[jgowdy]

Yeah, the traffic isn't bad enough so let's just shoehorn in multifamily units into single family zoned neighborhoods that aren't remotely close enough to the jobs people work for bicycling to be a realistic option. Virtue signaling the housing crisis isn't useful. If you're going to talk about housing you can't just rail against "NIMBYs" and clamor for more housing. You have to actually explain how the infrastructure and transportation to/from jobs will work with your assertions. Otherwise you're just arguing for cramming everyone up each other's asses and let the chips fall where they may.

Most people are not going to ride a bicycle to work. Some of us have kids to drop off at school on the way to work. We have to buy enough groceries to feed a family, which don't fit on a bicycle. Let go of your hipster fantasies. We can't all be single people living in a flat, riding a bicycle to the farmer's market and the book store.

[andrewmcwatters]

No, no, no, can't you see? We need to save California! Won't someone PLEASE think about the landlords? I need people to owe me money forever! How else will I survive?

Please, oh please, California, don't build more single-family homes and create stable families. Won't someone PLEASE think about Blackrock! REITs need cash flow to be viable investments! How else will we pay out dividends to investors?

[anchpop]

Density is better for the environment and reduces housing costs which benefits poor people and minorities. The primary beneficiaries of the current arrangement are rich white landowners who in many cases pay virtually no property tax. Stable families are more than capable of thriving in multi-family homes, go anywhere in London or Paris to see for yourself.