All I am saying is that different rules in different places is not a bad thing. I have family in Los Angeles, CA and Cottonwood, AZ . . . you could not find two more different areas. I love them both, because of that. To try and have the same limitations in different places is a little idealistic.
Example, I live in Iowa and in the last 2-3 years, the state has proposed and will be building two new power plants in the next 2-4 years. How long has it been since Kalifornia has built or will build such a plant?
I live in Santa Monica, my rent would be a mortgage on a home in AZ, and I live in a grandfathered rent control apartment (which is a concept I am glad they got rid of, and which I am happy to benefit from). If my electric bill gets to high (and it was huge this month) I will consider moving. To me, is how it should work.
Second example, Sowell had an article several years ago about the red tape necessary to put a deck on his house. I went to the court house and was able to do it in a matter of hours.
Was it in Chicago that that overcrowded, un permitted, balcony deck fell and killed a bucnh of people? There are different rules needed for the dense city and Iowa, I think that is appropriate.
Third, Sowell talks about property values in San Francisco being comparable to those in other parts of the country and now they are astronomical due to restrictions on development in "green areas." You purchase a $300,000 home in certain parts of Kalifornia and you're buying a hole. A $300,000 home in Iowa/Nebraska will buy you a mansion.
I think the choice of what your $300,000 will get you is the greatest part of America. I can choose if I want to live 9 blocks from the ocean in an apartment with all kinds of regulations and rules. Knowing I will now be able to but a house around here....unless I get a big raise. But that is a choice. Do I want to see huge highrises go up at the ocean and block every view so there is cheap housing? No. I like the rules and restrictions on building around here. And for those like Sowell who don't, he can choose to live somewhere else.
A beautiful example of the substantive difference that Sowell is addressing.
I can give you another.
Before the "controllers" took over, the Sacramento area, in the traditional way, planned for the inevitable increase in human beings, and resulting traffic, by acquiring the necessary land to reroute future traffic around Sacramento, thus satisfying and accomodating both local residents and through travelers. Quite similar to the "ring " around DC or the peripherique in Paris. A rational solution to a clear future potential problem.
The "controlling twits" took over after all the necessary right of way was acquired.
They, in their infinite wisdom decided that it was "inviting" future growth, and therefore undesireable.
They decided, in their infinite wisdom, to sell off portions of the right of way to make any future solution impossible, and thus discourage those pesky newcomers.
The result? Predictable. The newcomers came anyway, but now they must suffer the price of their stubborness. Long commutes in horrendous traffic. Serves them right.
That it also victimizes local traffic, the people who have been there for generations, is a well-overlooked fact.
The mental process of little people, controlling to the end, is a sight to behold.