SoMuchJamImToast

SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2dlews wrote

Would you be in favor of process reforms where these compromises can be reached earlier in the development process, as suggested in the article linked in this post?

I think people should have equity in the neighborhoods they live in, putting policies in place based on the premise that public input is bad, "Acutally," sounds dystopian. Just opening the door for developers to pave entire neighborhoods. Things can be done more thoughtfully and with better outcomes. Like compromise solutions that don't just put 100 unit glass towers in the middle of a quiet 2-lane road.

−22

SoMuchJamImToast t1_j2djkgr wrote

The residents pushed back against a 100-unit building and are asking for a compromise 27-unit building, since everything around it is beautiful old Victorians and the 100-unit building would be totally out of place. It's reasonable, you shouldn't misrepresent the argument for the sake of updoots.

−39

SoMuchJamImToast t1_iu60nms wrote

Since everybody's blaming you, just want to say it's definitely confusing that the app let you pay. Probably making the app aware of tow schedules was considered too hard to maintain and keep in sync so they just figured tricking people is a fine outcome, more money for the city

3