3 ms·
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
by Panzer04 26d 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 25d agoIs your opinion that the denizens of a locale ought to have no say in what happens to it?
- tptacek 25d agoThey should have exactly the same say as everybody else in that electorate who votes. They should not get an extra say.
- Panzer04 24d agoIf 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.