Skip to comments.California Declares War on Suburbia, Planners want to herd millions into densely packed corridors
Posted on 04/13/2012 4:03:19 AM PDT by opentalk
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 homeall 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
WHY would anyone willingly live in Kalefornia?
Best thing they could for existing home prices.
Damn, sorry about the multiple posts.
> Damn, sorry about the multiple posts.
It happens to all of us. I wish there was a way to prevent it.
Good question. You couldn’t give me all the gold in Ft. Knox to move to California.
Yeah, let’s see them start with the limousine liberals in Beverly Hills and Malibu if they’re really serious about that crap.
” I wish there was a way to prevent it. “
Difficult to prevent, but ya can correct it by clicking “Abuse” on the duplicate posts and asking the Mod to remove them ...
A major problem with high density housing is the spread of minor diseases and health problems. Also, there will be more neighbor-to-neighbor clashes of egos and annoyances.
This may be environmentally friendly, but it will be human deadly.
As Kalifornia goes, the couintry goes. Look around - we’re a bit slower than Kalifornia in getting there, but we’re all heading to the same place.
Agenda 21 Ping
Too bad the lefties have a solid grip on the state. There would be parts of Cali that I wouldnt mind living but it would have to be far from the crazy crowd.
Sounds like you did it right and stayed out of the cities.
At 20 housing units per acre (with 640 acres in a square mile), this means each housing unit will be 2112.5 square feet or roughly 46ftx46ft without space between units. If we were to assume 8ft between units this means you get to live in a house 38ft x 38ft and still have no place to park your car.
These planners (read communists) will probably want high rise though.
Concentrating the population into small areas while leaving large swaths of the country 'pristine' is all part of the UN's Agenda 21.
The environmentalist goals include atmospheric protection, combating pollution, protecting fragile environments, and conserving biological diversity. Agenda 21 goes well beyond environmentalism. Other broad goals include combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, and reducing private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, and privately owned farms.
Agenda 21: Conspiracy Theory or Real Threat?
Already done. Warsaw 1939.
Your friendly, brilliant, really-really smart Progressive apparatchiks at work. /S/
The national population shift from rural to urban has been underway for decades. Some would say that it is wise for CA to plan for this, that is the Public Purpose.
Also the population shift from the northeast, Ohio valley, and Great Lake states to the south, southwest, and west.
Also, the western plains and intermountain deserts are de-populating.
The author of this article, Wendell Cox, has two websites, Demographia and The Public Purpose, that deal with this.
Look at a state like Texas and the politics of rural vs urban is simmering just beneath the surface plus the needs in the state for water, power, roads, and pollution control, etc to accomodate the population growth as yankees and Californians move in.
VAN JONES SHOCK ADMISSION [in his own words]: “Goal is Complete Revolution”
Here is the transcript of the above YouTube video:
Right after Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat if the civil rights leaders had jumped out and said OK now we want reparations for Slavery, we want redistribution of all the wealth, and we want to legalize mixed marriages. If wed come out with a maximum program the very next day, theyd been laughed at. Instead they came out with a very minimum. We just want to integrate these busses
But, inside that minimum demand was a very radical kernel that eventually meant that from 1964 to 1968 complete revolution was on the table for this country.
And, I think that this green movement has to pursue those same steps and stages.
Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to something eco-capitalism where at least were not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it wont be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression all together. But, thats a process and I think thats whats great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the CRISIS is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary.
So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society.
SOURCE for this transcript (it matches the video):
Go back and look at how they forced a lot of black middle class businesses out of business and condemned whole black business districts when LBJ decided it was time for black folks to come to heel rather than half of them still voting Republican. The Great Society destroyed most of the black middle class in the South as far as their continuing to be self-employed rather than employees. When the fascists decide to move "the masses" they have plenty of clubs and even a few incentives. The incentives are reserved for those they think may be useful to them at some point.
I always thought Agenda 21 was a bunch of overblown hooey.
If people want to trade off a hard commute for a bigger house and yard, that's their choice. But people who make that choice should not expect government to destroy other people's neighborhoods to shave a few minutes off their drive times. Roads are a convenience to those who use them, but they are also noisy, dirty, and barriers to non-motorized traffic. The people whose neighborhoods are degraded by new roads deserve as much say as the commuters who just want an expressway to work.
Oh, well. It's a beautiful day. Most of my coworkers were on the road an hour ago. In another 15 minutes, I'll be hopping on my bike for my 10 minute ride to the office. All I'll say now is that we ought to build cities with an eye towards mixed use neighborhoods and reduced commutes. The suburban commuter drill should not be the unquestioned default option. We have bollixed up our cities and created innumerable social and economic problems with lousy planning over the last 50 years, and the overemphasis on cars is one of the root issues. That's not a problem that can be solved overnight, but we can chip away at it if we keep our eyes on the ball.
These planners (read communists) will probably want high rise though.
This brings to mind a “Project” in Chicago... I believe it was called Cabrini Green. A hellmouth on the face of the earth is what it became.
The problem makers-—the warmongers, the polluters, the clear-cutters, the incarcerators-—get all the support they need from the government. The problem solvers-—the solar engineers and the people who are growing local and organic produce-—get very little support
We have to find union-wage jobs for low-income people, and those are just the sort of jobs that building a sustainable infrastructure will create.
It would be arrogant for anybody to say that twentieth-century capitalism is the last word for humanity; that we will never invent a better way to allocate wealth. But even if capitalism isnt viable in the long term, there is no way to get to a postcapitalist world except by going through a green-capitalism phase. I think there will be a postcapitalist society. I cant predict what it will look like, except to say that it wont resemble the last centurys attempts in that direction. The immediate challenge, however, is to make capitalism as green and humane as we possibly can. Doing that will conceivably buy us a few more decades or centuries on the planet.
Imagine this, they want 20 or MORE per acre.
Take off the 8 feet per side plus the easements demanded for utilities and you would have about enough room to park a single axle travel trailer. And a lawn chair.
But the Planners won’t live that way. count on that.
Use google earth to look at California. Most of the state is undeveloped. California is not running out of space to build homes on.
This is not about the ecology or because there is no room for more homes, this is about control, nothing more, nothing less.
Roads are a convenience to those who use them, but they are also noisy, dirty, and barriers to non-motorized traffic.
You make some interesting points, however history shows a few different things. Cities CANNOT exist without roads, the roads are absolutely necessary to the transport of food and raw materials from the regions outside of the city boundaries for the consumption of the city dwellers. In return the cities provide creative arts and new technologies among many other things. And those things benefit us all.
Also another point, those smelly noisy automobiles and trucks you appear to dislike? they were hailed and praised as a solution to horse “pollution”. So unless you and your fellow city dwellers are prepared to bring in those needed commodities on your own two feet; trucks, autos, trains and ships are here for the time being.
1/4 acre lots are quite crowded. The normal 1 acre lots are much nicer ~ you find them all over the Midwest. BTW, to get your septic tank to perc you really do need 1 acre ~ can’t imagine how California is ever going to get rid of that septic odor that follows the freeways. Doesn’t really rain there either like where I was born: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Flooding_Seymour%2C_Indiana.jpg
What do slave holders control? Answer: Food, housing, transportation ( movement), clothing, and healthcare.
So?....In which direction is the U.S. moving?
By the way....When the oligarchy starts rounding up the dissenters they won't use cattle cars. They will use big yellow school buses and the sheeple will compliantly board them. Why? Because that is what the government trained them to do.
-—The immediate challenge, however, is to make capitalism as green and humane as we possibly can.——
Besides being on the wrong website, you’re also wrong. The West is facing a population IMplosion.
US population would be in decline except for Mexican immigration.
There won’t be anyone left to pay your SS.
Its why we bought 4+ acres in an unincorporated area where you can have only one house for every 2 acres.
I can't imagine having to live where every move is dictated by some pencil-necked bureaucrat and everyone is packed together like sardines!
“Let’s take away...’ ‘We ought to build...’
Assumption of a controlling class of the usual leftistist bureaucrats who have the power of coercion. The central planners who move human beings around as if they were plastic pawns.
The only people who benefit from this is the controlling class. The don’t care about the disastrous results of coercion and central planning, they come out on top.
All you have to do is look at the past. The total destruction of black communities in chicago and elsewhere when public housing took over. go look at the Youtube videos taken from old 60’s news reports of Martin Luther King enthusing about the wonderful new public housing in Chicago.
It never works out; always destruction of communities, extended families, self-reliance. Descent into thuggery gangs dependency and addiction. But hey; the bureaucrats who say things like ‘Let’s take away...’ and ‘We ought to build...’ live well, so that’s all that matters.
Cincinnati City Council destroyed existing businesses downtown using eminent domain as part of their master plan ,and promoted sports complexes that lose money .Great leaders.
The nation’s biggest problem is all the people who believe the government can and will give them something for nothing,that government money is free and andless, and other fairy tales.
Several years ago, Maryland’s governor, a Dem named Parris Glendening, had the state adopt a “no growth” plan.
The result was inadequate infastructure (road weren’t maintained, schools didn’t get built, water wells weren’t drilled) and as a special blessing, property values skyrocketed, commutes took longer (more gas was wasted) and there was a serious water shortage in Frederick County! Just in time for the housing downturn!
Oh, and who was Parris? Oh, you must remember him! Stuffed the ballot box in Baltimore County to win his first term, bankrupted PG County as the county executive and knocked-up one of his young staffers.
Im told its all about the nice weather. LOL, guess they dont get out much...
Roads, cars, and trucks aren’t going away, nor should they. That’s not my point.
Most of us live in cities. That includes those out on the exurban fringe who wear cowboy boots and drive a big SUV on their two hour commutes. American society can’t be healthy if the cities are chronically sick. We’ve done a lot of harm through bad policy, and we need to rebalance in a number of areas.
Rational transportation planning is not the most important thing, although it’s probably in the top five. FWIW, I would put school choice at the top of the list. Not everyone will pick the city as their first residential choice, but many do, and for young adults who make that initial choice, it is apt to be lousy schools that eventually push them out to the ‘burbs. Voucher the schools, and watch the next generation of young middle class parents stay in place. The cities would be transformed.
Low income housing is a second big issue. We need to break up the big toxic concentrations of government subsidized poverty. That is now generally understood by people in the field, but the remedy requires that suburbs accept a share. That doesn’t necessarily mean scattered site, low density projects or Section 8 (although it might); it may mean zoning to accommodate affordable housing, or relaxing occupancy rules so that renters can double up. We have to stop using cities as dumping grounds, which creates the toxic no-go areas that become the great generators of the underclass. And we should create mixed use neighborhoods so that low and moderate income folks can live in reasonable proximity to jobs.
What we do now is warehouse the very poor in areas where an employer would be insane to tread, and then we wonder why intergenerational poverty becomes the norm.
Housing policy quickly morphs into transportation policy. Again, mixed neighborhoods are a key. We want to maximize the percentage of people who live in close proximity to work. I live in such a neighborhood; this can and should be much more common than it is.
Fix the schools, rationalize housing and transportation, and the cities can be turned around. Not overnight, to be sure, but it’s a worthy goal. And so we need to proceed by small steps. For transportation, this means making sure that we provide sidewalks and bike lanes in urban and high density suburban locales, making sure that arterial roads don’t become barriers to neighborhood cross traffic, and respecting existing neighborhoods, as opposed to seeing them as impediments to the rapid transit of the imperial commuter class.
We’ve all laughed at the classic New Yorker cover of America as seen from Manhattan. A lot of suburbanites have a similar view of their cities, with their exurban leafy acres in the foreground, their job looming in the distance, and not much identifiable in between: drive through country rather than flyover country, but the principle is the same. That’s what needs to change.
Your commuter road would destroy my neighborhood if you ever managed to push it through. The road lobby has tried many times in the past and will surely try again. That’s the issue.
Thank you for responding, I appreciate your point of view. Mind you I don’t agree with all of it. I HAVE lived in New York City, I detested it. Way too crowded and the people there HAD to develop the mental protection of looking straight ahead while walking or riding the subway’s etc.
I’ve lived so far away from civilization that a trip to the city was like moving 50 years into the future. Very unnerving I must admit.
I’ve lived in exurbia where my job was an hours drive away. It was not the best situation but the job was worth it.
Now I live back out in the country on my farm and I visit the nearest small town once a week or so and the nearest city every few months. This is by far the best for me, but I do know my faults. Too many people creep me out, going to Wal-mart is okay if it’s a short trip but any longer than a half an hour and I break out in cold sweats and have to leave.
So in conclusion what’s a good lifestyle for you is NOT one for me. That means that there needs to be the freedom of movement for each of us to find our own place where we are comfortable and can thrive.
LA GRANDE --Starting in June, passenger cars, ATVs, dirt bikes and four-wheel-drive rigs can no longer travel on almost 4,000 miles of roads in Oregon's largest national forest...
Why do you think that suburbs are an expression of the free market? They depend utterly on eminent domain for acquiring the rights of way for new arterial roads, and on systematic subsidization of infrastructure costs. Those are governmental policy choices, not the free market. Take them away and cities would again tend to grow as they have grown historically: much more densely, with much more aggressive rehabilitation, redevelopment, and infilling, in order to take maximum advantage of existing infrastructure.
The modern American suburb has about as much to do with the free market as the modern American farm, which is the product of three generations of federal commodity and farm lending programs. At least in agriculture, we get planned abundance and the world’s lowest food costs (as a percentage of consumers’ incomes). In housing policy, we have bought comfortable suburbs at the price of brutal commutes, hollowed cities, and a huge, socially and economically isolated underclass. I’m not sure we’ve made good choices.
We can debate the policy, but let’s not begin with the strawman argument that suburbs are a natural development. They are an artifact of transportation and housing policy, every bit as much as was Cabrini-Green.
...and wetbacks... BTW, that urban / rural conflict was obvious even on the (thankfully, now over) TTC discussions here on FR. Rural and small town Texans hated the TTC abortion. (I know first-hand: I attended the THC "public meeting" smoke and mirror shows in several counties. The rural hatred for the TTC was ready to explode...)
Typo: “THC” should be “TTC”...
U.N. Agenda 21, coming to a (progressive) state near you.
A caller ( I don’t think he said where he was) into Mark Levin midweek said he was having a lot of trouble getting a small barn built on what I recall was a TWENTY acre parcel.
It may have been a larger tract.
He said he’s seen efforts to get multiple score acres minimums for a single family home EVEN UP TO 160 ACRES.
Car? CAR??? Only the elite rate a CAR! YOU will take PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!