Yes, point well made. From my experience at the coal face, you find that many development proposals like this fail to even get off the drawing board as the Council/local politician decides the political risk outweighs the upside. Particularly in electorally marginal areas such as Milton Keynes. This logically leads to the conclusion that arms length metro mayors, divorced from local politics, are better placed to drive economic growth as they are more likely to push ahead with locally sensitive proposals. An £85m redevelopment in 2020 was successfully killed off by a small band of objectors as the proposal was located in an electorally super marginal ward. Again, they were waging an ideological battle. Numerous concessions failed to temper their intransigence one iota. https://www.mkfm.com/news/local-news/18-hole-golf-course-in-milton-keynes-is-saved-from-developers/
I understand the appeal of incentivising local communities to accepting new pylon infrastructure, but... Logic would then suggest that all infrastructure should carry similar financial rewards for locals. But it doesn't and probably won't.
For example, should existing local communities expect to receive financial rewards for acquiescing to desperately needed new housing. Or should they simply accept, as a citizen of a country, that new infrastructure is part and parcel of creating a strong, prosperious and equitable country. And knowing this is their reward.
I think there are ways to get local communities on board to support new housing and infrastructure. For housing, the surplus value of new homes could help pay for new transport infrastructure. E.g. a Cambridge expansion could pay for a tramway to serve the entire city. It makes sense to me to compensate people when new infra negatively impacts them both from a fairness angle but also from an economics angle to avoid excess negativity and backlash towards a project.
I think making the moral arguments are good, but I don't think they're enough, especially when some of this infrastructure will necessarily burden more people than others. (there will be pylons in East Anglia, but won't be in central London)
The reason I favour the moral argument, as opposed to (financial) incentives for the community, is that based on my professional experience the provision of incentives fails to mitigate dissent. Detractors remain detractors, supporters remain supporters. As part of a recent redevelopment project, irrespective of the local community incentives offered, opposition remained unwavering. It became clear that the objectors were waging an ideological battle, and no manner of incentives were going to dissuade them from their cause. https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/people/plans-to-sell-off-part-of-milton-keynes-estate-to-supermarket-giant-get-resounding-thumbs-down-from-residents-4341535
That's an interesting and frustrating story. I think there's also a point to be made about veto players. Realistically a few local community members shouldn't be able to veto what a council or business chooses to do with its land unless it leads to significant externalities. If the residents are so concerned about their Londis shop, they can just continue to shop there. Although I reckon once the discount supermarket opens many of the residents would go there to save money on their shop.
The reason I favour the moral argument, as opposed to (financial) incentives for the community, is that based on my professional experience the provision of incentives fails to mitigate dissent. Detractors remain detractors, supporters remain supporters. As part of a recent redevelopment project, irrespective of the local community incentives offered, opposition remained unwavering. It became clear that the objectors were waging an ideological battle, and no manner of incentives were going to dissuade them from their cause. https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/people/plans-to-sell-off-part-of-milton-keynes-estate-to-supermarket-giant-get-resounding-thumbs-down-from-residents-4341535
Yes, point well made. From my experience at the coal face, you find that many development proposals like this fail to even get off the drawing board as the Council/local politician decides the political risk outweighs the upside. Particularly in electorally marginal areas such as Milton Keynes. This logically leads to the conclusion that arms length metro mayors, divorced from local politics, are better placed to drive economic growth as they are more likely to push ahead with locally sensitive proposals. An £85m redevelopment in 2020 was successfully killed off by a small band of objectors as the proposal was located in an electorally super marginal ward. Again, they were waging an ideological battle. Numerous concessions failed to temper their intransigence one iota. https://www.mkfm.com/news/local-news/18-hole-golf-course-in-milton-keynes-is-saved-from-developers/
I understand the appeal of incentivising local communities to accepting new pylon infrastructure, but... Logic would then suggest that all infrastructure should carry similar financial rewards for locals. But it doesn't and probably won't.
For example, should existing local communities expect to receive financial rewards for acquiescing to desperately needed new housing. Or should they simply accept, as a citizen of a country, that new infrastructure is part and parcel of creating a strong, prosperious and equitable country. And knowing this is their reward.
I think there are ways to get local communities on board to support new housing and infrastructure. For housing, the surplus value of new homes could help pay for new transport infrastructure. E.g. a Cambridge expansion could pay for a tramway to serve the entire city. It makes sense to me to compensate people when new infra negatively impacts them both from a fairness angle but also from an economics angle to avoid excess negativity and backlash towards a project.
I think making the moral arguments are good, but I don't think they're enough, especially when some of this infrastructure will necessarily burden more people than others. (there will be pylons in East Anglia, but won't be in central London)
These are all fair, cogent points.
The reason I favour the moral argument, as opposed to (financial) incentives for the community, is that based on my professional experience the provision of incentives fails to mitigate dissent. Detractors remain detractors, supporters remain supporters. As part of a recent redevelopment project, irrespective of the local community incentives offered, opposition remained unwavering. It became clear that the objectors were waging an ideological battle, and no manner of incentives were going to dissuade them from their cause. https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/people/plans-to-sell-off-part-of-milton-keynes-estate-to-supermarket-giant-get-resounding-thumbs-down-from-residents-4341535
That's an interesting and frustrating story. I think there's also a point to be made about veto players. Realistically a few local community members shouldn't be able to veto what a council or business chooses to do with its land unless it leads to significant externalities. If the residents are so concerned about their Londis shop, they can just continue to shop there. Although I reckon once the discount supermarket opens many of the residents would go there to save money on their shop.
These are all fair, cogent points.
The reason I favour the moral argument, as opposed to (financial) incentives for the community, is that based on my professional experience the provision of incentives fails to mitigate dissent. Detractors remain detractors, supporters remain supporters. As part of a recent redevelopment project, irrespective of the local community incentives offered, opposition remained unwavering. It became clear that the objectors were waging an ideological battle, and no manner of incentives were going to dissuade them from their cause. https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/people/plans-to-sell-off-part-of-milton-keynes-estate-to-supermarket-giant-get-resounding-thumbs-down-from-residents-4341535