3 ms·

> even in a situation where it ultimately makes economic sense. For me, one of the nice things about living in Washington State is that the choice that makes t

> even in a situation where it ultimately makes economic sense. For me, one of the nice things about living in Washington State is that the choice that makes the most economic sense is not always the one that is chosen. It would make a lot of economic sense for Seattle to sell off huge chunks of its massive parks system, but that doesn't happen. Tree removal and water protection ordinances are the norm and they are, by and large, enforced. There's a healthy respect for the nature found all over the state. (I'm not arguing that "not following the economic choice" is the majority outcome; far from it. But coming from a state that lived up to the rule of streets in suburbs--bulldoze all of the trees and name streets after them--and pushes its Congressional delegation for exemptions from environmental rules in order to get man-made lakes built, it's a nice change.)

eru 11y ago
Oh, economic rationality is a pretty weak constraint. Keeping your parks makes perfect economic sense---you'll just have to be aware that they are part of your consumption spending and account for them as such. (And ultimately, all economic activity is to produce consumables one way or another.)
- deciplex 11y ago
  Moreover, even if some powerful lobby were able to show that it will derive modest benefits from bulldozing all of Seattle's parks and replacing them with temples of consumerism, it doesn't follow that doing so would make economic sense for the people of Seattle or the people of Washington in the main, once negative externalities are taken into account. It's not that you can't put a price on nature, it's more that humans don't do a good job of it when they even try, and law that takes this fact into account is good law.
RyJones 11y ago
Are you familiar with the AIPP? I hadn't heard of it before I moved here. http://www.arts.wa.gov/public-art http://www.arts.wa.gov/public-art
- techsupporter 11y ago
  Yep. Seattle, King County, and Sound Transit all have local public art projects and I think that's awesome.

eru 11y ago

Oh, economic rationality is a pretty weak constraint. Keeping your parks makes perfect economic sense---you'll just have to be aware that they are part of your consumption spending and account for them as such. (And ultimately, all economic activity is to produce consumables one way or another.)

deciplex 11y ago
Moreover, even if some powerful lobby were able to show that it will derive modest benefits from bulldozing all of Seattle's parks and replacing them with temples of consumerism, it doesn't follow that doing so would make economic sense for the people of Seattle or the people of Washington in the main, once negative externalities are taken into account. It's not that you can't put a price on nature, it's more that humans don't do a good job of it when they even try, and law that takes this fact into account is good law.

RyJones 11y ago

Are you familiar with the AIPP? I hadn't heard of it before I moved here. http://www.arts.wa.gov/public-art http://www.arts.wa.gov/public-art

techsupporter 11y ago
Yep. Seattle, King County, and Sound Transit all have local public art projects and I think that's awesome.