Which Level of Government Should Make Local Decisions?

[@sillyhead5]

I'm loving the daily videos! Such a nice surprise. And this channel having so few subscribers is like a hidden gem, though hopefully not hidden for much longer. THe country needs this.

[@eugenetswong]

Yeah, I like listening to him more than the other Strong Towns people.

[@BoulderHikerBoy]

I think the centralization of decision-making authority was partly a response to corruption and NIMBYism at the local level - not that centralization was the perfect solution. But it's certainly the case that we no longer need a huge federal investment in the construction of new highways. But we do still likely need a huge, centralized decision-making authority that can promote regional rail projects (for the same reasons that we needed that role to be centralized for highways). And we probably do still need a federal role in keeping communities from backsliding on progress toward better walk/bike infrastructure. So maybe we end the federalized role for new highway construction and, by law, shift it to multimodal transportation investments.

[@willc6612]

Unfortunately I think far too much housing is done at a local level, and should actually be mostly regulated at the state/federal level. Nimbyism in zoning is arguably the biggest impediment to urbanization, housing affordability, livability etc. It is rational for communities to resist development and density, forcing poorer people to live elsewhere, shifting those costs to other communities. This is how we get situations like California where firefighters and teachers have to commute hours each day to afford housing, and many people become homeless. At the state level, however, zoning for more housing will lead to more affordable housing. Building codes are also needlessly interfered with at the local level. We need to dramatically reduce the cost of building housing to alleviate the housing crisis. Different towns have all sorts of different regulations on building materials, required elevator sizes, etc. This makes it harder for developers and construction firms to get more efficient at building housing, and actually construction has been getting less efficient by about 1% every year. Local governments are often too small to have expertise to make good decisions about tradeoffs between fire safety and cost. While there are some regional issues like fire in the west, hurricanes on the coast, etc, these decisions are still likely better handled at the state or federal level.

[@Whatneeds2bsaid]

Housing should be decisions should be made at the local level, but as California has been struggling with, that can lead to some truly absurd and untenable situations. The state has begun stepping in-which I guess you're advocating with "bigger govt keeping lower govts in line"-but I think we desperately need a better culture around local governments to get things done. (Renewable energy projects also frequently get vetoed by local governments).

[@RockitFX1]

My concern with this plan is that if you remove the federal taxes, businesses will just go to the communities with the lowest taxes and our infrastructure will continue to crumble.

[@rgriscom]

Chuck's on a roll!

[@AdamM]

Another great video 👍 I’m all for decentralization. The majority of decisions should be made locally. Local politics should matter way more in your life than national. The president should be essentially irrelevant to your life.

[@anthonytelles2226]

👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@blubaughmr]

On housing, we've been doing it on the local level, which is why we are where we are. It's in homeowner's best interest for there to be a shortage of housing, pushing prices up. It would make sense if there were some sort of state-level guidelines pushing local jurisdictions into building more housing and let the local level sort out the particulars. That could include something like a state-wide ban on zoning restricted to single family detached housing. Maybe also a certain minimum residential zoning envelope in downtowns based on city size, trips per day into downtown, or some other measure. If you tied the zoning envelope to how much transit service, in some places that would just end up discouraging transit.

[@eugenetswong]

Also, there should be state and federal caps on immigration to prevent the demand for housing from rising.

[@falsificationism]

If there's one thing D.C. needs, it's influence over our own destiny. A lot of decisions made here get funneled through the Federal government, which means we get watered down and underfunded initiatives and a lack of accountability for career city officials. Statehood would help.

[@anthonytelles2226]

Love this! Distributism and subsidiarity ftw

[@pin65371]

I think local should make its own decisions. If they make bad decisions then people should move. If state and federal want to get involved then you dangle the carrot to get what they want. Maybe the money ends up going to small towns to grow. I'd argue that would get better results anyways. Its way more expensive to build in lets say New York with their land prices. A smaller town they would get way more value and more potential. Some of these towns that are basically turned into ghost towns would be great for people that can work from home. You spend the money building up the infrastructure and ensure there is high speed internet. Some of these towns that have basically been wiped out would be great for younger people and families as well. There is lots of outdoor activities. Maybe you dont build million person cities but I think a lot of people would like something closer to lets say 50k. Not sure if there has ever been studies done on what size of city is more efficient? I'm guessing really big is the most efficient but there is most likely a point where you get great efficiency and then you only get small gains after that?

[@TheFantamos]

How do we deal with the good ol’ boy problem. Either freezing ppl out or nudging opportunities to their favor; and then fast forward years or decades..?

[@StLouis-yu9iz]

This and your last two similar videos really demonstrate your purple state bias. There are a ton of very conservative state governments that would only use this increased power for evil. We need national mandates for housing and transportation.

[@AdamM]

This comment demonstrates your blue bias. If all you think is red team bad and evil then you’ve missed the boat.

[@quartzofcourse]

You’re both missing the fact that there’s awful people that will abuse policies and siphon money out of programs for their own (or other interested parties) benefit. But moving on the whole toward better infrastructure and polices is a good thing even with assholes being a thing

[@AdamM]

@@quartzofcourse I don’t disagree with that at all.

[@eugenetswong]

@@quartzofcourse Adam isn't missing any of that. The other guy's fear of red states is only useful in a hypothetical world where only red states have the 2 worst states for business [NY & CA] and housing [CA; see Las Angeles & San Francisco]. Getting rid of blue state housing policies would mean an automatic improvement, even with sprawl.