Quote:
Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'm pretty confused by your reply, which usually is a result of my own failures in articulating myself in the earlier post.
My point was just that it could be in the public interest to zone for density for reasons other than preserving low-density housing and wealth for the haves. The transit corridor idea to me resembled more the zoning for environmental reasons that you or somebody else earlier said was ok. As in, yes you probably lose some fraction of your property's value because of the regs, but all of the city gains value by avoiding enviro hazards in residential areas on the one hand or sprawling single family housing developments chewing up the open spaces and snarling traffic on the other.
|
No, no, my post was not really responsive because I'm kinda sick of the discussion. Obviously, not sick enough to shut my yap.
And, there are going to be externalities. Those addicted to McMansions but averse to commuting from a whole different city aren't going to live in the city that zones how you are discussing (or, fewer of them will). And stuff. Don't make me start on how state lines should be redrawn to correspond with drainage basin areas in order to have effective water use and environmental controls.
Hank!!! STP!!! Call me Ms. Externali-TAY because I voted with my feet. Though, I don't think LA has rent control and I wouldn't live there, either. Too expensive. Not worth it.
Threaded Mode