>>511390130
>I do not give a shit if its apartments or houses, I am for all housing construction and I am against all restrictions on housing construction.
This mentality is part of the problem. It's going to lead us into a future where home ownership is effectively outlawed because the apartment developers will just run rampant. They'll take over every square foot of real estate and build Chinese style housing towers if they can. No one will be able to own any housing once that happens, and the landlords will be able to mandate anything on their renters after, of course, forcing them to jump through hoops to even rent their shitholes.
>As for the urbanist bikefags, I find them totally insufferable
I agree
>but I don't actually disagree with their policies.
Their policies are absolutely horrid. They want to destroy the car culture native to California. Their pretentious assholes who deserve to be sent to labor camps, or better yet, lined up against the wall and shot. Bicyclists get the rope.
>The serious ones don't want to ban anything
Technically, they say they don't want to ban anything. But what they shill for does have the effect of limiting choices and putting in place de facto bans by way of road space rationing.
>they just have ideas on what we should invest in
Yeah, stupid ideas that big tech and financial firms want to see because a population of people having their freedom of movement limited by a public transit schedule or by how far they can bike in a day or by how far their electric car faggotry can go before it needs to be charged provides ample data mining opportunities