High density living, coming to your neighborhood soon

morekaos

morekaos

Well-known member
The unintended consequences of increasing the housing stock dramatically and incentivize density living to address homelessness and global warming will destroy cities and ironically make both problems worse. Typical of politicians lack of basic understanding of economics in a vain attempt to look like they are doing something and virtue signaling with little regard to real world consequences and their constituents….

Long Beach to get nearly 1,000 new apartments plus retail space at PCH and Second Street

https://lbpost.com/news/business/development/pch-second-street-developments-new-traffic-apartments

This will be a traffic disaster. 3-5000 people trying to come and go off one small street off PCH. (city will not allow a PCH entrance)

This guy figured it all out and is destroying neighborhoods with the governments unanimous blessing with full tax breaks and incentives. 6 to 8 story apartment buildings on a single-family lot in a single-family neighborhood and because of the way, the politicians wrote the laws, they can’t stop him …

This L.A. developer aims to tear down homes to build apartments where the city doesn't want them

In Los Angeles, no one is pushing the envelope more than Jha. Besides the 33-unit Harvard Heights project nestled between the 10 Freeway and Koreatown, he has two proposals in the San Fernando Valley to tear down single-family homes and build dozens of apartments and townhomes on the sites — all efforts that never before would have stood a chance of getting built.

“The neighbors have no real leverage anymore,” he said.

Jha’s proposals have left community members apoplectic. In Woodland Hills, Jha wants to replace a four-bedroom home with an apartment complex of 67 units, seven of which, because of the density bonus and related incentive programs, would be reserved for low-income disabled veterans.

Mihran Kalaydjian, vice president of the Woodland Hills/Warner Center Neighborhood Council, said the development would hurt the area.

“When you’re taking single-family homes and replacing them with big apartment buildings, the residents and the tenants of those apartments are coming from different backgrounds,” Kalaydjian said. “The different backgrounds could be criminal backgrounds. It could influence our neighborhoods.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...s-where-the-city-doesnt-want-them/ar-AA1eDyZQ

…welcome to desert of the real

 
morekaos said:
The unintended consequences of increasing the housing stock dramatically and incentivize density living to address homelessness and global warming will destroy cities and ironically make both problems worse. Typical of politicians lack of basic understanding of economics in a vain attempt to look like they are doing something and virtue signaling with little regard to real world consequences and their constituents….

Long Beach to get nearly 1,000 new apartments plus retail space at PCH and Second Street

https://lbpost.com/news/business/development/pch-second-street-developments-new-traffic-apartments

This will be a traffic disaster. 3-5000 people trying to come and go off one small street off PCH. (city will not allow a PCH entrance)

This guy figured it all out and is destroying neighborhoods with the governments unanimous blessing with full tax breaks and incentives. 6 to 8 story apartment buildings on a single-family lot in a single-family neighborhood and because of the way, the politicians wrote the laws, they can’t stop him …

This L.A. developer aims to tear down homes to build apartments where the city doesn't want them

In Los Angeles, no one is pushing the envelope more than Jha. Besides the 33-unit Harvard Heights project nestled between the 10 Freeway and Koreatown, he has two proposals in the San Fernando Valley to tear down single-family homes and build dozens of apartments and townhomes on the sites — all efforts that never before would have stood a chance of getting built.

“The neighbors have no real leverage anymore,” he said.

Jha’s proposals have left community members apoplectic. In Woodland Hills, Jha wants to replace a four-bedroom home with an apartment complex of 67 units, seven of which, because of the density bonus and related incentive programs, would be reserved for low-income disabled veterans.

Mihran Kalaydjian, vice president of the Woodland Hills/Warner Center Neighborhood Council, said the development would hurt the area.

“When you’re taking single-family homes and replacing them with big apartment buildings, the residents and the tenants of those apartments are coming from different backgrounds,” Kalaydjian said. “The different backgrounds could be criminal backgrounds. It could influence our neighborhoods.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...s-where-the-city-doesnt-want-them/ar-AA1eDyZQ

…welcome to desert of the real
Click to expand...
Builders remedy is the only option left, and it is a strong reinforcement of private property rights. You should see the rancor up here in big money Los Altos Hills with one enterpising homeowner using Builders Remedy to f*ck over the town leaders who've given him a hard time over the years approving work he wanted to do on his property. The Bay Area is extremely segregated and full of small city NIMBYism and things are about to change in a big way.
 
doesn't this go against what you're saying tho?
people are leaving cali, so why the need to build more housing?
tax breaks, and this is the result
lower regulations, and this is the result
global warming? what has this got to do with the topic of dense housing? lol
 
No, this is dense pack living under the guise of increased rental property with some low income housing for the homeless. Dense living for lower impact on global warming. The city has even been trying to separate parking from each unit in order to force people into mass transit biking and walking. It’s a ridiculous premise. It won’t work, but it will create a mess on that corner. These are state and local building mandates. Destroying neighborhoods in the vein search for unicorns and rainbows.
 
We have discussed this before…Hits all the buzzwords “sustainable” “equitable” “carbon footprint” “access” and so on…total baloney and not workable in our city…🤦🏽‍♂️😂😂😂

The Future of the 20-Minute City

March 21, 2022 | By Stacey Olson

Cities are an essential part of how we live, work, and play. They can be designed with principles rooted in sustainability, health and well-being, and social equity — or not. Cities aren’t created equally and access to opportunity and resources varies greatly.

We’ve seen ample research showing that dense, urban communities reduce greenhouse gas emissions by supporting human powered transit — making life walkable and bikeable. This type of development, known as the “20-minute city,” fosters connectivity to everyday resources by design.

However, the 20-minute city isn’t without flaws. An equal amount of research shows that while these communities often reduce a city’s carbon footprint, they can spread social inequalities and create niches that lack diversity.

https://www.gensler.com/blog/the-future-of-the-20-minute-city
 
The boy king wants redevelopment and destruction of our neighborhoods, not organically but like EV’s…at the point of a gun…

You Can Kill Single-Family Zoning, but You Can’t Kill the Suburbs

It will take a lot more than California’s historic duplex bill to make the state affordable.

On Thursday, with the stress of the recall election firmly behind him, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that effectively abolishes single-family home zoning in the country’s largest state. Senate Bill 9 allows owners to split their lots or convert homes to duplexes, regardless of local zoning, in an effort to increase the state’s anemic housing production, open up high-opportunity neighborhoods, and lower rents and home prices.

The law raises the possibility that many single-family homes currently protected by zoning could be replaced by two units—or even four, if owners split their lots and build duplexes on each half.

Naturally, opponents of exclusionary zoning—a practice with a racist history that has severely curtailed housing supply in many California cities, taking the state’s median home price north of $800,000—were really excited about SB 9. Local officials, homeowner groups, and the California Republican Party threw a fit, with the anti-growth group Livable California decrying a “luxury housing bill that destroys your neighborhood”—a liberal glaze on the end-of-the- suburbs fearmongering that Donald Trump attempted to employ against Joe Biden last y

https://slate.com/business/2021/09/california-sb9-single-family-zoning-duplexes-newsom-housing.html

The state enacts laws and regulations aimed at compelling cities to accept more affordable housing construction, particularly to serve low- and moderate-income families, and cities counter with local laws and regulations to evade their housing quotas.

Although the state might seem to have the upper hand as it seeks to close its yawning gap between supply and demand, one would have to say that the cities have been remarkably successful in evading their civic and legal responsibilities because construction falls way short of the state’s goals.

In theory, California should be building 185,000 units a year to keep up with current demand and chip away at the backlog, but it scarcely produces half of that number.

City officials, responding to their constituents’ aversion to high-density housing, employ all sorts of tactics to discourage development, such as imposing specific requirements that make projects economically infeasible or zoning undesirable land for housing.
 
morekaos said:
No, this is dense pack living under the guise of increased rental property with some low income housing for the homeless. Dense living for lower impact on global warming. The city has even been trying to separate parking from each unit in order to force people into mass transit biking and walking. It’s a ridiculous premise. It won’t work, but it will create a mess on that corner. These are state and local building mandates. Destroying neighborhoods in the vein search for unicorns and rainbows.
Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you're trying to convey, alot of ulcer inducing anger...

the links you showed are showing increasing housing, dense housing yes, but still adding more units, what happened to all your posts indicating people are flocking away from california. these don't look like cheap rentals

the links you showed says that tax breaks is what is causing this dense complex in long beach, just like tax incentives for ev, so now you're against the stance of lowering taxes then?

the links also showed that the zoning ordinances or lack thereof is causing more dense housing, so what you're saying is that now you don't want lower regulations?

global warming? Hits all the buzzwords “sustainable” “equitable” “carbon footprint” “access” and so on…
those are your keywords, i don't see them in your first post? in fact the first article said:
"Several people in the audience and attending the meeting virtually said they didn’t think the city had thoroughly studied how the developments would affect the environment, especially the nearby Los Cerritos Wetlands, home to herons, egrets and other wildlife."
both articles in your first post are clearly profit driven strategy by the developers, which i thought was aligned to your beliefs
 
Everyone should be mad about this…Developers (smartly) are using loopholes written by clueless politicians to dense pack apartments into a wealthy area. To be considered “low income” they just have to charge a certain percentage of the area’s median income. In my area that’s pretty high, so even though they have to say that some of the apartments will be “lower rent” (addressing the homeless issue) the vast majority will be $2-$4000 a month. Thick profits for the developer. Additionally, the city waived through their traffic studies (even the developer was laughing about that) and height limitation requirements near the water (6-7 stories tall). Never been done in my area. Someone in city hall got a big sack of cash but it will be the residents that pay the quality of life costs going forward. We are not alone, look at the original article…developers everywhere are putting multi-unit buildings in single family neighborhoods….more mandated destruction in the pursuit of Unicorns and rainbows.
 
More incentive for homeowners to get active politically to ensure their towns/cities have a plan to satisfy the state mandates. I haven’t seen this crop up yet in San Marino or Arcadia and Pasadena has kept a tight lid on it.
 
I live in a want to be a San Francisco city. I actually do know my councilman, the mayor, our state representatives and most of the council itself. It is a notoriously liberal city with very little input from the right. In other words, they’re gonna do whatever the boy king tells them to do. We are lost, but perhaps you can save yourselves🤦🏽‍♂️😂
 
The Motor Court Company said:
you cannot be both "drill, drill and drill" and not "build, build and build"
Click to expand...

Oh, it's so easy to blame all these clueless people, simple solutions, etc

MK hates it when developers have these tax breaks, lack of regulations when they are profit driven and also create housing.
MK loves it when anything oil have tax breaks, lack of regulations when they are profit driven and also serves transportation/infrastructure, etc

But, of course, let's put in the agenda and narrative, blame the left, environmentalists, unicorns...
 
morekaos said:
I live in a want to be a San Francisco city. I actually do know my councilman, the mayor, our state representatives and most of the council itself. It is a notoriously liberal city with very little input from the right. In other words, they’re gonna do whatever the boy king tells them to do. We are lost, but perhaps you can save yourselves🤦🏽‍♂️😂
Click to expand...
There's a reason we always called it Wrong Beach
 
oh, no, don’t get me wrong, I love development I’m a big advocate of them developing along the beach, and it was all for the mall they put up on second and PCH. I think it’s a great addition to the neighborhood. However, this particular set of lots is plain dumb because of the traffic problems it’ll cause. Remember, I know these developers, and they aknowlege that they would never have gotten away with this project until these laws were passed. There is a wonderful section of land just across pch that with the proper infrastructure and streets they could build thousands of units but they can’t because environmentalists won’t let them, even though it’s just a bunch of old oil fields.
 
Haha, so what you’re saying is that you’re so much superior and the lesser thans can live on toxic old oil fields and blame it on the environmentalists?
 
No, build smart. My house is built on old oil fill…I don’t care. Just build what makes the area BETTER…not worse for everyone.
 
morekaos said:
No, build smart. My house is built on old oil fill…I don’t care. Just build what makes the area BETTER…not worse for everyone.
Click to expand...
The developers are obviously smarter.

You may not care about toxic land that causes cancer, but they know that people actually believe in science and won’t want to rent there. Max profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top