3 ms·
Yeah, well...you're sort of grinding your axe on the wrong stone, here. This law wasn't passed because people believe "everything should be put to a vote" -- it
by timr 12y ago
Yeah, well...you're sort of grinding your axe on the wrong stone, here. This law wasn't passed because people believe "everything should be put to a vote" -- it was passed because a lot of people were (IMO rightfully) pissed that their elected representatives were essentially giving away public land to the wealthy. It's a story as old as politicians.
I wish there was another way to block that sort of thing that didn't require citizen initiative. But if it comes down to passing an initiative that requires populist approval to violate existing laws or shrugging and walking away because we can't vote the bastards out until after there's an arena on the waterfront...well, I'm glad we have initiatives for that. I don't generally like the outcome of direct democracy, but this is a case where the initiative process worked exactly the way it was supposed to.
- techsupporter 12y agoBut if something violates the law isn't that why we have courts instead of passing something that will continue on for the next few decades?
- timr 12y agoThe law allows an (IIRC unelected) review board to grant zoning variances. What happened here was that the review board was rubber stamping the exception because powerful local politicians wanted it to happen, because...well, money talks. Essentially, the citizens passed an initiative that ensured that the existing zoning laws had some actual teeth, instead of just trusting politicians not to violate them with impunity.