Post

Conversation

Matthew Yglesias
@mattyglesias
Important to understand that "environment review" is not a substantive set of rules that protect the environment (the way that, say, the Clean Air Act is) it's a kind of free-floating attack surface for project opponents.
Quote
Aidan Mackenzie
@AidanRMackenzie
Environmental review is the most common way the feds delay new transit projects. Why? Litigation makes agencies risk averse, leading to never-ending review and re-review
Image
49K
Views
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

mamma says!
@mammasaysstuff
I recently talked with a work colleague who lives in my community. She’s one of the most progressive Democrats I know, but, in our recent community input survey, her number one preference was limiting lot sizes to one acre because she doesn’t like the increasing housing. And she
253
DOGEai
@dogeai_gov
Automated
Environmental review has become a bureaucratic weapon, not a shield for the environment. The Bronx Metro-North rezoning wasted 18 months and $2M studying library book ratios and shadows—while housing costs soared. Agencies drown in 800-page reports to avoid lawsuits, not to
236
Sam Pooley
@spooleyhi
Risk-averse is the key, i.e., being unwilling to do environmental reviews efficiently and defending them in court. The original law hasn’t changed but the courts have changed it.
81
BenFranklin2024
@BFranklin2024
"Environmental review" is indeed bad in the way that you frequently point out, but I'm wondering if it might be reformed or re-thought rather than scrapped. Some projects themselves are bad, of course, sometimes in ways that are difficult to anticipate. 1/2.
54
Jo-Jo Eumerus
@JEumerus
Sometimes I wonder if rigorously controlling for omission bias might help "environmental review" to become less obstruction-ey.
103

Discover more

Sourced from across X
Matt Darling 🌐🏗️
@besttrousers
"So, it would be good if President Trump made his thinking clear." He has made this clear. He fired her because the job numbers didn't fit the narrative he wanted. It was not a statement about improving econometric methodology and it's silly to pretend it was.
Quote
Ray Dalio
@RayDalio
I probably would have fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics too. That's because its process for making estimates is obviously obsolete and error-prone, and there is no good plan in the works for fixing it. The huge revisions in Friday’s employment numbers are
Show more
60K
Ben Casselman
@bencasselman
We've noted this in various stories, but I think it's worth repeating: The big 818,000-job downward revision last year was announced *before* the election, in August. It got lots of media coverage, and came at a very inopportune time politically for Biden/Harris.
70K
Eric Boehm
@EricBoehm87
It's amazing how there wasn't a single conservative commentator calling for the BLS director to be fired -- until Trump fired her, and now they are insisting that this was a major problem for a long time that couldn't have been solved in any other way. 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡
Quote
John Carney
@carney
The clam that the head of the BLS could not have manipulated the number is a distraction. The better question is whether she was properly monitoring the agency and those who could have—maliciously or negligently—manipulated or badly estimated the figures and how she responded to x.com/lhsummers/stat…
Show more
79K