[kory]

But his neighborhood owns his neighborhood, and they vote to continue the multifamily zoning ban. Clearly if this was only Marc’s preference, it wouldn’t be law.

Surely the solution is to build more places for people to be employed rather than overcrowding existing ones and forcing people to commute from far away. COVID showed us the office centric commuter world is not necessary. I understand some people must be onsite, but still, drastic commute reductions and spreading out of people is a good thing.

[darksaints]

It wasn't law. That is why they are objecting to it...cause the law doesn't ban it.

And no, the solution is to build more housing where people want to live, and let all the whiny nimby chucklefucks move to the places where nobody wants to live. That is, after all, what they want. If Marc Andreesen really hates people living near him, he can easily buy 100 acres in the Nevada desert where nobody would ever dare to build an apartment building.

[kory]

I would consider zoning codes law. To argue otherwise is pedantic.

Sorry, just because you want to live somewhere, doesn’t entitle you to enough units built there for you to afford it.

I’d love to live in Atherton. But I can’t afford it. I don’t try and get more units built there when the community clearly doesn’t want that, so I choose somewhere else.

[darksaints]

But this apartment building wasn't against the zoning code. That's why it was being built. It was just not part of some ambiguous plan created by some random dude. To argue that a completely non-binding plan is law is obtuse.

Just because you live somewhere does not entitle you to control your neighbors property.

[hackerlight]

> But his neighborhood owns his neighborhood

By that logic, the country owns the country, and the country should be able to force any part of the country to do what the broader country wants, and that is not considered force because, well, the country owns the country.