5 ms·

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 import

by tptacek 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
    They weren't multifamily units.
    - alex43578 1mo ago
      "5-over-1 or over-1s, also known as a one-plus-five or a podium building,[1] is a type of multi-family residential building commonly found in urban areas of North America", so either you're wrong about them wanting to build a 5 over 1 or wrong about them being multi-family.
      - quacked 1mo ago
        Then maybe I used to wrong term. It was a building full of singles, built to look almost exactly like the classic 5-over-1.
        tptacek 1mo ago
        Yes, that's a multifamily development.
  - harimau777 1mo ago
    NIMBYism isn't always wrong.
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      We can agree to disagree, so long as we can at least recognize NIMBYism when we see it. "Public comment works great because it enabled us to organize to keep a multifamily development out of our vicinity" is like the archetypical NIMBY project.
    - mitxela 1mo ago
      When it's a data center, maybe, but these people got housing densification shot down, keeping home prices and rent high for everybody.
- sethherr 1mo ago
  You clarified it wasn’t “never change NIMBYism” - was it a case of just changes I don’t like NIMBYism?
  - quacked 1mo ago
    As I understand it, NIMBYism is "don't ever build anything anywhere in the neighborhood/town", not "don't build in this one spot we all really like". As I said, there are tons of other buildings going up over town.
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      It's literally "don't build on this one spot I really like". It's in the name!
      - harimau777 1mo ago
        I didn't know that the acronym was NITOSIRL. Sure seems like a weird way to spell NIMBY, but who am I to judge?
    - greatquux 1mo ago
      Exactly. The "my" in "my backyard" can apply to everyone therefore nothing gets built. The alternative is everything gets built. There has to be a middle ground, which is what zoning laws are meant to accomplish. We have buildings and multi-family housing going up in our town too, but we also have historically-protected buildings on the main street that require some more work if you want to do stuff with them. This is a good balance.
      - tptacek 1mo ago
        Zoning laws accomplished what they were intended to do, which was to enforce economic and racial segregation by preventing new affordable housing from being built near areas of opportunity. I don't think anybody working on housing affordability thinks this is a good balance, and the trend is sharply towards rolling these rules back. Apropos this particular thread I think it's notable that the most popular way of accomplishing that is to remove home rule authority for municipalities on zoning minimums and re-vesting that power exclusively in the state, which can't be mugged by local special interest groups spawn camping public comment opportunities.
- lacy_tinpot 1mo ago
  If it's everyone's favorite part of town why not just codify it at the city level?
  - quacked 1mo ago
    That's what they're working on next.
    - anonymousiam 1mo ago
      So what will likely follow is a 'takings clause' case by the owner, who can no longer use their property the way they want.
- Panzer04 1mo ago
  The fact you're using this as an example of public review being a good thing shows how fucked up the process is. You're cheering for the prevention of building new housing in the most valuable, most useful part of the town. I bet it would have kept all the same retail and restaurants in the bottom too, so there would have been zero downside for anyone who actually uses the street. Instead a bunch of people with no stake except an aesthetic preference blocked it. How on earth is that a good thing?
  - quacked 1mo ago
    Is your opinion that the denizens of a locale ought to have no say in what happens to it?
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      They should have exactly the same say as everybody else in that electorate who votes. They should not get an extra say.
    - Panzer04 29d ago
      If you don't own the land and can't demonstrate a direct, severe impact to you and yours from the actions of someone else, you shouldn't have a say. "More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.
- Dylan16807 1mo ago
  > several stories higher than any of the other buildings If the highest other building was 2 stories then it would have been 4 taller. More likely 3? Not several. I appreciate your complaint about generic design but damn putting apartments downtown sounds amazing actually, not ruining. Would you have been happy if they had a better design and it was 3 over 1?
  - mitxela 1mo ago
    "5 over 1" refers to the section of the building code, wooden (part 5) over concrete (part 1) or something like that. Coincidentally it's also the number of floors allowed, but a 3 over 1 would be built of something else.
    - Dylan16807 1mo ago
      Interesting claim. Wikipedia is unsure but uses the floor count meaning in the article. > The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States–based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the IBC uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber.[5][6]
      - cucumber3732842 1mo ago
        In most US jurisdictions if you pick reasonable ceiling heights plus a little margin for un-level ground making the building effectively taller on one side 6-floors is also about the maximum number of floors you can build before you get kicked in the dick by all the highrise regulatory compliance so that probably has a bit to do with it.
Gigachad 1mo ago
At least in this instance it's a counterbalance against the psychopathic tech CEOs
- tptacek 1mo ago
  That's literally what NIMBYs exploiting public comment say: whatever else is happening, at least they're striking back against the psychopathic Private Equity firms who are building all this evil housing.
  - harimau777 1mo ago
    These aren't private equity firms building housing. Did you read the article?
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      I did and was not referring to the article. Also: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
  - Gigachad 1mo ago
    Blocking datacenter builds is the right thing to do right now. Whether the general public has the right vocabulary to explain why is not so important when the people in charge are actively evil and tasked with the exact opposite of their claimed job title.
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      We don't agree, but either way, the only thing I'm here to say is that public comment distorts democratic process and entrenches concentrated local interest groups. You're happy about it (in the abstract, apparently) because it's achieving an outcome you support, but mostly what it supports is preventing housing and renewable energy from being built.
sellmesoap 29d ago
Hey Boaty McBoatface wants their time to shine!

by tptacek 1mo ago

quacked 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
  They weren't multifamily units.
  - alex43578 1mo ago
    "5-over-1 or over-1s, also known as a one-plus-five or a podium building,[1] is a type of multi-family residential building commonly found in urban areas of North America", so either you're wrong about them wanting to build a 5 over 1 or wrong about them being multi-family.
    - quacked 1mo ago
      Then maybe I used to wrong term. It was a building full of singles, built to look almost exactly like the classic 5-over-1.
      - tptacek 1mo ago
        Yes, that's a multifamily development.
- harimau777 1mo ago
  NIMBYism isn't always wrong.
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    We can agree to disagree, so long as we can at least recognize NIMBYism when we see it. "Public comment works great because it enabled us to organize to keep a multifamily development out of our vicinity" is like the archetypical NIMBY project.
  - mitxela 1mo ago
    When it's a data center, maybe, but these people got housing densification shot down, keeping home prices and rent high for everybody.
sethherr 1mo ago
You clarified it wasn’t “never change NIMBYism” - was it a case of just changes I don’t like NIMBYism?
- quacked 1mo ago
  As I understand it, NIMBYism is "don't ever build anything anywhere in the neighborhood/town", not "don't build in this one spot we all really like". As I said, there are tons of other buildings going up over town.
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    It's literally "don't build on this one spot I really like". It's in the name!
    - harimau777 1mo ago
      I didn't know that the acronym was NITOSIRL. Sure seems like a weird way to spell NIMBY, but who am I to judge?
  - greatquux 1mo ago
    Exactly. The "my" in "my backyard" can apply to everyone therefore nothing gets built. The alternative is everything gets built. There has to be a middle ground, which is what zoning laws are meant to accomplish. We have buildings and multi-family housing going up in our town too, but we also have historically-protected buildings on the main street that require some more work if you want to do stuff with them. This is a good balance.
    - tptacek 1mo ago
      Zoning laws accomplished what they were intended to do, which was to enforce economic and racial segregation by preventing new affordable housing from being built near areas of opportunity. I don't think anybody working on housing affordability thinks this is a good balance, and the trend is sharply towards rolling these rules back. Apropos this particular thread I think it's notable that the most popular way of accomplishing that is to remove home rule authority for municipalities on zoning minimums and re-vesting that power exclusively in the state, which can't be mugged by local special interest groups spawn camping public comment opportunities.
lacy_tinpot 1mo ago
If it's everyone's favorite part of town why not just codify it at the city level?
- quacked 1mo ago
  That's what they're working on next.
  - anonymousiam 1mo ago
    So what will likely follow is a 'takings clause' case by the owner, who can no longer use their property the way they want.
Panzer04 1mo ago
The fact you're using this as an example of public review being a good thing shows how fucked up the process is. You're cheering for the prevention of building new housing in the most valuable, most useful part of the town. I bet it would have kept all the same retail and restaurants in the bottom too, so there would have been zero downside for anyone who actually uses the street. Instead a bunch of people with no stake except an aesthetic preference blocked it. How on earth is that a good thing?
- quacked 1mo ago
  Is your opinion that the denizens of a locale ought to have no say in what happens to it?
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    They should have exactly the same say as everybody else in that electorate who votes. They should not get an extra say.
  - Panzer04 29d ago
    If you don't own the land and can't demonstrate a direct, severe impact to you and yours from the actions of someone else, you shouldn't have a say. "More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.
Dylan16807 1mo ago
> several stories higher than any of the other buildings If the highest other building was 2 stories then it would have been 4 taller. More likely 3? Not several. I appreciate your complaint about generic design but damn putting apartments downtown sounds amazing actually, not ruining. Would you have been happy if they had a better design and it was 3 over 1?
- mitxela 1mo ago
  "5 over 1" refers to the section of the building code, wooden (part 5) over concrete (part 1) or something like that. Coincidentally it's also the number of floors allowed, but a 3 over 1 would be built of something else.
  - Dylan16807 1mo ago
    Interesting claim. Wikipedia is unsure but uses the floor count meaning in the article. > The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States–based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the IBC uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber.[5][6]
    - cucumber3732842 1mo ago
      In most US jurisdictions if you pick reasonable ceiling heights plus a little margin for un-level ground making the building effectively taller on one side 6-floors is also about the maximum number of floors you can build before you get kicked in the dick by all the highrise regulatory compliance so that probably has a bit to do with it.

Gigachad 1mo ago

At least in this instance it's a counterbalance against the psychopathic tech CEOs

tptacek 1mo ago
That's literally what NIMBYs exploiting public comment say: whatever else is happening, at least they're striking back against the psychopathic Private Equity firms who are building all this evil housing.
- harimau777 1mo ago
  These aren't private equity firms building housing. Did you read the article?
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    I did and was not referring to the article. Also: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
- Gigachad 1mo ago
  Blocking datacenter builds is the right thing to do right now. Whether the general public has the right vocabulary to explain why is not so important when the people in charge are actively evil and tasked with the exact opposite of their claimed job title.
  - tptacek 1mo ago
    We don't agree, but either way, the only thing I'm here to say is that public comment distorts democratic process and entrenches concentrated local interest groups. You're happy about it (in the abstract, apparently) because it's achieving an outcome you support, but mostly what it supports is preventing housing and renewable energy from being built.

sellmesoap 29d ago

Hey Boaty McBoatface wants their time to shine!