[treesrule]

I mean, regulation is why the housing market is so bad (SFZ environmental review etc), so really what we need is forced deregulation.

Edit: Some people might have misunderstood what I said so here's what I mean: What we really want is states to force localities to reduce zoning restrictions on new construction

[danaris]

Based on your subsequent comments, it seems like what you specifically mean is "reduce (probably zoning-based) restrictions on the construction of new residential buildings".

Phrasing this as "forced deregulation" is...not going to get people to recognize what you actually mean, because 95% of the time, when people say they want "deregulation," what they mean is they want big businesses to be allowed to exploit the middle and lower classes however the hell they want with no consequences.

If you do, in fact, mean specifically "reduce zoning restrictions on new construction", I suggest using phrasing like that, because it'll communicate your intention much more clearly. (If you don't, then I have misunderstood you, and apologize for the confusion.)

[treesrule]

thanks!

[Cd00d]

I find it suspect that environmental regulations are the driver of housing market issues.

That's a claim you should be substantiating and not making a blanket statement about.

[treesrule]

See here for example:

Basically anyone can just maliciously sue if they don't like a development and force a length environmental review process.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/signature-...

Also just as an aside, I'm in favor of large, expensive intervention for both climate change and the environment in general but Environmental review at least in California is basically worth nothing compare to investing a billion dollars in solar cell research or building a nuclear power plant.

[scrose]

In NYC, people call for multi-year environmental reviews to stall putting in something as good for the environment a new bike lane. Not sure where you live, but if you just look up where SEQR is referenced NYS lawsuits or sit in any local CB meetings on buildings and zoning, you'll see it often come up around both buildings and bike lanes as a way to kill momentum on a project for years.

[dionidium]

Maybe not environmental review, specifically (which differs quite a bit state to state), but zoning and onerous building regulations more generally are a significant factor. At this point the burden is really on detractors to explain why artificially limiting supply for decades didn't affect prices.

[treesrule]

Fair enough, let me find you a good article on the subject

[techrat]

Because deregulation did wonders for telecoms, energy companies in texas, boeing, subprime mortages, etc...

[pibechorro]

Deregulation hand in hand with allowing things to fail is the answer. The issue here is the constant bailouts. We live in a fake economy.

[minikites]

The economy wouldn't crater if these massive institutions failed? I find that hard to believe.

[treesrule]

I mean, there are specific regulations we can point to that are making houses and housing more expensive, I don't see how "allowing people to build more houses" could destabilizing living?

[techrat]

Deregulation in this case wouldn't lead to "allowing people to build more houses" but "allowing people to build more *unsafe* houses."

Regulations are written in blood.

[floor2]

Oh come on. Obviously people aren't clamoring for bringing back asbestos or dumping sewage into the street.

Regulations are written for a wide range of reasons- legitimate safety issues, quality of life concerns, propping up values, funneling money to groups favored by the politicians or bureaucrats crafting the rules, political grandstanding against imaginary problems, particular rules favored by coordinated special interest groups, etc.

I once lived in an area where several suburbs all met, you could drive a few blocks and cross imaginary lines separating different legal cities. They had different regulations for minimum lot size, how close structures could be to the property lines, how trees on the property needed to be handled, whether you could put two separate structures on one property, etc. Obviously none of these things impacted safety, but did impact density, home prices, etc.

[inglor_cz]

Less safe does not mean unsafe. Marginal gains in safety after a certain threshold may not be worth it. People wear helmets on bicycles, but no one wears a helmet just walking around.

Several years ago I read a German interview with a construction engineer who complained about the industrial lobby that pushes more and more regulations that, incidentally (/sarc), increase a (forced) demand for their products.

He gave several examples, of which I remember one. It is now law in Germany that new homes with French windows must have extra strong glass in them. The reason? What if a toddler on a tricycle ran into the glass and suffered serious injuries or death?

Now, said the engineer, there are no cases in Germany of this actually ever happening, or at least we do not have any records of them. But this what-if theoretical scenario increases construction costs of new German homes by a thousand euro or so. (And increases a basically guaranteed demand for products of a few certified safety glass vendors A LOT!) Take forty or fifty such extra requirements together and their cumulative effect on price of the finished home starts being significant.

But no one wants to be known as a potential child killer, so it is not worth opposing such measures.

The level of safety gained by such measures is nevertheless dubious. People didn't die in homes built to the less stringent standards of 1990 like flies.

[treesrule]

Yeah, just to be clear, I was specifically talking about land-use regulations. I don't know anything about how stringent material requirements are for building houses, but i'd wager we have some dumb ones on the books in the US.

[techrat]

> People wear helmets on bicycles, but no one wears a helmet just walking around.

When you start off with a false equivalence...

[xsmasher]

In this case it means "allow people to build multi-family housing" and "allow mixing small retail and residential."

get rid of the requirement for large lot sizes, and single-family residential-only zoning.

[rank0]

I disagree. Why can't you relax zoning restrictions without relaxing safety requirements?

[minikites]

Why do you think entrenched power needs to be entrenched further? Our current situation can be traced back to deregulation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization#Deregulation_...

>The securities that were so instrumental in triggering the financial crisis of 2007-2008, asset-backed securities, including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) were practically non-existent in 1978. By 2007, they comprised $4.5 trillion in assets, equivalent to 32% of U.S. GDP.

[treesrule]

This is a total nosequitor, building more apartment buildings would make apartments cheaper, being allowed to build two houses on your one house lot would make houses cheaper etc. Like do you have a reasonable path from "people have more latitude to build on their own property" to putting families or individuals in a dangerous financial situation.

[pibechorro]

Ding ding ding ding!