3 ms·
but if, as the OP article suggests, there is no lost value, then there is no incremental value to pay existing NIMBYs. Otherwise you're just paying people off b
by Tyrek 6y ago
but if, as the OP article suggests, there is no lost value, then there is no incremental value to pay existing NIMBYs. Otherwise you're just paying people off based on some subjective measure, which does not seem eminently sustainable.
Obviously, there are plenty of potential issues, such as sampling bias that may confound the article's conclusions, but it's not something to outright ignore, either.
- bananaface 6y agoThe problem then is you can avoid paying NIMBYs by manufacturing studies claiming they didn't lose any value... Which may be the motivation here. It's very easy to fudge a study, even direct analyses like this. I'm skeptical.
- Waterfall 6y agoOnly if you believe 1996-2006 is impartial information 14 years later and not cherry picked