5 ms·

A lot of SV companies keep moving or talking about moving to Texas but is Texas really that billionaire friendly? Reuters says it is "perceived by some.." but i

A lot of SV companies keep moving or talking about moving to Texas but is Texas really that billionaire friendly? Reuters says it is "perceived by some.." but is it?

Conscat 2y ago
Texas allows SpaceX to illegally disrupt 5 endangered wildlife reserves, ignore rocket launch regulations, and illegally block roads, so perhaps that is some of the appeal. Last year the Texas government decided they can do basically whatever they feel like without any checks to their authority in other regards, so if Greg Abbott is personally telling billionaires he will protect their interests, I honestly believe he would.
- reissbaker 2y ago
  What do you mean by "illegally"? If the government allows SpaceX to block roads, then... SpaceX blocking roads is legal. What other definition of "legal road closure" is there?
  - Conscat 2y ago
    There are limits to when and for how long you are allowed to close roads for specific purposes, just as there are limits to when and where you can launch rockets of specific sizes. SpaceX ignored the rules, and nobody enforces them despite the protests from residents of Boca Chica. Obviously the Texas government agrees with you that the law is whatever they choose to enforce, but there are still written rules.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      And if the laws are on the books, it makes legal action against the state - as well as the offender - likelier and more remunerative.
      - Conscat 2y ago
        One would think, but the FAA consistently failed to do much more than submit letters to SpaceX, which resulted in the FAA themselves being investigated. I don't think much ever came out of that. Only in the past year has the FAA been actively concerned about whatever SpaceX does, and coincidentally, Elon Musk demanded the FAA administrator resign, who promptly did.
        kelnos 2y ago
        What's up with the residents of Boca Chica? I know suing a company like SpaceX is expensive, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't band together to cover costs, or find some legal team at a rights org to take it on for cheap or on contingency. They could also sue the local and state government to try to force them to enforce the laws on the books.
    - mainecoder 2y ago
      What SpaceX is doing is more important than Boca Chica
    - reissbaker 2y ago
      I'd be interested in reading about the legal limits to road closures, and reading about how they apply to the government and not just to private enterprises — since it's not in fact SpaceX closing the roads, but actually the Texas courts ordering road closures (for safety purposes around SpaceX launch sites). I haven't seen evidence that SpaceX is actually breaking any laws here.
  - jdxcode 2y ago
    don't know the specifics of this situation, but in general it's common for governments to simply not enforce laws making actions illegal but tolerated.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    Something can be illegal but not actively enforced.
  - exsomet 2y ago
    The basic premise of your post seems to be that the government has unrestricted power and cannot do (or allow to be done by proxy) anything illegal, but that isn’t true. There’s several hundred years of legal history of state and federal governments being taken to court and made to stop or undo actions deemed to violate the law.
  - nsriv 2y ago
    I see a lot of this sentiment around from tech people, and the underlying assumption is usually "if the government does it, it must be legal" and that is a really dangerous deductive baseline to operate from, regardless of your politics.
  - burnte 2y ago
    Just because a law is unenforced (selectively or not) doesn't mean the actions that law describes are suddenly legal. Texas is not enforcing laws with respect to SpaceX and others, but the laws are still on the books, usually to enable selective enforcement against undesirable entities.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > What other definition of "legal road closure" is there? Usually "legal" means "following the laws", not "someone high up told me it was cool".
  - bagels 2y ago
    The law defines what is legal, not the enforcement of the law.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    >the government "The government" isn't a single unified entity. Texas has a long history of playing bullshit games saying "We can do this" and the feds saying "no you can't" and the courts have to solve it. Texas insists that they have a legal right to secede. Any honest constitutional lawyer, and several founding fathers have addressed that point directly. There is no legal methodology within the context of the US system for any state anywhere to secede.
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  Dude have a sense of perspective. It's like 20 acres arguably degraded. Louisiana melts that much coastline into the Gulf of [Whatever] every ~hour~[1]. In exchange for being the world leader in spaceflight. There aren't like, vast stretches of unprotected coastline they can pick from. It's ALL either protected or densely populated. If you want ANY spaceflight, you have to give somewhere, and this is essentially the only place in the continental US that works. If you say "not good enough" for Boca Chica, you're saying "no rockets can be developed in the continental US". Just be honest. [1] Edit: day
  - zimpenfish 2y ago
    > Louisiana melts that much coastline (20 acres) into the Gulf of [Whatever] every hour. From [0], "The coast here loses a football field of land every 90 minutes." An American football field is about 111% of an acre[1] which means, unless there's been a radical spike since 2021, you're off by ~19.2 acres or ~17.3 football fields an hour (if my calculation hasn't gone wrong.) [0] https://earth.org/data_visualization/louisiana-shrinking-coastline/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/louisiana-shrinking-coa... [1] https://huffsports.com/football/how-many-football-fields-in-an-acre/ https://huffsports.com/football/how-many-football-fields-in-...
    - bpodgursky 2y ago
      OK. Sure. Louisiana melts that much coastline into the Gulf every day. I don't think this changes my thesis.
  - kelnos 2y ago
    "$X is worse than $Y so we shouldn't bother trying to fix $Y." Invalid logic, pleas try again.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > Let the people vote with their feet. And if they have 3 feet because they grew up near Love Canal: they can vote with their feet 50% faster! How great is that!
    - renewiltord 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      Intentions and consequences do not always match. NEPA was intended to protect the nature, but it has become a tool of NIMBYs to stop any development they don't like by launching vexatious litigations that aren't sincerely meant to protect nature. Other Western countries face similar problems: environmental laws are ruthlessly weaponized against anything, including affordable housing. That cannot go on forever.
  - dmonitor 2y ago
    I think it's only a matter of time before certain Americans are prevented from leaving the country for national security / population growth concerns.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
GoatInGrey 2y ago
It's more about the business environment. California has, sadly, gotten increasingly punitive on business activity beyond the remit of what one would consider "standard". Such as legally mandating the sexual, ethnic, and gender composition of boards (e.g. SB 826 and AB 979), conditioning permits on companies committing to community benefit agreements that go beyond the direct impacts of the business (e.g. funding art non-profits), increased regulatory scrutiny on companies following activities outside of California that the government disagrees with, and other such things. Individually, they're manageable burdens, but cumulatively it can get to a point where a business struggles to effectively operate as a market entity nationwide. Particularly for companies that are controversial.
- suzakus 2y ago
  But this is about where the company is incorporated (Delaware), not about where it's headquartered. The article mentions that Meta headquarters is staying in California (at least, for now).
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    Step 1 in get incorporated elsewhere. Step 2 is find political support to build an HQ (read financial incentives). Step 3 is move the HQ.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      You don't need to be incorporated in Texas to move the actual facilities there, so why is that step 1?
      - darth_avocado 2y ago
        I didn’t say you need to follow the steps. But this is the standard playbook for Billionaires seeking political favors and tax incentives. Incorporating somewhere can get you political favor, which in turn can get you tax incentives. If you’re planning to move your Hq (which is a multi year long effort), it definitely helps if you have the first two steps lined up.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
incorporating in TX is not the same as moving to TX Meta is incorporated in DE -- how many employees do you think it has in DE?
kelnos 2y ago
Meta isn't moving to Texas. They're just planning on reincorporating there (moving from Delaware). I really don't see or hear much of any SV companies actually talking about moving their HQ or (critically) workforce to Texas. Certainly it has happened, but this narrative that everyone is leaving California is alarmist nonsense.

A lot of SV companies keep moving or talking about moving to Texas but is Texas really that billionaire friendly? Reuters says it is "perceived by some.." but is it?

Conscat 2y ago

Texas allows SpaceX to illegally disrupt 5 endangered wildlife reserves, ignore rocket launch regulations, and illegally block roads, so perhaps that is some of the appeal. Last year the Texas government decided they can do basically whatever they feel like without any checks to their authority in other regards, so if Greg Abbott is personally telling billionaires he will protect their interests, I honestly believe he would.

reissbaker 2y ago
What do you mean by "illegally"? If the government allows SpaceX to block roads, then... SpaceX blocking roads is legal. What other definition of "legal road closure" is there?
- Conscat 2y ago
  There are limits to when and for how long you are allowed to close roads for specific purposes, just as there are limits to when and where you can launch rockets of specific sizes. SpaceX ignored the rules, and nobody enforces them despite the protests from residents of Boca Chica. Obviously the Texas government agrees with you that the law is whatever they choose to enforce, but there are still written rules.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    And if the laws are on the books, it makes legal action against the state - as well as the offender - likelier and more remunerative.
    - Conscat 2y ago
      One would think, but the FAA consistently failed to do much more than submit letters to SpaceX, which resulted in the FAA themselves being investigated. I don't think much ever came out of that. Only in the past year has the FAA been actively concerned about whatever SpaceX does, and coincidentally, Elon Musk demanded the FAA administrator resign, who promptly did.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        What's up with the residents of Boca Chica? I know suing a company like SpaceX is expensive, but I'd be surprised if they couldn't band together to cover costs, or find some legal team at a rights org to take it on for cheap or on contingency. They could also sue the local and state government to try to force them to enforce the laws on the books.
  - mainecoder 2y ago
    What SpaceX is doing is more important than Boca Chica
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    I'd be interested in reading about the legal limits to road closures, and reading about how they apply to the government and not just to private enterprises — since it's not in fact SpaceX closing the roads, but actually the Texas courts ordering road closures (for safety purposes around SpaceX launch sites). I haven't seen evidence that SpaceX is actually breaking any laws here.
- jdxcode 2y ago
  don't know the specifics of this situation, but in general it's common for governments to simply not enforce laws making actions illegal but tolerated.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  Something can be illegal but not actively enforced.
- exsomet 2y ago
  The basic premise of your post seems to be that the government has unrestricted power and cannot do (or allow to be done by proxy) anything illegal, but that isn’t true. There’s several hundred years of legal history of state and federal governments being taken to court and made to stop or undo actions deemed to violate the law.
- nsriv 2y ago
  I see a lot of this sentiment around from tech people, and the underlying assumption is usually "if the government does it, it must be legal" and that is a really dangerous deductive baseline to operate from, regardless of your politics.
- burnte 2y ago
  Just because a law is unenforced (selectively or not) doesn't mean the actions that law describes are suddenly legal. Texas is not enforcing laws with respect to SpaceX and others, but the laws are still on the books, usually to enable selective enforcement against undesirable entities.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > What other definition of "legal road closure" is there? Usually "legal" means "following the laws", not "someone high up told me it was cool".
- bagels 2y ago
  The law defines what is legal, not the enforcement of the law.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  >the government "The government" isn't a single unified entity. Texas has a long history of playing bullshit games saying "We can do this" and the feds saying "no you can't" and the courts have to solve it. Texas insists that they have a legal right to secede. Any honest constitutional lawyer, and several founding fathers have addressed that point directly. There is no legal methodology within the context of the US system for any state anywhere to secede.
bpodgursky 2y ago
Dude have a sense of perspective. It's like 20 acres arguably degraded. Louisiana melts that much coastline into the Gulf of [Whatever] every ~hour~[1]. In exchange for being the world leader in spaceflight. There aren't like, vast stretches of unprotected coastline they can pick from. It's ALL either protected or densely populated. If you want ANY spaceflight, you have to give somewhere, and this is essentially the only place in the continental US that works. If you say "not good enough" for Boca Chica, you're saying "no rockets can be developed in the continental US". Just be honest. [1] Edit: day
- zimpenfish 2y ago
  > Louisiana melts that much coastline (20 acres) into the Gulf of [Whatever] every hour. From [0], "The coast here loses a football field of land every 90 minutes." An American football field is about 111% of an acre[1] which means, unless there's been a radical spike since 2021, you're off by ~19.2 acres or ~17.3 football fields an hour (if my calculation hasn't gone wrong.) [0] https://earth.org/data_visualization/louisiana-shrinking-coastline/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/louisiana-shrinking-coa... [1] https://huffsports.com/football/how-many-football-fields-in-an-acre/ https://huffsports.com/football/how-many-football-fields-in-...
  - bpodgursky 2y ago
    OK. Sure. Louisiana melts that much coastline into the Gulf every day. I don't think this changes my thesis.
- kelnos 2y ago
  "$X is worse than $Y so we shouldn't bother trying to fix $Y." Invalid logic, pleas try again.
renewiltord 2y ago
[flagged]
- mcphage 2y ago
  > Let the people vote with their feet. And if they have 3 feet because they grew up near Love Canal: they can vote with their feet 50% faster! How great is that!
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    Intentions and consequences do not always match. NEPA was intended to protect the nature, but it has become a tool of NIMBYs to stop any development they don't like by launching vexatious litigations that aren't sincerely meant to protect nature. Other Western countries face similar problems: environmental laws are ruthlessly weaponized against anything, including affordable housing. That cannot go on forever.
- dmonitor 2y ago
  I think it's only a matter of time before certain Americans are prevented from leaving the country for national security / population growth concerns.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

GoatInGrey 2y ago

It's more about the business environment. California has, sadly, gotten increasingly punitive on business activity beyond the remit of what one would consider "standard". Such as legally mandating the sexual, ethnic, and gender composition of boards (e.g. SB 826 and AB 979), conditioning permits on companies committing to community benefit agreements that go beyond the direct impacts of the business (e.g. funding art non-profits), increased regulatory scrutiny on companies following activities outside of California that the government disagrees with, and other such things. Individually, they're manageable burdens, but cumulatively it can get to a point where a business struggles to effectively operate as a market entity nationwide. Particularly for companies that are controversial.

suzakus 2y ago
But this is about where the company is incorporated (Delaware), not about where it's headquartered. The article mentions that Meta headquarters is staying in California (at least, for now).
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  Step 1 in get incorporated elsewhere. Step 2 is find political support to build an HQ (read financial incentives). Step 3 is move the HQ.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    You don't need to be incorporated in Texas to move the actual facilities there, so why is that step 1?
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      I didn’t say you need to follow the steps. But this is the standard playbook for Billionaires seeking political favors and tax incentives. Incorporating somewhere can get you political favor, which in turn can get you tax incentives. If you’re planning to move your Hq (which is a multi year long effort), it definitely helps if you have the first two steps lined up.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

incorporating in TX is not the same as moving to TX Meta is incorporated in DE -- how many employees do you think it has in DE?

kelnos 2y ago

Meta isn't moving to Texas. They're just planning on reincorporating there (moving from Delaware). I really don't see or hear much of any SV companies actually talking about moving their HQ or (critically) workforce to Texas. Certainly it has happened, but this narrative that everyone is leaving California is alarmist nonsense.