You're viewing a single thread.
The only thing proposed that's reasonable is "changing regulation." It's too easy to block new housing, and often times it's just flat out illegal to increase density or build mixed use.
But those regulations are largely controlled by local governments, not the federal government. Federal regulations can prevent building new housing in certain areas and conditions (like destroying habitat of an endangered species), but that is much rarer than a city council not approving projects or zoning changes because they want to keep property values high.
And that needs to change. Local communities are harming the nation with their NIMBY shit. Feds should step in.
I mean they kinda are, but those areas just miss out on tax dollars of larger scale developments. I'd rather see more support and for lower cost housing that doesn't get flipped immediately into airbnbs. Stronger regulations that temper this current market of turning housing into a commodity where speculative reality businesses are out bidding home owners. That goes for single family and multifamily. U can build a huge priced right housing development but if all the units just turn into air bnb or rented out by shitty land lords, then we have solved nothing
In the macro picture, more supply always helps. Flood the market with airbnbs and airbnb owners can't charge as much so they'll stop buying so many. More rentals lowers prices so you don't have to rent from a slumlord.
But I agree, direct legislation is more immediate and effective.
So then the federal government should regulate zoning laws. Which is the opposite of fewer federal regulations.
You'll never believe this, but you can actually add a regulation that removes or negates other regulations, resulting in overall fewer regulations.
That depends heavily on how you are counting regulations in this case. You are increasing the number of enforced federal regulations while the regulations at the local level may be increased, decreased, or unchanged based on how local regulations interact with the federal regulation.
Good thing I said "removes or negates."
No one ever mentioned fewer federal regulations
It is in the figure as a part of the housing policy proposal of a presidential campaign. The executive of the federal government doesn't control city councils so it must be federal regulations that will be impacted.
The executive of the federal government doesn’t control city councils
That's one of the regulations we need to change lol
Regardless, the federal government has a long history of using federal money to convince or bully local governments into doing what the Feds want.
It depends on which regulations. The second part of that “making federal land available” makes me think they want to develop national parks.