OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
bryan.sant at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 11:04:42 MDT 2008
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Josh Coates <jcoates at gmail.com> wrote:
> newsflash: the government *already* regulates lot and house sizes. so, save
> all your "free market purity" blather for the fictional free market that
> lives in mailing list hypotheticals and econ textbooks.
> my primary complaint is that they are doing a lame job at maintaining these
> laws, and they should probably revise the current laws on the books to keep
> up with those greedy (yes, greedy i say - because they sacrifice the common
> good for money, which i define as greedy jbellis!!) developers that are
> optimizing their practices against the current laws.
Agreed. In fairness, you did state that you would like to see
local/city government improve their current regulations. I do think
that local government (geographically restricted in scope) is an
appropriate means to set these kinds of regulations. I went after the
implied notion that the entire state is flawed, and that laws should
exist that would limiting consumer choice for every Utahn.
Further, I'm only making these arguments because I try to be
consistent with my philosophy about the proper role of government.
If, I were more selfish, I would totally be for a state or national
requirement that would force lot sizes to be large and force the
riff-raff out of my pristine neighborhood. I can afford it, so I
would be unaffected by the law. Only those lower income scum folk
would be financially barred from home ownership... Wow, the more I
think about it, the better it sounds. No more white trash. No more
uneducated bumpkins. No more run-down cars in anyones driveway...
Just me and my upper-class comrades chortling about how next we need
to get carbon taxes on everyone who can't afford a new hybrid car
(which would force more people to ride public trans and leave the
roads for me -- again I can afford it). That would be great. ;-)
More information about the PLUG