Adam Carolla argues that the time and expense of navigating regulations, like those from California's Coastal Commission, are so prohibitive that many people simply give up on building projects altogether, even on their own property. The bureaucratic friction outweighs the desire to build.
Related Insights
A chef notes that an eight-month wait for a single permit, while paying rent on an unopened restaurant, makes past systems of bribery seem preferable. The extreme financial bleed from slow bureaucracy creates a situation where a quick, corrupt alternative appears more economically viable.
Reacting to the developmental excesses of figures like Robert Moses, the American legal profession, led by thinkers like Ralph Nader, transformed from enablers of large projects into regulators and litigators. This 1960s shift created the anti-development legal culture that paralyzes the U.S. today.
While advocating for relaxed zoning, Mayor Lurie acknowledges it is not a silver bullet for housing affordability. He states that high interest rates, labor, and material costs are the primary blockers to new construction, meaning policy changes won't trigger immediate development or rent drops.
Local city governments are often captured by "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) homeowners who block essential development. A practical solution is to elevate planning and zoning authority to the state level. States, motivated by tax revenues and broader growth, are inherently more development-friendly.
Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.
A regulator who approves a new technology that fails faces immense public backlash and career ruin. Conversely, they receive little glory for a success. This asymmetric risk profile creates a powerful incentive to deny or delay new innovations, preserving the status quo regardless of potential benefits.
New rent control laws don't just limit rent; they fundamentally cap the equity upside for real estate investors. By limiting potential cash flow growth from an asset, these policies make building or upgrading apartment buildings less attractive. This discourages the very capital investment needed to solve the housing supply crisis.
The state's most visible problems—homelessness, high costs, and corporate exodus—are framed not as complex policy failures but as the direct result of a singular, decades-long failure to build enough housing, office space, factories, energy, and transportation infrastructure.
Legally mandated parking spaces for every new building add tens of thousands of dollars to construction costs and raise rents. These laws also make it impossible to reuse older, historic buildings that can't accommodate parking, fundamentally forcing modern architecture to be designed around cars.
The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.
