4 ms·
I don't think anyone in that situation is claiming a right(which would indeed be preposterous), just an interest in using their political power to deny, degrade
by tcoppi 10y ago
I don't think anyone in that situation is claiming a right(which would indeed be preposterous), just an interest in using their political power to deny, degrade, and disrupt the process of getting these sorts of projects approved if they are within sight of shore. They are perfectly within their rights to do that, and it is and will have a strong effect on the ability of these projects to get both funds and regulatory approval, which is why I suggested that they should be looking at sights not visible from land, of which there are plenty suitable locations.
- karma_vaccum123 10y agoCheaper and easier to just pass marine development laws that categorically invalidate their claims. If people want to move, let them. No one will. edit: for some reason I cannot respond to the child of this comment, but I recommend reading this if you think Bay Area NIMBYism is omnipotent: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-plan-20160514-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-brown-housing-pla... State and Federal governments override local concerns all the time.
- tcoppi 10y agoThat obviously won't work, since laws are subject to the whims of elected officials and constituents that can change them through NIMBY lobbying, and they need to get past those NIMBYs in the first place. See: SF Bay Area development restrictions.