California Has a Controversial Plan to Solve Its Housing Crisis. Drivers Aren’t Going to Like It. – Mother Jones: "SB 827 would allow developers to bypass nearly all local zoning requirements within a half mile of a major transit stop, and build multi-family housing between four to eight stories high with no parking space requirements. (The state defines transit stops as a rail, ferry, or bus stop with two or more lines that run at least every 15 minutes.) “California is in a deep housing crisis—threatening our state’s environment, economy, diversity, and quality of life—and needs an enormous amount of additional housing at all income levels,” bill sponsor and California Democratic Sen. Scott Wiener said in a Medium post. Wiener believes that the legislation will promote the construction of more housing; bring down housing costs by increasing supply; and create communities that emit a smaller carbon footprint by relying less on cars. Transportation makes up roughly a quarter of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and 39 percent of California’s."
------------
The idea is to do something about the insane cost of housing and the housing shortage in California while dealing with the environmental issues. The solution: let builders do whatever they want as long as it is within half a mile of a public transportation stop.
-------------
4 comments:
“The solution: let builders do whatever they want as long as it is within half a mile of a public transportation stop.”
Sure...what could go wrong?!?
All nice and dandy. But until the state addresses terminating or voiding restrictive covenants a mere zoning change won't be enough to enable building multi-family housing as visioned.
It would just be easier to require employees to live in corporate-owned barracks or dorms at the company site. That way, there would be no need for people to commute to work. Rent and utility payments could automatically be deducted from the employee's pay check, making the transaction simpler for all parties involved. And the employers could also sell goods and services to their employees at an on-site "company store", thus negating the need for the employees to go anywhere else to shop.
As the population is packed into ultra-dense corporate-owned housing, developed land could then be re-claimed for parks, open space, nature, etc. Of course, since government is demonstrably inefficient and corrupt, these new nature zones would have to be privately owned. Think of the environmental benefits of excluding the "public" from nature, which should be reserved for the select few who can afford to enjoy it.
It's a policy proposal that both right-wing robber-baron corporatists and left-wing limousine-liberal environmentalists can agree upon! People exist to serve the economy, not the other way around. It's about time America stopped pretending otherwise.
It would just be easier to require employees to live in corporate-owned barracks or dorms at the company site. That way, there would be no need for people to commute to work. Rent and utility payments could automatically be deducted from the employee's pay check, making the transaction simpler for all parties involved. And the employers could also sell goods and services to their employees at an on-site "company store", thus negating the need for the employees to go anywhere else to shop.
As the population is packed into ultra-dense corporate-owned housing, developed land could then be re-claimed for parks, open space, nature, etc. Of course, since government is demonstrably inefficient and corrupt, these new nature zones would have to be privately owned. Think of the environmental benefits of excluding the "public" from nature, which should be reserved for the select few who can afford to enjoy it.
It's a policy proposal that both right-wing robber-baron corporatists and left-wing limousine-liberal environmentalists can agree upon! People exist to serve the economy, not the other way around. It's about time America stopped pretending otherwise.
Post a Comment