A Los Angeles judge has ruled that a densification plan for Hollywood is “fatally flawed because the city failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts and alternatives. The plan called for lifting height restrictions so developers could construct higher-density housing.
In an all-too familiar refrain, planners argued that the plan would transform the community into a “vibrant center of jobs, residential towers and public transportation.” But neighborhood groups opposed the plan, saying it would “push out longtime stakeholders, harm neighborhoods, overtax our infrastructure, and overburden our already gridlocked streets and freeways.” The judge’s 41-page decision concluded that the environmental impact report contained “errors of fact and of law.”
California environmentalists persuaded the legislature to pass so many environmental laws that it is practically impossible to comply with them all, and then used those laws to beat down proposals for new roads and suburban development. Now those laws are coming back to bite them as they try to impose their high-density visions on various communities.
The medicine mouthsofthesouth.com viagra sans prescription canada is easy obtainable at any registered pharmaceutical store. It helps to achieve and maintain erection for desired time period and is useful for absolutely hassle free mouthsofthesouth.com purchase cheap viagra act. Obesity affects natural and assisted pregnancies Obesity buy generic levitra mouthsofthesouth.com makes it more challenging to become pregnant, no matter whether a generic edition is accessible, and asking your medical doctor when the generic kind could be equally successful in your case. mouthsofthesouth.com viagra ordination The adoption of immunosuppressive medicine will cause infections of different parts, like lung infection, urinary tract infection, let be familiar with the important organs of this system.
Thanks to urban-growth boundaries and other restraints, 95 percent of Californians are confined to 5.5 percent of the land area of the state, and the state’s urbanites live in the highest densities of those of any state in the country. This has made the state’s housing so unaffordable that developers would be happy to build higher densities if they were allowed to do so. But it would make more sense to give up the growth boundaries and let people live the way they want to live.
I really don’t get you. Why not let people live the way they want to live? Some people actually like high density living, you know! Why not remove the planning restrictions that prevent those communities from being built? I mean, sure, loosen those restrictions on growth boundaries, too (but make people pay for all those new freeways, sewers, and fire/police/ambulances via higher property taxes in those areas! At the very least let’s not subsidize “growth”). But why not loosen restrictions on building in the city center, too?
That’s because only a small minority want to live in density, according to the 2013 Community Preference Survey by the National Association of Realtors:
By a two-to-one ratio, people prefer mixed-use suburbs. Nearly three out of four prefer a SFH to a condo/apartment/townhome building.
In other words, only a small minority of “people actually like high density living, you know!”
There’s no urban growth boundary in LA County. Go to Santa Clarita, Lancaster, or Palmdale, and they’ll let you build as many SFRs as your heart desires.
There’s also no UGB in Orange County… or Riverside County… or San Bernardino County. The reason housing is expensive in SoCal is that the majority of flat land in LA & OC has already been developed, and zoning prevents the market from building the denser structures it obviously wants to build.
In other words, only a small minority of “people actually like high density living, you know!”
Then you should have no problem getting rid of the zoning restrictions that prevent density. If no one wants it, it won’t get built.
letsgola spaketh:
Then you should have no problem getting rid of the zoning restrictions that prevent density. If no one wants it, it won’t get built.
You’re wasting your time here, letsgola. For the most part the crowd that posts here simply ignores facts that are contrary to the rhetorical ideological arguments they want to make, and discounts the overwhelming empirical evidence that DOWNZONING is responsible for much if not the lion’s share of housing price skyrocketing in California and other coastal areas documented by Zoned Out by Jonathan Levin and many other books and academic research.
“Then you should have no problem getting rid of the zoning restrictions that prevent density. ”
No problem at all. Nor do I have a problem with getting rid of many other zoning restrictions and inane city regs.
Wait, wait, so height restrictions and environmental laws are good things now?
Gee, Frank and I agree on something, for once!
From my perch here in the North Bay, I also sit amused as the sturm und drang spewing forth from the more highly self-conscious “progressives” (read affluent, pointy-headed NIMBYs really trying to protect their oh-so-precious property values) in San Francisco right now over the alleged problem of Googleites and other high technies overrunning The City’s housing markets and bidding up prices. Instead of even more draconian regulations restricting evictions when property owners want to move into their own property, intellectually honest overtly self-conscious “progressives” would be pushing for A LOT more apartment construction, not just high rise $1 million+ condos on the S.F. waterfront and downtown.
A successful example of someone who has successfully cut off NIMBYS at the knees* is Berkeley developer Patrick Kennedy (http://www.panoramic.com/), who has never used redevelopment or other subsidies (that I know of!)–is now moving into San Francisco (though probably a lot more guys like him is needed there to make a significant dent in the housing shortage).
I’m also disappointed that most of the former Alameda Naval Air Station, including most of the taxiways and runways, was turned into a bird sanctuary rather than 20,000+ housing units that could have been a 15-minute ferry ride to/from downtown San Francisco. But I digress…
——-
* Simple. Kennedy simply set aside a few apartments in each of his projects designed specifically for persons with disabilities, at very low rents…and then just sat back and dared the bleeding heart Berkeley “powers that be” and the NIMBYs to argue against projects benefiting Kennedy’s disabled allies, e.g., with 2-3 or more folks in wheelchairs in the room at the time. His strategy is blatently obvious to everyone but it still works like a charm every time.
Why not remove the planning restrictions that prevent those communities from being built?
That’s exactly what the anti-planner types want: loosening Euclidean zoning so the market can take over and build what the markets want. Look at how many times that is argued here…oh, wait.
DS
The reason housing is expensive in SoCal is that the majority of flat land in LA & OC has already been developed, and zoning prevents the market from building the denser structures it obviously wants to build.
If this were really the case, why don’t we see block after block of development built to the maximum density allowable by law?
That’s exactly what the anti-planner types want: loosening Euclidean zoning so the market can take over and build what the markets want. Look at how many times that is argued here…oh, wait.
Maybe it’s because among the litany of counterproductive regulations promoted by the planning class, zoning doesn’t rank very high in terms of priority when it comes to resulting social harm.
why don’t we see block after block of development built to the maximum density allowable by law?
Um…because we do?
DS