ClarkFable t1_jea92qf wrote

>Pilots have to log a certain number of hours in the seat

This doesn't make this "exercise" any less useless in terms of actual training value.

>And yes, doing a low altitude formation in a metro area is a fine thing to practice

It's really not. In fact, it creates unnecessary risk to flyover a densely populated area for no reason other than to perform a low rent (high expense) fireworks show.


ClarkFable t1_jc7rcoy wrote

>Of late the libertarians in this country have decided even that shouldn't be, although the Constitution limits most acts of sabotage against it.

Yah, conservatives have done their best to try and destroy it for the past two decades, and thank god their options for interference are somewhat limited. In any event, when you cut through the bullshit, the USPS basically costs almost nothing (on a net operating basis), and still provides all the valuable services that the framers intended (and several more).


ClarkFable t1_jc74px4 wrote

>o one questions whether roads are making enough money because it's understood that they enable productivity in the areas they serve. Meanwhile we expect the T to pay for itself rather than act as a utility

I'll get slammed for saying this, but a big part of the problem with a non-competitive public service like the MBTA is that, in the long run, the unions and the contractors will extract all of the benefits from the system until it's too expensive to maintain. Thus, it becomes a never ending money pit.

But then again I don't really have any good answers to solve it.


ClarkFable t1_jc72y7o wrote

You’re not wrong, but that’s a broader definition of competition than what economists typically use. To offer up an absurd example to illustrate this point, suppose I prevent you from all other means besides hovercraft of commuting to work, then I suppose you would take a hovercraft to work (if you HAD to get work), and therefore conclude a hovercraft must be competition with the MBTA (generally). Thus, we must first consider the closeness/substitutability of alternatives before deeming them as sufficiently competitive to be considered proper competition.


ClarkFable t1_jaa7y5l wrote

"The operator of a bicycle shall ride at a speed no greater than an ordinary walk when on a sidewalk or when entering or leaving a sidewalk."

You're technically allowed, but you can't really operate it at normal biking speed.



ClarkFable t1_j6obau5 wrote

Early childhood education, family planning resources, birth control accessibility, incentive based basic income, etc. There will never be a silver bullet for these type of issues, but there are plenty of things we can do better. We also need to face the reality that some of the best policies won't work over night, and will take many years to really payoff.

That's all to say that there is more than can/should be done.


ClarkFable t1_j6lekex wrote

>The housing value matters if you want to move short term but most nimby probably care more about what effect there will be on day to day life if they’re planning to stay in their home for a while

This is a fair point, and I agree that the degree to which some will be swayed by potential property value increases varies across individual's. In a way, I probably have more sympathy for a NIMBY who isn't just being greedy for money, but instead has a genuine preference for the characteristics of their neighborhood.

>Obviously NIMBYs aren’t being helpful to fellow humans, but it also seems like an understandable instinct that people in a suburban neighborhood don’t want it to become more crowded, and don’t really gain anything of value otherwise

I find this also to be compelling. In some sense I think this is why the term NIMBY is overused (or misapplied) in these discussions. Home values constitute such a large portion of most peoples wealth/savings, that what rational person is going to want to see development that will harm or lower their home value? Along the same lines, I tend to think of NIMBY as reflecting the following thought process: I want public good X, but I don't want public good x near me--i.e., I want X but not in my back yard. So if a property owner doesn't really care about increasing the housing stock (regardless of its location), are they really a NIMBY?


ClarkFable t1_j6imahc wrote

Thing is, as long as you indiscriminately raise height limits, almost all NIMBYs will benefit too, as the potential occupancy of whatever footprint they own will increase. The problem is when you make height increases a case-by-case basis, which will just lead to more corruption incentives at the zoning board and reward shady developers.