4 ms·

Why is skipping public review bad news for everyone? Public review is a blight on the democratic process. Instead of having a set of democratically established

by dcosson 23d ago

Why is skipping public review bad news for everyone? Public review is a blight on the democratic process. Instead of having a set of democratically established laws and regulations that apply fairly to everyone, a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands can stop anyone they don't like from doing something that is perfectly legal. It's an incredibly dumb process and bypassing it is good, actually. It also has nothing at all to do with whether the environmental regulations themselves are being followed.

nozzlegear 23d ago
> Public review is a blight on the democratic process. Instead of having a set of democratically established laws and regulations that apply fairly to everyone, a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands can stop anyone they don't like from doing something that is perfectly legal. We're talking about data centers, which are deeply unpopular with just about everyone. It's laughable to suggest that skipping public review is a good thing here, because it's only going to result in data centers being sneakily approved contrary to the overwhelming desire of constituents. We can ruminate all day on whether public comments or public review is useful in the grand scheme, but the realpolitik of the situation is that – barring possession of a time machine to go back and elect different representation – it's one of the few levers that constituents have to prevent data centers from moving into their area. https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-centers https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-cen...
- PKop 23d ago
  > which are deeply unpopular with just about everyone. Speak for yourself. Plenty of people support them. The technological progress and economic benefits they bring are good for our country. But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue?
  - bix6 23d ago
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-centers-area.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-ce... 70% opposition and people who strongly support (7%) continues to decrease. I guess that’s plenty in absolute numbers. But even the Iran war has more supporters than that.
  - nozzlegear 23d ago
    > Speak for yourself. Plenty of people support them. Your definition of "plenty" does not match up with the accepted definition. > But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue? Have you stopped beating your wife?
tptacek 23d ago
I think you have to actually do local politics (I'm assuming you do) to really get just how fucked public comment is as a process, and I think this is an important and useful thing to talk about that just won't be possible to talk about in a data center thread, because of the political valence data centers have taken on.
- quacked 23d ago
  I live near a small town of about 10,000 people that's about 30 minutes away from a "hot commodity" city. The crown jewel of this small town is the main street, which retains a bit of kitschy Americana that has remained charming for decades and even draws tourists, for whatever reason. A local business owner bought up one of the blocks in the center of the street and announced plans to demolish it in order to build a 5-over-1 complex several stories higher than any of the other buildings. Without the public comment process, he'd have been able to do this practically overnight, completely ruining the street. The public fought back long and hard for many months and eventually won by convincing the town council to vote against the rezoning that would permit this construction. I can't say I'm opposed to the public comment process. (Note that this was not a case of never-change NIMBYism; tons of other similar buildings are going up all over the town completely unopposed. It was the ugly, generic design and the sheer size put so blatantly in the middle of everyone's favorite part of town.)
  - tptacek 23d ago
    I don't know, this sure sounds like NIMBYism to me. Public comment was used to organize against multifamily housing units. That's approximately the whole story; I think you pretty much just have to add "organizing against new renewable and grid upgrades" to complete it.
    - quacked 23d ago
      They weren't multifamily units.
      - 23d ago
GrinningFool 23d ago
Seems to me public review is a failsafe - an acknowledgement that laws and regs can't always keep up with real life harms.
- ip26 23d ago
  You can't give all citizens effective veto power and then expect it will only be used for good in cases where the law is behind.
  - nielsbot 23d ago
    Right. But what about the cases it is used for good?
    - none2585 23d ago
      Hey man Sam and Elon gotta eat
    - Dylan16807 23d ago
      In many environments it ends up acting like a generic "don't build things" mandate. Such a mandate's wins are by accident more often than by target, and it does more harm than good.
      - wredcoll 22d ago
        I mean, this is way too vague to really talk about usefully, but like, adding some friction to certain processes can be pretty useful.
        Dylan16807 22d ago
        While that is true, the current default situation in the US is way too far on the anti-build side.
- tptacek 23d ago
  Public review in practice is a mechanism for concentrated local interest groups that don't have enough democratic legitimacy to win at the ballot box to instead win via a series of Tuesday night meetings normal people don't go to. There's literature on this: public comment overwhelmingly trends negative. People show up to prevent change. They rarely show up to support it, even if they do support it; normal people feel, reasonably, that their civic responsibility is to vote in actual elections for the policy they support, not to spend their life in City Hall jawboning.
autoexec 23d ago
"The public having access to information on what corporations plan to do in their communities and having the ability to vote to against what corporations want is a blight on the democratic process" is a crazy stance to take. What you call "a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands" I call "We the People" and it should fall to them to decide what happens in their own communities. It's legal for me to put a hot tub in my living room. My family doesn't have to let me put it there. It's legal to pave over city park in my community and turn them into parking lots, but the people in my city should have a say in that.
mullingitover 23d ago
Wait, we're talking about public comment. That doesn't give anyone veto power, the worst people can do is say mean comments and make the listeners feel bad before they do the thing anyway. Moving to cut off comments is simply breathtaking arrogance, which is on brand for this regime.
harimau777 23d ago
Often not everyone is impacted equally by a policy. So it is reasonable to allow, for example, the people living near a potential data center greater say into what happens.
- tptacek 23d ago
  See, I think it's better if every vote is counted equally, and people with concentrated or high-amplitude opinions about specific issues don't get extra votes. Different strokes, I guess.
Panzer04 23d ago
Thank you for this take. It's like giving people excessive discretion. Then if you're someone they don't like (eg. a black person if you're racist), then you deal out a maximalist punishment. If they're someone you do like, you let them off and tell them not to do it again. Policy like this is just corruption. It allows some people to exercise more rights than others, at the expense of the commons.
oatmeal1 22d ago
What democratically established laws? This is America. Policy is determined 95% by monied interests over the preference of voters at large.
nielsbot 22d ago
also—this is public review for data centers not, say, housing.
cowboylowrez 22d ago
democracy is imperfect, I like to view public hearings as helping nudge democracy back toward functionality. Heck humanities very stewardship of our only home in the universe is currently a very dumb process but do we have to delete the stewardship and care, can't we try to improve things, have hearings so we can better pursue solutions to problems?
folkrav 22d ago
You are conflating legal and desirable.
UncleMeat 22d ago
Public review originates from the democratic process. It is part of the legislation that created these agencies.
wokkel 22d ago
Well, if the democratic proces was actually democratic instead of infused with money it could work. As it is now, you buy of some politicians and get your way. If the law is in the way you buy of some other politicians.

by dcosson 23d ago

nozzlegear 23d ago

> Public review is a blight on the democratic process. Instead of having a set of democratically established laws and regulations that apply fairly to everyone, a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands can stop anyone they don't like from doing something that is perfectly legal. We're talking about data centers, which are deeply unpopular with just about everyone. It's laughable to suggest that skipping public review is a good thing here, because it's only going to result in data centers being sneakily approved contrary to the overwhelming desire of constituents. We can ruminate all day on whether public comments or public review is useful in the grand scheme, but the realpolitik of the situation is that – barring possession of a time machine to go back and elect different representation – it's one of the few levers that constituents have to prevent data centers from moving into their area. https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-centers https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-cen...

PKop 23d ago
> which are deeply unpopular with just about everyone. Speak for yourself. Plenty of people support them. The technological progress and economic benefits they bring are good for our country. But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue?
- bix6 23d ago
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-centers-area.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/709772/americans-oppose-data-ce... 70% opposition and people who strongly support (7%) continues to decrease. I guess that’s plenty in absolute numbers. But even the Iran war has more supporters than that.
- nozzlegear 23d ago
  > Speak for yourself. Plenty of people support them. Your definition of "plenty" does not match up with the accepted definition. > But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue? Have you stopped beating your wife?

tptacek 23d ago

I think you have to actually do local politics (I'm assuming you do) to really get just how fucked public comment is as a process, and I think this is an important and useful thing to talk about that just won't be possible to talk about in a data center thread, because of the political valence data centers have taken on.

quacked 23d ago
I live near a small town of about 10,000 people that's about 30 minutes away from a "hot commodity" city. The crown jewel of this small town is the main street, which retains a bit of kitschy Americana that has remained charming for decades and even draws tourists, for whatever reason. A local business owner bought up one of the blocks in the center of the street and announced plans to demolish it in order to build a 5-over-1 complex several stories higher than any of the other buildings. Without the public comment process, he'd have been able to do this practically overnight, completely ruining the street. The public fought back long and hard for many months and eventually won by convincing the town council to vote against the rezoning that would permit this construction. I can't say I'm opposed to the public comment process. (Note that this was not a case of never-change NIMBYism; tons of other similar buildings are going up all over the town completely unopposed. It was the ugly, generic design and the sheer size put so blatantly in the middle of everyone's favorite part of town.)
- tptacek 23d ago
  I don't know, this sure sounds like NIMBYism to me. Public comment was used to organize against multifamily housing units. That's approximately the whole story; I think you pretty much just have to add "organizing against new renewable and grid upgrades" to complete it.
  - quacked 23d ago
    They weren't multifamily units.
    - 23d ago

GrinningFool 23d ago

Seems to me public review is a failsafe - an acknowledgement that laws and regs can't always keep up with real life harms.

ip26 23d ago
You can't give all citizens effective veto power and then expect it will only be used for good in cases where the law is behind.
- nielsbot 23d ago
  Right. But what about the cases it is used for good?
  - none2585 23d ago
    Hey man Sam and Elon gotta eat
  - Dylan16807 23d ago
    In many environments it ends up acting like a generic "don't build things" mandate. Such a mandate's wins are by accident more often than by target, and it does more harm than good.
    - wredcoll 22d ago
      I mean, this is way too vague to really talk about usefully, but like, adding some friction to certain processes can be pretty useful.
      - Dylan16807 22d ago
        While that is true, the current default situation in the US is way too far on the anti-build side.
tptacek 23d ago
Public review in practice is a mechanism for concentrated local interest groups that don't have enough democratic legitimacy to win at the ballot box to instead win via a series of Tuesday night meetings normal people don't go to. There's literature on this: public comment overwhelmingly trends negative. People show up to prevent change. They rarely show up to support it, even if they do support it; normal people feel, reasonably, that their civic responsibility is to vote in actual elections for the policy they support, not to spend their life in City Hall jawboning.

autoexec 23d ago

"The public having access to information on what corporations plan to do in their communities and having the ability to vote to against what corporations want is a blight on the democratic process" is a crazy stance to take. What you call "a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands" I call "We the People" and it should fall to them to decide what happens in their own communities. It's legal for me to put a hot tub in my living room. My family doesn't have to let me put it there. It's legal to pave over city park in my community and turn them into parking lots, but the people in my city should have a say in that.

mullingitover 23d ago

Wait, we're talking about public comment. That doesn't give anyone veto power, the worst people can do is say mean comments and make the listeners feel bad before they do the thing anyway. Moving to cut off comments is simply breathtaking arrogance, which is on brand for this regime.

harimau777 23d ago

Often not everyone is impacted equally by a policy. So it is reasonable to allow, for example, the people living near a potential data center greater say into what happens.

tptacek 23d ago
See, I think it's better if every vote is counted equally, and people with concentrated or high-amplitude opinions about specific issues don't get extra votes. Different strokes, I guess.

Panzer04 23d ago

Thank you for this take. It's like giving people excessive discretion. Then if you're someone they don't like (eg. a black person if you're racist), then you deal out a maximalist punishment. If they're someone you do like, you let them off and tell them not to do it again. Policy like this is just corruption. It allows some people to exercise more rights than others, at the expense of the commons.

oatmeal1 22d ago

What democratically established laws? This is America. Policy is determined 95% by monied interests over the preference of voters at large.

nielsbot 22d ago

also—this is public review for data centers not, say, housing.

cowboylowrez 22d ago

democracy is imperfect, I like to view public hearings as helping nudge democracy back toward functionality. Heck humanities very stewardship of our only home in the universe is currently a very dumb process but do we have to delete the stewardship and care, can't we try to improve things, have hearings so we can better pursue solutions to problems?

folkrav 22d ago

You are conflating legal and desirable.

UncleMeat 22d ago

Public review originates from the democratic process. It is part of the legislation that created these agencies.

wokkel 22d ago

Well, if the democratic proces was actually democratic instead of infused with money it could work. As it is now, you buy of some politicians and get your way. If the law is in the way you buy of some other politicians.