Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-...
This is a social science result, not a meme.
Definition: Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
a) Previous government experience is highly valuable in private sector employees
b) Government pay is less than this value
b) affects regulatory capture in two ways: it allows civil servants the opportunity to get massive raises by going private (and incentivises them to be nice to future employers) and cripples the recruitment of highly talented individuals who are less dependent on industry advice. I don't think attacking a) is feasible in a modern regulatory state, but b) is readily doable if a government is willing to significantly deviate from standard salary scales for high-value industries. For example, SEC salaries would have to be much, much higher than Department of the Interior salaries. AFAIK, Singapore already does this and has very high talent retention rates. Even within the US government, it isn't entirely unprecedented, since an E-3 Navy special forces operator probably makes 8x the salary of an E-3 Army public relations specialist.
>Materialist capture, also called financial capture, in which the captured regulator's motive is based on its material self-interest. This can result from bribery, revolving doors, political donations, or the regulator's desire to maintain its government funding. These forms of capture often amount to political corruption. Non-materialist capture, also called cognitive capture or cultural capture, in which the regulator begins to think like the regulated industry. This can result from interest-group lobbying by the industry. Another distinction can be made between capture retained by big firms and by small firms.[11] While Stigler mainly referred, in his work,[12] to large firms capturing regulators by bartering their vast resources (materialist capture) - small firms are more prone to retain non-materialist capture via a special underdog rhetoric.[11]
It'd be easy enough to show that a future testing regimes increase the market share of domestic self-driving car manufacturers and push the market price up; less easy to show that it wasn't also in the public interest to have that testing regime in place.
This isn't a political statement as it cuts across both parties, which renders it all the more insidious.
I have worked with engineers that write technical regulations. They are generally focused on doing a good job at the task at hand. To think some mid level person that is hired into a normal job and never meets a politician in their career cares about campaign contributions is asinine.
What do you think the people at NASA and NAVSEA and NIST do all day?
The real byline is in your proposed commitment to trying too improve government process: you don't have any. You think it's hopeless. You're apathetic. Which is what everyone, pushing any agenda, wants from you.
If an industry or contractor balks at these ideas (and they do every now and again) there are several other larger modern cities a few miles away with access to the Interstate and train yards. These don't share the "historic preservation" codes of this little town.
If the town allowed a free-for-all on design it would wreck it's main source of income and likely cause decay over the years as tourism dropped off.
Why don't "tourism people" just pay people constructing buildings to use the colour "tourism people" want? That should be fair to both parties.
> Why don't "tourism people" just pay people constructing buildings to use the colour "tourism people" want?
That implies they could ignore that rule at any time. Reimbursement programs are an increase in paperwork, which many would simply ignore for convenience. This would give the town the "Tragedy of the Commons" problem, erasing it's historic sense (and primary revenue source), and it would become another run-down town like many others in the region.
Is that fair to those who invested heavily in keeping their businesses and homes in that area? Their answer is a resounding "No"
If somebody balks, just like this, there are other more modern and relaxed cities within a few miles that can accomodate their building ideas. These cities even have more access to freeways and trains, so economically it makes sense to put their businesses inside those cities.
Instead, the primary draw towards this town IS it's historical authenticity, and thus the people living there keep it maintained through it's building codes. There is no other reason why a business or homeowner would live in that area, so it makes sense to keep with it's character. If that's too onerous, then perhaps your motivations for building should be reexamined.
I lived near a small historic town with many buildings standing since the 1850s. Tourism is a HUGE industry that brings in dollars to local businesses. It's in the town's interest to preserve that income, so they mandate color and style codes for new buildings as well as restoring older buildings. This is complemented with many folksy festivals and re-enactments as part of drawing in tourist dollars.
When people balk at these codes, and they do all the time, there are several other larger and modern cities nearby where they aren't restricted in any design sense.
----
GOV: We know this law is overreaching, but we promise we'll only use it the "right" way.
... 2 years goes by ...
GOV: If you don't <plead guilty | accept this plea bargain>, we'll tack on a charge of breaking <this law that is overreaching>, even though you didn't violate what it's supposed to be about, and add 20 years to your sentence.
----
It's seen over and over. The US citizen's distrust of government getting more power than it absolutely needs isn't paranoid, it's based on the actions of the government.
--
GROUP: The regulation is anti-business, anti-freedom and massively outdated. We should sweep it all away and deregulate this sector as much as possible. The market will take care of the bad companies.
...2 years goes by...
GROUP: Do you know how important it is that this industry survives? Please give us some money to fix it. And some of the behaviour of some companies in our industry is unethical and dangerous and really should be stopped. Why didn't you step in earlier?
libertarians != anarchists
I say this as someone who has failed to even get a non-form letter answer from any of my elected officials state level or higher. I'm convinced that money is the only way to affect policy.