this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2024
1214 points (98.3% liked)

Political Memes

5609 readers
1262 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cryophilia 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And that needs to change. Local communities are harming the nation with their NIMBY shit. Feds should step in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] StructuredPair 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

So then the federal government should regulate zoning laws. Which is the opposite of fewer federal regulations.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You'll never believe this, but you can actually add a regulation that removes or negates other regulations, resulting in overall fewer regulations.

[–] StructuredPair 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Good thing I said "removes or negates."

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No one ever mentioned fewer federal regulations

[–] StructuredPair 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cryophilia 1 points 2 months ago

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.