Response to Stephen Levy and his housing projections
Original post made by Stefan, Fairmeadow, on Jul 11, 2009
I don't like locked down posts, therefore, I am responding to you in a free and open manner.
There is a ton of housing in the greater Bay Area. For example, Salinas is begging people to come buy up all those foreclosed homes. Same with Tracy and Manteca. People have been commmuting from those places, often using van-pools (a very efficient mode of transportation), for decades. They do this, because they can get a better deal on the types of homes they like (usually single family with yards for the kids to play in). They do not want to live in very small, densely packed units that are bad for kids.
The dense housing promoters are, essentially, anti family, becasue they either do not have families, or they have raised their own family, and now are OK with moving down in home size. They could care less about younger couples who actually want a healthy environment for their kids.
It is a foolish to insist upon Stalinist-style uber planning to solve and imaginary "jobs/housing imblance". Mr. Levy, you are talking about 30 year plans. Even Stalin, at his best, had a hard time with five year plans. We should not forget that the enforcement of such plans resulted in the gulag and mass murder.
The state laws that you refer to are, undoubtably, ones that you supported in the first place. Now you use them as a reason that you are obligated to support them, and to plan for them.
We should be discussing efficient means of transportation for the workers that want jobs in this region. High density housing is not the answer, and never will be. Suburds are very good things, in so many ways. Ask the families who live in them.
Ike's Place makes another go at Stanford; Palo Alto outpost stalls
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 2,085 views
Groundhog Day: Dis-embellishing a Multilevel Proxy
By Douglas Moran | 2 comments | 389 views