4 ms·
I agree removing local control is a good idea. One way to think about it is that there's kind of a game-theory problem where we have a bunch of groups that have
by notJim 6y ago
I agree removing local control is a good idea. One way to think about it is that there's kind of a game-theory problem where we have a bunch of groups that have realized they can push a cost to someone else. This results in bad and often unfair outcomes, like less powerful (poorer) neighborhoods seeing a ton of gentrification. By moving the decision-making up a level, we can mediate between the groups to get a fairer outcome. There are not magic bullets, and people have to be engaged with politics to make this happen, but it is possible.
I think the other thing that's not talked about enough is that building more housing has benefits for incumbents. If more housing is built in my neighborhood, my neighborhood will support more local businesses and other amenities which I can enjoy. It also means there are more social connections available. Additionally, population growth drives economic growth, which ensures that their locality remains vibrant. The ideology where we view more humans as strictly a cost, and never a benefit drives a lot of problems in our society IMO.
- nitrogen 6y ago"I agree removing local control is a good idea." - Great Britain, to the colonies You'd better have a really, really darn good reason for throwing out democracy. Otherwise this is basically calling for taking away what someone else has just because we want it.
- notJim 6y agoThe state and national governments are also elected in my country, so fortunately democracy prevails! As I said in my comment, in my view there are issues that require coordination at a higher level, because otherwise it's just a game of shoving externalities onto others.