• Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

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

    • terry_jerry@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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

      • Liz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

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

        • StructuredPair@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

        • StructuredPair@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.