For construction, corrupt local jurisdictions can block construction of modular buildings, forcing expensive custom designs.
It’s the opposite. Local jurisdictions aren’t corrupt anymore to allow a billionaire to just pay bribes to get to build the modular buildings he wants to build.
We can posit an AI agent that could design a custom edit to a single patient’s genome. Or even invent a new treatment in realtime, during the period a single individual is in the process of dying.
While an AI theoretically could do that, we have a burocracy that outlaws such progress. As a result it’s now a lot more expensive to develop new treatments then back in 1970.
Can you clarify the second point? The first point is—and ‘corrupt’ is a relative term. But for the overall society, inexpensive and large scale indoor space allows for progress. It makes a city more productive, a country more efficient, it makes the overall pace of technological development slightly faster. San Francisco blocking construction when they are arguably America’s most productive city as it is is likely harming the city, the city residents, the state they are in, the country they are in, and to a small extent, the world.
However the benefits of blocking construction do accrue to present landowners in expensive cities who get more certain ROIs on their investments and get to maintain their views. And in the way cities are allowed to block new construction in the US (versus it being handled at a higher level of government), the only votes come from current residents, many of whom are landowners and thus invested in the current system...
It’s not possible for the people with money to pay bribes to get the policy outcomes they want. You have a middle class coalition who’s voting for politicians who block construction and the politicians fulfill their mandate.
the only votes come from current residents, many of whom are landowners and thus invested in the current system...
Politicians doing what their voters want is the opposite of them being corrupt.
This is arguable. Certain you can winnow to arbitrarily small government districts and see how the interests of a tiny area can run contrary to the interests of everyone else.
For example, a small town sheriff refusing to arrest members of the town’s most powerful extended family—who in small enough town could control the electorate—is clear and simple corruption.
It’s because I see the job of a sheriff is to enforce the laws fairly and equally, not to favor tiny subgroups of people—even if that is the ‘will of the voters’.
Similarly, I see the office of building permits to promptly and efficiently issue permits, or denials, with clearcut and deterministic outcomes. In San Francisco, instead a project can be delayed 10+ years while it gets put through endless ‘reviews’.
In my specific case, I’m one of the many (millions?) of mobile tech workers. I move to wherever the next gig is. Whether that is Bay Area or San Diego or Atlanta, etc. It’s a national market for jobs with a national pool of workers. Should the rules for construction of housing be decided by the entrenched interests of a tiny area, or at the Federal or State levels? Or should I be able to obtain housing, and should my employer be able to obtain additional office space, in a free market at efficient prices.
Arguably, as most jobs today involve interstate commerce, and workers able to move in is interstate commerce, national building codes and a “shall issue” permit system (where a jurisdiction must issue a permit, by a deadline, if the project plans meet the code and all fees are paid) would make the United States more efficient. This is how it works in Japan, where Tokyo is an example of a place that doesn’t have a housing crisis.
It’s because I see the job of a sheriff is to enforce the laws fairly and equally, not to favor tiny subgroups of people—even if that is the ‘will of the voters’.
It depends on your political system what the job of the sheriff is supposed to be. I don’t think that a sheriff should represent the interests of voters and don’t believe that it makes sense to have sheriff be an elected position.
In my specific case, I’m one of the many (millions?) of mobile tech workers.
A majority of people in California don’t think that the interests of mobile tech workers are more important then the interests of other people. In a democracy that means rich tech workers often not getting what they want.
Should the rules for construction of housing be decided by the entrenched interests of a tiny area, or at the Federal or State levels?
In a democracy that question is answered by the law. In California there don’t seem to be majorities for having those rules be made on the State level. Decisions being made at the level where the voting population wants them to be made instead of being made at the level you think best isn’t corruption. It’s just democracy.
The linked article says they are but the California government has been lobbied to not care about the will of the voters. Almost like it’s corrupt per my original point upstream.
You always have lobbying on an issue like that, and lobbying itself isn’t corruption.
California happens to have a referendum process and enough rich techis that want to build more housing to run such a referendum if it would pool well enough to have a good chance of getting passed.
It’s the opposite. Local jurisdictions aren’t corrupt anymore to allow a billionaire to just pay bribes to get to build the modular buildings he wants to build.
While an AI theoretically could do that, we have a burocracy that outlaws such progress. As a result it’s now a lot more expensive to develop new treatments then back in 1970.
Can you clarify the second point? The first point is—and ‘corrupt’ is a relative term. But for the overall society, inexpensive and large scale indoor space allows for progress. It makes a city more productive, a country more efficient, it makes the overall pace of technological development slightly faster. San Francisco blocking construction when they are arguably America’s most productive city as it is is likely harming the city, the city residents, the state they are in, the country they are in, and to a small extent, the world.
However the benefits of blocking construction do accrue to present landowners in expensive cities who get more certain ROIs on their investments and get to maintain their views. And in the way cities are allowed to block new construction in the US (versus it being handled at a higher level of government), the only votes come from current residents, many of whom are landowners and thus invested in the current system...
Are you referring to Broad Sustainable Building? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_Sustainable_Building
It’s not possible for the people with money to pay bribes to get the policy outcomes they want. You have a middle class coalition who’s voting for politicians who block construction and the politicians fulfill their mandate.
Politicians doing what their voters want is the opposite of them being corrupt.
This is arguable. Certain you can winnow to arbitrarily small government districts and see how the interests of a tiny area can run contrary to the interests of everyone else.
For example, a small town sheriff refusing to arrest members of the town’s most powerful extended family—who in small enough town could control the electorate—is clear and simple corruption.
It’s because I see the job of a sheriff is to enforce the laws fairly and equally, not to favor tiny subgroups of people—even if that is the ‘will of the voters’.
Similarly, I see the office of building permits to promptly and efficiently issue permits, or denials, with clearcut and deterministic outcomes. In San Francisco, instead a project can be delayed 10+ years while it gets put through endless ‘reviews’.
In my specific case, I’m one of the many (millions?) of mobile tech workers. I move to wherever the next gig is. Whether that is Bay Area or San Diego or Atlanta, etc. It’s a national market for jobs with a national pool of workers. Should the rules for construction of housing be decided by the entrenched interests of a tiny area, or at the Federal or State levels? Or should I be able to obtain housing, and should my employer be able to obtain additional office space, in a free market at efficient prices.
Arguably, as most jobs today involve interstate commerce, and workers able to move in is interstate commerce, national building codes and a “shall issue” permit system (where a jurisdiction must issue a permit, by a deadline, if the project plans meet the code and all fees are paid) would make the United States more efficient. This is how it works in Japan, where Tokyo is an example of a place that doesn’t have a housing crisis.
It depends on your political system what the job of the sheriff is supposed to be. I don’t think that a sheriff should represent the interests of voters and don’t believe that it makes sense to have sheriff be an elected position.
A majority of people in California don’t think that the interests of mobile tech workers are more important then the interests of other people. In a democracy that means rich tech workers often not getting what they want.
In a democracy that question is answered by the law. In California there don’t seem to be majorities for having those rules be made on the State level. Decisions being made at the level where the voting population wants them to be made instead of being made at the level you think best isn’t corruption. It’s just democracy.
The decisions can be made at the state level just the laws have not yet passed.
https://www.enr.com/articles/48600-housing-density-effort-fails-in-california
Yes, laws could be passed but at the moment the democratic majorities are not there for passing them on the state level.
The linked article says they are but the California government has been lobbied to not care about the will of the voters. Almost like it’s corrupt per my original point upstream.
You always have lobbying on an issue like that, and lobbying itself isn’t corruption.
California happens to have a referendum process and enough rich techis that want to build more housing to run such a referendum if it would pool well enough to have a good chance of getting passed.
Being able to distinguish people adopting a policy that you don’t like and have reason to believe to be bad from them being corrupt is very valuable.
It’s easily possible to make a referendum for moving it onto the state level in California if the population wanted that.