As you say, most people aren't going to want pylons. Either you accept that a legitimate authority can make unpopular decisions in the national interest, or you establish a framework where companies can (swiftly and transparently) buy off opposition - e.g. local vote by residents on accepting a certain cash payment offered by the company - and if accepted, no further challenges.
On your last point, I'm afraid I do think this culture and these attitudes are endemic in the civil service.
And even aside from the problem of something not getting built at all, it's also surely a very bad idea to create incentives in which increasing the volume of NIMBY activism succeeds in moving a scheme from one place to another. You're right that some people will be upset by a Decision From On High that affects their life, but if the reasons are laid out transparently and clearly, I think that would do much more good psychologically vs the implied hint that "if you organise the locals well enough against this, you might succeed in getting us to move the thing" to Place B (whose locals then know that the only solution is to shout even louder)
Those areas that successfully move a scheme are probably those who are better connected and have more resource than the location the scheme gets dumped on to. Principal 5 of 'Principles for navigating the social aspects of grid transformation' covers inequality, but doesn't specifically call out the inequality of how persuasive different groups can be.
The inequality and fairness angle is a good reason why we should ignore nimby activism or perhaps weight the activism based on the population that it is claiming to represent relative to the affected population if the scheme were to not go ahead.
Excellent piece….. and, as always, the late Brian Clough springs to mind. He got the best out of his players by never, ever focussing on their weaknesses. Defenders? Head it and kick it. Holding midfielders? Get the ball, give it to someone who can actually play etc.
Point being that trying to make every player do everything is pointless - all you do is demoralise an attacking player by making him focus on improving weaknesses, not strengths.
And here we are. Build stuff. The whole housing/ fix rivers thing is utterly bonkers. As a housing developer, the stuff I’ve come up against in planning is mind boggling - but all terribly *worthy* isn’t it? Meanwhile in my village, they’re building a small block of flats. Trying to get an extra storey added to it but, sigh, it’s back out for public consultation. Needless to say, nobody is hearing the voices of, for example, the two young ladies who have just opened a brilliant little bakery (incredible cakes) who would love to also live here but can’t afford it.
This is another good reason for a Land Value Tax. Yes, you will have pylons, but if that makes the land under your house less valuable, then you will have a commensurate reduction in tax. If it doesn't reduce the value, then other people don't find it as offensive as you - maybe you should move.
Problem is, this isn't a vote winner. The more infrastructure that happens, the more voters feel they're not being listened to, and then the more votes for the nimby parties. As much as I want more infrastructure built, I can see the political risk of doing so.
Great piece.
As you say, most people aren't going to want pylons. Either you accept that a legitimate authority can make unpopular decisions in the national interest, or you establish a framework where companies can (swiftly and transparently) buy off opposition - e.g. local vote by residents on accepting a certain cash payment offered by the company - and if accepted, no further challenges.
On your last point, I'm afraid I do think this culture and these attitudes are endemic in the civil service.
And even aside from the problem of something not getting built at all, it's also surely a very bad idea to create incentives in which increasing the volume of NIMBY activism succeeds in moving a scheme from one place to another. You're right that some people will be upset by a Decision From On High that affects their life, but if the reasons are laid out transparently and clearly, I think that would do much more good psychologically vs the implied hint that "if you organise the locals well enough against this, you might succeed in getting us to move the thing" to Place B (whose locals then know that the only solution is to shout even louder)
Those areas that successfully move a scheme are probably those who are better connected and have more resource than the location the scheme gets dumped on to. Principal 5 of 'Principles for navigating the social aspects of grid transformation' covers inequality, but doesn't specifically call out the inequality of how persuasive different groups can be.
The inequality and fairness angle is a good reason why we should ignore nimby activism or perhaps weight the activism based on the population that it is claiming to represent relative to the affected population if the scheme were to not go ahead.
Excellent piece….. and, as always, the late Brian Clough springs to mind. He got the best out of his players by never, ever focussing on their weaknesses. Defenders? Head it and kick it. Holding midfielders? Get the ball, give it to someone who can actually play etc.
Point being that trying to make every player do everything is pointless - all you do is demoralise an attacking player by making him focus on improving weaknesses, not strengths.
And here we are. Build stuff. The whole housing/ fix rivers thing is utterly bonkers. As a housing developer, the stuff I’ve come up against in planning is mind boggling - but all terribly *worthy* isn’t it? Meanwhile in my village, they’re building a small block of flats. Trying to get an extra storey added to it but, sigh, it’s back out for public consultation. Needless to say, nobody is hearing the voices of, for example, the two young ladies who have just opened a brilliant little bakery (incredible cakes) who would love to also live here but can’t afford it.
This is another good reason for a Land Value Tax. Yes, you will have pylons, but if that makes the land under your house less valuable, then you will have a commensurate reduction in tax. If it doesn't reduce the value, then other people don't find it as offensive as you - maybe you should move.
Problem is, this isn't a vote winner. The more infrastructure that happens, the more voters feel they're not being listened to, and then the more votes for the nimby parties. As much as I want more infrastructure built, I can see the political risk of doing so.