this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
237 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19238 readers
1936 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Over the past 15 years, North Carolina lawmakers have rejected limits on construction on steep slopes, which might have reduced the number of homes lost to landslides; blocked a rule requiring homes to be elevated above the height of an expected flood; weakened protections for wetlands, increasing the risk of dangerous storm water runoff; and slowed the adoption of updated building codes, making it harder for the state to qualify for federal climate-resilience grants.

Those decisions reflect the influence of North Carolina’s home building industry, which has consistently fought rules forcing its members to construct homes to higher, more expensive standards, according to Kim Wooten, an engineer who serves on the North Carolina Building Code Council, the group that sets home building requirements for the state.

“The home builders association has fought every bill that has come before the General Assembly to try to improve life safety,” said Ms. Wooten, who works for Facilities Strategies Group, a company that specializes in building engineering. She said that state lawmakers, many of whom are themselves home builders or have received campaign contributions from the industry, “vote for bills that line their pocketbooks and make home building cheaper.”

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 37 points 2 months ago (1 children)

there are people who live in towns that have been completely washed away, and they're still going to vote R

[–] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I am probably an asshole for saying this, but I wouldn't doubt that the Hurricane affects R turnout in WNC. Liberal Asheville and Boone will probably recover a lot quicker to support the election than all the smaller R towns that were hit.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 31 points 2 months ago

Their voters want fewer regulations. This is what that looks like.

Pointing out that elected officials did what they said they would do and pretending it's because of campaign contributions isn't going to change anything.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

It's almost like building regulations are there to protect the people at the cost of unscrupulous businesses.

But nah, regulations bad. Free market will reward builders that voluntarily do things right.

Suuuure.

[–] takenaps@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm a civil engineer in asheville & see this first hand daily. It's disgusting, land developers will compromise safety & environmental impacts at all costs to squeeze every penny they can get off the lot.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Damn, I’m a ME who does volunteer disaster response for hurricanes/floods in areas along the Gulf Coast, and I’d love to pick your brain.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

~~control housing costs~~ *maximize profit for corporate real estate investors

Fixed the whitewashed title.

[–] MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Where’s the requisite Vimes quote about boots?

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

The other day I realized that there is a lot of cardboard in my brand name boots. Not the sole so I can't feel the cobblestones.

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 10 points 2 months ago

Housing is cardboarded enough of late. You get good windows and great insulation even as your walls/foundations crack within the first 5 years. (Popped into the private group for the new subdivision down the way at the edge of town…the pics and complaints are not pretty. Oh. And the land they built on. The construction people had to redo an entire road between houses with people already in them because water cracked that road and bubbled up through it.). This is going to be a regulations battle going forward. I don’t think we want less regulation on these cardboard subdivision houses.

Repubs are going to scream that DEMs are preventing houses from being built by keeping current regulations in place. While DEMs are like ya, safety, find another way. Run on the problem, don’t find solutions.

I am keen to hear about this federal land thing the VP candidates touched on.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

Some contractors will do the right thing with or without regulation. But there are definitely a large number of assholes who will build only enough to pass an inspection, making regulations necessary.