Some of these seem like they could be blatant gifts to developers (depending upon the specifics), and potentially likely to be regretted in the long run. I haven't the time to parse the legalese, but the ones limiting construction defect litigation, and fees associated with infrastructure projects directly linked to proposed developments seem like potentially bad ideas. The former could also be problematic when combined with allowing single stair(case) residential buildings. There are also some other slightly iffy things, but those are the ones that immediately pinged my "danger" radar. Again, the devil may be in the details - which I admittedly haven't the patience to read through right now.
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
27 points (93.5% liked)
Montana
132 readers
8 users here now
/c/montana
A place to discuss everything related to the Treasure State.
Please be respectful to others and use common sense in regard to what you post.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah this sounds like something cooked up by the abundance "movement", who insist the solution to the housing problem is removing regulations. It's clearly an effort by moneyed interests, to misdirect the appetite for economic populism which exists in the Democratic party.