> I find it strange that this article defines relaxing zoning codes as "progressive." I suppose that the author is writing for an audience that equates "progre

> I find it strange that this article defines relaxing zoning codes as "progressive." I suppose that the author is writing for an audience that equates "progressive" and "good" but in any other context supporting strict regulation that restricts property rights isn't really "conservative." This is quite amusing to watch. This kind of deregulation is now sold on the hand-wavey idea that it solves housing affordability (with incredibly limited evidence), and the unspoken premise is that government is too incompetent and the invisible hand of the free market is uniquely qualified to solve the problem. "Rent control doesn't fully solve the problem, so just let the market solve it instead!" is about as libertarian a position as one could possibly espouse, yet it's got a shiny coat of paint as the "YIMBY" movement. Now, if you push back with a suggestion that some combination of government initiated interventions might be more effective than just letting capital do whatever the hell it wants, you're just a conservative NIMBY who wants to keep the poors away out of their own self interest.