Could you clarify what you mean by "the game now is to pick different papers to cite"?
"Game" seems to me like it implies some kind of intentional dishonesty on Alex Armlovich's part, but surely we should want people to stop citing papers once there's indications that they're faulty?
I agree with this thesis as a planning lawyer - in relation to land subdivision, developers are not interested in smaller lot sizes - indeed, in most cases, it is the government that mandates them, even in housing estates at the fringes of the metro region.
Where I think zoning regulation could make a difference is in apartment construction. In Western Australia at least, while we don't have density targets for apartment construction, there are fairly unambitious height limits even in inner city locations, which can only be exceeded by the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker, and usually only where some other public good is offered - ie exemplary design / a public benefit within the building.
Once a building is above about 8 storeys, it doesn't really make a difference if it's 10 storeys or 20 from an amenity perspective. They'd be better off letting the market dictate what's appropriate and get out of the way. As it stands, it causes enormous delays getting anything other than an as-of-right height building out of the ground.
Economists have a great fondness for using GDP as a measure of success if it increases. To justify this they link it to universal well-being (all boats rise with the tide) and assure us that growth is sustainable. The simplest way to raise GDP is from population growth, more people more money movement. The down side of this - housing affordability, environment, productivity, inflation - is ignored.
In your better methodology, is there a reason for zoning at all? Conversely, is this just a discussion of how to MEASURE the benefits of removing land use restrictions or do you think there are no benefits.
Could you clarify what you mean by "the game now is to pick different papers to cite"?
"Game" seems to me like it implies some kind of intentional dishonesty on Alex Armlovich's part, but surely we should want people to stop citing papers once there's indications that they're faulty?
I agree with this thesis as a planning lawyer - in relation to land subdivision, developers are not interested in smaller lot sizes - indeed, in most cases, it is the government that mandates them, even in housing estates at the fringes of the metro region.
Where I think zoning regulation could make a difference is in apartment construction. In Western Australia at least, while we don't have density targets for apartment construction, there are fairly unambitious height limits even in inner city locations, which can only be exceeded by the exercise of discretion by the decision-maker, and usually only where some other public good is offered - ie exemplary design / a public benefit within the building.
Once a building is above about 8 storeys, it doesn't really make a difference if it's 10 storeys or 20 from an amenity perspective. They'd be better off letting the market dictate what's appropriate and get out of the way. As it stands, it causes enormous delays getting anything other than an as-of-right height building out of the ground.
Economists have a great fondness for using GDP as a measure of success if it increases. To justify this they link it to universal well-being (all boats rise with the tide) and assure us that growth is sustainable. The simplest way to raise GDP is from population growth, more people more money movement. The down side of this - housing affordability, environment, productivity, inflation - is ignored.
In your better methodology, is there a reason for zoning at all? Conversely, is this just a discussion of how to MEASURE the benefits of removing land use restrictions or do you think there are no benefits.