Post

The major objections were both that it would threaten UNESCO status (infill argument) and that it could harm the bats (greenfield argument). These seem contradictory and like they could be used to kill literally anything?? Site is here by the way: www.bbc.com/news/article...

Sam@samd.bsky.social

the UK is just cooked. seems like every boomer there has taken up NIMBY as their retirement hobby because god forbid people have access to affordable groceries

2 reposts39 likes

Yup, that's how our system works. As it's all judgement based all you need is one pretext and the whole project can be blocked. That's intentional

I mean, yeah, even in the US the original guys who started the "environmental review" thing acknowledged that it was basically an attempt to give a cudgel to stop development, not an actual policy goal

Dresden gave up on the UNESCO status of its river valley in 2009 and built a bridge anyway because it became a bit ridiculous to comply with. A city still has to be a city, you can't freeze everything in amber just because it looks neat.