> It appears now that the law is regularly > circumvented and has been for some time. If > politicians lack the desire to enforce the existing > law what is the point of keeping it? It would be one
> thing if supportive housing was distributed widely > through the city and this revocation would trigger > an avalance for example on Whittier, but doesn't > revoking this law simply reflect reality? If another > proposal came up that would violate this rule, but > it was a good project and would benefit a class of > people, chances are it would be approved despite the > law. This hits on a touch point of mine that has almost become a personal mantra: "If something is not expected to be enforced, it should not be a law. If it should be a law, it should be uniformly enforced." The former would include some old laws like driving with a bonnet on as well as laws that occasionally get applied for the sake of persecution like sodomy laws. The latter are laws that are there for good reason and should be enforced, like littering or speeding but are not regularly broken. In a middle area are laws that are enforced with discrimination like drug laws, etc. The way I look at them is that if they are acceptable laws, they should be enforced aggressively and anyone breaking these laws should face equal legal response. If they are not acceptable laws they should be repealed. In my mind, the supportive housing situation falls into this category. Wealthy and politically active neighborhoods may have the will and resources to make sure they are protected by the law, but other neighborhoods may not. Oddly, the neighborhoods that are not being protected are, in some cases, the neighborhoods the laws were designed to protect. The wealthy and politically active neighborhoods often have the economic/political clout to protect themselves with or without the law. There are a lot of laws that are insufficiently enforced, but if they are "good" laws, the answer is to demand that they are enforced, not repealing them. In my opinion, this law may be one of them. I have an open mind on the issue, but I'd have to see a compelling argument before I would consider supporting repealing the law. To date, the only arguments I've seen are ones that support the current law. - Jason Goray, Sheridan, NE "what shades of grey?" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
