Nutty California

mac · Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:51 pm Post subject:

Of course the issues of providing more housing are much more complicated than Techno has any interest in examining. For just one example, in the hills above Berkeley, Richmond and Oakland, there is a very old road network and a present rising fire risk from climate change. There is at present no way to mandate enough vegetation removal, road improvement, or parking restrictions that can be implemented to safely evacuate the people that live there now. Adding new units would have a tiny impact on net housing availability, but increase public risk. It would also be in areas not well served by existing mass transit. I happen to think that government, when it becomes aware of a bad pattern of land use like these old areas, has a responsibility to try to protect the public.

Increasing density, both to reduce the carbon signature of new residents, and to accommodate new residents feasibly, is a very complicated issue. It requires cooperation between government and business, and often the education of the public. I think the proposal by Woodside--which used to be the funky home for hippies and artists--is silly. But whatever is done in Woodside won't affect the number of units built in the Bay area appreciably. Further, neither Techno nor his sources will admit that this represents a failure of the market system. One of the unresolved issues here is the impact of vacant units held speculatively on the overall supply and demand picture. Some have argued that there are 40,000 vacant units in San Francisco, and that the influence of the real estate industry on the tax code makes holding some of those units speculatively, rather than reducing the asking rent price and getting them occupied possible. Techno's BFF, fat Donny, promised us reform that would make that impossible--but created new subsidies.

Trolls rarely provide analysis, but try to trigger outrage. How sad.

techno900 · Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4162

mac · Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:08 pm Post subject:

Congratulations Techno, you will gladly support a scofflaw if he belongs to your tribe. The death of integrity on the right proceeds apace.

mac · Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:08 pm Post subject:

Congratulations Techno, you will gladly support a scofflaw if he belongs to your tribe. The death of integrity on the right proceeds apace.

techno900 · Joined: 28 Mar 2001 Posts: 4162

I can't imagine the complexities of building and developing in Calif. with the infinite number of regulations, a self-inflicted calamity. Actually, I can, my brother is an architect in San Diego, and he keeps me informed.

But, are you guys for or against SB 9? Probably for it as long as your next-door neighbor's lot doesn't become a low rent multifamily property. Then again, low rent doesn't exist in Calif. unless it's along the LA river.

coachg · Joined: 10 Sep 2000 Posts: 3550

Been down this road Techno. Yes, we have more regulations, but the benefits of those regulation is healthier food, better health care and greater longevity than NC. Besides, it is not like NC hasn’t tried to put up it’s own regulations by trying to limit black voting rights.

And no, I have no problem with SB 9, why should I?

Coachg

mac · Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2022 6:12 pm Post subject:

And of course, because of the Coastal Commission, and state and local governments that have built parks and roads, we can actually get to our beaches and go windsurfing. What a thought, go to a park. Require houses to survive an earthquake. Make sure the water is clean. Things the market doesn't provide.

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

mac posted the following:

"BY DAN WEIKEL
DEC. 9, 2016 3 AM PT
For decades, some Malibu property owners have made it hard for the public to reach public beaches.

On Thursday, the California Coastal Commission fined two of those property owners more than $5.1 million for denying surfers, sand castle builders, kite flyers, sun bathers, yoga enthusiasts and other beachgoers access to the sand that is theirs by state law.

In one of those decisions, the commission had battled for nine years with Dr. Warren M. Lent and his wife, Henny, before unanimously approving Thursday’s cease-and-desist order for the couple and fining them about $4.2 million for diverting a public easement to private use at an expensive oceanfront rental they own at Las Flores Beach.

Commissioners described the Lent case as “very egregious” and a “flagrant violation” of state law because the couple had long refused a commission request to remove an unauthorized gate, fence, stairway and deck that blocked an easement required by a coastal development permit issued to a previous owner. The fine was far more than the $950,000 recommended by the agency’s staff."

Given the truth missing from the WSJ article, do you still feel for Warren Lent? As a windsurfer, would you side with a guy like Lent when one of your favorite sailing locations was blocked and you were denied reasonable access?

Believe it or not, the CCC does have the interest of regular Californians in mind. Given free reign, rich folks like Lent would make it impossible to access the beach. Speaking for myself, I'm glad that he was stung hard and made an example of for the problems he has caused for years.

mrgybe · Joined: 01 Jul 2008 Posts: 5180