5 ms·
Right. There’s no need to take this “all the way to the top” (ie Federal). States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments.
by ende 8y ago
Right. There’s no need to take this “all the way to the top” (ie Federal). States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments.
- xxpor 8y ago>States can easily supplant the zoning powers of their local governments. Depends on how home rule is set up in that state's constitution.
- CamTin 8y agoMost state constitutions are relatively simple to amend. Certainly much easier than the U.S. Constitution.
- pcwalton 8y agoAnd they do; see the Housing Accountability Act in California, for example.
- prolikewh0a 8y agoWon't happen. The Nimbys have all of the money and can influence the votes in extraordinary ways. Look at Seattle, they won't budge and we have an enormous amount of single family housing. Our mayor is also nearly entirely useless as well, and seemingly only cares about sports teams. The amount of propaganda that would be pushed out to crush any changes to zoning would be on historic levels.
- pcwalton 8y agoAB 2923, which overrides local zoning in order to allow BART to develop on its parking lots, recently passed both houses in California, despite NIMBY objections. And the Housing Accountability Act, which NIMBYs loathe, has long been law (and was even strengthened relatively recently). Renters are a growing political force.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago> Renters are a growing political force. Renters (often under rent control) are NIMBYs as well, don't understand or are convinced that supply and demand don't apply to housing.
- pcwalton 8y ago> Renters (often under rent control) are often NIMBYs as well This is a very SF-specific view of the world. :) Rent control is specific to just a handful of locations and is often subject to statewide restrictions (e.g. Costa-Hawkins). In general, renters are less inclined toward NIMBYism. This is especially true for the younger ones, who don't benefit as much from RC even in the locations where it exists. And even rent controlled tenants don't like the fact that they can't move.
- mixmastamyk 8y agoI'm in Los Angeles, where it is a factor.
- chaostheory 8y agoIt applies beyond just California. It's in NY as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more locations.
- burlesona 8y agoRent control is almost exclusive to California and New York. Ref: http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm http://www.landlord.com/rent_control_laws_by_state.htm
- dragonwriter 8y agoYour link doesn't support your claim, as it indicates rent control exists in D.C., several cities in Maryland, over 100 jurisdictions in N.J., as well as a smaller (but still large) number of jurisdictions in NY and almost a dozen in CA (there's also some more in CA listed in a heading of “other than rent control”, which seems likely to be intended to indicate something that is not rent control but raises some similar issues for landlords, but the links all appear to be dead links, so the actual specific meaning is less than clear.) So, if it's “almost exclusive” to any pair of states, it's New Jersey and New York, not NY and CA. (The source is also inaccurate in at least one respect, in that NY by the description given on the page and CA due to Costa-Hawkins both meet the criteria for a “Yes” in State Prohibits or Preempts Rent Control column, but both have blanks in that column.)
- chrisco255 8y agoDepends on the state. Some states are pro-growth, some are not.
- ende 8y agoTo clarify, I meant “easily” in terms of fewer legal barriers. Political barriers is indeed a whole other issue.