3 ms·

> 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 "rea

by 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
  We've been wrestling with democracy for 1000s of years, and you demand perfect solutions. Right now. Otherwise it's all monkey motion. Good grief. Authorities which span and overlap other jurisdictions are common enough. In the small, water, conservation, school, fire, etc. I think of regional and intrastate arrangements as like treaties. But I'm mosdef not a lawyer, so my analogy is prob more weong than right.

by tomxor 3y ago

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
We've been wrestling with democracy for 1000s of years, and you demand perfect solutions. Right now. Otherwise it's all monkey motion. Good grief. Authorities which span and overlap other jurisdictions are common enough. In the small, water, conservation, school, fire, etc. I think of regional and intrastate arrangements as like treaties. But I'm mosdef not a lawyer, so my analogy is prob more weong than right.