3 ms·

But since local landowners consistently choose the most restrictive zoning possible to the detriment of society with things like urban sprawl, car-centric devel

But since local landowners consistently choose the most restrictive zoning possible to the detriment of society with things like urban sprawl, car-centric development and locking the poor and youth out from economic opportunity local control simply can't continue. It's completely unsustainable both economically and environmentally. Local control means wealthy control.

saltminer 5y ago
Yep. Ask people who grew up in suburbia and who have only ever ridden public transit when on vacation what they want, and they'll probably tell you more low density neighborhoods, bigger roads, large shopping centers (but not malls since those became un-cool), etc. When left to their own devices, these people will inevitably take the worst parts of north Jersey and Long Island and implement them wholesale because it's all they've ever known. The affordable areas low-wage workers could previously live in just 15 minutes away have gentrified over the years, but local homeowners have no real reason to care that their cashier has a 2+ hour round-trip commute. As long as they can still get their groceries, it doesn't affect them. But, crucially, while the employees have to spend a shit ton of time and money getting to and from work every day and likely spend a fair amount of their paycheck in the city they work in (and pay a fair amount in taxes to it as a result), they have no say in its governance since they have to vote where they're registered to. Local governance utterly fails in these situations, regional planning requires state involvement when municipalities repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot for decades. And of course, as we hurtle towards a climate catastrophe, we must not forget that most people who commute long hours to and from work everyday drive cars - single occupant vehicles - because the only other way to get there involves an hour+ Greyhound ride (because they travel between multiple independent transit systems). Regional planning is needed to address these issues; the American worship of single-family zoning completely undermines any progress towards meaningfully addressing climate change.
atweiden 5y ago
> Local control means wealthy control We’ve known for years US central planning is in fact a kleptocracy [1]. So, “no”. Locals can always throw a monkey wrench in any plan a far off bureaucrat makes for them, irrespective of wealth and power disparities. There are countless real world examples of this. In addition, why should the wealthy be the only ones to object to high density housing as the one and only prescribed solution to housing affordability? Couldn’t the root of the housing affordability problem lie elsewhere, e.g. in investors who lack long-term residency parking their cash in inflation resistant assets? How about the lack of high speed rail networks, or human overpopulation in general? [1]: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...

saltminer 5y ago

Yep. Ask people who grew up in suburbia and who have only ever ridden public transit when on vacation what they want, and they'll probably tell you more low density neighborhoods, bigger roads, large shopping centers (but not malls since those became un-cool), etc. When left to their own devices, these people will inevitably take the worst parts of north Jersey and Long Island and implement them wholesale because it's all they've ever known. The affordable areas low-wage workers could previously live in just 15 minutes away have gentrified over the years, but local homeowners have no real reason to care that their cashier has a 2+ hour round-trip commute. As long as they can still get their groceries, it doesn't affect them. But, crucially, while the employees have to spend a shit ton of time and money getting to and from work every day and likely spend a fair amount of their paycheck in the city they work in (and pay a fair amount in taxes to it as a result), they have no say in its governance since they have to vote where they're registered to. Local governance utterly fails in these situations, regional planning requires state involvement when municipalities repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot for decades. And of course, as we hurtle towards a climate catastrophe, we must not forget that most people who commute long hours to and from work everyday drive cars - single occupant vehicles - because the only other way to get there involves an hour+ Greyhound ride (because they travel between multiple independent transit systems). Regional planning is needed to address these issues; the American worship of single-family zoning completely undermines any progress towards meaningfully addressing climate change.

atweiden 5y ago

> Local control means wealthy control We’ve known for years US central planning is in fact a kleptocracy [1]. So, “no”. Locals can always throw a monkey wrench in any plan a far off bureaucrat makes for them, irrespective of wealth and power disparities. There are countless real world examples of this. In addition, why should the wealthy be the only ones to object to high density housing as the one and only prescribed solution to housing affordability? Couldn’t the root of the housing affordability problem lie elsewhere, e.g. in investors who lack long-term residency parking their cash in inflation resistant assets? How about the lack of high speed rail networks, or human overpopulation in general? [1]: http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf http://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materi...