this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
200 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

76945 readers
3328 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HiTekRedNek@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

In other words, city governments are mad that they can no longer hold up approvals in order to get more fees coughbribes from these companies.

[–] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

More like, large corporations not at all invested in local communities are now empowered to completely run rough shod over local governance processes. They’re actually more likely to pay for folks to stall out slow approval processes so that they can take advantage of this law and start building, especially when the permit would have likely been denied because it didn’t consider easements, fire or flood risks, building and local regulatory standards, or any other manner of things. So this actually increases the likelihood of bribes, and ensuring that corporations actually pay less to your local government and more to personal pockets of those being bribed, while simultaneously making the buildouts less safe and compliant with greater risks to the local community. Basically a lose lose for local folks, and a win win for a giant corporation.

A better version of these flawed tactics would’ve been that failure to meet timelines would open the project to public vote and also that every project would require a public option (eg government supplied bid on the infrastructure) to compete. That way if timeline expires, it’s not automatically awarded to people who have a vested interest in it expiring at the expense of a community. It could be awarded to a local municipal project instead.

[–] mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or alternatively, companies can bribe a few local politicians to stall, then start building anyways when the deadline hits.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago

That's closer to it. The local permitting jurisdictions get nothing out of approving or denying applications. They get held up for two reasons: the proposal is incomplete/unapprovable by law; and political intervention from an outside entity. Maybe the mayor or a commissioner, sometimes a director of an agency or organization. That's where any bribery or other such shenanigans would take place. Not the permitting office.