It seems to me that you want to fix bad local policy at the federal level. This is a mistake. It is every bit as bad to fix zoning at the federal level as trying to fix education at the federal level.
The USA once had something like a market for government. Most domestic policy was made by the state and local governments. If things got to…
It seems to me that you want to fix bad local policy at the federal level. This is a mistake. It is every bit as bad to fix zoning at the federal level as trying to fix education at the federal level.
The USA once had something like a market for government. Most domestic policy was made by the state and local governments. If things got too bad people could move. We have federalized domestic policy more than is good for us.
Federal regulation of housing gave us the Fair Housing Act. Much of modern zoning is a backdoor way around that act.
I'm not hopeful that getting the feds involved will improve the situation. It would be better to give people incentives for upzoning. Like school choice and public order making it less important who our neighbors are.
if we listened to people like you, we'd still have Jim Crow. Japan is one of the most YIMBY countries in the world and its due in part to handling zoning at the national level
Unrelated issue. Police powers belong to the state and local governments. Inevitable tyrannies remain local. If things get too bad people can leave. Everything we federalize will not fit local needs and be inescapable without leaving the USA.
Ok but zoning also fits in the same boat as policing and can be protested via moving with your feet as well. Hell, most states DELEGATE zoning powers to cities just as they do policing, you're just arguing for status quo bias for its own sake right now
I argue that zoning should be left to the state and local authorities. However badly it is done, a federal solution would be overly broad and restrictive. Let local jurisdictions decide if and how to change things.
There is no reason to believe zoning at the federal level would be overly restrictive, we can look to real life countries like Japan for proof of that. Zoning is so restrictive BECAUSE localism disincentivizes electeds from thinking about long-term regional planning and to be more receptive to the complaints of anyone who has the time and determination to bitch and moan at a Tuesday evening townhall (NIMBYs). Again, you're merely arguing for a status quo that frankly sucks
There is little evidence that anyone at the federal level thinks long-term, either. The genius of the US federal system, reserving police powers for local jurisdictions, it that it can limit the damage. When government screws up, it screws up for everyone in its jurisdiction.
Considering how we have over 12,000 police agencies which makes it a nightmare to compare best practices across PDs, I don't think this is such an obvious success story for you to be trumpeting for localism. Again, NIMBYism prevails because a local city councilman has no reason to give a crap about regional growth in the 5-10 year term, the angry schoolboard attenders are far more relevant. Meanwhile, we have REAL examples of countries that HAVE federalized zoning and surprise surprise, are less prone to suffering from NIMBYism. Your argumentation is literally just "federal = BAD!"
I’m not trying to persuade you that the local jurisdictions get everything right. They obviously don’t.
The federal government would not be better. It would be bad in different ways. When the federal government screws up US citizens have no place else to go.
We have had a housing crisis across desirable cities from NYC to San Francisco for the last 50 years running. If local control ever had a single iota of an incentive to resolve housing crises it has had several decades to demonstrate this. The fact of the matter is that across numerous cities (and even countries) local voters have no incentive or desire to fix housing crises, and why would they?!
They have their castles, they have literally no incentive to undermine their own property value to ensure functional housing markets, hell for the more cynical minded ones, a dysfunctional housing market that favors sellers IS the end goal! So respectfully, I'm not really interested in hearing your hypotheticals of how federal zoning COULD suck when local control has already caused so much harm for so many decades and continuing into the present.
You're either serious about fixing the housing crisis or you're not, and if you think it can be done without removing vetocracy then you are living in a world of delusion.
It seems to me that you want to fix bad local policy at the federal level. This is a mistake. It is every bit as bad to fix zoning at the federal level as trying to fix education at the federal level.
The USA once had something like a market for government. Most domestic policy was made by the state and local governments. If things got too bad people could move. We have federalized domestic policy more than is good for us.
Federal regulation of housing gave us the Fair Housing Act. Much of modern zoning is a backdoor way around that act.
I'm not hopeful that getting the feds involved will improve the situation. It would be better to give people incentives for upzoning. Like school choice and public order making it less important who our neighbors are.
if we listened to people like you, we'd still have Jim Crow. Japan is one of the most YIMBY countries in the world and its due in part to handling zoning at the national level
Unrelated issue. Police powers belong to the state and local governments. Inevitable tyrannies remain local. If things get too bad people can leave. Everything we federalize will not fit local needs and be inescapable without leaving the USA.
Ok but zoning also fits in the same boat as policing and can be protested via moving with your feet as well. Hell, most states DELEGATE zoning powers to cities just as they do policing, you're just arguing for status quo bias for its own sake right now
I argue that zoning should be left to the state and local authorities. However badly it is done, a federal solution would be overly broad and restrictive. Let local jurisdictions decide if and how to change things.
There is no reason to believe zoning at the federal level would be overly restrictive, we can look to real life countries like Japan for proof of that. Zoning is so restrictive BECAUSE localism disincentivizes electeds from thinking about long-term regional planning and to be more receptive to the complaints of anyone who has the time and determination to bitch and moan at a Tuesday evening townhall (NIMBYs). Again, you're merely arguing for a status quo that frankly sucks
There is little evidence that anyone at the federal level thinks long-term, either. The genius of the US federal system, reserving police powers for local jurisdictions, it that it can limit the damage. When government screws up, it screws up for everyone in its jurisdiction.
Considering how we have over 12,000 police agencies which makes it a nightmare to compare best practices across PDs, I don't think this is such an obvious success story for you to be trumpeting for localism. Again, NIMBYism prevails because a local city councilman has no reason to give a crap about regional growth in the 5-10 year term, the angry schoolboard attenders are far more relevant. Meanwhile, we have REAL examples of countries that HAVE federalized zoning and surprise surprise, are less prone to suffering from NIMBYism. Your argumentation is literally just "federal = BAD!"
I’m not trying to persuade you that the local jurisdictions get everything right. They obviously don’t.
The federal government would not be better. It would be bad in different ways. When the federal government screws up US citizens have no place else to go.
We have had a housing crisis across desirable cities from NYC to San Francisco for the last 50 years running. If local control ever had a single iota of an incentive to resolve housing crises it has had several decades to demonstrate this. The fact of the matter is that across numerous cities (and even countries) local voters have no incentive or desire to fix housing crises, and why would they?!
They have their castles, they have literally no incentive to undermine their own property value to ensure functional housing markets, hell for the more cynical minded ones, a dysfunctional housing market that favors sellers IS the end goal! So respectfully, I'm not really interested in hearing your hypotheticals of how federal zoning COULD suck when local control has already caused so much harm for so many decades and continuing into the present.
You're either serious about fixing the housing crisis or you're not, and if you think it can be done without removing vetocracy then you are living in a world of delusion.