4 ms·

> If your solution to vetocracy is to limit democracy then you aren't using democracy. Democracy becomes subordinate to the mechanism you are using to define th

by tomxor 3y ago

> If your solution to vetocracy is to limit democracy then you aren't using democracy. Democracy becomes subordinate to the mechanism you are using to define the limit. At that point, the mechanism that determines that limit becomes your solution. All large democracies use limiting mechanisms, you don't directly vote for most things - which would be a direct democracy, which tends to break down on all but very small scales. All western democracies are a representative democracy, this is already a limiting mechanism, not everything goes everyone's way, we vote for representatives, and hope that they vote for the majority of our interests the majority of the time. The core argument here seems to be that the catchment area of development (an already pre-existing limiting mechanism) is simply defined too broadly. I don't think identifying people who are genuinely affected from those that have nothing better to do between scoffing tea cakes than complain is worth while - So long as the area is reasonable well defined to not include too many people who are barely affected, then you don't have to worry about separating the tea cakes from the rest. This is not moving goalposts. The further normal people are away from a development the less shits they give because they have their own problems to deal with.. unfortunately that just leaves the people with nothing better to do, who will complain about literally anything because they already have a house and a pension, seem to have lost all empathy of any struggle they had getting there.

zoogeny 3y ago
> So long as the area is reasonable well defined to not include too many people who are barely affected, then you don't have to worry about separating the tea cakes from the rest. There we go again. I get the feeling you don't feel yourself asking for a magic genie here. Clearly you believe that there is an algorithm to determine a "reasonably well defined area" but are unable to provide one. My challenge is: please, provide this algorithm that will work in all of the crazy cases that show up, from the small to the large. From a slight densification of a suburban area, to a commercial development like a shopping center or business park, to industrial use areas, to an infrastructure project like a new bridge or airport, to a massive development like a nuclear power plant. I'm arguing that such an algorithm is beyond the possibility of man. You might as well ask for magic. But as long as you believe such an algorithm is possible, while also refusing to provide it or to sketch it out, you can fall back on: come on bro, it might be better than what we have now, trust me, stop being such a downer. In fact you can turn it around on me - like asking me to prove it couldn't exist! Meanwhile, my intuition is that any limits that are enacted to prevent participation will disproportionately advantage the existing elite and wealthy to the detriment of the middle and lower classes.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  15 minute cites have become a bit watchword among urbanists. I think drawing a 15-minute walking circle around a development would be a very reasonable place to start. Pretty typical walking speed is ~5 km/h, so roughly an area about 1-1.3 km. 1 km is actually a pretty big circle, so there would probably be room for multiple circle sizes based on the proposed development size. Adding 50 housing units is a 5 minute concern. Adding 1000 is a 15 minute one.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    Now we're firmly in the territory of motte and bailey. You can retreat to an argument based on "but all I want is to allow homeowners to vote on bike lanes in their own neighborhoods!" while dodging the harder topics that are really at the heart of land use. No thoughts on heroin clinics or other social services initiatives. No thoughts on sensitive land issues like protected water-ways. No thoughts on major regional infrastructure initiatives. No thoughts on industry needs (e.g. pipelines). Also not a general purpose solution to vetocracy. Now you just have an idea to handle squabbles in middle-class suburbs. That kind of thinking won't get high-speed rail built in California, so good luck.
- tomxor 3y ago
  > There we go again. I get the feeling you don't feel yourself asking for a magic genie here. Clearly you believe that there is an algorithm to determine a "reasonably well defined area" but are unable to provide one. A catchment area is already being defined based on some rules, it's not magic. That's the place to begin. It's not going to be an algorithm, it's going to be a poor bag of heuristics. Suggesting the existing method needs refinements is not the same as suggesting magic.
  - zoogeny 3y ago
    > A catchment area is already being defined based on some rules I don't know what the term "catchment area" means to you, but I have no idea how that applies in Canada. As of right now, there is no way that I am aware for me to vote on land use rights. That is, I am aware of zoning bylaws that define what I can use land for. The options that I am aware of are: I can apply for rezoning to an alternate existing zoning designation (including parceling out or assemblies) or I can apply for an amendment to the existing zoning bylaw. These are pretty opaque processes but certainly require involving the local district and they definitely involve public hearings, require public notices and invite public comment. As far as I know, no one locally gets a vote. So this isn't altering an existing process or narrowing it's scope (what I suppose you mean by refining), it is proposing an entirely new process. I can't speak for every jurisdiction in Canada, North America or Europe, but I feel that this isn't just re-drawing some borders. We aren't suddenly going to have councils at the 15 minute walking range, or councils for my street. And even if we did they are going to be more like HOA/Strata councils - which are a nightmare to behold. Further - this doesn't answer the larger question which everyone wants to dodge. For example, he talks at length about larger infrastructure projects like wind power and energy power-line corridors. That is a kind of thing that spans multiple jurisdictions. How does one coordinate that? None of that is thought out or proposed, just hand waved away as a "research project". If we are claiming a process to solve vetocracy - I want to hear about how you are going to coordinate land use rights to build high speed rail. How are you going to manage defining the list of who is affected by that? Otherwise you are just wasting time on toy problems that can be trivially solved in other ways.
specialist 3y ago
Between direct and representative is participatory democracy. AKA citizen assemblies, citizen juries. A diliberative body (council, legislature) selects a bunch of people (sortition), gives them a charter (scope of work), empower sthem to investigate (interview experts, research, dig into a problem). The assembly/jury writes up their conclusions and recommendations. The empowering body then acts or not. All work and meetings are public. Early experiences have been very encouraging.

by tomxor 3y ago

zoogeny 3y ago

> So long as the area is reasonable well defined to not include too many people who are barely affected, then you don't have to worry about separating the tea cakes from the rest. There we go again. I get the feeling you don't feel yourself asking for a magic genie here. Clearly you believe that there is an algorithm to determine a "reasonably well defined area" but are unable to provide one. My challenge is: please, provide this algorithm that will work in all of the crazy cases that show up, from the small to the large. From a slight densification of a suburban area, to a commercial development like a shopping center or business park, to industrial use areas, to an infrastructure project like a new bridge or airport, to a massive development like a nuclear power plant. I'm arguing that such an algorithm is beyond the possibility of man. You might as well ask for magic. But as long as you believe such an algorithm is possible, while also refusing to provide it or to sketch it out, you can fall back on: come on bro, it might be better than what we have now, trust me, stop being such a downer. In fact you can turn it around on me - like asking me to prove it couldn't exist! Meanwhile, my intuition is that any limits that are enacted to prevent participation will disproportionately advantage the existing elite and wealthy to the detriment of the middle and lower classes.

theluketaylor 3y ago
15 minute cites have become a bit watchword among urbanists. I think drawing a 15-minute walking circle around a development would be a very reasonable place to start. Pretty typical walking speed is ~5 km/h, so roughly an area about 1-1.3 km. 1 km is actually a pretty big circle, so there would probably be room for multiple circle sizes based on the proposed development size. Adding 50 housing units is a 5 minute concern. Adding 1000 is a 15 minute one.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  Now we're firmly in the territory of motte and bailey. You can retreat to an argument based on "but all I want is to allow homeowners to vote on bike lanes in their own neighborhoods!" while dodging the harder topics that are really at the heart of land use. No thoughts on heroin clinics or other social services initiatives. No thoughts on sensitive land issues like protected water-ways. No thoughts on major regional infrastructure initiatives. No thoughts on industry needs (e.g. pipelines). Also not a general purpose solution to vetocracy. Now you just have an idea to handle squabbles in middle-class suburbs. That kind of thinking won't get high-speed rail built in California, so good luck.
tomxor 3y ago
> There we go again. I get the feeling you don't feel yourself asking for a magic genie here. Clearly you believe that there is an algorithm to determine a "reasonably well defined area" but are unable to provide one. A catchment area is already being defined based on some rules, it's not magic. That's the place to begin. It's not going to be an algorithm, it's going to be a poor bag of heuristics. Suggesting the existing method needs refinements is not the same as suggesting magic.
- zoogeny 3y ago
  > A catchment area is already being defined based on some rules I don't know what the term "catchment area" means to you, but I have no idea how that applies in Canada. As of right now, there is no way that I am aware for me to vote on land use rights. That is, I am aware of zoning bylaws that define what I can use land for. The options that I am aware of are: I can apply for rezoning to an alternate existing zoning designation (including parceling out or assemblies) or I can apply for an amendment to the existing zoning bylaw. These are pretty opaque processes but certainly require involving the local district and they definitely involve public hearings, require public notices and invite public comment. As far as I know, no one locally gets a vote. So this isn't altering an existing process or narrowing it's scope (what I suppose you mean by refining), it is proposing an entirely new process. I can't speak for every jurisdiction in Canada, North America or Europe, but I feel that this isn't just re-drawing some borders. We aren't suddenly going to have councils at the 15 minute walking range, or councils for my street. And even if we did they are going to be more like HOA/Strata councils - which are a nightmare to behold. Further - this doesn't answer the larger question which everyone wants to dodge. For example, he talks at length about larger infrastructure projects like wind power and energy power-line corridors. That is a kind of thing that spans multiple jurisdictions. How does one coordinate that? None of that is thought out or proposed, just hand waved away as a "research project". If we are claiming a process to solve vetocracy - I want to hear about how you are going to coordinate land use rights to build high speed rail. How are you going to manage defining the list of who is affected by that? Otherwise you are just wasting time on toy problems that can be trivially solved in other ways.

specialist 3y ago

Between direct and representative is participatory democracy. AKA citizen assemblies, citizen juries. A diliberative body (council, legislature) selects a bunch of people (sortition), gives them a charter (scope of work), empower sthem to investigate (interview experts, research, dig into a problem). The assembly/jury writes up their conclusions and recommendations. The empowering body then acts or not. All work and meetings are public. Early experiences have been very encouraging.