Huntington Beach can't use Reagan's CEQA; The city violated state housing law, judge rules
https://www.population.news/p/huntington-beach-cant-use-reagansOpen linkView original on lemmy.worldhttps://www.population.news/p/huntington-beach-cant-use-reagansOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
Obligatory fuck Ronald Reagan
I think the writer have the same opinion considering the way they use “Reagan’s CEQA”
If I'm understanding the article correctly, this all just comes down to Huntington Beach trying to protect existing housing zoning, where the state is trying to get zoning changed to build a lot of more units in the same area; high-density.
AntiCommercial-AIlicense(CCBY-NC-SA4.0)You say "just... trying to protect existing housing zoning" as if it isn't an absolutely catastrophic, economically ruinous, and socially unjust clusterfuck.
There's no commentary, or opinion, or politics, in my comment.
Just stating my understanding of the literal article.
AntiCommercial-AIlicense(CCBY-NC-SA4.0)That's not true. "Protect" is loaded language.
How so?
And what word would you use instead that had the same meaning?
Perhaps you're oversensitive to the usage of that word?
AntiCommercial-AIlicense(CCBY-NC-SA4.0)'Protect' can imply it's a victim of an unjust action. 'Maintain' may perhaps be a more neutral term.
Not in the context of how I used it. Context matters.
The article describes a conflict between the city and the state, so 'maintain' would not be a proper word, 'protect' would be. The state was trying to take something away from the city.
AntiCommercial-AIlicense(CCBY-NC-SA4.0)