High density living, coming to your neighborhood soon

[morekaos]

The developers are obviously smarter.

You may not care about toxic land that causes cancer, but they know that people actually believe in science and won’t want to rent there. Max profit.

Really need to know your area. That land was slated for development for years. Good friend was going to put a Home Depot there in the early 2000’s (I would have loved that) but radical enviros blocked it. The area is a dump and should be plowed over and something useful put there. As it stands it’s an eyesore that coyotes live in that have eaten every cat in the shore. Properly infrastructured it is a vastly better place for housing. Unfortunately, the Unicorn worshippers are in charge

 

[nosuchreality]

in May, North Tustin lost its fight against “high density” redevelopment of the 5 Acre Racquet Club site. High density in the eye beholder, 37 units on five acres. A few 20,000 sf lots, plus some condos, three stories, etc.

Racquet Club housing project approved by OC Planning Commission

By Tina Richards

foothillssentry.com

County Counsel Nicole Walsh assured the commissioners that because the covenant was between two private parties, the county does not have to recognize it. She also noted that, despite the small estate zoning, the county General Plan designates the property “suburban residential,” which allows up to 18 units per acre. Therefore, the development, at six units per acre, conforms to permitted uses.

“Conform” is, according to club neighbors, the operative word. Six lots per acre is not two lots per acre. Even the county staff report notes that the development site is bordered by 20,000-sq.-ft. small estates on the north and west, and 10,000-sq.-ft. lots east and south (City of Tustin). Residents argue that force-fitting 37 residences into five acres surrounded by expansive lots, is not conforming.

 

[AW]

Really need to know your area. That land was slated for development for years. Good friend was going to put a Home Depot there in the early 2000’s (I would have loved that) but radical enviros blocked it. The area is a dump and should be plowed over and something useful put there. As it stands it’s an eyesore that coyotes live in that have eaten every cat in the shore. Properly infrastructured it is a vastly better place for housing. Unfortunately, the Unicorn worshippers are in charge

Unfortunately this is talk Irvine and not talk Long Beach, most people don’t know the area and frankly don’t care

You already mentioned it’s a former oil, toxic land and just called it a dump. Once again the developers are smarter, why build there. Max profit to be had elsewhere.

Irony is not lost on me that oil is the reason for your complaint here, of course you blame it on something else

 

[morekaos]

As usual…you miss the point. This trend is coming, everywhere…Irvine included. The fact that these fields were once oil fields is not the reason for lack of developed…almost all of Ling Beach was once an oil field. The only reason that patch of land isn’t developed now is the radical enviro‘s insist that it’s precious wetlands. It’s just an empty lot with weeds on it, catches fire every year. It would be best for the community to develop it responsibly instead of dumping dense apartment buildings on an already overcrowded corner of PCH.

 

[AW]

As usual…you miss the point. This trend is coming, everywhere…Irvine included. The fact that these fields were once oil fields is not the reason for lack of developed…almost all of Ling Beach was once an oil field. The only reason that patch of land isn’t developed now is the radical enviro‘s insist that it’s precious wetlands. It’s just an empty lot with weeds on it, catches fire every year. It would be best for the community to develop it responsibly instead of dumping dense apartment buildings on an already overcrowded corner of PCH.

As usual your posts are pointless. And I’ve mentioned before, your communication or lack thereof is the culprit as it is biased, agenda based and fits your narrative (blame the left).

I go by the info you provided, let’s recap, you complain about dense housing due to lack of regulations. And then you mentioned an alternative site isn’t used because it was a former oil field and a dump. And then it’s because it’s protected wetlands.

And again, this is talk Irvine. Most people only know Long Beach as Queen Mary, aquarium, gangs and crime, snoop dogg, and maybe go see Cal (Worthington), can’t assume people know the intricate history of LB.

I already know that dense housing is going to happen, even in Irvine. There are 10k+ dense units in IBC, spectrum, GP each. NSR just posted Tustin, guess what, Westminster, Laguna Hills and Santa Ana malls all are in talks for the same. Maybe you can’t accept that reality. Or this happens even though you like to mention people flocking away from CA.

I sure don’t know the LB oil background but was it because of the oil drilling that’s leading to it being a protected wetland, and that they don’t want people to live on it, because you know (or don’t), they rather not have cancer. Maybe you can’t accept the reality that oil is the basis of your complaint. The irony…

 

[morekaos]

So much anger…take a deep breath and have a Peña colada.

 

[AW]

Irony. Not the one whiny with large bold fonts and blaming others. Lol

I don’t drink pina colada, too much fluff and generally weak much like your arguments.

But too much winning against you does get boring.

 

[Ready2Downsize]

doesn't this go against what you're saying tho?
people are leaving cali, so why the need to build more housing?
tax breaks, and this is the result
lower regulations, and this is the result
global warming? what has this got to do with the topic of dense housing? lol

Still have lots of people coming across the border that need housing and you still have unhoused homeless. Even with people leaving, you still have growth due to kids moving out when they grow up. Still got lots of foreign owned vacant houses which will not likely get anyone moving in taking up space.

Shouldn't really be an issue in most of Irvine due to the HOA's and small lots but I wouldn't be surprised to see apartments popping up in areas like Fountain Valley where lots are about 7200 sq feet in 60 year old homes. Get a few adjoining lots, build small apts 3 stories high, some low income with builder and landlord incentives, no HOA and voila. Neighbors get mad but can't do anything and start selling and there goes the nighborhood.

 

[The Motor Court Company]

Still have lots of people coming across the border that need housing and you still have unhoused homeless. Even with people leaving, you still have growth due to kids moving out when they grow up. Still got lots of foreign owned vacant houses which will not likely get anyone moving in taking up space.

Shouldn't really be an issue in most of Irvine due to the HOA's and small lots but I wouldn't be surprised to see apartments popping up in areas like Fountain Valley where lots are about 7200 sq feet in 60 year old homes. Get a few adjoining lots, build small apts 3 stories high, some low income with builder and landlord incentives, no HOA and voila. Neighbors get mad but can't do anything and start selling and there goes the nighborhood.

And then they can buy neighbors house, rinse and repeat. Sounds like a good business plan, straight out of monopoly playbook

 

[morekaos]

Irony. Not the one whiny with large bold fonts and blaming others. Lol

I don’t drink pina colada, too much fluff and generally weak much like your arguments.

But too much winning against you does get boring.

Oh stop it Eye..

 

[Liar Loan]

L.A. County could have 1.7 million fewer people by 2060. It’s not only because residents are leaving​

Recently updated population projections show the county losing over 1.7 million people between now and 2060, a decrease of more than 17% from the current total of around 10 million.

The data predicts a steep drop off in births “as L.A. gets older, because fertility is very tied to age,” Gallardo said.

Citing data from the California Department of Public Health that showed a 20% reduction in births in the county from 2016 to 2021, he noted that lower birthrates now can compound over time to significantly affect population, resulting in future generations shrinking.

Another factor — the drop in legal immigration — may also be dampening the outlook for California’s population.

“On a per-million basis, California usually ranks in [the] top five” for lawful permanent residents, Gallardo said, so national policies limiting immigration have an outsize impact on the state.

L.A. County could have 1.7 million fewer people by 2060. It's not only because residents are leaving

The state population is expected to be flat over the coming decades for the first time in California history. See which counties will gain and lose people.

www.latimes.com

 

[morekaos]

The world is heading to stack living of the poor…escape to the internet to escape reality…

 

[AW]

this thread is more like, when drill baby drill goes wrong

it's all due to the oil fields, all this future dense housing in the area, it's really a shame

 

[morekaos]

more like when environmentalist go crazy. That land should’ve been developed long ago. it hasn’t been actively drilled in decades.

 

[AW]

lol, that's only because no one wants to develop on a toxic land.

once again, drill baby drill is to blame, but of course you like to insert your narrative and go blame something else,

 

[morekaos]

Wrong again, they’ve been trying to develop that land for decades, but are continually blocked by radical environmentalist who think there’s some value to marshland in the middle of the city. More unicorn farmers trying to save a nonexistent species…fools

 

[AW]

Wrong again, they’ve been trying to develop that land for decades, but are continually blocked by radical environmentalist who think there’s some value to marshland in the middle of the city. More unicorn farmers trying to save a nonexistent species…fools

too easy

i googled, and oil fields discovered and drilled in long beach pre dates your 'radical environmentalist' claims
go ask anyone (except for you), would you like to live on top of cancerous toxic land?
we all know the answer

interesting using the word, 'fools' lol

 

[morekaos]

Wrong again…lazy google activism on your part…

Court Orders City of Long Beach to Rescind Approval of Home Depot Next to Los Cerritos Wetlands​

Court Orders City of Long Beach to Rescind Approval of Home Depot Next to Los Cerritos Wetlands

Long Beach, CA (PRWEB) May 14, 2008 -- Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John A. Torribio has ordered the City of Long Beach to set aside its approval of a

www.prweb.com

 

[AW]

how about the city of long beach itself

About

www.longbeach.gov

Although oil was originally discovered at Signal Hill in 1921, it wasn't until 1932 that the Wilmington Oil Field was discovered.
Radical environmentalist came in when?

like i said, too easy

 

[morekaos]

they developed all over Long Beach for the last hundred years, right over the old oil fields. The environmental is blocked that area of the wetlands since the 80s.