DeSantis signs bill that bans rent control and bans ability to block new housing development

[Pres Mike]

The government should subsidize home building like it did after WW2. Small family homes, because it seems all the new houses being built are McMansions for retiring boomers.

Wow, congratulations. You came up with the absolute worst policy proposal in world history: Inefficient single-family homes subsidized by the government, complete with an ignorant reference to the racially discriminatory post-WWII HOLC policies. I'm genuinely impressed.

Of course it was racially discriminatory, like most federal programs before 1964. Social security was racially discriminatory, should we abolish it? Obviousily any modern program would need to inculde all Americans.

How was it the worst? It helped create the most prosperous country in world history. Home ownership is the basis of wealth for most Americans. And the policy worked for almost 50 years. Even after it ended, it created enough homes to allow the normal American family to purchase a home. I would add that home ownership for black families exploded in the 90s, partly because of this policy which had long since ended

[John Dule]

The government should subsidize home building like it did after WW2. Small family homes, because it seems all the new houses being built are McMansions for retiring boomers.

Wow, congratulations. You came up with the absolute worst policy proposal in world history: Inefficient single-family homes subsidized by the government, complete with an ignorant reference to the racially discriminatory post-WWII HOLC policies. I'm genuinely impressed.

Of course it was racially discriminatory, like most federal programs before 1964. Social security was racially discriminatory, should we abolish it? Obviousily any modern program would need to inculde all Americans.

How was it the worst? It helped create the most prosperous country in world history. Home ownership is the basis of wealth for most Americans. And the policy worked for almost 50 years. Even after it ended, it created enough homes to allow the normal American family to purchase a home. I would add that home ownership for black families exploded in the 90s, partly because of this policy which had long since ended

The pattern of home development the US employed following WWII has made our country poorer, fatter, more environmentally damaged, more wasteful, and more socially divided. The "small family homes" to which you refer are the cause of this. Suburban American development spreads populations across a larger area than urban development, which means the tax base is more geographically diffuse. However, all of those homes are still supplied with city-quality services-- pipes, electrical wires, telephone wires, gas lines, police, fire services, and roads. The cost of materials and labor to connect these homes to service systems is thus exponentially higher than it is for denser housing (like apartment complexes). That cost is borne not by the homeowners, but by municipal governments.

The result is that municipalities-- even "healthy," growing ones-- have been going deeper and deeper in debt every year, often requiring state and federal money to bail out their inefficient and sprawling infrastructure. This is why when Flint, MI needed to replace its pipes, doing so would have cost more than the city's entire annual budget. In order to sustain their infrastructure, cities sign on to development projects that temporarily flood them with new revenue, but which in the long run just add to the inefficient infrastructure that must be maintained. In this way, suburbia is a Ponzi scheme, one that is propped up by federal subsidies and taxes from urban and rural areas.

The car dependency that comes with suburban living has also made Americans more socially isolated, fatter, unhealthier, and more stressed. It damages our environment, encroaches upon natural areas, and requires a liberal application of eminent domain. It chases rural businesses out, causes thousands of deaths every year in accidents that go largely undiscussed, and makes it impossible for the average American to walk to the basic services they require (stores, parks, etc).

Saying that what America needs in 2023 is more suburban homes is insane.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good bill. Also gives teachers and first responders aid in buying housing. Maybe the first good thing for teachers DeSantis has done.

Broken clock moment.

He lost his war with Disney, so is trying to change the narrative. That's all it is.

An inability to admit that one's enemies have done something right is indicative of a cult mentality.

I mean, I'm more concerned about the fact that the thing makes it illegal for local communities to oppose development plans.

That's the best part of the bill. "Local communities" are the worst people in the world.

In this context yes. I've long argued that people who are concerned about keeping property values up at the local-politics level should be regarded with suspicion because it implies an intent to resell and thus a dubious degree of long-term commitment to the local community on the part of the very people who claim to be representing its interests. The orthodoxy around Rent Control Bad is so strong and (in my opinion) so poorly argued for relative to how strong it is that I'm skeptical of it on general principle, but bashing the NIMBYs is good and it's a good example of why, despite everything, DeSantis is a step up from his Medicare fraudster Voldemort-looking predecessor.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

I still don't know how to feel about rent control, but encouraging new housing development is unambiguously a good thing.

Doesn't make up for the fact that DeSantis is a religious fundamentalist freak waging a disgusting culture war against LGBT teenagers, but hey, I'll take a rare positive development out of Florida when I can.

[jojoju1998]

The government should subsidize home building like it did after WW2. Small family homes, because it seems all the new houses being built are McMansions for retiring boomers.

Wow, congratulations. You came up with the absolute worst policy proposal in world history: Inefficient single-family homes subsidized by the government, complete with an ignorant reference to the racially discriminatory post-WWII HOLC policies. I'm genuinely impressed.

Of course it was racially discriminatory, like most federal programs before 1964. Social security was racially discriminatory, should we abolish it? Obviousily any modern program would need to inculde all Americans.

How was it the worst? It helped create the most prosperous country in world history. Home ownership is the basis of wealth for most Americans. And the policy worked for almost 50 years. Even after it ended, it created enough homes to allow the normal American family to purchase a home. I would add that home ownership for black families exploded in the 90s, partly because of this policy which had long since ended

The pattern of home development the US employed following WWII has made our country poorer, fatter, more environmentally damaged, more wasteful, and more socially divided. The "small family homes" to which you refer are the cause of this. Suburban American development spreads populations across a larger area than urban development, which means the tax base is more geographically diffuse. However, all of those homes are still supplied with city-quality services-- pipes, electrical wires, telephone wires, gas lines, police, fire services, and roads. The cost of materials and labor to connect these homes to service systems is thus exponentially higher than it is for denser housing (like apartment complexes). That cost is borne not by the homeowners, but by municipal governments.

The result is that municipalities-- even "healthy," growing ones-- have been going deeper and deeper in debt every year, often requiring state and federal money to bail out their inefficient and sprawling infrastructure. This is why when Flint, MI needed to replace its pipes, doing so would have cost more than the city's entire annual budget. In order to sustain their infrastructure, cities sign on to development projects that temporarily flood them with new revenue, but which in the long run just add to the inefficient infrastructure that must be maintained. In this way, suburbia is a Ponzi scheme, one that is propped up by federal subsidies and taxes from urban and rural areas.

The car dependency that comes with suburban living has also made Americans more socially isolated, fatter, unhealthier, and more stressed. It damages our environment, encroaches upon natural areas, and requires a liberal application of eminent domain. It chases rural businesses out, causes thousands of deaths every year in accidents that go largely undiscussed, and makes it impossible for the average American to walk to the basic services they require (stores, parks, etc).

Saying that what America needs in 2023 is more suburban homes is insane.

How about cities like Sacramento which have Box Car Suburbs ? Many older suburbs especially on the East Coast developed decades before the car. Sacramento has East Sacramento which is mostly suburban houses; but it's highly accessible, walkable,

[T'Chenka]

I still don't know how to feel about rent control, but encouraging new housing development is unambiguously a good thing.

No rent control = low income people (including seniors) being forced to constantly move every few years further and further away from the cities they were born and raised in, as the city and then even the suburbs surrounding the city become unaffordable. Younger people can alternatively take on more and more roommates instead of moving.

Some people think that's okay and "their fault for being low income". I don't.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This is a surprisingly good law. More of this and a lot less Culture War BS and DeSantis might end up being one of the better Republican Governors around.