I think I addressed this topic on another list so I will restate some of my views here;
> It absolutely boggles my mind that so many folks on > this list openly advocate the removal of others' > rights with regard to their private property. The argument that property is actually 'private' is incorrect when used to describe land and real estate. Land use effects others, therefore some regulation of it is valid to provide a common basis of rights so that one landowner does not infringe the rights of another by causing real damage, devaluing the property or generally impeding their right to 'quiet enjoyment.' Too many people take up the argument to protect their own 'quiet enjoyment' while forgetting that their own actions can and do impede someone else's 'quiet enjoyment.' This is why we have laws about disturbing the peace, garbage collection, and so on. > > I know quite a few people who live in Minneapolis and, > due to high taxes and regulation plus a lack of jobs > and adequate transit, are compelled to commute to the > suburbs for their work. > > What we need in this city (and state) is lower taxes > and less regulation. With that will come more JOBS, > and less of our city's residents will seek employment > in the suburbs, which means less driving in and out. This sounds like the typical argument that we must CHOOSE EITHER a healthy environment or a healthy economy. It is a wrong argument. Without a healthy environment we will not have a healthy economy. Without a healthy economy we are more likely to resort to shortcuts which damage our environment. Environmental concerns are not merely ideological. Many of them are necessary concerns which ultimately effect the physical health of us all. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
