wow, you got me there, sure the other option would be much worse... let's strictly follow dumb rules instead of trying to change them for people benefit
back
you don't want companies do what? stop building massive useless parking lots blocking local roads with thousands of cars instead of helping with local public transport, leaving nature untouched and easing the roads?
3 comments
Typically we don't like having companies manipulating municipal policies. This is how we end up in situations where we have one or two ISPs in a market. Or a situation where ATT and Google have to go to court for access to that pole. That was my point. It was not a dis on Apple or a desire for things to not change. We just need to tread carefully when allowing business to dictate municipal policy.
what has decreasing parking limits per employee (especially in middle of nowhere, so it's not like they are gonna park on nearby streets) to do with company being monopoly? somehow I fail to see there any relation, it might as well be company with 200 employees challenging dumb rule
it's not about business dictating rules, it's about 9000 parking spots for 12000 people, which sounds for someone from Europe completely insane
Like the other poster said, you're not even trying.
No, the poster is talking about influencing municipal policies.
You're not even trying.
and what's wrong with influencing municipal policies for good?
that's like saying that chain of nonsmoking restaurant is bad bad company if they try to push stricter local nonsmoking laws. that brand of electric vehicles is bad bad company if they try to push ban on old polluting cars. that bike company is bad bad for trying to influence city to build more roads
I fail to see what's wrong with anyone trying to influence local policies for better. Company is not some imaginative entity, in the end it's people after all.
Stop being deliberately obtuse. We don't want companies using their leverage to change city regulations, even if it's something we agree with.
why not? you rather suffer out of principle? what difference does it make if it's company or local citizen chalenging stupid rule? I fail to see difference if it's something majority will benefit from
We don't want it to become accepted that a company uses its weight to change city ordinances it doesn't like. Because more often than not, it'll end up doing so in a way we don't like.
municipal administration can always disagree, it's not blank check if you agree once for good of the people with company, not sure what's so difficut to understand about it, but maybe it's ingrained in american heads from your judicial system based on precedents (AFAIK)
it doesn't even need to be exception, you can change rules for everyone if it's good idea, no mater who is proposing change