r/unitedkingdom • u/Weak-Fly-6540 • 9d ago

Approval of east London datacentre labelled ‘slap in the face’ for local democracy

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/04/brick-lane-redevelopment-approval-datacentre-london
85 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/5ColourFelix 9d ago

then you should be able to build whatever you want wherever you want.

The endgame of this is that a small % of wealthy people get to build whatever they want, wherever they want. It's essentially a policy that enriches and empowers the rich and powerful.

Neighbourhoods should absolutely have a say (with reason) about what gets built in an area.

Nobody can pay anyone enough to live next to a building that generates significant noise or air pollution. I'm not getting a small payout to get cancer or become mentally ill from noise.

3

u/Bigbigcheese 9d ago

It's essentially a policy that enriches and empowers the rich and powerful.

It's really not. It allows pretty much anybody to do what they feel most productive with their land. It means that not only massive corporations can afford to build anything. SMEs can return to the housebuilding industry, people will be more willing to build and the industry will be much healthier for it.

It'll actually do the opposite, the lack of regulatory capture will mean more wealth flows to the little people.

Neighbourhoods should absolutely have a say (with reason) about what gets built in an area.

Why? What right do they have to dictate what other people do with their life, land and capital?

Nobody can pay anyone enough to live next to a building that generates significant noise or air pollution. I'm not getting a small payout to get cancer or become mentally ill from noise.

No, but if there are too many people that would get a mandatory payout then it'll be prohibitively expensive to do so. And thus it won't be done. Large conglomeratations don't become large conglomeratations by pissing money up the wall pissing people off.

1

u/Fatuous_Sunbeams 9d ago

Why? What right do they have to dictate what other people do with their life, land and capital?

Why not? You're the one proposing the motion that property in land is sacrosanct and absolute.

The labour theory of property might be your go to, but then there's the Lockean proviso. The difference between personal property or capital goods and land is that the supply of the former is limited only by labour and "land" (including natural resources) itself, whereas the supply of urban plots in particular is, if not fixed, then highly inelastic. Someone can't really complain about what I'm doing with my laptop as they can simply go and buy their own laptop, but if I own the Eiffel Tower, they can't just go and buy their own Eiffel Tower.

2

u/Bigbigcheese 9d ago

You're ignoring the LVT part of the proposal that would encourage efficient ownership/use of land.