|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
1319 days ago
|
|
My argument is simply that the further you remove the decision makers from the decision impact the less involved they'll be. Normally this is a problem, but in cases where the issue is that decision makers are too close this becomes a solution. So far the state of California has been the one to allow duplexes, California has been the one to require new construction in SF, California has been the one to allow density near transit etc, all while the local councils fight tooth and nail. Atherton even shut down their Caltrain station so they didn't have to comply! I want less control so I want to pull that up to a higher level where all but the most egregious abuses will be completely ignored. The Feds couldn't care less about a shadow over a park. An "already overextended federal government" running this is a feature! :) |
|
The traditional model is that parent governments offer benefits which embedded governments can access by adhering to certain mandates. This is the exact situation now where cities in California are already ignoring housing regulations.
Moving zoning responsibilities up the chain of command won't fix this, unless your plan is to send in the National Guard. We need to fix the broken relationship between state and city. I don't understand where federal government comes into this.