In CA the only answer seems to be to reduce local control though state legislation. Like they've already done with ADUs. None of the wealthy enclaves in the peninsula or SF itself are going allow the problem to be fixed because they don't want to.
Not all places are like this though. Minneapolis just pushed through a major reform allowing triplexes as of right on all previously single family lots with no extra parking requirements.
This is nonsense and you know it. People may live in the suburbs but the work that provides them with their income is from the city as urban areas are the economic engine of America all over the country.
I grew up in the suburbs of Philly right next to the Main Line and about half the kids in my high school lived on the Main Line. What did their parents do? They were doctors and lawyers for hospitals and law firms in the city. (Or just outside the city, serving clients from the city.) You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Very unlucky choice of examples you made to try and tell me about my own home town, haha. Oops!
That goes against current trends of actually stopping new housing and other development due to concerns about school overcrowding and such.
https://wamu.org/story/19/04/16/des...ry-county-expected-to-freeze-new-development/
https://www.capitalgazette.com/maryland/annapolis/ac-cn-city-council-apf-20190211-story.html
https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2019/0...ays-itll-sue-to-stop-overcrowding-crisis.html
So they work in the city and immediately flee it to go to their actual homes in the suburbs when their work day is done? Strange definition of "economic engine" to mean where people run away from as quickly as they can once they've earned their daily pay, not where people actually live and spend their money.
If only we possessed the technology to create additional buildings to teach children.
That goes against current trends of actually stopping new housing and other development due to concerns about school overcrowding and such.
https://wamu.org/story/19/04/16/des...ry-county-expected-to-freeze-new-development/
https://www.capitalgazette.com/maryland/annapolis/ac-cn-city-council-apf-20190211-story.html
https://www.nj.com/middlesex/2019/0...ays-itll-sue-to-stop-overcrowding-crisis.html
It’s not a strange definition at all, it’s common sense. If Philadelphia were not there the Main Line would not exist. If the Main Line were not there Philadelphia would still exist. From that simple example it should be entirely obvious which is the important economic component there.
Tell me more about my home town though. I’m excited to partake in your wisdom about this ‘main line’ and what makes it tick.
It's probably sitting unused on the city's shelf right next to the unopened box of "help homeless people so they don't need to shit on the sidewalk outside the city park filled with dirty hypodermic needles."
Alternatively, "What are problems that suburban folks don't need to put up with" for $400, Alex.
Yeah for all those jobs in the city that are going away, like these:
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/07/08/hahnemann-university-hospital-closure/
So they work in the city and immediately flee it to go to their actual homes in the suburbs when their work day is done? Strange definition of "economic engine" to mean where people run away from as quickly as they can once they've earned their daily pay, not where people actually live and spend their money.
So they work in the city and immediately flee it to go to their actual homes in the suburbs when their work day is done? Strange definition of "economic engine" to mean where people run away from as quickly as they can once they've earned their daily pay, not where people actually live and spend their money.
And that's the hundred thousand dollar question with the obvious answer. Most people don't want to be stacked like cord wood. Most folks want a home with a yard and a nice park near by. They don't want crowded streets, crowded schools, crowded stores. This is at the heart of gentrification. People that want to live in a nice place that isn't crowded. Now when they do it some chowder head comes along and bitches because they don't think anyone should be allowed to live well.It's probably sitting unused on the city's shelf right next to the unopened box of "help homeless people so they don't need to shit on the sidewalk outside the city park filled with dirty hypodermic needles."
Alternatively, "What are problems that suburban folks don't need to put up with" for $400, Alex.
And that's the hundred thousand dollar question with the obvious answer. Most people don't want to be stacked like cord wood. Most folks want a home with a yard and a nice park near by. They don't want crowded streets, crowded schools, crowded stores. This is at the heart of gentrification. People that want to live in a nice place that isn't crowded. Now when they do it some chowder head comes along and bitches because they don't think anyone should be allowed to live well.
Absolutely nothing is stopping anyone from living in non-crowded places if they so choose.
What I am against is some chowder head thinking they should be able to use the power of government to dictate what other people can build on their own property because they think they are entitled to make everyone else live in the type of neighborhood they want and to pump up their own property values while inflicting enormous misery on everyone else.
Always interesting to see ‘conservatives’ defend central planning like this, haha. Also funny to see them complain about the homelessness crisis in places like California while endorsing the primary thing causing it.
The primary thing causing homelessness is the refusal of the localities to appropriately tax themselves and provide services to the homeless population.
Instead they alternately ignore it, or call it a "collective action problem" and refuse to do anything until they can raise federal taxes and have the suburbs share their costs.
That’s fine, we can tax rich people and use that money to build housing too but either way that’s more density and more houses. Score!
I was trying to go the market route but I guess conservatives only care about markets when it’s convenient.
It’s really weird to me how mad you seem to be that you didn’t know what a collective action problem is, haha.
As far as the suburbs paying for it goes as you rely on the city for your prosperity it makes sense that you pay taxes to support it. Good idea!
More density and more houses - you mean the thing you keep advocating for but never happens in places like SF? And this thread is about?
Nah, that's OK, us suburbs folks will just keep our money for our excellent school systems and services and let you city folks deal with your own problems. Good luck!
Let me see if I get this:
We can't have single payer Healthcare because the free market optimally allocates efficiencies; and
When it comes to labor (one of if not the largest) expense of some of the largest, most successful corporations in the planet, said corporations perhaps don't know as much about efficiency allocations as "internet guy" does.
Uhmm, yes.
I figured. We will keep supporting you because we are nice guys like that.
So you guys are both the "economic drivers" and supporting the rest of us, but you can't (read: won't) act until the people you already said you're supporting agree to "help" support citizens that live in your jurisdiction and not ours? How would that work exactly - wait a second while us city folks generously give handouts to you suburban folks, and then we tax them back from you to pay for our citizens we didn't bother to tax ourselves to help in the first place." Sounds like a much more efficient system is that you city folks take care of your own homeless and stop thinking you are "helping" us suburbanites.
If you haven't checked, our quality of life is actually much, much better than yours - primarily because we purposely left city folks like you behind.
The primary thing causing homelessness is the refusal of the localities to appropriately tax themselves and provide services to the homeless population. Instead they alternately ignore it, or call it a "collective action problem" and refuse to do anything until they can raise federal taxes and have the suburbs share their costs.
Well we are helping you, that’s just a fact.
As for the homeless I have no idea what you’re babbling about. We should eliminate zoning restrictions first and foremost to tackle homelessness, not use a government solution.
Remember you’re the one arguing that the government should force people to only build the sort of houses you want. Very conservative of you.
I love how you think this is some sort of dick measuring contest. I’m just telling you facts, if they make you mad then there’s nothing I can do about that.
I’ve spent plenty of time living in suburbia. If you like it, great! It’s a bland hellscape to me, but some people like bland!
today glenn is for higher taxes.
Yes, the blandness of not having homeless people everywhere. Or shit on the sidewalks. Or being able to afford a house. And having good schools for your kids. And services like supermarkets and hospitals close at hand. But hey if you New Yorkers want to pay an average of 65% or so of your income on rent, enjoy away!