Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolven
It seems like 80% of the people running in the election are speaking out against the rezoning. Even the progressive challengers.
Blanket rezoning may be optimal for the developers (and their profits) but it seems like it is not optimal for the people, hence why so many of the people are actively fighting it. As I've detailed in my numerous (lengthy) posts, I believe there are many ways to do better and decidedly do not believe this is an optimal strategy.
Optimal strategies that need no refinement typically do not run into massive backlash and opposition.
|
The bolded just speaks to the "common sense" populist nonsense. The most literal definition of common sense is what common people commonly believe [about issues they have little knowledge beyond vibes]. Given the state of today's populism, I would not use the bolded as a way to support your position (honestly it should make you question it). This plays out particularly obviously with anything related to cars/traffic/roads/parking (one more lane oughtta do it!), but I digress.
Can you try to articulate more specifically what scenarios you have a problem with on rezoning? I'm not trying to be snarky here, but all I'm really hearing from you is: Developers = Bad. Developers like rezoning* therefore it must be bad.
I think you are applying 'developers' too broadly here. In reality there are big developers, big builders, medium developers, medium builders, and small builders (~80% of what they do is 'building' with a small slice of 'developing' in the process) . Various levels of integration amongst the big/medium firms, but small builders are the main 'winners' on rezoning. It certainly can be helpful to bigger players, too, but the existing bureaucracy is far less burdensome to them (and in many ways protects them from competition).