I swear this is NIMBY’s, which they hell they think they are to try to stop the development when the population will have increased over the years. They are just thinking about themselves and their wishes and not the future of the city or resident in the future.
This is irrelevant. NIMBYs Move to the burbs and close to hell. These are the same people who tried to stop the mass transportation projects (subway, lightrail, busways etc) in the town.
“‘ Is endless Villaraigosa fantasies that You’ll get rich people to live near the bus stop, ‘ says Kotkin, a long critic planning who fought for the Los Angeles suburban development of the city’s traditional.”
Note that Villaraigosa talking about subway stops and no bus. Kotkin is the dishonest hack. If I remember correctly he had earlier argued that HE should not invest in public transport since it does not have a density that is required to make an effective transit. Now he is arguing against making part of the LA solid enough for transit to work in a way that it should be. It’d be a ball of mud is quoted in a serious context.
Before building a super compact housing in Southern California, policy-makers have to address the effects of the drought and water shortage. We live almost in the middle of the desert, but the population exploded. The old residents will have to ration water because of the influx of millions of inhabitants of the new all wanted a place like sardines to squeeze into the same? Will we get the allocation of two drops of water to our toothbrush, grass lawns which are prohibited in favour of cacti, and bathroom is no longer than 30 seconds? We don’t have to agree to a dense residential development in dry areas it unless policymakers are coming up with solutions to provide abundant water rationing would hurt without a resident there.