The idea that you get to put a stake in the ground and then that plot of dirt yours forever is insane. The amount of infrastructure projects in Denmark that are put on hold indefinitely because locals are upset, not at being forced to move, but because they think they own their land and the view, is nuts.
I agree. There needs to be a middle ground. In Germany, NIMBYs opposed to wind turbines because they’re supposedly loud and ugly, as well as NIMBYs opposed to high-capacity power lines have become somewhat of a meme.
The right way to handle this is buying the land at a reasonable price (where you actually need to build on someone’s land, not buying ‘the view’).
NIMBYs opposed to windpower seems like a tale as old as time. Case in point, read Don Quixote, old man is so angry at wind turbines he actually tries to joust them through
No, its because they are loud and make flickering shadows. Which is true if you live under them. That’s why there are regulations on how close to buildings they are allowed.
Besides other really stupid things like they explode bats because of infrasound…
WiFi at least does go through you. It’s harmless, even if it was four orders of magnitude more powerful it’d just cause heating, but there’s contact.
If I had to think of a reason a windmill could cause illness, I’d guess infrasound, but the the proponents seem to be think it’s something about the way they reflect sunlight. It reminds me of when people in England though the first trains were making their cows sick, it’s like real bumpkin stuff.
It’s either your land or it’s someone else’s. In a place like China the government owns all the land which means it’s all owned by wealthy, ultra-powerful, ultra-connected party elites. At no point is there a situation where millions or billions of people all share land in common. There is always politics, there will always be powerful elites, there will always be people getting screwed over.
The difference with Denmark is that individual small people have a tiny bit more power than individuals in China. The fact that this results in progress being impeded is a tradeoff that brings enormous benefits for personal freedom.
Read about the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. Over a million people were forcibly displaced from their homes as a result. Many cities, towns, and villages were completely destroyed. The living conditions of the displaced deteriorated and their lives were irrevocably altered.
There is world of difference between displacing a million people and doing little to help them along, and telling a small group of farmers to fuck off or get rolled over. It’s not either / or. It’s that in the western world, we attribute too much to land ownership because it’s deeply tied to peoples personal economy and nebulous concepts like freedom. I think that’s insane. Decomodify housing and ban the trading of land as a speculative market, and I think you’ll see people give less of a shit about it.
Here in Denmark, farmers (and suburbanites pretending to be rural, let’s be real) have an immensely disproportionate amount of power to veto infrastructure projects that benefit us all for the dumbest reasons, but I can’t veto the parking lots they demand be built on my street even though it only benefits them.
Where I live (east of Montreal), people who’s house is in front of a rail line complained about a train mass transit project that was in development before being severely altered because of NIMBYs.
Why not vote against subsidies for farmers then? I’m just as against subsidies as I am in favour of land ownership. The biggest problem I have with subsidies and high taxes and government control of property is that it politicizes these decisions and pits special interests against the common good.
Once you create a subsidy it becomes very difficult to get rid of it, politically. The farmers who benefit from it will fight tooth and nail to keep it regardless of whether or not the subsidy actually benefits society.
What makes you think I don’t? Farmers also hold a disproportional amount of political power. My one vote isn’t going to uproot the fundamental flaws of how we choose to do democracy.
I think it’s more useful to talk about how insane the status quo is, like that land is a speculative market that effectively locks lower-class people out of living on their own terms, as it might awaken more people to the reality that we live in, and the inevitable far-worse future we’re rushing headfirst into.
At least in Europe the land used to be owned by everybody (the so-called “Commons”) and then kings decided to take it all and make it the property of the Crown which would then divy it out to favored servants of the Crown.
Modern laws around Land Ownership are just a natural extension of the laws made in the Monarchical system and which were mainly preserved and extended in the transition to Republic and later Democracy, probably as a way to try and keep the landed gentry from stopping that transition (also, having lived through a Revolution from Authoritanism to Democracy an its aftermath, it’s my impression that the powerful from the previous regime generaly get to keep most of their possessions and hence power, even some amount of political power as they use their wealth to fund parties to represent their interests under Democracy).
Read about the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. Over a million people were forcibly displaced from their homes as a result. Many cities, towns, and villages were completely destroyed.
The US did this all the time back when we actually built things.
While I was more specifically referring to dam projects in the US that displaced people as a direct comparison, you’re absolutely correct. That bastard Robert Moses fucked up our cities so badly.
And the advantages of the autocratic approach only show up for slices of time. Eventually, elites will give up on development if it impedes their control. All dictatorships slide into feudal monarchy over time (see the last several thousand years).
If your land, serving you and your family of 6, could serve a thousand people instead via infrastructure or urbanization, then yes, I think the government has the right to uproot and resettle you. Obviously, on the condition that you are compensated and helped along, which I know doesn’t happen in either country, but clinging to ideals isn’t helping solve the issue.
This source (pages 124-128) for the Wikipedia page on eminent domain makes China and the USA both seem abysmal when it comes to reasonable compensation for seized property.
Probably in theory. In practice, the judiciary works for the party, the party has a stake in the construction, and there’s branches of the party that are always trying to get an advantage over each other, ethically or not. When I see a story about civil unrest in China, it’s usually due to local officials making an entire village homeless.
When you develop a knee-jerk reaction to phrases like “Chinese propaganda” and “Russian propaganda”, you really open yourself up to being manipulated by them.
Fuck ml. I am willing to bet the Chengdu one won’t survive the next 14 years. Or 5. But I am willing to give an half honest thumbs up to the tankies if it still stands in 2026.
I guess it’s easier to undertake a massive infrastructure project if you can just tell residents to move it or else…
The idea that you get to put a stake in the ground and then that plot of dirt yours forever is insane. The amount of infrastructure projects in Denmark that are put on hold indefinitely because locals are upset, not at being forced to move, but because they think they own their land and the view, is nuts.
I agree. There needs to be a middle ground. In Germany, NIMBYs opposed to wind turbines because they’re supposedly loud and ugly, as well as NIMBYs opposed to high-capacity power lines have become somewhat of a meme.
The right way to handle this is buying the land at a reasonable price (where you actually need to build on someone’s land, not buying ‘the view’).
The irony is even bigger in the Netherlands: our proudest most beautiful national icon: old wind power.
New wind power however it’s deemed ugly and ‘visual pollution’ even though it’s the same thing and clean energy.
NIMBYs opposed to windpower seems like a tale as old as time. Case in point, read Don Quixote, old man is so angry at wind turbines he actually tries to joust them through
That’s not the story in Don Quijote. Guy is nuts and mistakes the windmills for giants.
Let’s not forget that he was an old guy with the hots for a younger woman - Dulcinea - who he wanted to impress, hence attacking the “giants”.
There are many levels in Don Quixote de la Mancha.
Isn’t that why people are so scared of modern windmills? They think they’re giants?
But if they lose power for 20 minutes god save you from their wrath
I’ve heard people around me saying they make people sick. By spinning, I guess?
No, its because they are loud and make flickering shadows. Which is true if you live under them. That’s why there are regulations on how close to buildings they are allowed.
Besides other really stupid things like they explode bats because of infrasound…
I mean if they exploded bats that would be really cool and metal, lol.
For the same reason as WiFi supposedly making people sick.
To be clear, what I mean by that is “its utter horse shit”.
WiFi at least does go through you. It’s harmless, even if it was four orders of magnitude more powerful it’d just cause heating, but there’s contact.
If I had to think of a reason a windmill could cause illness, I’d guess infrasound, but the the proponents seem to be think it’s something about the way they reflect sunlight. It reminds me of when people in England though the first trains were making their cows sick, it’s like real bumpkin stuff.
It’s either your land or it’s someone else’s. In a place like China the government owns all the land which means it’s all owned by wealthy, ultra-powerful, ultra-connected party elites. At no point is there a situation where millions or billions of people all share land in common. There is always politics, there will always be powerful elites, there will always be people getting screwed over.
The difference with Denmark is that individual small people have a tiny bit more power than individuals in China. The fact that this results in progress being impeded is a tradeoff that brings enormous benefits for personal freedom.
Read about the construction of the Three Gorges Dam. Over a million people were forcibly displaced from their homes as a result. Many cities, towns, and villages were completely destroyed. The living conditions of the displaced deteriorated and their lives were irrevocably altered.
There is world of difference between displacing a million people and doing little to help them along, and telling a small group of farmers to fuck off or get rolled over. It’s not either / or. It’s that in the western world, we attribute too much to land ownership because it’s deeply tied to peoples personal economy and nebulous concepts like freedom. I think that’s insane. Decomodify housing and ban the trading of land as a speculative market, and I think you’ll see people give less of a shit about it.
Here in Denmark, farmers (and suburbanites pretending to be rural, let’s be real) have an immensely disproportionate amount of power to veto infrastructure projects that benefit us all for the dumbest reasons, but I can’t veto the parking lots they demand be built on my street even though it only benefits them.
Last month, some-200 farmers got off their subsidized ass to bitch and whine about how some electric poles off in the distance would, and I quote, “ruin my life”. https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/niels-bliver-nabo-til-44-meter-hoeje-elmaster-vi-faar-oedelagt-vores-livsvaerdi
Where I live (east of Montreal), people who’s house is in front of a rail line complained about a train mass transit project that was in development before being severely altered because of NIMBYs.
…
Why not vote against subsidies for farmers then? I’m just as against subsidies as I am in favour of land ownership. The biggest problem I have with subsidies and high taxes and government control of property is that it politicizes these decisions and pits special interests against the common good.
Once you create a subsidy it becomes very difficult to get rid of it, politically. The farmers who benefit from it will fight tooth and nail to keep it regardless of whether or not the subsidy actually benefits society.
What makes you think I don’t? Farmers also hold a disproportional amount of political power. My one vote isn’t going to uproot the fundamental flaws of how we choose to do democracy.
I think it’s more useful to talk about how insane the status quo is, like that land is a speculative market that effectively locks lower-class people out of living on their own terms, as it might awaken more people to the reality that we live in, and the inevitable far-worse future we’re rushing headfirst into.
At least in Europe the land used to be owned by everybody (the so-called “Commons”) and then kings decided to take it all and make it the property of the Crown which would then divy it out to favored servants of the Crown.
Modern laws around Land Ownership are just a natural extension of the laws made in the Monarchical system and which were mainly preserved and extended in the transition to Republic and later Democracy, probably as a way to try and keep the landed gentry from stopping that transition (also, having lived through a Revolution from Authoritanism to Democracy an its aftermath, it’s my impression that the powerful from the previous regime generaly get to keep most of their possessions and hence power, even some amount of political power as they use their wealth to fund parties to represent their interests under Democracy).
The US did this all the time back when we actually built things.
The good old days where highway planners looked upon black communities and called them free real estate.
This is not a dunk on your comment, just historic context.
While I was more specifically referring to dam projects in the US that displaced people as a direct comparison, you’re absolutely correct. That bastard Robert Moses fucked up our cities so badly.
Exactly. Sure, China gets shit done. But it comes with not giving a fuck about a lot of their own people, a lot of the time.
And the advantages of the autocratic approach only show up for slices of time. Eventually, elites will give up on development if it impedes their control. All dictatorships slide into feudal monarchy over time (see the last several thousand years).
Is it less insane than the government owns it forever?
Preferable to the idea that the state can come in and force your local area to bend to its will.
If your land, serving you and your family of 6, could serve a thousand people instead via infrastructure or urbanization, then yes, I think the government has the right to uproot and resettle you. Obviously, on the condition that you are compensated and helped along, which I know doesn’t happen in either country, but clinging to ideals isn’t helping solve the issue.
Gestures in eminent domain.
What I thought as well, but that still pays the residents fair housing market value.
This source (pages 124-128) for the Wikipedia page on eminent domain makes China and the USA both seem abysmal when it comes to reasonable compensation for seized property.
though still China more abysmal than others
I think but an not sure that China does that too.
Probably in theory. In practice, the judiciary works for the party, the party has a stake in the construction, and there’s branches of the party that are always trying to get an advantage over each other, ethically or not. When I see a story about civil unrest in China, it’s usually due to local officials making an entire village homeless.
Careful, you might get a ban from .ml for saying that
The Chinese government is the most ethical government in the world according to people in .ml haha. Really boggles the mind
When you develop a knee-jerk reaction to phrases like “Chinese propaganda” and “Russian propaganda”, you really open yourself up to being manipulated by them.
Fuck ml. I am willing to bet the Chengdu one won’t survive the next 14 years. Or 5. But I am willing to give an half honest thumbs up to the tankies if it still stands in 2026.
Why‽ There’s no sign of this subway failing at all. Rail enthusiasts everywhere praise Asian subways.
Also easier when you don’t need to worry you’ll be voted out for spending tax money on a massive infrastructure project.
No, they do, the big difference is that they’ll be voted out and replaced by someone else from the same party.
Because there’s only one party.
it’s a metro, no need to move anyone…
Metros aren’t always underground. They also need entrances to their stops above ground.
Is that what they did? It’s a legitimate question, I’m not finding info online.