undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdavidw5y ago0 comments

The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.

There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.

In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.

0 comments

ndiscussion5y ago

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods?

As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

davidwOP5y ago

Larger political entities can consider more than the narrow, selfish interests of a few "I've got mine" NIMBYs, such as future residents, the racist history of zoning, and the impact on the environment of forcing people to commute a long ways.

Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

ndiscussion5y ago

Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?

1 more reply

onethought5y ago

> as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you

So democracy?

ndiscussion5y ago

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few.

edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsdavidw5y ago0 comments

The way forward is not to 'torch the rule of law'.

There are plenty of ways to do things. Oregon just passed a housing law (HB 2001) that re-legalizes "missing middle" housing for instance, by right, in all our cities.

In other words, you take some of the zoning control away from hyper-NIMBY local jurisdictions.

0 comments

ndiscussion5y ago

So "torch the will of local citizens" instead? Why should the rest of the state get to decide what they do in their neighborhoods?

As long as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you, but it's a bold power grab that may not end well in other situations.

davidwOP5y ago

Local control in places like Palo Alto is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

ndiscussion5y ago

Perhaps the new residents could consider moving literally anywhere else?

1 more reply

onethought5y ago

> as you agree with the majority of the state, it works out for you

So democracy?

ndiscussion5y ago

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga...

Look at this chart. The majority should not always control the few.

edit: never thought I'd see anti-gay-marriage on HN but here we are.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse