> Right next door is Hawthorne
reply30 minutes drive in no traffic, crossing half a dozen cities and the 405. There's reasons to inveigh against the YIMBYs (why are they celebrating densifying a coastal area that's actively falling into the pacific[1], nevermind it's inherent beauty) but let's not deny geography.
Also RPV doesn't have 1-5 acre lots, it just costs ~$4m for an house on a normal lot, rising to ~$20m as you get to the coast. You might be thin thinking of Rolling Hills, to the extent you're thinking of anything on the peninsula at all?
Can you clarify why it is absurd to add density to an area with huge 5 acre lots?
replyOr why cities should be able to ignore state laws, for that matter.
replyWhich is likely why they are doing it. The City of Huntington Beach had a similar problem: there was simply no room to build additional housing. They sued the state and lost. The law is overreaching, but it's the law.
replyA community of 5-acre equestrian lots is pastoral. Dumping a 650 housing project in the middle of that would destroy its character.
replyIf the neighbors of these lots care to maintain their vacancy, they ought to do so the more naturally legal way: by collectively buying and owning those lots.
replyHorses aren't native, maybe they destroyed the character first.
replyHow is that absurd? If I own land and want to build 650 new homes, what exactly is the argument for stopping me, besides "I don't like it"?
replyIf you don't want people developing their 5 acre lots, you should buy all of the 5 acre lots. Problem solved.
reply> The absurdity of adding 650 homes to this area is astounding
replyLet the free market decide whether it wants the homes or not.
I think insane real estate prices are more of a motivation to leave California than local political drama.
reply