This piece frames local resistance to development as irrational “stagnation,” but I think that oversimplifies the real issue. Growth isn’t inherently good if it primarily benefits developers and investors while sidelining the needs of local communities. Often, people aren’t opposed to building in principle—they just want it to be thoughtful, sustainable, and actually beneficial to those who live there.
The article dismisses environmental and aesthetic concerns as mere red tape, but who decides what gets built, where, and for whose benefit? A lot of large-scale projects prioritize short-term profit over long-term livability. Housing, for example, isn’t just about quantity—it’s about quality, affordability, and integration into existing communities. The UK’s problem isn’t just not enough housing, but too much bad, profit-driven development that ignores local needs.
Deregulating planning laws won’t fix deeper issues like underinvestment in public infrastructure, austerity-driven decay, and a financialized economy that prioritizes speculation over sustainable development. If we want to improve infrastructure and housing, we need democratic decision-making that includes local voices, not just top-down deregulation that gives corporations even more power to reshape communities without accountability.
We have exactly the same situation in the States, to greater (California) or lesser (Texas) degrees depending on where you are. It’s ironic that the “progressives” are now calling for the streamlining of approval processes, as they are the ones who created these processes in the first place, and then exercised them to the maximum extent to prevent construction of housing and infrastructure. Better late than never, but a lot of damage has been done and a lot of time lost.
Another aspect of the economically destructive regime of NEPA and CEQA that I haven’t seen commented on is the sheer magnitude of human effort and associated cost required to produce the many tons of environmental review documents. Imagine if all that college-educated brainpower had actually been directed into productive activities instead of being devoted to adding friction, often at a fatal level, to any effort to build something. And had all the capital to pay for this friction been instead allocated toward production? Perhaps we would not find ourselves confronting a geopolitical environment in which China is likely soon to be the dominant power, economically and militarily.
Although we in red states are effective at getting private enterprise (industry, housing, etc.) to locate and build within our borders, we are as inept as blue states when it comes to public infrastructure projects.
Sounds like the UK needs a Trump/Musk duo to come along and slash bureaucracy and red tape! Seriously though, Brits have always been great complainers and love nothing better than a good argument. They won't agree to anything that might affect their comfort, lifestyle, driveway or view. A basically selfish attitude which has landed the country in the state it is in. And before anyone gets upset, I was born and bred in the UK. Now, thankfully, I live in a far more forward thinking country which gets things done (Spain). I gave up my British nationality 40 years ago and haven't regretted it for a single day.
This piece frames local resistance to development as irrational “stagnation,” but I think that oversimplifies the real issue. Growth isn’t inherently good if it primarily benefits developers and investors while sidelining the needs of local communities. Often, people aren’t opposed to building in principle—they just want it to be thoughtful, sustainable, and actually beneficial to those who live there.
The article dismisses environmental and aesthetic concerns as mere red tape, but who decides what gets built, where, and for whose benefit? A lot of large-scale projects prioritize short-term profit over long-term livability. Housing, for example, isn’t just about quantity—it’s about quality, affordability, and integration into existing communities. The UK’s problem isn’t just not enough housing, but too much bad, profit-driven development that ignores local needs.
Deregulating planning laws won’t fix deeper issues like underinvestment in public infrastructure, austerity-driven decay, and a financialized economy that prioritizes speculation over sustainable development. If we want to improve infrastructure and housing, we need democratic decision-making that includes local voices, not just top-down deregulation that gives corporations even more power to reshape communities without accountability.
Growth for whom? That’s the real question.
If you build quickly enough at the high end, the buyers won’t bid up the lower end.
We have exactly the same situation in the States, to greater (California) or lesser (Texas) degrees depending on where you are. It’s ironic that the “progressives” are now calling for the streamlining of approval processes, as they are the ones who created these processes in the first place, and then exercised them to the maximum extent to prevent construction of housing and infrastructure. Better late than never, but a lot of damage has been done and a lot of time lost.
Another aspect of the economically destructive regime of NEPA and CEQA that I haven’t seen commented on is the sheer magnitude of human effort and associated cost required to produce the many tons of environmental review documents. Imagine if all that college-educated brainpower had actually been directed into productive activities instead of being devoted to adding friction, often at a fatal level, to any effort to build something. And had all the capital to pay for this friction been instead allocated toward production? Perhaps we would not find ourselves confronting a geopolitical environment in which China is likely soon to be the dominant power, economically and militarily.
Hard times create strong men that create good time. Good times create weak men that create hard times.
Although we in red states are effective at getting private enterprise (industry, housing, etc.) to locate and build within our borders, we are as inept as blue states when it comes to public infrastructure projects.
Liberal progressive is a disease in which NIMBYism is one of its many unfortunate symptoms.
Sounds like the UK needs a Trump/Musk duo to come along and slash bureaucracy and red tape! Seriously though, Brits have always been great complainers and love nothing better than a good argument. They won't agree to anything that might affect their comfort, lifestyle, driveway or view. A basically selfish attitude which has landed the country in the state it is in. And before anyone gets upset, I was born and bred in the UK. Now, thankfully, I live in a far more forward thinking country which gets things done (Spain). I gave up my British nationality 40 years ago and haven't regretted it for a single day.