4 ms·
> In many ways, Jerry was ahead of the curve. He was lamenting “everything bagel liberalism” and “process over outcomes” before it was cool. Process over outco
by TulliusCicero 2y ago
> In many ways, Jerry was ahead of the curve. He was lamenting “everything bagel liberalism” and “process over outcomes” before it was cool.
Process over outcomes is a great way of putting it.
For example, California has a well known environmental law, often referred to as its acronym, CEQA. Intended to protect the environment, it was certainly well intentioned, and surely much of what it accomplishes is good. But as the Wikipedia article notes:
> CEQA lawsuits (and threats of CEQA lawsuits) are frequently used by groups that want to block a proposed project for reasons other than its environmental impacts.
> Carol Galante, a professor of Affordable Housing and Urban Policy at the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, who served in the Obama Administration as the Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), stated that "It (CEQA) has been abused in this state for 30 years by people who use it when it has nothing to do with an environmental reason, ... NIMBY-ism is connected to the fact that for everyone who owns their little piece of the dream, there's no reason to want development next door to them, CEQA gives them a tool to effectuate their interest ... We need to fundamentally rethink how the CEQA process works in this state."
> CEQA has been used by residents in San Francisco and Los Angeles to attempt to block homeless shelters and affordable housing projects from being located in their neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, the well intentioned process ended up producing some very bad outcomes that were not anticipated. Not only are some projects blocked for reasons that are not about the environment, those blockages can easily end up hurting the environment; the people don't disappear if you make it harder to do high density, infill development, they'll just go live somewhere else, probably somewhere more sprawly that's worse for environment.
- chrisweekly 2y agoReminiscent of laws a couple decades ago which intended to make cars more fuel efficient; a loophole / exclusion for SUVs led to a paradigm shift (upwards) in vehicle size.
- matthewdgreen 2y agoWhen examining any given political outcome, your first question should always be "how does this benefit people with large amounts of money", because that's why most of the things in our society actually happen -- particularly the persistent structural flaws. It can be absolutely true that CEQA was passed by sincere environmentalists. But it can also be true that the beneficiaries are wealthy property owners. If this law produced really bad outcomes for those people, it would already be gone/reformed. But it makes most property more valuable, so that doesn't happen. Anyway, I'm offering this because loads of people think this is some kind of left/right "process" dynamic that they can fix, when in fact if you fix the process dynamic those same people will find another way to fight you. And that's ok! It's possible to win! Just don't confuse yourself that this is some accidental screwup that you can easily fix, like a downed tree blocking the street.
- loeg 2y agoYeah, the entire result of NEPA/CEQA/SEPA legislation is mandated process rather than any specific environmental goals or regulation. They should be scrapped and replaced with specific goals and/or a government regulatory authority (like the EPA).