The parking I spoke of was for each dwelling, private parking, not public.
Private parking requirements are also dumb. Let them make as much parking as they think their tenants want.
In your free for all scenario, who pays for infrastructure? Roads, sewers, power and water?
Tax money does. The great part about this is that increased density brings with it increased tax revenues to pay for the required infrastructure and more. It’s a huge win for the municipality from a fiscal perspective.
And what happens when a place like California is developed to the point that there isn't enough water for everyone? Do we again use free market ideas and run the price up to the point that only the very well off can flush their toilets?
Farming is the primary consumer of water in California, not residents. If your genuine concern is about the California water supply that’s where you should look. I suspect you’re just looking for reasons to justify your position though.
As far as people go if the price of water goes up we would subsidize it for the poorer residents, yes.
Who decides if there is enough energy available for all those condos? Again, is it purely market driven? Folks with cash have lights and AC while those of less means do without? What about bringing basic necessities in to those areas, who decides if the infrastructure can handle the load?
How exactly do you think the world works? New power plants are built as demand increases, this is how it has always been. What, are we banning new power plants now too?
One nice thing is from an overall energy standpoint places like California have some of the lowest net energy costs in the world so they can easily sustain large increases in density! The idea that you’re trying to frame zoning as some sort of resource conservation plan is laugh out loud ridiculous. Denser housing uses fewer resources per resident, not more. If you actually care about energy costs then you should be on my side.
Planning is a requirement of development, deciding how much to build and where to build it is something that requires oversight. We're seeing some of the problems with the lack of this right now. Cities in heavily forested areas with inadequate facilities to deal with major fires, and zoning that doesn't require defenceable areas around those homes. The Oakland hills fire was a near perfect example of this, they had to much fuel, no water to pour on it and houses with wood roofs and wood siding. We all know how that worked out.
Absolutely nothing you’re talking about here is improved by zoning. Nothing. What you’re talking about here is building codes generally, which I have of course never argued against. Allowing for unlimited density doesn’t mean you don’t have measures to prevent fires, etc. Trying to conflate the two is absurd.
Why not just own your position and say you support zoning restrictions because you don’t want your neighborhood to change? Just own the fact that it’s more important to you than the suffering it inflicts?
Facebook
Twitter