[cucumber3732842]

They're being built in as much secret as possible because everything is. Everything about land development is adversarial and the people who keep their mouths shut wind up taking fewer 4-7 figure screwings along the way than the honest people.

It sucks that this how it is but even just the most casual familiarity with all the rules and processes makes it obvious why this is the way it is.

You could find more than enough data points to write this same story about grocery stores or anything else.

[RobRivera]

I enjoy reminding people the land acquisition history behind building Disney World.

[bediger4000]

But why shouldn't the possible neighbors of some unpleasant installation protest as much as allowed, and file lawsuits? Neighbors interests have value too, plus we in the USA have a constitutional right to free speech and petition for redress of grievances. The US also has an adversarial legal system. It pays off to file lawsuits if you can afford it.

My conclusion is that "NIMBY" isn't the problem, it's economic incentives and adversarial systems.

[jtbigwoo]

We, as a society, set up rules to allow the people to have a voice in decisions via various means including public meetings and various review procedures. There is a cost to these rules, but the alternative you're describing is a system where rules and laws don't matter and anyone with the ear of a few influential people can do whatever they want.

Just as an example, there's a data center in the early stages about 10 miles from my house. The land developer spent a year shopping for a city council that would skip the hearings required by state law and finally found a small exurb willing to break the law. Now the developer is racing to break ground before the lawsuits and restraining orders hit. This isn't the way that a logical society should work.

[cucumber3732842]

>Just as an example, there's a data center in the early stages about 10 miles from my house. The land developer spent a year shopping for a city council that would skip the hearings required by state law and finally found a small exurb willing to break the law. No

Oh no. God forbid an out of towner be given the kind of treatment you usually need the "right" last name or business partners for. <clutches pearls>

The developer is probably well practiced at this because even for mundane developments beyond about an acre you basically have to have a legal team and basically have to drag it through a court even if you have local support because the other developers will pull their strings in government to try and stall and drive up the cost of your thing.

Land development is a revolving door club between government and the prevailing developer and related business interests in the jurisdiction so you can't really blame the external interest for showing up with everything ready to go and steamrolling everyone.

[fastball]

Is "keeping your mouth shut" dishonesty?

[metalliqaz]

grocery stores? They are not comparable to data centers.

[TulliusCicero]

They aren't, and yet somehow you still find various groups who will fight them.

Seattle is currently dealing with this for a new WinCo -- which is low-priced and employee-owned, making it particularly unobjectionable -- on a site that used to be a Sam's Club, so it's not even really a new development: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/winco-plan...

> North Seattle shoppers may need to wait even longer for a grocery store to fill a former Sam’s Club location left vacant since 2018

> Two years ago, discount grocery chain WinCo filed plans to remodel the building and reconfigure the parking lot on Aurora Avenue North. But the plans encountered opposition from a neighborhood group for their possible environmental impact.

> Last week, a hearing examiner overturned the city’s determination that the project would have no significant environmental impacts, casting doubts on the future of the project.

> ...

> For a while, everything seemed on track. The city conducted a State Environmental Policy Act process and found WinCo’s plans would have no significant environmental impact.

> Then, last fall, a coalition called Lake Washington Working Families appealed the decision. The group, which tried and failed to disrupt plans for a WinCo coming to Renton last spring, has no website and is not registered with the state — leading to online speculation about who exactly is behind the group. But Karl Anuta, a Portland-based lawyer representing the coalition, said it’s made up of King County residents.

> The coalition claimed the city’s environmental analysis of WinCo’s plans for the North Seattle site was inadequate and required further review. WinCo would have major traffic impacts, the appeal said, releasing pollutants into local bodies of water.

> In an interview Monday, Anuta, who primarily handles cases involving environmental law, said the group is not against having a WinCo store at the location but wants the city to seriously analyze the environmental impacts of such a large business.

> “The real issue for the Lake Washington Working Families was you’re going from eight years of nothing there to a larger facility with many impacts,” he said.

> “You can’t just permit stuff and expect the neighbors to deal with the consequences.”

This is why environmental regulations and processes are getting pushback -- not because people hate the environment, but because NIMBYs learned to weaponize these rules against almost any kind of development, even the kind of thing that the overwhelming majority of people in an area support.

[saulpw]

> The group, which tried and failed to disrupt plans for a WinCo coming to Renton last spring, has no website and is not registered with the state — leading to online speculation about who exactly is behind the group. But Karl Anuta, a Portland-based lawyer representing the coalition, said it’s made up of King County residents.

I'm reading this as "WinCo competitors who live in King County" instead of NIMBYs. It seems real shady and of course they'd want to make it seem like it was just a group of good ol' regular folks.

[RobRivera]

You are not being curious or good faith here.

[TulliusCicero]

To be fair, adopting the 'curious' style of engagement in internet forums is typically a good way to end up as message board roadkill.

It works in smaller groups where basically everyone is engaging in good faith and willing to listen to each other. It works a lot less well on a pseudonymous message board.