NE2: Housing Deregulation Act (Failed)

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Cinyc, I will try to address your concerns with another amendment shortly.

[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

[cinyc]

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).

Houston has no zoning laws and very affordable housing.  But getting rid of zoning laws in places where there already are zoning laws in one fell swoop changes expectations far too quickly.

[Deus Naturae]

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

The original intent of that clause had nothing to do with what materials developers can use in construction. It was more to prevent the prohibition of new construction. But, I see how it could be interpreted as you did, so that's why I took it out.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This amendment would allow zoning agencies to maintain maximum lot size ordinances (which I'm not really concerned with because they aren't nearly as cost inflationary as minimum lot size ordinances) and would establish a six-year time table for phasing out minimum lot size ordinances. Do you think that time table is long enough?

[sentinel]

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

[Deus Naturae]

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?

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

Minimum lot size ordinances mandate that building lots be at least a certain size, not that building lots have to be below a certain size. In effect, they say "If you can't afford to build a building at least x large, you can't build at all." They prevent smaller, more affordable houses from being built by making it illegal for developers to build houses below a certain size.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, minimum lot sizes do exactly the opposite. They promote larger lots by mandating a certain lot size that all lots must be equal to or larger than. If your business, apartment complex, etc is too small, minimum lot size ordinances make it illegal for it to exist at all. They are nothing more than indirect corporate welfare for large chains and developers, who don't have to worry about competition from smaller businesses or developers because minimum lot size ordinances make it illegal for smaller competitors to exist at all.

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

No, I'm not. A minimum wage law makes it illegal for an employer to pay an employee anything below a certain level. Similarly, a minimum lot size ordinance makes it illegal for a developer to build anything smaller than a certain size, thus preventing developers from building smaller, more affordable houses or smaller complexes with more affordable units.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see your point. I'm aware of that fact that municipalities can create different zoning areas. I don't see how that makes minimum lot size ordinances any less cost inflationary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Small houses=/=anarchy. I really don't see how preventing developers from building small houses makes the housing market any more "ordered."

[Napoleon]

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

[Deus Naturae]

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.

Also, the problem with the current system is that it inflates housing costs and prices, thus preventing new unit construction and making it harder for Northeasterners to find affordable housing.

[Napoleon]

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.

[Deus Naturae]

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?

[Deus Naturae]

I motion to extend debate for 30 minutes. It seems like there's a slight possibility we might be able to reach something here.

[cinyc]

I motion to extend debate for 30 minutes. It seems like there's a slight possibility we might be able to reach something here.

I'll give you 30 minutes until 12:30 AM - but not much more.  It's getting late.

[Deus Naturae]

I motion to extend debate for 30 minutes. It seems like there's a slight possibility we might be able to reach something here.

I'll give you 30 minutes until 12:30 AM - but not much more.  It's getting late.

Thank you. Are you okay with the current version of the bill?

Also, Representative SWE, are you still opposed to the bill or have the amendments I've made since you initially stated your opposition ameliorated your concerns?

[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.

[Napoleon]

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?

[cinyc]

I motion to extend debate for 30 minutes. It seems like there's a slight possibility we might be able to reach something here.

I'll give you 30 minutes until 12:30 AM - but not much more.  It's getting late.

Thank you. Are you okay with the current version of the bill?

Also, Representative SWE, are you still opposed to the bill or have the amendments I've made since you initially stated your opposition ameliorated your concerns?

I think I'm going to vote against the bill for the reasons Rep. SirNick mentions.  It simply goes too far in upsetting current zoning laws.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

No, I didn't. When I amended the bill to get rid of the original Subsection D, I didn't add anything new.