Recognizing the signs of disruption in our urban habitat
This kind of economic dysfunction is often cited as the reason to switch to a Land Value Tax, which is explained pretty well on Wikipedia[1].<p>It&#x27;s also why so many people were interested in SB-50[2], which would have overridden local zoning controls to allow higher density development around transit stops.<p>I think the biggest challenge is the transition. The current system is broken, but we typically look at changes in terms of the desired end-state, and when we look at it that way it&#x27;s clear that the change will be very disruptive to a lot of people who are benefiting from the status quo. Those are the people who turn out and ensure that the changes cannot go through - even if they might agree that the long-term outcome would be better.<p>Strong Towns has done a good job emphasizing incrementalism in its approach to urban problems[3], but I&#x27;d love to see more of a conversation around this in a legal &#x2F; regulatory context. Are there ways that we can undo the harm of bad regulations and transition to better ones that aren&#x27;t so disruptive to the people who have built their lives around the current rules? What would those look like?<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Land_value_tax" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Land_value_tax</a><p>2: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leginfo.legislature.ca.gov&#x2F;faces&#x2F;billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB50" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leginfo.legislature.ca.gov&#x2F;faces&#x2F;billTextClient.xhtm...</a><p>3: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2018&#x2F;9&#x2F;5&#x2F;incrementalism" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.strongtowns.org&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2018&#x2F;9&#x2F;5&#x2F;incrementalism</a>