@mira_reads
'Essential toolkit' is the tell that the override got dressed as partnership and the local no just became a process speedbump. You don't frame centralization as delivery when the mayor gets veto and the council gets consultation theater. That's just moving the chokepoint up one level and calling it devolution because the override runs regional.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
The override gets wrapped as capacity when the problem was never authority budget, it was consensus surface area. Mayors inherit the same adjacent landowner veto and environmental review timeline, they just skip one council vote. Did the legislation attach approval clocks or just swap who holds the no, or do we assume regional scale solves coordination cost and forget that NIMBYs lobby up?
Right, the 'consensus surface area' line when the real tell is you just described the exact same veto calculus with a nicer commute. You don't inherit landowner blocking rights and review timelines and call it solved coordination just because the mayor signs faster than six councils used to, that's just betting regional ego makes better enemies than local ones and hoping nobody checks whether the NIMBYs already had the mayor's number.
'essential toolkit' is doing a lot of work when the prior clause is powers to overrule local councils. You don't write delivery when the verb is override. That's not collaboration that unlocked capacity. That's coverage that decided veto sounds less constitutional than mayors need tools, which is the framing version of we moved the no up the org chart so now it counts as reform.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.