4 ms·

> Those who champion federalism will often say that they believe that government power should be spread as widely as possible; that local control is best becaus

> Those who champion federalism will often say that they believe that government power should be spread as widely as possible; that local control is best because it gives power to those closest to the problems. The counterpoint to this is zoning rules. Sometimes you actually want the people who are furthest away from local problems to set policy. There's no new housing in major metros because wealthy landholders vote in people who set policy to prevent construction. After all, more supply means lower home prices. Setting that policy at the top allows for global optimization - nobody in DC cares that a building throws a two inch shadow over your park for half an hour during the vernal equinox. The reality is both approaches have pros and cons. Ditto with individual direction of funds. There's no reason to think all individual directions of funds are local let alone globally optimal. An individual or two can use their money to halt progress like the Kochs do, and the Murdochs do. This one is great. However, one data point doesn't make a trend, and there's no reason to think this individual act is representative of directed contributions. That said this is a lovely gesture and I appreciate it.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
> wealthy landholders vote in people who set policy to prevent construction This is a problem specific to a type of federalism where wealthy people have more political power than regular people. If each renter had equal political power to each landholder, the landholders would be a political minority and would not be able to influence policy in this way. When we talk about theoretical improvements to our political systems, it is often useful and I think usually necessary to consider that more than one change would occur at once. If people like where these changes would get us, we can then bring them in to one policy platform and advocate for the change needed to achieve those goals.
- yCombLinks 3y ago
  This doesn't address people that would move there given an available supply of housing, who have no local voting rights.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    Sure. It’s not a complete solution, and there could be schemes to deal with this. But much of the issue with NIMBY-ism comes from the outsized influence of land owners in the political process. Even if outsiders can’t vote, regular renters are more likely to favor building extra capacity than landholders are. But I also believe in other schemes, not pure local politics, which would address these issues more completely.

TaylorAlexander 3y ago

> wealthy landholders vote in people who set policy to prevent construction This is a problem specific to a type of federalism where wealthy people have more political power than regular people. If each renter had equal political power to each landholder, the landholders would be a political minority and would not be able to influence policy in this way. When we talk about theoretical improvements to our political systems, it is often useful and I think usually necessary to consider that more than one change would occur at once. If people like where these changes would get us, we can then bring them in to one policy platform and advocate for the change needed to achieve those goals.

yCombLinks 3y ago
This doesn't address people that would move there given an available supply of housing, who have no local voting rights.
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  Sure. It’s not a complete solution, and there could be schemes to deal with this. But much of the issue with NIMBY-ism comes from the outsized influence of land owners in the political process. Even if outsiders can’t vote, regular renters are more likely to favor building extra capacity than landholders are. But I also believe in other schemes, not pure local politics, which would address these issues more completely.