[KoftaBob]

* more traffic

Which is why transit expansion should go hand in hand with increased density. When you allow more density near existing transit stations, it makes it more useful. SB50 is a proposal to do just that, and yet the NIMBYs who fear increased traffic are preventing that bill, which would improve traffic by focusing development on areas near transit.

* more students at schools that are already overcrowded

More housing built leads to more property tax revenue, which leads to more resources to expand schools and build new ones. If the existing property tax rate isn't keeping up with school expenses, then the property tax rate is too low. Conveniently, the NIMBYs who fear overcrowded and overburdened schools are also the ones who refuse to repeal Prop 13 that keeps property taxes too low.

See the pattern here? Property owners make these arguments as reasons against increased density, yet prevent the solutions from being implemented. When you really dig in, NIMBYs overarching interests are in keeping their property value high, and in feeling entitled to freezing their neighborhood to the exact feel it had when they moved in. All the other reasons they give are bullshit.

[casylum]

SB50 allows for 4 and 5 story apartment buildings near "high quality" bus routes. This is a not the same thing as just allowing development near transit stations. If you look at a map of LA almost everything qualifies for development.

https://urbanize.la/post/sb-50-could-bring-sweeping-changes-...

[ummonk]

You could at least read your own link before spreading FUD. The increased height limits only apply to the rail / ferry stops (i.e. the green areas). The bus routes and jobs-rich areas get density requirements waived (i.e. you can create one story condo-complex), and reduced parking limits, but there is no change to height limits in those blue areas.

[casylum]

Ah, yes I missed that. Thanks for pointing it out.