More housing near the Expo Line and other California transit stations

Re:More housing near the Expo Line and other California tran... by timr on Friday January 05, 2018 @12:37PM (#16080072)

I have no idea what the reasons are for opposing the Brisbane development, and I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either. It sounds like there are reasonable arguments that the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad, and seems like something the state could actually fix, instead of attempting to engage in central planning.

If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them just because Scott Weiner thinks there should be more development (and no, invoking "NIMBYism" isn't a counterargument).

[1] "Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-control...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:More housing near the Expo Line and other California tran... by ak217 on Friday January 05, 2018 @05:07PM (#16082164)

> I highly doubt you (or the state legislature) does either

I do, because I've been following the issue, the Brisbane city council meetings, and the reasons that the Brisbane city council has been citing. It's not a secret.

> the city will lose on tax income [1], which is bad

The city is not entitled to hypothetical future tax income.

> If there are legitimate local concerns over a development, the state shouldn't be allowed to override them

Wishing for more tax revenue and property value appreciation is not a legitimate local concern. The city is not entitled to arbitrarily decide who can lawfully move in or build on privately owned land within its limits.

[ Parent | on HN ]