Why Regulate the Housing Industry?

Re “Put Teeth in Housing Laws,” editorial, April 29:

Once more The Times comes to the aid of housing laws which are questionable for many reasons.

Why does The Times think a partially regulated housing market works any better than a partially deregulated energy market? Both are the victims of meddling by the state for the benefit of its politicians.

The evidence is all around us and well-documented for the housing market. Perhaps the state Department of Housing and Community Development is no more constitutional than the arrogant Coastal Commission, which finally was put in its place by a judge who put teeth in the Constitution.

The main reason for our housing shortage is the lack of open land to build on, but when more of what little is left of that is removed by naming it a park or a wilderness, The Times is cheering them on, along with all the current homeowners who profit from the resulting increasing equities.

The best way the state could help with this problem would be to find out how federal land could be made available for people to live on. The Cleveland National Forest may have been a good idea when it was created, but that does not mean all of it still is. It is not a national park or monument; it is a yoke for the people who cannot afford to pay for this luxury. Surely this land could be used responsibly.

H.R. Richner

Costa Mesa