It is difficult to overestimate the sense of diversion we all enjoy when we follow Greensboro-area politics. Two stories yesterday highlighted that reality.
First, we learn that a Latin Kings gang leader is running for an at-large seat on the Greensboro City Council.
Second, Red Clay reports about a bill that Pricey Harrison has introduced in the state House. Apparently, some cities make it illegal to hang a clothesline. Now Pricey wants to make it illegal for the cities to prohibit hanging certain clotheslines. You know, because of global warming and all that stuff.
And so, even though following our local politics can lead to what my relatives used to call "agita", it also has its compensations.
Do you support Pricey's bill or object to it?
Posted by: Roch101 | July 17, 2009 at 09:23 AM
Roch, I think it is better to settle this at the local level. It doesn't seem appropriate for the state to get involved in this type of issue. In fact, that is why the bill failed to pass a legislature that is lopsided toward the Democrats in numbers.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 09:49 AM
Pricey is trying to secure the right of property owners to use their property. Your situational ethics are admirable.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 17, 2009 at 09:58 AM
There is no situational ethics to speak of. This should be an issue the government stays out of altogether. If there is a bigger waste of time at this point than discussing being able to hang your clothes to dry I would like to see it.
Posted by: cpa101 | July 17, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Roch, there is no question that localities have the legal prerogative to make certain decisions regarding the manner in which property is used within their respective boundaries. The old junk-car-on-cinder-blocks-in-the-front-yard, and design restrictions, are examples. Whether localities should make these types of decisions to restrict property use is another matter entirely. The political process at the local level should decide that.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Pricey Harrison - “It’s their (urban clothesliners) small step that they can take toward global warming issue.”
Sounds like a concern about global warming, rather than property rights to me. I doubt that Harrison would be sponsoring bills to protect property owners' rights, if they wanted to use incandescent light bulbs, now would she? Yeah, Pricey Harrison the fierce defender of property owner rights, don't you know it?
From Piedmont Publius, March 20, 2007:
"Two pieces of heavy-handed legislation from Triad legislators.
Rep. Pricey Harrison has authored legislation that would ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs by 2016. Harrison said she felt like “we’re going this way anyway” and “the market may drive this.” Good. Then let the market drive it."
Roch, your use of Alinsky tactics never change, do they, and they are not admirable?
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Maybe Austin should pass a law mandating that homeowners must hang a clothesline to dry their clothes to take a small step toward the global warming issue.
As the Austin American-Statesman reports today:
"The council's ambitious goal of getting 30 percent of the city's electricity from renewable sources by 2020 could be in jeopardy if Austin Energy relies exclusively on its landmark GreenChoice program, which offers wind-generated power at a cost that recently spiked to more than 50 percent higher than that of the standard electricity generated by fossil fuels."
"Now, City Council members say, all Austin Energy customers may need to shoulder the cost of going green."
"If we have to spread the cost" to sell enough renewable energy, "that's something we should do," Council Member Sheryl Cole said. "Austin should move forward in its leadership role in heading off global warming."
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM
I'm confused about the situational ethics being pointed out. Can someone help me?
Posted by: brandonB | July 17, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Conservatives love to talk about Syndromes. If this bill had been introduced by a property rights advocate, Stormy, and there was no mention of climate change in it, what would you say?
Set aside your Global Warming Denier Syndrome for a moment, and consider the following: Running a clothes dryer can account for a healthy chunk (10-15%) of a family's power bill. If they choose to try to save a little money to, you know, be able to buy more food and such, should the local government be able to tell them they can't hang out their clothes to dry like ma and grammaw did?
Just an anecdote: When me and my wife and (3) kids were living in a trailer down in Raeford and trying to survive on Sergeant's pay, the cheesy dryer that came with our mobile home went on the fritz. We couldn't afford to fix the POS, so my wife (with my occasional help) hung out our clothes from that point on. Just like most of our neighbors, especially the retired folks.
With three little rugrats and a husband who did PT daily and God knows what other stuff, she did a load (sometimes two) every day. And surprise surprise, our light bill dropped considerably after the dryer broke.
This is both a property rights issue and a common sense issue, and the lack of support for this bill shows how screwed up our thinking has become.
Posted by: scharrison | July 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Great point about the light bulbs, Stormy.
There were no situational ethics, BrandonB. When I support the legal right of localities to make decisions such as these, rather than the state, it honors the principle of subsidiarity-- i.e., that is, that decisions should be made at the level of government closest to the people whenever possible.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Steve, whether we like it or night, local governments make these decisions all the time. We are hearing these days in Greensboro about downtown design guidelines. There are restrictions in neighborhoods designated as historic. There are other types of restrictions-- you can't do this, you can't do that.
The important thing is that we should feel no overwhelming need to tell Winston-Salem what to do on these issues if we live in Greensboro. The democratic processes in Winston-Salem are adequate for them to make their own decisions.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM
"that is, that decisions should be made at the level of government closest to the people whenever possible"
--No no you've got it all wrong. The decision-makers should not be bothered with the simple minded voter's concerns over freedom. Don't you know the reason she is a state rep rather than a local rep is because she is that much wiser than us local yokels.
Posted by: brandonB | July 17, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Steve,
I am of the opinion that property owners should have the right to use their property in any way they choose, as long as doing so does not unfairly infringe upon the rights of their neighbors, and that use does not violate the law. I do not believe that a person needs for Pricey Harrison to make a law to protect that right in the name of fighting global warming.
I grew up many decades ago, and my mother hung wash on a clothesline all the time, with my help. We didn't own a washing machine, let alone a dryer, so I fully understand the issue. However, if I choose to wash and dry my clothes in the home that I own, and I can pay the electricity bill, I will continue to do as I wish. I have a problem with legislators levying excessive taxes on my use of energy in the name of a false god, global warming.
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 11:37 AM
"""Roch, your use of Alinsky tactics never change, do they, and they are not admirable?"""
Has Roch become the advocate for clotheslines!! Beau
Posted by: Beau D. Jackson | July 17, 2009 at 01:56 PM
Roch loves to use Alinsky's Rules for Radicals on people who comment at this blog. Here is the one that he likes to use the most:
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Posted by: Stormy | July 17, 2009 at 03:12 PM
http://www.belovedcommunitycenter.org/newsview/0196c4b6c13b9bd11a1a6ae509952d57
So, I guess the logic is that if we can get King Jay on the council, and get that citizen review board going, we can keep these evil police from making gangs the target of investigations? Ok, lets pretend that the Almighty Latin Kings are not a criminal organization, what about the other gangs who have "come to the table for peace"? The bloods? I was chased down by neighborhood bloods long after the treaty and I'm not even a gang member.
What about BCC's "we presented a proposal called A Paradigm Shift that invited all of us to view “gangs” as a potential resource for safe, peace-making and justice-making communities."
I guess it's justice for me to be chased and have glass bottles thrown at me because I said I didn't want to buy a stolen playstation? How dare I not support local entrepreneurs. I know there has been a lot of talk about "Obama thugs" etc... but this is getting scary.
Posted by: brandonB | July 17, 2009 at 03:20 PM
The larger question remains...with all of the problems confronting our state, why are we talking about a bill concerning clotheslines...? Only Roch could argue situational ethics about a bill concerned with laundry....
Posted by: Everest | July 17, 2009 at 04:40 PM