[justanotherguy0]

We don't need to force a shift. We just need to get rid of incentives for cars, like off street parking requirements and free parking.

The government shouldn't be telling people what they can or can't build (beyond safety)

[ericd]

Disagree with the last one, one of government’s main responsibilities is to regulate peoples’ externalities so they don’t infringe on other peoples’ rights. Noise and pollution especially negatively affect neighbors.

It’d be great if this was done parametrically (Eg setting max noise output at your property boundaries, particulate output, etc,), but I guess it’s been historically more convenient to do it via broad zoning instead. Japan’s max-use zoning seems like a good compromise.

[Ericson2314]

> We just need to get rid of incentives for cars, like off street parking requirements and free parking.

The Bay Area cannot hope to cancel all the car subsidization done at the state and national level. More active measures are needed.

> The government shouldn't be telling people what they can or can't build (beyond safety)

I really fundamentally disagree. Even if we accept liberatarianism for individual and business choices by default, land is a public good in finite supply in fixed position. Isolated actors developing land as they please can cause public harm because the utility of land is based on how surrounding land is used.

We need to collectively agree cars and single family homes hold the bay area back, and then collectively work to move away from both, to replace wholesale self-perpetuating car culture with self-perpetuating public transit apartment culture.