4 ms·

in the USA (South, I presume, since lakes freeze in the north) - big lakes are used for recreational boating big time. dudes just floating out there in speedboa

in the USA (South, I presume, since lakes freeze in the north) - big lakes are used for recreational boating big time. dudes just floating out there in speedboats, drinking bud light and waterskiing. said dudes probably would NIMBY the hell out of something like this, which would involve "no wake" signs, unsightliness, etc. etc. Could be great for drinking-water reservoirs though. if freezing and big waves/storms wasn't a problem, the Great Lakes obv. but with so much flat underused land in the west, putting these in water might not make so much sense. unless there are economies of being able to produce them completely in a factory with a dock and then float them into place. but unpredictable, violent storms seem like a huge asterisk.

breischl 3y ago
>big lakes are used for recreational boating This is a great point. Many of those reservoirs included recreation benefits in the accounting that led to them being funded in the first place, so it may not be trivial to impinge on them. >in the west, putting these in water might not make so much sense. OTOH, evaporation is also a big problem there (roughly a couple million acre-feet/year in the Colorado drainage, from memory) so mitigating that would be beneficial.
josefresco 3y ago
Let's be real here, it's probably not "the dudes" who like to fish who will fight this. They will be co-opted by rich waterfront homeowners, who don't want their view "ruined". For a real world example, see how fisherman and environmentalists have been used as pawns by the rich to fight offshore wind off Nantucket.
- kulahan 3y ago
  NIMBYism isn't exactly a hard desire to understand. Do you really want some random person messing with your several-hundred-thousand-dollar investment because it'll probably be good for you in some intangible way at some point in the future? If you refuse to accept the argument that people should have a say in how their life is changed, can you at least explain why this is a bad thing that doesn't require the context of the ultra-wealthy?
  - josefresco 3y ago
    Rich or not, placing your personal interests above the community to the detriment of the community is obviously harmful. In my area specifically it applies to affordable housing. Property owners have turned a blind eye to rising home costs (more equity yay!), enacted policies to prevent higher density affordable housing (among other things) and are now shocked there's no workforce and an aging population. But hey, whatever saves you another few hundred bucks on your tax bill right?
    - kulahan 3y ago
      This is a fine debate to have. Giving someone crap because they're on the other side of this argument (not the strawman of "saving a few hundred bucks on your tax bill", but the more generic idea overall) is what I take issue with. People have different priorities, and "harmful to the community" is a pretty nebulous idea at best.
  - samus 3y ago
    It really depends what the impact actually is. If it's only affecting the view or the recreational value, then sorry, some demands and expectations simply don't scale. And that is also valid for small property owners - there are too many cases of zoning laws that prevent cities from increasing urban density to combat high property prices. In cases where the reservoir was financed by selling pretty properties at the shore, then the whole thing is a non-starter anyways since the former would make it very easy to just sue the utility company should they touch the lake.
    - kulahan 3y ago
      Yes, I should be very clear that I don't want to protect large property owners with thousands of lots trying to protect their investments. That's a point where it's just the business's skill that's in question. However, most people will only ever buy one house. Or at the very least, they'll only ever own one house at a time (small legal overlaps not withstanding). It's a completely different story. That's all I'm saying.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

breischl 3y ago

>big lakes are used for recreational boating This is a great point. Many of those reservoirs included recreation benefits in the accounting that led to them being funded in the first place, so it may not be trivial to impinge on them. >in the west, putting these in water might not make so much sense. OTOH, evaporation is also a big problem there (roughly a couple million acre-feet/year in the Colorado drainage, from memory) so mitigating that would be beneficial.

josefresco 3y ago

Let's be real here, it's probably not "the dudes" who like to fish who will fight this. They will be co-opted by rich waterfront homeowners, who don't want their view "ruined". For a real world example, see how fisherman and environmentalists have been used as pawns by the rich to fight offshore wind off Nantucket.

kulahan 3y ago
NIMBYism isn't exactly a hard desire to understand. Do you really want some random person messing with your several-hundred-thousand-dollar investment because it'll probably be good for you in some intangible way at some point in the future? If you refuse to accept the argument that people should have a say in how their life is changed, can you at least explain why this is a bad thing that doesn't require the context of the ultra-wealthy?
- josefresco 3y ago
  Rich or not, placing your personal interests above the community to the detriment of the community is obviously harmful. In my area specifically it applies to affordable housing. Property owners have turned a blind eye to rising home costs (more equity yay!), enacted policies to prevent higher density affordable housing (among other things) and are now shocked there's no workforce and an aging population. But hey, whatever saves you another few hundred bucks on your tax bill right?
  - kulahan 3y ago
    This is a fine debate to have. Giving someone crap because they're on the other side of this argument (not the strawman of "saving a few hundred bucks on your tax bill", but the more generic idea overall) is what I take issue with. People have different priorities, and "harmful to the community" is a pretty nebulous idea at best.
- samus 3y ago
  It really depends what the impact actually is. If it's only affecting the view or the recreational value, then sorry, some demands and expectations simply don't scale. And that is also valid for small property owners - there are too many cases of zoning laws that prevent cities from increasing urban density to combat high property prices. In cases where the reservoir was financed by selling pretty properties at the shore, then the whole thing is a non-starter anyways since the former would make it very easy to just sue the utility company should they touch the lake.
  - kulahan 3y ago
    Yes, I should be very clear that I don't want to protect large property owners with thousands of lots trying to protect their investments. That's a point where it's just the business's skill that's in question. However, most people will only ever buy one house. Or at the very least, they'll only ever own one house at a time (small legal overlaps not withstanding). It's a completely different story. That's all I'm saying.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]