My City is Insane

[OldFogey]

Nah, space-based anti-personnel lasers are the way to go.....Gotta think of the environment, and it might even help minimize the carbon footprint

Kinetic energy strike. Don't need brilliant pebbles. Just big rocks. Totally suck taking them up out of our gravity well, but it appears that it would be worth it.

[Rucker61]

It's a silly way to try and prevent oil or gas exploration and extraction. And it's stupid because I'll bet most of the county sits on split estate lands (that is, the surface estate belongs to one owner and the mineral rights belong to another.) If someone who owns the mineral rights attempts to exercise those rights and the city stops them, it would be called a "regulatory taking" and the city - which is to say the taxpayers - will be liable to pay the fair market value of the mineral rights taken which could run into the millions pretty easily.

They took care of that. If those rights are owned by a corporation, that corporation no longer has the right to legal redress. The corporation can't sue in a court of law, as they don't have rights.

[Singlestack]

Obviously this measure is toast at least because it is both unenforceable and unconstitutional. One of the biggest whack job bills I've ever seen. For example, any law in conflict with this is deemed to be repealed (not just superceded) - can't be enforced in the future. I only had 5 minutes for my response, and decided to make the following points:

1. Completely vague on what Non-Violent Direction means, but very specific on effect on police and conflicting laws
2. Seems to allow all the crappy protester activities any normal person loathes: vandalism, theft, blocking traffic/access, urination, defecation, animal poo, littering, camping/vagrancy
3. Assumes the police will be unjust/unfair
4. Puts protester rights above rights of residents
5. Law would be above all other laws and clear violation of supremacy statutes

[sniper7]

Wow that is nuts. As is the crying hippy video

[Irving]

Every person that ever straddled two lanes on the highway to prevent traffic from going around the "line," creamed their panties at the mere mention of this law proposal.

[Great-Kazoo]

Obviously this measure is toast at least because it is both unenforceable and unconstitutional.


2. Seems to allow all the crappy protester activities any normal person loathes: vandalism, theft, blocking traffic/access, urination, defecation, animal poo, littering, camping/vagrancy
3. Assumes the police will be unjust/unfair
4. Puts protester rights above rights of residents

Yet a few cities have ignored the law when it came to OWC, BLM and post election protest. Like a Sanctuary City , the laws are only as good as the city council that governs them.

The unwritten idea of looking the other way, has morphed in to one of Here's some gas and matches, enjoy your outrage.

[Martinjmpr]

It's silly but not surprising. This is one of the consequences of Boulder's decisions years ago to restrict growth.

Here's what I mean: back in (I believe) the 1970's, the city of Boulder saw what was happening in nearby cities including Denver, where suburban sprawl was spreading the cities out for miles and miles. The Boulder folks decided they didn't like that so IIRC they either purchased land surrounding Boulder, or got an easement on that land and prevented it from being developed which gives Boulder a nice little "green belt" all around.

Of course, anyone who can add 2+2 could have predicted what happened next: Boulder's booming economy started adding jobs - but since they couldn't expand the city (due to the green belt) and it was tough to build more housing units (due to restrictive zoning laws), that meant that several very predictable things occurred: Housing prices in Boulder itself skyrocketed (increased demand + limited supply), parking and public transportation became a nightmare, AND, the nearby Suburbs like Broomfield, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior and Longmont - all of which were outside Boulder's Green Belt - became the only places that people who worked in Boulder could afford to live.

In essence, Boulder didn't prevent urban sprawl - they simply exported their urban sprawl to nearby (less affluent) cities.

It's kind of like the way people who live in LA and drive electric cars aren't "non-polluting", they're just exporting their pollution to the rural areas where the power plants (that generate the electricity for their cars) are located.

Anyway, the lefty-ness of Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, Longmont, etc, is a result of the fact that those places have become bedroom communities for Boulder - people who work or go to school in Boulder but can't afford to live there. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that they keep trying to turn their little suburbs into mini-me Boulders.

[CS1983]

It's silly but not surprising. This is one of the consequences of Boulder's decisions years ago to restrict growth.

Here's what I mean: back in (I believe) the 1970's, the city of Boulder saw what was happening in nearby cities including Denver, where suburban sprawl was spreading the cities out for miles and miles. The Boulder folks decided they didn't like that so IIRC they either purchased land surrounding Boulder, or got an easement on that land and prevented it from being developed which gives Boulder a nice little "green belt" all around.

Of course, anyone who can add 2+2 could have predicted what happened next: Boulder's booming economy started adding jobs - but since they couldn't expand the city (due to the green belt) and it was tough to build more housing units (due to restrictive zoning laws), that meant that several very predictable things occurred: Housing prices in Boulder itself skyrocketed (increased demand + limited supply), parking and public transportation became a nightmare, AND, the nearby Suburbs like Broomfield, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior and Longmont - all of which were outside Boulder's Green Belt - became the only places that people who worked in Boulder could afford to live.

In essence, Boulder didn't prevent urban sprawl - they simply exported their urban sprawl to nearby (less affluent) cities.

It's kind of like the way people who live in LA and drive electric cars aren't "non-polluting", they're just exporting their pollution to the rural areas where the power plants (that generate the electricity for their cars) are located.

Anyway, the lefty-ness of Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, Longmont, etc, is a result of the fact that those places have become bedroom communities for Boulder - people who work or go to school in Boulder but can't afford to live there. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that they keep trying to turn their little suburbs into mini-me Boulders.

Solid points...

Between the formatting (bold and italic usage) and the way you broke that down quickly reminded me of Karl Denninger at https://market-ticker.org/

[crays]

Remind me again which side is being accused of being Nazis?

sent from me

[Singlestack]

One other point I made that I forgot to mention is this type of bill, if it were to somehow become law, would make Lafayette a magnet for the "professional class" out of state protesters like we have seen at most of the national leftist protests. We would see busloads arriving who would be prepared to stay as long as they wanted. My property value would decrease due to the blight these types of anarchists bring. In fact, at the hearing I only heard one supporter speak who claimed to be a city resident - all the rest were from other cities or out of state.