3 ms·

The hubris is astounding. You know how we got into this problem? Decades ago we used taxation and law to try and incentivize the development we wanted and dis

The hubris is astounding. You know how we got into this problem? Decades ago we used taxation and law to try and incentivize the development we wanted and disincentivize or prohibit what we didn't. And today the efficacy of that endeavor is obvious to even the most casual observer. There is no compelling reason doing the exact same thing will work better for different values of "development we want" and "development we don't". Have you seen what gets developed when you incentivize mixed development? It's lifeless crap compared to the places that were built up prior to the advent of widespread usage restrictions on land where development happened organically without the input or prior approval of local government (i.e. people were basically free to do whatever within the permissive limits of the time). How about we just get the government out of the business of telling people what and where they can and can't build. Let people develop what they think there is demand for. A few inappropriate industrial sites is a small price to pay for allowing pent up demand for residential and commercial construction to be satiated.

sudosysgen 4y ago
I think I wasn't clear. When I say incentivize mixed zoning, I meant that the federal government would incentivize local governments choosing to zone land as mixed use. Then people can build whatever they want. It's not possible to remove zoning completely. That's severe hubris, thinking that we introduced zoning to begin with for no legitimate reason. That's not true - it's necessary to plan city infrastructure and that requires zoning. Removing zoning altogether would be an unmitigated disaster. There is no easy clean solution like "remove all the rules". You can't get government out of the business of city planning and basic infrastructure, and that's in more words what you mean. There is a difference between good policy and bad policy. We need good policy. The only solution is that local governments somehow make better choices.

sudosysgen 4y ago

I think I wasn't clear. When I say incentivize mixed zoning, I meant that the federal government would incentivize local governments choosing to zone land as mixed use. Then people can build whatever they want. It's not possible to remove zoning completely. That's severe hubris, thinking that we introduced zoning to begin with for no legitimate reason. That's not true - it's necessary to plan city infrastructure and that requires zoning. Removing zoning altogether would be an unmitigated disaster. There is no easy clean solution like "remove all the rules". You can't get government out of the business of city planning and basic infrastructure, and that's in more words what you mean. There is a difference between good policy and bad policy. We need good policy. The only solution is that local governments somehow make better choices.