The same Marc Andreesen who complained that there shouldn't be housing built near him because it would lower his property prices?
How can someone who has read Why Nations Fail miss the point? We don't build for the same reasons that we didn't from the year -2000 to the Enlightenment. Because it's now better and easier in so many cases to just rent seek. Why bother constructing housing when you can just have other people's labour increase your land values? Why should I increase the supply of residency spots when constraining that supply increases my salary by $100k? Why bother with bold bets when you have net work effect monopolies? It's not talkers standing in the way of builders, it's leeches.
Pretty much. It’s amazing the author does not realise he is just doing the work for the extractive institutions when he asks for less voices at the table. And that in fact a lot of what passes for regulation is just those same extractive institutions protecting themselves.
Local community input isn't really "more voices". You're only counting one small group of voices, and those voices are mostly used to rent seek. I'd argue that the Japanese system of national streamlined zoning incorporates far more voices than local community input, since it represents the whole country instead of just the neighborhood.
How can someone who has read Why Nations Fail miss the point? We don't build for the same reasons that we didn't from the year -2000 to the Enlightenment. Because it's now better and easier in so many cases to just rent seek. Why bother constructing housing when you can just have other people's labour increase your land values? Why should I increase the supply of residency spots when constraining that supply increases my salary by $100k? Why bother with bold bets when you have net work effect monopolies? It's not talkers standing in the way of builders, it's leeches.