Recent comments in /f/pittsburgh

ktxhopem3276 t1_jd3081f wrote

The new rate is 0.3% of development cost.

How much they raised it by is irrelevant.
Throwing around random dollar amounts is annoying at best and being deceptive at worst. These buildings will stand for 50-100 years and should be reviewed thoroughly by the city.

Nimbys and astroturfing shills should be the focus of our outrage at reasonable developments being stymied

11

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2z32u wrote

Most of the time, these activists have nothing resembling a workable plan, let alone funding. Their approach to "oversight" is to jam up the process so nothing new ever gets built unless they approve. Which they never do, because they're typical NIMBYs or tankies. People respond much better to complaints when the complainers present a workable solution to the problem they identify.

It blows my mind how resistant some people here are to development, even when Pgh has been badly lagging in this area since the 1980s. We have a declining population and some of the oldest housing stock in the country. Opposing development instead of compromising for smarter, more equitable development is a fool's errand.

5

TheLittleParis t1_jd2yo6k wrote

Yeah, I had concerns about Gainey from the beginning since he didn't seem to have much in the way of legislative accomplishments or a detailed policy platform compared to Peduto. I tried to keep an open mind in the first year, but it seems clear now that he just doesn't have an interest in policy or the day-to-day management of city services.

8

69FunnyNumberGuy420 t1_jd2xw51 wrote

Economics exists as a "science" to backfill an explanation for what the capital-holding classes want to do anyway. You know that and I know that.
 
My favorite economics story is from the book Princes of the Yen, wherein Japan sent their youngest and brightest minds to Chicago to learn economics, and they took what they learned there and trashed the Japanese economy for over three decades and counting. Good stuff.

−1

Gnarlsaurus_Sketch t1_jd2xftw wrote

Behavioral economics makes very different assumptions than the rational choice theory you're describing. Also, many if not most seemingly irrational decisions can be explained by incomplete access to information or people valuing money differently.

Yours is a common and, to some extent, valid criticism of classical and neoclassical economics. That said, don't throw the baby out with the bath water here.

5