Can we just start here? This makes no sense to me. Restricting supply of new homes will destroy a huge portion of the value people have stored in their current homes? Please explain…
Partly uncertainty, but mostly that it prevents the land from being used wherever the government doesn’t like. Existing suburbs will be closed over time, as houses are not rebuilt, while those closer to the cities (within the abitrary zone his whim decides is allowed) will shoot up. In fact, you’ll see a huge and very sudden change in housing prices based solely on geography. On one side, you’ll be in the “redevelop zone”, and prices will go up. On the other, you’ll be outsuide that zone and noone can build, so prices will go down.
In short, people know and will only pay for housing as it sits. Housing prices are a function of the market, and only have financial value as part of that market. And once that value drops below the price paid, people will try anything to get out and abandon the property. You’d* basically bankrupt a significant slice of the nation with a stroke of the pen. People can and will respond to that by screwing you back twice over to keep their heads above water.
*The theoretical “you” who makes this law, not you, the actual person.
Todderbob… I don’t believe your protestations on non-leftism. I’ve read your psots. I even went back and checkd some. You seem to view Republicans as alien creatures and conservatives with general disgust. Perhaps this isn’t so, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate it.
But fine, if you like. You just posted an incredibly stupid but somehow “nonpartisan” idea. And this extremely liberal idea, even though it’s descended from a long line of similar lefty notions, is “nonpartisan.” It’s just incredibly nonpartisanally stupid. It rides roughshod over the Constitution and federalism in a hugely lefty cause, but it is nonpartisan. Nonpartisan idea is nonpartisan!
Actually, the fall of the Roman Republic effectively destroyed representative government of any kind for almost two thousand years. And we’ve seen that democracies are resistent, but not invincible, through many revolutions in Africa, Asia, and South America. It can happen here. You’d be working overtime to destroy the wealth and economic system of the nation.
I suppose if we got lucky, they’d only drag President Todderbob out of Washington and execute him, then pretend no such law ever existed. That’s probably the least destructive way to end the crisis.
Why do you say this? You seem to be responding to something this isn’t part of the OP’s thought experiment. To wit:
Since your entire argument seems to rest on this theory that Todderbob’s plan would drive down prices of existing homes, you might want to spend some more time thinking about why you believe this, and if you’re extrapolating from the postulated thought experiment, making assumptions about the details, or responding to something else entirely.
FWIW, I’ve always thought of Todderbob as one of SDMB’s conservatives.
This is supposedly a left-leaning message board, right? I certainly hear that all the time. So where are all the liberals in this thread talking about what a great, brilliant idea this is?
Actually, he contradicts himself on that very subject, mostly because he apparently has no idea how development actually works. I actually thought up a more sensible rulesset to regulate what he wanted, because he was too vague and incoherent to argue against.
If he doesn’t like it, tough. He can think first next time.
Regardless, it doens’t help. He’s trying to choke off construction based on an artificial zone boundary. It doesn’t much matter what details he puts into it: to the precise degree it actually does what he wants it to do, it must necessarily destroy value. And it will destroy trillions.
The fact that one fool thought of it does not mean other liberals have to agree. But it is a lefty idea, and a very stupid one at that.
You’re really coming off as having an axe to grind here. Where’s the contradiction? Vague I’ll give ya, but contradictory you’re going to have to cite.
This is just nonsense. You can’t even explain your own idea - that restricting development on new land devalues existing development - but you expect anyone to buy the rest of the argument you built on that foundation? Sheesh…
So a non-liberal comes up with an idea that he doesn’t even advocate but merely thinks is interesting for discussion, but you don’t like the idea, therefore it’s liberal. Do I have that right?
Look at the “rules” he lays out. I can argue, with a straight face, any result. I looked at his actual goal of controlling sprawl, the legal methods she endorsed in using it, and ignored his poor attempt at explanation. But I do have an axe to grind - against rank foolishness, tyranny, and bad law. UIf his motive were not so grossly obvious, I would be less angry.
It is not the restriction which devalues development. The restrictions chokes population, forcing people into other areas, which necessarily makes development less profitable.
The idea is specifically based around a liberal fantasy of controlling “sprawl,” uses high-handed federal tactics, and displays utter contempt for ordinary Americans. I stand by what I said.
Er I’m not really sure where this debate is going, but we have this policy in the UK already. It’s known as ‘the Green Belt’ around London but other cities have their own green belts;
• To check the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas.
• To safeguard the surrounding countryside from further encroachment.
• To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.
• To preserve the special character of historic towns.
• To assist in urban regeneration
-as my local govt. website puts it. And as far as I know we’re still a democracy…
Actually, according to Wikipedia, quite a few cities in the US have them too, and not to extreme ill effect (frankly, not to much effect in general). Certainly, it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the calamity that smiling bandit makes it out to be.
The largest ill effect that’s noted on Wikipedia is actually that it could drive the price of housing up, and maintain a status quo of sorts with regards to inner city and middle class individual and group wealth development. Something would definitely have to be done to keep that in check, including opening up pockets of the green belt for development, slowly.
Ideally, my plan would force renovation of currently utilized acreage before using more, and once current acreage is at or near capacity new swaths of land could be open for development. Realistically, this could be done in ways to further other goals (like preservation) by encouraging growth towards areas where mass transit systems can be more easily placed (and where they’re more efficient), allowing people easier transit and better city planning, which could decrease traffic for people not using mass transit. All of this would result in lower levels of consumption and wasted time.
No, very different. You’re talking, even if you didn’t mean to, about a hard national rule, a blunt force to squish the target into the shape your desire. Current “green belts” are mostly community measures to keep themselves separate. It has a relatively minimal impact.
Again, that’s not what you previously wrote. However, this would be less troublesome. In fact, it’s basically fall into a massive hole of corruption because the system is complete unenforceable. This would make homes much more expensive over time, and you’d have some serious issues with families being unable to get decent housing. But no, if you simply shoved everyone onto existing land and structures you wouldn’t get economic calamity.
It would still be bad. You’re talking about removing a significant freedom from the entire United States, forcing constant redevelopment and restricting people’s homes and livelihoods in the name of efficiency. You won’t get it. Government may be good for many thing:L efficiency isn’t one of them. You will simply make their lives more expensive, and a few years down the road you’ll wind up in the same problem.
In London, IIRC, the greenbelt hasn’t stopped development - it just shoves it farther out and favors some communities over others. Same in America. You get higher prices, less density, and more commuting instead of less. On a national scale, you’d problem see a lot more people living in smaller, unhealthier space and alot of wasted money. Land values would still fall outside of the development zone, and would climb painfully inside it. Fewer people could afford decent homes.
Then you’d be voted out if not run out of office on a rail and everyone would end this idiocy. Consumption would only go down as relative poverty demands.
No, I’m not talking about a “hard national rule.” How do I know? I’m the one talking about it. Simply because you misunderstand (even after it’s repeatedly explained) doesn’t mean I was unclear.
Yes, it is. In the OP.
Emphasis Added.
How is it unenforceable? What about it makes it unenforceable?
Why would homes be much more expensive with time, considering that land could (and would) continue to be apportioned from the greenbelt to control costs and direct development?
I don’t understand, earlier, when you thought we were banning all new construction, you said we would get economic calamity, the end of democracy, the resurgence of the black plague and mad max style anarchy, now that that’s off the table, it wouldn’t be so bad, but this would be terrible? I’m confused – please clarify.
Being something of a nerd, and having failed my fair share of civics classes, I’m pretty certain that land development isn’t a ‘freedom’ in the United States. It’s regulated relatively heavily. As free trade is regulated very heavily under the commerce clause, building on land, even private land, is heavily restricted under the “general welfare” clause. If both Florida and Miami had no regulated building codes, and there were hotels falling down killing tourists, the Federal Government would pass minimum standard building codes – constitution be damned – because people asked for it.
The best we can do is hope to say public opinion in a way that reflects the reality of the constitution. If you’re going to pass a law that expands federal powers, it should be in the form of an amendment ratifying those new powers first. There are quite a few things that I think this needs to be done for (the FDA, among other things – however, I also think the FDA is a good thing and should stay in place).
You’re right, to an extent. But part of the problem is people with that mentality running government.
Japan has an extremely efficient mass transit system, and to a lesser extent many cities within the USA have them too – this would just make building new ones and extending the current ones cheaper (not everything would be made more efficient, nor would the government run everything in the newly developed areas, they’d only open up development within them.
Cite?
Actually, that was addressed in my previous post.
A green belt, by definition, would favor development in certain areas. Instead of allowing the free market to place new developments, the city would determine where new developments would be. But it would use criteria like keeping people safe (out of flood zones, mud slide zones, etc), expenses low (easy shipping in-out), low taxes (easy to build/maintain roads/Mass Transit Systems) and crime down (anyone who tells you that how cities are developed doesn’t effect crime rates is, imo, looney).
Also, I’m not sure why I keep getting voted out of office – my OP clearly states the US government, not “Tomorrow, as President I will…” In much the same way that one may be asked, in a hypothetical, to choose which of their children lives and which dies in a car accident, the person posing the hypothetical doesn’t actually have any interest in killing those children, I have no interest in actually being President, nor do in writing/implementing this law.
I don’t mind that you’re against the idea, smiling bandit, but you should try to do so constructively. Even if you are personally biased (which is acceptable), you should attempt to argue your points logically. You should also actually read the thread, and the OP. You seem to be very confused as to just what it is I’m proposing (hint: it’s a hypothetical, not an actual bill to be voted on).
I like the thought experiment.
My hometown is obsessively sprawling eastward, leaving the entire west side to rot. Big Box stores leapfrog over each other eastward, leaving giant empty storefronts in the middle of town. This has had really weird effects on what land is valuable. For example, we have several housing projects within a block or two of riverside property. Miles of beautiful river real estate are full of vacant crumbling buildings that no-one has any interest in developing because 5 miles down the road is where all the new construction is happening.
I’m not sure what the solution is, but from my perspective the market is failing to use the land efficiently. I think some sort of zoning regulation that limits new construction based on the percentage of empty similar structures would be a decent step forward. If developers don’t like this rule they could always at least destroy the vacant old buildings and restore them to green space.
Development is restricted by states, not by the federal government. Under their plenary police power, not under the General Welfare clause, which deals only with Congress’s power to tax and spend. And only up to the point that they keep owners from building anything on their land. Read the Lucas case I cited earlier. What you’re suggesting is simply unconstitutional.
In the first trial court appearance, the hotel’s lawyer would point out that Congress does not have the power to pass minimum standard building codes, and the law would be overturned. Are you beginning to understand why you failed those civics classes?
Actually, what I wrote there wasn’t intended to be in the tense it was in. It should’ve read…
Being something of a nerd, and having failed my fair share of civics classes, I’m pretty certain that land development isn’t a ‘freedom’ in the United States. It’s regulated relatively heavily. As free trade is regulated very heavily under the commerce clause, building on land, even private land, could be heavily restricted under the “general welfare” clause. Perhaps, though, had you not stopped reading right there you’d have gone on to read the following paragraph.
The best we can do is hope to say public opinion in a way that reflects the reality of the constitution. If you’re going to pass a law that expands federal powers, it should be in the form of an amendment ratifying those new powers first. There are quite a few things that I think this needs to be done for (the FDA, among other things – however, I also think the FDA is a good thing and should stay in place).
In theory, you’re right. In practice, many laws have been written under expanded definitions of the original powers.
During Prohibition, it took a Amendment to the Constitution to ban Alcohol. Now, the Federal Government bans substances through the FDAs “classification” system, and those certainly do not carry the weight of an Amendment.