2 ms·

There's no need for the federal government to get involved. It's already way too large and intrusive; giving it more power and authority would be utterly un-Ame

by nradov 2y ago

There's no need for the federal government to get involved. It's already way too large and intrusive; giving it more power and authority would be utterly un-American. Zoning problems can be completely fixed at the state government level, and the optimal solutions are likely to be different in each state.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Zoning problems can be completely fixed at the state government level, and the optimal solutions are likely to be different in each state States and local governments have dropped the ball. You know who knows better than the state what to do with their property? The people who own it. > giving it more power and authority would be utterly un-American No need. You’d just limit what states can do (if they want highway funds or whatever).
- archagon 2y ago
  This sort of logic is why half of Silicon Valley is a Superfund site.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > this sort of logic is why half the South Bay sits on Superfund sites You think zoning solved our industrial environmental problems?
    - archagon 2y ago
      Building industrial plants close to residential housing has led to an extortionate amount of pain and suffering over the years: cancers, fertility issues, etc. Sure, the people who owned that land knew what to do with it. They wanted to manufacture chips as quickly as possible, which involved (intentionally or inadvertently) dumping chemical waste into the ground. Guess that's the free market for you.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Building industrial plants close to residential housing has led to an extortionate amount of pain and suffering over the years: cancers, fertility issues, etc. Regulating environmental effluence saved a lot more lives than zoning. You’re arguing a false dichotomy between deregulated residential permitting and unregulated industrial construction. At the end of the day, housing unaffordability is a political choice. It is currently one the Bay Area is making at the expense of a lot of lives. Those chickens will come home to roost, and the form they will take is a loss of local political power and service cuts. (My guess is San Francisco loses local zoning and rent-control powers. People will fight and die or whatever. But more people won’t listen.) I think it’s smarter to react today than wait for the overreaction. But I suppose I know Bay Area politics prohibit that.
- nradov 2y ago
  Highway funding mechanisms are also problematic. State residents pay federal income tax only for the federal government to turn around and transfer highway grants back to the states. It's inefficient and un-American, essentially an end run around how our republic was intended to operate. Let's cut out the middleman and crush the federal government down to its appropriate size and level of authority. It's totally appropriate for the federal government to fund real interstate highways. But there's little real need for them to get involved in most intrastate transportation. This just serves as a backdoor mechanism to exert excessive levels of federal control and waste more taxpayer dollars.

by nradov 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Zoning problems can be completely fixed at the state government level, and the optimal solutions are likely to be different in each state States and local governments have dropped the ball. You know who knows better than the state what to do with their property? The people who own it. > giving it more power and authority would be utterly un-American No need. You’d just limit what states can do (if they want highway funds or whatever).

archagon 2y ago
This sort of logic is why half of Silicon Valley is a Superfund site.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > this sort of logic is why half the South Bay sits on Superfund sites You think zoning solved our industrial environmental problems?
  - archagon 2y ago
    Building industrial plants close to residential housing has led to an extortionate amount of pain and suffering over the years: cancers, fertility issues, etc. Sure, the people who owned that land knew what to do with it. They wanted to manufacture chips as quickly as possible, which involved (intentionally or inadvertently) dumping chemical waste into the ground. Guess that's the free market for you.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Building industrial plants close to residential housing has led to an extortionate amount of pain and suffering over the years: cancers, fertility issues, etc. Regulating environmental effluence saved a lot more lives than zoning. You’re arguing a false dichotomy between deregulated residential permitting and unregulated industrial construction. At the end of the day, housing unaffordability is a political choice. It is currently one the Bay Area is making at the expense of a lot of lives. Those chickens will come home to roost, and the form they will take is a loss of local political power and service cuts. (My guess is San Francisco loses local zoning and rent-control powers. People will fight and die or whatever. But more people won’t listen.) I think it’s smarter to react today than wait for the overreaction. But I suppose I know Bay Area politics prohibit that.
nradov 2y ago
Highway funding mechanisms are also problematic. State residents pay federal income tax only for the federal government to turn around and transfer highway grants back to the states. It's inefficient and un-American, essentially an end run around how our republic was intended to operate. Let's cut out the middleman and crush the federal government down to its appropriate size and level of authority. It's totally appropriate for the federal government to fund real interstate highways. But there's little real need for them to get involved in most intrastate transportation. This just serves as a backdoor mechanism to exert excessive levels of federal control and waste more taxpayer dollars.