I would also argue that it's nearly always legal to bulldoze things, and the vetocracy doesn't really care if I bulldoze my house. There are only a very very fe

I would also argue that it's nearly always legal to bulldoze things, and the vetocracy doesn't really care if I bulldoze my house. There are only a very very few jurisdictions where demolition permits are an impediment. So the vetocracy is generally just fine with bulldozers. It's the actual building of things that the vetocracy wants to prevent. For example, check out this comment (whose factual basis is quite low based on my knowledge) which I think is great example of the vetocracy. If the luxury condos in SOMA were bulldozed, that would probably be a good result in their eyes! > The housing market example is bizarre, because if you go look at San Francisco, the entire area of SOMA is dominated by skyscrapers and luxury condos that are 90% vacant. Office buildings are going vacant at an accelerated rate. Salesforce Tower has never managed to fill up on tenants. We don't need to build new housing, we just need to actually price the ones we do have so people can afford them. Stop bulldozing stuff built less than 20 years ago to replace it with even more shoddily built stuff you can sell for even higher margins. We already have the homes, just let people live in them.