4 ms·
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 a
by 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 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.