>Did that happen?

I chose 7-mile for my hypothetical example because the road is an absolute goldmine for "you can't do that these days it's too dense" site plans and there's at least one liquor store with a dirt lot on it but I don't recall where. The "we want to make it nicer but it's not worth the stormwater treatment cost" example is from a business down the street from me. These things get stopped at the engineer/lawyer phase when the true costs become known to the owner.

Basically all the stormwater rules BS come at the expense of incentivizing sprawl. Doesn't really matter if you're walking past 1000ft of strip mall or 500ft of fancy multi level retail with a parking garage in back with 250ft of empty grass on either side, you're still 1000ft from the bus stop.

▲

inigyou 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Why is it any different from "we want an asphalt parking lot but it's not worth the asphalt cost" or "we want a giant sign but the pole to hang it on is too expensive" or "we want an asphalt parking lot but renting the machine to paint the lines is too expensive" or "we want to be open 24/7 but we can't afford to cover third shift"?

▲

cucumber3732842 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Because this is a constraint we've imposed upon ourselves to the detriment of the public. It's like how you have all sorts of workplaces with absolutely moronic rats nests of extension cords and power strips and whatnot because you don't need a permit to plug stuff in. They're following the rule and arriving at a stupider worse solution and we're all poorer for it. We could literally be richer at the stroke of a pen. Whereas to make paving cheaper we'd need to make technological progress.

Nobody's interests, except some spreadsheet pusher who's missing the big picture, and some idiot ideologues, are effectively served by putting a ton of "built to the bare minimum" green space that the users don't actually want anywhere the economic potential of the land supports more density of actual use. And if you have that density there's more than enough money kicking around to manage your stormwater more cheaply than piecemeal private solutions (basically all the same pro/con as septic vs sewer but with less digits in front of the decimal).

Yeah it's nice to have parks and recreational green space, but those are planned to be fit for that purpose. The catchment basin behind the shopping center's parking garage is only fit for making the parties that got to construct and maintain it a little richer.

▲

butvacuum an hour ago | parent [-]

It sounds an awful lot like you are willfully ignorant on water management.

Considering how accessable the basics are, I'm having trouble believing your argument is in good faith.

	▲	cucumber3732842 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's all bullshit. I get the whole sponge principal. It's make-work bullshit to make everyone do all this BS when it would be infinitely more efficient to solve this stuff wholesale on a municipal level and reap the benefits of letting property development be constrained by one less requirement to shovel money at certain people. Same basic argument in favor of municipal sewer over super fancy super high cost septic systems. Aquifer replenishment isn't a concern in many states so that's a non-issue as far as I care, let the places who need to deal with it deal with it.