3 ms·

The "free market" didn't give those activists the right to veto development, the political processes and rules of their communities did. It's silly to treat tha

The "free market" didn't give those activists the right to veto development, the political processes and rules of their communities did. It's silly to treat that veto as a natural result, it's just as contingent as any other political rule.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
How did they get to be able to vote? As TFA describes, they could afford property within the incorporated propery of CB, unlike those forced to find places to live outside it. Their wealth gave them access to the vote, and they are using their votes to further their own interests. Being able to buy whatever you want for whatever price works for you and the seller sounds quite a bit like a "free market" to me.
- lmm 5y ago
  Tying voting to property ownership is not some law of nature.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Neither is voting a law of nature, and nor is property ownership. So what's your point? That we don't have to do it this way? Well, sure. But what's the actual alternative?
    - lmm 5y ago
      Where I live planning rules are set on a national level. The whole notion of incorporated and unincorporated land seems like a weird US-ism.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        It's not really weird at all. It's a big enough country with enough different conditions that it does make some amount of sense that there is a heirarchy of levels of control. That looks something like: |+-- incorporated municipality Federal -> state -> county -+ |+-- unincorporated land In the case of an incorporated municipality, the people who live there have a political process to make decisions about planning/zoning/construction, but these (in general) cannot override the rules from the county, state and federal levels. In the case of unincorporated land, the county makes the rules, and so these are controlled by a political process involving the entire population of the county, rather than just those who live on a particular piece of land (because "there is no there, there"). Again, the county generally cannot override rules from the state and federal level. In general, the state doesn't really set planning rules that affect specific placement of things. There may be environmental and health regulations that would prevent X being built in a particular location, but the state doesn't normally control whether single family only zoning (as an example) should be used in a given neighborhood - that's up to the incorporated municipality to decide. The federal level really doesn't set any planning rules other than high level environmental and health regulations.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

How did they get to be able to vote? As TFA describes, they could afford property within the incorporated propery of CB, unlike those forced to find places to live outside it. Their wealth gave them access to the vote, and they are using their votes to further their own interests. Being able to buy whatever you want for whatever price works for you and the seller sounds quite a bit like a "free market" to me.

lmm 5y ago
Tying voting to property ownership is not some law of nature.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Neither is voting a law of nature, and nor is property ownership. So what's your point? That we don't have to do it this way? Well, sure. But what's the actual alternative?
  - lmm 5y ago
    Where I live planning rules are set on a national level. The whole notion of incorporated and unincorporated land seems like a weird US-ism.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      It's not really weird at all. It's a big enough country with enough different conditions that it does make some amount of sense that there is a heirarchy of levels of control. That looks something like: |+-- incorporated municipality Federal -> state -> county -+ |+-- unincorporated land In the case of an incorporated municipality, the people who live there have a political process to make decisions about planning/zoning/construction, but these (in general) cannot override the rules from the county, state and federal levels. In the case of unincorporated land, the county makes the rules, and so these are controlled by a political process involving the entire population of the county, rather than just those who live on a particular piece of land (because "there is no there, there"). Again, the county generally cannot override rules from the state and federal level. In general, the state doesn't really set planning rules that affect specific placement of things. There may be environmental and health regulations that would prevent X being built in a particular location, but the state doesn't normally control whether single family only zoning (as an example) should be used in a given neighborhood - that's up to the incorporated municipality to decide. The federal level really doesn't set any planning rules other than high level environmental and health regulations.