[tnmom]

Much of that money goes to permitting, admin, and insurance. What you’re seeing is probably the $10-20 million that wasn’t successfully siphoned off by bureaucrats.

[duxup]

> Much of that money goes to permitting,

How much?

[SECProto]

Their comment suggests 50 to 75%, which is hilariously high.

[duxup]

Yeah that would be an absurd claim.

[moneywoes]

is this flow of dollars tracked anywhere

[bmiller2]

I don't know why you're being downvoted. There is a reason why development volume across states is asymmetric.

[tnmom]

Who knows - it’s just fake internet points. Hard to get worked up about.

[zarathustreal]

Kinda easy to guess, there’s really only one possibility and answer: people felt a certain way after reading and voted accordingly. The idea that anyone votes based on the content of what’s been said is false. For example, you’re not gonna upvote a true statement of a statistical fact if you think there’s a terrible reason for it. You’re gonna downvote because you feel bad about what you perceive as the reason regardless

[BryantD]

Because “successfully siphoned off by bureaucrats” has an implicit value judgement in it. If someone a) thinks the cost of regulation provides value and b) believes that downvoting is a reasonable response to opinions they disagree with, they’re likely to downvote in this case.

Personally I only believe one of those things. I also believe the point about additional cost of development could have been made without the value judgement.

[stevofolife]

Downvotes help people skip the noise and focus on the signal. Ain’t nothing wrong with that.