• brianorca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    An EIR covers the effects to the human environment as well as the wild. So the effect to land value and perceived fear of the neighbors are part of that, regardless of any actual risk.

    I saw one article which said a company spent $500 million just on the design and bureaucracy to file an application. Before a single shovel of dirt was moved.

    • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      An EIR covers the effects to the human environment as well as the wild. So the effect to land value and perceived fear of the neighbors are part of that, regardless of any actual risk

      Yes, I am aware of what an EIR is and what it covers. I’m also aware of their shortcomings, but I’m also aware of exactly who would make hundreds of millions of dollars (and at whose expense) if they were scrapped.

      I saw one article which said a company spent $500 million just on the design and bureaucracy to file an application. Before a single shovel of dirt was moved.

      How much did that company spend on articles complaining about how much they spent?

      The poor little things clearly had $500 million to spend and still believed they could profit from the building despite that.

      You also danced around how much of that was actually spent on an EIR and what the context of it was, so deliberately that it makes me wonder if it’s in your self interest to spread FUD.

      What exactly does “design and bureaucracy” mean? Site selection, zoning approval, architectural design, engineering, EIRs, geotechnical surveys, legal fees for contracts and submissions could all fall under that extremely broad category.