Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on this Trump/Carson op-ed on suburban zoning in the @wsj – an ironic landing spot BTW because the piece is a cry against efforts *to deregulate* building restrictions on RE developers, efforts you'd think the WSJ's edit board would be into. https://www.wsj.com/articles/well-protect-americas-suburbs-11597608133?mod=hp_opin_pos_2
I could go on and on and on - AND ON - about how single-family zoning restricts housing supply, and how this harms low/middle wage workers who get pushed away from job centers and better-funded school districts and into longer commutes etc. All the stuff in my book, but I won't.
I could also go on and on and on about how only a year ago Ben Carson was in San Francisco slamming "NIMBYs" and praising public housing, but I won't - beyond attaching this (computer transcribed, so some flubs) transcript from a group interview w/ him.
BTW: In that same group interview he also praised legislation prohibiting landlords from discriminating against Section 8 holders, which was so unbelievable that I didn't believe it (for good reason, apparently!).
But here's what I really find notable, if not surprising, about this op-ed, and its placement on the WSJ's "pro-business" opinion pages.
The conservative case for a more robust and inclusive economy more or less boils down to a belief that private sector innovation is better equipped to raise living standards than public programs that, despite being well-meaning, are cumbersome and ineffective.
I know lots of honest conservatives who believe this – believe, in essence, that they agree with liberals about the need/desire for a better and more inclusive economy but that they disagree on how to get there.
And these people are often right. Housing is a great example! If you believe basically every economist and the conclusions of various panels set up by cities and both the Obama and Trump (!) admins, over-regulation of housing raises the cost of shelter and hurts working people.
Disagree if you will. I'm just saying, that's as close to consensus as you'll get on an economic topic.
Anyway, as I was saying about the op-ed, what's notable to me is it seems to pull back the curtain back on that compassionate conservative case for de-regulation, and basically just says "Regulation is bad, unless it screws over poor people, at which point it is good."
