3 ms·

> There is real harm done, and it is anti-democratic in some ways to take state or national laws and have those supercede (micromanage in this case) local build

> There is real harm done, and it is anti-democratic in some ways to take state or national laws and have those supercede (micromanage in this case) local building rules or regulations. No, it's really not. There's nothing fundamentally anti-democratic about higher government overriding lower government. Often, deciding rules at a lower level doesn't work well, and this is a good example of that. Deciding housing density at the neighborhood or city level has been an abject failure, because every city is incentivized to benefit from the metro area booming job market while not shouldering responsibility for housing all the new people coming in. Pushing that burden onto the other cities is irresponsible, but that's what they all try to do, with the result being that hardly any cities build sufficient housing. It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city.

ericmay 4y ago
> There's nothing fundamentally anti-democratic about higher government overriding lower government. > It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city. What about if the state of Ohio overrides Columbus' gun restrictions? (ex) What if the state of Nevada mandates cities provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling? You're just picking and choosing when the "higher" government overrides the "local" government. When you agree with it, it's good. When you disagree it's presumably still good right? > Deciding housing density at the neighborhood or city level has been an abject failure It's been a failure for one simple reason, which is what we build car-only infrastructure. You can't build density and car-only infrastructure. It won't work.
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > What about if the state of Ohio overrides Columbus' gun restrictions? (ex) > What if the state of Nevada mandates cities provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling? Those are bad because the ideas are bad, not because they're "anti-democratic". > You're just picking and choosing when the "higher" government overrides the "local" government. When you agree with it, it's good. When you disagree it's presumably still good right? You're shifting the argument. I was talking about anti-democratic or not, not good or bad. Just because a law was passed democratically doesn't mean it's a good idea. Please try to stay on your own topic.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    > It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city. It seems to me you do imply that a state level authority or higher is inherently better. But anyway, why not just clarify your position? It's not a big deal. > Those are bad because the ideas are bad, not because they're "anti-democratic". Ok let's start simple, what level of authority should decide those things [1]? State? City? Muni? Federal? > Please try to stay on your own topic. If I changed topics that's fine we can talk about the new topic or not. I don't even know what the exact topic was. Do you recall? [1] A state declares that all dwellings should have a minimum of two parking spaces, and the state law overrides the city's gun laws.
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      > Ok let's start simple, what level of authority should decide those things [1]? State? City? Muni? Federal? Straight up just admitting you didn't actually read what I wrote before responding, because I already specified. C'mon man. "It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city." > Do you recall? Yes, and I made it extremely clear that I was objecting to calling this "anti-democratic". You then switched arguments for some reason, while acting like it was the same topic.
      - ericmay 4y ago
        > Yes, and I made it extremely clear that I was objecting to calling this "anti-democratic". You then switched arguments for some reason, while acting like it was the same topic. Ok so it's democratic for the state of Ohio to override the city of Columbus gun laws?
        TulliusCicero 4y ago
        It's not anti-democratic for a higher level government to override a lower level government, no. That doesn't make it necessarily a good idea. Some issues make more sense to manage at a higher or lower level, and beyond that of course I have opinions on specific laws being good or bad. What level of government you decide certain policies at is orthogonal to how democratic a thing is*. As a relevant example of higher level authority on zoning, IIRC Japan just has twelve levels of zoning for the whole country; cities can choose which one to use for different areas, but they can't make up a new level. Whereas in the US, every city seems to have a dozen or more variants they made up themselves. Neither of these is fundamentally more democratic than the other. * assuming we're talking about democracies at each level, of course.

ericmay 4y ago

> There's nothing fundamentally anti-democratic about higher government overriding lower government. > It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city. What about if the state of Ohio overrides Columbus' gun restrictions? (ex) What if the state of Nevada mandates cities provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling? You're just picking and choosing when the "higher" government overrides the "local" government. When you agree with it, it's good. When you disagree it's presumably still good right? > Deciding housing density at the neighborhood or city level has been an abject failure It's been a failure for one simple reason, which is what we build car-only infrastructure. You can't build density and car-only infrastructure. It won't work.

TulliusCicero 4y ago
> What about if the state of Ohio overrides Columbus' gun restrictions? (ex) > What if the state of Nevada mandates cities provide 2 parking spaces per dwelling? Those are bad because the ideas are bad, not because they're "anti-democratic". > You're just picking and choosing when the "higher" government overrides the "local" government. When you agree with it, it's good. When you disagree it's presumably still good right? You're shifting the argument. I was talking about anti-democratic or not, not good or bad. Just because a law was passed democratically doesn't mean it's a good idea. Please try to stay on your own topic.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city. It seems to me you do imply that a state level authority or higher is inherently better. But anyway, why not just clarify your position? It's not a big deal. > Those are bad because the ideas are bad, not because they're "anti-democratic". Ok let's start simple, what level of authority should decide those things [1]? State? City? Muni? Federal? > Please try to stay on your own topic. If I changed topics that's fine we can talk about the new topic or not. I don't even know what the exact topic was. Do you recall? [1] A state declares that all dwellings should have a minimum of two parking spaces, and the state law overrides the city's gun laws.
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    > Ok let's start simple, what level of authority should decide those things [1]? State? City? Muni? Federal? Straight up just admitting you didn't actually read what I wrote before responding, because I already specified. C'mon man. "It'd probably be better to decide this with a metro-level authority rather than the state, but the state is still better than the city." > Do you recall? Yes, and I made it extremely clear that I was objecting to calling this "anti-democratic". You then switched arguments for some reason, while acting like it was the same topic.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      > Yes, and I made it extremely clear that I was objecting to calling this "anti-democratic". You then switched arguments for some reason, while acting like it was the same topic. Ok so it's democratic for the state of Ohio to override the city of Columbus gun laws?
      - TulliusCicero 4y ago
        It's not anti-democratic for a higher level government to override a lower level government, no. That doesn't make it necessarily a good idea. Some issues make more sense to manage at a higher or lower level, and beyond that of course I have opinions on specific laws being good or bad. What level of government you decide certain policies at is orthogonal to how democratic a thing is*. As a relevant example of higher level authority on zoning, IIRC Japan just has twelve levels of zoning for the whole country; cities can choose which one to use for different areas, but they can't make up a new level. Whereas in the US, every city seems to have a dozen or more variants they made up themselves. Neither of these is fundamentally more democratic than the other. * assuming we're talking about democracies at each level, of course.