The problem is there's just no cost to passivity.
NIMBYs pay with their time, and they have a lot of it. This should be "taxed" at some rate. It has to be enough to provide some minimal balancing force against passivity.
NIMBYs pay with their time, and they have a lot of it. This should be "taxed" at some rate. It has to be enough to provide some minimal balancing force against passivity.
also the whole problem is that the timelines are ridiculous.
there's no need to create a report that goes over 99.999% of the whole problem space.
do a 95% job, check for the past fuckups (ie. are we literally trying to pave over homes of disadvantaged communities? are we promising very fair compensation for this but then just scam them and leave them with some half-assed dilapidated boarding house on the outskirts of town? are we willfully ignoring some group with real data?)
it can even go to court, but make it quick. have a standing tribunal for this and they should be bound by law to decide whether the claim has enough merit to proceed based on 1-2 weeks of examination.
simply put there are not enough standardized and well structured parts of this bureaucratic pipeline. (and there should be very very few non-standard parts. and standard parts should be quick and transparent to evaluate.)
I agree, but the threat of lawsuits is why they have to be so exhaustive.
Many times there are solutions that at least would seem to satisfy the involved parties, but no one has the money for that. Okay, so the difference between the original and the 100%-satisfaction solution now has more stakeholders, so let's involve them in the financing.
Obviously (?) there's no ready made framework for this, the problem is very hard in general (game theory, sociopolitics, plus the various concrete engineering constraints of the problems), but at least some kind of approximation of it would help to uncover the hidden externalities, clarify the positions of the various stakeholders, quantify the difference between the possible options, and so on.
Yes, in practice (eg. in case of a bike lane) it might be that the just do it solution costs 1000K and the 100%-satisfaction one would cost 15 trillion dollars, and we're absolutely no closer to deciding whether the problem that the bike lane would solve is one that needs solving, but at least now there is a design space, at least the parties acknowledge the problem, and so on.
Basically, it would be good to tax situations where the high-high-high level solution is to get out of that situation. (Eg. if you don't like a region and you bitch about it for decades and stop any kind of change, then maybe you should have found one that you like a long time ago.)
Would this help cooperation and would this help smooth out local decisionmaking? Maybe eventually. Maybe it's a complete abstract pipedream that would just pour some nice hypergolic fuel on every low intensity city conflict... :]