(continuation of reply above...)

> The problem is that developers DO work by the different golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules. They are basically growth hackers (and not in a good way). Any hole in the rules they WILL attempt to exploit in order extract maximum profit from a plot of land.

I have something to run by you. Maybe single use single family zoning actually helps developers, to the detriment of everyone else.

For the last several or more decades developers have been buying land on the outskirts of towns, clear cutting it and building a bunch of houses as quickly as possible, nothing else, then handing it off to a homeownwers association, so that neither the developer nor the town have to spend any extra money on amenities. The developer makes their money, then looks for another subdivision to build. What could be more convenient? The houses all look the same, because that is cheapest. Many of them are not well made. These subdivision neighborhoods are all pretty much identical, just house after house, empty streets except for the occasional dog walker, a car being required to get to the nearest strip mall, just past the nearest gas station, everything built since at sometime in the 70s seems to follow this pattern.

Perhaps this is why single familt single use zoning is so prevalant across the country, because that is convenient for developers who want to go on building more subdivisions. Single family homes are the best way to get the most markup per housed person. Either that, or apartment complexes that look like people warehouses. Maybe defending the current zoning regulations plays right into their hands. Works out nice for banks and car companies, too. Developers don't care what these neighborhood are like to live in or the long term problems, as long as they can turn a good profit this year.

Many people, myself included, find all these new corporate developed neighborhoods to be alienating, even dystopian. You say you are against developers but they are the ones who we're currently optimized for. They are making money off the current rules, and leaving behind so many externalities - not just financial but so many quality of life issues, commutes for home owners and service workers, the loss of neighborhood gathering spots, the deteriorated relationships with neighbors and small business owners, serendipity walking down the street, dependence on cars, decades of working to pay for this stuff, kids with nothing to do, insular, isolating, monoculture, etc.

Now we even have the problem of hedge funds buying up housing! I am truly dismayed thinking where that trend leads, given the influence the rich have over politicians to warp things more to their profitability without regard for personal or societal damage.

I'm expressing some of my dislikes above... In the spirit of communicating my fears on this issue, which we haven't addressed yet.

It seems to me that you are arguing to keep things the same, to let developers continue to build these inhumane (to many of us) places to live. Yuck. Keeping things the same sucks so much for so many people.

> So, as soon as you allow general conversion from single to duplex/triplex, most of it will be builders buying up lots that can then be built out.

I would say this happens of how regulated housing is. Only developers have the expertise to navigate the system. That's why often corporations are in favor of regulations, they know that individuals and small companies can't deal with the overhead. Regulatory capture. It did not used to be this way.

Regulation for non-safety issues adds a considerable amount to the price of a new house. We could halve those costs, at least. Other places do. Some places have 99 year leases on the land and houses are depreciating assets, like cars, which people often have rebuild to taste, some every time they move. In some countries the average person pays off the average house in three years. Lots of things are possible, just saying.

Somewhat related, I would be game to tax primary residences differently than investor owned property. Houses and neighborhoods should be for people to live in, not for the rentier class to make money.

> So, while these ideas sound wonderful and egalitarian, the reality is that being more loose about it inevitably leads directly do developer abuses and destruction of what has been created.

Do you not agree that developers have been driving the last several or more decades of building, given that most new construction has been subdivisions and corporate apartment complexes during that time?

It's become almost impossible to do otherwise, based on the current regulations you are in favor of.

I feel like we've been letting developers, corporations, and profit destroy neighborhoods in this country for decades, it's causing significant problems, and that we need to make changes.

> There may be solutions to this, but if it was easy, it would have already been done.

It has been done! There are other places that have solved this. They don't have the problems with developers or housing costs that we have. We didn't have these problems in the past. I'm encouraged that there are more and more places in this country making changes.

Of course those making money off the current system will see these changes as a financial threat and continue to resist. Many others are in favor of these changes for numerous reasons, and will continue to push for them.

I apologize for any erroneous assumptions I may have made above about your position while I was expressing my dissatisfaction above with the way things are.

I guess we could talk about how current zoning regulations make it difficult for individuals to build new housing and have resulted in more subdivisions and apartment complexes, how this has changed neighborhoods for the worse over the last several decades, and the belief that upzoning and/or a better system is not possible.

I look forward to what you have to say about all this.