5 ms·

Classic case of over-regulation. "Let's solve it with more regulation!" I'm a millennial, and I apologize for my generation's stupidity.

mtpn 9y ago
> Classic case of over-regulation. "Let's solve it with more regulation!" I find this to be a fairly feeble argument. Regulation, to me, is a necessary evil. Most especially when it comes to protecting the common good, or interests of those who do not have other forms of power to get a seat at the table. I’m also a millennial and I’d be just thrilled if you’d hold off on apologizing on my behalf. Regulation is not some bogeyman. It can be effective or ineffective in relation to particular goals.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  I know regulation is necessary and I know it's not a bogeyman. That's why I addressed this specific problem and this specific proposed solution. Less housing available in SF because of too much regulation. That's why the market is not able to satisfy demand. The correct solution is not "more rules" and "government-built housing". This is a typical case of trying to solve an issue caused by over-regulation with more regulation. So will you address my point or just pick up some other strawman again?
  - mtpn 9y ago
    My point is that “too much regulation” is an insufficient criticism. It means nothing, except that it suggests you think regulation itself is the problem. If you do indeed believe regulation is necessary, then we both accept that. It then becomes about what kind of regulation best addresses the complicated problem of housing in high-demand cities. I’d address your point but I don’t know what it is, beyond what I’ve already said.
  - nedwin 9y ago
    The YIMBYs have been trying to reduce regulation for a long time at the local government level. Unfortunately entrenched players don’t want to build more housing. In response the YIMBYs have taken it to the State level to enact a regulation which effectively reduces local power (and regulation) over housing.
tmh79 9y ago
Yimby solutions are almost always based on less regulations, or just changing the parameters of the regulations we already have. Usually, there is a bullshit terribly regulated onerous way to build housing, where you can follow the rules, and then get deined at the end by a random decision. YIMBYs want to take the baby step of not allowing the random reckoning at the end of the process at which a project can be randomly denied.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  They want to do this by overruling the authority of local government which is fundamentally wrong in a democracy. They also want the government to build housing. Another classic blunder committed by people who do not understand history, politics or economics. Both are examples of over-regulation, and government overreach.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    The comes across sounding like a "The Civil War was a conflict over States Rights" argument. This is one of those cases where the entrenched local interests have no intention of ever solving a blatant and growing problem (sometimes referred to as: "Got Mine, Fuck You") and it is in the State's interest to force a little sanity at the local level.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 9y ago
Huh? Several of the legislative initiatives (at the state level) have restricted what cities can do regulation-wise. That's a decrease in regulation, not an increase.

mtpn 9y ago

> Classic case of over-regulation. "Let's solve it with more regulation!" I find this to be a fairly feeble argument. Regulation, to me, is a necessary evil. Most especially when it comes to protecting the common good, or interests of those who do not have other forms of power to get a seat at the table. I’m also a millennial and I’d be just thrilled if you’d hold off on apologizing on my behalf. Regulation is not some bogeyman. It can be effective or ineffective in relation to particular goals.

dingo_bat 9y ago
I know regulation is necessary and I know it's not a bogeyman. That's why I addressed this specific problem and this specific proposed solution. Less housing available in SF because of too much regulation. That's why the market is not able to satisfy demand. The correct solution is not "more rules" and "government-built housing". This is a typical case of trying to solve an issue caused by over-regulation with more regulation. So will you address my point or just pick up some other strawman again?
- mtpn 9y ago
  My point is that “too much regulation” is an insufficient criticism. It means nothing, except that it suggests you think regulation itself is the problem. If you do indeed believe regulation is necessary, then we both accept that. It then becomes about what kind of regulation best addresses the complicated problem of housing in high-demand cities. I’d address your point but I don’t know what it is, beyond what I’ve already said.
- nedwin 9y ago
  The YIMBYs have been trying to reduce regulation for a long time at the local government level. Unfortunately entrenched players don’t want to build more housing. In response the YIMBYs have taken it to the State level to enact a regulation which effectively reduces local power (and regulation) over housing.

tmh79 9y ago

Yimby solutions are almost always based on less regulations, or just changing the parameters of the regulations we already have. Usually, there is a bullshit terribly regulated onerous way to build housing, where you can follow the rules, and then get deined at the end by a random decision. YIMBYs want to take the baby step of not allowing the random reckoning at the end of the process at which a project can be randomly denied.

dingo_bat 9y ago
They want to do this by overruling the authority of local government which is fundamentally wrong in a democracy. They also want the government to build housing. Another classic blunder committed by people who do not understand history, politics or economics. Both are examples of over-regulation, and government overreach.
- jandrese 9y ago
  The comes across sounding like a "The Civil War was a conflict over States Rights" argument. This is one of those cases where the entrenched local interests have no intention of ever solving a blatant and growing problem (sometimes referred to as: "Got Mine, Fuck You") and it is in the State's interest to force a little sanity at the local level.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 9y ago

Huh? Several of the legislative initiatives (at the state level) have restricted what cities can do regulation-wise. That's a decrease in regulation, not an increase.