5 ms·
I'm glad Tyler is talking about this, as he tends to be the leading edge of a lot of policy discussion around newish ideas, and the Japanese zoning system is a
by saosebastiao 10y ago
I'm glad Tyler is talking about this, as he tends to be the leading edge of a lot of policy discussion around newish ideas, and the Japanese zoning system is a marvel of both efficacy and simplicity.
While the Japanese system is implemented and managed on the national level, I can imagine this being more effective on a more granular level, while still being much higher up than the city level as to avoid the political repercussions of local special interest landowners.
- pauldino 10y agoTyler may have talked about this elsewhere, but this post was written by Alex Tabarrok.
- adrianratnapala 10y agoI'd guess the state level is natural -- but then again some states in the US (and all states in Australia) are dominated by one big city, so the state government can also be captured by NIMBYs. Generally I dislike the way top-level governments are becoming the only game in town. But the point is to have multiple levels of government checking each other. When it comes to zoning: its the locals who are the "bad" guys.
- twelvechairs 10y agoThe problem is local governments are awful at planning for growth, especially in nice areas (where people actually want to live) as they tend towards no change. I think the best solution is still planning at a local level but there should be approppriate rules from a higher level to ensure it works - usually including a growth target which must be planned for and minimum densities (allowing for some exceptions) for different kidnds of locations (greenfield, around train stations, etc) On your other point - in my experience states tend towards the opposite - being developer lobby driven much more than nimby