21–30 of 115 posts
I'm down with killing restrictive zoning laws. But removing regulation has not historically been a great curb for the uber-wealthy.
Agreed, the biggest boom towns have been in the South where restrictions are low and profits high, leaving some really ugly suburbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Remove Zoning >Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments I absolutely understand what prompts this desperation, but much like the desperation that prompted the election of Trump, it's very, very much more bad than it is good.
Nope. I will f-ing yeet that baby along with the bathwater. Every idiot (they're not even useful anymore FFS, look at the results) says this based on abstract assessments of individual rules and laws. But in practice the overall effect of the system is that all those environmental assessments and stormwater permits and all the other things aren't even speed bumps for big business interests with lawyers and engineers…
Fixing housing is incredibly easy: 1. Remove Zoning / Deed Restrictions / Parking Minimums 2. Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments, time cap approvals to a couple weeks, at cost fees) 3. Land Value Taxes Watch as Gentrification suddenly goes away and infill development occurs. These complicated schemes are unnecessary.
>Remove Zoning >Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments I absolutely understand what prompts this desperation, but much like the desperation that prompted the election of Trump, it's very, very much more bad than it is good.
Environmental impact assessments are great if they actually do what they say. But they can also be weaponized to block any new development in existing cities. Forcing suburban sprawl into less populated areas is a worse outcome if you want to protect the environment.
There are millions of homes that are super cheap and no one wants to live there. I think we missed a real opportunity for WFH to allow people to move where things are more affordable, rather than having everyone live in mega cities and complain of high prices.
https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healt...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>particularly since Denver seems to categorise practically all impactful residential development as "major commercial." This isn't an accident. They know what they're doing. Every municipality tries to do this to the extent they think they can get away with it because it's an end run around your property right. There's all sorts of residential exemptions and precedents and case law and courts and politicians tend not…
It's absolutely vital to homeowners that no new housing be built, to keep Undesirables from moving in, but they need to do it in a way which leaves no blood on their hands so they can continue to have their In This House signs with no cognitive dissonance. And this is how they get it: don't make it literally illegal to build housing, but make it economically impossible in practice. Then they can go "welp, nothing's g…
Unsurprisingly, affordability is so bad. In lots of major cities, a one-bed rental takes around 50% of a mid-career post-tax salary. You have become an indentured servant for whatever real estate fund owns your property. Lots of regulatory capture behind the scenes.
Ironically, some parts of the UK, including Home Counties, are now much better than most EU, including Scandinavia, with lots of shared ownership and affordable housing schemes. It's really easy. Increasing the supply of homes, in particular first homes, and preventing predatory tactics to constrain supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Remove Zoning >Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments I absolutely understand what prompts this desperation, but much like the desperation that prompted the election of Trump, it's very, very much more bad than it is good.
Nope. I will f-ing yeet that baby along with the bathwater. Every idiot (they're not even useful anymore FFS, look at the results) says this based on abstract assessments of individual rules and laws. But in practice the overall effect of the system is that all those environmental assessments and stormwater permits and all the other things aren't even speed bumps for big business interests with lawyers and engineers…
Neighbourhoods change, some get richer and some get poorer. That is the way of things. Both poor and rich alike need somewhere to live.
It's true that the gentrification process speeds up when there is no building, as those differences in preferences mean existing tenants are competing with even richer people, and would have to move even further out, but the change in preferences still exists, and thus the gentrification is straight out unavoidable.
Besides, in almost every place where we have serious housing problems, the small changes proposed here are insufficient. When the land is expensive, the normal behavior everywhere is to redevelop plots to the maximum economically viable density. Turning 1 house into 4, which would sell for 500k each, doesn't make sense when the possibility of an apartment building is there. Single stairway apartments turn those 4 cottage homes into 16 3-4 bedroom units. If one is simplifying permitting anyway, why not simplify it for that density, and get far more out of the same land. Those 4 new cottages, now new, would not get redeveloped again for another 30, 40 years, so they would become difficult to afford really quickly. That's why you don't see many places actually attempting this low key densification, as it's way too much work for what you get.
Fixing housing is incredibly easy: 1. Remove Zoning / Deed Restrictions / Parking Minimums 2. Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments, time cap approvals to a couple weeks, at cost fees) 3. Land Value Taxes Watch as Gentrification suddenly goes away and infill development occurs. These complicated schemes are unnecessary.
>Remove Zoning >Remove Red Tape (Environmental impact assessments I absolutely understand what prompts this desperation, but much like the desperation that prompted the election of Trump, it's very, very much more bad than it is good.
Is it? I don’t have a clear picture in either direction. What does an environmental impact assessment for a housing project typically result in?
No because gentrification is a side effect of private property, not insufficient technology.