Its actually a regulation problem. City councils, local govts create this problem with restrictions on buildings and what type of things can go into their city. These people should rise up and realize their living in something created by govt.
This response is a common issue we run into when discussing policy. When people do not understand that policy is the absolute bedrock foundation for any and all subsequent law or regulation, they tend to not be able to visualize how wide of a net “policy” is and what falls underneath it.
Example:
Policy simplified: No more than X number of multi-family homes allowed.
Regulations and zoning laws are second: We only have room for X, so we can have no more than X number of multi family homes in Y sq miles.
As you can see, a decision does not start as a law nor regulation, it is broad policy.
So with your claim that it’s a regulation issue, how would changing the inferior part of the policy ensure it promotes change from the bottom-up? It will not change the issues that are created as a result of the original base policy (i.e. X number of MFHs allowed).
All regulations and laws must have a basis which can help explain the what, how, and why of implementation to ensure it falls within the boundaries of the initial policy decision.
Back in 1962 my grandma had her house built on some undesirable empty hills, in the city but far from the action. There wasn't a tech industry. That house is in the geographic center of San Francisco and is now worth about $2,000,000. It's still on a lovely tree-lined street with plenty of available free parking.
You would take that from her and the other people who created the neighborhood you now covet. You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone.
No. You go make your own desirable neighborhood in a different city.
You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it.
Those policies are influenced at the local level. Unfortunately they’re also often basically controlled by special interests. If anything could change it, it would be people en masse taking an interest in local elections at significant rates. There’s no voting power larger, in the US, than the people who sit out. It’d also mean going to meetings, probably.
mhluongo|6 years ago
That's another way of saying "a housing policy problem"
casefields|6 years ago
docbrown|6 years ago
This response is a common issue we run into when discussing policy. When people do not understand that policy is the absolute bedrock foundation for any and all subsequent law or regulation, they tend to not be able to visualize how wide of a net “policy” is and what falls underneath it.
Example:
Policy simplified: No more than X number of multi-family homes allowed.
Regulations and zoning laws are second: We only have room for X, so we can have no more than X number of multi family homes in Y sq miles.
As you can see, a decision does not start as a law nor regulation, it is broad policy.
So with your claim that it’s a regulation issue, how would changing the inferior part of the policy ensure it promotes change from the bottom-up? It will not change the issues that are created as a result of the original base policy (i.e. X number of MFHs allowed).
All regulations and laws must have a basis which can help explain the what, how, and why of implementation to ensure it falls within the boundaries of the initial policy decision.
echelon|6 years ago
Good luck fighting the land owners. NIMBY is more organized and has huge political will.
I honestly don't know what can be done and worry this will always be a problem.
souprock|6 years ago
Back in 1962 my grandma had her house built on some undesirable empty hills, in the city but far from the action. There wasn't a tech industry. That house is in the geographic center of San Francisco and is now worth about $2,000,000. It's still on a lovely tree-lined street with plenty of available free parking.
You would take that from her and the other people who created the neighborhood you now covet. You would change it forever, adding all the charm of a trailer park or housing project. The free parking would be gone.
No. You go make your own desirable neighborhood in a different city.
You're trying to cheat by skipping a step. You don't want to wait half a century. You want that nice neighborhood now, without investing the time to create it.
ianai|6 years ago
calvinmorrison|6 years ago
vippy|6 years ago
[deleted]