5 ms·

I agree completely with this article; as the son of a contractor, I've heard countless stories about how city regulations, without exception, cause good busines

I agree completely with this article; as the son of a contractor, I've heard countless stories about how city regulations, without exception, cause good business practices to become frustrating. Not only is it frustrating, but even in principle such regulations are definitely overstepping the bounds of government; no government should regulate how a business should operate. The market will decide that.

teddyh 10y ago
If there are no regulations preventing it, a business will externalize¹ all its costs to be paid by the whole of society instead of the costs being paid by the business itself. Society naturally has an incentive to not allow any and all parties to impose costs on it, so regulations are created which disallow externalizing costs. In the long run, having regulations is cheaper for a company than having all other companies in existence heaping externalized costs on it — this is why we live in a society instead of a jungle. ① https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
burkaman 10y ago
There's always a balance, but the market only decides how a business should make the most profit, right? The market doesn't naturally motivate anyone to adopt fair labor practices or environmentally friendly policies. If you're getting pressured to fix those things, the market would probably tell you to hire a better PR firm.
jsprogrammer 10y ago
Can you share an example of a good business practice that is frustrated by any city's regulations?
- icelancer 10y ago
  Sure. I wanted to build a frame for loading things in my facility (don't want to disclose too much, but I work in sports science). I took plans to the local office and someone there said "Can't have anything load-bearing from the ceiling otherwise you need permits X and Y." Fair enough. Building codes being what they are, that's fine with me. I suggested a modified free-standing frame and took plans to the office. Same employee said: "Yep, that works. No load on the ceiling, no permit needed." Perfect. Contacted the local welder and paid X tens of thousands of dollars to have it designed and built for me. Go back to the local bureaucratic office and say "Hey, thanks for the help. Here's some pictures, it turned out great." Office now says: "Oh no. That's too tall. You need permit X, Y, and Z now. Estimated cost is now $10,000 for those permits (instead of $0)." "What? I gave you the plans ahead of time, you approved them, and it had the height on there and everything." "Yeah, I misread them apparently. Sorry. You still need the permits." So, there you go. Just one of about 10 hassles I've had with city government here. I could go on and on, but ironically enough I have permits for something unrelated to fill out.
  - dboreham 10y ago
    Sounds more like a process problem: you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later.
    - icelancer 10y ago
      >That would prevent them from requiring one later. Seriously doubt this would stop any government bureaucracy from enforcing what's on their books. Additionally, there's no way they'd sign such a letter. You haven't gone through permitting much, have you? The rules are intentionally vague.
      - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
        So the problem isn't so much that there are regulations, but that they won't give you a binding answer about what the regulations mean, which is a separate problem.
        icelancer 10y ago
        Is it? Lack of clarity is usually a hallmark of regulations themselves, multiplying as more regulations hit the books.
    - wtbob 10y ago
      > you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later. Awww, that's cute. Have you never dealt with an American civil 'servant' before? They can lie, cheat and steal and not get fired. They can browse porn during the work day and not get fired. They can drive drunk, refuse to resign and get a sitting governor indicted for refraining to send them more money. Being a public employee in the United States is tantamount to being a demigod.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    So by your measure there shouldn't have been any restrictions at all, and you should have been able to build whatever you wanted with no oversight, inspection or requirements?
wiz21 10y ago
I'm very happy my governement makes regulations : * the market didn't decide VW should not fake emission * the market didn't decide Fukushima to be secured * the market didn't decide bisphenol-A is dangerous * the market didn't avoid asbestos * the market didn't choose forbid to sell cigarettes to people who can be hurt by them (i.e. children) * the market didn't decide tax avoidance is a bad thing Eventually, those things will get fixed, but when the damage is done (see asbestos), i.e. when it's too late. The problem is that market pushes business to make money, not to be virtuous. That's because when a business must choose between "closing" and "going on but being less than virtuous", the business says "I don't have choice, it's either live or nothing", so I choose "live on". I understand that not all business operate like this. But many people will make that choice because it's practical. Much like choosing between free software (politically fine but economically broken (that's an approximation)) and proprietary software (ok to enslave people but economically viable).
- narag 10y ago
  I am in favour of fair and reasonable regulations, but your examples are unconvincing. Faking emissions, avoiding taxes... those are illegal actions, just because you are trying to fool government for profit. Fukushima most likely followed regulations that were inadequate. The key word here is responsability. If businesses are made responsible and have to pay when they behave recklessly, the only measures needed are those preventing unreversible damage. Also there should be some kind of limitation to what government can regulate and how.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    > Faking emissions, avoiding taxes... those are illegal actions, just because you are trying to fool government for profit. Huh? Without regulation, VW could just claim whatever they wanted about the emissions of the car and it wouldn't be illegal.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jseliger 10y ago
I agree completely with this article; as the son of a contractor, I've heard countless stories about how city regulations, without exception, cause good business practices to become frustrating. I'm part of a small grant writing consulting firm, and the California Franchise Tax Board, along with New York State as a whole, both generate special hatred in my heart. With any luck everyone in my firm will be out of CA and NYC within a year or so. Austin and Nashville are on the list of potential places to go.
- giglamesh 10y ago
  Enjoy your race to the bottom.
emodendroket 10y ago
> Not only is it frustrating, but even in principle such regulations are definitely overstepping the bounds of government; no government should regulate how a business should operate. The market will decide that. "The market" was happy with sweatshops, child labor, and frequent industrial accidents, among other abuses. No thanks.
mrgoldenbrown 10y ago
Without exception huh? That's a ridiculous statement, and I'm guessing you come from a privileged enough background that you don't appreciate all the benefits you gain by living in a highly regulated society. I for one am perfectly happy about the ban on lead paint. And requiring folks to disclose asbestos if they know about it. An unregulated market decides all kinds of awful things - slavery is very desirable from a pure market standpoint. Or employing poor kids to repair textile mill machinery - you can always fire them for incompetence when they lose an arm or leg in the gears.
mikestew 10y ago
Not only is it frustrating, but even in principle such regulations are definitely overstepping the bounds of government; no government should regulate how a business should operate. The market will decide that. I'm trying to put myself in your shoes to understand where such a statement originates. All I come up with is shoes worn by person who is young, privileged, or both. A bit patronizing, I know, but it's all I can come up with. Because I remember a time when we knew that lead in gas was harmful, but "the market" decided that it would cut into profits so it was left as-is for decades. "The market" decided that children working in coal mines was a capital idea. I'd go on, but you get my point. Need I even bring up the tragedy of the commons? As the son of a contractor, I'm sure that you're aware that regulation also serves as a barrier to entry. "The market" decided that onerous regulations also serve to keep out competitors. That ol' invisible hand can work for you and against you.
cortesoft 10y ago
This idea is silly. A market can only work things out between people making an exchange. Imagine I set up a trash disposal company, and charge people a really cheap rate to dispose their trash. But actually, I just take the trash and dump it on a random persons yard. The market wont fix this - the person who is hurt by the transaction was never involved in it at all. They can't opt out. The people involved in the transaction are perfectly happy in the deal.
- narag 10y ago
  The random person is also involved in the transaction even if not taking part in it.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    Right, but they have no 'market' response they can take. They can't choose to cancel the deal. Basically, I am talking about externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)

teddyh 10y ago

If there are no regulations preventing it, a business will externalize¹ all its costs to be paid by the whole of society instead of the costs being paid by the business itself. Society naturally has an incentive to not allow any and all parties to impose costs on it, so regulations are created which disallow externalizing costs. In the long run, having regulations is cheaper for a company than having all other companies in existence heaping externalized costs on it — this is why we live in a society instead of a jungle. ① https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

burkaman 10y ago

There's always a balance, but the market only decides how a business should make the most profit, right? The market doesn't naturally motivate anyone to adopt fair labor practices or environmentally friendly policies. If you're getting pressured to fix those things, the market would probably tell you to hire a better PR firm.

jsprogrammer 10y ago

Can you share an example of a good business practice that is frustrated by any city's regulations?

icelancer 10y ago
Sure. I wanted to build a frame for loading things in my facility (don't want to disclose too much, but I work in sports science). I took plans to the local office and someone there said "Can't have anything load-bearing from the ceiling otherwise you need permits X and Y." Fair enough. Building codes being what they are, that's fine with me. I suggested a modified free-standing frame and took plans to the office. Same employee said: "Yep, that works. No load on the ceiling, no permit needed." Perfect. Contacted the local welder and paid X tens of thousands of dollars to have it designed and built for me. Go back to the local bureaucratic office and say "Hey, thanks for the help. Here's some pictures, it turned out great." Office now says: "Oh no. That's too tall. You need permit X, Y, and Z now. Estimated cost is now $10,000 for those permits (instead of $0)." "What? I gave you the plans ahead of time, you approved them, and it had the height on there and everything." "Yeah, I misread them apparently. Sorry. You still need the permits." So, there you go. Just one of about 10 hassles I've had with city government here. I could go on and on, but ironically enough I have permits for something unrelated to fill out.
- dboreham 10y ago
  Sounds more like a process problem: you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later.
  - icelancer 10y ago
    >That would prevent them from requiring one later. Seriously doubt this would stop any government bureaucracy from enforcing what's on their books. Additionally, there's no way they'd sign such a letter. You haven't gone through permitting much, have you? The rules are intentionally vague.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      So the problem isn't so much that there are regulations, but that they won't give you a binding answer about what the regulations mean, which is a separate problem.
      - icelancer 10y ago
        Is it? Lack of clarity is usually a hallmark of regulations themselves, multiplying as more regulations hit the books.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > you should have received a signed notice attached to your plan stating that no permit was required. That would prevent them from requiring one later. Awww, that's cute. Have you never dealt with an American civil 'servant' before? They can lie, cheat and steal and not get fired. They can browse porn during the work day and not get fired. They can drive drunk, refuse to resign and get a sitting governor indicted for refraining to send them more money. Being a public employee in the United States is tantamount to being a demigod.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  So by your measure there shouldn't have been any restrictions at all, and you should have been able to build whatever you wanted with no oversight, inspection or requirements?

wiz21 10y ago

I'm very happy my governement makes regulations : * the market didn't decide VW should not fake emission * the market didn't decide Fukushima to be secured * the market didn't decide bisphenol-A is dangerous * the market didn't avoid asbestos * the market didn't choose forbid to sell cigarettes to people who can be hurt by them (i.e. children) * the market didn't decide tax avoidance is a bad thing Eventually, those things will get fixed, but when the damage is done (see asbestos), i.e. when it's too late. The problem is that market pushes business to make money, not to be virtuous. That's because when a business must choose between "closing" and "going on but being less than virtuous", the business says "I don't have choice, it's either live or nothing", so I choose "live on". I understand that not all business operate like this. But many people will make that choice because it's practical. Much like choosing between free software (politically fine but economically broken (that's an approximation)) and proprietary software (ok to enslave people but economically viable).

narag 10y ago
I am in favour of fair and reasonable regulations, but your examples are unconvincing. Faking emissions, avoiding taxes... those are illegal actions, just because you are trying to fool government for profit. Fukushima most likely followed regulations that were inadequate. The key word here is responsability. If businesses are made responsible and have to pay when they behave recklessly, the only measures needed are those preventing unreversible damage. Also there should be some kind of limitation to what government can regulate and how.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  > Faking emissions, avoiding taxes... those are illegal actions, just because you are trying to fool government for profit. Huh? Without regulation, VW could just claim whatever they wanted about the emissions of the car and it wouldn't be illegal.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jseliger 10y ago

I agree completely with this article; as the son of a contractor, I've heard countless stories about how city regulations, without exception, cause good business practices to become frustrating. I'm part of a small grant writing consulting firm, and the California Franchise Tax Board, along with New York State as a whole, both generate special hatred in my heart. With any luck everyone in my firm will be out of CA and NYC within a year or so. Austin and Nashville are on the list of potential places to go.

giglamesh 10y ago
Enjoy your race to the bottom.

emodendroket 10y ago

> Not only is it frustrating, but even in principle such regulations are definitely overstepping the bounds of government; no government should regulate how a business should operate. The market will decide that. "The market" was happy with sweatshops, child labor, and frequent industrial accidents, among other abuses. No thanks.

mrgoldenbrown 10y ago

Without exception huh? That's a ridiculous statement, and I'm guessing you come from a privileged enough background that you don't appreciate all the benefits you gain by living in a highly regulated society. I for one am perfectly happy about the ban on lead paint. And requiring folks to disclose asbestos if they know about it. An unregulated market decides all kinds of awful things - slavery is very desirable from a pure market standpoint. Or employing poor kids to repair textile mill machinery - you can always fire them for incompetence when they lose an arm or leg in the gears.

mikestew 10y ago

Not only is it frustrating, but even in principle such regulations are definitely overstepping the bounds of government; no government should regulate how a business should operate. The market will decide that. I'm trying to put myself in your shoes to understand where such a statement originates. All I come up with is shoes worn by person who is young, privileged, or both. A bit patronizing, I know, but it's all I can come up with. Because I remember a time when we knew that lead in gas was harmful, but "the market" decided that it would cut into profits so it was left as-is for decades. "The market" decided that children working in coal mines was a capital idea. I'd go on, but you get my point. Need I even bring up the tragedy of the commons? As the son of a contractor, I'm sure that you're aware that regulation also serves as a barrier to entry. "The market" decided that onerous regulations also serve to keep out competitors. That ol' invisible hand can work for you and against you.

cortesoft 10y ago

This idea is silly. A market can only work things out between people making an exchange. Imagine I set up a trash disposal company, and charge people a really cheap rate to dispose their trash. But actually, I just take the trash and dump it on a random persons yard. The market wont fix this - the person who is hurt by the transaction was never involved in it at all. They can't opt out. The people involved in the transaction are perfectly happy in the deal.

narag 10y ago
The random person is also involved in the transaction even if not taking part in it.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Right, but they have no 'market' response they can take. They can't choose to cancel the deal. Basically, I am talking about externalities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)