In the same way that you can't have a social democracy that only taxes billionaires and no one else, you can't have a social democracy that requires 20 public meetings before building the most basic public infrastructure.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Disagree. Those meetings eat up staff time and money that could be going elsewhere. I'm not saying there should be zero community outreach ever, but people act like it's cost-free when it very much isn't.
This is one of the benefits of the 3A zoning in Massachusetts. Once towns implement it, it will expedite housing by reducing barriers to project approval.
to be honest it was the picture the Globe used to illustrate this story that made me read it, to find the explanation deep in the middle of the article: "Despite construction complexities on the property, such as a historic house that the developers needed to move to the front of the site"
Pretty much all the great architecture and neighborhoods in the US and around the world was built in the days before endless zoning and planning reviews. And most of it would be illegal to build today.
Usually stuff that is expected to be environmentally beneficial like bike trails or public transit does not require the must exhaustive level of environmental review.
And you can do bare minimum public meetings, but then get political blowback for that if opposition occurs. It's risky.
Comments
It’s the pattern of 20 meetings and then no meaningful outcome
Because the meetings are intentionally used for obstruction and not to create a constructive majority
Just look at Lexington.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/03/business/lexington-mbta-communities-housing/
And you can do bare minimum public meetings, but then get political blowback for that if opposition occurs. It's risky.