Here in SoCal I see a massive generational divide. People over 40 tend to be NIMBY and against things like public transit. People under 40 are completely the opposite, especially about LA's expansion of subways and light rail.
I knew it was bad, but I was bit taken aback.
However, I did get a little discouraged that there was a lack of people my age trying to get involved, though. People can complain all they want... but until they do, it won't change.
It doesn't necessarily have to mean lower quality of life. But, in LA, that's what has happened most of the time.
New three or four story apartment buildings next door to a SFH means less sunlight and the elimination of privacy throughout the yard.
More people means more traffic jams, more wear and tear on roads, more crime, more unfamiliar strangers driving too fast on their once-quiet streets, more pollution, and higher demand on a very limited police force, parks, recreational facilities, schools/colleges, airports, open spaces, etc.
The LA city government manages infrastructure and resources in a sub-par way. New resources of all types are simply not forthcoming fast enough to meet with increased demand. The city government fails to keep up with existing needs for repair of: water, sidewalk, street infrastructure under current levels of demand.
And it's not only quantity: often the quality of new infrastructure (e.g. Red Line train seats) is allowed to detoriorate to a state where it's rather dirty and unpleasant.
I feel like LA city government has been doing better about sidewalk and street repair the past few years. It could be coincidence and certainly isn't exhaustive.
Ehh? I'd say density is correlated with a higher quality of life. More restaurants, bars, culture (museums, art openings, music), more opportunities to expand your network of friends, etc.
but, for others, the drawbacks of high density, often outweigh the advantages. these are the people who go to local neighborhood council meetings and scream.
also note that, in Los Angeles, the city council and the mayor can, and very often do, approve changes to zoning in accordance with the wishes of real estate developers (who usually donate to their political campaigns).
it's not like LA's NIMBY homeowners are a tyrannical group with infinite power. they're very often overridden by the politicians.
much of the drive behind LA's NIMBY movement is the absence of true city plans for homeowners to rely upon. the name of the game is spot zoning variances: a developer proposes a project which requires a zoning change and then pays off the local politicians with campaign contributions.
homeowners, caught by surprise, react vociferously ... and then lose.
that's LA's version of a "planning process".
http://www.laweekly.com/news/city-halls-density-hawks-are-ch...
I grew up in a scenic neighborhood in Berlin, with lots of bars and restaurants and dance clubs in former factory yards, and it was pretty annoying at times. Drunken people get loud, and you don't want them to have a midnight singing contest right outside your bedroom window. Occasionally someone would drive around the block blasting music at full volume. And so on.
I think most people would much prefer to live in a quiet neighborhood, with all the action happening within walking distance just outside of it.
Governments aren’t like households. They get to print their own money, so budgeting freak outs that apply to one don’t really apply to the other.
Also, removing the income limit would be a massive tax hike (12.4 percentage points, split between employee and employer). The taxes already went up this year for sufficiently-high income individuals in that the income limit was raised from $118,500 to $127,200 (a 7.3% increase).
Baby boomers are no more or less selfish than every generation that came before them and every generation that will come after them. They are just the ones in control at the moment so everything gets blamed on them.
Without arguing about terms like "selfishness", the motivation can be laid on the economic conditions those generations faced. Depression-era Americans grew up in a time of great economic hardship, and so pushed for legal and social safety nets (Social Security, labor unions, etc.). Their children grew up in a time of economic ease, and so had no understanding of or motivation to preserve those things, and saw them as impediments to their further enrichment (if we get rid of the union, my business is more profitable; if we slash entitlement programs, my taxes are lower, etc.).
A good parallel is the anti-vaccine movement in the US. The threat of serious vaccine-preventable diseases is fading from living memory, as most parents of young children today have never lived in a situation where such diseases were a realistic consideration. Thus they see no benefit from vaccines, and over-value the rare side effects (and believe, out of fear, charlatans who fabricate claims that vaccines cause problems those parents are familiar with).
I also think you are attributing these actions to the wrong generations. FDR was born in the 1880s, he wasn't part of the depression/WWII generation. However both Reagan and George HW Bush were. We didn't get the first baby boomer president until Clinton in 1993. Countries are usually controlled by people in their 40s-60s. You can't blame the baby boomers for things that starting happening when they were in their 20s and 30s.
Tell the truth...when you were in Chicago, did you want to live next to the "L"?
with the caveat that the SF-LA HSR project seems to be a boondoggle that will cost the state billions more than it probably should.
Yes. I only wanted to live next to the L train. If I were apartment hunting, and it wasn't a quick walk to an L stop, that apartment went straight to the bottom of the list.
And when I sought roommates, my place being steps to a blue line stop meant I got literally 70 emails within the first few hours of posting the ad.
Growing up in the central valley I took Bart ONE TIME as a kid, and it's still a highlight of my entire damn childhood. I suppose I may like trains more than most, but after that my goal in life was mostly to escape suburbia.
(I say this as someone who personally benefits from rent control. It shouldn't exist.)
You want offices near you but no more housing, so that people work near you and are forced to live closer to you, and have to buy houses near you for ever-increasing prices.
And people who own homes (older than most of the population) are used to driving everywhere, they don't want people constantly walking in front of their houses. They all want their own cul-de-sacs.
So both remain in balance, prices don't increase and you get little or no financial benefits. Also, a house surrounded by high rises in a very busy street has far less relative value than a house in a quiet street where your kids can play around. Cities bring strangers, crime, pollution, noise, etc.
But if you increase job density without increasing housing density, then you reap massive financial benefits from increasing housing prices.
Yes, but that's only for holdouts, which is a game of chicken. And after the developers build around you, you're done, your home value plunges as you're surrounded by traffic and apartments.
"Now, going back to jobs, in practicality, allowing upzones, also tends to bring way more jobs - more coffee shops / corporate towers etc."
The two are unrelated. Cities have a lot of exclusive-use commercial or residential areas. You can increase the same jobs without having more residents, which increases value for the home-owners.
Which is exactly what is happening in the US.
How much would solar panels on the roof offset your AC energy usage?
What a time to be alive.