Sorry everybody. As you can see, genuine comments from me have this little "AUTHOR" tag on them.
The geniuses of Substack have created a block function which means that if someone impersonates me, but has the sense to block me when they create the account, I can't ban them, report them or even see their comment spam. I have submitted a tetchy support request; if the whole newsletter moves to a different platform, this will be why.
Thanks for filling us in. That spammer really threw me for a loop. It didn't sound like you, and I was hoping it was not you. But it is so hard to tell these days. We are in a "nothing may be what it seems" era now. Please let us know if you move this discussion, I am quite enjoying it! Also your books, which I bought. It is distressing to realize that this spammer actually showed up in my email inbox...the internet has become a real snake pit, like politics. Something must be fundamentally wrong with it, like a body that cannot defend itself against germs or diseases. It wasn't designed for the role it plays today.
> “ I think the key worry about back channel conversations is that they might be a vector for bribery or influence, but I’m not sure that the potential harm from that is of the same order as the harm from constantly delayed infrastructure”
Mmm… not sure about that. The problem of bribery and undue influence going on is a bad one in itself, sure, but a bigger one is if everyone thinks that that’s how it works. That’s a big picture problem like “not having infrastructure” is. Some might say that’s naive and everybody already does think that the whole planning process is already nothing but a mess of unfair decisions and backhanders so you can’t make that worse, but I don’t think I’m quite that cynical.
I think in some sense, so long as there is an overarching planning system that can veto projects based on claims by those possibly in danger of future harm there will always be a huge amount of insider power required to get things done. The problem isn’t so much how the conversations happen, but a lot of concentrated arbitrary power.
It is interesting this morning to read about the corruption problems around big construction projects in Spain now affecting the other main party (current government) after taking a strong hold of the other party/previous government. In particular because Spain has come up a lot in abundance type discussions with praise for infra projects (eg the low cost per km of building out their high speed rail network). Not sure what that adds up to, but something to ponder perhaps.
I viscerally dislike systems where the rules say things are done one way and repeat players (but not newcomers) know they are really done another way. But that is an aesthetic preference, not a policy argument. (I can make it a policy argument by asserting the importance of transparency to democratic control and accountability, but that won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with me.)
On the subject of repeat bad faith objectors, that can probably be fixed with an administrative fine (or award of costs to the developer for preparing a response to an objection later determined to lack a reasonable basis?) or perhaps a disqualification after X number of bad-faith objections. I wouldn’t think you’d have to go criminal over it.
It feels (which means "it's probably untrue that...") solving the state capacity part of the problem would make the lack of informal channels easier to solve through direct or indirect means (early access to the plan of "what we're going to look deeper into [in order of how seriously we take it]", external consultants who can turn around and talk with developers, etc) but first you have to have the thing you want to communicate.
You and the "Abundace" folks are chewing on the same problem. Too many choke points and veto points are in the system. Seems to me as a natural consequence to decades of projects being steam rollered into existance. In Murika, freeways and Urban Slum Clearance. The victims grasped enough power and got a say. Shit stirrers saw a great opportunity to stir shit in to the process just for the fun of it.
Sorry everybody. As you can see, genuine comments from me have this little "AUTHOR" tag on them.
The geniuses of Substack have created a block function which means that if someone impersonates me, but has the sense to block me when they create the account, I can't ban them, report them or even see their comment spam. I have submitted a tetchy support request; if the whole newsletter moves to a different platform, this will be why.
Thanks for filling us in. That spammer really threw me for a loop. It didn't sound like you, and I was hoping it was not you. But it is so hard to tell these days. We are in a "nothing may be what it seems" era now. Please let us know if you move this discussion, I am quite enjoying it! Also your books, which I bought. It is distressing to realize that this spammer actually showed up in my email inbox...the internet has become a real snake pit, like politics. Something must be fundamentally wrong with it, like a body that cannot defend itself against germs or diseases. It wasn't designed for the role it plays today.
> “ I think the key worry about back channel conversations is that they might be a vector for bribery or influence, but I’m not sure that the potential harm from that is of the same order as the harm from constantly delayed infrastructure”
Mmm… not sure about that. The problem of bribery and undue influence going on is a bad one in itself, sure, but a bigger one is if everyone thinks that that’s how it works. That’s a big picture problem like “not having infrastructure” is. Some might say that’s naive and everybody already does think that the whole planning process is already nothing but a mess of unfair decisions and backhanders so you can’t make that worse, but I don’t think I’m quite that cynical.
I think in some sense, so long as there is an overarching planning system that can veto projects based on claims by those possibly in danger of future harm there will always be a huge amount of insider power required to get things done. The problem isn’t so much how the conversations happen, but a lot of concentrated arbitrary power.
Dodgy spammer in the comments then.
It is interesting this morning to read about the corruption problems around big construction projects in Spain now affecting the other main party (current government) after taking a strong hold of the other party/previous government. In particular because Spain has come up a lot in abundance type discussions with praise for infra projects (eg the low cost per km of building out their high speed rail network). Not sure what that adds up to, but something to ponder perhaps.
fn2: LOL!
?
Not specific to this post, but The Atlantic has a terrific story about the Unaccountability Machine in operation at the Ford Motor Company: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/customer-service-sludge/683340/
I viscerally dislike systems where the rules say things are done one way and repeat players (but not newcomers) know they are really done another way. But that is an aesthetic preference, not a policy argument. (I can make it a policy argument by asserting the importance of transparency to democratic control and accountability, but that won’t convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with me.)
On the subject of repeat bad faith objectors, that can probably be fixed with an administrative fine (or award of costs to the developer for preparing a response to an objection later determined to lack a reasonable basis?) or perhaps a disqualification after X number of bad-faith objections. I wouldn’t think you’d have to go criminal over it.
It feels (which means "it's probably untrue that...") solving the state capacity part of the problem would make the lack of informal channels easier to solve through direct or indirect means (early access to the plan of "what we're going to look deeper into [in order of how seriously we take it]", external consultants who can turn around and talk with developers, etc) but first you have to have the thing you want to communicate.
You and the "Abundace" folks are chewing on the same problem. Too many choke points and veto points are in the system. Seems to me as a natural consequence to decades of projects being steam rollered into existance. In Murika, freeways and Urban Slum Clearance. The victims grasped enough power and got a say. Shit stirrers saw a great opportunity to stir shit in to the process just for the fun of it.