I think we should plan for growth by setting clear, realistic rules for what you can and cannot build, then enforce those rules fairly instead of giving every busybody a last-minute veto. I do not think this is an “extreme libertarian, anarcho-capitalist” ideology at all.
I think we should plan for growth by setting clear, realistic rules for what you can and cannot build, then enforce those rules fairly instead of giving every busybody a last-minute veto. I do not think this is an “extreme libertarian, anarcho-capitalist” ideology at all.
The overwhelming majority of YIMBY policy is very basic good government, rule of law stuff designed to make the existing planning system actually work as intended.
@maxdubler Um it's definitely not but that is the typical word salad we see constantly. Like bro I'm an FDR democrat please get a hold of yourself.
@maxdubler Or only setting goals for what cannot be built & what the rules aim to achieve. Require rules to align with the will of voters/residents, not representatives’ opinions. Allow rule-invalidation based on receiving a threshold number of signatures from locals or prospective tenants.
@maxdubler Don’t worry. Noah Sloss is wrong about just about everything.
@maxdubler I guess the current system is kind of the opposite of anarchy. Instead of no one being in control everyone is, “tyranny of the crowd”?
@maxdubler SF planning is facially unconstitutional as applied. Simply does not here to the rule of law and violates equal protection
@maxdubler I wonder if any of these people understand there’s a difference between zoning regulation and development regulation and don’t understand that even if you had no zoning regs buildings would still be safe and functional.
@maxdubler But Max, how will local government elected officials extract money from developers under this system? How can there be a Quid if there isn't a Quo?
@maxdubler One man’s “Rothbardian Reagan-Thatcherite Ayn Rand Nightmare” is another man’s “Living in a Functional Liberal Democracy”