Bill Maher Attacks 'the Real Deep State' of Government Regulators, Administrators, and Zoning Officers
The comedian blames America's endless reams of regulatory red tape for slowing down new wind farms, housing, and public toilets.

Bill Maher is the latest convert to the idea that America's addiction to regulatory process and public input is preventing us from having nice things like renewable energy and new housing.
In a Friday monologue on his HBO show Real Time, Maher laid into "the real deep state" of "regulators, administrators, contract reviewers, project managers, fee accessors, special commissioners, zoning officers, and consultants whose job seems to be to make sure that nothing ever happens and then charge you for it."
It's not that America isn't able to get anything done anymore it's that we're not allowed to. pic.twitter.com/MtbXgzlXEK
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) October 28, 2023
Specifically, the comedian called out federal permitting regulations for taking nearly two decades to approve a transmission line that will connect a wind farm in Wyoming with consumers in Nevada, and he mocked San Francisco's bureaucracy for turning a privately gifted public toilet into a $1 million project.
That same San Francisco bureaucracy, Maher notes, takes 627 days to permit a new home.
"Sure, there are people living on the streets, but that's because we want to make sure the apartments they don't live in are perfect," he said.
The situation in San Francisco might actually be even worse than Maher's description. A recent state audit of the city's housing policies and practices put the average time for fully permitting a residential project at 1,128 days—a little over three years. Reason has covered multiple episodes where the city fined developers for building more units than the zoning code allows and ordering existing, occupied (but unpermitted) homes to be dismantled.
Maher has a history of complaining about the pettier forms of government regulation and America's failure to build big projects like we used to. His latest rant hits some novel notes by focusing on the ways that the country's complex, highly participatory regulatory process—where an endless parade of bureaucrats, third-party groups, and concerned citizens all get a say—makes building an unnecessarily long, expensive prospect.
He's echoing the general critique of mostly liberal "abundance agenda" writers and activists, who think America's main problem is that we don't have enough stuff—and that we don't have enough stuff because we make building new stuff needlessly difficult.
There's a lot to recommend about this worldview, which echoes longstanding libertarian critiques of the regulatory state. There are good reason for libertarians to be suspicious of abundance-agenda liberalism as well, given how easily it conflates the need to deregulate private economic activity with the desire to speed up the construction of government-subsidized megaprojects.
Still, it's refreshing to hear liberals blaming regulations, and not just a lack of government funds, for holding back new infrastructure and new housing.
Environmental permitting and zoning policy have a (deserved) reputation for being dry, technical issues only the most obsessive policy wonks could really get excited about. They are also policy areas that have a profound—and profoundly negative—impact on where we live and how much we pay to keep the lights on.
Maher's rant is a glimpse into a world where all this cost-increasing red tape is the subject of productive populist rage: The big guys are out to get you by keeping new homes and power plants in interminable regulatory limbo.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I refer the reader to "Yes Minister" which points out the "real deep state" as far back as 1980. That's a pretty long time for "liberals" to take to catch on to how little elected officials have to do with the regulations in the real world.
They're not known for their learning aptitude.
I’m making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website… Just open the link—————————>>> http://Www.SalaryOption1.Com
“which points out the “real deep state”
There’s no real deep state. There’s a state which is comprised of the politicians, bureaucrats and the corporate world. These people pass back and forth between.
Yes Minister is a little off the mark. Bureaucracy is a lifelong sinecure and politicians aren’t spending most of their time begging the corporate world to finance their next campaign.
"There’s no real deep state."
... proceeds to describe the deep state.
proceeds to describe the deep state.
Yeah, but Deep State is, like, a Conspiracy Theory, man!
No, it exists… but there’s an impenetrable border wall between the guy inspecting that electrical outlet you had installed, and the guy mulling charges for the opposition candidate. Border walls work!
All conspiracy theories are products of a CIA disinformation campaign.
#MetaConspiracyTheory
That was a heck of a swing and a miss on his attempted deflection.
He's not misconstrueman for nothing.
The really hilarious irony is that mtrueman's shtick for his first several years trolling the Reason comments section was 9/11 trutherism. Dude spent years peddling the Loose Change conspiracy theory that Bush's CIA collaborated with Mossad to perpetrate 9/11. Now when we have incontrovertible evidence of the intelligence agencies colluding with one political party to influence the outcome of a national election and then to undermine the winner of that election up to and including flat out lying to the commander in chief about military operations, tHeRe iS nO DeEP sTaTE.
There is a secret service and a military which are definitely part of the state.
The 'real deep state' is simply the state. There's nothing deep about it. The machinations of the politicians, bureaucrats and corporate world are all fairly open and on the surface.
"The machinations of the politicians, bureaucrats and corporate world are all fairly open and on the surface."
What an adorable fantasy to believe in.
"What an adorable fantasy"
It's no fantasy. Let's look at Dick Cheney, probably the best example of a state actor I can think of off the top of my head. He was a politician, bureaucrat and ran a corporation. All this is well known and understood. We know the bills he voted for who gave him money in his political career, we know the orders he issued as a bureaucrat, and we have extensive records of corporate activities under his watch. You may not know what he voted for or who gave him money etc, but that's not because the information is 'deep,' it's more about your lack of interest in educating yourself about how the system works.
I do admit that I am impressed with how dedicated you are to your craft of nonsense.
So in order to back up your claim that there's no deep state, you decide to redefine what people actually mean by deep.
You're trying to pretend that "deep" means "hidden" and not entrenched and multilayered, which is what most people mean when they say it.
I think his point is that much of what is thought of as hidden is available for those willing to dig for it.
That may be. But it's still kind of a nonsense point. People talking about the deep state aren't claiming to have some special source of knowledge that others don't have access to. People (and major media outlets) are really good at ignoring things they don't want to know about. And our government is big enough that no one can really know everything that is going on and every chain of influence and power.
Plus, there almost certainly is also a lot of stuff that really is kept secret, but of course by definition we don't know what we don't know when it comes to that.
" People (and major media outlets) are really good at ignoring things they don’t want to know about. "
Because they choose to. They have other concerns and interests. Blaming this ignorance and incuriousness on an amorphous 'deep state' gets us nowhere.
You couldn't find the servant's entrance with a dowsing rod.
"You’re trying to pretend that “deep” means “hidden” and not entrenched and multilayered"
The state is complex and large and multileveled and entrenched. I see nothing to be gained by contrasting the state with the deep state. The words 'deep state' imply murkiness, conspiracy, and skullduggery, all of which are there, i grant you, but for the most part, the state's activities, those of the EPA, for example, are open and take place in plain sight. By insisting that the EPA and its employees are part of the deep state is to engage in pointless mystification.
The term 'deep state' originated in Turkey to describe the nefarious and secret connections between their secret services and the rest of society. The usage seems entirely appropriate. But for the USA it seems misdirection, a way to demonize and point the finger without actually saying anything of substance.
OK. Other people find it to be a useful term. You fucking weirdo.
"Other people find it to be a useful term. "
Yes, the ignorant, and disingenuous people who wish to obfuscate and muddy the waters. I don't know why you want to carry water for them. You can't even tell me the difference between the state and your 'deep state.'
"There’s no real deep state...
But for the USA it seems misdirection, a way to demonize and point the finger..."
So in one thread you've gone from "It doesn't exist" to "It exists and it's a good thing", and everyone who disagrees is "obfuscating and muddying the waters".
You're a living parody, Misconstrueman.
"So in one thread you’ve gone from “It doesn’t exist” to “It exists and it’s a good thing”,
The state exists. The deep state doesn't exist. Adding the word 'deep' doesn't add any clarity. It only mystifies and muddies the waters. I understand if you lack the curiosity to study the workings of the state, it's convenient to blame the secret conspirators of the deep state for the troubles in the world. I truly get it. I'm pointing out the concept is of no help in the end.
"The state exists. The deep state doesn’t exist."
You've given zero evidence to back your assertion and have spent the entire thread pedantically trying to redefine words.
"Adding the word ‘deep’ doesn’t add any clarity. It only mystifies and muddies the waters."
A lack of clarity is hardly disqualifying. Reality is messy. I don't understand what you're trying to pull here.
"it’s convenient to blame the secret conspirators of the deep state for the troubles in the world."
Nobody said they were secret. Again, this is your own strange redefinition. In fact most accusations against the deep state involve overt and blatant behavior by well known public figures.
What's with the dishonesty? Who do you think that you're tricking?
"In fact most accusations against the deep state involve overt and blatant behavior by well known public figures."
If public figures are misbehaving, blame them by all means. Blaming the 'deep state' doesn't get you anywhere and only obfuscates the issue.
"Again, this is your own strange redefinition. "
I gave you the definition of the deep state. I'll give it again in case you missed it:
"The term ‘deep state’ originated in Turkey to describe the nefarious and secret connections between their secret services and the rest of society. "
You may not like the definition, and that's on you.
Origin of a word = definition.
Thank you mtrueman for gracing us with your brilliance.
The term ‘deep state’ originated in Turkey to describe the nefarious and secret connections between their secret services and the rest of society. The usage seems entirely appropriate. But for the USA it seems misdirection, a way to demonize and point the finger without actually saying anything of substance.
So, the US lacks secret services?
"So, the US lacks secret services?"
No, but I don't think they secretly fudge the numbers when the EPA counts the number of salmon in the rivers of the west coast.
"It doesn't do this ridiculous example I just made up, so it obviously isn't an issue"
Looks like Jeffy-san is Misconstrueman's sensei.
No, but I don’t think they secretly fudge the numbers when the EPA counts the number of salmon in the rivers of the west coast.
Who said they did?
"Who said they did?"
Nobody. And the US doesn't lack secret services. Next question, please.
“Who said they did?”
Nobody.
Then why are you refuting something no one said?
It's rhetoric. I call it a pre-emptive reductio ad absurdum. Any more questions?
It’s rhetoric. I call it a pre-emptive reductio ad absurdum. Any more questions?
Yes - why do you think that's a good substitute for logic and/or responding to what people actually say?
Maybe you should save us both time and effort and answer your own questions if you don't like mine.
Considering just what they get up to right out in the open, I don't see too much reason to worry about any deep, dark conspiracies. Even if it's not being blared 24/7 on cable news, it's easy to see for anyone who cares to look.
The deep state is the deeply entrenched bureaucrats who don't really think of elected politicians as a force to be reckoned with but rather an inconvenience that comes and goes but who can safely be ignored while they're annoying them. These bureaucrats have their own agenda, mainly focused on their careers in the government service. If a politicians becomes really, really annoying they can be sabotaged from a position of safety and power - so-called weaponization of the government - with very little chance that it will come back on the deeply entrenched bureaucracy.
"The deep state is the deeply entrenched bureaucrats who don’t really think of elected politicians as a force to be reckoned with but rather an inconvenience that comes and goes but who can safely be ignored while they’re annoying them. "
Bureaucrats aren't there to serve politicians. Rather than bureaucrats, perhaps it's better to think of them as public servants, or civil servants.
"These bureaucrats have their own agenda, mainly focused on their careers in the government service. "
That's true of anyone. Those with careers outside government included.
Government bureaus depend on public funding. It's politicians who set this funding, and hire those in charge. If politicians choose heads who work to subvert their policies at every turn, like Trump did with Bolton, Barr, Tillerson, and all the rest, we have only ourselves to blame.
Those with careers outside government included.
Except for the crucial difference that those careers are not maintained through force of arms.
"Except for the crucial difference that those careers are not maintained through force of arms."
You sure about that? Aren't the police armed in your neck of the woods? What about prisons, jails, holding cells, and paddy wagons?
You . . . you understand that those are all government jobs, right?
Certainly they are. And thanks to them us folk in the private sector don't have to worry about forcing our arms on others to do our day to day business. We have the police to do it for us. Whether you work in the private sector or the public, the threat of violence is always there.
The deep state includes those billionaires and various unknown entities working behind the scenes, contributing vast amounts of money to politicians who will do the bidding of the oligarchs ie: George Soros and Bill Gates. There are people behind the scenes you have no idea of. Besides those two have caused more than enough damage.
"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes to expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains and they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater." Frank Zappa
"The deep state includes those billionaires and various unknown entities working behind the scenes, contributing vast amounts of money to politicians who will do the bidding of the oligarchs"
Oligarchs are part of the state. Specifically, an oligarchic state, which is essentially what we have. Deep state is pure mystification that allows people to blame the 'deep state' without saying anything of substance. I've asked several times to define the state and how the 'deep state' differs. No answer. The term is used out of ignorance or disingenuousness.
Bill Maher - maybe the last voice of reason with a political talk show on a major network.
He also (rightly) asked Sleepy Joe to drop out of the race due to his age.
And he attacks the Woke Mob.
I doubt Maher has much sympathy for guys who watch child pornography.
Like you.
He calls you Denny Hastert QAnon conservatives out for what you are - liars and reprobates.
Yet YOU are the pedophile, who worships a Marxist billionaire (something that should never exist) that is pro pedophile.
You child molesting piece of shit.
Every marxist system keeps the riches for the loyal party members at the top.
"Denny Hastert QAnon conservatives"
Hankisming is infectious.
Once you smoke crack, you'll never go back!
Or on Shrike’s case, once you penetrate a little boy’s rectum you’ll never go back.
"Denny Hastert QAnon conservatives"
Damn. I shot water out my nose reading that marvelous piece of incoherence.
Can you elaborate on this where is this comment coming from? Not trying to attack or anything just seems like I'm missing context as this seemed to have come out of left field.
A few years ago, Sarah Palin's Buttplug (no "2" then) posted links to hardcore child pornography in the comment section of one article. It caused the thread to be cleansed and the original SPB handle to be banned. He came back shortly thereafter as "Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2", note the "2".
He posted links to Darkweb kiddie porn and succeeded in getting Reason so panicked that it nuked the thread, and banned his original handle. That's why there's a "2" now tacked on to the end of his new one.
It's been a stuttered realignment. He still believes, for instance, that the Steele Dossier is the unvarnished truth.
Pluggo believes in the Steele Dossier as well. Maybe Pluggo's comment makes more sense in that light.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
It’s great Maher is figuring out things that the rest of us have known for decades.
and yet he reflexively, unthinkingly supports the Ds
the only think he's trying to do is correct the worst excesses of the progressives in the democratic party to give them their best chance at staying in power and putting the final nail in the nation's coffin
I have been making similar noises about how astoundingly bad ass our creativity, productivity , and economy could be if only the damned government would simply get the fuck out of the way since the late 90s. If only more people would catch on. Though I doubt Maher has any interest in really setting the American people free to produce.
It never made sense to me that Maher isn’t far more libertarian. Guess it was more important for him to sell out to his Marxist masters at HBO, or whatever the fuck they’re calling themselves these days.
somebody's new fence plans lack approval.
“Never thought it would affect me”.
Don't laugh. In some cities you can't so much as put a shovel in the ground with such planning and approval.
Living in a free society.
I notice he only whines about liberal projects getting held up.
No complaints about new oil leases, border wall, and the like.
Bill Maher is a liberal. Housing is liberal. Transmission lines are liberal.
Progressives have a hard time disconnecting intentions from results. They'll defend a policy by accusing the person criticizing the results with opposing the intentions. And when they don't like the results, they look for the person who is fucking things up. It's not them. No. In their minds they have good intentions. So how are these rules intended to protect us from unfettered capitalism having the effect of slowing down things they want? Could it be their rules? Now if we can get them to take it one more step. Could their rules be fucking things up for everyone? Then we can change minds.
nice things like renewable energy
The notion that the laws of physics wouldn't apply if not for bureaucratic physicists is kinda... quaint.
THEY MEAN WELL!
No, they don't.
" The big guys are out to get you by keeping new homes and power plants in interminable regulatory limbo."
Go to China where the big boys build you new homes and power stations whether you want them or not. And don't give the public a reasonable chance to object. And take bribes to ensure that construction is quick and cheap.
Go to Chicago where nothing really gets built, but bribes are taken anyway. Kind of cuts out the added extra expense of building something.
Doesn't Chicago have loads of empty office space? Building more is probably not the best use of resources. As I understand, and have been advocating for some time, conversion office -> housing is the best solution. (Such conversion will certainly be delayed by regulatory hurdles, but if the political will is there, it should go ahead.)
https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2022/04/15/downtown-chicago-office-vacancy-sets-record-with-new-development-finishes/
As I understand, and have been advocating for some time, conversion office -> housing is the best solution.
You don't have any idea what's best. The solution is to deregulate and let markets decide what happens with these properties.
It's the solution that market actors would like to do, but regulations won't allow it. So you two are in agreement.
I have not ever seen mtrueman advocate for deregulation of anything in any context. What he’s saying is that he knows what’s best to do with these buildings. His plan is going to be the good one, not the plan that’s governing now and making everything be shitty.
If you say so. Or maybe you guys both agree that zoning rules should be changed to allow the space to be used for things other than offices.
You've met mtrueman before, right?
There's a reason we call him "misconstrueman". I wouldn't try to white knight him, sarc.
I just think it's better to try to find something to agree on instead of jumping on every difference.
Lmfao. Yeah your equanimity for pedophiles and 9/11 truthers knows no bounds. Meanwhile you unironically argue that Trump was pure evil when he was deregulating and passing the First Step Act, which has been one of your hobby horses for 2 decades because of your felony convictions and lengthy criminal history, because he should have done more and anyone who disagrees is a fascist Nazi racist alt-right cultist. Just say what you actually mean drunky: no enemies on the left.
Sarc, mtrueman himself has explained that he purposefully posts nonsense in order get people to engage with it. There’s nothing to agree with him on because he will purposefully not agree with you to get you to continue challenging his nonsense. It’s his admitted-to schtick.
Yeah, I tried for a while. Sometimes it seems like you are having a reasonable discussion with him, but he always eventually gets to some ridiculous nonsense.
Zeb,
Same here. That's why I will give him credit on his schtick. He injects just enough reasonable discussion to reel you in, but it always dives off into nonsense.
One of ML's favorite bookmarks is of me saying something similar. To him it is proof that I never engage in any serious conversations ever, and he like to use it to discourage new people from talking to me. I always thought that was a dick move.
Inquisitive Squirrel: Which is why it baffles me that anyone interacts with him at all. Mute, ignore, move on. Don't waste the effort of typing at him.
I've had conversations with trueman and he wasn't unreasonable.
Sarc,
Trust us on this. mtrueman even admits to it. This isn't like your interactions with ML, this is across the board for the guy.
Which is why it baffles me that anyone interacts with him at all
Sometimes he can be a useful foil, like Tony, but if you're going to attempt extended interaction you need to constantly point out how he's changing the subject with every post.
Sarckles: "and he like to use it to discourage new people from talking to me."
Why would I waste the effort when you do it so well yourself?
Inquisitive Squirrel: "This isn’t like your interactions with ML, this is across the board for the guy."
It's across the board for Sarckles too. Sarc occasionally getting serious and pretending he isn't troll despite a long history of doing exactly that, is what makes him the sites biggest lolcow.
ML: And ironically, if Sarc actually wanted to be taken seriously, all he'd have to do is make a new account, and not intentionally be a trolling dumbass or make deliberately mendacious arguments, and nobody would ever know it was him.
*poof* that office complex is now zoned for housing.
Do you presume that the owners of the office complex are going to shrug and turn that office complex into multi-family housing?
I presume that the people who own the space have an incentive to make money off of it.
The ones sitting on an empty office building might. But it would require a shift back to allowing communal bathroom and kitchen style boarding houses. And I'm not sure that's going to work at massive scale. A lot of those places worked because they had "house mothers" who imposed some order.
It works in small settings, and with people who know each other. I had a pile of friends who rented essentially all of a converted office space in West Oakland in the early '00s, (which one of my friends had a cool vault door for a bedroom door) and that worked OK, but even among friends who were basically all roommates in a large building with locking doors between units there was tension at times. Doing this at scale with 200 units is going to be an interesting experiment in tolerance.
Boarding houses have already been zoned out of existence. Which, incidentally, doesn't help homeless people that much.
Boarding houses have already been zoned out of existence. Which, incidentally, doesn’t help homeless people that much.
And oddly the zoning-out of boarding houses coincided pretty much exactly with the rise in homelessness. Over the course of 1995-2010 Oakland replaced its tenements with encampments.
"A lot of those places worked because they had “house mothers” who imposed some order."
Those places no longer work because the zoning laws require most of the property to be devoted to parking . At least with the empty office towers built in the past half century, there is already ample parking.
Boarding house became unfashionable after two old spinsters were caught poisoning lonely bachelors ......dosing their glasses of wine with arsenic.
"I have not ever seen mtrueman advocate for deregulation of anything in any context."
Probably true, but 'deregulation' is a red herring. It's actually re-regulation that is being called for - the rewriting of regulations to favor another faction of the state over the faction that gave us the original regulations. Don't get taken in by this devious euphemism.
"he’s saying is that he knows what’s best to do with these buildings"
The whole point of buildings is to shelter people and things. I'm arguing that empty buildings don't fulfill this purpose.
It’s actually re-regulation that is being called for
Yes – that’s what you’re calling for, like I said. What I’m calling for is deregulation.
I’m arguing that empty buildings don’t fulfill this purpose.
And I’m arguing that your assumption that you know what is best is what drives your impulse to re-regulate rather than de-regulate such that under your plan buildings will continue to sit empty and/or not get built, no matter how much you may have intended the opposite.
You can’t truly think that those buildings sit empty because that’s what their owners want.
"What I’m calling for is deregulation. "
No, you still want regulations. Just ones that are different from the ones currently existing.
"You can’t truly think that those buildings sit empty because that’s what their owners want."
I can't speak to what the owners want, but I suspect that the buildings are empty because it was thought that commercial and residential properties should be separate and not mixed up together, and zoning laws were written to reflect this belief. I suspect that if those regulations had allowed for easy mixing, developers would have made sure that whatever structures they designed and built, the potential for easy conversions would have been baked in at the start in the blueprints.
"your assumption that you know what is best "
My assumption is that it is better for people in Chicago to live in homes under shelter rather than otherwise. I'm not sure what your objection is. If it's that the owners of empty office buildings are happy with the status quo, and want to build more, then say so.
No, you still want regulations. Just ones that are different from the ones currently existing.
Which is in fact the exact opposite of what I just said.
it was thought that commercial and residential properties should be separate and not mixed up together
It "was thought" by whom?
I suspect that if those regulations had allowed for easy mixing, developers would have made sure that whatever structures they designed and built, the potential for easy conversions would have been baked in at the start in the blueprints.
It's amazing how little you understand about how this actually works. Can you imagine what's needed to convert an office space to a residential space?
The answer is no, you can't. You haven't the foggiest idea. It might be impossible, for all you know, or it might be easy as pie. It might have to do with how different spaces are regulated, or it might have to do with zoning. Again, you have no idea.
This is why your opinion on what "should be done" with those buildings only gets in the way of anything beneficial happening.
My assumption is that it is better for people in Chicago to live in homes under shelter rather than otherwise. I’m not sure what your objection is.
I know you are very concerned about Climate Change, shouldn't you be a little less cavalier about burning all these straw men?
"Which is in fact the exact opposite of what I just said."
I've already explained that rewriting regulations to fit your desires over those of the original regulators is re-regulating.
"Can you imagine what’s needed to convert an office space to a residential space?"
I can. It's surely a tricky business. But all the trickier if it's done as an after thought when construction is complete rather than pre-planned during the design and building stage.
" I’m not sure what your objection is."
I'm still not sure, and you don't seem willing to share. I'm not experienced in converting office space to residential. Mea culpa.
How is doing it "pre-planned during the design and building stage" converting an (existing) office building, exactly?
You've just changed the scope of the project from one type to another. No kidding it's more difficult to retrofit - especially when it comes to plumbing and mechanical systems. Electrical is a bit easier. Structurally and life-safety wise (architecturally) your egress capacity for an office building is generally more than sufficient for a residential use.
But that's a lot of plumbing to run, and your supply and waste service to the building are probably woefully inadequate to start. Mechanical systems are going to be very expensive as well - people tend to like to have the ability to individually control the climate in their domiciles, and office spaces typically aren't set up that way.
"How is doing it “pre-planned during the design and building stage” converting an (existing) office building, exactly? "
It isn't. It was put to me by Square = Circle,
"You can’t truly think that those buildings sit empty because that’s what their owners want."
And I responded with my belief that zoning laws to prevent the mixing of commercial and residential space were responsible (but not wholly - I assume work from home, pandemics and business cycles also play their part.) Here is my relevant quote:
"I can’t speak to what the owners want, but I suspect that the buildings are empty because it was thought that commercial and residential properties should be separate and not mixed up together, and zoning laws were written to reflect this belief. I suspect that if those regulations had allowed for easy mixing, developers would have made sure that whatever structures they designed and built, the potential for easy conversions would have been baked in at the start in the blueprints."
I didn't mean to suggest that pre-planning and converting existing building were the same thing. Note the above quote is in the subjunctive mood - probably the most misunderstood mood English has to offer. The telltale sign of the subjunctive is the use of past tense:
"I suspect that if those regulations had allowed for easy mixing..."
Had allowed, use of past tense to talk about a situation that doesn't yet exist, or may exist in the future.
"But that’s a lot of plumbing to run, and your supply and waste service to the building are probably woefully inadequate to start. "
Dry toilets may be an answer. Most of the water in residential use is flushed down the toilet. Watering lawns is probably a close second.
I’ve already explained that rewriting regulations to fit your desires over those of the original regulators is re-regulating.
Yes, but what was being talked about was getting rid of the regulations.
"Yes, but what was being talked about was getting rid of the regulations."
Keep the regulators, get rid of the regulations. Good luck with that. There's a rule of thumb that's probably been around since to heyday of Gobekli Tepe, supposedly the world's oldest permanent settlement. As society gets more complex, increases the nodes and connections between them, government expands, and so do regulations and regulators. Same thing holds true with surveillance. The more complex a society, the more effort is needed to keep an eye on the populace. Also energy consumption, more complexity, more energy. You want to enjoy the conveniences of modern society, there's a price to be paid.
Will never happen. The control freaks in charge think they are playing simcity and need to micro manage every single project, so they might cherry pick one and block the rest. It will fail, because they always pick loosers.
Maybe video games really are a bad influence...
As much as I love city simulators, they are one of the worst things to happen to modern society.
They are simply training the latest crop of city bureaucrats for when the old ones retire....on a nice taxpayer paid for pension.
"You don’t have any idea what’s best."
My idea is that it's best for people in Chicago to have shelter and a place to call home.
My idea is that it’s best for people in Chicago to have shelter and a place to call home.
Then get out of their way.
My being in the way is not their problem. The homeless are poor, demonized and lack the organization, leadership and gumption to better their lot.
My being in the way is not their problem.
No, actually it is. It really is.
I disagree. I have no influence over the housing policies of Chicago. I've not attempted to exert influence over these policies. You appear to have confused me with someone else, perhaps? InsaneTrollLogic brought up Chicago in a response to a comment of mine. Is that it?
Rather than blaming me or the deep state for Chicago's problems, why not look to the residents there?
I have no influence over the housing policies of Chicago.
No, but wherever it is that you do have influence your arrogance is in people's ways.
I'll work on my meekness. There's a world I want to inherit.
I’ll work on my meekness.
Start by minding your own business - it's kind of fundamental.
The same can be said for the resident of San Francisco and every other democrat controlled city.
Much of the blame lies with the electorate.
So, you think that the best use of empty office space is to convert it to housing? Apartments and / or condos?
If businesses don't want it, what else is there to do with it?
Anything they want? They can leave it empty, they can try to redevelop it themselves, they can demolish it, they could lower the rent to try to entice another company to lease it.
Whatever they do, it should be allowed to develop organically with as little government interference as possible. Instead, you have the very stable geniuses in the current administration putting a giant federal thumb on the scale, with the apparent end-goal of another Pruitt-Igoe or several in every major metropolis. Great.
Well right now people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and convert the space to housing, but they can't because of zoning. I don't know if it's the best use for the space, but it's the use that people are willing to take a risk on. If they can get the government to let them.
That's not what the article I linked to below says. It says the Biden Administration is preparing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to subsidise these conversions.
I agree that zoning can be a big problem at times, but I'm not aware of many places that use zoning to forbid apartment or condominium housing in zones that allow for multi-storey office buildings. Even though, there are obvious infrastructure implications - most notably plumbing.
We have a large vacant building in downtown St. Louis that they've been trying to do a similar type of conversion with for years. All sorts of tax abatements have been thrown at it during that time. The most recent news is that the current owners are looking to sell the building for less than half of what they paid for it a few years ago. But, they are having a difficult time getting that price, because the city is insisting on the housing conversion development, regardless of owner.
Which makes reality, as I observe it, pretty much the opposite of what you described.
Stop trying to confuse drunky with the facts.
Around here old mills are in the process of being turned into residences. Judging by all the parked cars I think it's a popular idea. And there has been talk of expanding the housing supply by changing zoning downtown. Local news. Guess where I live is unique.
Seems like in a big enough city they make everything impossible without the right connections.
It's not just zoning either. The requirements that would have to be met in order for the conversion would cost nearly as much as building a new structure.
The problem is as Maher explained by the time the owner wades through the muddy waters of regulations and permits and having to satisfy all the requirements to renovate the office spaces into some sort of apartment, the expense involved would just warrant demolishing the building and raising a new structure. It would actually be cheaper.
I mean, if it really were the best use of resources, wouldn't some ardent capitalists be making these conversions happen already?
Instead, Mayor Pete Buttigeig and the Biden administration are issuing billions of dollars in federal subsidies to try to make these kinds of projects viable.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/biden-administration-encouraging-conversion-empty-office-space-affordable-104424145
And, the foolish mayor-turned-transportation-secretary knows about as much about commercial building remodels as he apparently does about transportation. That's the guy who thinks you have a winner of an idea there.
I mean, if it really were the best use of resources, wouldn’t some ardent capitalists be making these conversions happen already?
^
Unless something were preventing them from doing so, but we know that in general the super-smart technocrats who run cities would never put hurdles in the way of dynamic redevelopment.
And, the foolish mayor-turned-transportation-secretary knows about as much about commercial building remodels as he apparently does about transportation.
But he means well, and comes from the right sort of people, so it will all work out.
Converting those office spaces to housing would be just as expensive as building new ones or nearly so. Thanks to the myriad of regulations and daft government workers it would take years to even pound in a single nail and by that time the cost will have doubled.
I dare not think what it's like in San Francisco.
Hey, Maher, "welcome to the party, pal!"
Poor editing, or a Freudian slip?
He combined (destroyed) 3 single family lots into one for his current digs. No one has to worry about getting permits to build near him because there are no permits to be had. Easy to whine about the time it takes to get permits, knowing that a permit won't get anywhere near you.
Hey Britschgi, you were an honorable mention in a new Jacobin public housing article. The left or hamas or whatever we’re calling Nazi drug cartel socialist terrorists nowadays, want more taxpayer transfers for NGOs to build Austrian type public housing projects. They mentioned Reason, but failed to mention the NYCHA public housing collapse and how well NGOs are doing for homeless, crime and mental health issues.
'the Real Deep State' of Government Regulators, Administrators, and Zoning Officers
FYI, that's not "the real deep state" implying that there's another deep state that's fake because *looks through rolodex* Tucker Carlson bitches about it. That IS the deep state we're talking about, and yes, it extends past the guy doing your liquor license inspection, it extends to the justice department, lawyers, FBI agents, DHS agents... or does Bill Maher (and the writer of this article) believe that there's some kind of uncrossable social construct that walls those other agencies off from the awful instincts and behaviors that affect the guy doing your liquor license inspection?
Was this the same episode of Maher where the guests were Scott Galloway and Former Governor Mario Cuomo? You know, where Scott Galloway admitted that everything he thought about COVID lockdowns was wrong, but then said that they were operating with the best information they had at the time, so some grace and humility should be extended to the people screaming 'MASK ON!' and "you're literally killing Grandma" and "If you're not vaccinated you shouldn't be allowed to shop for food"? That Bill Maher show?
To most observers this would not be considered a conflation, but aspects or consequences of the same thing. One governmental roadblock can be an obstacle for both public- and private-sector projects.
Too many among both the bloggers and the commentariat are always looking for reasons things that appear good are bad or at best neutral. Consider the possibility that you can have transient allies. Joining temporarily is not a bad thing.
Weirdly, that heightened suspicion co-exists among the bloggers here with tunnel vision impressions that some tiny good aspect of someone or something makes it/hir good overall.
Too many among both the bloggers and the commentariat are always looking for reasons things that appear good are bad or at best neutral. Consider the possibility that you can have transient allies. Joining temporarily is not a bad thing.
It's true, we might get a little upzoning in a mercurial process that chooses one set of locales or neighborhoods over another largely driven by political favors and other machinations, and in exchange for that, we might have to put up with a bit of Rent Control.
That there is a fellow with a very punchable face. I think it's all the smug emanating from him.
What's frustrating to me, is I live in YIMBY central. "Upzone" has become the new Black Lives Matter slogan for housing. Exactly NONE of the people wanting upzoning are free-market advocates. None of them, zero of them. Zero plus zero, carry the zero... zero.
So when people tell me to quit rejecting the good and demanding the perfect, all I can say is, "it will get worse... it ALWAYS gets worse".
Reason's enthusiasm for YIMBY is weird. I don't think libertarians should be NIMBY or YIMBY but should support property rights and let things fall as they may.
I don't even know what "upzoning" means. But how about no zoning?
I don’t even know what “upzoning” means. But how about no zoning?
Because one is a bureaucratic solution which creates entirely new rules and systems of application-- which kind of sort of... no, yes, definitely leaves the same people in charge, the other one just lets the free market decide. I’m still working out which is which.
You are getting real good at this feigned ignorance thing. Are you trying to get a job on TV?
I don’t think libertarians should be NIMBY or YIMBY but should support property rights and let things fall as they may.
^
That’s always the end game with a lefty- either rent control or public housing projects. If they had half a brain cell, they would let it be built before giving the central plan away.
The problem is that local politics is all about having the cake of high property values (with the high property tax revenues and municipal borrowing power that go with that) and eating the cake of affordable housing without acknowledging that they are, in fact, the same cake.
No no... we can bring new housing online that will be (input into black box here - output from black box there) 70% below the nominal market rate of all the currently occupied housing, but this housing will be in a special magickal category, but when you go sell your fixer-upper that you paid $600,000 for in 2020, will will sell for $900,000 in 2024! But new, young people with college debt, or that homeless guy under the bridge? He'll be able to afford a comfy two bedroom flat with commanding views of the water for $400 a month!
Yeah...sure.
I’m not sure Bill Maher is still a card carrying member of the lefty clique. I mean he takes shots at CRT, the bureaucracy, calls people mean names, …. I expect what he has to say is meaningless to most, rather almost everyone.
He's a 90s center lefty, who still believes the room he's standing in a full of hip-swiveling liberals who like to laugh (at Republicans) and think sex in the workplace is no big deal.
He has recently begun to notice he's not hanging with the cool kids.
Ya, he is known for recently fighting with his audience who will either refuse to clap, or groan at some attempts to make fun of the ridiculousness of the left.
He's whining about how bad it sucked during lockdowns and how silly the masking and vax hysteria was during COVID in california...to a bunch of california progressives who voted in all the policies he now is against.
I wouldn't want to play that crowd, but I guess its a frog in the pot situation he got himself into that he didn't notice that was the team he signed up for all along.
He’s still hanging with the non-MAGA crowd, he’s all good. White MAGAs are the biggest homeland threat to this nation. Nothing to see here that every city in the U.S. is celebrating terrorism, murder, kidnappings and hunting Jews at university. In the cool crowd, MAGA is worse than terrorism.
White MAGAs are the biggest homeland threat to this nation.
It's important to realized that black people can't be racist because they are impoverished and have no power to oppress.
White hillbillies, on the other hand . . .
It works in the game of Calvin-ball they are playing.
Racism = prejudice PLUS power.
In their world there is no nuance, if a person is 1% income level, poor, and white they still have power because systemic racism over a black person in the upper quartile of income.
Of course, the person can level up a little bit by bending the knee and praying to one of the appropriate gods.
Tranny god = 3 points
Gay/Lesbian/Pansexual god = 2 points
Non-binary god = 1 points
White allyship = A for effort, and a pat on the back, you wont be counted as "one of the bad ones", at least not immediately (see: the jews)
But really, while the points are given for what group you join, its just a proxy for the desired end result: likelihood of voting for and supporting far left social policy.
As usual, he is almost all the way there. He falls short where he has to please the left and wave off the "conspiracy" that the deep state is out there.
Yes, it is there in the form of ridiculous over the top regulation, waste, and red tape, and it is also there in the form of those same individuals maliciously using their power over regular people to keep them in line.
You know, like the IRS targeting political enemies, the FBI/CIA giving in-kind campaign contributions to democrat politicians (Hillary, Joe, well documented now) in the form of spying, leaking, or one-sided "misinformation" claims, because the other guy wasn't toeing the line, or the DOJ throwing its weight around against parents who protest the state indoctrinators a little too loudly.
These are all things that are well documented and out in the open, one doesn't need to pretend they are a crazy conspiracy anymore. Hell, the SCOTUS just had to slap Joe (and his cohorts) hands for interfering with free speech on social media platforms. Was that made up? Or was that govt officials shitting on the constitution using their power over private citizens?
As usual, he is almost all the way there. He falls short where he has to please the left and wave off the “conspiracy” that the deep state is out there.
It's a version of "Ok, it's happening, but it's not as bad as you say".
Since wind farms are government funded wouldn't government blocking them be government cutting the theft-budget? Not sure I'm ready to give a green flag on UN-Constitutional government projects like wind farms but yes indeed it's always refreshing when a Blue-pilled druggie allows a little Red/Reality-pill in their diet. Keep it up.
Well, there's something I can agree with Maher on.
Too much government. It's worse than the old Soviet Politburo. probably ten times worse and all in the name of public safety and saving the planet.
Of course such projects as wind turbines and solar energy are two of the biggest scams going as there is absolutely nothing green about either.
Government was not meant to be a jobs program, which it has become. Especially for single mothers with little or no job experience, where they can get a nice cushy government job with all the perks, doling out license plates, driver's licenses and unemployment checks for the rest of us who either lost a job or are unemployed because some Washington, D.C bureaucrat decided the project was either going to destroy the environment or that the construction company couldn't find enough minority people to crew the job site.
Government is not a jobs program.
Ron Paul is right.
I appreciate Bill Maher as a voice of reason in what seems to be silly world. The problem with regulations is that I see them being co-opted by NIMBY. I don't see regulators as being the problem but those that use regulation as a tool to stop things not because they are bad, but because they don't want something near them. No matter what is addressed, no matter how many studies there is always one more thing that people want checked.
Zoning regulations have always been NIMBY. That's pretty much the whole point. Explicitly so.
The whole point of having a back yard is to be able to say yes or no as you see fit.
Are you really going to go with pretending not to know what that phrase means?
I know exactly what it means. It's my backyard and I get to determine what happens there. Of course the problem is the word 'backyard' has a literal meaning - a backyard, and a metaphorical meaning - my neighborhood, my city, my country etc.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing.“
The 'I' in NIMBY doesn't stand for 'is,' but 'in' meaning 'in.'
the YIMBY movement is more of what I call the YIYBY movement.
So then you admit that you're deliberately equivocating.
I take exception to the term NIMBY as a pejorative. One shouldn't be castigated for wanting to determine the use of the backyard, in either figurative or literal sense of the word. I should been clearer from the start, but where's the fun in that?
The problem with NIMBY is that it that it often shows the hypocrisy of the people. The supporter of climate change who wants electrical power but doesn't want the electrical lines build near their home. The advocate for the homeless who does want low-cost housing in their neighborhood. The small government conservative who is upset that his neighbor has wood fired stove or that the hog raising operation down the road is being enlarged.
"The problem with NIMBY is that it that it often shows the hypocrisy of the people."
Hypocrite is probably the better term. And it's not just for people with backyards. Choose a comment here at random, and it's likely written by someone who enjoys all the conveniences on offer in an increasingly complex society, yet rejects rules and regulations because they entail some sacrifice, however momentary and trivial. Rules that give the public an opportunity to give input regarding plans for construction projects, for example.
"Bullshit artist" is a good description for trueman:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
The problem with regulations is that I see them being co-opted by NIMBY.
They started as NIMBY. NIMBY is the very essence of zoning and building regulation.
On a related note, a lot of people don't realize that the Sierra Club was started by rich Californians as a way to stop immigration to the state.
It's amazing how Republican you can be when your dear leader starts ditching on Democrats.
I don't think this is Republican or Democrat its NIMBY. Many years ago, oil companies started sand mining in Wisconsin. Wisconsin sand being highly prized for fracking. All those rural conservatives suddenly became environmentalist concerned about the impact of the sand mining on their health. Bill Maher anger may have started with the length of time it took to get his solar panels permitted. I'm guessing that the biggest obstacle he faced was his neighbors, even though the regulators were doing the dirty work.
"rural conservatives suddenly became environmentalist"
LMAO.... The level of self-project the left can spout is amazing.
What is projection here? NIMBY is not partisan.
Limited government versus Tyrannical Government has always been a party-partisan divide. Course you'll never allow yourself to see that because you can't see past the end of your own nose.
I'm going to hazard a guess that virtually 100% of southern California's homeless population is homeless not because of housing policies (which may independently be awful) but because of a combination of mental illness, addiction, and the cynical reality that the weather is nice enough to not kill them off en masse.
They’re just all out there waiting/worshiping their gods packing gov-guns to go out and steal them a living (give them *free* housing) instead of having to *earn* it.
The indoctrinated self entitled mind-frame of the lefty sh*t-for-brains criminal is what makes their own life's so sh*tty. They are entirely sold on the idea that if someone (gov) doesn't force others to hand over to them everything in life that there no other way for them to survive.
1. Windfarms? Good. The government has done something useful by preventing even more wasteful spending on these boodoggles. Siemens might even fold because of their wind-farm problems. And the off-shore ones end up not producing electricity for *months at a time* because of cable failures.
2. Housing? Only in the sorts of places you like to live, Bill. You voted for the NIMBY's, don't complain they did what they said they would do if you voted for them. Progressives are literally the only politicians that actually match campaign promises with policy action.
3. Public toilets? We just shit in the office, in the store's restroom, or at home, Bill. Yuma has basically 0 public toilets outside of a few large parks and we can still manage to keep our streets free from human excrement.
3. Public toilets? We just shit in the office, in the store’s restroom, or at home, Bill. Yuma has basically 0 public toilets outside of a few large parks and we can still manage to keep our streets free from human excrement.
Yuma? Can I get a drink with a vertical ID there?
Wind farms are one of the greatest scams of the century. Besides being outrageously expensive, the amount of electrical output remains negligible and broken parts cannot be recycled. Massive dumps in Texas filled with the false claims of the green energy movement.
Bill, Bill, Bill, Don;t you realize the trauma you're causing to all those poor, selfless, hardworking and intelligent government drones, I mean public servants?
Surely after listening to you ranting and raving, some of them are going to partake upon a mass shooting spree or at the very least need a safe space and coloring book and crayons along with months of tax payer paid for psychiatric counseling. Some of them might even commit hari kari or drive their car into a river.
Oh, the humanity! Just remember : words are violence. Please don't demonize.
Nice to see leftists noticing the tidal wave of overregulation, if a little late.
To read the true story of overregulation and the lie of the "Era of Deregulation from the right perspective, check out the book Overregulated on Amazon or B&N.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1662830998/reasonmagazinea-20/
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/overregulated-michael-brown/1140507654?ean=2940161022054