Commiefornia Putting A End To Single Family Homes

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#1
to save the earth... The first state that signed onto cap and trade scheme.

California Declares War on Suburbia


By WENDELL COX

It's no secret that California's regulatory and tax climate is driving business investment to other states. California's high cost of living also is driving people away. Since 2000 more than 1.6 million people have fled, and my own research as well as that of others points to high housing prices as the principal factor.
The exodus is likely to accelerate. California has declared war on the most popular housing choice, the single family, detached home—all in the name of saving the planet.

Metropolitan area governments are adopting plans that would require most new housing to be built at 20 or more to the acre, which is at least five times the traditional quarter acre per house. State and regional planners also seek to radically restructure urban areas, forcing much of the new hyperdensity development into narrowly confined corridors.

In San Francisco and San Jose, for example, the Association of Bay Area Governments has proposed that only 3% of new housing built by 2035 would be allowed on or beyond the "urban fringe"—where current housing ends and the countryside begins. Over two-thirds of the housing for the projected two million new residents in these metro areas would be multifamily—that is, apartments and condo complexes—and concentrated along major thoroughfares such as Telegraph Avenue in the East Bay and El Camino Real on the Peninsula.

For its part, the Southern California Association of Governments wants to require more than one-half of the new housing in Los Angeles County and five other Southern California counties to be concentrated in dense, so-called transit villages, with much of it at an even higher 30 or more units per acre.

To understand how dramatic a change this would be, consider that if the planners have their way, 68% of new housing in Southern California by 2035 would be condos and apartment complexes. This contrasts with Census Bureau data showing that single-family, detached homes represented more than 80% of the increase in the region's housing stock between 2000 and 2010.

The campaign against suburbia is the result of laws passed in 2006 (the Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and in 2008 (the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act) on urban planning. The latter law, as the Los Angeles Times aptly characterized it, was intended to "control suburban sprawl, build homes closer to downtown and reduce commuter driving, thus decreasing climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions." In short, to discourage automobile use.
If the planners have their way, the state's famously unaffordable housing could become even more unaffordable.

Over the past 40 years, median house prices have doubled relative to household incomes in the Golden State. Why? In 1998, Dartmouth economist William Fischel found that California's housing had been nearly as affordable as the rest of the nation until the more restrictive regulations, such as development moratoria, urban growth boundaries, and overly expensive impact fees came into effect starting in the 1970s. Other economic studies, such as by Stephen Malpezzi at the University of Wisconsin, also have documented the strong relationship between more intense land-use regulations and exorbitant house prices.

The love affair urban planners have for a future ruled by mass transit will be obscenely expensive and would not reduce traffic congestion. In San Diego, for example, an expanded bus and rail transit system is planned to receive more than half of the $48.4 billion in total highway and transit spending through 2050. Yet transit would increase its share of travel to a measly 4% from its current tiny 2%, according to data in the San Diego Association of Governments regional transportation plan. This slight increase in mass transit ridership would be swamped by higher traffic volumes.

Higher population densities in the future means greater traffic congestion, because additional households in the future will continue to use their cars for most trips. In the San Diego metropolitan area, where the average one-way work trip travel time is 28 minutes, only 14% of work and higher education locations could be reached within 30 minutes by transit in 2050. But 70% or more of such locations will continue to be accessible in 30 minutes by car.

Rather than protest the extravagance, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris instead has sued San Diego because she thinks transit was not favored enough in the plan and thereby violates the legislative planning requirements enacted in 2006 and 2008. Her predecessor (Jerry Brown, who is now the governor) similarly sued San Bernardino County in 2007.

California's war on suburbia is unnecessary, even considering the state's lofty climate-change goals. For example, a 2007 report by McKinsey, co-sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, concluded that substantial greenhouse gas emissions reductions could be achieved while "traveling the same mileage" and without denser urban housing. The report recommended cost-effective strategies such as improved vehicle economy, improving the carbon efficiency of residential and commercial buildings, upgrading coal-fired electricity plants, and converting more electricity production to natural gas.

Ali Modarres of the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles has shown that a disproportionate share of migrating households are young. This is at least in part because it is better to raise children with backyards than on condominium balconies. A less affordable California, with less attractive housing, could disadvantage the state as much as its already destructive policies toward business.

Mr. Cox, a transportation consultant, served three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission under the late Mayor Tom Bradley.
California also recently spent 200 thousand dollars to move a shrub for the earth.

A lot of these Californians are moving to my state and they are voting for the same assholes they voted for in California. You would think they would have learned that they ruined California by voting for these big government liberals.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#3
A lot of these Californians are moving to my state and they are voting for the same assholes they voted for in California. You would think they would have learned that they ruined California by voting for these big government liberals.
Since when do you own Colorado?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,519
22,181
398
Northern California
#4
Haha finally! Fuck you Jersey! I thought Kirk forgot about us out here.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,332
37,391
628
In a porn tree
#5
Since when do you own Colorado?
Since his mommy borned him there and he never left there and he'll die there and that's where he's sheltered and safe. It's HIS state, dammit!
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#6
Haha finally! Fuck you Jersey! I thought Kirk forgot about us out here.
The more liberal a state is the less liberties you have.



BIG GOVERNMENT = small liberty

A new study supports this maxim.

"New York, New Jersey and California are the least free in the U.S., based on an index of public policies affecting your individual freedoms...rankings are based economic, social and personal freedoms of Americans and include measures such as taxes, government spending and regulations."



Democrats love BIG GOVERNMENT because it gives them the power over the lives of others. Democrats want to control your earnings, how you consume energy, the products you buy, the food you eat, how you travel and how you raise your children.

"California ‘aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens’ and ‘needs to cut government spending’, the report said."

california aggressively interferes personal lives citizens cut government spending report


With all the Californians moving to my state I'm sure we will be a dark shade of blue at some point.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#7
Sweet infographic from a British tabloid. And again, since when do you own Colorado?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,332
37,391
628
In a porn tree
#8
With all the Californians moving to my state I'm sure we will be a dark shade of blue at some point.
And then what will you do? I mean, it's not like you'll ever have the balls to leave your fortress of sheltered solitude and venture out into the big scary world and go elsewhere.

You should probably start digging a subterranean habitat now... a lair in which you can hide from all of the freedom-grabbing Californians who are invading Kirkarado.

Oh... and I currently live in a "Most Free" state where there are no Californians invading... so nanner nanner boo boo.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#9
Sweet infographic from a British tabloid. And again, since when do you own Colorado?
So according to you Commiefornia, Nanny Jersey, and New Police State are bastions of freedoms?
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#11
So according to you Commiefornia, Nanny Jersey, and New Police State are bastions of freedoms?
No, according to me you posted a shitty science-less picture that you got from a site associated with a shitty UK "newspaper" that most Brits wouldnt even read in the loo. You might as well post something from graphjam.com and claim that as fact.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,332
37,391
628
In a porn tree
#12
So according to you Commiefornia, Nanny Jersey, and New Police State are bastions of freedoms?
How long before the Californian hordes turn Kirkarado in Commierado? Have they already started cleansing the blood lines in YOUR state or are they still in the conspiring stage?
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#13
No, according to me you posted a shitty science-less picture that you got from a site associated with a shitty UK "newspaper" that most Brits wouldnt even read in the loo. You might as well post something from graphjam.com and claim that as fact.
Science-less? The study was done by Mercatus Center of George Mason University.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#14
How long before the Californian hordes turn Kirkarado in Commierado?
Not long.

Colorado Lawmakers Who Voted YES on NDAA - Indefinite Military Detention

House:

CO-4 Gardner, Cory [R]
CO-5 Lamborn, Doug [R]
CO-7 Perlmutter, Ed [D]

Senate:

CO Bennet, Michael [D]
CO Udall, Mark [D]

A few counties have nullified the NDAA.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#15
Science-less? The study was done by Mercatus Center of George Mason University.
And did said study include that shitty picture? I wouldnt know because you just quoted a picture and a snippet from the "study" with no link to it. Troll harder.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#16
And did said study include that shitty picture?
Yes.

William Ruger is an assistant professor in the Department of Political
Science at Texas State University. Ruger earned his PhD in politics
from Brandeis University and an AB from the College of William and Mary.

Jason Sorens is an assistant professor of political science at the University
at Buffalo, State University of New York. He received his doctorate in
political science in 2003 from Yale University, and his research focuses on
secessionism, ethnic politics, and comparative federalism. His work has also
appeared in Regional and Federal Studies, Comparative Political Studies,
Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, and State Politics and Policy Quarterly.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#17
I love that the picture says 'George Mason University' and you ask me if the picture is from the study. Only in Jersey....

You can't honestly believe that California and Jersey are not nanny states.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Apr 27, 2005
40,284
7,454
438
The Inland Empire State
#18
to save the earth... The first state that signed onto cap and trade scheme.
Hey, dumbass. Acid rain cap and trade was primarily in the north east and that came first. And it worked. Back in the 60's and 70's if we had let the "free market" take care of pollution, the air over L.A. would look like Mexico City or Bejing right now.

Over the past 40 years, median house prices have doubled relative to household incomes in the Golden State. Why? In 1998, Dartmouth economist William Fischel found that California's housing had been nearly as affordable as the rest of the nation until the more restrictive regulations, such as development moratoria, urban growth boundaries, and overly expensive impact fees came into effect starting in the 1970s.
I guess it would also have nothing to do with supply and demand? Because of the weather, the beaches, higher incomes, etc., other people actually want to LIVE here?

Not sure if it's all because of those laws or that because of the higher housing prices it's more attractive to build more houses per acre, which also gets more people paying property taxes.
 

fletcher

Darkness always says hello.
Donator
Feb 20, 2006
59,523
19,737
513
jersey
#19
I love that the picture says 'George Mason University' and you ask me if the picture is from the study. Only in Jersey....
Please dont take this the wrong way, but go fuck yourself. Hover over the picture and it shows the link as the dailymail.uk. You also didnt post the source so you can save the "only in Jersey" hackery for when you are talking with your Alex Jones fanboi pals. You know, when you arent blowing each other.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
142,478
50,267
644
#20
If I were that guy's editor, I'd be like hey. There's more colors than blue dummy. Why not try a red or a yellow.

Democrats love BIG GOVERNMENT because it gives them the power over the lives of others. Democrats want to control your earnings, how you consume energy, the products you buy, the food you eat, how you travel and how you raise your children.
What legitimate article would include a sentence like this?
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
49,332
37,391
628
In a porn tree
#21
I love that the picture says 'George Mason University' and you ask me if the picture is from the study. Only in Jersey....

You can't honestly believe that California and Jersey are not nanny states.
As soon will be Commierado. Poor Kirk. He'll soon be under the boot heel of the globalist overlords. Maybe you can ask you mother if she'll move you to Indiana where you can be free.
 

afternoonquil

Apology Ostrich
Apr 2, 2011
1,773
864
318
#22
The more liberal a state is the less liberties you have.







With all the Californians moving to my state I'm sure we will be a dark shade of blue at some point.

Definitely moving to that state in between Michigan and Wisconsin yo.
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,099
3,010
258
Sunnydale
#23
As soon will be Commierado. Poor Kirk. He'll soon be under the boot heel of the globalist overlords. Maybe you can ask you mother if she'll move you to Indiana where you can be free.
The people with inside knowledge seem to be moving to places like Brazil and New Zealand.
 

LiddyRules

I'm Gonna Be The Bestest Pilot In The Whole Galaxy
Jun 1, 2005
142,478
50,267
644
#24
I thought Colorado was where they built their crazy underground ice palaces.