America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
Rather than spending $10,000, STA can spend 10 minutes reading the columns in the Spokesman several weeks ago that pointed out the implications of the proposal. Like most agnecies, STA has economic motives to perpetuate itself and to expand itself. Those motives aren't necessarily in the best economic interests of the taxpayers who foot STA's bills. A healthy skepticism about STA is warranted for reasons including the cost of the STA plaza, which is now worth a fraction of the cost and is worthless for any other purpose such as retail.
Maybe someday parents will have vouchers for their kids' K-12 education and even families with modest incomes will have access to schools like this one.
Drivers don't always recognize pedestrians or bikers even when they look directly at them. I've had numerous close calls in both capacities, and most were drivers looking out for other cars to the exclusion of bikes or pedestrians. Maybe it shouldn't have to be this way, but I've accepted that when biking or walking through/on busy streets, I have to be exceptionally defensive even if I have the right of way.
Just a thought, but perhaps it's appropriate for the City Council to focus its time and attention on issues within its jurisdiction and which its members are being paid to address. Which "controversial trade agreements the United States is currently negotiating" are not.
So some of the well-heeled students are staging protests about plight of the less fortunate. How about writing some tuition checks for the less fortunate? Talk is cheap. And maybe income inequality isn't altogether bad. Nothing like being a poor student to motivate hard work and self discipline.
Even members of the STA board have criticized STA's proposed tax increase as excessive. Ignoring their fact-based analysis and implying that Republicans are opposing the initiative is false and misleading. And if you want to see progressive policies' impacts on cities, look no further than Detroit, which was controlled for decades by liberal Democrats.
Why tax or regulate? If that's supposed to dissuade people from buying or selling sex, how is taxation functionally better than criminal penalties? Criminal penalties are more serious than paying a tax, but apparently criminal penalties haven't stamped out the trade. If prostitution results from substance abuse, is decriminalization a form of enabling? And if we de-criminalize sex trafficking, what happens to the community? Do we want to become a destination for sex tourism like Thailand? No thanks.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation