4 ms·

Judging from the articles that get posted on here, in the US you only seem to have a choice between completely bonkers regulations that only serve entrenched in

by xg15 3y ago

Judging from the articles that get posted on here, in the US you only seem to have a choice between completely bonkers regulations that only serve entrenched interests or no regulation at all. How about regulation that is actually sensible?

refurb 3y ago
Isn’t Europe notorious for it’s regulatory bureaucracy?
- pjc50 3y ago
  There's a lot more of it, and it's a big burden on small businesses, but it lacks the flamboyant craziness of the worst excesses of US regulation. Also the EU does not regulate urban planning at all, that's all local.
  - TacticalCoder 3y ago
    The EU however has protected areas like all the "Natura 2000" areas and these, probably, aren't going away anytime soon: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_Natura_2000 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_Natura_2000 These are huge: 30 000 sites and 18% of the surface of the EU. If you don't want a high-rise to appear in your view, your best bet is to rent/buy right next to a Natura 2000 (both land and sea) wildlife protected land. I'm typing this right now from France, rural area, with a Natura 2000 area right in front of me (I'm one of the last houses before the area starts). And for my place in Luxembourg it's exactly the same: I picked a spot with another Natura 2000 protected area (land only) walking distance from my apartment. I understand many want a world made of concrete only so that we can pack hundreds of billions of humans on earth... But I find the current trajectory miserable and I pick nature any day over concrete. Wife and I decided to have one kid, we did our part to save mother earth. And, no, you're not building a high-rise in my Natura 2000 wildlife protected area.
nottorp 3y ago
That's what I was thinking of. If you turn off all regulation you'll end with 20 story apartment buildings with zero parking space, zero greenery and accessible only by a tiny narrow road that's always clogged.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  Why do you think people will build houses with no street space? Anyways it’s not like street space will suddenly be turned over from the govt to private builders, but even if it was private land why wouldn’t they build land with enough space in it? Zero parking space would be a good thing because it would indicate public transport is good enough that people don’t need their own private cars for most trips. But in practice if that’s not the case a builder is gonna be unable to sell an apartment without parking space, so they aren’t gonna build apartments like those. And what’s wrong with 20 storey apartment buildings? And why does that preclude greenery?
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Everything you mentioned cuts into their profit so it's not worth doing without any regulations.
  - hotsauceror 3y ago
    Why would a private developer's decision not to include parking, be interpreted as some kind of metric for the sufficiency of public transport in the area? If a builder chose not to install locks on the doors of a new apartment complex, would that be "a good thing because it would indicate public safety is good enough that people don't need their own private locks for most areas?" There is no incentive for them to consider these externalities at all. There is, however, an incentive to use that same space for something they can profit from - namely, additional apartments.
- pjc50 3y ago
  TBH, a few of those with transit would be completely fine for housing affordability if centrally located.
reducesuffering 3y ago
Every NIMBY thinks they have just the right amount of "sensible" regulation. "But what about schools?" Enrollment is declining precipitously. "But what about traffic?" Okay, we're improving bike lanes, and putting accessible retail on the ground floor of housing for walkability. "No, not like that." On and on.
- rcme 3y ago
  My experience is different. Local people care about things like schools and traffic in a way that those outside the immediate area don’t. A local example: the state of NJ built a small bridge over a creek a few year back that now allows drivers going through the Holland Tunnel into NYC to use Jersey City as a shortcut when traffic on the highway is bad. Now you basically can’t go outside during rush hour. It’s terrible. Does anyone from the state care? No. Why would they? A representative democracy is a foundation of our society. That means you get a say in decisions that affect you. If you take hyper-local decisions and remove all local agency, then that is effectively removing representation.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    My experience is also different. When owning a home is wildly out of reach for the incomes of 95% of people in the area, and they complain about it, they still also complain every time new housing goes up that would lower costs. They say they hate traffic but then complain about bike lanes that would encourage less traffic. They say the primary education is full, when 2/5 schools are closing and enrollment is declining into an upside down pyramid because people can't afford enough housing to feel comfortable raising kids.
    - rcme 3y ago
      It sounds like we’re experiencing the same things then. The only difference is that I accept the choices of others, even if I disagree with them, whereas you believe you know better and would like to force your beliefs on others. If 95% of people really cannot afford a home yet vote to restrict new housing starts, then maybe they prefer less housing for whatever reason. That’s not a reason to force housing upon them.
Simulacra 3y ago
The problem with regulation is the process as it is extremely drawn out, and creates dozens of opportunities for anyone, even someone with zero standing, to sue and stop it. One of the most interesting things to happen to regulation is when the former administration required the removal of two regulations for every one that the government wished to enact. It was near paralysis.

by xg15 3y ago

refurb 3y ago

Isn’t Europe notorious for it’s regulatory bureaucracy?

pjc50 3y ago
There's a lot more of it, and it's a big burden on small businesses, but it lacks the flamboyant craziness of the worst excesses of US regulation. Also the EU does not regulate urban planning at all, that's all local.
- TacticalCoder 3y ago
  The EU however has protected areas like all the "Natura 2000" areas and these, probably, aren't going away anytime soon: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_Natura_2000 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9seau_Natura_2000 These are huge: 30 000 sites and 18% of the surface of the EU. If you don't want a high-rise to appear in your view, your best bet is to rent/buy right next to a Natura 2000 (both land and sea) wildlife protected land. I'm typing this right now from France, rural area, with a Natura 2000 area right in front of me (I'm one of the last houses before the area starts). And for my place in Luxembourg it's exactly the same: I picked a spot with another Natura 2000 protected area (land only) walking distance from my apartment. I understand many want a world made of concrete only so that we can pack hundreds of billions of humans on earth... But I find the current trajectory miserable and I pick nature any day over concrete. Wife and I decided to have one kid, we did our part to save mother earth. And, no, you're not building a high-rise in my Natura 2000 wildlife protected area.

nottorp 3y ago

That's what I was thinking of. If you turn off all regulation you'll end with 20 story apartment buildings with zero parking space, zero greenery and accessible only by a tiny narrow road that's always clogged.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rhaway84773 3y ago
Why do you think people will build houses with no street space? Anyways it’s not like street space will suddenly be turned over from the govt to private builders, but even if it was private land why wouldn’t they build land with enough space in it? Zero parking space would be a good thing because it would indicate public transport is good enough that people don’t need their own private cars for most trips. But in practice if that’s not the case a builder is gonna be unable to sell an apartment without parking space, so they aren’t gonna build apartments like those. And what’s wrong with 20 storey apartment buildings? And why does that preclude greenery?
- nottorp 3y ago
  Everything you mentioned cuts into their profit so it's not worth doing without any regulations.
- hotsauceror 3y ago
  Why would a private developer's decision not to include parking, be interpreted as some kind of metric for the sufficiency of public transport in the area? If a builder chose not to install locks on the doors of a new apartment complex, would that be "a good thing because it would indicate public safety is good enough that people don't need their own private locks for most areas?" There is no incentive for them to consider these externalities at all. There is, however, an incentive to use that same space for something they can profit from - namely, additional apartments.
pjc50 3y ago
TBH, a few of those with transit would be completely fine for housing affordability if centrally located.

reducesuffering 3y ago

Every NIMBY thinks they have just the right amount of "sensible" regulation. "But what about schools?" Enrollment is declining precipitously. "But what about traffic?" Okay, we're improving bike lanes, and putting accessible retail on the ground floor of housing for walkability. "No, not like that." On and on.

rcme 3y ago
My experience is different. Local people care about things like schools and traffic in a way that those outside the immediate area don’t. A local example: the state of NJ built a small bridge over a creek a few year back that now allows drivers going through the Holland Tunnel into NYC to use Jersey City as a shortcut when traffic on the highway is bad. Now you basically can’t go outside during rush hour. It’s terrible. Does anyone from the state care? No. Why would they? A representative democracy is a foundation of our society. That means you get a say in decisions that affect you. If you take hyper-local decisions and remove all local agency, then that is effectively removing representation.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  My experience is also different. When owning a home is wildly out of reach for the incomes of 95% of people in the area, and they complain about it, they still also complain every time new housing goes up that would lower costs. They say they hate traffic but then complain about bike lanes that would encourage less traffic. They say the primary education is full, when 2/5 schools are closing and enrollment is declining into an upside down pyramid because people can't afford enough housing to feel comfortable raising kids.
  - rcme 3y ago
    It sounds like we’re experiencing the same things then. The only difference is that I accept the choices of others, even if I disagree with them, whereas you believe you know better and would like to force your beliefs on others. If 95% of people really cannot afford a home yet vote to restrict new housing starts, then maybe they prefer less housing for whatever reason. That’s not a reason to force housing upon them.

Simulacra 3y ago

The problem with regulation is the process as it is extremely drawn out, and creates dozens of opportunities for anyone, even someone with zero standing, to sue and stop it. One of the most interesting things to happen to regulation is when the former administration required the removal of two regulations for every one that the government wished to enact. It was near paralysis.