The abundance debate has quickly reached a level of abstraction that borders on incoherence. “Is deregulation good or bad” is a nonsense question absent any specifics. “Whose fault is all of this” is a useless question in the absence of historical analysis or an examination of coalition politics.
Comments
"According to my Earn-to-Build Longtermist model, we can maximize the potential housing of trillions of humans in the far future by maximizing real estate returns in the immediate term."
I've been reading the guy since the Pandagon days, and despite his NYT email address, think he genuinely wants the same outcomes as YIMBYs. What have I missed?
I will say he's a *tremendous* upgrade over previous people in the "establishment's favorite center-left pundit" slot.
As far back as I can remember a lot of political debate is watered down to "Republicans mean less regulation and Democrats mean more" or some such stupid bullshit.
It seems impractical, but I commute by train.
Nearly every public sector worker I've spoken to, from teachers to BART mechanical engineers to housing finance analysts, has concrete ideas about how to improve processes.
"As transit supporters we want to see more train service, nonetheless..."
Never seen this org on any of the various operating/capital/reform efforts.
Also Tokyo housing regs (Actually Existing YIMBYism), which has great renter protections (including Good Cause Eviction!) and a decent Social Housing stock.
(But: excellent witticism, well played.)
So why maintain such a toxic adversity toward it? What am I missing here?