3 ms·

>I have always wondered why we don't structure payments of some form to balance out the local costs of infrastructure etc. NIMBY is rational with the economics

>I have always wondered why we don't structure payments of some form to balance out the local costs of infrastructure etc. NIMBY is rational with the economics as they are; but would you really be as opposed to a local power plant if energy costs for the area near the plant were subsidized by some percentage? Balance out the local costs with a local benefit. I've seen this proposed for various things like onshore wind farms (e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60864097 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60864097), but there usually has to be a limit to the subsidy/discount/bribe - otherwise it wouldn't be viable for the company that wants the infrastructure. I saw something suggested in the region of 25% discount on electricity bill for people near such a site, for up to 10 years. I don't think that such a temporary benefit would be enough to convince me of having something nearby if I thought it was permanently detrimental to the neighbourhood or my property. (Not that I'm claiming to be a NIMBY).

eastbound 3y ago
> otherwise it wouldn't be viable for the company that wants the infrastructure. Well, isn’t that a proof that the benefit doesn’t balance the downsides? What if the answer were really “We shouldn’t build more infrastructure, we shouldn’t overpopulate this city anymore” ?
tomatocracy 3y ago
This actually isn't that uncommon for airports. The first example which comes to mind is London City Airport which pays for local homes to have noise insulation fitted[0]. I believe doing this has been a condition of them being granted planning approval to increase the number of flights they operate a number of times over the years. 0. https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/environment/noise-management-and-monitoring/sound-insulation-scheme https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/environment/nois...

eastbound 3y ago

> otherwise it wouldn't be viable for the company that wants the infrastructure. Well, isn’t that a proof that the benefit doesn’t balance the downsides? What if the answer were really “We shouldn’t build more infrastructure, we shouldn’t overpopulate this city anymore” ?

tomatocracy 3y ago

This actually isn't that uncommon for airports. The first example which comes to mind is London City Airport which pays for local homes to have noise insulation fitted[0]. I believe doing this has been a condition of them being granted planning approval to increase the number of flights they operate a number of times over the years. 0. https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/environment/noise-management-and-monitoring/sound-insulation-scheme https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate/environment/nois...