Comment by bell-cot
3 days ago
> ... first spotted ‘some type of unit’ on satellite imagery ...
> According to the NYT, the “tractor-trailer-size” generators were “impossible to miss” and certainly were not there when inspectors last visited in December 2025.
Just how lax is NJ's regulation, for violations to be noticed from space, after a billion-dollar construction project received no inspections for 9 months?
Hard to bribe satellites, easy to bribe NJ inspectors
The way it likely works is that SOP is to not visit or if you do don't "notice" stuff you can see from the air because if they use the GIS as their source they get to back date the fine to the date of the last GIS aerial photos and then use their magical powers of "we're the government, either sue us or bend over and take it" to let that fine stand unless they subject of the fine produces evidince of when they installed the offense which they then use to make the fine more defensible if the subject ever goes get in front of a real court.
That's how a lot of the worse municipalities roll in my state that is very politically similar.
Also, 9mo ago data centers weren't boogeymen the government wanted to flamboyantly turn the screws on make a "look we're serving your interests" show for the peasants.
Commercial photography costs money. Hard to reconcile how public goods are all in private hands, but new jersey ain't launching satellites, they're also not going to buy daily satellite images.
If NJ's inspectors can't be bothered to visit a site this large for 9 months, then would it do any good for the photography to be magically free?
If NJ's inspectors are honest, competent, and numerous enough to actually do the job, then would cheap drones be good enough to provide quick "big picture" views?
What a weird argument. If one doesn't trust private enterprise to "do right" then the state is nannying and oppressing companies, and if one does and therefore only inspects once a year or so then the state is neglecting their duties...
Public inspectors can't do right.
Maybe it is also fair to ask, did the developer/operator try to get away with something there? Do and hope for forgiveness instead of asking permission?
(and the "fine" is laughable, especially since retrospective permit is rather likely; in fact the fine might not even be higher than the cost of any project delay from requesting the generators at planning approval stage...)
Inspections are annual unless they receive complaints. This is normal. It works that way in the private world as well.
Yearly audits seem fair, no?