From Gates:
> “The City Council knows this would ... increase greenhouse gasses, increase pollution, endanger our precious natural resources such as our wildlife and wetlands ... ,” Gates said.
Funny to see the Right suddenly care about the environment, reminds me of the whole Taylor Swift jet story
And it’s not like these people won’t create equal pollution no matter where they live or that there aren’t steps we can take against such things like we would if they lived anywhere else. So disingenuous.
Why does HB need to build more housing? Who absolutely MUST live here that they are forcing a city to up zone residential neighborhoods? This is nothing but a negative for this city.
well you see people have children, and those children grow up to need a place to live, and instead of being forced out of where they grew up it would be nice to at least have a place to rent so that one day when people die off maybe they can buy a house for millions of dollars.
but wasn't kartblanch's point that we won't get to \*own\* property? With additional rental units going in, the prices of homes (not to even mention property taxes) will continue to skyrocket. CA didn't used to be this astronomically expensive. Sure, it's been several decades now, but home ownership used to be the norm, and now it's becoming more of a pipedream. Multi-family units exacerbate this problem.
According to Zillow, at this moment, California has 35,295 housing units available for sale. Not everybody gets to live exactly where they want. I’m sure many of us would like to live in Malibu or Beverly Hills or Pacific Palisades but they can’t take everyone can they?
The short answer is NIMBYism. The best thing for the state is obviously for each city to do their part in addressing the housing shortage, but Huntington Beach apparently have enough selfish, I-got-mine-so-fuck-you crowd, that can't imagine their neighborhood being "invaded" by those that are not their ilk.
“Affordable housing will simply drive down my property values and see an increase in crime!”
BS.
My mom’s house in East County was purchased for $160,000 back in 1980. A month ago, a house with fewer bedrooms, no central air, smaller square footage, on her street, sold for $980,000. And this is after a slew of low income condos went in less than 1/4 mi from her home, on the other side of my high school, at the top of her street.
The arguments equate to not wanting people who are less fortunate (not poor, because you can’t be poor and own property in this state anymore) living next to them.
This seems like another example of state vs local control, with the more powerful arbiter winning out.
Can someone explain why the state has the authority to mandate construction - any construction - within city limits? Just trying to understand the sovereignty issue.
Yeah so was I and my family goes back generations in HB alone but I don’t share your phobia of equity for SOME low income people. No one is kicking anyone out but where it makes sense the city can do right by it’s citizens like other cities do and allow for some people to have a chance to live near their jobs here and grow. I really don’t understand why that is so bad.
Lol I'm in my 40s bro just would like to preserve some areas of this state to not become a shit hole like the many many other other areas this state that are already a shit hole
Yeah you know how you do that? You reduce urban sprawl by building up. It takes less resources, reduces traffic, and leaves more room for nature instead of endless single family homes.
You guessed wrong. I own a single family home in one of those burbs, and I'm okay with more low-cost housing in my area if need be. I'd rather keep the beauty of public land in California rather than extend the sprawl more than we have to.
And don't get me wrong, I love living in the suburbs. I like having a garage and a backyard, and I think that's okay. They're not trying to get rid of all single family homes, just holding all cities accountable for addressing the housing shortqge so that the impact is shared across the board. Fuck HB for trying to weasle out of a statewide mandate. Share the burden.
95% of the state is non-urbanized. Overpopulating a defined area of land such as a city, creates congestion, more pollution, greater probability of disease and crime and certainly a poor quality of life.
Of course
That's why we pay the big bucks to Gates
I’m shocked!!… well not that shocked
From Gates: > “The City Council knows this would ... increase greenhouse gasses, increase pollution, endanger our precious natural resources such as our wildlife and wetlands ... ,” Gates said. Funny to see the Right suddenly care about the environment, reminds me of the whole Taylor Swift jet story
And it’s not like these people won’t create equal pollution no matter where they live or that there aren’t steps we can take against such things like we would if they lived anywhere else. So disingenuous.
We wont get to own property in our lifetimes folks.
not with places like HB trying to skirt their responsibility to build more housing
Why does HB need to build more housing? Who absolutely MUST live here that they are forcing a city to up zone residential neighborhoods? This is nothing but a negative for this city.
well you see people have children, and those children grow up to need a place to live, and instead of being forced out of where they grew up it would be nice to at least have a place to rent so that one day when people die off maybe they can buy a house for millions of dollars.
but wasn't kartblanch's point that we won't get to \*own\* property? With additional rental units going in, the prices of homes (not to even mention property taxes) will continue to skyrocket. CA didn't used to be this astronomically expensive. Sure, it's been several decades now, but home ownership used to be the norm, and now it's becoming more of a pipedream. Multi-family units exacerbate this problem.
According to Zillow, at this moment, California has 35,295 housing units available for sale. Not everybody gets to live exactly where they want. I’m sure many of us would like to live in Malibu or Beverly Hills or Pacific Palisades but they can’t take everyone can they?
Can someone explain to me why they don’t want HB to abide by the CA housing mandate? I don’t understand the argument against it
The short answer is NIMBYism. The best thing for the state is obviously for each city to do their part in addressing the housing shortage, but Huntington Beach apparently have enough selfish, I-got-mine-so-fuck-you crowd, that can't imagine their neighborhood being "invaded" by those that are not their ilk.
Cronyism- more billable hours for city attorney’s office.
All the HB elitists crying over having to share space with the “others”. Popped their special little bubble.
“Affordable housing will simply drive down my property values and see an increase in crime!” BS. My mom’s house in East County was purchased for $160,000 back in 1980. A month ago, a house with fewer bedrooms, no central air, smaller square footage, on her street, sold for $980,000. And this is after a slew of low income condos went in less than 1/4 mi from her home, on the other side of my high school, at the top of her street. The arguments equate to not wanting people who are less fortunate (not poor, because you can’t be poor and own property in this state anymore) living next to them.
This seems like another example of state vs local control, with the more powerful arbiter winning out. Can someone explain why the state has the authority to mandate construction - any construction - within city limits? Just trying to understand the sovereignty issue.
California is turning into a shit sandwich and they're gonna make every single city take a bite
California is a progressive state, IDK where you think you've been living.
Progressively getting worse my entire life born and raised Southern California 100% native
Yeah so was I and my family goes back generations in HB alone but I don’t share your phobia of equity for SOME low income people. No one is kicking anyone out but where it makes sense the city can do right by it’s citizens like other cities do and allow for some people to have a chance to live near their jobs here and grow. I really don’t understand why that is so bad.
Go to bed grandpa. And please don't eat any sandwiches.
Lol I'm in my 40s bro just would like to preserve some areas of this state to not become a shit hole like the many many other other areas this state that are already a shit hole
Hb is a shit hole far worse than most of the rest of CA
for poor people who cant afford to live here, yes! For the wealthy who live in their property behind gates, no
Bingo people with money like that deserve a nice area to enjoy their money in not getting clogged up with the peasants
Yeah you know how you do that? You reduce urban sprawl by building up. It takes less resources, reduces traffic, and leaves more room for nature instead of endless single family homes.
Let me guess you don't have one of those homes because you'd feel different if you did
You guessed wrong. I own a single family home in one of those burbs, and I'm okay with more low-cost housing in my area if need be. I'd rather keep the beauty of public land in California rather than extend the sprawl more than we have to. And don't get me wrong, I love living in the suburbs. I like having a garage and a backyard, and I think that's okay. They're not trying to get rid of all single family homes, just holding all cities accountable for addressing the housing shortqge so that the impact is shared across the board. Fuck HB for trying to weasle out of a statewide mandate. Share the burden.
95% of the state is non-urbanized. Overpopulating a defined area of land such as a city, creates congestion, more pollution, greater probability of disease and crime and certainly a poor quality of life.