How can I use my objections to force the building owners to do what I want rather than what they want? Is there a way, or does it only work for things like solar and wind power?
I would have rather not had my comment here at all if I knew it was going to get this kind of obnoxious "response".
You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns, but perhaps not the premise that these concerns only seem to matter for solar? Or was it merely the way I made my point? I didn't mean this comment to target you, but the idea of aesthetic concerns being a blocker for buildings, but rereading I could see that it might be ambiguous.
> You seem open to the discussion of aesthetic concerns
I am not. That's why the questions I asked were targeted at crafting a way to sidestep/neuter the aesthetics debate entirely and rendering opposition moot.
If your objections are yours alone, then best to move to a very rural area with minimal zoning laws.
If you find like minded individuals, join a HOA with these "issues".
If you don't like it, move? Seriously? You also have that option; move to a rural area and put up all the solar power you want.
NIMBY laws can be a burden, but statements like the above make me realize why they have to continue to exist; people will drive you out of your home if you don't go along with their projects.
Handbook: https://www.califaep.org/docs/2024_CEQA_Statute_and_Guidelin...
PDF pages 348, 50, and cases in the appendix discuss aesthetic impacts.
Anybody can raise these objections about a development (usually during a public comment period), with or without merit, and if enough people do so over enough comments, it can really mire down a project. Even if all the concerns are ultimately dismissed, it forces the developer and agency to spend time evaluating and rebutting them, and sometimes developers will just give up out of frustration and move onto areas with less regulation.
What an odd and counterproductive thing for an "environmental" law to do when the very status quo is what must to be changed to protect the environment.
In actual use, though, it's often also (mis-)applied and weaponized by NIMBYs who just hate changes of any sort.
Affirmative (as opposed to preventative) environmental laws also exist, such as the solar subsidies discussed in the article, CAFE (fuel economy) mandates, etc. They're just different.
Anyway, I don't mean to lecture, lol, just point out that sometimes laws can be weaponized against their original intent.