> That barely warrants a comment on Hacker News, much less a town hall.

I think that's maybe what I'm saying? Or the other side of the coin? I personally don't think there's some compelling harm being done by the government in this case.

Maybe some general discussion of neglect in the use of the land might be more compelling to me, but I'm not sure that delays in allocating it to charging stations in particular seems like a grand failure of governance. The soil is contaminated and the government wants to clean it up while they're tearing it up? Next to a planned park apparently? And this is causing harm by... holding up EV charging stations? Not a light rail hub, or walking trails connecting neighborhoods, or cycling infrastructure, or a clinic, but EV charging stations?

> I am inclined to think that this argument could be used to shut down any case study used to critique the bureaucracy.

I guess another way of phrasing my reaction is that I don't find this particular example very compelling in critiquing bureaucracy. Maybe more to my point, the fact that the author presents it as urgent to me sort of ironically underscores the problems with the argument they advance. It's an urgent need to them, but maybe not to the public at large?

It's also maybe worth pointing out the converse is true: the argument in Abundance could be used to shut down any case study used to support the government in being prudent or thorough?