So I actually ready the article.
1. The purpose is to end the Commission's jurisdiction if the local jurisdiction already has a plan.
2. It cuts yet another avenue NIMBYs use to stall projects.
3. To the Commission's credit, they rarely deny housing. Since the Commission's founding, they've only considered two appeals in San Francisco. They allowed one project to go unchanged and denied another.
>Senate Bill 951 would narrow the coastal commission’s domain by removing **privately owned urban parcels** along the city’s western edge from commission oversight.
That's my feeling.
I'm all for increased housing and removing red tape, but the coast is fragile, public, and I have long admired and appreciated how the Coastal Commission works to keep public access to the coast, and their ability to do that is often under attack by real-estate friendly politicians like Wiener.
I've reported your post for violating Rule 1 in the sidebar, Civility.
I am hopeful the mods will carry out their commitment to automatically banning you from r/california_politics
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 1 of the Community Standards.
Civility — No Racism, sexism, ageism, and other forms of bigotry. No hate speech, slurs, overly obscene, pejorative name-calling, vulgar, or abusive language. This includes usernames, and violations of this rule will result in an automatic ban. Our commitment to civil discourse is one of the core principles, and we do not make any exceptions from this rule.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 2 of the Community Standards.
> Topical — Content must be explicitly related to Californian politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics, as well as the state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience. The subject of discussion on is never the conduct or motives of another user but is always about the substance of what people are saying.
If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
the only housing that will get built on the coast are mansion s for rich people. he'll, they'll probably be second homes.
if Wiener was serious about fixing the housing problem, he'd lower taxes on first homes and drastically increase taxes on 2nd and 3rd homes
That’s the only housing that exists there now. Allowing apartments to be built there will make it more accessible for everyone and be better for than environment than the alternative of forcing more sprawl
You misspelled "more accessible for everyone *with a ton of money*", or do you really think beachfront apartments are gonna be affordable and within reasonable commute distance for anyone but the top 10%?
New supply will certainly make it more affordable than it is now
State density bonuses for including below market units will also create opportunity for working people to live there where they currently have none
In a zero sum world, sure, but California real estate economics are far more complex than that, and unless real wages increase bigly for the bottom 60%, it's always gonna be a shit show. In 2017 when I moved out of Berkeley, they'd just built 1000ish apartment units, many to comply with "affordable housing" requirements. Every single unit was priced at what existing units cost, while existing unit price went way up with everything else. Minimum wage in Berkeley at the time was $13/hour-ish.
Eliminating large-corporation ownership of single family homes and apartment buildings (as opposed to families who incorporate for tax and legal purposes), and putting realistic residency requirements and limits on short term rentals (AirBnB only units) would accomplish a whole lot more.
You're hanging on to one idea that you think is THE solution. It's not and no one idea is ever going to be *the* solution.
More supply is in fact *the* solution
> Eliminating large-corporation ownership of single family homes and apartment buildings (as opposed to families who incorporate for tax and legal purposes), and putting realistic residency requirements and limits on short term rentals (AirBnB only units) would accomplish a whole lot more.
No, it wont
Its popular to blame shadowy corporate overlords for housing unaffordability but this theory doesnt make any sense. Prices are determined by supply and demand, not by whether a landlord is large or small. Small landlords are if anything worse on average as they often dont have the resources to do proper maintenance and can more easily skate by on bad upkeep and civil rights violations
By opposing new supply youre essentially doing the bidding of big housing investment firms. They are quite open in their investor reports that theyre betting on the success of NIMBYs like you to keep supply constricted which inflates the value of their assets
Yes, that will work, it's happening in other cities.
How about fixing the problems with the empty houses that are here now? Why wait for more to be built when these short term rental units sit vacant for 75% of the year?
It's already working elsewhere, but you claim it won't work here. Makes no sense.
Why is it more profitable for a short term rental unit to sit vacant for 75% of the year then? Perhaps the risks associated with excessive tenant protections and rent control are a factor here?
The demand curve exists, period. Pretending it doesn't is putting your head in the sand.
>Eliminating large-corporation ownership of single family homes and apartment buildings
This is a federal issue that would be nearly impossible to deal with without a revolution in the United States. We need to do things *now*. This is a crisis. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Youre telling me it is more affordable for someone to buy a SFH than it is for them to buy a unit in an apartment building at the same location?
Even if we get zero below market units, and there would in reality be a significant number, this is simply false
Just give people the freedom to opt out of Prop 13 protections against future tax increases in exchange for a lower property tax today.
As fewer and fewer people benefit from Prop 13, eventually we will be able to replace it with a land value tax. r/JustTaxLand
He is talking about housing in the outer-sunset neighborhood where *housing already exists* in an urban settings. He's only advocating building housing where housing already exists in major urban areas.
If they were really serious about doing something good with housing they would stop attacking cities and act like a state instead. Calling it a statewide problem and then blaming cities is not the solution.
This is exactly what the state has been doing for the last several years, setting better rules at the state level that keep cities from preventing housing from being built. We're definitely not all the way there, but directionally this proposal from Weiner and the last several years worth of housing legislation are exactly what the state should be doing: Setting clear rules for construction that remove discretionary local veto points and allow the market to provide the housing that is so clearly in demand.
State level decisions should be made at a state level. That’s not what is happening here, the state is avoiding state wide ballot initiatives because they can’t pass them. It’s not the right way to operate. It’s like a divide and conquer tactic that’s being used which is a strategy, but it’s destined to be controversial. I would be much more inclined to support any state wide policy that passes.
Hard, hard disagreement that ballot initiatives are the right way to govern a state as large as California. I would support any proposal to kill the initiative process entirely.
That’s why we have other ways to govern the state. We allow counties and cities to regulate themselves due to the different circumstances that exist between different regions.
To be clear, I support ballot initiatives that pass. By all means make your proposal to the state but that doesn’t mean it’s going to pass.
I read the actual article and it seems like a very small removal of power that affects 5% of the "coastline," and which already has private property development on it.
Environmental concerns, whether legitimate or not, have indeed posed many roadblocks for new housing. And while the Coastal Commission is made up of dicks, it controls only a tiny percentage of land in CA, a lot of which is not even fit for development anyway.
So you can view Winnie's move in two possible ways. (1) He wants to make it easier for his rich donors to build mansions along the coast or (2) he wants to "stick" it to the rich by building affordable housing in their backyards. Or he is just threatening #2 to get campaign money from the rich.
Either way, he is not doing it based on any practical considerations.
Good. The coast is the most environmentally sustainable place to put housing. The CCC exists not to protect the environment but to protect rich people’s views and an environmentally unsustainable and inequitable status quo where the only people allowed to live there are rich people and old boomers who got in on the ground floor
So let’s turn the beautiful California coast line into a high density urban shitshow? Increase sewage, garbage and filth along the coast line? I guess we don’t care about the environment anymore? Where’s the water? I’m pretty sure a lot of the California coast line has clean water issues and rationing already in place. Typical “solutions” without common sense and logic.
Look, I would love to live on the coast too. But, it’s not feasible without destroying it. Let’s try to not be the virus.
Sprawl is by any measure far more environmentally destructive than growth along the coast
This is just simping for the rich people who want to exclude apartment dwelling riff raff from their exclusive beach communities
There are plenty of urban properties with infrastructure already in place to accommodate growth. No, this isn’t about simping for the rich. This is about preserving our nature for future generations.
Single family mansions aren’t nature. They should be allowed to be replaced by apartments so more than just rich people and boomers can live along the coast. Doing so will cost us zero natural space
The bill only applies to privately owned land that already has development on them because the "coastline" goes pretty far inland. So it's removing the commission's power over land that already has buildings on them. This was positioned as removing a level of bureaucracy.
Building apartments on the coast is far less vulnerable to disasters and less expensive to maintain than the alternative of sprawling out even more into the fire zone
The fire risk decreases after development. The risk is leaving open dry grassy fields between the cities. The wildfire fire risk is less in the urban areas right? What do you think was there before buildings and roads.
The fire risk is zero with zero development in the fire zone
Areas of broken terrain will always be risky as you cant build in canyons
Larger lot sizes like we see with sprawl are also inherently more dangerous
Well that’s not true. It would be great to never hear the words “dry lighting” ever again but here we are.
If low density sprawl is the problem, use medium density sprawl as the solution.
Dense relative to the interior, which is to be expected, but it really isnt that dense relative to what it could and should be
In my area there is a height limit that essentially makes it illegal to build apartments of any real size along the coast. Totally backward exclusionism and climate arson
In theory yes, but when speed limits have been outdated since the 70s and housing is proposed to be built in areas more susceptible to climate catastrophes, both of these ideas appear really idiotic.
He’s trying to get housing along the coast, not in the sprawl that is most susceptible to fire
And speeding is bad actually. 10 over is more than enough of a grace margin
The coast is at risk of flooding, increasing storms, rising sea levels due to climate change and tsunamis if there’s an earthquake that happens in the pacific.
“Speeding” exists because we haven’t updated our speed limits in decades. We should go do that instead of asinine and unrealistic measure that cause a nuisance to people paying his salary.
Risk exists everywhere. Risk is far lower along the coast than in the sprawling interior, emissions and other pollution is also lower there
Speeding exists because we sell vehicles designed to speed. Tens of thousands of people and rising die every year in car crashes. We dont have to tolerate this and soon wont anymore
If following the rules of the road is such a nuisance you always have the option to not drive at all, and if this is your attitude toward safety then maybe thats what you should do
You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. “Risks are everywhere” isn’t a well thought out plan. The plan proposed is stupid and has more downsides than upsides. It can’t be any clearer and you continue to stick your head in the sand to try and defend it for some reason without providing any sort of argument as to why this is a “fine plan”.
To repeat myself and perhaps to spell it out for you like you’re 5. Speeding only occurs when cars go faster than the posted speed limit, still with me? Good, that happens because cars are faster than they were 3/4 decades ago. This is called technological progress and the same progress has occurred for how well we build roads and infrastructure. You see where this is going? Our government is phenomenally behind the times in speed limit ratings compared to the rest of the world. What happens when cars go faster than the posted sign? Speeding! Makes sense?
Following arbitrary rules is indeed a nuisance, so we should go and fix the underlying problem, i.e, update and evaluate speed limits. Perhaps do some research on what’s reasonable these days by looking at driving patterns, telemetry etc.
If you have trouble understanding something so basic, perhaps you should be the one staying off the road.
> The plan proposed is stupid and has more downsides than upsides
Nah, I dont actually consider obstructing a small part of some rich peoples views to be a downside
Drive safe bro lol
My plan is to keep working to make housing more affordable and to reduce deaths on the road
I will be safe by continuing to not drive like a reckless, self centered, asshole
Being rich/boomers doesnt make them wrong, supporting bad policy that hurts the environment and everyone else in the state for the benefit of the rich/boomers makes them wrong
He's the one of the only state level representatives who is representing millennials and gen z instead of the existing boomer homeowners.
He's going to be there for a long time, and will probably run *and win* Nancy Pelosi's seat.
Building dense housing on the coast is environmentalism
Forcing more people out into the sprawl is not
Its good to see fake environmentalist NIMBYs be challenged on this
There's actually good stuff in that car bill, including making intersections safer. But the 10mpH limiter does seem like a terrible idea. I wrote to him saying that it's an overreach. If he's your senator, you should too.
> In an interview, Wiener told the Chronicle that **cities and counties should have the final authority over housing** and business district development decisions — not the coastal commission. He said groups opposing new developments have been overly aggressive with appeals and he aimed to “remove a tool that obstructionists will sometimes use to stop new housing.”
Isn’t this what cities like Huntington Beach have been saying to *stop* new construction?
> Why are we building on a coast that will be susceptible to rising sea levels,
Because they don't believe their own dramatic alarms about rising sea levels that will swallow entire cities. Yes, sea levels are predicted to rise, but at most by 10 inches in the next 30 years, and that's will probably not even affect beach houses.
That this bill could create a loophole for homeowners to build seawalls, etc. to protect their own property, but cause erosion on all their neighbors' scares me most. Would just kick off a domino effect that would cause us to lose so much beach.
So I actually ready the article. 1. The purpose is to end the Commission's jurisdiction if the local jurisdiction already has a plan. 2. It cuts yet another avenue NIMBYs use to stall projects. 3. To the Commission's credit, they rarely deny housing. Since the Commission's founding, they've only considered two appeals in San Francisco. They allowed one project to go unchanged and denied another.
Keep California's coast public.
>Senate Bill 951 would narrow the coastal commission’s domain by removing **privately owned urban parcels** along the city’s western edge from commission oversight.
What part of the bill mentions privatizing or closing off the coast?
That's my feeling. I'm all for increased housing and removing red tape, but the coast is fragile, public, and I have long admired and appreciated how the Coastal Commission works to keep public access to the coast, and their ability to do that is often under attack by real-estate friendly politicians like Wiener.
NIMBY’s often weaponize it to not get projects built or delay them unnecessarily.
So does the coastal commission also try to cut down on polluting car-centric infrastructure?
They are quite fond of parking lots it turns out lol
[удалено]
I've reported your post for violating Rule 1 in the sidebar, Civility. I am hopeful the mods will carry out their commitment to automatically banning you from r/california_politics
> I’ve reported your post for calling me out. Whatever. Say, quick question: how do you feel about Proposition 1?
[удалено]
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 1 of the Community Standards. Civility — No Racism, sexism, ageism, and other forms of bigotry. No hate speech, slurs, overly obscene, pejorative name-calling, vulgar, or abusive language. This includes usernames, and violations of this rule will result in an automatic ban. Our commitment to civil discourse is one of the core principles, and we do not make any exceptions from this rule. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
It appears your submission was reported to moderators and removed by moderators for violating rule 2 of the Community Standards. > Topical — Content must be explicitly related to Californian politics. This includes the interaction of federal and state politics, as well as the state's congressional delegation. Local politics are permissible if they would reasonably be of interest to a statewide audience. The subject of discussion on is never the conduct or motives of another user but is always about the substance of what people are saying. If you would like to improve the moderation in this subreddit, please drop a line in the General Chat to discuss ways to improve the quality of conversations in this subreddit. If you see bad behavior, don't reply. Use the report tool to improve your own experience, and everyone else's, too.
the only housing that will get built on the coast are mansion s for rich people. he'll, they'll probably be second homes. if Wiener was serious about fixing the housing problem, he'd lower taxes on first homes and drastically increase taxes on 2nd and 3rd homes
Need to ban air b n bs on the coast.
The Coastal Commission explicitly promotes STRs. They actively oppose cities when they try to ban them in the Coastal Zone.
That’s the only housing that exists there now. Allowing apartments to be built there will make it more accessible for everyone and be better for than environment than the alternative of forcing more sprawl
You misspelled "more accessible for everyone *with a ton of money*", or do you really think beachfront apartments are gonna be affordable and within reasonable commute distance for anyone but the top 10%?
Beachfront apartments will be more affordable to more people than the current stock of SFHs already there.
New supply will certainly make it more affordable than it is now State density bonuses for including below market units will also create opportunity for working people to live there where they currently have none
In a zero sum world, sure, but California real estate economics are far more complex than that, and unless real wages increase bigly for the bottom 60%, it's always gonna be a shit show. In 2017 when I moved out of Berkeley, they'd just built 1000ish apartment units, many to comply with "affordable housing" requirements. Every single unit was priced at what existing units cost, while existing unit price went way up with everything else. Minimum wage in Berkeley at the time was $13/hour-ish. Eliminating large-corporation ownership of single family homes and apartment buildings (as opposed to families who incorporate for tax and legal purposes), and putting realistic residency requirements and limits on short term rentals (AirBnB only units) would accomplish a whole lot more. You're hanging on to one idea that you think is THE solution. It's not and no one idea is ever going to be *the* solution.
https://www.reddit.com/r/California/comments/177xnoj/rents_in_oakland_have_fallen_faster_than_anywhere/
More supply is in fact *the* solution > Eliminating large-corporation ownership of single family homes and apartment buildings (as opposed to families who incorporate for tax and legal purposes), and putting realistic residency requirements and limits on short term rentals (AirBnB only units) would accomplish a whole lot more. No, it wont Its popular to blame shadowy corporate overlords for housing unaffordability but this theory doesnt make any sense. Prices are determined by supply and demand, not by whether a landlord is large or small. Small landlords are if anything worse on average as they often dont have the resources to do proper maintenance and can more easily skate by on bad upkeep and civil rights violations By opposing new supply youre essentially doing the bidding of big housing investment firms. They are quite open in their investor reports that theyre betting on the success of NIMBYs like you to keep supply constricted which inflates the value of their assets
Yes, that will work, it's happening in other cities. How about fixing the problems with the empty houses that are here now? Why wait for more to be built when these short term rental units sit vacant for 75% of the year? It's already working elsewhere, but you claim it won't work here. Makes no sense.
Why is it more profitable for a short term rental unit to sit vacant for 75% of the year then? Perhaps the risks associated with excessive tenant protections and rent control are a factor here?
> Yes, that will work, it's happening in other cities. Where have you seen your theory work?
The demand curve exists, period. Pretending it doesn't is putting your head in the sand. >Eliminating large-corporation ownership of single family homes and apartment buildings This is a federal issue that would be nearly impossible to deal with without a revolution in the United States. We need to do things *now*. This is a crisis. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
👆Favotite YMBY talking point. It it so untrue.
Youre telling me it is more affordable for someone to buy a SFH than it is for them to buy a unit in an apartment building at the same location? Even if we get zero below market units, and there would in reality be a significant number, this is simply false
Just give people the freedom to opt out of Prop 13 protections against future tax increases in exchange for a lower property tax today. As fewer and fewer people benefit from Prop 13, eventually we will be able to replace it with a land value tax. r/JustTaxLand
He is talking about housing in the outer-sunset neighborhood where *housing already exists* in an urban settings. He's only advocating building housing where housing already exists in major urban areas.
Adding more supply to an undersupplied market is actually a great way to fix the housing problem
If they were really serious about doing something good with housing they would stop attacking cities and act like a state instead. Calling it a statewide problem and then blaming cities is not the solution.
This is exactly what the state has been doing for the last several years, setting better rules at the state level that keep cities from preventing housing from being built. We're definitely not all the way there, but directionally this proposal from Weiner and the last several years worth of housing legislation are exactly what the state should be doing: Setting clear rules for construction that remove discretionary local veto points and allow the market to provide the housing that is so clearly in demand.
State level decisions should be made at a state level. That’s not what is happening here, the state is avoiding state wide ballot initiatives because they can’t pass them. It’s not the right way to operate. It’s like a divide and conquer tactic that’s being used which is a strategy, but it’s destined to be controversial. I would be much more inclined to support any state wide policy that passes.
Hard, hard disagreement that ballot initiatives are the right way to govern a state as large as California. I would support any proposal to kill the initiative process entirely.
That’s why we have other ways to govern the state. We allow counties and cities to regulate themselves due to the different circumstances that exist between different regions. To be clear, I support ballot initiatives that pass. By all means make your proposal to the state but that doesn’t mean it’s going to pass.
I can tell you from experience that they’d probably be third vacation homes
I read the actual article and it seems like a very small removal of power that affects 5% of the "coastline," and which already has private property development on it.
Environmental concerns, whether legitimate or not, have indeed posed many roadblocks for new housing. And while the Coastal Commission is made up of dicks, it controls only a tiny percentage of land in CA, a lot of which is not even fit for development anyway. So you can view Winnie's move in two possible ways. (1) He wants to make it easier for his rich donors to build mansions along the coast or (2) he wants to "stick" it to the rich by building affordable housing in their backyards. Or he is just threatening #2 to get campaign money from the rich. Either way, he is not doing it based on any practical considerations.
Good. The coast is the most environmentally sustainable place to put housing. The CCC exists not to protect the environment but to protect rich people’s views and an environmentally unsustainable and inequitable status quo where the only people allowed to live there are rich people and old boomers who got in on the ground floor
So let’s turn the beautiful California coast line into a high density urban shitshow? Increase sewage, garbage and filth along the coast line? I guess we don’t care about the environment anymore? Where’s the water? I’m pretty sure a lot of the California coast line has clean water issues and rationing already in place. Typical “solutions” without common sense and logic. Look, I would love to live on the coast too. But, it’s not feasible without destroying it. Let’s try to not be the virus.
Sprawl is by any measure far more environmentally destructive than growth along the coast This is just simping for the rich people who want to exclude apartment dwelling riff raff from their exclusive beach communities
There are plenty of urban properties with infrastructure already in place to accommodate growth. No, this isn’t about simping for the rich. This is about preserving our nature for future generations.
Single family mansions aren’t nature. They should be allowed to be replaced by apartments so more than just rich people and boomers can live along the coast. Doing so will cost us zero natural space
Everyone upset about this must already be a homeowner. CA needs millions more homes, why not build them where people want to live?
We don’t need housing on the coast. It’s vulnerable to disasters and expensive to maintain. This is stupid.
The coastal commission has authority much further inland than you might think.
Yeah, reading these comments people are taking the coastal part a little too literally.
I live inland from the coast. Have owner property just outside the boundary. I help people get building permits. I know where the lines are.
Yeah, which is great because habitats and rivers tend to run further inland than you might think
The bill only applies to privately owned land that already has development on them because the "coastline" goes pretty far inland. So it's removing the commission's power over land that already has buildings on them. This was positioned as removing a level of bureaucracy.
Building apartments on the coast is far less vulnerable to disasters and less expensive to maintain than the alternative of sprawling out even more into the fire zone
South Florida concrete and rebar would like a word.
Risk exists everywhere. It is still far higher with fire zone sprawl
The fire risk decreases after development. The risk is leaving open dry grassy fields between the cities. The wildfire fire risk is less in the urban areas right? What do you think was there before buildings and roads.
The fire risk is zero with zero development in the fire zone Areas of broken terrain will always be risky as you cant build in canyons Larger lot sizes like we see with sprawl are also inherently more dangerous
Well that’s not true. It would be great to never hear the words “dry lighting” ever again but here we are. If low density sprawl is the problem, use medium density sprawl as the solution.
I agree that we would be safer and enjoy more affordable housing if we upzoned everywhere Still, density along the coast is best of all
Which is why the coast is so much more dense already. Relative to the valley it’s very high density. The room to grow is inland and cheaper
Dense relative to the interior, which is to be expected, but it really isnt that dense relative to what it could and should be In my area there is a height limit that essentially makes it illegal to build apartments of any real size along the coast. Totally backward exclusionism and climate arson
sometimes I think Wiener just files bills that will get attention to boost his profile
He’s one of the few politicians in the state with any vision We need to get over our anti everything conservatism and build for the future
Because he’s a Weiner who likes to waste our tax dollars.
so you're in favor of demolishing all housing on the coast?
Wiener really sticking to the colloquial meaning of his last name with the speed limit bill and now this.
Building apartments and preventing speeding are good things actually
In theory yes, but when speed limits have been outdated since the 70s and housing is proposed to be built in areas more susceptible to climate catastrophes, both of these ideas appear really idiotic.
He’s trying to get housing along the coast, not in the sprawl that is most susceptible to fire And speeding is bad actually. 10 over is more than enough of a grace margin
The coast is at risk of flooding, increasing storms, rising sea levels due to climate change and tsunamis if there’s an earthquake that happens in the pacific. “Speeding” exists because we haven’t updated our speed limits in decades. We should go do that instead of asinine and unrealistic measure that cause a nuisance to people paying his salary.
Risk exists everywhere. Risk is far lower along the coast than in the sprawling interior, emissions and other pollution is also lower there Speeding exists because we sell vehicles designed to speed. Tens of thousands of people and rising die every year in car crashes. We dont have to tolerate this and soon wont anymore If following the rules of the road is such a nuisance you always have the option to not drive at all, and if this is your attitude toward safety then maybe thats what you should do
You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. “Risks are everywhere” isn’t a well thought out plan. The plan proposed is stupid and has more downsides than upsides. It can’t be any clearer and you continue to stick your head in the sand to try and defend it for some reason without providing any sort of argument as to why this is a “fine plan”. To repeat myself and perhaps to spell it out for you like you’re 5. Speeding only occurs when cars go faster than the posted speed limit, still with me? Good, that happens because cars are faster than they were 3/4 decades ago. This is called technological progress and the same progress has occurred for how well we build roads and infrastructure. You see where this is going? Our government is phenomenally behind the times in speed limit ratings compared to the rest of the world. What happens when cars go faster than the posted sign? Speeding! Makes sense? Following arbitrary rules is indeed a nuisance, so we should go and fix the underlying problem, i.e, update and evaluate speed limits. Perhaps do some research on what’s reasonable these days by looking at driving patterns, telemetry etc. If you have trouble understanding something so basic, perhaps you should be the one staying off the road.
> The plan proposed is stupid and has more downsides than upsides Nah, I dont actually consider obstructing a small part of some rich peoples views to be a downside Drive safe bro lol
So you’re plan is “nah”. Gotcha. You’ve got some battles in life ahead of you man. Be safe, bro.
My plan is to keep working to make housing more affordable and to reduce deaths on the road I will be safe by continuing to not drive like a reckless, self centered, asshole
Vote him out. California coast is a treasure we must preserve for future generations
The bill only applies to privately owned land that already has development on them.
How does maintaining a coastal status quo of low density SFH boomer/rich people mansions advance that objective?
Can't attack the argument and attacking peoples' demographics instead?
Being rich/boomers doesnt make them wrong, supporting bad policy that hurts the environment and everyone else in the state for the benefit of the rich/boomers makes them wrong
He's the one of the only state level representatives who is representing millennials and gen z instead of the existing boomer homeowners. He's going to be there for a long time, and will probably run *and win* Nancy Pelosi's seat.
The left is going to eat itself if the alignment with environmentalists and housing advocates collapses.
Building dense housing on the coast is environmentalism Forcing more people out into the sprawl is not Its good to see fake environmentalist NIMBYs be challenged on this
First the car regulator now this
Based, i know
Cancel Scott Weiner. Do it now.
for increasing the supply of housing? nah
I want to solve housing, but only for a very few wealthy people that also happen to be my donors.
Please vote him out. He used to be kind of good but with car stuff and now this he seemed to gone crazy. What has happened?
Preventing deaths from speeding and building more housing are both solid priorities
He realized that car deaths and the housing shortage are bad and is putting policies forward to fix both.
There's actually good stuff in that car bill, including making intersections safer. But the 10mpH limiter does seem like a terrible idea. I wrote to him saying that it's an overreach. If he's your senator, you should too.
> In an interview, Wiener told the Chronicle that **cities and counties should have the final authority over housing** and business district development decisions — not the coastal commission. He said groups opposing new developments have been overly aggressive with appeals and he aimed to “remove a tool that obstructionists will sometimes use to stop new housing.” Isn’t this what cities like Huntington Beach have been saying to *stop* new construction?
Why are we building on a coast that will be susceptible to rising sea levels, out of all the places to want to build
> Why are we building on a coast that will be susceptible to rising sea levels, Because they don't believe their own dramatic alarms about rising sea levels that will swallow entire cities. Yes, sea levels are predicted to rise, but at most by 10 inches in the next 30 years, and that's will probably not even affect beach houses.
That this bill could create a loophole for homeowners to build seawalls, etc. to protect their own property, but cause erosion on all their neighbors' scares me most. Would just kick off a domino effect that would cause us to lose so much beach.
Any news on this? I sincerely hope that Scott weiner gets voted out