NE2: Housing Deregulation Act (Failed)

[sentinel]

I oppose this all the way to the bank. This is big government regulation at its finest. I'm tired of the regional government telling communities how to run themselves. Maybe height restrictions benefit their community? Who are we to decide on any of these issues.

[sentinel]

This bill hurts the rights of small businesses, landlords and local governments. I will not stand idly by as their rights are trampled on. I disagree with Rep Deus Natura that the only way to deal with housing prices is to subject them to further regulation by the regional government.

[sentinel]

This law takes power away from local government, as a libertarian its absurd that you support this. Local governments and communities should be able to determine their needs in their own community. Maybe a small suburban community doesn't want a skyscraper next door, and they should be able to pass ordinances and zoning laws doing that.


This bill would eliminate any attempt at community cohesion by municipalities, and it would even prevent affordable housing options. Under this law, local governments can't even define lot sizes to sell buildings on! This bill obliterates urban planning, suburban planning and rural planning one one fell swoop.

This bill eliminates all community input into how their community expands, develops, and grows.


Housing Deregulation Act

1. The Regional government of the Northeast, as well as all State, municipal, and local governments within the Northeast, are hereby prohibited from passing or approving any law or ordinance that does any of the following:

a. Limits the amount of money that may be demanded by a landlord in rent. Eliminates Affordable Housing Options

b. Prohibits or requires a special license for the conversion of single-family homes into multi-family homes, or vice versa. Allows for unsafe numbers of residents living in one place

c. Establishes a minimum or maximum lot size for buildings. Eliminates local zoning control, eliminates lots, like how more basic can you get?

d. Establishes height limits for buildings. Eliminates local regulation and community cohesion, you can now build a skyscraper in a suburban area and no one can stop it

e. Imposes limits or fees upon the construction of new buildings. Takes a tool use to promote or stifle growth away from communities.

f. Requires developers to build units priced above or below a certain level. I don't think this regulation even exists, it comes from fantasyland.

2. Any codified Regional, State, municipal, or local laws/ordinances that do any of the above are hereby rendered null and void. Voids local laws that may have other aspects that have nothing to do with Deus' intentions. This clause is a slash and burn tactic and it will hurt more than it helps.

[sentinel]

Just one example of many -- zoning laws in some communities could prevent a megastore like Wal-Mart from coming in. The presence of a huge store like Wal-Mart could put many small businesses out of business completely. Nothing against Wal-Mart but its a fact. Communities that are able to regulate zoning  know the interest of their citizens and can better fit their needs.

The opposite can also be true -- a community may not have many small businesses and has a high demand for a mega-store like Wal-Mart --then they can use zoning regulations to entice a mega-store to come to their community!

[sentinel]

The opposite can also be true -- a community may not have many small businesses and has a high demand for a mega-store like Wal-Mart --then they can use zoning regulations to entice a mega-store to come to their community!

I hope you realize that the "enticement" you describe constitutes making it illegal to start or own a small business...

Pick a synonym, you get what I mean.

Also, going to your point on inclusionary zoning (which you propose eliminating) -- here's what the link says that you provided:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, you propose eliminating a tool that many municipalities use beneficially! Look at the rest of that article especially in the "in practice" section.

You're taking tools out of the toolbox of municipalities, and if this bill passes it will be harder for those communities to fix problems.

[sentinel]

No, that Amendment still takes immense power away from communities. I feel like you don't understand the implications of taking tools away from these municipalities.

[sentinel]

The bill as written is marginally effective at best. See clause 1. It prohibits the Assembly from passing a certain type of law. That doesn't really work.

It prohibits "The Regional government of the Northeast, as well as all State, municipal, and local governments."

[sentinel]

How about this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your new clause is even more restrictive than the first! Instead of eliminating all regulations on heights you eliminated all limitations (or fees) on the construction of buildings in general! That even eliminates fire and safety standards in construction! It even eliminates the prohibition of asbestos in construction!

And I still have problems with the Section 1 and all its other subsections! You have essentially addressed nothing. These are powers that municipalities need to keep people safe. Do you want asbestos in your home?

[sentinel]

Deus, how old are you? Because if you've ever rented a house, apartment (or bought one), these kinds of regulations are extremely useful to consumers and to businesses (no one wants to get sued after all).

[sentinel]

Sirnick, calm down. First of all, I didn't even add a new clause. That's been there all along. I will gladly get rid of the word "limits." You make valuable points and I'm willing to consider them, but I wish you'd just stick to doing that instead of throwing a fit and launching ad hominem attacks

I'm legitimately wondering why you haven't come across asbestos regulations

[sentinel]

The time table doesn't matter because the policy is still horrendous.

[sentinel]

The time table doesn't matter because the policy is still horrendous.

Why do you support minimum lot size ordinances? What benefit is there to forcing small, affordable builders out of the market?

Minimum lot sizes allows for more small lots (or more small businesses, or more single-family homes...you can cut it many ways...). I don't see how small lot sizes force small affordable builders out of the market...when they'd be building smaller more affordable houses/offices/etc.

In addition, having a minimum lot size makes sense for hundreds of reasons. Maybe the municipal government needs to limit a lot size due to environmental, logistical or any other multitude of concerns and therefore needs to be limited. Perhaps the government wants to promote smaller lots which tend to house small businesses while larger lots tend to house larger businesses like Wal-Mart. A municipal government maybe afriad that a larger chain may force smaller businesses out of business. Or heck, you can have the opposite, maybe they create larger lots to lure business in! My whole point is to let the municipalities decide these things!

I feel like the Republican in the room here, we need to allow municipalities and states to keep these powers. Restrictions by the regional government is micromanaging.

[sentinel]

To quote you "If your business, apartment complex, etc is too small, minimum lot size ordinances make it illegal for it to exist at all."

Are you sure you're not confusing minimum with maximum? It sounds like you're confusing minimum and maximum.

Also, you're assuming that a municipality will have the same lot sizes across what could very well be a large area. Municipalities can create zones and within those zones have different categories of lots and different lot sizes. Have you ever played SimCity? It's kind of like that, but reality and better.

Even in the New Mexico desert there are parcels (lots) of land that you can buy --except there its larger cause there's nothing around

This kind of reform is anarchy for contractors and for consumers. It's simple.

[sentinel]

This is like arguing that the Model T should come in colors other than black. Lets just bring this to a vote. I can't see the Governor repealing all local zoning codes anyway.

[sentinel]

This bill undermines all reasonable and practical regulations in construction and community planning. In addition it prevents local representatives from forging policies and solutions that are practical for their constitients and communities. I urge my fellow Representatives to vote against this bill.

[sentinel]

I plan to vote against this because I don't see a serious problem with the current system and I don't think this bill will do anything more than give landlords and megacorps more power. Generally things like this are the domain of the community because it affects those beyond the individual landowner

How will this bill benefit mega-corporations? I could understand saying that getting rid of maximum lot size ordinances would benefit them but I already amended the bill to take that part out.

As for landlords, I assume you're referring to Section 1, Subsection a? I've already provided evidence that rent control a harmful policy that leads to housing shortages.

I'm not very comfortable with D or F either. It would suck if DC was in our region and we set out to do this. Capitalism would destroy the city's character.

I already amended the bill to get rid of Subsection F. How would Subsection D destroy DC?

DC has height restrictions to prevent Manhattan style skyscrapers from crowding the city.  I agree with sirnick to an extent that communities should be able to establish certain rules and regulations. Is rent control your main issue?

I amended the bill to get rid of the part that got rid of height limits for buildings.

You didn't. You amended it but you wrote it more broadly so not only does it encompass height, it encompasses a lot more.

[sentinel]

NAY

[sentinel]

There is no compromise on bad policy,Deus. Its like compromising on suicide by changing the method of death. Still a horrible ending!