Re:Demolishing the California Dream: How SF Planned Its Own ...
by gamblor956 on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @01:38PM
(#18078350)
CA and NY don't have more significantly regulations about what people can build and do on their property than Texas and Oklahoma. We simply have more reasonable zoning restrictions, like not allowing housing in areas designed as floodplains, or schools and housing within a few hundred feet of an oil refinery or fertilizer plant or other industrial facility susceptible to explosive accidents.
Parts of California, like the SF Bay Area, have more restrictive zoning laws. This is not true of the state as a whole, and generally the restrictiveness of zoning laws is highly correlated with the per capita household income of an area, not with its political leanings. (In LA, for example, the most restrictive zoning laws are found in Palos Verdes, the most conservative part of the city but also one of its wealthiest. Commercial buildings are generally limited to 2 stories in the few areas where they even allow commercial development. Contrast that to Beverly Hills, an equally wealthy neighborhood that leans significantly leftward that allows for significant commercial and mixed-use developments. )
Parts of California, like the SF Bay Area, have more restrictive zoning laws. This is not true of the state as a whole, and generally the restrictiveness of zoning laws is highly correlated with the per capita household income of an area, not with its political leanings. (In LA, for example, the most restrictive zoning laws are found in Palos Verdes, the most conservative part of the city but also one of its wealthiest. Commercial buildings are generally limited to 2 stories in the few areas where they even allow commercial development. Contrast that to Beverly Hills, an equally wealthy neighborhood that leans significantly leftward that allows for significant commercial and mixed-use developments. )