Isn’t SFH zoning a legislative construct as well? I don’t think when the first towns came to be that there were all these rules and regulations about what can/cannot be built.
I’m probably not smart enough to debate this further so I’m going to bow out now before I embarrass myself more. Besides it’s not like my bs can change anything here or in real life. 
I don’t think people that are already in California feel obligated to provide affordable housing for all the people who want come here. Despite all the bragging about Texas people would rather live in California.
There are plenty of reasons to not build in CA. Water shortages, traffic air pollution crime. No matter what the yimbyes want there will never be enough or affordable housing. Government policy should be used to make the Midwest more desirable. Especially for the poor and homeless. Personally I would rather live in a house in Muncie than under a bridge in Stockton.
Agree that people would rather live in CA than TX.
Whether or not the people of CA feel obligated to provide housing for those who want to come here, that will be the unintended consequence of these new laws.
CA, and coastal CA in particular, are among the most desirable places in the world. Both LA and Bay Area are firmly established in the minds of global aspirants as prime places to move to due to the prominence of Hollywood and Silicon Valley in popular culture.
So, if we densify here in Bay Area and LA area, people from the world over will fill up all the added housing stock. Kind of like gas expands to fill the space available
Laws are codification of customs and morals.
You are right this is a passed by the California legislature. But, that does not make it right, particularly if overlooks the consequences and the impact it has on the people who are already living there. Search YouTube for abandoned cities and hoods in cities like Chicago, Michigan, Baltimore, Phila. You will find several abandoned homes that must have valued millions of dollars in today’s market had they kept the character of the neighbourhood intact. I will search and share some if you cannot find yourself.
Once you use the power of legislature to overturn the customs and traditions, you do not always end up right.
These homes (in Detriot) must be priced a few millions of dollars had the neighborhood preserved its character.
Similar homes in Bay area would come for at least 2+ million, if we can find some of similar size and design.
You don’t have a monopoly on customs and morals. In a democracy we all get to decide. And deregulating housing regulations aligns very much with mine.
When you decide to abandon your house let me know. I will take the pain away from you.
Many people thought the same and discussed who had monopoly on customs and morals during the peak of the neighborhood you see in the video above.
You will get plenty of opportunity to buy cheap in bay area. You just missed the one that was given in 2017-2019.
Another Berkeley study… ugh… too long to read. Any spin on their conclusions?
Nah, nothing noteworthy. Go enjoy the day!
You just seem to be miserable here in the Bay Area. Why not do yourself a favor and move out? Different areas suit different people. If you see yourself happy in Texas or Dakota why fight it?
I am doing fine in Bay Area. I just do not want Bay Area to become like the one shown in the vidoe above. That is all.
Ok. So you actually like it here. Did not know.
Bay Area ain’t going down, despite generations of people saying that since the great SF earthquake more than 100 years ago.
Earthquakes do not destroy cities and the neighborhood. The mindset and thinking does. People can live in adverse conditions, but not in a destructive mindset and culture. That is why I mentioned morals and costumes - which you think can be overturned to the benefit of a few.
If you think the majority shares your views you are welcome to mobilize and convince others to change the laws. Until that happens that’s the law on the land.
This is a reasonable statement. Basically, it is about who has more power - not what is right?
As California becomes more expensive, the YIMBYs are gaining more power over the NIMBYs. There are more have nots than haves, and since every person gets one vote, the real estate have nots (renters, YIMBYs) are gaining power over the haves (NIMBYs who are a minority of entrenched homeowners). This dynamic looks unlikely to change.
The truth is that California, even in places like Bay Area, still has lot of room to densify. The comparison is no longer to the sparsely populated places in the Midwest or South, but rather to other global urban areas. In comparison to many world cities, Bay Area is still a relaxed, low density place which can be built up and accommodate many more people.
You may wish to wave a wand and stop all this densification (part of me does), but it is inevitable and unstoppable.
That is what I am saying too. The destruction of bay area in unstoppable. It is the same cycle cites before it have gone through - Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore. These cities too destroyed themselves so that they could become affordable and equitable.
