• Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      They could also fix it by deregulating the market.

      They could also fix it by doing basically random changes to the law, because the law currently is perpetuating the crisis.

      Fuck it. Put a pen on the jaw of a goat eating grass, and write the result into law. I think we actually have a shot at improvement this way.

        • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Yeah, I’m absolutely not saying deregulation is a good idea, just like goat-law. I can see how my comment read though, rewrote a bit to make the cynical undertone a bit more obvious.

          I was only pointing out that the current, specific set of laws, is keeping this problem a reality. That it’s not a particularly natural situation to be in.

      • qwrty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        “deregulation” detected. ready the down votes. /s

        Seriously though, zoning laws are a big reason why we have the current housing crisis. If given the opportunity, someone or some business will build high density housing. But you can’t with he current implementation of zoning laws. Without that barrier, you would see a lot more high density building projects

        Still we do need zoning laws. I don’t think anyone wants a factory or a garbage dump in their back yard. Used correctly zoning also helps limit sprawl.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I think there’s a blind spot on the left for this one. Opening up zoning for higher density is effectively a giveaway to local developers, who are invariably shitbags. It’d be preferable if solutions like banning corporations from owning housing could be enacted.

          That’s based on the theory that there are enough houses and flippers and hedge funds are just sitting on them in order to rake it in later as property values are driven up. If that were true, we’d expect to see large vacancy rates in cities. Problem is, we don’t. My city has <4% vacancy for rentals and <1% for home ownership. This seems to be similar to the numbers in many other major cities in North America. If we got rid of every corporation that was sitting on a house unused, the available housing would go up by 4% or so, at most.

          We need more housing stock. As it stands, the only way to do that is a giveaway to shitbag developers. They’re the ones that hold the capitol for building more housing.

          This could be mitigated by city councils also encouraging/mandating those developers to have unionized staff.