One Paseo Vote

[FlyerInHi]

Actually if you want organic growth, you do let the landowner/developer build whatever he wants.

What about property rights and getting the best and highest use?

Zoning is a relatively new concept. The organic growth neighborhoods that we love now happened without zoning.

I would argue that without zoning, change would happen much more quickly. The market would adjust and provide profit incentives to deliver the housing that people want.

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=AN]suburb. Have you seen very many suburb with no urban core reinvent/grow itself and add an urban core?
[/quote]

Yes, take a drive through the San Fernando valley.

Even some parts of San Jose.

Also the Asian communities in Diamond Bar, San Gabriel, etc.. even Arcadia now

[an]

[quote=The-Shoveler][quote=AN]suburb. Have you seen very many suburb with no urban core reinvent/grow itself and add an urban core?
[/quote]

Yes, take a drive through the San Fernando valley.

Even some parts of San Jose.

Also the Asian communities in Diamond Bar, San Gabriel, etc.. even Arcadia now[/quote]Thank goodness for Google street view. Do you have some address I can look at? I’ve driven around San Jose and it still look like a bunch of strip malls. Based on the Bird’s eye view in Bing map of Diamond Bar, all I see are strip malls. Nothing I would call an urban/town center. Maybe I’m not driving through the right part.

[FlyerInHi]

Santana Row, haha.

Seriously, density is successful and people do flock to it. In the middle of ticky tacky suburbia, in Columbus, OH they built a towncenter called Easton Town Center (the owner is the founder of the Limited). The area around it has become very desirable with apartments, condos… commercial. The existing SFRs have gone up in value.

I have been there. It’s very nice and expanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easton_Town_Center

How about something like Americana at Brand (in Glendale) along the 56? With condos and apartments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americana_at_Brand

[carli]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Actually if you want organic growth, you do let the landowner/developer build whatever he wants.

What about property rights and getting the best and highest use?

Zoning is a relatively new concept. The organic growth neighborhoods that we love now happened without zoning.

I would argue that without zoning, change would happen much more quickly. The market would adjust and provide profit incentives to deliver the housing that people want.[/quote]

So FlyerInHi, there seems to be a major contradiction in your argument that a free market should solely determine development. One one hand, you say developers should have a right to do whatever they want with their property regardless of its impact on surrounding property owners. But you can’t have it both ways. If you want a “hands off” style of government, then you must also believe in the rule of individual property owners/citizens.

So what happens to individual property owners’ rights when a project like One Paseo dramatically impacts their lives and property (not to mention the environment, public safety, as well as so many other factors)? Do individual property owners’ rights go away just because a developer has a right to make a profit? Can’t have it both ways.

There’s a logical reason that community plans and zoning regulations were implemented. They provide a framework, albeit imperfect, for working out these kinds of issues.

[The-Shoveler]

AN I really don’t have a lot of time to waste to do this, but anyway,

In the 1970’s downtown San Jose was small town-esh and a total dump,
It was torn down and rebuilt
http://www.asla.org/ppn/Article.aspx?id=33863

same for most of the San Fernando & San Gabriel Valleys.

My contention is that development will come when the community is ready for it, there is no need to force it.

When the community is ready it will happen.

[an]

San Jose downtown is exactly what I’m talking about. Its a downtown. You can use San Diego as an example too. But Carmel valley is a suburb, not a city. It doesn’t have an area zoned for high density mixed used to start with.

[The-Shoveler]

The L.A. Valleys area’s were not.

But anyway I guess the CV Residents who want to live is a uncrowded suburb will just have to move LOL.

Just kidding sort of.

[spdrun]

San Jose downtown is exactly what I’m talking about. Its a downtown. You can use San Diego as an example too. But Carmel valley is a suburb, not a city. It doesn’t have an area zoned for high density mixed used to start with.

I’m not sure if that definition holds. A lot of East Coast and Midwestern suburbs do have downtowns with mixed use, and have had for 100 years!

[FlyerInHi]

Carli, I would argue that zoning takes away property rights. The rules are cookie cutter arbitrary and don’t take into account the lay of the land, people with resources can get variances but the regular guy is hurt.

So you end up with ugly suburbs like Clairemont that don’t get up zoned and remodeled.

I thInk my view is more big picture than those of soccer moms who don’t want to deal with traffic taxiing their kids around in their SUVs and mini vans.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=The-Shoveler]
But anyway I guess the CV Residents who want to live is a uncrowded suburb will just have to move LOL.

Just kidding sort of.[/quote]

Maybe they do. If we can fit in 5 more Qualcomms and their employees all the better.
They can sell and take their cash with them.

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI – some zoning is needed. Unless you want your neighbors to be able to set up a lead battery recycling facility next door to you. Or an oil refinery — like the one that exploded in Torrance — down the street 🙂

As far as the soccer mommies, the ideal situation would be for the kids to be able to walk to school and activities, not have to be shuttled around in a mooomyvan.

[carli]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Carli, I would argue that zoning takes away property rights. The rules are cookie cutter arbitrary and don’t take into account the lay of the land, people with resources can get variances but the regular guy is hurt.

So you end up with ugly suburbs like Clairemont that don’t get up zoned and remodeled.

I thInk my view is more big picture than those of soccer moms who don’t want to deal with traffic taxiing their kids around in their SUVs and mini vans.[/quote]

FlyerInHi, since you view yourself as mainly focused on big picture, try to address the big picture question instead of dodging it with a remark about zoning: Why should a developer’s property rights trump individuals’ property rights?

And no need to attempt to discount differing opinions with meaningless labels like soccer mom and silly outdated stereotypes.

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=The-Shoveler]
But anyway I guess the CV Residents who want to live is a uncrowded suburb will just have to move LOL.

Just kidding sort of.[/quote]

Maybe they do. If we can fit in 5 more Qualcomms and their employees all the better.
They can sell and take their cash with them.[/quote]

The next QCOM will probably start in the area where they move TO, maybe Carlsbad LOL.

Kind of what happened in the L.A. area over the last 20 or so years, it just moves from conga park, to Simi Valley, then to west lake, then to Ventura , then to Valencia. Now days Arcadia (it not like the bay area where everyone stays in one place).

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI – some zoning is needed. Unless you want your neighbors to be able to set up a lead battery recycling facility next door to you. Or an oil refinery — like the one that exploded in Torrance — down the street 🙂
[/quote]

Wouldn’t you want a bar like Cheers in your neighborhood? Or a mom and pop convenience store? One of my relatives operated a quaint convenience store outside of Boston. It was attached to his house so he worked from home.

You don’t need zoning. The business license granting process is good enough. It can be done on an ad hoc basis. That’s how you get mixed interesting neighborhoods.

[quote=spdrun]
As far as the soccer mommies, the ideal situation would be for the kids to be able to walk to school and activities, not have to be shuttled around in a mooomyvan.[/quote]

Driving is all they know. Since the post office implemented cluster mailboxes, 50% of people drive to the mailbox. They are too lazy and lethargic to walk.

I see cars backed up at school bus stops where parents pickup their kids. For some reason kids cannot walk home.

[Author]

Posts