I chose chaotic good because I’m so annoyed right now with the continuation of the density bonus program that I just want to tear down the whole zoning system!
This is wonderfully presented in a format that could be 'TED-Talk' worthy in my opinion. This is such a playful presentation that invites me to think about all the juxtaposition components and the planning synthesis involved in any decision space. Like you, I must admit I am not a gamer either, but I am a chess player and draw parallels from your words. There is a tool here to be fleshed out as an invitation for participation! Nice Read :)
The insight about systems drifting rather than being explicitly designed for chaos is crucial. What's perticularly useful about the alignment framework here is how it separates intent from outcomes - a Lawful Neutral system that accumulates enough exceptions doesnt become Neutral Evil, it becomes Chaotic Evil precisely because the discretion itself is the problem. I've seen this play out in other regulatory contexts where every exception was justified individually but together they created an illegible mess. The hardest part is convincing people that "good faith actors" can still maintaininfrastructure for Chaotic Evil just by preserving optionality and discretion.
Great article. In a DnD Campaign that I'm writing, there's a sort of mafia that wants to maintain control over a trade route that runs from one large city to another. In order to do that, they bribe and threaten some local politicians in a small town to stop construction on a new dockyard. The politicians publicly justify their stop-order by claiming that increased trade and business will transform their lovely small town into something unrecognizable. Now I get to add the phrase "Modern Discretionary Land Use Regimes" to my campaign, so thank you for that!
A lot of housing commentary gets one thing right: systems fail when rules get complex, opaque, and disconnected from real people. No one will argue with that.
But when that critique gets applied across all of Texas... it misses the mark.
Texas does not suffer from restrictive zoning or cities arbitrarily blocking housing. We already build fast, at scale, and mostly by right. If zoning allows it and codes are met... permits are issued! That’s intentional, by design, and it’s a safeguard against cronyism.
Our real problem is who controls the game. All across Texas, developers routinely use MUDs (Municipal Utility Districts) to create taxing entities with no real voters, they install hand-picked boards through one-voter elections, and issue massive public debt before a single family ever moves in or purchases a residence. The homes may look “affordable” at closing, but the long-term tax and fee burden is locked in for decades.
That’s not a supply issue - that’s a governance failure.
So yes, simplify the rulebook. Fine.
But first, stop letting developers be the Dungeon Master.
Most Texans aren’t opposing growth. We are in opposition to a system where private developers control public taxing authorities, socialize infrastructure costs, privatize profits, and leave homeowners (both future and current), cities, and counties holding the bag...or should I say the bill.
Real reform means real voters before debt, independent local representation on MUD boards, transparency in financing, and accountability from day one. Until then, housing “affordability” in Texas will remain a mythical treasure which is endlessly promised but never found. Why? Because the rules are written by the Dungeon Master - the developers - not the players.
I chose chaotic good because I’m so annoyed right now with the continuation of the density bonus program that I just want to tear down the whole zoning system!
Defensible! ;-)
Cool idea!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed. :)
Ryan,
This is wonderfully presented in a format that could be 'TED-Talk' worthy in my opinion. This is such a playful presentation that invites me to think about all the juxtaposition components and the planning synthesis involved in any decision space. Like you, I must admit I am not a gamer either, but I am a chess player and draw parallels from your words. There is a tool here to be fleshed out as an invitation for participation! Nice Read :)
Thanks, Ron! Glad you enjoyed it! I thought it was a worthwhile thought experiment!
The insight about systems drifting rather than being explicitly designed for chaos is crucial. What's perticularly useful about the alignment framework here is how it separates intent from outcomes - a Lawful Neutral system that accumulates enough exceptions doesnt become Neutral Evil, it becomes Chaotic Evil precisely because the discretion itself is the problem. I've seen this play out in other regulatory contexts where every exception was justified individually but together they created an illegible mess. The hardest part is convincing people that "good faith actors" can still maintaininfrastructure for Chaotic Evil just by preserving optionality and discretion.
I'm here for it
🙌
Great article. In a DnD Campaign that I'm writing, there's a sort of mafia that wants to maintain control over a trade route that runs from one large city to another. In order to do that, they bribe and threaten some local politicians in a small town to stop construction on a new dockyard. The politicians publicly justify their stop-order by claiming that increased trade and business will transform their lovely small town into something unrecognizable. Now I get to add the phrase "Modern Discretionary Land Use Regimes" to my campaign, so thank you for that!
LOL. This is why I write.
A lot of housing commentary gets one thing right: systems fail when rules get complex, opaque, and disconnected from real people. No one will argue with that.
But when that critique gets applied across all of Texas... it misses the mark.
Texas does not suffer from restrictive zoning or cities arbitrarily blocking housing. We already build fast, at scale, and mostly by right. If zoning allows it and codes are met... permits are issued! That’s intentional, by design, and it’s a safeguard against cronyism.
Our real problem is who controls the game. All across Texas, developers routinely use MUDs (Municipal Utility Districts) to create taxing entities with no real voters, they install hand-picked boards through one-voter elections, and issue massive public debt before a single family ever moves in or purchases a residence. The homes may look “affordable” at closing, but the long-term tax and fee burden is locked in for decades.
That’s not a supply issue - that’s a governance failure.
So yes, simplify the rulebook. Fine.
But first, stop letting developers be the Dungeon Master.
Most Texans aren’t opposing growth. We are in opposition to a system where private developers control public taxing authorities, socialize infrastructure costs, privatize profits, and leave homeowners (both future and current), cities, and counties holding the bag...or should I say the bill.
Real reform means real voters before debt, independent local representation on MUD boards, transparency in financing, and accountability from day one. Until then, housing “affordability” in Texas will remain a mythical treasure which is endlessly promised but never found. Why? Because the rules are written by the Dungeon Master - the developers - not the players.