Comment by apparent
18 days ago
Sure, we do let people do that. The thing that's objectionable is when a suburban neighborhood is rezoned by people who live hundreds of miles away, and developers get the green light to build towers there. Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place?
What's to stop them from saying that it should now be zoned for industrial, and a chemical treatment plant can open up next door to a school? It's the same line of thinking.
> Why do people who don't live in a place think they're entitled to change the zoning of that place?
Why do people who don't own the land think they're entitled to tell the actual owners what they can build?
> It's the same line of thinking.
It is not. This is a made up slippery slope.
When someone buys land, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to do to it, subject to the zoning laws that were in effect at the time of purchase, or passed by a majority of voters in that area after purchase.
State law supersedes local law. These new purchasers would like cities to follow the law.
6 replies →
Not in California we don’t let people do that. The demand for condos far outstrips the amount of land zoned for them
Is it demand for condos or is it demand for reasonably-priced housing and condos are the only even remote possibility?
I've met a few people who really loved condo living but almost every one would have taken the single family home next to the condo building if it had been even remotely similar in price.
Those are the same thing? Not sure what youre asking, there is limited space, people recognize that having a SFH involves tradeoffs, just as most other things in life do.