Why is it that American think tanks can only think of regulations as a scalar? It's not 'more regulation' or 'less regulation' we should be discussing. It's better regulation, where better requires a more nuanced discussion of what kind of regulations should be instituted.
I generally agree with this article that many land use regulations have restricted building and it has generally hurt all of us. I'm all for density, and one of the ways in which we could increase density is with 'better' land use controls, not fewer or more or whatever. Regulation should not be thought of as a scalar.
"If states do want to reform local land use controls, they might start with a serious cost benefit analysis and then require localities to refrain from any new regulations without first performing cost-benefit analyses of their own."
Sounds a lot like "a more nuanced discussion" to me.
I generally agree with this article that many land use regulations have restricted building and it has generally hurt all of us. I'm all for density, and one of the ways in which we could increase density is with 'better' land use controls, not fewer or more or whatever. Regulation should not be thought of as a scalar.