3 ms·

Are you against all new development of land for commercial purposes? Or is it something about data centers in particular?

doublerabbit 4y ago
Any new development that doesn't give back to the resources it takes, yes. If Amazon were to build a 400 acre DC and then contribute 800 acres of land as replacement, no problem. But 400 acres of destroyed habitat involving more air pollution, strain on planetary resources for a company which makes billions in profit and doesn't pay back. Where's the positive?
- leesalminen 4y ago
  It seems to me that if the people of Ohio thought that donating 800 acres to nature reserves was important the government could’ve made it happen. It would’ve cost Amazon peanuts, made legislators look good, and be good for the planet. The positive is pretty clear- there are still billions of people not connected to the internet. I believe internet access should be a human right as it provides educational and economic opportunities, connects people closer together, among various things. So, it all seems not so black and white to me.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > Any new development that doesn't give back to the resources it takes, yes. I learned recently about private land conservation: The idea is that you take a piece of undeveloped land you own, and mark is as a conservation area. This prevents development in perpetuity - the status is tied to the land even if you sell it. Enforcement is decently strong - there are lots of nonprofits that actively monitor these lands and report nonviolators. I don't have the source of the statistic, but one place I read that annually about 2.2 million acres are developed, and 2 million acres are conserved, so it is close to parity. (Owner gets tax benefits for doing this, but typically they'd earn more if they allow development).
  - leesalminen 4y ago
    I know of land owners who bought up all the property surrounding their house and got a land conservation easement. Not only do they get a tax break, they have no neighbors and the value of the property the house is on increases dramatically.
    - BeetleB 4y ago
      These are likely outliers. The value of all those properties they bought goes down dramatically with those easements, and usually the net would be negative with this approach.

doublerabbit 4y ago

Any new development that doesn't give back to the resources it takes, yes. If Amazon were to build a 400 acre DC and then contribute 800 acres of land as replacement, no problem. But 400 acres of destroyed habitat involving more air pollution, strain on planetary resources for a company which makes billions in profit and doesn't pay back. Where's the positive?

leesalminen 4y ago
It seems to me that if the people of Ohio thought that donating 800 acres to nature reserves was important the government could’ve made it happen. It would’ve cost Amazon peanuts, made legislators look good, and be good for the planet. The positive is pretty clear- there are still billions of people not connected to the internet. I believe internet access should be a human right as it provides educational and economic opportunities, connects people closer together, among various things. So, it all seems not so black and white to me.
BeetleB 4y ago
> Any new development that doesn't give back to the resources it takes, yes. I learned recently about private land conservation: The idea is that you take a piece of undeveloped land you own, and mark is as a conservation area. This prevents development in perpetuity - the status is tied to the land even if you sell it. Enforcement is decently strong - there are lots of nonprofits that actively monitor these lands and report nonviolators. I don't have the source of the statistic, but one place I read that annually about 2.2 million acres are developed, and 2 million acres are conserved, so it is close to parity. (Owner gets tax benefits for doing this, but typically they'd earn more if they allow development).
- leesalminen 4y ago
  I know of land owners who bought up all the property surrounding their house and got a land conservation easement. Not only do they get a tax break, they have no neighbors and the value of the property the house is on increases dramatically.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    These are likely outliers. The value of all those properties they bought goes down dramatically with those easements, and usually the net would be negative with this approach.