Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 09/12/2010 2:34:36 PM PDT by Natural Born 54
this 'stuff' is an Architect's wet dream. to us it's a nightmare
Is that Long Beach?
Hmmmm..couple this bill with the recent reports of billionaires like George Soros and others buying up millions of acres of farmland across the globe as the new ‘in’ investment and the implications are chilling.
Heaven help us!
” You can already see the effects of this stupidity in California.
High density developments are erected in existing cities while “green space” areas are set aside, conveniently occupied only by employees of the Trusts that “own” them (they never buy them, the land is basically stolen by manipulation of zoning laws or extortion against the existing owners). “
California has been on the “leading edge” of self destruction for the past 20 years. I left in 06 ;-)
“I don’t think people in this area will take to the idea of Government telling you where to live.”
It will not be as overt as the Soviet Union. Instead, living outside of the city will become ever more expensive via taxes and fees targeting such a choice.
For example, a restored farmhouse will be very expensive to sell if it requires $100K of work in order to meet Federal code.
I always did like Artie Johnson!
Of course, it never dawned on these idiots that the most efficient thing to do is simply remove the hidden subsidies.
It reminds me of financial reform. First the government creates tax incentives that encourage leverage, only to pass coercive regulation trying to limit leverage.
They never learn.
Two points
1) Living in Manhattan is actually great, if you can afford it. Contrary to your assertion, a large fraction of the elite in New York live in Manhattan, just for this reason. There's a reason why its real estate is as expensive as it is.
2) If not for the huge hidden subsidies we give suburbanites (i.e. free highways, commuter rail, subsidized phone, postal and broadband service to people in less populated areas, etc), more of the country would look like Manhattan.
3) The correct policy is to remove the subsidies and force the people who choose to live in the sticks pay the full cost of their lifestyle choice. Instead, our masters want to maintain the subsidies but then try to coerce people to live how they want them to. Go figure.
The goal
This would start a war.
Cheer up, Comrades! As you perhaps already know, it's the era of 'smart growth', 'Agenda 21' and Sustainable Bureaucracy! ...Soon, we're going to be moved into our new homes... all in high-rises along the railroad tracks!!! |
BOOKMARK!!! GRRRRR!
No...you’re not naive...you just haven’t had it handed to you on a platter yet. The sustainable growth land use laws in Oregon were implemented in, IIRC, 1972. So...if you can stop it in your state now, you are way ahead of the game.
When we were looking for a little property we had to go the county/state land use people first. We were told that even though folks pay a lot of money for their land, it’s not theirs...they just “lease” it. Too, even if one had 40 acres, it was against the law to put up more than one home...even if it was a mother-in-law home for her old age.
Do a search for Agenda 21. It’s the UN’s desire for the entire world...and in much of the world it’s in effect.
Believe me...they aren’t jealous people. These are folks in our own country...who profess to love this country...who are doing this to us.
Did you see this?
Bastards!
btttffi
High rise cardboard shacks, huh? Lol. We already have them along the border. Barrios - the streets run with sewage!
Sorry I’m so slow replying Seadog. Nice to see you posting!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.