I frankly don't think that we should sit around and wait until the regions can implement a proper solution. If regions are "better equipped" to deal with this sort of thing (and I don't doubt that more local governments are better at dealing with more local issues, since we can hardly legislate every little thing from up on high), then they can go ahead and fill in the details, but we, as a federal legislative body, need to ensure that we do every single thing in our power to bridge the gap. I've said this before, but I don't much care for the idea that we need to defer to regional authority completely. Regions (or whatever smaller deliberative body that may exist in their place) are part of the process, but I will not allow regions to completely dictate the process when we are talking about the needs of the many.
Now, if we are worried that National Parks will become Hoovertowns, I think that is a legitimate worry, and I didn't want my support for sheltering all Atlasians to be interpreted as some desire to see tents all over our national landmarks. But I would rather have people using Old Faithful as a shower (if that particular person likes Sulfur burns) than suffering the worst of homelessness. Hopefully, we can achieve a solution where we see neither.
That is not only dangerous to those who take up residence ther,e but also likely to damage the environment by disrupting the natural habitats and so forth. There is no reasonable justification for us to eat this kind of sacrifice when we have solutions before and there is no reason for the IDS to be forced to be so sacrificed when we have taken care of the responsbility already. At the very least the IDS should be exempt and the NE as well. Well, I don't oppose the IDS and NE being exempt.
Yes and a community that is built on tourism should be able to make decisions for themselves on that regard and differently from one that isn't. I highlight doubt a simple majority in Nyman can best tell them how their public space is to be regulated when we don't have to consider their economic needs for one as well as others.
[/quote]
Call me crazy, but I think you shouldn't be banned from a certain place because your needs are less important than other people's wants.
[/quote]
Indeed.
[/quote]
Even if what you define as a want is a multi-billion dollar industry that employs thousands of people?
Sounds like a great way to create more homeless people if you ask me. Why are we forcing communities to have to eat a loss of money and jobs potentially, when two of our regions are now providing for this problem in a far more effective manner and another section of this bill further facilitates that effort.
[/quote]
Because, simply, there are millions of homeless people in the other regions who deserve homes just as much. 60% of homeless people suddenly getting homes just means that we need to direct our efforts to getting that remaining 40% off the streets.
Yankee, I'm not sure what your question about my voting record on smoking bans was, but I'd be glad to clarify my position if you could clarify your question
. But, I'll be honest, my "Indeed" was only snarkiness, not an attempt to make a full-fledged argument.
Shua also brings up an interesting point that there's no precedent for the federal government essentially deleting regional legislation off the books. We would need to explicitly ban things, not make a blanket repeal of regional law, because I don't believe that is constitutional (it might be, but it would have to be pretty convoluted). Technically, the federal government does have the power to override regional law, but I think it has to be explicit.
[/quote]
The first paragraph about 60% and 40% does not justify a job loss that is unnecessary.
It was stated that needs of some are more importance than the wants of others. Surely smoking in public is a want at the expanse of the needs of those desiring to breath clean air. I was merely asking whether you voted in favor of making it impossible for localities to enact public smoking bans.
Shua may be right but I would be hessitant to take a risk in that fashion with supremacy being the powerfull thing that it is and the Constitution in this game being different from that of the RL document in certain ways.
[/quote]
Well, if the job loss is indeed "unnecessary", then it would not be justified, no. But I suppose we disagree on that point.
I don't remember how I finally voted on the bill (I know it was more nuanced than a simple ban on smoking bans), but I know I was very, very reluctant to allow public smoking in the first place. It's just not something I like, and I know I differ from many on that point. So I guess I am consistent.
It certainly sets a dangerous precedent that the Senate might annul regional law without judicial recourse.
