I mean it doesn’t NEED to be expensive it just is. The folks living there don’t want to change their local zoning laws. I don’t really feel like I should have a say if I don’t live there.
The burden of proof for an argument should come from the side which is trying to make a change.
I think we take hyperlocalism too far. If Americans shouldn’t have a say in California and Californians shouldn’t have a say in Palo Alto, then why not have each block be sovereign? Or maybe each house?
> If Americans shouldn’t have a say in California and Californians shouldn’t have a say in Palo Alto
"A say" in what subject? Currency used? Sales tax paid? Laws regarding civil rights? Laws regarding non-compete clauses in employment contracts?
We have a complicated legal and governing system that has worked out which subjects are covered at which levels of government. This is pretty much the same with all developed countries. Debating it in black and white terms as you present is not a very reasonable way to look at the issue.
I feel like you're making a related mistake: just because we've worked out which subjects are covered at which levels of government[0], that doesn't mean we've done a good job of it, or that it's actually working.
[0] And I don't think we have! This seems to be a constant struggle, with municipalities suing states, the feds suing states, states suing municipalities...
This extreme of "no zoning" doesn't work because of the negative externalities you can create, affecting your neighbors
Simply put: if you get to build your perfect house, with a nice mountain view, the neighbor west of you could build a building the size of the empire state building, and so does your neighbor east of you. Now you don't have any sunlight. The neighbor south of you could build a smelly & noisy factory, and the one north of you could build a nightclub.
But zoning itself also creates negative externalities.
I think some zoning does make sense. Totally agreed that we don't want a factory and a nightclub right next to everyone's homes.
But I don't believe that anyone is entitled to their view. The idea that you can buy a plot of land and somehow "own" the line-of-sight between that plot of land and a set of mountains that might be dozens of miles away is just unreasonable, and is not in the public interest.
In your extreme example, it would suck to lose that view, but consider that, after those skyscrapers get built, your property value would likely shoot through the roof. Take that windfall and build a new house on some other land with a great view, land that's less desirable for high-density housing.
But since local landowners consistently choose the most restrictive zoning possible to the detriment of society with things like urban sprawl, car-centric development and locking the poor and youth out from economic opportunity local control simply can't continue. It's completely unsustainable both economically and environmentally. Local control means wealthy control.
Yep. Ask people who grew up in suburbia and who have only ever ridden public transit when on vacation what they want, and they'll probably tell you more low density neighborhoods, bigger roads, large shopping centers (but not malls since those became un-cool), etc.
When left to their own devices, these people will inevitably take the worst parts of north Jersey and Long Island and implement them wholesale because it's all they've ever known.
The affordable areas low-wage workers could previously live in just 15 minutes away have gentrified over the years, but local homeowners have no real reason to care that their cashier has a 2+ hour round-trip commute. As long as they can still get their groceries, it doesn't affect them. But, crucially, while the employees have to spend a shit ton of time and money getting to and from work every day and likely spend a fair amount of their paycheck in the city they work in (and pay a fair amount in taxes to it as a result), they have no say in its governance since they have to vote where they're registered to.
Local governance utterly fails in these situations, regional planning requires state involvement when municipalities repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot for decades.
And of course, as we hurtle towards a climate catastrophe, we must not forget that most people who commute long hours to and from work everyday drive cars - single occupant vehicles - because the only other way to get there involves an hour+ Greyhound ride (because they travel between multiple independent transit systems). Regional planning is needed to address these issues; the American worship of single-family zoning completely undermines any progress towards meaningfully addressing climate change.
We’ve known for years US central planning is in fact a kleptocracy [1]. So, “no”. Locals can always throw a monkey wrench in any plan a far off bureaucrat makes for them, irrespective of wealth and power disparities. There are countless real world examples of this.
In addition, why should the wealthy be the only ones to object to high density housing as the one and only prescribed solution to housing affordability? Couldn’t the root of the housing affordability problem lie elsewhere, e.g. in investors who lack long-term residency parking their cash in inflation resistant assets? How about the lack of high speed rail networks, or human overpopulation in general?
My counter argument would be that the policies as they currently stand are policies that affect people who have less legal footing in committing change in that area. Someone who works in San Francisco as a janitor, but lives in San Jose, doesn't get a vote in San Francisco elections. The people who do get to vote are least affected. So now the local problem as external consequences, which kind of punches a hole in it is entirely a local problem. Depending on how far you want to go with considering something local.
EDIT: Another thought. And people the person works in SF, but lives elsewhere, who doesn't get to vote, but still have skin in the game for policy in SF.
