5 ms·

Yes, there are externalities and also other ways markets fail; that's why I didn't use the term. Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the bus

Yes, there are externalities and also other ways markets fail; that's why I didn't use the term. Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the businesses, and then the market fails: No business wants to spend on on-site parking in order to free up parking for everyone else. The way to move forward is to come together and pass a law. > Zoning didn't even exist in Bend until 1947. Some of the first zoning regulations didn't come about until the early 20th century in the rest of the US. I'm not sure that means anything either way. Baseball didn't become desegregated until 1947 either. Is there something suspect about advances or changes in society that are recent? Did humans live better before 1947? > I feel that our cities are way too regulated. With due respect, this is too easy to say without evidence, is too general to have much application, and it has become cliche to say it about everything. In what ways are they too regulated, and in what ways not regulated enough? Do you have anything to back it up? How much regulation is just right? > How would we react if there were a "planning commission" that dictated how much of each kind of restaurant (Vietnamese, Mexican, Burgers, etc..) at what kind of price point could exist in a city? Vote them out of office? Appear at the planning commission meeting? Organize restaurant owners and talk to elected representatives? Democracy is a proven, effective tool. Case in point: I haven't heard of your hypothetical extreme scenario happening.

davidw 10y ago
By enacting laws, you create a very rigid situation that's much more difficult to change than "there's not enough parking", which is something the neighborhood could adapt to without too much trouble. When I was born, Bend was still a wood products industry town based around logging and the local mills. These days, it's trying to develop a high tech industry, and doing reasonably well at it for a small-ish town. Places need to adapt, and rigid zoning is probably detrimental to that adaptation. Markets take in everyone who lives, or wants to live in a place. Planning commissions, or even city councils, have just a few people with their own ideas of "how things should be". In terms of how they're too regulated, sure: http://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/06/shut-out-how-land-use-regulations-hurt-the-poor/ http://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/06/shut-out-how-land-use-r... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/04/to-end-the-affordable-housing-crisis-washington-needs-to-legalize-main-street/?utm_term=.9cd363ce3b00 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/04/... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-cities-need-to-care-more-about-works-in-them-not-just-who-lives-in-them/?utm_term=.f3c38b65bba0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-c... And Exhibit A: the market for housing in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is completely batshit crazy because of the refusal to build housing.
- hackuser 10y ago
  I do think the market is a very useful tool and that some things are over-regulated and some are under-regulated. But I don't understand your point: All regulations are bad? Everything is too regulated? I know these ideas are trendy, but they don't really mean anything or inform us. As I asked before: In what ways are they too regulated, and in what ways not regulated enough? ... How much regulation is just right? Without answers to those questions, we have nothing serious to act on. > By enacting laws, you create a very rigid situation A general statement, but laws can change. Laws often are written to create flexibility, delegating authority to regulatory commissions. Markets can be very rigid; look that the market power of Windows, whose dominance has lasted longer than most politicians' careers. When is the last time the market allowed in a new car manufacturer (Tesla hasn't yet survived infancy, and if it does it will be the only exception in (80?) years). How long does it take to change a web standard in the 'free' market? If they were government regulations, they could be changed like analog to digital TV or the reallocation of spectrum. I thought Europe's regulated, universal GSM was better than the U.S.'s 'market' solution of competing technologies. Also, laws allocate power democratically to all citizens. The 'market' allocates it to those with the most money. > Planning commissions, or even city councils, have just a few people with their own ideas of "how things should be". I disagree; they are creations of and responsive to the democratic process. The market, on the other hand, is responsive to a few people with the most money; most citizens have no say. I don't want my community run by the wealthy, with 99% of citizens living like subjects under an aristocracy. > In terms of how they're too regulated, sure: ... I don't see a few op-eds as evidence; I have no doubt there are enough people who believe it that op-eds could be supplied daily. If you are correct about SF Bay Area (I don't know), it is an example of something that is over-regulated in some way, not evidence that the everything is over-regulated (again, could you really be saying that?).
  - thinkloop 10y ago
    Doesn't parking specifically seem like an easy thing for a market to fix: paid parking lots.
    - richmarr 10y ago
Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago
>Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the businesses, and then the market fails: No business wants to spend on on-site parking in order to free up parking for everyone else. Or it could be parking is a low value land use and little parking is truly optimum. Oftentimes when streets are closed to car traffic permanently there's a boost to business in dense cities. Many cities don't have parking minimums and they have minimal parking but yet function well. Manhattan for instance is like that. I lived in Japan and I don't think auto centric Okinawa where I lived had Parking minimums. It had less parking, but from what I recall more private paid lots and higher utilization (no seas of unused parking because a random bureaucrat decided malls needed exactly 2.5 spaces per 1000 square feet). >Did humans live better before 1947? In some ways, yes. There were obviously planning failures, but mostly zoning was put in place to exclude the poor and minorities without passing an explicit ban. Just build a place they can never afford and it'll be all great, or so they thought. IIRC a majority of wealth inequality is due to housing costs. These zoning laws prop up the cost of housing and make it more and more difficult for the young to buy. Used to be you'd have like a 5 or 10 year loan to buy a house, which might cost 3x the average salary. Not anymore. >Do you have anything to back it up? You can compare US zoning with that of other nations and compare cost of housing, transportation, and other metrics. I think you'll find that on many metrics we do quite poorly. Also: mobility is decreasing as the cost of housing has increased, which in turn has GDP growth ramifications as workers cannot seek out the highest paying jobs. This is why some countries like Japan handle zoning at the national level. >Vote them out of office Good thing in many cities these planning guys are unelected. Voting out, say, the mayor or city councilman is also ineffective as a majority would be needed. Incentive wise it's in each district's best interest to ban new housing as that gives land owners more and more money as the population rises and chases the same housing stock. Add in rent control and rent stabilization and a slim majority are incentivized to keep things as they are. >Democracy is a proven, effective tool. Democracy is effective at not rounding up dissidents in secret police raids, but in cases like this it breaks down. Zoning acts as a ban on people, and those people can never become voters, thus perpetuating the system. Choosing the voters is almost as good as not having a vote at all.
- hackuser 10y ago
  >> Did humans live better before 1947? > In some ways, yes. Humans in the U.S. are far better off now in almost every way. Of course there are exceptions. > Democracy is effective at not rounding up dissidents in secret police raids, but in cases like this it breaks down. I disagree strongly; democracies perform exceptionally well economically. All the wealthiest economies are democracies, and they are far wealthier than any other economies in the history of the world. Saying democracies do well for political rights but not economics is like saying Microsoft did well with operating systems but not office suites. And one could argue that human welfare is better in democracies with more planned economies, such as the Nordic countries. Are democracies still very flawed? Absolutely, but I haven't seen a better option. As someone said, democracy is the worst possible choice, except for all the others.

davidw 10y ago

By enacting laws, you create a very rigid situation that's much more difficult to change than "there's not enough parking", which is something the neighborhood could adapt to without too much trouble. When I was born, Bend was still a wood products industry town based around logging and the local mills. These days, it's trying to develop a high tech industry, and doing reasonably well at it for a small-ish town. Places need to adapt, and rigid zoning is probably detrimental to that adaptation. Markets take in everyone who lives, or wants to live in a place. Planning commissions, or even city councils, have just a few people with their own ideas of "how things should be". In terms of how they're too regulated, sure: http://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/06/shut-out-how-land-use-regulations-hurt-the-poor/ http://marketurbanism.com/2016/09/06/shut-out-how-land-use-r... https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/04/to-end-the-affordable-housing-crisis-washington-needs-to-legalize-main-street/?utm_term=.9cd363ce3b00 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/04/... https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-sentiment-reflected-in-zoning-laws-thwarts-equality.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/business/how-anti-growth-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-cities-need-to-care-more-about-works-in-them-not-just-who-lives-in-them/?utm_term=.f3c38b65bba0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-c... And Exhibit A: the market for housing in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is completely batshit crazy because of the refusal to build housing.

hackuser 10y ago
I do think the market is a very useful tool and that some things are over-regulated and some are under-regulated. But I don't understand your point: All regulations are bad? Everything is too regulated? I know these ideas are trendy, but they don't really mean anything or inform us. As I asked before: In what ways are they too regulated, and in what ways not regulated enough? ... How much regulation is just right? Without answers to those questions, we have nothing serious to act on. > By enacting laws, you create a very rigid situation A general statement, but laws can change. Laws often are written to create flexibility, delegating authority to regulatory commissions. Markets can be very rigid; look that the market power of Windows, whose dominance has lasted longer than most politicians' careers. When is the last time the market allowed in a new car manufacturer (Tesla hasn't yet survived infancy, and if it does it will be the only exception in (80?) years). How long does it take to change a web standard in the 'free' market? If they were government regulations, they could be changed like analog to digital TV or the reallocation of spectrum. I thought Europe's regulated, universal GSM was better than the U.S.'s 'market' solution of competing technologies. Also, laws allocate power democratically to all citizens. The 'market' allocates it to those with the most money. > Planning commissions, or even city councils, have just a few people with their own ideas of "how things should be". I disagree; they are creations of and responsive to the democratic process. The market, on the other hand, is responsive to a few people with the most money; most citizens have no say. I don't want my community run by the wealthy, with 99% of citizens living like subjects under an aristocracy. > In terms of how they're too regulated, sure: ... I don't see a few op-eds as evidence; I have no doubt there are enough people who believe it that op-eds could be supplied daily. If you are correct about SF Bay Area (I don't know), it is an example of something that is over-regulated in some way, not evidence that the everything is over-regulated (again, could you really be saying that?).
- thinkloop 10y ago
  Doesn't parking specifically seem like an easy thing for a market to fix: paid parking lots.
  - richmarr 10y ago

Zach_the_Lizard 10y ago

>Maybe there aren't enough street parking spots for all the businesses, and then the market fails: No business wants to spend on on-site parking in order to free up parking for everyone else. Or it could be parking is a low value land use and little parking is truly optimum. Oftentimes when streets are closed to car traffic permanently there's a boost to business in dense cities. Many cities don't have parking minimums and they have minimal parking but yet function well. Manhattan for instance is like that. I lived in Japan and I don't think auto centric Okinawa where I lived had Parking minimums. It had less parking, but from what I recall more private paid lots and higher utilization (no seas of unused parking because a random bureaucrat decided malls needed exactly 2.5 spaces per 1000 square feet). >Did humans live better before 1947? In some ways, yes. There were obviously planning failures, but mostly zoning was put in place to exclude the poor and minorities without passing an explicit ban. Just build a place they can never afford and it'll be all great, or so they thought. IIRC a majority of wealth inequality is due to housing costs. These zoning laws prop up the cost of housing and make it more and more difficult for the young to buy. Used to be you'd have like a 5 or 10 year loan to buy a house, which might cost 3x the average salary. Not anymore. >Do you have anything to back it up? You can compare US zoning with that of other nations and compare cost of housing, transportation, and other metrics. I think you'll find that on many metrics we do quite poorly. Also: mobility is decreasing as the cost of housing has increased, which in turn has GDP growth ramifications as workers cannot seek out the highest paying jobs. This is why some countries like Japan handle zoning at the national level. >Vote them out of office Good thing in many cities these planning guys are unelected. Voting out, say, the mayor or city councilman is also ineffective as a majority would be needed. Incentive wise it's in each district's best interest to ban new housing as that gives land owners more and more money as the population rises and chases the same housing stock. Add in rent control and rent stabilization and a slim majority are incentivized to keep things as they are. >Democracy is a proven, effective tool. Democracy is effective at not rounding up dissidents in secret police raids, but in cases like this it breaks down. Zoning acts as a ban on people, and those people can never become voters, thus perpetuating the system. Choosing the voters is almost as good as not having a vote at all.

hackuser 10y ago
>> Did humans live better before 1947? > In some ways, yes. Humans in the U.S. are far better off now in almost every way. Of course there are exceptions. > Democracy is effective at not rounding up dissidents in secret police raids, but in cases like this it breaks down. I disagree strongly; democracies perform exceptionally well economically. All the wealthiest economies are democracies, and they are far wealthier than any other economies in the history of the world. Saying democracies do well for political rights but not economics is like saying Microsoft did well with operating systems but not office suites. And one could argue that human welfare is better in democracies with more planned economies, such as the Nordic countries. Are democracies still very flawed? Absolutely, but I haven't seen a better option. As someone said, democracy is the worst possible choice, except for all the others.