Comment by akst

> regulations don't just add up, but compound

I agree with the wider point but I think the reality is a bit more complicated than that, policy needs to be written with price signals in mind, or if they are addressing a market failure they satisfy some cost benefit analysis to demonstrate the cure isn't worse than the poision. Regulation can also reduce transaction costs when they address coordination problems where a private solution may be discouraged by a fear of free riders.

Regulations can increase fixed costs or variable costs, but if it leads larger markets for the service or if the reduction in services is seen as a smaller cost than an existing negative externality (like costs required to ensure a private water treatment company isn’t poising a public water way, a cost otherwise handled by the government), despite the regulations these are scenarios where costs pay for themselves.

————————————

HOWEVER, much of town planning and land use policies in English speaking world does none of these things. Maybe with the exception of deciding a street grid which addresses a coordination problem.

What market failure do minimum lot sizes or room size address? There are no positive or negative externalities to smaller rooms or lots, people simply choose not to buy or rent something if it’s too small.

Planners hail mixed use zones as a policy only possible with planning, as if it isn't a solution to a problem of their own creation (mutually exclusive residential & commercial land use zones).

Parking per land use is another awful policy. This is simply something the developers can determine based on their own market research. They are handling the development let them handle the risk.

Free parking is also another poor planing policy, parking is definitely something of value which would be a more productive use willing if it had market pricing.

Floor area caps are just evil, infrastructure charges are a much fairer way of handling increased land usage.

Upper level setbacks are just dumb, as they add so much in terms of costs, often to handle more in terms of support columns, and increase the likelihood of water damage. As a result the top most levels end up costing much more and less for less than they could, which puts development feasibility at risk when building heights are too low (sometimes that is the whole point).