4 ms·

Weaponized bureaucracy may be the #1 thing holding this country back, and I don't see a good path forward. Entrenched interests are just that, entrenched. Outsi

Weaponized bureaucracy may be the #1 thing holding this country back, and I don't see a good path forward. Entrenched interests are just that, entrenched. Outside of an extreme strongman gaining political power, how do you get past the plague of a thousand little fiefdoms all demanding their toll?

bluGill 2y ago
For starters, the city council and state legislator should set rules so that most things don't get a public hearing. You can't NIMBY if you are not even invited stick your nose in someone else's business.
- jobs_throwaway 2y ago
  100%. Issues with planing/zoning should be addressed legislatively and not on a case-by-case basis in a room full of geriatrics with nothing better to do than pull the ladder out from behind them
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    Public hearings actually sounds nice and democratic, if it's not just a simple vote but a proper debate with a requirement to provide objective arguments, where personal preferences and select issues (like cost of property going down) are explicitly rejected. In such scenario it should be possible to differentiate between NIMBY "I've got my things the way I like it and I want to keep everything just as it is, at least until I decide to sell" and sane "this is actually a bad idea to build and here's a proof why." It requires an independent and unbiased moderator and well thought out protocols (to avoid abuse), though.
    - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
      Problem is, only people with an excess of time on their hands can participate, which is totally undemocratic. Just because a bunch of boomers are retired and have nothing better to do doesn't mean they represent the will of constituents. People with jobs, children, school, etc are effectively not able to participate, which is why we have elections where these things should be decided
      - drdaeman 2y ago
        Good point, thank you! Move it online and make it async (collect the arguments for a set period of time, then debate it over), or that's too weird or possibly exclusive for non-technical folks? (And using traditional mail is probably going to be too slow for anything meaningful) The problem I see with legislative approach (esp. if it's a bureaucracy - unelected officials making decisions), is that they could be biased (e.g. lobbied) too, representing the interests of developers - which can be good in some cases (The Dog in the Manger NIMBY areas), but can be bad in other situations. There must be some middle grounds.
ryandrake 2y ago
I guess the best way (not an option anymore in many places) is to not let the bureaucracy take hold to begin with. Because once it exists, it will defend and expand itself forever. I have a friend who bought land in my community (suburbanish/ruralish California) with the intention of building his "dream home" and moving in. He's finding that the costs of permitting, studies, hearings, inspections, engineering, and other bureaucracy are about 1.5X what building the actual structure will cost. Granted, he should have done more research first before buying the land, but he didn't and now the land may just stay vacant forever or until he finds a new "sucker" buyer for it. It should be dead simple. Buy the property, start pouring the foundation the next week.

bluGill 2y ago

For starters, the city council and state legislator should set rules so that most things don't get a public hearing. You can't NIMBY if you are not even invited stick your nose in someone else's business.

jobs_throwaway 2y ago
100%. Issues with planing/zoning should be addressed legislatively and not on a case-by-case basis in a room full of geriatrics with nothing better to do than pull the ladder out from behind them
- drdaeman 2y ago
  Public hearings actually sounds nice and democratic, if it's not just a simple vote but a proper debate with a requirement to provide objective arguments, where personal preferences and select issues (like cost of property going down) are explicitly rejected. In such scenario it should be possible to differentiate between NIMBY "I've got my things the way I like it and I want to keep everything just as it is, at least until I decide to sell" and sane "this is actually a bad idea to build and here's a proof why." It requires an independent and unbiased moderator and well thought out protocols (to avoid abuse), though.
  - jobs_throwaway 2y ago
    Problem is, only people with an excess of time on their hands can participate, which is totally undemocratic. Just because a bunch of boomers are retired and have nothing better to do doesn't mean they represent the will of constituents. People with jobs, children, school, etc are effectively not able to participate, which is why we have elections where these things should be decided
    - drdaeman 2y ago
      Good point, thank you! Move it online and make it async (collect the arguments for a set period of time, then debate it over), or that's too weird or possibly exclusive for non-technical folks? (And using traditional mail is probably going to be too slow for anything meaningful) The problem I see with legislative approach (esp. if it's a bureaucracy - unelected officials making decisions), is that they could be biased (e.g. lobbied) too, representing the interests of developers - which can be good in some cases (The Dog in the Manger NIMBY areas), but can be bad in other situations. There must be some middle grounds.

ryandrake 2y ago

I guess the best way (not an option anymore in many places) is to not let the bureaucracy take hold to begin with. Because once it exists, it will defend and expand itself forever. I have a friend who bought land in my community (suburbanish/ruralish California) with the intention of building his "dream home" and moving in. He's finding that the costs of permitting, studies, hearings, inspections, engineering, and other bureaucracy are about 1.5X what building the actual structure will cost. Granted, he should have done more research first before buying the land, but he didn't and now the land may just stay vacant forever or until he finds a new "sucker" buyer for it. It should be dead simple. Buy the property, start pouring the foundation the next week.