4 ms·

The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different. To one person it can mean, "don't put the construction garbage in the river." To

by trimbo 3mo ago

The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different. To one person it can mean, "don't put the construction garbage in the river." To another it can mean "not one single Delta Smelt can be scared because of this construction." And because it's so flexible, in states like California where we have aggressive environmental laws, it's leveraged as the NIMBY trump card. When it can't block a project, the process is used to make it inordinately expensive and take decades. One example would be the environmental studies for the CA High Speed Rail.[1] [1] - https://ifp.org/fast-track-democratically-approved-transit-projects/ https://ifp.org/fast-track-democratically-approved-transit-p...

omgwtfbyobbq 3mo ago
To be fair, part of the inordinate expense is just because it takes longer for the environmental reviews (costs are in expected year of construction, so pushing a project a decade into the future can increase costs by 30-40+% (inflation + interest) depending on the specifics, even if everything else costs the same). That's why the cost estimates for CA HSR jump a bunch every time an administration hostile to it enters the white house.
- trimbo 3mo ago
  > project a decade into the future can increase costs A very good point. I don't agree we can blame Trump for HSR though. 2/3 of the time that has passed have had Democrats in the white house. HSR is nearly all pure-California-style self-inflicted wound. And honestly it's just the most visible project California has failed with, there are many others. The one I'm personally angry about is Prop 1. We're now 12 years after, and have no additional water resources even broken ground. It's shameful.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    It’s an fully intra-state train line in a state that has an economy bigger than France. California should be able to build an entire EU-style HSR network with zero regard to what’s happening federally.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 3mo ago
      CA can and did recently, but that's money that will need to come from and/or could have gone to other programs/etc. I think the most recent cut was $4+ billion in federal funds for HSR. It's going to come from cap and trade instead, but the state could have had both.
  - Danox 3mo ago
    Agriculture uses 90% of the water in California growing cotton, alfalfa and almonds, which are all very water intensive, Humans watering their lawn, drinking water and bathing, use a fraction. Note: The way they divide up water usage. They have a third category, listed As environment, but that’s misleading because the people who have the water rights can always use a lot more water at their discretion at any time. where as the common citizen cannot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
  - omgwtfbyobbq 3mo ago
    We can in part. Like you said, it took a ton of time because of environmental review, and that's on the state. With that said, construction didn't begin until 2015, and Trump pulled billions in funding in his first term in 2016 and did the same in 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail If CA had moved quickly, that wouldn't have been an issue, or at least as much of an issue, but because construction took so long to start, it was.
Spooky23 3mo ago
The deregulation stuff isn’t about nimby. It’s making nimby 10x worse by making it hyper local. That means poor people who are poorly organized get boned. State regulations tended to help with that. I live in upstate NY, the rebuild of the GOP here is around hyper local issues, mostly apartments and solar. MAGA changed the discourse and allows the rabble rousers to say the quiet part out loud. (Ie bike infrastructure and apartments will bring poor black people to rape and pillage)
- Dig1t 3mo ago
  Do you have any specific examples of how new state regulations actually eased the regulatory burden for building something? Adding new regulations at the state level almost never removes the hyper local restrictions, it just adds a new layer of compliance on top. How can the solution to burdensome regulations be MORE regulation?
  - yummypaint 3mo ago
    In NC there is a state rule that bans HOAs and local authorities from stopping people building cisterns to catch and store rainwater
    - digitaltrees 3mo ago
      I am in NC and didn’t know this. Cool. Where you be at?
    - Dig1t 3mo ago
      >State regulations tended to help with that. A law banning certain types of regulations at a lower level I would not call “state regulation” I would call that deregulation. I suppose I agree with you that the solution to burdensome regulation is to write new laws which forcibly deregulate lower level things. But calling laws like that “state regulation” is true only in the most technical sense. Your example is a textbook example of deregulation.
      - deleted 3mo ago
AlecSchueler 3mo ago
> The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different. I know, that's why we've developed all of these systems of representation to discuss and come to reasonable regulatory standards. But that's neither here nor there in regards to the point being made that people can still build things in a regulated environment.
- nradov 3mo ago
  In California at least we no longer build housing or infrastructure. Not much of it, anyway.
  - Danox 3mo ago
    infrastructure building is a bad word in the United States of America currently, Unfortunately, our major competition in the world is building infrastructure like crazy, but there is still hope, Because once that high-speed rail system starts building west to east or even east to west, all those areas in the middle of the country will change their tune. They will all be fighting on getting a piece of the rock, or I should say a piece of the rail. The only mistake California made was not including one of the adjacent states as a destination, be it to Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Portland, all of a sudden business interests and those crazy Republicans would be on board because they’re concerned about missing out on making money, which is basically God in America. I may not live to see it. but once they start going interstate with high-speed rail anywhere within the United States, the tune will change. It’s just amazing that so many people are short-sighted about it. More of that short-term thinking humans are famous for. Note: Those who think ahead long-term obviously have already bought land on both sides of the route of that high-speed rail line in California, and probably along the proposed route leading to Las Vegas in the future, and the same applies to any possible line to Phoenix or to the Arizona high plateau.
    - rayiner 3mo ago
      Blaming “republicans” for California’s inability to build a train line within California is an ungodly level of cope.

by trimbo 3mo ago

omgwtfbyobbq 3mo ago

To be fair, part of the inordinate expense is just because it takes longer for the environmental reviews (costs are in expected year of construction, so pushing a project a decade into the future can increase costs by 30-40+% (inflation + interest) depending on the specifics, even if everything else costs the same). That's why the cost estimates for CA HSR jump a bunch every time an administration hostile to it enters the white house.

trimbo 3mo ago
> project a decade into the future can increase costs A very good point. I don't agree we can blame Trump for HSR though. 2/3 of the time that has passed have had Democrats in the white house. HSR is nearly all pure-California-style self-inflicted wound. And honestly it's just the most visible project California has failed with, there are many others. The one I'm personally angry about is Prop 1. We're now 12 years after, and have no additional water resources even broken ground. It's shameful.
- rayiner 3mo ago
  It’s an fully intra-state train line in a state that has an economy bigger than France. California should be able to build an entire EU-style HSR network with zero regard to what’s happening federally.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 3mo ago
    CA can and did recently, but that's money that will need to come from and/or could have gone to other programs/etc. I think the most recent cut was $4+ billion in federal funds for HSR. It's going to come from cap and trade instead, but the state could have had both.
- Danox 3mo ago
  Agriculture uses 90% of the water in California growing cotton, alfalfa and almonds, which are all very water intensive, Humans watering their lawn, drinking water and bathing, use a fraction. Note: The way they divide up water usage. They have a third category, listed As environment, but that’s misleading because the people who have the water rights can always use a lot more water at their discretion at any time. where as the common citizen cannot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
- omgwtfbyobbq 3mo ago
  We can in part. Like you said, it took a ton of time because of environmental review, and that's on the state. With that said, construction didn't begin until 2015, and Trump pulled billions in funding in his first term in 2016 and did the same in 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail If CA had moved quickly, that wouldn't have been an issue, or at least as much of an issue, but because construction took so long to start, it was.

Spooky23 3mo ago

The deregulation stuff isn’t about nimby. It’s making nimby 10x worse by making it hyper local. That means poor people who are poorly organized get boned. State regulations tended to help with that. I live in upstate NY, the rebuild of the GOP here is around hyper local issues, mostly apartments and solar. MAGA changed the discourse and allows the rabble rousers to say the quiet part out loud. (Ie bike infrastructure and apartments will bring poor black people to rape and pillage)

Dig1t 3mo ago
Do you have any specific examples of how new state regulations actually eased the regulatory burden for building something? Adding new regulations at the state level almost never removes the hyper local restrictions, it just adds a new layer of compliance on top. How can the solution to burdensome regulations be MORE regulation?
- yummypaint 3mo ago
  In NC there is a state rule that bans HOAs and local authorities from stopping people building cisterns to catch and store rainwater
  - digitaltrees 3mo ago
    I am in NC and didn’t know this. Cool. Where you be at?
  - Dig1t 3mo ago
    >State regulations tended to help with that. A law banning certain types of regulations at a lower level I would not call “state regulation” I would call that deregulation. I suppose I agree with you that the solution to burdensome regulation is to write new laws which forcibly deregulate lower level things. But calling laws like that “state regulation” is true only in the most technical sense. Your example is a textbook example of deregulation.
    - deleted 3mo ago

AlecSchueler 3mo ago

> The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different. I know, that's why we've developed all of these systems of representation to discuss and come to reasonable regulatory standards. But that's neither here nor there in regards to the point being made that people can still build things in a regulated environment.

nradov 3mo ago
In California at least we no longer build housing or infrastructure. Not much of it, anyway.
- Danox 3mo ago
  infrastructure building is a bad word in the United States of America currently, Unfortunately, our major competition in the world is building infrastructure like crazy, but there is still hope, Because once that high-speed rail system starts building west to east or even east to west, all those areas in the middle of the country will change their tune. They will all be fighting on getting a piece of the rock, or I should say a piece of the rail. The only mistake California made was not including one of the adjacent states as a destination, be it to Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Portland, all of a sudden business interests and those crazy Republicans would be on board because they’re concerned about missing out on making money, which is basically God in America. I may not live to see it. but once they start going interstate with high-speed rail anywhere within the United States, the tune will change. It’s just amazing that so many people are short-sighted about it. More of that short-term thinking humans are famous for. Note: Those who think ahead long-term obviously have already bought land on both sides of the route of that high-speed rail line in California, and probably along the proposed route leading to Las Vegas in the future, and the same applies to any possible line to Phoenix or to the Arizona high plateau.
  - rayiner 3mo ago
    Blaming “republicans” for California’s inability to build a train line within California is an ungodly level of cope.