LogFAQs > #979454981

Sorozone posted...

There is no incentive for developers to make the smaller houses, with a lower price point. Nothing in this bill does this, it just like you said, provides the option to do so.

The incentive is being able to make money by building more houses on less space, still making a profit, but selling at a cheaper price to those who can now afford it.
You can't force developers to build something. Even if the govt was to say they want to build housing themselves through public money, they'd still have to contract out the work to developers!! And it would be good for us to have the govt build the housing for a cheaper price.

Sorozone posted...

Sure, but did you know AZ, already in a major housing crisis, is also one of the fastest growing states and economies in the USA? The point where the houses start becoming more affordable is when the demand is starting to be met. The rate of growth in addition to the already looming problem of the not enough houses would still take years to make the market rate go down. Once again, I'll reiterate, nothing in this bill incentives affordability other than allowing developments to bypass 16 city local codes and regulations to build more houses, but nothing in this bill states they need to actually make them affordable.

What is this word salad. We should be making the homes now while it's growing!

Sorozone posted...

I dunno, the 16 cities they would be then allowed to build in, ignoring all codes, regulations, infrastructure with no say by the residents who have lived in said cities.

The bill specifically says no public and health guidelines can be bypassed. Stop fucking lying about what the bill says.

Sorozone posted...

Arizona can regroup and reintroduce a more intricate bill. Maybe start with one city? See if this idea works out.

We know more housing means cheaper prices. We know that reducing size requirements leads to developers building more of those houses for less. We don't need to waste time doing studies.

Sorozone posted...

The biggest red flag, is that AZ developments showed no sign at all of opposing this bill. Why? Because it would be an instant money maker with almost no set backs for them.

It is possible for both a private developer AND the public to benefit from something.

Sorozone posted...

This bill basically says "Fuck your city, build some super denser houses and who cares about your geography and infrastructural needs" Want to live within 5 feet of your neighbor, the interstate? The airport? The military installation? The railroad? Go right ahead. Water? Who cares?

Your neighbors own an acre of land? half acre? quarter acre of property? The can sell it to a developer and have them build dense housing.

Yes!! That's exactly what I want.
.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/16bf78de.png

city and local zoning boards have failed the State and its citizens in not allowing housing to be built. The State is deciding that they have a vested interest in putting their thumb on the scale to improve the housing conditions.

And again, this bill is to reduce the minimum home and lot size. The cities still have vast amounts of power in dictating their aesthetic wants (even to the detriment of reducing housing supply and creating more homeless).

Stop lying about this bill!!