| > you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here No, I'm not. I don't advocate for bribery and the developer should be charged, although the prosecution's priority should always be on the person accepting the bribe, in my opinion. People are barking up the wrong tree because it's easier for some people to hate a rich guy than someone working for their preferred political party's government. That being said, how many fewer housing units would exist in SF without this rich asshole bribing his way into making the new housing complexes? And where is the evidence that there was something wrong with the structural plans that was causing problems getting the permit? If you knew anything about SF, you would know that having a perfect plan does not get a building approved. The problem is with the approval process. By being a rich asshole and unethically aiming to help only himself, he objectively improved the city more than most, because the regulatory process he was circumventing is horribly flawed. Can you rectify that with your black and white worldview? > would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors? This isn't a story about a meat packing plant -- this is a story about a city with one of the worst housing shortages in the world, and the worst homelessness crisis in the country. Some people have it so ingrained in their brains that evading regulation for personal benefit is bad that they fail to evaluate the possibility that the regulation is bad. Both can be true! One can be more important! Which one is more important can depend on the specific circumstances! |