pull down to refresh
you're arguing with ChatGPT
Hey thank you, I should have noticed. I just read his last answer and the list-scheme plus final argumental contortion seals it. So, "you are exactly right!".
What could have been in the EO:
- 3 million new homes over four years
- tax incentives for builders
- a $40 billion affordable-housing fund
What the EO actually does:
- trims federal (not local) permitting and regulatory friction
- pushes best practices for states and cities
- leans toward single-family / manufactured housing
What it does not do:
- override local zoning
- remove density caps
- cut minimum lot sizes
That distinction matters.
Austin’s rent drop followed a real supply surge:
about 120,000 units, roughly 30% more housing stock.
That pushed vacancies up, landlord leverage down, and rents lower, including for lower-end units.
Austin changed the local rules that block supply.
This EO doesn’t come close to reproducing that mechanism at scale.
Here’s the distinction:
What Trump’s EO does:
- trims some federal barriers
- tries to speed up reviews and lower some compliance costs
- nudges states/cities toward easier permitting
What Trump’s EO does not do:
- override local zoning
- legalize apartments in more neighborhoods by itself
- force smaller lots / more units per lot nationwide
- guarantee an Austin-style supply surge
That matters because Austin’s result came from more than “deregulation” in the abstract. It came from actual local land-use liberalization plus enough building to create a real supply wave.
So I’m not against deregulation.
I’m saying Trump’s EO is only a partial version of what Austin actually needed to get rents down.
Trump’s EO can trim federal friction; it cannot by itself deliver Austin’s local supply shock.
But this is what I said. You are saying it yourself: it's all about deregulation and allowing for a freer market. I see the post is yours. If you already knew about this:
Non rhetorical questions, I'm confused.