← Back to context

Comment by boplicity

18 days ago

Can you clarify why it is absurd to add density to an area with huge 5 acre lots?

OP said "established hillside community with equestrian 1 - 5 acre lots".

It is reasonably likely that people who lived there chose the location because they wanted to have horses, otherwise why buy there?

When dense apartments get built next door, soon enough the city prohibits horses because the thinking goes that horses don't belong in a dense population area.

I'm not familiar with the area OP mentions, but exact same thing happened around here. Some 30 years ago most houses had horses, then a lot of smaller building came around and they prohibited horses.

Doesn't impact me personally but I'm sad for the long time residents who specifically moved here to have horses. Not fair to them. Some have moved of course, but moving isn't always easy if you have job and kids in school in town.

A community of 5-acre equestrian lots is pastoral. Dumping a 650 housing project in the middle of that would destroy its character.

  • If the neighbors of these lots care to maintain their vacancy, they ought to do so the more naturally legal way: by collectively buying and owning those lots.

Or why cities should be able to ignore state laws, for that matter.

  • Which is likely why they are doing it. The City of Huntington Beach had a similar problem: there was simply no room to build additional housing. They sued the state and lost. The law is overreaching, but it's the law.