XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10, comp.mobile.android, misc.phone.mobile.iphone
From: nuh-uh@nope.com
On 2025-12-04 14:20, Tyrone wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2025 at 2:16:14 PM EST, "Alan" wrote:
>
>> On 2025-12-04 08:08, Marian wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>>> In certain areas even the
>>>> _type_ (style) of things is controlled, to preserve the character of the
>>>> area; this may (and is!) sometimes seen as draconian, but the converse
>>>> argument is that it is the character of the area that attracted you to
>>>> it in the first place, and if you wanted to build a lot of concrete or
>>>> tin boxes, you should have bought land somewhere else.
>>>
>>> That reminds me. We have "albido" codes! Yup. Albido. If a house is on the
>>> mountain, it can't be "too visible" from the valley. The albido is a paint
>>> requirement that every home must meet so that it doesn't reflect too much.
>>
>> The word is "albEdo" with an "e":
>>
>> Another example of your supposed education at work...
>>
>>>
>>>> But I'm getting
>>>> off topic even from our off topic: basically, agricultural land is
>>>> protected from being built on, basically on the basis that we need to
>>>> preserve what ag. land we've got, at least where it's _good_ ag. land.
>>>> (Also AONBs - areas of outstanding natural beauty - and national parks -
>>>> even if not actually _good_ ag. land.)
>>>
>>> I understand agricultural land being protected, & vice versa since
>>> fertilizer runoff could be dangerous if homes are built in the drainage.
>>>
>>> Here's the local Silicon Valley zoning which contains what we have.
>>>
>>
>> I love the way you feel this need to mention "Silicon Valley" every time.
>>
>>>
>>> Page 61 begins "HS" (hillside) zoning, which all the mountains are, where,
>>> in some areas, apparently, the lot size can be as small as 20 acres (8
>>> hectares) when subdivisions occur. But where I am, they don't want any more
>>> people so there will never be more homes than there are currently here.
>>
>> "Here" is completely redundant in that last sentence.
>>
>> "But where I am, they don't want any more people[sic] so there will
>> never be more homes than there are currently here."
>>
>> Means precisely the same thing as:
>>
>> "But where I am, they don't want any more people[sic] so there will
>> never be more homes than there are currently."
>>
>>
>> But far more germane:
>>
>> Page 61 does not "begin[] HS".
>>
>> It begins with the remaining text regarding "AR Districts" from the
>> previous page.
>>
>> Specifically, the text that reads "Lot Size Reduction. A subdivision may
>> include a lot or lots as small as 20 acres" is Section C of "2.020.060,
>> AR Districts: Specific Subdivision and Road Provisions".
>>
>> After you get to "2.020.070 HS Districts: Supplemental Development
>> Standards", one of the very first things it says is:
>>
>> "A. Setbacks–Substandard Named Subdivisions. Setbacks may be reduced on
>> lots less than one acre..."
>>
>> Ergo, HS zoning MUST allow lots of far less than the 40 acres you first
>> claimed applied to "every property".
>
> Haven't you learned yet? We are not supposed to actually read the links that
> Arlen provides. We are supposed to just accept that the link says what Arlen
> claims it says.
>
>> I'm wondering where you got the degrees you claim to have that you
>> cannot follow such a simple flow of text?
>
> I'm guessing from online "colleges". Or a local junior college.
>
> Maybe Arlen can provide a link that he will claim proves that he has degrees.
> He will assume that no one will read it. But when we read it, it will of
> course say no such thing.
Isn't interesting that Arlen replied to another post which was a reply
to one of mine...
...but not the one with the actual substance rebutting his bullshit.
No wait!
Not "interesting" at all.
Rather "utterly predictable"!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
