HN Explorer

5 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 18.3 ms ] thread
YouWhy
Is the question at hand about balancing local building authorization with the government's intent to encourage a specific kind of national infrastructure businesses?

This seems to be supported by this quote:

> Putting arbitrary deadlines on state, local, and Tribal governments to start and finish complicated permit reviews...

I'm not an American but I am alarmed at the recent tendency for bad-faith rule making. However - the above sounds in reasonably good faith - is that indeed the case or am I missing some angle?

xemdetia
From my perspective depending on where they want to develop it might be trivial to add something time consuming to a proposal such as eminent domain or easement reviews that will run out the shot clock and drown out reasonable questions by local governments. Local governance often is complicated by local (town), regional (county), and state level roles. Additionally depending on the area not all of these roles are even staffed by people working on it full-time.
kylehotchkiss
My 30 year old neighborhood in CA is _just_ getting fiber laid now. I have cox over coaxial and my internet uptime is a mess. They don't care, where else am I gonna go? I welcome a federal effort to lay fiber and eliminate any reason a normal consumer would ever need to contact a coax cable for the rest of their lives.
jojomodding
30 years is nothing. There are cities that had to wait for thousands of years before they got fiber.
renewiltord
This sounds fantastic. "Local control over building" always ends up being a bunch of NIMBYs making life hard. Considering the amount of "it will ruin this community" I've heard about literally every possible thing, and the idea of "environmental review" to block a "historic parking lot" from being replaced by a food bank, I think a deadline with by-right building is good.