>In 2005, the Forest Service reported that California had 5.1 million housing units in the wildland-urban interface
If you want your priors confirmed, here’s a nice article for you
HighburyOnStrand on
This article talks about the cause of the devastation without mentioning the primary factors:
Extended period of heavy rainfall leading to “super bloom” conditions for most of two years, followed by nearly eight months of drought, followed by a massive wind storm.
Silliness.
Also, the predicate that 5,100,000+ people can be moved into Central LA in denser configurations i not practical…and ignores heavy demand for single family homes.
LtCdrHipster on
THANK YOU. Zoning doesn’t reduce demand; if you push it down in one area, it pops up in another. Refusing to allow reasonable amount of real in-fill development means people are forced into the urban/rural interface, with predictable results.
Alarmed_Crazy_6620 on
I’m sure this is not universal but isn’t this just the case that it pushed them towards well-located suburbs with available land for big houses and privacy? Like was mid-height walkable city housing ever a massive attraction for these folks?
Macquarrie1999 on
I’m sure multimillionaires would have lived in an apartment building in downtown LA instead.
The affordable homes in LA are not in these areas for the most part. Not everything is about zoning
WantDebianThanks on
!ping HOUSING-THEORY-OF-EVERYTHING
ldn6 on
I’m sorry but zoning laws did not push extremely rich people to buy places in Pacific Palisades and the Hollywood Hills. They were quite wealthy.
The underlying issue is climate change, but I don’t expect Reason to cover that.
7 Comments
>In 2005, the Forest Service reported that California had 5.1 million housing units in the wildland-urban interface
If you want your priors confirmed, here’s a nice article for you
This article talks about the cause of the devastation without mentioning the primary factors:
Extended period of heavy rainfall leading to “super bloom” conditions for most of two years, followed by nearly eight months of drought, followed by a massive wind storm.
Silliness.
Also, the predicate that 5,100,000+ people can be moved into Central LA in denser configurations i not practical…and ignores heavy demand for single family homes.
THANK YOU. Zoning doesn’t reduce demand; if you push it down in one area, it pops up in another. Refusing to allow reasonable amount of real in-fill development means people are forced into the urban/rural interface, with predictable results.
I’m sure this is not universal but isn’t this just the case that it pushed them towards well-located suburbs with available land for big houses and privacy? Like was mid-height walkable city housing ever a massive attraction for these folks?
I’m sure multimillionaires would have lived in an apartment building in downtown LA instead.
The affordable homes in LA are not in these areas for the most part. Not everything is about zoning
!ping HOUSING-THEORY-OF-EVERYTHING
I’m sorry but zoning laws did not push extremely rich people to buy places in Pacific Palisades and the Hollywood Hills. They were quite wealthy.
The underlying issue is climate change, but I don’t expect Reason to cover that.