This is a problem with not having a single government communist country. Do you want imminent domain from a strong federal government dictating local building? Do you want the Chinese model????
You can’t have it both ways.
I'm not a libertarian, so I don't assume any regulation is automatically communism.
Homebuilders have been guided by zoning restricting their ability to build. Look at Houston and look at Los Angeles. C’mon now.
Everyone acknowledges that some zoning restrictions need to be lifted. You're doing strawmen again. The argument is that blanket lifting of restrictions has problems, and won't resolve all of the issues of housing.
I’m tired of this utopian bullshyt from leftists and you yourself should be asking more from these seemingly comfortable answers being provided.
No one said anything Utopian.
Of course, in a perfect world we get a corruption free world where finance isn’t exploiting people and monopoly power isn’t used to reduce the amount of housing.
But thats not the world we live in. We’ve had decades of leftists guilt tripping people with NIMBY movements by whining about gentrification, now you’re telling us we have to remove mortgages as a funding mechanism before we can break ground.
When is the time for you all to stop arguing and start DOING?
We need a more libertarian view on housing.
It's good that you're acknowledging your stance is Libertarian. I think Libertarianism is pretty stupid, and I can link you to countless examples of Sam debating Libertarians to show why it's dumb.
You focused on single family housing, not multi family housing and apartments. If everything is zoned for single families with minimum lot sizes, then thats all you will get.
The only reference to Single family vs Multi Family housing in the article we're discussing is Dayen saying how long it took for each style of housing to rebound and begin being built again after the housing market collapsed because of Abundance Agenda Policies that were applied in the 90's and 00's.
A “more robust solution” sounds like a branding exercise for professional pontificators.
A more robust solution just means, combining deregulation of certain zoning limitations with things like building subsidies and limitations on realtor monopolization. Abundance Agenda is LITERALLY a rebrand of deregulation that came out of Koch Brothers' think tanks. You're projecting.
Dayen’s business plan is to call out corporate grift. Dayen isn’t an urban planner or a city designer. Dayen isn’t interested in getting young people apartments and housing or doing everything possible to develop new places to live.
Dayen wants his readers to get mad at CEOs doing complex tax schemes and skimming off of rebates.
Ezra Klein is a city designer now? Nope. Dayen, Klein, and Thompson are all journalists.
More and more places keep proving this critique wrong. People want results.
Building more high-density apartment buildings can boost housing and lower home prices across a city. Cambridge, Massachusetts, is doing just that.
www.businessinsider.com
Did you read this or were you stuck on the paywall? This is about policy changes that haven't been proven effective yet, because they're so new. This is straight from the second paragraph of the piece
"Cambride could certainly use the new units. Data from Zillow shows the city's average rent is $3400 a month - slightly higher than San Francisco's estimated average rent of $3200. Homelessness in Cambridge has also been on the rise, particularly since the pandemic."
So, the article goes on to point out genuine changes that they're making to try and address this. But if "People want results" this article ain't it. The policies will certainly increase capacity for building, but whether the building will happen enough to bring down prices completely remains to be see...which is where additional policy that encourages building would fit in.
Which gets right back to David Dayen saying "
These viewpoints can be complementary, but only with open eyes" but you just want to argue and scream communist for some weird reason.
The housing bubble was because people were taking mortgages from corrupt loan terms and buying homes they couldn’t afford to maintain. The housing bubble had nothing to do with 1 bedroom apartments in dense urban cores.
You're making up shyt to argue with again. Dayen's claim is "
During the housing bubble, bankers structured the market to their own ends, and it resulted in catastrophe." He says nothing about 1 bedroom apartments in dense urban cores. You're completely hung up on jargon and not arguing with what's actually been stated anywhere. The article you link doesn't support your claim, it's just another advertisement for policies that haven't been in place to prove whether or not they're effective.
You're just talking out your ass again. Like when you swore Eric Adams would be the next Democratic nominee for president, or when you thought Cuomo was saving NYC from a Republican takeover.
Anyway, here's your favorite podcaster debating Regulations with a caller (they get to building regulations and why they might be important pretty quickly):
was uncomfortable
