4 ms·

There are plenty of requirements in Conditional Use Permits that force entities to do things they wouldn't otherwise do themselves. These are generally to miti

by ghouse 6y ago

There are plenty of requirements in Conditional Use Permits that force entities to do things they wouldn't otherwise do themselves. These are generally to mitigate the negative impacts on others. For example, onsite stormwater retention and traffic mitigation. > Since they don't do it, that means it is not efficient enough. This assumes perfect market efficiency -- that everyone has perfect information and is perfectly rational. In my experience, that isn't the case. Additionally, Samsung is asking for a 25 year property tax waiver. It's a negotiation.

perryizgr8 6y ago
> There are plenty of requirements in Conditional Use Permits that force entities to do things they wouldn't otherwise do themselves. Ah, let's remove those requirements. > For example, onsite stormwater retention and traffic mitigation. Why do you think "entities" would not do these things without being forced? Do these "entities" not benefit from better traffic and managed stormwater? > This assumes perfect market efficiency -- that everyone has perfect information and is perfectly rational. In my experience, that isn't the case. OK, then let's fix that. > Additionally, Samsung is asking for a 25 year property tax waiver. It's a negotiation. No, it's not a negotiation. Negotiation can occur between similarly empowered entities. There is no negotiation when one side has the power to lock the other up at gunpoint.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  "Why do you think "entities" would not do these things without being forced? Do these "entities" not benefit from better traffic and managed stormwater?" Before you advocate muh free market, read about history of urban panning - we tried it, most houses didn't even have sewers. I don't want poop on the streets. More recently in UK over 100 people burned to death because a massive skyscraper was built with violations of fire safety, and then plasteres with more flamable material. Do these entities not benefit from not having the building they manage burn to the ground?
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    > I don't want poop on the streets. I doubt Samsung fab employees are going to do that. I don't get the relevance of this to our discussion. > More recently in UK over 100 people burned to death because a massive skyscraper was built with violations of fire safety, and then plasteres with more flamable material. Again, this is irrelevant. A parking lot, just by existing is not a fire risk. And even if it does pose some fire risk, putting solar panels and the required electrical equipment on the parking lot will only increase that risk. > Do these entities not benefit from not having the building they manage burn to the ground? No, they don't. Ask the owners of that skyscraper. What's your point again?
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I'm usually in favor of free market-influenced methods such as taxing negative externalities and subsidizing positive ones. So instead of forcing a company to install solar panels, the city could provide a tax incentive for everyone in the city to do so. The overhead of managing that could become large though, so I understand why sometimes more small scale and direct individual negotiations can be good. >No, it's not a negotiation. Negotiation can occur between similarly empowered entities. There is no negotiation when one side has the power to lock the other up at gunpoint. They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. It would be unconstitutional to throw people in one company in jail for something that's fine for others to do.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitutional_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitution...
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    > They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. "Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. > Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I am not convinced this applies here. Solar panels over the parking lot sounds like a solution to an invented problem. Parking lots are not harming the environment. If Samsung is paying for the land, they should be able to do whatever they like on that land as long as it doesn't harm someone else. This sounds like the typical anti-car communist mindset that I've seen many times over here on hn, which I find highly weird. Cars are probably the best innovation humanity has done in the entire history of the species, and I guess people are triggered by that fact?
    - Thorrez 6y ago
      >"Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. Your worst case scenario happens to all companies in the absence of the deal. So your argument seems to be more that taxes themselves are bad rather than the deal is bad. >I am not convinced this applies here. Sure, I might agree with you there. I was more replying to the part of your comment about removing all requirements that force companies to do things they wouldn't do themselves.

by ghouse 6y ago

perryizgr8 6y ago

> There are plenty of requirements in Conditional Use Permits that force entities to do things they wouldn't otherwise do themselves. Ah, let's remove those requirements. > For example, onsite stormwater retention and traffic mitigation. Why do you think "entities" would not do these things without being forced? Do these "entities" not benefit from better traffic and managed stormwater? > This assumes perfect market efficiency -- that everyone has perfect information and is perfectly rational. In my experience, that isn't the case. OK, then let's fix that. > Additionally, Samsung is asking for a 25 year property tax waiver. It's a negotiation. No, it's not a negotiation. Negotiation can occur between similarly empowered entities. There is no negotiation when one side has the power to lock the other up at gunpoint.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
"Why do you think "entities" would not do these things without being forced? Do these "entities" not benefit from better traffic and managed stormwater?" Before you advocate muh free market, read about history of urban panning - we tried it, most houses didn't even have sewers. I don't want poop on the streets. More recently in UK over 100 people burned to death because a massive skyscraper was built with violations of fire safety, and then plasteres with more flamable material. Do these entities not benefit from not having the building they manage burn to the ground?
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > I don't want poop on the streets. I doubt Samsung fab employees are going to do that. I don't get the relevance of this to our discussion. > More recently in UK over 100 people burned to death because a massive skyscraper was built with violations of fire safety, and then plasteres with more flamable material. Again, this is irrelevant. A parking lot, just by existing is not a fire risk. And even if it does pose some fire risk, putting solar panels and the required electrical equipment on the parking lot will only increase that risk. > Do these entities not benefit from not having the building they manage burn to the ground? No, they don't. Ask the owners of that skyscraper. What's your point again?
Thorrez 6y ago
Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I'm usually in favor of free market-influenced methods such as taxing negative externalities and subsidizing positive ones. So instead of forcing a company to install solar panels, the city could provide a tax incentive for everyone in the city to do so. The overhead of managing that could become large though, so I understand why sometimes more small scale and direct individual negotiations can be good. >No, it's not a negotiation. Negotiation can occur between similarly empowered entities. There is no negotiation when one side has the power to lock the other up at gunpoint. They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. It would be unconstitutional to throw people in one company in jail for something that's fine for others to do.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitutional_bans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#Constitution...
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  > They wouldn't say do this or you'll go to jail. They would say do this or we won't give you a giant tax cut. "Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. > Negative externalities should be regulated to some degree. Otherwise we could have a tragedy of the commons situation. I am not convinced this applies here. Solar panels over the parking lot sounds like a solution to an invented problem. Parking lots are not harming the environment. If Samsung is paying for the land, they should be able to do whatever they like on that land as long as it doesn't harm someone else. This sounds like the typical anti-car communist mindset that I've seen many times over here on hn, which I find highly weird. Cars are probably the best innovation humanity has done in the entire history of the species, and I guess people are triggered by that fact?
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    >"Won't give you a tax cut" translates to "pay us a percentage of your earnings, otherwise we will throw you in jail." So, I'd like to disagree here and say my original assertion was accurate. Your worst case scenario happens to all companies in the absence of the deal. So your argument seems to be more that taxes themselves are bad rather than the deal is bad. >I am not convinced this applies here. Sure, I might agree with you there. I was more replying to the part of your comment about removing all requirements that force companies to do things they wouldn't do themselves.