Comment by jjav
3 days ago
> The people who want small, mid-sized towns are free to live literally anywhere they want outside major metro areas. There's 90+% of the state by land area left to them.
Whether good or bad, it's important to realize this is not true in California, with regard to these laws. They apply everywhere, not only in urban centers.
So if there are people who want small towns without dense development, that option has been taken away entirely.
I live in a tiny town (population < 10K) surrounded by forest, far from any urban center. An d even here some of the wooded areas are being clearcut to build dense apartments due to these laws.
> Whether good or bad, it's important to realize this is not true in California, with regard to these laws. They apply everywhere, not only in urban centers.
According to the linked article, the only areas affected by this bills are major transit centers and high throughput public transit stops, which tends to exclude small towns far from cities. If you look at the linked map, affected areas are all concentrated in big cities
Are you commenting on the bill being discussed here or on something else entirely?
Would it be better if the forest was cut down to build single family detached homes?
It would be better if a tiny town was allowed to remain tiny. Not every place has to be forced to be the same.