5 ms·

Maybe this is an additional component to NIMBYism, but I've often noticed how public works projects get derailed from a myriad of busybodies coming out of the w

Maybe this is an additional component to NIMBYism, but I've often noticed how public works projects get derailed from a myriad of busybodies coming out of the woodwork to halt the project based on some hitherto unknown concern. I can't help but think our public works projects are too public and it's too easy for some random Joe/Jane to have an outsized impact on the project planning.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
It is hard to argue with that. Anecdote time. My neighbors were petitioning against a library being built next to them, because: 1. It would add noise to otherwise comatose street 2. It would serve as a gathering ground for kids Both are true complaints ( and to an extent I would even say valid ). What happened was what seems to happen in similar cases. They were assured, the library would only remain so big, but those promises were quickly abandoned in ways not dissimilar to the way US handled Indian treaties.
- iancmceachern 6y ago
  But isn't #2 a good thing? Like what's wrong with kids gathering at the library, isn't that the whole point of a library?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Yes and no. They don't like kids gather, because kids gathering in their mind equals trouble ( and, well, some summers I did see a swarm of kids jumping over fences and stuff; we actually had to call the cops -- but you know, kids will be kids ). But I take your point, kids attracted to a library tend to be less likely to cause trouble. Frankly, any non-idle hands activity is better than nothing.
  - analog31 6y ago
    It could certainly be a good thing, but what strikes me from the description is promising one thing and building another. And I would add my own anecdote. The state decided to build a new office building by "selling" the land to a developer, who built the new building, that the state now leases. Also, the state passed a special law exempting this site from city zoning restrictions. The developer took out the parking lot and put up a multi level garage, for which they charge the office workers an annual fee. So the workers fanned out and park their cars along the streets in the surrounding neighborhoods, leading to congested streets and more traffic. The residents petitioned for "no parking" and "2 hour parking" signs along the streets in front of their houses. So now there's a 2-hour parking sign in front of my house, which I didn't ask for. My point is that an innocent measure to enrich a developer had a spillover effect into the entire neighborhood. And there's still a bunch of undeveloped land on the lot, which the developer will be free to do with whatever they want. This kind of stuff fuels NIMBYism and the need for precise specifications hashed out in painful detail.
  - scottious 6y ago
    That's exactly why NIMBYism is so destructive -- overall it probably would be a net positive for the community. However one very loud resident (I'm exaggerating a bit) says "nah, I don't want the noise" and then the whole thing gets stalled. But that library has to go somewhere. It has to be in somebody's backyard. Just not MY backyard.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      Is the NIMBYism that is so destructive or the fact that the terms of the agreement between were not upheld. As much as I don't see an issue with a library, I assure you after I learned of that story, I watch moves by my local city hall a lot more carefully since I know I cannot take them at their word. Trust is everything.
- datavirtue 6y ago
  None of these are valid complaints akin to their rights.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    I disagree. You buy a house in a given location based on its current or future properties ( say, relative silence of the surroundings ). If that property is altered in a way that does not benefit you, it could affect their property rights. For the record, I think library is a good thing, net-wise. I understand their line of reasoning though.
    - katbyte 6y ago
      By this reasoning nothing should ever change ever lest someone’s property rights be infringed?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        Well, that is basically why, as a society, we have devised ways to deal with disagreements over the nature of what should be. In US that does mean civil suits if all else fails. Not to search very far, in Colorado neighbors sued for lowered property values due to marijuana smell from dispensary. For better or worse, US property values do make a powerful argument for people to take their rights rather seriously.
    - burkaman 6y ago
      > it could affect their property rights. I don't think "rights" extend that far. That's like saying if you buy stock in a company and then a competitor does something to drive the price down, that's violating your property rights. It's a reasonable thing to discuss and bring up at a meeting, but it's not an issue of property rights.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        Yes, and note how many laws are on the books ( and how many scams exist ) that deal with falsely inflating and deflating the value. It is absolutely a property rights issue. Just because it seems minute to you does not make it less of a right.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
This sort of opposition is usually effected through the environmental review phase, as noted. It's a cleverly named little barrier that lets a lot of meddling happen — because after all, only evil people who hate the environment would oppose environmental review. In places like San Francisco, in particular, there are many "stakeholders" who use the threat of litigation in this phase to extract concessions, whether that's NIMBYism, or preferring union labor, or some "environmental justice" concerns that can only be remedied by paying someone's favorite nonprofit — it's a shakedown.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  It is legalized extortion. Every utility-scale solar project in California has at some point been sued under CEQA by labor unions looking for more money. Same for urban housing projects and "community benefit organizations" aka neighborhood shakedown outfits.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    > Every utility-scale solar project in California has at some point been sued under CEQA by labor unions looking for more money. Which union? IBEW (electrical, wireman not linesman) has solar project labor almost completely locked down, electricians assemble the racking and panels, run all the conduit, pull all the wire, and terminate everything. Site work/concrete/buildings are the only work that falls outside the IBEW scope. Edit: My employer does 8 figures worth of solar panel projects with union labor a year Second edit: So CURE is a coalition of labor unions that sue to hold up solar projects while they try and force the developer to hire union labor. That’s pretty shady, there’s plenty of work to go around for everyone, no need to do shakedowns to get contracts IMO. There’s plenty of facilities that only hire union MEP contractors because the job will get done correctly, nearly all Class A office space, for example.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      I was going to mention CURE but it looks like you are on it. The way I normally identify these anonymous groups is because they have the same lawyers as the unions.
missedthecue 6y ago
American Electric Power Corp found that they could produce renewable hydro power in rural West Virginia for a few pennies per kWh and sell it in Washington D.C. for about twice that. To do this would require 85 miles of high voltage transmission line to transport the electricity from WV to NOVA. Guess how long it took them to build this? 17 Years. Almost all of which was permitting and licenses. Construction took 11 months. Meanwhile, when China needed to buy greater volumes of natural gas, they set up a purchase agreement to buy it from Turkmenistan and completed a 2900km pipeline project start to finish in just 22 months. Obviously, we don't want to ignore civil rights, but it really is absurd that to build anything in this country requires you to retain half the state bar association for the inevitable endless NIMBY lawsuits.
- bombcar 6y ago
  The railfication and arguably much of the settlement of the West in the USA happened because the government said "here's a swath of land 20/50 miles wide, go hog wild". That type of activity isn't really possible anymore, unless the government itself steps in.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

It is hard to argue with that. Anecdote time. My neighbors were petitioning against a library being built next to them, because: 1. It would add noise to otherwise comatose street 2. It would serve as a gathering ground for kids Both are true complaints ( and to an extent I would even say valid ). What happened was what seems to happen in similar cases. They were assured, the library would only remain so big, but those promises were quickly abandoned in ways not dissimilar to the way US handled Indian treaties.

iancmceachern 6y ago
But isn't #2 a good thing? Like what's wrong with kids gathering at the library, isn't that the whole point of a library?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Yes and no. They don't like kids gather, because kids gathering in their mind equals trouble ( and, well, some summers I did see a swarm of kids jumping over fences and stuff; we actually had to call the cops -- but you know, kids will be kids ). But I take your point, kids attracted to a library tend to be less likely to cause trouble. Frankly, any non-idle hands activity is better than nothing.
- analog31 6y ago
  It could certainly be a good thing, but what strikes me from the description is promising one thing and building another. And I would add my own anecdote. The state decided to build a new office building by "selling" the land to a developer, who built the new building, that the state now leases. Also, the state passed a special law exempting this site from city zoning restrictions. The developer took out the parking lot and put up a multi level garage, for which they charge the office workers an annual fee. So the workers fanned out and park their cars along the streets in the surrounding neighborhoods, leading to congested streets and more traffic. The residents petitioned for "no parking" and "2 hour parking" signs along the streets in front of their houses. So now there's a 2-hour parking sign in front of my house, which I didn't ask for. My point is that an innocent measure to enrich a developer had a spillover effect into the entire neighborhood. And there's still a bunch of undeveloped land on the lot, which the developer will be free to do with whatever they want. This kind of stuff fuels NIMBYism and the need for precise specifications hashed out in painful detail.
- scottious 6y ago
  That's exactly why NIMBYism is so destructive -- overall it probably would be a net positive for the community. However one very loud resident (I'm exaggerating a bit) says "nah, I don't want the noise" and then the whole thing gets stalled. But that library has to go somewhere. It has to be in somebody's backyard. Just not MY backyard.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Is the NIMBYism that is so destructive or the fact that the terms of the agreement between were not upheld. As much as I don't see an issue with a library, I assure you after I learned of that story, I watch moves by my local city hall a lot more carefully since I know I cannot take them at their word. Trust is everything.
datavirtue 6y ago
None of these are valid complaints akin to their rights.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I disagree. You buy a house in a given location based on its current or future properties ( say, relative silence of the surroundings ). If that property is altered in a way that does not benefit you, it could affect their property rights. For the record, I think library is a good thing, net-wise. I understand their line of reasoning though.
  - katbyte 6y ago
    By this reasoning nothing should ever change ever lest someone’s property rights be infringed?
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      Well, that is basically why, as a society, we have devised ways to deal with disagreements over the nature of what should be. In US that does mean civil suits if all else fails. Not to search very far, in Colorado neighbors sued for lowered property values due to marijuana smell from dispensary. For better or worse, US property values do make a powerful argument for people to take their rights rather seriously.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    > it could affect their property rights. I don't think "rights" extend that far. That's like saying if you buy stock in a company and then a competitor does something to drive the price down, that's violating your property rights. It's a reasonable thing to discuss and bring up at a meeting, but it's not an issue of property rights.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      Yes, and note how many laws are on the books ( and how many scams exist ) that deal with falsely inflating and deflating the value. It is absolutely a property rights issue. Just because it seems minute to you does not make it less of a right.

fennecfoxen 6y ago

This sort of opposition is usually effected through the environmental review phase, as noted. It's a cleverly named little barrier that lets a lot of meddling happen — because after all, only evil people who hate the environment would oppose environmental review. In places like San Francisco, in particular, there are many "stakeholders" who use the threat of litigation in this phase to extract concessions, whether that's NIMBYism, or preferring union labor, or some "environmental justice" concerns that can only be remedied by paying someone's favorite nonprofit — it's a shakedown.

jeffbee 6y ago
It is legalized extortion. Every utility-scale solar project in California has at some point been sued under CEQA by labor unions looking for more money. Same for urban housing projects and "community benefit organizations" aka neighborhood shakedown outfits.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  > Every utility-scale solar project in California has at some point been sued under CEQA by labor unions looking for more money. Which union? IBEW (electrical, wireman not linesman) has solar project labor almost completely locked down, electricians assemble the racking and panels, run all the conduit, pull all the wire, and terminate everything. Site work/concrete/buildings are the only work that falls outside the IBEW scope. Edit: My employer does 8 figures worth of solar panel projects with union labor a year Second edit: So CURE is a coalition of labor unions that sue to hold up solar projects while they try and force the developer to hire union labor. That’s pretty shady, there’s plenty of work to go around for everyone, no need to do shakedowns to get contracts IMO. There’s plenty of facilities that only hire union MEP contractors because the job will get done correctly, nearly all Class A office space, for example.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    I was going to mention CURE but it looks like you are on it. The way I normally identify these anonymous groups is because they have the same lawyers as the unions.

missedthecue 6y ago

American Electric Power Corp found that they could produce renewable hydro power in rural West Virginia for a few pennies per kWh and sell it in Washington D.C. for about twice that. To do this would require 85 miles of high voltage transmission line to transport the electricity from WV to NOVA. Guess how long it took them to build this? 17 Years. Almost all of which was permitting and licenses. Construction took 11 months. Meanwhile, when China needed to buy greater volumes of natural gas, they set up a purchase agreement to buy it from Turkmenistan and completed a 2900km pipeline project start to finish in just 22 months. Obviously, we don't want to ignore civil rights, but it really is absurd that to build anything in this country requires you to retain half the state bar association for the inevitable endless NIMBY lawsuits.

bombcar 6y ago
The railfication and arguably much of the settlement of the West in the USA happened because the government said "here's a swath of land 20/50 miles wide, go hog wild". That type of activity isn't really possible anymore, unless the government itself steps in.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]