I think turnover is an attractive option when suddenly it's reliable to build more housing on valuable, in-demand land. I think there would be a lot of holdouts, especially yeah over ten rather than twenty years - but I do still feel that a majority of urban land could be upzoned in a decade.
*could* seems like the operative word here, there's a lot of political barriers to that happening it'd have to start coming from the top down i think. i know the federal government doesn't dictate zoning, but they should start trying
I’m not against the Feds trying to intervene in zoning, honestly. It depends on the state, as well. The reason I thought Harris would be a decent governor of CA is she’d have far better pull than Newsom to force through some more top down measures in the state to break the logjam in local zoning
yeah that was the case for Governor Harris. alas, now we seem to be stuck between Porter (who will have even less clout in Sacramento than Newsom) or Padilla/Becerra (both creatures of the CA establishment, and Newsomites)
I’m still not over it tbh.
Absolutely agreed, yeah, this has to be a dictat from above. State legislatures and then Congress.
President > Congress/Governors > state legislatures, probably
There are absolutely problems with corporate landlords, I don't disagree, I just think voter-renters opposed to a dozen landlord corporations fighting as medium-sized fish in Congress might act more rationally, as opposed to the voter-aristocrats we have currently dominating every municipality.
well yes with any element of corporatization i think they're more liable to act like a rational private enterprise, these "mom and pop" (let's face it, it's just pop) landlord types don't bow to ordinary market pressures in the same way and that's before you add in tenant unions or whatnot