4 ms·

> . But you have to make it cheap. Deregulate construction, get rid of unions, prioritize developer rights over tenant or homeowner rights. What's insane is th

by gtowey 4y ago

> . But you have to make it cheap. Deregulate construction, get rid of unions, prioritize developer rights over tenant or homeowner rights. What's insane is that we never consider the obvious alternative. GOVERNMENTS HAVE TO PAY FOR THE HOUSING THEY NEED. It's true that developers will not build if they can't make a profit. So we raise money through taxes and treat housing like an investment in our future. This American notion of "free market or nothing" has left us with unlivable cities of sprawling suburban houses because that's where the profit is. But that's not what's good for our long term future. It turns out you can't laissez-faire your way to good urban planning

xboxnolifes 4y ago
> This American notion of "free market or nothing" has left us with unlivable cities of sprawling suburban houses because that's where the profit is. But that's not what's good for our long term future. It turns out you can't laissez-faire your way to good urban planning. While I agree America needs to put in some serious work into urban planning, the current and recent past of the US urban planning is anything but laissez-faire: strict zoning, housing codes, permits for most major building actions, minimum parking requirements...
- gtowey 4y ago
  > : strict zoning, housing codes, permits for most major building actions, minimum parking requirements... Yeah, a bit of hyperbole. It seems more that the mess of regulations are just patches on top of patches, sometimes with conflicting intent and not with much long term design. And a lot of it is controlled at a extremely local level. This means we end up with paradoxes where everyone acknowledges that we need more houses, nobody wants to densify areas near themselves. It's always someone else's problem. It's the same story with power shortages in California. We need more generation but plant after plant was denied because the locals objected to the proposal for building near them. It's clear we need planning at the state level and override local municipalities to force development. If they complain then the response should be "you had your chance to solve it and blew it. Too late now. "

by gtowey 4y ago

xboxnolifes 4y ago

> This American notion of "free market or nothing" has left us with unlivable cities of sprawling suburban houses because that's where the profit is. But that's not what's good for our long term future. It turns out you can't laissez-faire your way to good urban planning. While I agree America needs to put in some serious work into urban planning, the current and recent past of the US urban planning is anything but laissez-faire: strict zoning, housing codes, permits for most major building actions, minimum parking requirements...

gtowey 4y ago
> : strict zoning, housing codes, permits for most major building actions, minimum parking requirements... Yeah, a bit of hyperbole. It seems more that the mess of regulations are just patches on top of patches, sometimes with conflicting intent and not with much long term design. And a lot of it is controlled at a extremely local level. This means we end up with paradoxes where everyone acknowledges that we need more houses, nobody wants to densify areas near themselves. It's always someone else's problem. It's the same story with power shortages in California. We need more generation but plant after plant was denied because the locals objected to the proposal for building near them. It's clear we need planning at the state level and override local municipalities to force development. If they complain then the response should be "you had your chance to solve it and blew it. Too late now. "