Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

Amash is right. Make the switch.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

That’s great but does not address the tragedy of the commons issue.  

I mean it kind of does, did you read it?  

Further, widening the LP tent will moderate it.  I agree with maybe 60-70% of the LP platform, very die hard against the other 30-40%.  However I am seeing the party moderate as it gains members.  This should be expected.  They major key tenants remain.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I mean it kind of does, did you read it?  

Further, widening the LP tent will moderate it.  I agree with maybe 60-70% of the LP platform, very die hard against the other 30-40%.  However I am seeing the party moderate as it gains members.  This should be expected.  They major key tenants remain.   

 

Yes sort of.   The tragedy of the commons however is more closely tied to things that aren’t owned by anyone therefore people feel free to abuse it.   Public lands are owned by the federal government.  Oceans and air are better examples.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maji said:

Planning is definitely important. Single-family zoning discourages density and increases traffic though. Walkability and traffic reduction are key 

Sure, like anything else, if you do it incompetently (or only to benefit some people instead of looking at its impact at everyone) it gets worse than doing nothing. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I mean it kind of does, did you read it?  

Further, widening the LP tent will moderate it.  I agree with maybe 60-70% of the LP platform, very die hard against the other 30-40%.  However I am seeing the party moderate as it gains members.  This should be expected.  They major key tenants remain.   

 

If it ever moderated, I could see myself becoming at least libertarian adjacent again. Especially if they adopt UBI as part of the party platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maji said:

I'm surprised by your confusion. The stances I'm advocating are consistent. Encouraging efficient land use isn't the same as limiting the supply of land

By Increasing density (and planning well), cities can provide sufficient housing without as much sprawl. That reduces traffic congestion and other negative externalities. Negative externalities are bad.

Sometimes people are priced out of cities because of a housing shortage. Demand plays a part in that. NIMBYism does too via artificially constraining the housing supply

@renoskier

A lot to unpack here Maji,

1. I believe you're focus on SFR is misplaced. As we agree the older SFR neighborhoods found near city centers are remnants of the past. These lots are typically relatively small, in many places less than 6000 sq ft., and don't lend themselves to larger scale MF structures. And assembling larger parcels in a previously zoned SFR neighborhood, even if possible, would take way too long. In most instances you will find that cities will allow them to be re-zone for small MF, e.g. a tri or four plex, or often professional office if they are on the periphery. Yes, a few nearby neighbors may complain but as long as height variances aren't being sought, an owner should be successful.

RE: expediting a zoning change. What would you suggest? And how are you going to avoid costly and long litigation?

2. Urban Sprawl  What's your idea on controlling the use of adjacent land at a city's edges? How is one city going to keep nearby cities from encroaching toward them? How can a city dictate land use outside of their boundaries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Yes sort of.   The tragedy of the commons however is more closely tied to things that aren’t owned by anyone therefore people feel free to abuse it.   Public lands are owned by the federal government.  Oceans and air are better examples.   

I agree with your thoughts on governments role in certain markets and your examples of pollution. I think markets are great(I'm an economist) but not all markets are efficient and there is a role of government to regulate markets to make them more efficient. Sure there are plenty of bad regulations that don't do this but the goal is to make markets function better. Like pollution regulation that put the cost of polluting back on to the company doing it by making them mitigate their pollution instead of just dumping it in the river where the local residents end up paying for the pollution through the effects of not having a clean river. Just an example. 

Internalize externalities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, renoskier said:

RE: expediting a zoning change. What would you suggest? And how are you going to avoid costly and long litigation?

The following is from this article:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/how-minneapolis-defeated-nimbyism/600601/

Quote

"Despite being a city of 425,000 residents, Minneapolis until now has banned duplexes, triplexes, and larger apartment buildings from 70 percent of its residential land; in New York City, by comparison, just 15 percent of residential land is set aside for single-family homes. The city council’s Minneapolis 2040 plan up-zones the city to allow two- and three-family buildings on what had been single-family lots, tripling the potential number of housing units in the city"

- Richard D. Kahlenberg

Quote

"In the Minneapolis 2040 plan, the legalization of duplexes and triplexes was part of a package of reforms. The others included an increase in housing density near transit stops by allowing the construction of new three-to-six-story buildings; the elimination of off-street minimum parking requirements, which many experts view as a poison pill that makes the construction of low-cost housing economically unviable"

- Richard D. Kahlenberg

As long as the city doesn't ban SFRs, I'm not worried about litigation. I want big cities to allow developments in more areas. If no developers are interested in building multifamily housing, so be it. Changing the zoning to allow multifamily housing doesn't force it on anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, sactowndog said:

That’s great but does not address the tragedy of the commons issue.  

Huh? The United State as owner of the public land has the right to dictate its uses and non-uses.  The Property Clause of the US Constitution is 'without limitation'  That is until a property right is created in third party on said public lands (such as the issuance of an oil and gas lease). The tragedy of the commons arose when the government failed to assert its ownership of the public land, such as when the government allowed non-owners to freely graze without a permit or system of excluding other grazing parties.  In that instance, the government ignored a strong tenement of land ownership (i.e. the right to exlcude) ultimately causing the devaluation of its own lands to its own detriment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

 

 

I'm curious what The Libertarian Party "moderating" would look like. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always get the sense that people who vote third party are very ideologically driven people who wouldn't be willing to budge in the name of more mainstream appeal.

 

I genuinely do think that Libertarians need to continue fighting to bring the Republican Party towards them, and not being some outside faction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sebasour said:

 

I'm curious what The Libertarian Party "moderating" would look like. Maybe I'm wrong, but I always get the sense that people who vote third party are very ideologically driven people who wouldn't be willing to budge in the name of more mainstream appeal.

 

I genuinely do think that Libertarians need to continue fighting to bring the Republican Party towards them, and not being some outside faction

Ideally in my mind it would be a fiscally conservative/realistic/responsible and socially liberal party. Meaning stay true to the liberal social platform but moderate on the fiscal side of things, especially with regard to infrastructure and public education.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever notice that when you ask someone to look at a new thing they often reject it because it's not 100% perfect? 

Meanwhile their current situation is bonkers and broke to all hell.

Nobody agrees 100% with the Dem or R platform am I right or am I right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...