6 ms·

one big problem is that elected officials are involved. these rules should be set and the application validated somewhere around state level. if the city wants

by pas 5y ago

one big problem is that elected officials are involved. these rules should be set and the application validated somewhere around state level. if the city wants to do their own thing, sure, they can set up their own separate system (to provide more funds for example in exchange for more/stricter rules), but that should be optional for the developer.

nobody9999 5y ago
>one big problem is that elected officials are involved. Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else. It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s Me? I prefer a dictatorship. But, of course, only if I'm the dictator. Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] [0] often attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Winston Churchill
- pas 5y ago
  I'm not even complaining, at best I'm armchair quarterbacking :) I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups. basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >I'm not even complaining, at best I'm armchair quarterbacking :) >I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups. Fair enough. My apologies if it seems I pushed a little hard on that. It's just that far too many people seem to take every opportunity to metaphorically roll up their newspaper and take swipes while yelling "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!" I'm emphatically not claiming that's what you were doing, but knee-jerk condemnation of "gub'mint" is far too common in the US these days, which makes me a little over sensitive on that topic. That idea is, at least in the US (and other democracies), ridiculous in the extreme given that we are the government, or at least we elect the folks who run it. I agree. There are many opportunities for conflicts of interest, arbitrariness and outright graft, especially in state and local government. That said, I'll repeat my statement from the comment to which you replied: You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else. If your representatives are inept or inefficient, find some folks who aren't. If your representatives are corrupt (here's a particularly lurid case[0]), then boot them out and prosecute them where appropriate. >basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature" Not sure how it is where you are, but we have separate "branches" where I live in NYC[1]. The Mayor (and myriad city agencies) makes up the "executive" and the city council (as well as local community boards -- at least in an advisory capacity) makes up the "legislative" branch. They are separate entities and, just as it is in the Federal government, no legislator can simultaneously serve in the executive branch or vice versa. I know that many (most?) parliamentary democracies don't operate that way, with sitting legislators from the ruling party/coalition serving in executive roles. That's just not the case where I am, or in most other state and local governments in the US AFAIK. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suic... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City
- mistermann 5y ago
  > Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else. This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals. > It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality. > Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring? >and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system. Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure? >We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals. Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public. Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system? >> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s >Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality. I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Unfortunately, while such an analysis is interesting, it doesn't provide real information. Rather, it only provides a platform for speculations that can't ever be proved. Stanislaw Lem made a similar "argument"[2] which demonstrates the (lack of) usefulness of such an analysis: Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way. > Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] >It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true. Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Perhaps you should learn more? Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad). https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-political-systems https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-pol... https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT01.pdf https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT0... [PDF] https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/wpf36governance.pdf https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file... [PDF] https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-economic-growth-democracy-myth/ https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-econ... In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])? I look forward to haviung a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that-dragons-don-t-exist-but-while-this-simplistic https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

by pas 5y ago

nobody9999 5y ago

>one big problem is that elected officials are involved. Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else. It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s Me? I prefer a dictatorship. But, of course, only if I'm the dictator. Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] [0] often attributed (possibly apocryphal) to Winston Churchill

pas 5y ago
I'm not even complaining, at best I'm armchair quarterbacking :) I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups. basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature"
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >I'm not even complaining, at best I'm armchair quarterbacking :) >I made an observation that mixing local politics with getting approval for an already set rules seems ripe for conflicts of interest, inconsistency, arbitrariness, predictably bad optics when local special interest groups get favorable treatment compared to less special (ie. poorer) groups. Fair enough. My apologies if it seems I pushed a little hard on that. It's just that far too many people seem to take every opportunity to metaphorically roll up their newspaper and take swipes while yelling "Gub'mint bad! Bad gub'mint!" I'm emphatically not claiming that's what you were doing, but knee-jerk condemnation of "gub'mint" is far too common in the US these days, which makes me a little over sensitive on that topic. That idea is, at least in the US (and other democracies), ridiculous in the extreme given that we are the government, or at least we elect the folks who run it. I agree. There are many opportunities for conflicts of interest, arbitrariness and outright graft, especially in state and local government. That said, I'll repeat my statement from the comment to which you replied: You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else. If your representatives are inept or inefficient, find some folks who aren't. If your representatives are corrupt (here's a particularly lurid case[0]), then boot them out and prosecute them where appropriate. >basically separation of powers is missing at the local level. the executive branch (ie. civil service) should be separate from the local "legislature" Not sure how it is where you are, but we have separate "branches" where I live in NYC[1]. The Mayor (and myriad city agencies) makes up the "executive" and the city council (as well as local community boards -- at least in an advisory capacity) makes up the "legislative" branch. They are separate entities and, just as it is in the Federal government, no legislator can simultaneously serve in the executive branch or vice versa. I know that many (most?) parliamentary democracies don't operate that way, with sitting legislators from the ruling party/coalition serving in executive roles. That's just not the case where I am, or in most other state and local governments in the US AFAIK. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Manes#Downfall_and_suic... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City
mistermann 5y ago
> Not sure why you're complaining about this. You elected those those folks. If they aren't doing it right, then elect someone else. This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals. > It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality. > Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >This kind of assumes that the system is actually/legitimately democratic, It's possible that I'm just tired, or that I'm just not so bright, but I don't really understand what you mean here, in the context of the discussion around housing inventories? To which system(s) are you referring? >and overlooks that one vote has the consequence (in theory anyways) of determining decisions on thousands of sub-issues. Again, I'm not at all clear on what, exactly you're talking about here. Are you advocating an Athenian-style form of democracy[0]? In case you're not familiar, that would be akin (although certainly not identical) to California's ballot proposition system. Do you believe that all laws, from Constitutional amendments (or the US Constitution, for that matter) to local sidewalk width ordinances should be individually voted upon by every citizen affected by a specific measure? >We vote for people, not issues, and it's highly questionable the degree to which the people we vote for are sincere in their stated goals. Yes, we do. And yes, no one can really know the mind of anyone other than themself (and sometimes we don't even know our own minds). That goes back to the statement you appear to be condemning -- [paraphrasing myself] that if your elected representative isn't doing their job or is untrustworthy, we have regularly scheduled elections to address such issues. What's more, we have mechanisms in place to remove elected (and unelected) officials who abuse their office or act in ways that are unacceptable to the voting public. Is that insufficient in your mind? If so, how, specifically, would you change the system? >> It's what's called "representative democracy." I hear that it's been tried in a few places and has had some minor successes. /s >Depending on how one measures it, ignoring that we tend to measure such things heuristically, on a relative scale, and tend to not consider counterfactual causality. I assume you're referring to this[1] sort of analysis. Unfortunately, while such an analysis is interesting, it doesn't provide real information. Rather, it only provides a platform for speculations that can't ever be proved. Stanislaw Lem made a similar "argument"[2] which demonstrates the (lack of) usefulness of such an analysis: Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way. > Beyond that, "democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried."[0] >It is an extremely popular meme (particularly lately, perhaps in part due to an extremely successful guerilla marketing campaign), but it would be interesting to know what is actually true. Then you're in luck. There has been quite a bit of research into this area. Perhaps you should learn more? Here are a few links to get you started. N.B., these are just a few, semi-randomly (selected because they address your question) selected items from the first page of a web search for "measures of success between political systems." I'm sure you can find much more if you're actually interested (rather than trolling -- which would make me sad). https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-political-systems https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-system/Stable-pol... https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT01.pdf https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:663508/FULLTEXT0... [PDF] https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/wpf36governance.pdf https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/file... [PDF] https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-economic-growth-democracy-myth/ https://researchoutreach.org/articles/political-systems-econ... In that context, what do you suggest as the least worst form of government? Or do you reject government completely (a la Anarcho-capitalism[3] or straight-up anarchism[4])? I look forward to haviung a robust discussion of facts and logically consistent ideas around this with you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-counterfactual/ [2] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that-dragons-don-t-exist-but-while-this-simplistic https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1132401-everyone-knows-that... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism