OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[54ny77]

Common sense legislation includes limiting recreational equipment to 1 bike per household.

Make your voice heard!

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

It’s a change in the zoning laws throughout the state, not just in the dense urban areas.

SB 9 makes two important changes to state law:

It allows homeowners in most areas around the state to divide their property into two lots, thereby increasing opportunities for homeownership in their neighborhood; and
It allows two homes to be built on each of those lots, with the effect of legalizing fourplexes in areas that previously only allowed one home.
SB 9 also contains important protections against the displacement of existing tenants.

Much of the pushback would (presumably) come from people whose property values might be affected.

But the state is burning. South Lake Tahoe anyone? The “California Dream” needs to be radically reconfigured, and this seems like a sane, equitable, and none too radical approach.

I read the state bill. It doesn’t change my statement. This legislature is pointed at urban centers not rural.

It’s not that rural areas aren’t expanding because of zoning requirements it’s because of the cost of construction and median wages don’t support high rents to create big ROI.

The zoning change to allow someone to build more than 1 unit has little to no effect on rural areas.

What exactly is the “California dream” you’re referencing??

[jtakeda]

This also sound like a big cash cow for the state. Let’s split your lot into two so now you can pay 2x the direct assessments, you build another house likely tripling your property tax depending on what your p13 base year is and pay for a ton of recording fees for recording a new deed and BLA

[HenryA]

Oh yes, don’t forget the administrative state’s interest in your wallet.

[HenryA]

Has any county, city or town just outright stated “we don’t want anymore people here”? Usually its in the gov’t interest to grow and grow.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Has any county, city or town just outright stated “we don’t want anymore people here”? Usually its in the gov’t interest to grow and grow.

Atherton, CA

[woodworker]

Originally Posted by prototoast

Atherton, CA

Funny. You probably could add Kentfield, and Palos Verdes, and Malibu, and….

[Elefantino]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Has any county, city or town just outright stated “we don’t want anymore people here”? Usually its in the gov’t interest to grow and grow.

Piedmont, Calif., too. The Atherton of the East Bay.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Has any county, city or town just outright stated “we don’t want anymore people here”? Usually its in the gov’t interest to grow and grow.

Bolinas, Ca hasn’t had a new water meter installed since 1971. It’s not just uber wealthy areas.

[ORMojo]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Has any county, city or town just outright stated “we don’t want anymore people here”? Usually its in the gov’t interest to grow and grow.

But does this really solve anything? This thread has mostly focused on the big picture, and individual no-growth communities only push the growth problem off on other communities, increasing the burden on them. Population growth won't stop just because a few towns won't accept the new people.

Recent studies predict a peak in the world's population growth and then a decline in population by 2100. Unfortunately, that brings a whole new set of potential problems.

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by ORMojo

But does this really solve anything? This thread has mostly focused on the big picture, and individual no-growth communities only push the growth problem off on other communities, increasing the burden on them. Population growth won't stop just because a few towns won't accept the new people.

Recent studies predict a peak in the world's population growth and then a decline in population by 2021. Unfortunately, that brings a whole new set of potential problems.

That's fascinating, and it seems like you have some facility and experience here. Any recommended reading?

[ORMojo]

Originally Posted by Jaybee

[/B]

That's fascinating, and it seems like you have some facility and experience here. Any recommended reading?

I'll try to find links to one or two of the studies I've read.

And I had a big typo in my post (thanks, your bolding helped me see it. That should be peak population and decline by 2100.

[ORMojo]

The Lancet: Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study

First sentence from Findings: "In the reference scenario, the global population was projected to peak in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people and decline to 8·79 billion (6·83–11·8) in 2100."



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/22/w...shrinking.html

Long article discussing possible ramifications.

[qnz]

Does anyone have a city they have in mind that "does it right"?

I feel like medium cities like Seattle and SF are just the right size. If we could get better public trans here, it would make city living even better as no one would need a car.
I used to not mind being crammed living in NYC for 35+ years but after living in SF/Bay area the past few years now, having a less dense city is nicer. You can call me a NIMBY, but if we have denser housing, SF will become like Manhattan but more expensive.
Driving is so much worse. Everything is overcrowded. If we ever have some kind of emergency in the Bay, roads would be gridlocked.

[jtakeda]

Originally Posted by qnz

Does anyone have a city they have in mind that "does it right"?

I feel like medium cities like Seattle and SF are just the right size. If we could get better public trans here, it would make city living even better as no one would need a car.
I used to not mind being crammed living in NYC for 35+ years but after living in SF/Bay area the past few years now, having a less dense city is nicer. You can call me a NIMBY, but if we have denser housing, SF will become like Manhattan but more expensive.
Driving is so much worse. Everything is overcrowded. If we ever have some kind of emergency in the Bay, roads would be gridlocked.

How would housing density cause the area to become more expensive?

What is a few years? Do you remember when rent was $700 for a 1 bedroom apartment? If not you’re really seeing the tail end of the issues that are triggering all of the talk of building more units in the city. SF used to be a mid size city with average growth but exploded in the last 15ish years.


Also you don’t think the roads are gridlocked now? I used to be able to drive from Richmond to SF in 40 minutes at rush hour.

Not to be too mean but coming in after a huge wave of displacement and economic/demographic change and then saying alright stop now it’s good is a little selfish.

I’ve come to understand that the nature of cities is to evolve and trying to stop development or evolution is futile. Of course public transport and infrastructure can always be improved but to try and limit the population of city you just moved to is a little ironic.