> Imagine you're a municipality like San Francisco.
I couldn't get past this because the analogy breaks down already. SF as a polity is not controlled by one person or single department. The power is highly decentralized (the Board of Supervisors hold most of the keys).
Thus, even if you have someone who can make sweeping changes, likelihood is they'd never get elected in such a setup (or if they do, be able to effect change).
The BoS & electorate create laws, bureaucracies, structures and courts that would create those 25 year court cases in the first place. The properly allocated elected set of judges, supervisors, mayor and DAs can make most of those disappear in the first place by changing the law, how the government runs and how the courts run and rule on cases, complete with prioritizing court cases for the few they don't have a choice in getting rid of to make them get through the system quickly.
> The BoS & electorate create laws, bureaucracies, structures and courts that would create those 25 year court cases in the first place. The properly allocated elected set of judges, supervisors, mayor and DAs can make most of those disappear in the first place by changing the law, how the government runs and how the courts run and rule on cases, complete with prioritizing court cases for the few they don't have a choice in getting rid of to make them get through the system quickly.
Let's say they do that. All the branches of SF government collude to make or remove laws as needed to eliminate all obstacles to permenently buidling more.
Who will be satisfied? What would happen to the city as everyone flees such authoritarian approach?
The end result is a lot more apartment buildings would be built in the city fairly quickly, dedicated transit bus lanes would be developed fairly quickly again and a lot more people would move in and a bunch of grumpy old people will complain impotently that their city is changing, but will not move away because the old don't like to change anyway. A bunch of other old landowners will cash in for above market rates and retire to florida to get away from the cold fog, stressful driving and high taxes.
So on net, a few will move away, the vast majority will shrug as usual and SF will have a lot more people in it.
I couldn't get past this because the analogy breaks down already. SF as a polity is not controlled by one person or single department. The power is highly decentralized (the Board of Supervisors hold most of the keys).
Thus, even if you have someone who can make sweeping changes, likelihood is they'd never get elected in such a setup (or if they do, be able to effect change).