I would like to see you explore the arguments around YIMBY in more depth. At a glance, I think the accusation of YIMBY "imperialism" falls flat. Fundamentally, by placing the power at the state level, we are overruling the imperialism that determines what *you* can build on your own property.
Much of the harm of zoning is aggravated by infrastructure distortions and subsidies. Cities like Spokane are in "soft default" as are all the suburbs and exurbs who will never be able to cover the costs of their highways, sewer, public services, and roads based on low-density, car-dependent SFHs.
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I am fairly convinced of the arguments that there is a giant suburban Ponzi scheme on top of our issues with housing supply, and YIMBY is a step in the right direction. Georgist land value taxes would be a good next step...
The idea of the financial sustainability of the suburbs, and YIMBYism are two different things in my view. Keep in mind, Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns at one point said every city in the US other than NYC and SF was financially unsustainable.
The libertarian impulse used by YIMBYs as their public justification is by and large a fraud in my view, with the exception of genuine libertarians like the folks at Mercatus who really are taking a principled stand. YIMBYs don't plan to eliminate growth boundaries or similar controls, they don't plan to roll back bans on gas appliances or solar panel mandates, etc. They are quite comfortable with a wide swath of regulations on development.
But as I said, it's certainly a valid position to argue for state level YIMBY policy. I just happen not to agree with it.
Good article on YIMBY. The King's Hall podcast just did an episode on seminaries. One of the hosts threw out the idea that much like other colleges, seminaries are recruiting students based on keeping enrollment up to cover their cost of operations. Eric Conn gave examples of guys he met in seminary who had no business being pastors, but no one was willing to tell them that. I have to wonder if many of the seminary leaders are undermining the theological commitments intentionally. I don't have any first hand knowledge of seminaries, but it looks like another aspect of our education system that needs to be overhauled if it can be reformed at all.
It's easy to see how quality control in pastors can be elusive, because there is a temptation to produce more pastors than there is demand for them. Those "surplus" pastors are there, presumably, to plant new churches, start new ministries, evangelize to all nations.
This is rather unlike professions that operate as a guild, such as doctors and lawyers, that take pleasure in limiting entry to their ranks.
I recall that Spurgeon had some comments in his writings on the importance of discouraging unqualified young men from ministry, and that even in his day, his advice comes across as contrary to everything they had heard up to that point.
It's easy to say, "Yes, good for you, pursue a career building the Kingdom, not building earthly treasures!" It's hard to say, "Maybe the way you'll be building the Kingdom is by tithing your mediocre pay at a boring, unimportant job and trying your best to lead your family towards Christ."
I would like to see you explore the arguments around YIMBY in more depth. At a glance, I think the accusation of YIMBY "imperialism" falls flat. Fundamentally, by placing the power at the state level, we are overruling the imperialism that determines what *you* can build on your own property.
Much of the harm of zoning is aggravated by infrastructure distortions and subsidies. Cities like Spokane are in "soft default" as are all the suburbs and exurbs who will never be able to cover the costs of their highways, sewer, public services, and roads based on low-density, car-dependent SFHs.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/10/24/dispatches-from-spokane-living-a-soft-default
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I am fairly convinced of the arguments that there is a giant suburban Ponzi scheme on top of our issues with housing supply, and YIMBY is a step in the right direction. Georgist land value taxes would be a good next step...
The idea of the financial sustainability of the suburbs, and YIMBYism are two different things in my view. Keep in mind, Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns at one point said every city in the US other than NYC and SF was financially unsustainable.
The libertarian impulse used by YIMBYs as their public justification is by and large a fraud in my view, with the exception of genuine libertarians like the folks at Mercatus who really are taking a principled stand. YIMBYs don't plan to eliminate growth boundaries or similar controls, they don't plan to roll back bans on gas appliances or solar panel mandates, etc. They are quite comfortable with a wide swath of regulations on development.
But as I said, it's certainly a valid position to argue for state level YIMBY policy. I just happen not to agree with it.
Good article on YIMBY. The King's Hall podcast just did an episode on seminaries. One of the hosts threw out the idea that much like other colleges, seminaries are recruiting students based on keeping enrollment up to cover their cost of operations. Eric Conn gave examples of guys he met in seminary who had no business being pastors, but no one was willing to tell them that. I have to wonder if many of the seminary leaders are undermining the theological commitments intentionally. I don't have any first hand knowledge of seminaries, but it looks like another aspect of our education system that needs to be overhauled if it can be reformed at all.
It's easy to see how quality control in pastors can be elusive, because there is a temptation to produce more pastors than there is demand for them. Those "surplus" pastors are there, presumably, to plant new churches, start new ministries, evangelize to all nations.
This is rather unlike professions that operate as a guild, such as doctors and lawyers, that take pleasure in limiting entry to their ranks.
I recall that Spurgeon had some comments in his writings on the importance of discouraging unqualified young men from ministry, and that even in his day, his advice comes across as contrary to everything they had heard up to that point.
It's easy to say, "Yes, good for you, pursue a career building the Kingdom, not building earthly treasures!" It's hard to say, "Maybe the way you'll be building the Kingdom is by tithing your mediocre pay at a boring, unimportant job and trying your best to lead your family towards Christ."