3 ms·
And what about situations like the following, "‘It’s got nasty’: the battle to build the US’s biggest solar power farm", https://www.theguardian.com/environmen
by wahern 4y ago
And what about situations like the following,
"‘It’s got nasty’: the battle to build the US’s biggest solar power farm", https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-nasty-the-battle-to-build-the-uss-biggest-solar-power-farm https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-...
Unfortunately, I don't think people like Connie Ehrlich are rare, especially considering that you typically don't need much money to be as obstructive as she has. Yes, there are corporate-funded "grassroots" lobbying organizations, but when you look at how this stuff plays out across the country, it's not obvious who is using whom. (Also, from what I've seen following disputes over the years, most "grassroots" organizations that fight projects are fronts created by local citizens--or local citizen, singular--at least in California.)
The fundamental problem is that 1) local zoning laws permit too much discretion and 2) are too deferential to public input. These policies were supposed to be empowering to communities, but they're in tension with the principal of rule of law. Rule of law says that a community first makes the rules, then applies them in a principled, arms-length manner to individual cases as they arise. Contemporary zoning policies and procedures permit so much discretion that what we have is a system that effectively makes up the law on a case-by-case basis. It's a system that is fundamentally arbitrary, capricious, and unjust. It's also unconstitutional as a violation of Due Process (even under strict conservative definitions of Due Process), but the Supreme Court is deathly afraid of unleashing a tsunami of constitutional objections to zoning policies so has historically made it very difficult to appeal such cases up to the Federal courts. They usually languish and die in administrative and states courts if they even make it that far, because projects and their developers tend to be time sensitive (you don't spend money, even on lawyers, unless you have a firm time horizon on RoI) and also averse to antagonizing zoning boards.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
- wahern 4y ago> coal mine or a logging operation or a PFS factory or a highway it would still go through Actually, all of those things are just as difficult to do in jurisdictions where the public sentiment is given so much deference. That's why they're usually built in the middle of nowhere, or in jurisdictions which don't effectively grant the public procedural veto powers. (That said, mining and chemical factories in particular tend to facially violate zoning laws, as they should. Places where they're not clearly prohibited will also tend to be places where there aren't many people, and thus new construction would be expected to receive quick approval. Existing factories were usually built away from populations, but sprawl caused populations to encroach, and then you see a lot of tension with upgrades, etc, to the existing facilities.) This is why it's been so difficult to build a high-speed train in California, or why it can take decades to build any form of transportation, including roads, especially in populated areas.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoRenewable projects see this kind of opposition even in bumfuck nowhere, and where fossil fuel or highway projects steamroll their way through it, they get bogged down for years.
- somewhat_drunk 4y agoThis is just idiot Republicans being idiots.