3 ms·
I'd imagine the tradeoff here is that impact studies allow for more variation, while generally clear checklists might need to include overgenerally strict items
by wwweston 4y ago
I'd imagine the tradeoff here is that impact studies allow for more variation, while generally clear checklists might need to include overgenerally strict items in order to prevent problems that might only be applicable in a few situations.
I suppose the middle ground would be automatic green light for developers who can tick off every box on the overgeneral checklist + impact studies for people who want exceptions.
- jjoonathan 4y agoHow is that a middle ground? How does it address the "snooze forever" exploit?
- wwweston 4y agoThe overall endpoints for this discussion are "no oversight, laissez faire all the development!" and "no development, snooze forever." The endpoints suggested by the comment I responded to were "impact study" (with risks of indefinite timeline) and "greenlight checklist." I responded with this suggestion: greenlight checklist, with the option for impact study to justify exceptions to that checklist. Would-be builders get a choice between the two. The reasoning is that any greenlight checklist that's sufficient to do the job of custom impact studies will probably need to impose requirements that may not be practically necessary for every project. So, let people choose to check all the boxes (even some that might not be strictly necessary in order to avoid negative impacts) OR have a custom impact study done in order to receive specific exceptions. How is that not middle ground in between either set of endpoints?