bnerd 
Member since Sep 28, 2013


Currently

[N/A...]

Posted by THE SYSTEM on November 28, 2014 at 7:49 PM

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Recent Comments

Re: “Problem Planks

1. That's funny because the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In the case Jefferson City v Washington Department of Ecology they found that section 401 of CWA allows States to mandate minimum flow requirements, something the WA Dept of Ecology has always had on the books since the CWA came into effect.
2. This provision would be struck down by the Courts in a millisecond. The Constitution restricts the ability of the Government to infringe on someone's rights; that means not all protections extend to private employers. Doing so would breach standard contract law in this Country.
3. Except the language at the beginning of the Initiative gives neighborhoods a de facto veto by requiring that any zoning change get a majority of all residents in the neighborhood and that failure to do so means the zoning change won't take effect.
Picture this, a low income housing development is proposed in a neighborhood. They're small, shared living studio apartments. Only, the neighborhood isn't zoned for this development and the single family residents in the area block it from happening. Couldn't see something like this taking place? It is. In Seattle aPodments are facing a ban via moratorium because single family residential NIMBY's don't want low income folks in their neighborhood. You seem to assume the problem with development usually comes from corporations gaming the system, but anyone familiar with zoning battles will tell you middle class, single family residents can and do have just as much a negative impact on positive development as a corporation can.
4. Yet again, you provide nothing of substance here. The SMAC initiative explicitly prohibits communication between corporations, and in the definition anyone purporting to act on behalf of a corporation is included, and elected officials unless done in a public forum. Not only that, but they define a corporation so as to not include any non-profit corporations or Unions (both of which are treated as corporations in State and Federal Law). This means Avista couldn't contact an elected official unless under an open forum, but Providence/Sacred Heart could because its structured as a non-profit. This means SEIU 775 NW could communicate with elected officials at any time, but the guy who owns the Corner Market structured as a Sole Proprietorship couldn't. How is this fair or well thought out in any way? Not only that, but I think you and I know this provision would be tossed ASAP even if passed. Localities don't have the authority to overrule a Supreme Court decision.

Posted by bnerd on 06/20/2013 at 6:59 PM

© 2014 Inlander
Website powered by Foundation