climate change. The goal should be updating regulations, not treating all regulation as equally outdated and therefore simply a hindrance without purpose.

developments or with contaminated water or extreme heat exposure.

I'm not against building more housing or wind farms—we desperately need both. But the 1970s regulations had real purposes, and many of those purposes (clean air/water, heat mitigation, flood control) are more critical now with

runoff. These aren't just conservation concerns—they're directly tied to climate resilience and public health.

The risk with framing this as 'regulations vs. progress' is that it ignores *who* bears the costs when we get it wrong. It won't be people like Klein or Yglesias living in poorly planned

requirements for street trees, permeable surfaces, and green space to try to speed up development. But surfaces with less vegetation can be 10+ degrees hotter than tree-lined areas. That means more energy use for cooling (worse for climate), worse health outcomes for residents, and more stormwater

I agree we need to modernize regulations to meet current goals, but I think the answer is *better* regulation, not deregulation.

Take urban development: some cities are removing

I'm not opposed to re-examining regulation, but many of those regulations are in place because people were harmed. Including by the govt.
And it's usually the same populations who experience harm over and over again, and they are NOT the populations that benefit the most from de-regulation.

and Oregonians are sick of it.
Sincerely,
A non-affiliated former democrat

This is disappointing behavior from House Dems.

We all know there's more than one kind of Republican. We should be building bridges with the reasonable ones and ignoring the extremists, not lumping them all together and pretending they're the same.

This petty behavior just makes things worse,