3 ms·

That was my read as well: > ...the site had gone through a long approval process, which required public notices and public-comment periods. However, when Gilro

by ovao 2mo ago

That was my read as well: > ...the site had gone through a long approval process, which required public notices and public-comment periods. However, when Gilroy resident Rosa Rodriguez wanted to state her concern about the damage a data center can do to a region suffering from drought, she was told that the comment period had already lapsed in 2024 Is the "circumvention" the headline refers to that public commentary periods are time-boxed? But how could they not be time-boxed? In fairness to the residents, the negative implications of data centers was probably not well known to them in 2024, but it seems to me that (at least based on the article) all the processes & rules were followed.

aragilar 2mo ago
But if new evidence comes in which changes the basis for approval (e.g. lets say you need to do some earthworks and as part of performing them it becomes apparent these earthworks will damage nearby buildings), presumably the approval can be revoked until suitable changes can be made (or if that's not possible, the approval no longer holds)? The linked Wall Street Journal appears to give more details, suggesting this went through a fast-track process (with seemingly minimum community input). I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation (given it's likely more expensive in the long run).
- ianm218 2mo ago
  > I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation Building infrastructure and housing in the US is painfully slow and a huge tax on everyone, almost everything should be fast tracked. We have some of the most productive economic zones in the world (SF <-> LA, Boston <-> DC corridor) and we have made it largely illegal to build housing and transit in these areas due to bureaucracy and red tape. Do you think the high speed rail between SF and LA needs more rounds of community input?
  - aragilar 2mo ago
    I'm not aware of the issues with the SF <-> LA high speed rail, but I had in mind https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-30/many-factors-behind-tunnel-collapse/1720638 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-30/many-factors-behind-t... (where an apartment block started collapsing causing the whole of northern Sydney to lock up for multiple days, delays to the project which nearly bankrupted the owners, and residents naturally suffered significantly) and https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-19/nsw-government-strikes-deal-to-resume-m6-tunnelling/106817332 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-19/nsw-government-strike... (which hasn't caused as many issues thankfully). Both were pushed through quickly and suffered for it. As for fast tracking, there's a reason property developers are banned from donating to political parties here (corruption findings relating to property developers are fairly common, the latest one has caught up the opposition leader of Australia). Make the process open, make it fair, have a proper plan and then less money need be wasted.
- tyre 2mo ago
  I would take fast-tracking high speed rail over community consultation.

by ovao 2mo ago

aragilar 2mo ago

But if new evidence comes in which changes the basis for approval (e.g. lets say you need to do some earthworks and as part of performing them it becomes apparent these earthworks will damage nearby buildings), presumably the approval can be revoked until suitable changes can be made (or if that's not possible, the approval no longer holds)? The linked Wall Street Journal appears to give more details, suggesting this went through a fast-track process (with seemingly minimum community input). I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation (given it's likely more expensive in the long run).

ianm218 2mo ago
> I'd argue fast-tracking projects is always a bad idea, as is trying to route around community consultation Building infrastructure and housing in the US is painfully slow and a huge tax on everyone, almost everything should be fast tracked. We have some of the most productive economic zones in the world (SF <-> LA, Boston <-> DC corridor) and we have made it largely illegal to build housing and transit in these areas due to bureaucracy and red tape. Do you think the high speed rail between SF and LA needs more rounds of community input?
- aragilar 2mo ago
  I'm not aware of the issues with the SF <-> LA high speed rail, but I had in mind https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-30/many-factors-behind-tunnel-collapse/1720638 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-03-30/many-factors-behind-t... (where an apartment block started collapsing causing the whole of northern Sydney to lock up for multiple days, delays to the project which nearly bankrupted the owners, and residents naturally suffered significantly) and https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-19/nsw-government-strikes-deal-to-resume-m6-tunnelling/106817332 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-19/nsw-government-strike... (which hasn't caused as many issues thankfully). Both were pushed through quickly and suffered for it. As for fast tracking, there's a reason property developers are banned from donating to political parties here (corruption findings relating to property developers are fairly common, the latest one has caught up the opposition leader of Australia). Make the process open, make it fair, have a proper plan and then less money need be wasted.
tyre 2mo ago
I would take fast-tracking high speed rail over community consultation.