I am just old enough to remember when people could "just build." Before NEPA, before the NFIP, before the ESA.
They did not build charming neo-traditional villages. They built sprawl. They filled wetlands and put mobile homes parks in floodways. They destroyed habitat and prime farmland. They needed to be slowed WAY DOWN. And all we have done in the way of environmental legislation, land conservsation, and zoning since then has barely stopped that in most places.
First, I want to thank you for offering a concrete example of your own housing work. A lot of the discussion of these topics is too abstract. I hope your project is sucessful.
It seems to me that regulatory reform is proceeding about as fast as it can without draconian measures that deprive neighborhoods and communities of agency. And there is more than enough authoritarianism going around right now. There will be holdouts of exclusion, but the trend is positive.
I told a story in my newsletter, The Practice of Community, about how to talk to NIMBYs. It won't always work, but I think there is ground to be gained through the right kind of public engagement in many places, even given the issue you identify of peoples' investment in their homes.
IMO, the tension between housing as shelter and homes as investments is at the center of all this. There are a lot of ideas about how to navigate that and I don't pretend to have a complete or even clear answer. But it is clear to me that none of the other things we can do to provide more, more affordable housing, are going to be all that effective until we do.
So, I stand with Henry George on the harm that speculation creates in land markets, and say we should start wirh a Land Value Tax that captures unearned rents. But there are other tax and finance issues to address.
I also know that behind policy, there are the stories people tell themselves. And the story of housing as a way of accumulating wealth is not, however widespread and however most of us are complicit, the story we need. Its a story that ends up dividing rather than uniting.
Thanks, I think it’s important people understand how projects come into the world. I also appreciate your sentiment that community is a practice we can improve at - we can all work to figure out how to better get along. Takes a growth mind set at a societal level. Tough in a moment when everyone is looking out for themselves, and can’t blame anyone for doing so. But I’m hoping we can make places for more positive stories to unfold
Totally agree. We should be able to balance the positive value of people being able to live longer, healthier lives with the logjam that this creates for the rest of society. Older people don’t want to or can’t move houses or positions.
Take the average age of a US senator in 1981 - 53 years. Now? 65 years old, meaning the same delta in average American age you’re talking about is reflected in leadership. Meanwhile, the world is just getting more and more competitive and complicated.
Is there a compassionate response that improves the situation for everyone?
I am just old enough to remember when people could "just build." Before NEPA, before the NFIP, before the ESA.
They did not build charming neo-traditional villages. They built sprawl. They filled wetlands and put mobile homes parks in floodways. They destroyed habitat and prime farmland. They needed to be slowed WAY DOWN. And all we have done in the way of environmental legislation, land conservsation, and zoning since then has barely stopped that in most places.
Appreciate you sharing. From your experience, having seen how the cycle works, what’s the right approach?
First, I want to thank you for offering a concrete example of your own housing work. A lot of the discussion of these topics is too abstract. I hope your project is sucessful.
It seems to me that regulatory reform is proceeding about as fast as it can without draconian measures that deprive neighborhoods and communities of agency. And there is more than enough authoritarianism going around right now. There will be holdouts of exclusion, but the trend is positive.
I told a story in my newsletter, The Practice of Community, about how to talk to NIMBYs. It won't always work, but I think there is ground to be gained through the right kind of public engagement in many places, even given the issue you identify of peoples' investment in their homes.
IMO, the tension between housing as shelter and homes as investments is at the center of all this. There are a lot of ideas about how to navigate that and I don't pretend to have a complete or even clear answer. But it is clear to me that none of the other things we can do to provide more, more affordable housing, are going to be all that effective until we do.
So, I stand with Henry George on the harm that speculation creates in land markets, and say we should start wirh a Land Value Tax that captures unearned rents. But there are other tax and finance issues to address.
I also know that behind policy, there are the stories people tell themselves. And the story of housing as a way of accumulating wealth is not, however widespread and however most of us are complicit, the story we need. Its a story that ends up dividing rather than uniting.
Thanks, I think it’s important people understand how projects come into the world. I also appreciate your sentiment that community is a practice we can improve at - we can all work to figure out how to better get along. Takes a growth mind set at a societal level. Tough in a moment when everyone is looking out for themselves, and can’t blame anyone for doing so. But I’m hoping we can make places for more positive stories to unfold
Georgism is the way!
Whenever you see a change in society, the first variable you should consider is median age, because it’s usually a factor.
In 1970 the median age in the USA was 28. Now it’s nearly 40. Older people just don’t move as much.
Totally agree. We should be able to balance the positive value of people being able to live longer, healthier lives with the logjam that this creates for the rest of society. Older people don’t want to or can’t move houses or positions.
Take the average age of a US senator in 1981 - 53 years. Now? 65 years old, meaning the same delta in average American age you’re talking about is reflected in leadership. Meanwhile, the world is just getting more and more competitive and complicated.
Is there a compassionate response that improves the situation for everyone?
Will be interesting to see how