3 ms·
I think that it's mostly reasonable too, but there's a balance in regulation pushing the bad behavior to less regulated places and stifling what you're trying t
by nickpinkston 4y ago
I think that it's mostly reasonable too, but there's a balance in regulation pushing the bad behavior to less regulated places and stifling what you're trying to encourage.
One example of this in the Bay Area was the Ghost Ship Fire [1] where they were forced to live off the grid because of over regulation, and then dying in a fire that some of that regulation was trying to prevent.
It's a classic problem. Laws have enforcement costs and knock-on effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Ship_warehouse_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Ship_warehouse_fire
- stanleydrew 4y agoI agree we need to think hard about tradeoffs of regulation and adjust when the pendulum swings too far in one direction. But I think you can come up with a better example of downsides of overregulation than the Ghost Ship Fire. To say that people were "forced" to live there due to overregulation is quite a stretch I think. I've known a few creative people in the bay area who lived in similar situations and they all were making an active choice to live in communal housing illegally converted from industrial use. They found it creatively energizing.
- nickpinkston 4y agoYea, a lot of my friends live in the same housing and for the same reasons, but I find many of them move out once they make enough money for typical housing. A better Bay Area example if housing regulations stopping all growth and leading to all sorts of problems, but that's well covered.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]