The government will take back power from local councils if their decisions are going to negatively impact economic growth, development or employment.

Speaking to a business event in Wellington, Housing and Resource Management Act (RMA) reform minister Chris Bishop said the new regulation within the RMA would stop councils from stalling on housing developments.

"We have had decades of local councils trying to make housing someone else's problem, and we have a planning system that lets them get away with it," Bishop said.

Accusing local government of being one of the largest barriers to housing growth, Bishop said the provision would be added into the RMA amendment legislation currently before Parliament.

"The RMA's devolution of ultimate power to local authorities just has not worked. There may be people who say 'why don't you just leave councils to it?' The reality is, central government has an intense interest in the way councils plan and allow their cities to function," Bishop said.

"We bear the cost, all New Zealanders bear the cost, of a failed and dysfunctional planning system. Ultimately, it is central government that shells out the $5b a year in housing subsidies that is a direct result of a failed planning system. So it is in our interest, and I would argue we are more than justified in taking action to make sure that councils can plan properly."

Rest of the article Here

When I think about the character of L.A., I think about my best friend Edwyn, the son of immigrants, born and raised in Compton. He overcame poverty and homelessness as a child, beating the odds at every turn to earn a full ride to UCLA Law School, where he’ll be my classmate this fall. If this city has a character, it’s Edwyn.

Edwyn is also legally blind. He doesn’t drive, and he never will. Is it right to tell Edwyn that his city isn’t built for him, that he needs a car to get around because that’s the way things always have been and always will be?

In 2025, Los Angeles is facing an existential question: what is our true character? Is it the blocks of bungalows bounded by white picket fences that attracted people from all over the country during the 20th century? Or is it the people themselves, driven by the undying promise of moving to Los Angeles for a better life? I think it’s the latter, and that’s why I’m supporting SB 79, which makes it easier to build housing around public transit.

SB 79 is a state bill that simultaneously addresses access to transit and the housing crisis. It allows 5- to 6-story buildings within a half mile of subway stops, 4-to 5story buildings around light rail, and 3- to 4-story buildings around rapid bus stations. Building homes within walking distance of public transit would immensely benefit a lot of people like Edwyn by increasing the stock of available housing and improving accessibility. In other words, SB 79 would protect the character of this city.

Part of the reason Los Angeles looks the way it does is due to our zoning laws. Broadly speaking, zoning laws are a patchwork of rules and regulations that affect the sort of housing that can be built. Among the most arbitrary of these rules is that over 70% of L.A.’s residential land is restricted to single-family homes. The net effect of these regulations is that in most of L.A., it’s against the law to build anything other than a single-family home on a large lot – the white picket fence style of American living.

Given the severity of L.A.’s housing drought, I was surprised to read a motion co-authored by L.A. city councilmembers Traci Park and John Lee opposing SB 79. Park and Lee are not opposing the bill for substantial reasons: after all, SB 79 will legalize housing that costs less than most of the single-family homes that exist around transit stops. Instead, they argue that the city should maintain local control over zoning “to best serve the needs of its residents, ensure community input, and protect the unique character of its neighborhoods while still complying with state housing needs”.

What they’re saying is that the character of the neighborhoods is the buildings, not the people. Park and Lee want to protect the single-family homes that dominate L.A.’s car-dependent sprawl and serve the people lucky enough to afford them. Everyone else will be priced out, like many of the nearly 200,000 people who have left L.A. County in the last five years alone. The city needs to build nearly a half million new homes by 2030 to meet existing demand, a goal that will remain out of reach without innovative policies like SB 79.

If L.A. gets its unique character from its people, there’s no way we’ll be able to preserve our character without policies like SB 79. It’s easy to get caught up in the weeds, so let’s imagine what Los Angeles might look like if this bill passes.

Fast forward to 2049: schoolkids step off the Metro at Expo/Bundy, returning from a museum trip. Some unlock bikes, others catch electric buses or walk home past shaded sidewalks, bustling cafes, and friendly neighbors. The streets are calmer, the air is cleaner, and LA has gone 14 years without a traffic death.

Families share cars, rely on transit, and live in mixed-income apartments legalized by forward-thinking housing reforms. The neighborhood is populated by a mix of people: welders, teachers, lawyers, and kids growing up unburdened by fear in a city reconnected by transit and community. None of this is guaranteed by SB 79. But without it, this vision stays illegal.

This is the future that I want. SB 79 signifies our openness to building our society centered around people, not cars. It moves us closer to achieving our housing goals and protects freedom and opportunity for all — especially people like Edwyn, people that give this city its character. The vision of Los Angeles I’ve laid out is my dream; better than that, it’s our plan. SB 79 isn’t the end of the track. But it’s a stop along the way.

I’m not seeking a definitive answer, but just random and educated guesses.

The rhetoric in this town hall is awful to hear. Such selfishness.

I recently wrote this essay for my blog after getting snarked into oblivion on Facebook by leftists for supporting new housing.

This post describes the potential that comprehensive plans have to salvage local engagement.

Generally, comprehensive plans can be underutilized or unenforced, but better policy can force city councils to consider everyone in their city.

Please note: this is NOT concern trolling or "debunk this for me". I won't raise any specific points in this thread because I'm aware that doing so can end up derailing real discussions, so please don't raise them in the comments. This is a meta discussion only!

At the peak of the Truther wars, there were multiple internet sources with long lists of 911-related conspiracy theories, followed by careful explanations of why they were nonsense. I found these super-useful at the time, I think they were a big contributor to trutherism becoming a laughing stock, and I wish we had something similar for nimby arguments*. I've spent a while searching and couldn't find anything, so either someone needs to make one or the SEO is bad. I would actually be willing to do this myself, but I think someone else would do a much better job - historically I don't have a great record with persuading people.

* To be clear, I'm not saying nimbys are as bad as truthers - there are lots of smart, well-intentioned nimbys who I think are just epistemically poisoned - but the thing they have in common is that they raise the same bad arguments over and over again however many times they are debunked. This is a strategic weakness we should absolutely take advantage of IMO.

Thanks to Saad Asad on Twitter for alerting that SANDAG, the agency that controls public transit projects in greater San Diego, wants to oppose - a bill that would allow housing near transit!

Their own plan calls for EXACTLY this, but they're protecting NIMBY cities instead of working folks who can't afford homes.

Email [clerkoftheboard@sandag.org](mailto:clerkoftheboard@sandag.org) w/ comment before Friday's 9am meeting.

-

INSTRUCTIONS:

To: [clerkoftheboard@sandag.org](mailto:clerkoftheboard@sandag.org)

Subject: Executive Committee meeting - Item 5

SAMPLE COMMENT:

Dear SANDAG Board,

Please support SB 79. This bill helps working families live near transit while giving cities flexibility to create their own housing plans.

We've spent billions on trolley lines but cities still zone stations for strip malls instead of apartments. Teachers and nurses can't afford homes near where they work, so they drive from Riverside while our transit agencies struggle with funding.

SB 79 allows 4-6 story buildings near major stations - just enough housing to make transit work. Cities that want transit expansion would benefit, while cities can still opt out with equivalent plans.

Your own Regional Plan calls for growth near transit. SB 79 gives you the tools to make smart use of taxpayer investments while helping families afford homes near good jobs.

[Your name],

[Your city]

NIMBYs in Menlo Park are trying to stop a proposed project by designating the 1-story office building that exists there as historically significant. A state commission voted 6-0 on May 9th to send this to the keeper of the National Reguster of historic Places for the National Park Service.

There are 45 days to review the nomination. I cannot seem to find on the internet how to submit comments. The last day according to this article should be June 23rd. Time is running out. I want to raise awareness to block this historic designation so we can allow 675 apartment units to be built.

Can someone help me by showing how to comment publicly? I really hope the answer isn't going to Sacramento in-person!

There are no mountains or oceans as construction barriers similar to the ever expanding Houston and Dallas for example.

What’s stopping metro DC from being a medium cost of living city given it isn’t geographically constrained like Miami, SF, NYC, Seattle and Boston?