Hacker News Reader

Comment by spiritplumber | Hacker News Reader

Well, it makes sense if you want to build, say, a gasifier or a chemical factory... but it doesn't seem to be the case. Are they worried about environmental impact, social impact, or just tax revenue

View on HN

There's resistance for things you'd imagine should be no-brainers. For example, an expansion of the Stevens Creek bike path is encountering major resistance: http://www.cyclelicio.us/2015/sunnyvale-nimbys-threaten-stev...

Cooperation is hard work.

> For example, an expansion of the Stevens Creek bike path is encountering major resistance

But how could you not love that bike path!? It gets you practical places and it's beautiful!

My God, fucking NIMBYs.

In the context of the entire population, very few enjoy biking. Maybe they object to spending a ton of money on something that benefits a very small percentage of the population.

Given the hell that is morning traffic on the 101, the bicycle path is actually the easier and more pleasant commute alternative for a lot of people. Before claiming that only "a very small percentage of the population" benefit, we should look for numbers on how many people actually do use the bike path.

Obnoxious and cranky people, of the kind that often get banned from online forums, sit in planning meetings and have their way.

I bet that NIMBYKiller 3D would be a popular FPS in California.

Bonus points for realism in the burning hedges-- if you "New Game+" it and have the flame-thrower when you get to the Atherton level.

Let us not speak of things like expanding BART all the way to San Jose, and the traffic relief which that could bring.

The article implies that there is an in-total limit of new office space that has been adopted for some time period, which probably is based largely on ability to expand infrastructure to deal with added needs (e.g., commute traffic.)

Why the decision was made to alot the lion's share of that alotment to LinkedIn rather than Google, I don't know.

(Determining the actual cost to address the impacts and setting the cost of approval to recoup those costs, rather than setting hard limits, would seem a more efficient mechanism, if it could be done fairly and accurately, but that's not easier or less prone to political manipulation than setting limits and allocating within those limits.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com