On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Josh Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. <snip> > 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. ;-) -Bryan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
