News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.7K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Urban Development and Proposals Discussion

artvandelay said:
Based on the age and skin colour of these individuals - they don't deserve to have an opinion!!!
Click to expand...

It's also a weird implication for @Silence&Motion to make.

As I understand it, my assumptions are:
  1. The leaders of CA's are going to be older in general as its a volunteer gig and retirees have more time. That doesn't mean they don't represent the views of their CA.
  2. The majority of the City is opposed to this change, people seem afraid of a City wide vote
  3. My sense is in my CA, the majority oppose this change, despite demographics
  4. The picture I saw of the group with the Mayor seemed mixed gender. Prominently white and older, but not completely.
To be clear, I am hoping council passes the change, I want ROW housing allowed everywhere, but I think I am in the minority.

I think its pretty gross to imply its only old guys that are opposing this change.
 
This whole rezoning scheme is more of a publicity stunt for the City to look like they are doing something to address housing while avoiding more challenging issues.

The only areas where this will have a major impact is the few remaining 1950s suburbs with grid layouts and 50' lots that are still R-C1. Glendale, Wildwood, Brentwood etc. We are not all of the sudden going to see infill duplexes popping up in Lake Chapparal. The dimensions don't work nor does the market exist.

Don't get me wrong, I think those areas should be open for infill development but the notion that this is going to materially impact the market is fantasy.
 
badc0ffee said:
What's kinda the point? I don't understand
Click to expand...
This is being done as a way to streamline the development process, not only saving time (the approximately 4-6 months needed for a land use change) but costs as well (the holding costs of the property for that time period, and the application fees as well).
 
darwink said:
Or think it would be a waste of time and money. And we don't have veto on our neighbours land, we shouldn't have veto on all of our neighbours land.

It would be a huge step back on property rights.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this reply to me to be honest.

I don't necessary disagree with what you wrote and even if I do, not intended to argue it as it wasn't the point of my post and doesn't make sense in the context of my post.

I was providing examples of why its not just old men who are against this. I understand you are providing reasons why people are against a City wide vote- but your reasons do nothing to support the argument that this is only supported by older man, and not other demographics, which was the point of my comment.

I was NOT arguing the merits of a City wide vote on this issue. Only arguing that the fear I see by those who wanted no city wide vote was partly because they felt their is a high risk of loosing it- in addition to what you wrote.

Are you saying you think the City wide vote to allow ROW housing on any lot would succeed? I admit the only data I have is from reading petitions, this forum, talking with my community and the news, but I think a City wide vote is overwhelming NO to this change. Granted, anger speaks louder than support, and my data is hardly scientific, but I think the City population is overwhelming against it.
 
Last edited:
Mull said:
It's also a weird implication for @Silence&Motion to make.

As I understand it, my assumptions are:
  1. The leaders of CA's are going to be older in general as its a volunteer gig and retirees have more time. That doesn't mean they don't represent the views of their CA.
  2. The majority of the City is opposed to this change, people seem afraid of a City wide vote
  3. My sense is in my CA, the majority oppose this change, despite demographics
  4. The picture I saw of the group with the Mayor seemed mixed gender. Prominently white and older, but not completely.
To be clear, I am hoping council passes the change, I want ROW housing allowed everywhere, but I think I am in the minority.

I think its pretty gross to imply its only old guys that are opposing this change.
Click to expand...
I think we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis that is mostly affecting younger and poorer people. Older, wealthier people who already own homes are the main demographic cohort standing in the way of solutions.

I'm sure if we had a plebiscite, rezoning would lose. However, I also think any attempt raise taxes or cut services would also fail a plebiscite. Sometimes political leaders have to make unpopular decisions because it's the only way to deal with a problem.
 
Silence&Motion said:
I think we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis that is mostly affecting younger and poorer people. Older, wealthier people who already own homes are the main demographic cohort standing in the way of solutions.

I'm sure if we had a plebiscite, rezoning would lose. However, I also think any attempt raise taxes or cut services would also fail a plebiscite. Sometimes political leaders have to make unpopular decisions because it's the only way to deal with a problem.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you said. But I also don’t fault these people for voting in their interests. The argument should be how increased density results in less taxes and better services for existing homeowners. Yet the city seems to simply want to say everyone should prefer something against their interests because it will help with housing affordability, which they’d only be tangentially impacted by
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top