Who Wants To Live Like This?

[quote] Cher, Barbra and the Markle-Windsors

Boris-- tell Vlad he needs to find you better examples of wealthy Californians.

Those three don't work very well in this instance.

Notice Newsom waited until after recall election to sign this bill into law....

This is EXACTLY the kind of shit we were talking about in this thread.

It's disgusting and destructive.

Good for Newsom. We need more housing and less sprawl. The majority of the world lives in multiunit dwellings.

Well he can kiss his ass goodbye. There is NOTHING more important to the middle class and lower working class than their biggest and usually only investment. You know, that thing that has all their savings and money tied up in it? Their fucking home.

If this can be done then he can destroy someone's or a family's most valuable asset and shrink their worth considerably. There will be interesting litigation over this.

The government has failed miserably to resolve the homeless issues and so of course they shift the burden onto the backs of the working and middle class.

Not content to throw only women under the bus I see.

Newsom is really a POS.

Good on Newsom, suburban sprawl is the worst thing about Californian cities.

Face reality CA.

California: Too Extreme For America. The We-Don’t-Believe-in-Electricity PAC is responsible for this ad.

[quote] Good for Newsom. We need more housing and less sprawl. The majority of the world lives in multiunit dwellings.

Sure, Ling Ling.

Just what we need in the US. To be crammed like sardines into multi-unit dwellings: up, down, and side-to-side. Until we have no privacy whatsoever, and paying over $1,000,000 for that luxury.

Because prices STILL will not go down. They'll just keep going up. The only difference is that our space will get smaller, and we'll get less for our money. Oh, and all views of nature will be completely blocked by these "residential" area skyscrapers.

We'll become just like HONG FUCKING KONG.

You stupid fucking cunt.

Will the rich still be able to build their multimillion dollar mansions? Will Newson move into an apartment?

Coming soon to residential neighborhoods all over California.

Five or six story "homes" on one small single family residential lot.

This isn't going to solve the housing issue because CA does not have rent control. I have a friend who has to move every time her lease is up because the rent increase is always more than she and her husband can afford.

R1 R3 R7 R9 R11

OMG! They don't exists!!! Fucking fat ugly troll.

It's always easy as hell to tell who at DL is trolling when it comes to any thread about California...as they speak on things in a way that show they know NOTHING about this state, and what the majority in this state want. And we made that very clear last week.

But go ahead, rant about our issues like you're an expert...just like you same folks were so sure Newsome was going to get recalled.

I don't like his signing the law, but there are some restrictions--one being that the owner has to live on the property for three years after doing a subdivision/conversion. This is meant to prevent corporations exploiting the law.

But, honestly, I think there will be enough votes for a proposition overturning it to end up on the ballot. Older homeowners dominate the electorate in California and while they voted for Newsom (because none of us need a fucking Florida-style plague,) they're not happy about ceding local control to Sacramento.

And before you conservative trolls get excited--California Republicans are a joke--incapable of offering real solutions or alternatives., let alone backing a competent candidate.

R15 The owner has to live there three years BEFORE subdividing.

Where will all the new residents park? Has he thought about the infrastructure that will be required when residency triples?

To be honest, this is such a small gesture. I suspect the only issue it will address is the people from overseas who buy a tract home and have their entire extended family living there. I question whether there would be any profit in new construction with only four units, particularly with CA stringent building codes.

Yeah, derrr, OP.

[bold]You're completely lying and misconstruing the bills.[/bold]

But if trolling on gay spaces is what you need to get your flimsy peen quivering, I guess you gotta do what you gotta do.

R9 has never been to Paris, Barcelona, Berlin.

Also a question we have about the gigantic high rises going up in my neighborhood: what about schools, hospitals, police, recreation? Development brings people who need services. You can’t just bring housing development and neglect other development.

[quote] Well he can kiss his ass goodbye.

He’s secure. The California voters who voted to retain him already have shown that they are fine with voting against their own interests. There’s nothing he can do to the people of CA that will keep the majority from voting for him.

I think it’s precious that some idiots in this thread are worried about increased density ruining a state which is quickly and certainly running out of water to drink and which burns down to the ground every couple of years.

There are people in California who can’t sell their houses because there is no longer an water to pump out of the ground below. This zoning bill is the least of your worries.

R21, this law does not allow gigantic high rises. Again, I don't see new construction being cost effective for just four units. Far more likely is that a tract home will be divided into two apartments- one on each floor, with the entire front yard paved for parking.

Sorry you bitter Republicans and Libertarians lost your stupid recall election that cost the California taxpayer $300 million dollars!

r25, the “fifth largest economy in the world” can afford to throw that much away and not miss it and California wasting taxpayer money is not unusual.

[quote]But go ahead, rant about our issues like you're an expert...just like you same folks were so sure Newsome was going to get recalled.

He's been all over the news for the past week and you STILL can't spell his name?

R26 you're delusional if you think that, and you clearly do not even live in California or really know anything about the BUDGET STRUGGLES that are constantly ongoing and the reason California has higher taxes in some areas than other states. Not to mention the massive amount of money climate change is costing California's disproportionately compared to most other states.

Instead of whining on the internet about your jealousy, you should learn more about California, not just what you see on Fox News and Newsmax.

It's happening all over, not just CA. Housing supply is rather short, and what there is often cost dear atm.

Liberal, socialist, progressive democrats have "restrictive zoning" in their cross hairs for many reasons.

First and foremost they claim it furthers segregation because not everyone can afford a home on large lots.

Two, restrictive zoning contributes to affordability issues and shortage of housing. While USA isn't short of land, space to build in or near where people want to live is at a premium. Restricting things to single family homes, especially on large lots piles onto this issue, well in their minds anyway.

Obama wanted to bust the suburbs. Trump rolled things back, Biden now is taking up from where Obama left off. They are going to bust suburban, rural and any other areas that do not currently have much or any high density housing. Besides zoning federal and state governments and or activists are going to use federal anti-discrimination laws (and by extension HUD) to bring things on home.

Fairfield, Connecticut.

More....

They're not "busting" the suburbs. They are just reducing the subsidies granted to live in them. Roads, water, power, schools, Starbucks are all part of suburban sprawl and they all require a lot of support from the state in order to exist, they all contribute more than their fair share to climate change in the form of pollution and resources.

What the fuck are you babbling on about? R32

True Governor of the People

R33 Go watch some more Newsmax, I'm sure you'll learn all about complex things like "sprawl".

"Let them eat cake!"

Aww, poor little troll didn't get the thread he wanted. Four unit dwellings are all over America already. They're called small condo buildings and townhouses.

R9 = rancid cunt

CA passed a law a year or two ago that prohibited local jurisdictions (cities and counties) from banning "granny flats" or garage conversions. (In other words--you could have another residence on your property that was zoned for one dwelling unit.) I haven't seen a lot of evidence that there's been an upswing in these things yet.

[quote]Liberal, socialist, progressive democrats have "restrictive zoning" in their cross hairs for many reasons.

The "elite" want the middle classes to live among the poor and minorities while they have their mansions behind walls and in gated communities. I will NEVER live with the lower classes. FUCK THAT!

yes, single family homes, water and pesticides for the lawns, SUVs for each occupant of said house, drive-through starbucks on every corner, parking lots as far as the eye can see, widening the 101 and 405 freeways by a few lanes every decade. What could go wrong?

^^^I moved out of St. Louis to get away from the "progressive" prosecutors who are okay with crime, the increasing Bosnian presence and all the crap that happen when "progressives" ruin areas they run.

Great. So they’ll tear down charming old homes in Hollywood snd replace them with hideous, charmless apartment buildings, like they’re doing in South Hollywood.

^^^Where I live now, burglars who get caught in the act, often get shot and killed. I LOVE THAT!!!

R15, the concept of people living in their houses for three years before starting redevelopment is ridiculous, unprovable and pretty unenforceable.

The tragedy is that we have to choose between progressives who keep looking the middle class (more taxes, attacks on zoning laws and meritocracy) and conservatives who keep killing the middle class (anti vaccine propaganda, don't believe in science).

It's exhausting.

I meant keep *killing*, not looking

Well it's not like they're going to start taking people's property away from them to build multiple dwellings on. There's a big enough stock of single family homes in California to keep that sort of lifestyle active for a long time to come. As large as the population of California is they've got to do something for the far away future because if they don't eventually they're going to run out of land available to build a house on at all.

I'm not living with low-class people. The domestic disturbances, the failure to keep their property maintained, the petty thievery, the noise, the leers and hostility they have because they resent you.

Uh, I don't think a half acre plot of land in Beverly Hills with 4-6 houses on it are going to pose that sort of problem. We already have this sort of development in most every city in America. It's called "cluster developments". Many people, especially older folks, like having others close by without having to share walls with them as they would in apartments or condos.

Californians who voted for Newsom

[quote] R9 has never been to Paris, Barcelona, Berlin

So you're saying that because those cities live in cramped quarters, then it's something that we here in the US should be okay with that too?

Go fuck yourself. You're an idiot.

R24 you need to read R11. Because that's exactly what you're going to get whether you believe it or not.

[quote] Aww, poor little troll didn't get the thread he wanted. Four unit dwellings are all over America already. They're called small condo buildings and townhouses.

Your point? That just because it's happening in other cities, that we're all supposed to just let it happen everywhere?

Spoken like a true money-mongering, unscrupulous real estate developer.

[quote] R9 = rancid cunt

This is the kind of useless and angry reply you get, when a stupid person can't argue with the truth.

[quote] the concept of people living in their houses for three years before starting redevelopment is ridiculous, unprovable and pretty unenforceable

Exactly.

Do you know happens when these greedy money hungry asshole property owners, foreigners, and developers break the rules?

They get a MEASLY fine.

So they just break the rules, pay the fine, and keep building.

MONEY FUCKING TALKS. So they pay the politicians, and the politicians turn a blind eye to the rule breaking.

And before you know it, you have a five or six story monstrosity built on a lot that was meant for a single family home.

Then they take up all the street parking, they cram the neighborhood and streets with more people (often transient renters), and they block your views.

THIS is reality. THIS is what is going to happen as a result of what Gavin Newsom signed into law.

How do I know this? It has already fucking happened in my city.

I've never been to Spain.

But I kinda like the music.

PS, now that Gavin Newsom signed this into law, all that chinese money is going to come flowing in to California to build monster homes.

Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

R54, this has been going of for decades, except it is the Koreans. The buy a nice Mellenthin ranch house, tear down everything but the chimney so it is technically a renovation, and build a lot-line to-lot-line monstrosity that looks as if it was designed in mix and match modules.

This bill is an assault of the middle class. Hardworking people who saved their money and bought a home in a peaceful suburb or neighborhood now have this anvil over their head that the neighboring house could be turned into a total of 8 family-units on what was once a single family home. Yes, 8-units. Two duplexes plus potentially one ADU and one junior ADU per divided property. That little tidbit was hidden from the public. Also hidden was the fact that there are no requirements for affordable housing, thereby elimimating any argument that this will help the homeless crisis.

It is incredible that mayors across the state, the LA City Council, reps from historically black neighborhoods like Leimert Park, and groups like the LA Conservancy all vehemently opposed this bill but our state reps and this greasy governor ignored their pleas. This was a Bay Area innovation and if they wanted duplexes, they could have kept it local and let each municipality decide on their own.

Many people enjoy living in suburbs. Housing is more affordable, all services are there, public transport eases the commute, and there’s space to stretch out. There is pleasure in living in a place without sharing walls. I don’t care if the rest of the world lives in dense cities, they have their fair share of problems doing just that. And anyone who can afford it makes damn sure they can get out of dense living the second they get their money saved.

I predict this will be the cause of monstrous lawsuits and will end up defeated in a proposition soon enough.

[quote]There's a big enough stock of single family homes in California to keep that sort of lifestyle active for a long time to come. As large as the population of California is they've got to do something for the far away future because if they don't eventually they're going to run out of land available to build a house on at all.

The majority of California is underpopulated or empty. But those are not places people currently want to live. But we will NEVER "run out of land."

[quote]Spoken like a true money-mongering, unscrupulous real estate developer.

I get it. You're a moron. You think real estate developers want this? It's going to lower prices, genius. There will be more supply. The only people who don't like this are rich people and stupid people and I hate rich people and stupid people.

Another idiot at R57.

r58 Please explain what is idiotic about my post. And consult a map first.

R59, the use of the word 'never' and the idea that land that is pretty much uninhabitable in any real world way should count as habitable land. Also, what your idea leads to is even more issues concerning sprawl and all the horrible things that go with it. Density is the future of human living conditions. Deal with it or find a cave far, far in the woods to live in.

I'm 100% for this. The gut responses on this board say a lot though about the tantrums people instinctively feel when initially considering this legislation.

California has 39 million people and a housing crisis. One of the sources against this legislation says it will only build about 700k new units. Great. That's 1-2% of the population having places to live.

Not everyone who takes advantage of this is going to turn a single home into a 10 unit apartment complex. You'll see lots of families adding on units in their backyards, above garages, etc and often, it's family members who move into those units. This Makes the zoning much easier. You may even see families splitting up houses too.

This is good for property values because a certain percentage of properties are great for adding units. This makes their value go up whether they choose to add units or not.

This is a very conservative idea--you can do what you want with your property and the state is removing boundaries that prevented people from fully utilizing their property or creating rental units to generate income. More units means rental prices stabilize. More units means more affordable housing for people closer to their jobs.

Fun fact: Santa Monica has about the same amount of residents as it did in the 1970s. They allowed zoning changes to build hotels and gigantic office buildings but no residential changes. The result is a healthy tax base (thanks office workers) but unaffordable single family homes that are regularly torn down and rebuilt to monster sizes. And massive amounts of traffic coming in and leaving Santa Monica every day, since there are no more units to rent than before tens of thousands of office workers moved into those new offices. Then that traffic snarls other freeways, like at the 10/405.

Lowering government regulations so people can build more housing. How can anyone be against this.

Fucking NIMBYs are a joke. Everyone agrees that real estate is too expensive in California, the way you lower prices is to build more.

If it freaks you out that a neighboring house might now be converted into four living units instead of one then move to the middle of nowhere South Dakota and buy yourself a huge plot of land r56.

If you live in some major metro area in California it is silly to be afraid of increased density. The LA metro area is the second most populated in America, it needs infill development to increase density and create more housing for people.

two months ago my friend, a real estate broker in San Diego, said to never ever sell my single family house because there will be fewer and fewer of them on the market going forward and the price will go up up up. Now I know why. So there's still no help for the homeless or the middle class whose largest investment, their home, will drop in value. People with upper middle class jobs like physical therapists, new doctors, and psychotherapists are leaving in droves already. Why? NO affordable housing for THEM.

So this is going to destroy property values but also not do anything to stop housing prices from going up and up?

Do the troll farms even bother trying to teach consistency?

Deregulation created by elites who live in gated communities.

The progressive end game

What r64? Like r65 said you gotta pick a lane. Your post is nonsensical.

If you think there is a lack of affordable housing then you should be supporting this.

That was public housing r67 and apartment buildings with 100s of units built by the government, not duplexes or fourplexes built by individuals or landlords which this law allows but doesn't require.

This podcast has a good discussion about single family zoning and the possible effects of this law. The conversation is between journalists who write a lot about affordable housing advocacy and an LA City Council member.

For me it's especially hilarious seeing people shriek about how the wealthy will be exempt or pissed or somehow throw a monkey wrench into this. Wealthy people already have multifamily housing on a "single family" lot--they have in-law apartments, apartments over the garage, a guest house, servant quarters, etc. Remember Kato living in OJ's guest house? Beverly Hills is filled with those. And middle class folks have illegal basement apartments. As the podcast points out, single family home zoning is as much symbolic as it is reality.

It's not going to end well. I've seen what more congestion causes when infrastructure isn't updated. In my area, people scramble to sell out when they get excessive development around them, just adding to the problem. No matter how many houses are built here, the prices and taxes just keep rising. Good luck California, especially with those water shortages that can't be easily fixed.

R70 that's disingenuous. They have much larger lots with tons of space. There's also a difference between family garage apartments vs 4 homes on one lot.

It's not at all disingenuous. The size of the lot simply restricts the size of the home(s). And the bill has a minimum lot size requirement. Of course a bigger lot can "fit" bigger additional residences. The point is the concept it not inherently undesirable.

Is it four homes on one lot (I don't think so) or two-, three-, and four-household condo/townhome type of buildings?

I've never heard the phrase single family zoning before? Not been mentioned in UK politics to best of my knowledge. I'm a bit confused.

R74, if the lot is big enough it can be subdivided with each parcel getting a duplex.

The thing is this is a really modest change, especially considering the bills that preceded it. You're not going to see overwhelming drastic change because there are so many restrictions still and there are other market forces in play. But it likely will expand homeowner opportunities to lower-income families and result in more affordable homes for purchase and rent in many places where the housing market has completely stagnated.

This is a pretty dry breakdown of the law and the restrictions:

R75, it's exactly how it sounds--laws that restrict development on lots in certain areas to a single family home only. It can be misleading though because there are often exceptions made for what are known as in-law or granny apartments. That's the case in CA--in much of the state single family zones already allow some kind of secondary housing on the lot.

And there's also the very common phenomenon of people converting a basement or loft into an illegal apartment that they either gift to a relative or rent off the books.

[quote] So this is going to destroy property values but also not do anything to stop housing prices from going up and up?

Some property values will go up, some will go down. The rich will be fine. If you're middle or even upper middle class and are looking to start a family, then you'll be out of luck.

California will continue to import more low skilled labor so there will never be enough supply to meet demand.

R58 has just recently over-payed in a “transitional” neighborhood and is worried they won’t be able to sell at a 50% profit in five to seven years.

Only 29 percent of LA residents own a home mortgage free.

[quote] Fucking NIMBYs are a joke. Everyone agrees that real estate is too expensive in California, the way you lower prices is to build more.

You're a joke.

California real estate prices will NEVER go down.

You will never "lower prices." Because the minute a property is purchased, the value will appreciate.

The owner will most likely hold it for a little while and flip it, or they will rent/lease it out for exorbitant prices.

And if you think that these "benevolent" multi-unit builders will all of sudden feel generous and lower prices, you are a FOOL. And sadly mistaken.

You know what this law allows them to do? Instead of renting out one single family unit for $3000-$4000 per month, they will now be able to split that ONE home into FOUR or EIGHT units, and charge the same price for leases or rentals.

Their income has now QUADRUPLED or multiplied by EIGHT TIMES, all in the same amount of space.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY, you lying, greedy assholes.

Whereas a property owner was only pulling in $4000 per month? They are now able to pull in $16,000 per month. Or even $32,000 per month, by building multiple units.

This is what the law will allow. Greedy landowners to make more and more money, at the expense, convenience, and peace of mind of their neighbors.

So why is this upsetting to people? Why are people saying Barbra Streisand won't like the effect on her etc? r77

r82 Surely the bubble you describe will have to burst at some point?

R84 The bubble won't burst as long as we keep growing the population.

R85 The population of California is declining.

"...even if COVID-19 had not reared its ugly head, California would still have lost population due to long-term demographic trends — declining births, increasing deaths due to the aging of the population, a much-slowed rate of foreign immigration and losses in state-to-state migrations."

We don't need more housing we need more water to support the existing population, better infrastructure to support the transport of that water (remember the 100 year old water main failing and flooding UCLA with nearly 10 million gallons of water? - two months later the same pipe burst flooding West Hollywood) and water to fight the larger and larger fires we have every year. We also need a working electric grid that doesn't cause those fires every year, doesn't cause brown outs every heatwave, and can support all the electric cars that we will be required to have.

[quote] We don't need more housing

The imbalance between supply and demand;[24]: 1 [2]: 1 [1]: 3 [25]: 1 [26]: 2 [27]: 1  resulted from of strong economic growth creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs (which increases demand for housing) and the insufficient construction of new housing units to provide enough supply to meet the demand.[28]: 1 [29]: 1 [30]: 1 [31][1]: 14,17  [32]: 1  Fewer housing units built in the urban and coastal areas relative to the demand created by economic growth in those areas resulted in higher prices for housing and spillover to the inland areas.[1]: 3  For example, from 2012 to 2017, San Francisco Bay area cities added 400,000 new jobs, but only issued 60,000 permits for new housing units.[33]: 1 [27]: 1 [34]: 1  (For California as a whole, from 2011 to 2016, the state added only one new housing unit for every five new residents.)[21]: 1  This has driven home prices and rents to high levels, such that by 2017, the median price of a home across California was more than 2.5 times the median in the U.S. as a whole, and in California's coastal urban areas, (where the majority of job growth has occurred since the Great Recession), the shortages are greater.

Several factors have together caused constraints on the construction of new housing.

California is ending a rule that helped cause its housing crisis Gov. Newsom signed bills ending single-family-only zoning, a step toward addressing the housing crisis.

While overhauling single-family-only zoning might sound revolutionary, the bills are gentle attempts at increasing density: legalizing duplexes and quadplexes and making it easier to build small apartment buildings that provide up to 10 homes. This doesn’t mean single-family homes are outlawed or can no longer be built, but it provides homeowners the option to convert their homes into duplexes or sell their homes to people who want to do so. Before now, it was illegal for someone to convert their home to a duplex on a lot zoned for single-family zoning. Not anymore.

This isn’t a panacea for housing production. UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that SB 9 (the bill that legalizes duplexes) will “modestly accelerate the addition of new units relative to the status quo.” Other laws that restrict the building of new and more affordable homes are still in effect — in particular, local laws around minimum lot sizes will continue to make it illegal to turn single-family homes into duplexes if the existing lot is too small to subdivide while still adhering to the size regulations.

However, the Terner Center finds that “approximately 700,000 new, market-feasible homes would be enabled under SB 9.” That’s a lot! But because many people won’t want to sell their homes or subdivide them themselves, “only a share of that potential is likely to be developed, particularly in the near term. ... As such, while important, the new units unlocked by SB 9 would represent a fraction of the overall supply needed to fully address the state’s housing shortage.”

Previous incremental progress on housing production came in the form of ADU (accessory dwelling unit) legalization — for constructing backyard apartments or converting garages into homes. This added more than 20,000 new homes to the state’s housing supply.

. . . This is still the beginning of a long fight to make it easier to build affordable housing in California, but it’s a big moment. Ending single-family-only zoning had long been thought of as impossible. California is pushing the possibilities frontier of states taking action where localities have failed with respect to producing enough housing for their populations. And they’re not the first to pursue a policy in this vein: In 2019, Oregon passed a bill mandating that any city with over 10,000 people allow duplexes in areas zoned for single-family-only housing. This effectively banned single-family-only zoning in that state as well.

This achievement was hard-won by legislators and pro-housing advocates who helped elect them, and it signals a shift in who is deemed responsible for fixing the housing crisis. Housing is still largely seen as a local issue, but as the regional and even national effects begin to be widely recognized, states are feeling the pressure to take action.

“The end of exclusionary, single-unit zoning in California is a historic moment — we’ve taken a huge step toward making California a more affordable, equitable, and inclusive state,” Brian Hanlon, CEO of California YIMBY, said in a statement.

Again:

This achievement was hard-won by legislators and pro-housing advocates who helped elect them, and it signals a shift in who is deemed responsible for fixing the housing crisis. Housing is still largely seen as a local issue, but as the regional and even national effects begin to be widely recognized, states are feeling the pressure to take action.

I'm amused by the idiot who thinks voting against the recall was dooming us. I mean, one in 400 Floridians is dead because Repugs run that state. There are more deaths than births for the first time in Alabama's history because Repugs run that state. Repugs have denied basic science making it harder and harder to prevent the worst of global warming.

And you actually think voting to oust Newsom and bring in an idiotic talk show host or a dumber-than-dirt former athlete is a good idea? That's why Republicans are a joke in this state. You don't even know how out-of-touch with reality you are.

Here's the deal--the housing crisis is real, but so is the negative impact of having somebody put up a four-plex on 5,000-foot lot next door to you. It impacts traffic, schools, the use of a backyard, sunlight, parking, all sorts of stuff. It's all very well to tell someone who owns a house to put up with it.

As long as it's not you. It would really help if the left and right quit demonizing everyone who disagrees with them and started to recognize that there are different *legitimate* interests here.

R57, no the state is not underinhabited--part of the reason the fires have become so dire is that people are building closer to natural areas and, of course, there's insufficient water for all the people and agriculture.

My personal take is that a lot of people don't *need* to be here now that it's been shown that long-distance working is fine for a lot of jobs. Let's end 80 percent of commuting.

Oh, and let's do something about hedge-fund investors buying up huge chunks of housing stock. I mean, when you have unaffordable housing, that's the last thing you need.

This is what you wanted. Too late to start sulking now, bitches.

[quote] This achievement was hard-won by legislators and pro-housing advocates

Then why are all the politicians/organizations listed at R56 against it?

"It is incredible that mayors across the state, the LA City Council, reps from historically black neighborhoods like Leimert Park, and groups like the LA Conservancy all vehemently opposed this bill but our state reps and this greasy governor ignored their pleas."

You're full of shit.

So OP thought coming to a board of gay men who largely like cities and urban living was a winning move? Complaining about denser housing when a lot of this board lives in NY?

Maybe you will have better luck with some frau board, "think of the children!!!"

You are fucking bizarre, R94.

Are you honestly a proponent of cramming people together in close quarters where your neighbors can see and hear everything you do?

Where we would have absolutely no privacy and ridiculously high rents/leases?

I honestly don't see your logic here.

It's as if you're saying, "Yes, please make life harder, worse, and more expensive for everyone!"

People like you have absolutely no credibility.

R95 Agreed. And during a pandemic no less. And when we are facing environmental crisis after environmental crisis. These people are fucking bizarre as you say. Apparently being gay is a magic shield where you don't have to deal with the world's problems.

[quote] The population of California is declining.

It needs to decline even further. We don't have the infrastructure or economy to support the people already here.

Yes r95. I like urban living, I like beingg able to walk and take public transportation to things.

Suburbs of little boxes in cul-de-sacs with their manicured grass and having to drive to do anything sounds awful. Density is great.

After reading link in R89 am not surprised people are leaving California.

It's fascinating to me that people on DL who overwhelmingly think going to the office is old fashioned, that a year and a half into the pandemic thinks there aren't enough safety protocols, that complains about paying to go to the movies or theater, complains about man made climate change, general rudeness and lack of manners are in support of even denser and more multilingual cities. These are the same people who obsess about perfect English grammar in entire threads.

So much corruption in California politics.

They should stop foreign ownership. Rich foreigners buy huge amounts of housing for investments.

Who cares about foreign investors? I just don't want 6 families in the yard next door. Pretty simple, no?

[quote] Who cares about foreign investors? I just don't want 6 families in the yard next door. Pretty simple, no?

The two are most definitely related.

The foreign investor will buy a property and then build a multi-unit dwelling, and they will not give a flying fuck.

Because they don't have to live there. Hell, they don't even live in this country.

So yeah, you SHOULD care about foreign investors.

The country is pretty much empty, yet we encourage people to live one on top of another in clusters.

Shifting the blame on foreign investors is convenient, as if domestic investors would never stoop so low. Ultimately, it's the governor who's enabling it. He's not foreign as far as I know. I bet he is unaffected by this. Fuck him.

People go to live in the suburbs precisely to avoid living like rabbits in a cage, as you can see in large cities. And now we're enabling the suburbs to become like that too. American suburbs might, one day, become like their infamous French counterparts. Google it, it's nothing pretty (unless you enjoy burning cars for Christmas).

Again, I don't want 6 families living on the plot next door. Send them somewhere else.

When the average person buys a house, it is likely the biggest investment they’ll ever make. You pour your blood, sweat and tears into the place. And you’ve entered into a contract with the city you move to. Biggest clause in that contract: You can’t build willy-nilly. Even though I own that land and structure, I have to obey setbacks, maximum square footage allowances, building codes, etc. I have to obey noise ordinances, so I can’t mow my lawn at midnight. In some areas, there are CCRs and HOAs. My CCR doesn’t permit double story homes. You get the idea.

And now, we have moronic, destructive state legislators and an oily, vengeful governor who have invalidated that social contract homeowners have with their locales. Building a 6-8 family unit is unconscionable when the neighborhood is zoned for single family homes. In one fell swoop, SB 9 and 10 allows for setbacks of four feet (and in some cases none, allowing your neighbor to build up to the property line), eliminates environmental studies, has no provisions for parking, increasing services, including schools and does fuck all for affordable housing.

This is fraudulent and pernicious attempt to punish the average homeowner and ruin their quality of life. Live in the city if you want to, live in multi-family housing and share walls and yards all you want, but most of us want a little peace and quiet and we worked hard to give ourselves the lifestyle we want.

Thanks for doing the research R106.

I'm glad you pointed out what this law will enable those people to do.

It's a nightmare.

Standing ovation for r106. That’s exactly the point.

So who owns the land? The one person and then he rents the other dwellings out?

Isn't it just a way around some areas having large lot requirements?

Do the "developers" have to do an environmental and other impact study on the proposed additional housing and population increase?

So they want to essentially take a residential area and make it quasi-commercial.

This will, of course, lower the property values of the homes already existing. Will they compensate the home owners for this loss of value in - for many - their largest asset?

There are other ways to tackle this problem without destroying or diminishing established neighborhoods.

This is the goal as far as I can see. Not more housing for those who need it but disrupting the status quo for that reason alone. The more affordable housing is a ruse to achieve a political goal. Lower income families often need public transportation and these neighborhoods don't have that. They need nearby commercial establishments and these neighborhoods don't normally have that. Also why do we think that these homes will still be afforable. Who exactly is their target population?

I am always amused at the idea that you can just relocate people to neighborhoods that don't really fit their needs just so you can boast that you did something you think is virtuous.

When I was younger, much younger, I would drive through this great neighborhood and I really wanted to live there. What did I do. I figured otu what I needed to make to afford it and I worked harder and got a better job and saved and eventually I was able to afford living there.

Busting up or trying to completely change established neighborhoods that do are doing nothing wrong except existing at a level some outsiders have decided are somehow offensive to their sensibilities is what is offensive.

Anyone who is concerned with quality of life isn’t living in a suburb of L.A. because all you cunts moan, day in and day out, is how horrible it is. It’s always something to be bitched about: water shortages, heat waves, home prices skyrocketing, hours-long commutes, earthquakes, homeless people on the sidewalk. It hasn’t seemed like people who live in these places have any quality of life to ruin for the last decade or more.

The moaners in this thread are most likely people who bought into a runaway market bubble and are worried now that they won’t double their money in a decade like they were told they would.

I love the sound of whiny rich people in the afternoon.

[quote] I love the sound of whiny rich people in the afternoon.

None of the people complaining about this are rich asshole. Rich people won't have their lives impacted in any way.

R110 Nope, I’m born, bred and living in LA and LA suburbs my entire life. Family has been here for generations. We have a great quality of life. Most suburbs have law and order, so we don’t have bums shitting on our sidewalks. Funny how you’ll never see a homeless person in Beverly Hills…gee, I wonder why? Even in Pasadena, they’ll tolerate a few in Old Town, but the minute they started camping, it was torn down within 48 hours…keep it movin’, folks.

Earthquakes are a part of life here. Wildfires are partly the result of poor forest management. In my youth, the government would do controlled burns to reduce risk but that policy went to the wayside as environmentalists got their way.

The problem is that our legislators cater to the lowest common denominators, criminals and huge coroporate lobbies (including tech). The middle class is being fucked raw by anti-business, anti-homeowner and pro-criminal policies. Prop 13 has been in the crosshairs for years and again, will fuck over the middle class.

R111 You type poor. Sorry you couldn’t save enough for your own place. Most homeowners are MIDDLE CLASS. Even historically black neighborhoods were ardently against this because it’ll ruin their neighborhoods. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which has a housing arm, was against it. Do your fucking research.

Actually this is to protect the land from development by increasing the density of the city.

R114 Protect the land? California has a lot more land. Why not develop it? Is it better to make the existing land uninhabitable?

r82 That's a really silly perspective. If a house rents for $4000 per month and is broken down into 8 units, the new units won't rent for $4k each.

This is also something that will potentially take 10-20 years to accomplish....There's not enough builders in the state to transform the place overnight. Maybe more will come but there is also materials involved, bulldozing, etc....It's going to take a while, years even, before you see the first multi-unit buildings coming from this zoning change.

This is excellent. I hope the racists and elitists hightail it to Bumblefuck, Wyoming en masse where it'll be easier to nuke 'em.

R117 If these "racists and elitists" end up leaving California in droves, then you'll wish to hightail it too once the shit hits the fan.

.............