3 ms·

What's up with all the NIMBY's downvoting you? I'm also of the opinion that the penalty for accepting a bribe should be harsher than the penalty for offering on

What's up with all the NIMBY's downvoting you? I'm also of the opinion that the penalty for accepting a bribe should be harsher than the penalty for offering one. From the article, it looks like both sides are being prosecuted, which is good, but tax dollars would be more productively spent working on a simpler, faster, less restrictive permitting system, instead of taking down people trying to work around the broken system. For those who are happy about the outcome here, are you also happy when people who grow their own marijuana end up in prison? I feel like a lot of people are missing the point that a broken local government is the root problem, not people inevitably trying to circumvent the broken system. Although sure, bribery only helps the wealthy and connected get around the bad laws.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
monodeldiablo 3y ago
I'm a little surprised that there are so many takes like yours in this thread. I don't mean to pick on you, but you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here. I wonder, would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors? Building inspections are deadly serious, and when corrupt developers (who, in this case as in all cases, have the capacity to offer life-changing wealth to otherwise underpaid public bureaucrats) pay to cut corners, innocent people die. It took two to tango, here. The rich asshole paying to circumvent safety regulations is at least as culpable as the motion bureaucrat who accepted the bribe.
- lend000 3y ago
  > you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here No, I'm not. I don't advocate for bribery and the developer should be charged, although the prosecution's priority should always be on the person accepting the bribe, in my opinion. People are barking up the wrong tree because it's easier for some people to hate a rich guy than someone working for their preferred political party's government. That being said, how many fewer housing units would exist in SF without this rich asshole bribing his way into making the new housing complexes? And where is the evidence that there was something wrong with the structural plans that was causing problems getting the permit? If you knew anything about SF, you would know that having a perfect plan does not get a building approved. The problem is with the approval process. By being a rich asshole and unethically aiming to help only himself, he objectively improved the city more than most, because the regulatory process he was circumventing is horribly flawed. Can you rectify that with your black and white worldview? > would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors? This isn't a story about a meat packing plant -- this is a story about a city with one of the worst housing shortages in the world, and the worst homelessness crisis in the country. Some people have it so ingrained in their brains that evading regulation for personal benefit is bad that they fail to evaluate the possibility that the regulation is bad. Both can be true! One can be more important! Which one is more important can depend on the specific circumstances!

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

monodeldiablo 3y ago

I'm a little surprised that there are so many takes like yours in this thread. I don't mean to pick on you, but you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here. I wonder, would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors? Building inspections are deadly serious, and when corrupt developers (who, in this case as in all cases, have the capacity to offer life-changing wealth to otherwise underpaid public bureaucrats) pay to cut corners, innocent people die. It took two to tango, here. The rich asshole paying to circumvent safety regulations is at least as culpable as the motion bureaucrat who accepted the bribe.

lend000 3y ago
> you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here No, I'm not. I don't advocate for bribery and the developer should be charged, although the prosecution's priority should always be on the person accepting the bribe, in my opinion. People are barking up the wrong tree because it's easier for some people to hate a rich guy than someone working for their preferred political party's government. That being said, how many fewer housing units would exist in SF without this rich asshole bribing his way into making the new housing complexes? And where is the evidence that there was something wrong with the structural plans that was causing problems getting the permit? If you knew anything about SF, you would know that having a perfect plan does not get a building approved. The problem is with the approval process. By being a rich asshole and unethically aiming to help only himself, he objectively improved the city more than most, because the regulatory process he was circumventing is horribly flawed. Can you rectify that with your black and white worldview? > would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors? This isn't a story about a meat packing plant -- this is a story about a city with one of the worst housing shortages in the world, and the worst homelessness crisis in the country. Some people have it so ingrained in their brains that evading regulation for personal benefit is bad that they fail to evaluate the possibility that the regulation is bad. Both can be true! One can be more important! Which one is more important can depend on the specific circumstances!