been mostly MIA on this issue—at least since the 1990s, when Jack Kemp tried to tackle “exclusionary zoning” (land-use regulations that drive up housing costs). The YIMBY movement is strongest in deep-blue enclaves where housing costs are high, and for this reason its leadership is overwhelmingly made up of progressives. With some rhetorical adjustment, though, the YIMBY message should appeal to Republicans who value open markets, economic opportunity, and property rights.
The core message of scaling back regulations that raise costs on consumers should sound familiar to market-friendly conservatives, and it overlaps with the Republican focus on opportunity. As the work of economists Peter Ganong and Daniel Shoag shows, tightening land-use restrictions in America’s most productive metro areas, by artificially raising housing costs, shuts many Americans out of chances for economic advancement, since they’re deterred from moving to jobs-rich cities and suburbs. This, in turn, exacerbates wage inequality.
Most people agree that some baseline regulation is needed in cities and towns to control nuisances and mediate industrial effects. But why should the government have the authority to tell homeowners that they can’t renovate their garages into granny flats, or tell small businessmen that they can’t convert their laundromats into apartment buildings? Progressive YIMBYs would approve of these projects and entrepreneurial urban Republicans should, too.
A small but growing number of Republicans have reached out to the YIMBY coalition. The results are promising, especially in San Diego, California’s second-largest city and one of the least affordable cities in the nation. In response, Republican mayor Kevin Faulconer has enthusiastically embraced the YIMBY cause, pursuing an ambitious effort to promote housing development. From streamlining permits to granting extra density so that housing can be made less expensive, Faulconer’s YIMBY push has earned him bipartisan accolades. In March, San Diego’s Democrat-dominated city council voted 8-1 to approve Faulconer’s proposal to eliminate minimum-parking requirements near transit, which can add considerably to housing-construction costs.
Faulconer stands alone among conservative YIMBYs at the local level, but Republicans in state government have many models to draw on. The GOP controls more state legislatures than ever before, and in many states where it holds a majority, it can preempt excessive local regulation—or pass pro-development legislation of its own. In Utah, lawmakers recently passed Senate Bill 34, a bill championed by Republican State Senator Jacob Anderegg designed to encourage more housing construction in the increasingly unaffordable Salt Lake City metro area. The bill combines carrots and sticks, rewarding municipalities that make room for needed housing and withdrawing coveted state highway dollars from those that don’t.
Even in blue states, though, Republican YIMBY energies are stirring. In California, key Republicans have signed on to SB 50, an ambitious bill that would allow more housing to be built near train stations and bus stops. In Massachusetts, the state’s popular Republican governor, Charlie Baker, is campaigning for legislation that would make it easier for towns to update out-of-date zoning regulations. In neighboring New Hampshire, Republican state representative Dave Testerman recently sponsored a bill to allow for the development of “tiny homes” in residentially zoned areas, partly in an effort to keep young families in the increasingly high-priced state.
The seeds of a Republican YIMBY movement may even be taking root at the federal level. Department of Housing and Urban Development secretary Ben Carson has hinted at YIMBY support, exploring how to make federal funding for cities conditional on lowering barriers to housing construction. Though the threat of losing HUD dollars may not be enough to spur widespread zoning reform, it’s a step in the right direction.
From a moderate Republican mayor in Southern California to a conservative Republican state senator in Utah, some in the GOP are taking up the YIMBY charge. It’s a start, suggesting that Republicans have at least begun to engage seriously on issues facing urban and suburban communities. These and similar efforts could end up building more than just houses—they might also lay the groundwork for an urban Republican resurgence.
https://www.city-journal.org/republican-yimby-movement
Verified User
First of all I’m not a conservative. I’m in the common sense party.
Common sense says you need zoning. You can’t let people do what ever they want with their property.
For example certain areas are zoned commercial versus residential for a reason.
How I read this article a developer can go into a neighborhood of single family homes and build section 8 housing apartments. The person living in a million dollar home can have low income apartments next to him.
A lot of these homeless are mentally ill, they don’t want to get off the streets. I’m sure California has shelters for these people. Build shelters where the homeless population is located. They are not in surrounding neighborhoods.
California should then start deporting the illegals who don’t have jobs and living on the streets. These people are going from poverty in their own country to poverty in this country.
Insane Level of Addiction
This is California. Even if this legislation were to pass our zoning laws would still be more strict than most others in the country.
The premise of the legislation is to increase density in areas near public transportation. It's not about putting section 8 housing next to multi-million dollar homes in Beverly Hills and Bel Air, that's not what this is about or what would happen. (To many in the wealthy areas having any multi-housing, even high end, is offensive to them and there in lies much of our problem.)
This isn't legislation about the homeless nor is it about building housing for the homeless.
#SEEYOUINCOURT
Find the quotes you claim exist.
You are projecting your love of big gobblement onto me
My only point is that there will be unintended consequences like all big centralized gobblement proposals
If you disagree fine. But stop lying about my positions. It makes you look weak
Posting Rules
Bookmarks