2 ms·
The standard refrain is that the housing market is over-regulated, NIMBY's have made it too hard to build. Adding more regulation discouraging instutitions fr
by bryanlarsen 2y ago
The standard refrain is that the housing market is over-regulated, NIMBY's have made it too hard to build. Adding more regulation discouraging instutitions from building sounds like making the problem worse rather than better.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoCould it simply be over-regulated in the housing generation aspect, but under-regulated in the housing distribution aspect?
- robotcapital 2y agoThese are (strongly?) correlated though, right? Over-regulating distribution should reduce generation because builders can’t depend as much on pricing signals.
- kelseyfrog 2y agoI'm not sure. How do you measure "degree of regulation"? At face value it's an abstract concept with a lot of dimensions.
- katbyte 2y agoThere are both bad and good regulations. Acting like all regulation is bad (say restrictive zoning or allowing people to block density) allows people to target the good (building codes, not building of garbage dumps or toxic materials) to get rid of Regulations are not inherently good nor bad so please say what regulations are bad and what regulations should be changed because “less regulation” doesn’t mean things get better and can mean things get very very much worse (hey let’s allow toxic wast dumps under homes because that was too regulated before!)
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThis is not a "prevent asbestos in housing" type of regulation. The OP wants to reduce the amount of institutional ownership of housing. This will reduce supply of rental units, increasing the cost of rental units.