3 ms·
> 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. M
by 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 agoI 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 agoMy 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 agoThe 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.