Mark Dunkelman

I agree with that.

But, you know, I like the standard you're holding yourself to.

I mean, the core question you're asking here, and I think we're all asking, is who should decide what housing is built when and where?

How should that decision-making process work?

And so when I wrote Why Nothing Works, sort of the big aha moment I realized was that for a lot of progressivism's history,

our view was centralize that power in the hands of one person who will decide what is built and that's how levitt towns were built it's that that's how robert moses built housing all over new york city that's how the establishment built housing for a long time

And then we switched horses, right?

We decided we didn't like that model because in many cases it was abusive to people who lived in communities that were bulldozed or they were discriminatory or they were not sensitive to what was happening in the environment.

So we created over the course of 50 years a whole series of laws that put new checks on those who would build housing.

And we're now beginning to try to dial back the number of veto points in the process.

And you're right.

It's been 10 years of small board changes and now I think more substantial changes.

But I do think that you're going to see, you know, I'm from Rhode Island.

We've got a bunch of more housing starts than we had.

And that, like, I understand that it's not the immediate satisfaction of suddenly we have 5 million more units across the country.

But it is, like, it's a different discussion among progressives.

And that feels to me like a sea change.

Yeah, I mean, my general view here is that people also use the term procedure fetish as if

Progressive's just sort of like procedure for procedure's sake.

Nick Bagley's term.