Remix.run Logo
adamredwoods an hour ago

From https://sherwood.news/tech/hyperion/

>> Per the report, the package of tax breaks and incentives was achieved through local officials bound by nondisclosure agreements, quietly struck legislative deals, and parliamentary sleight of hand to avoid public scrutiny of the deal.

>> So the residents of Richland Parish did not have much of a heads-up on what was coming.

No voting, no public interests, only closed-door politics.

heylook 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yet another moment where Strangers in Their Own Land[0] is prescient.

From an interview[1] given by the author: "I think the next most important reason they distrusted the federal government is their experience with protective agencies in the state of Louisiana, and they thought, “Gosh, these are a lot of people we pay taxes to but they don't really protect us.” And they’re right, because Louisiana is an oil state - that was a big discovery for me - and it outsources, in a way, the moral dirty work to the state. So, the state actually pretends to protect the citizenry from hazardous waste and pollution of air and water and ground, but it doesn't actually protect it very much. It gives out permits, as one Tea Party person said "like candy." And so, they felt the federal government is just a bigger, badder version of a state government which isn't protecting us. So, they'd had bad experience. They’d been burned, and I think that's the second kind of source of resistance to the government. But the third is that they saw the government as an instrument of what I'll call “the line cutters.”"

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangers_in_Their_Own_Land [1] https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=18-P13-000...

JuniperMesos 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> >> So the residents of Richland Parish did not have much of a heads-up on what was coming.

> No voting, no public interests, only closed-door politics.

This is exactly what NIMBYs say about attempts to build housing; and resisting efforts on the part of local people to exercise political pressure against proposed housing development projects is a core component of YIMBYist activism. If it's possible for local activists to be short-sighted, self-interested, or straightforwardly wrong when they exert political pressure against housing developments, then it's also possible for them to be similarly wrong about data centers, or any other built structure that someone, somewhere has a problem with.

amluto 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This is a strange comparison.

If a real estate developer already owns land and wants to build at their expense on their own land, quite a few people think that, in general, they should be permitted to do so as long as they comply with applicable laws.

But this set of tax breaks is modifying the effect of the applicable laws (namely sales and use tax, according to the article) for the benefit of a landowner. That seems rather different.

drtz 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's a lot of ground between gifting $3.3 billion in tax incentives to a megacorp for a short-term increase in construction employment and allowing a homeowner build a second dwelling on their lot.

Incidentally, that same $3.3 billion could build around 10,000 accessory dwellings in Baton Rouge.

lesuorac 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What back-deals are yimbys doing?

There's a huge difference between extremely publically pushing for laws that allow buildings to be built vs private negotiating tax breaks that only affect a singular building.

Tostino 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

So, the massive tax breaks that were given at the expense of the residents...how do you explain that away?

LogicFailsMe 14 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which is what we keep electing so boohoo. I'd like to be less pessimistic but people are irredeemably irredeemable. I am hugely pro-AI, but the tech bros need to channel more Ronald Reagan* and less f**ing Homelander or this ends very badly for everyone.

*And I hated Ronald Reagan at the time

Now bring me some downvotes to show me the error of my ways...

laweijfmvo an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

but there will be voting; all of the elected officials will have to face elections at some point, and voters can put their feet down right now: everyone is voted out.

nomorewords an hour ago | parent | next [-]

When the damage is already done?

shimman 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's okay, as the on-going damage continues Americans tend to be well armed enough to go on a few rampages here and there.

philipallstar 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That is how everyone decision works, yes. That's why you want limited government. Voting where you can't vote with your money is a very low-quality, delayed signal.

tech_ken 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

If you assume that decision makers operate entirely in silo from their constituents then yes, that's how this works. Howver if you are operating in the normal mode of democracy where decision makers consult impacted parties through town halls, solicited feedback, subcommittees, etc etc then there are ample opportunities to obtain high-quality, low-latency signals. "Voting with your money" is (IM personal O) a scapegoat for government leaders to avoid doing their due-diligence (not to mention the massive power imbalance that results from people with lots of money 'voting' way more than people with less money).

kovek 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What negative consequences does being unelected have?

pertymcpert 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That's already factored in the cost of doing business for them.