Eschlimania v2 – Sep 14, 2008

0 Responses to Eschlimania v2 – Sep 14, 2008

1. Shy says:

   September 17, 2008 at 8:09 am

   People and Houses getting robbed, shootings, but this is what our city is worried about? Thanks for this one NealO.

   [Reply]
2. neal says:

   September 17, 2008 at 1:32 pm

   Mr. Wilson had a good post on Eschliman’s double-standard over at Lincolnite.com.

   Yesterday I noted how Robin Eschliman fought the good fight against government overstepping its bounds by legislating on things that really aren’t any of its business. Alas, today I have to tell you that Ms. Eschliman has done a 180 by proposing an ordinance that would do the very thing she just finished condemning.

   Ms. Eschliman wants to ban upholstered furniture on porches and in yards. I know, many—if not most—of you want to give her a high five. But you shouldn’t. There is absolutely zero difference between a ban on outdoor couches and a ban on any other type of furniture or decoration on your property. Simply, the City ought not be in the business of regulating tackiness. Such activities are best left to neighborhood associations and good old fashioned peer pressure.

   [Reply]
3. Mike Honcho says:

   September 18, 2008 at 8:20 am

   I agree to some extent, but peer pressure doesn’t work on people who don’t give a rats ass about any of their neighbors, and not everybody has a neighborhood association. Then you have the landlords who don’t care what the property looks like, just as long as they get their rent check on Friday. As a prospective property owner, I will be on the look-out for couches on the porch, and avoid said areas like the plague…because they harbor rodents that may actually carry the plague.

   [Reply]
4. neal says:

   September 19, 2008 at 4:05 pm

   Mike, are you actually coming down in favor of government intrusions into people’s freedoms?!?!

   I think the most interesting thing about Mr. Wilson’s argument is how he pointed out that just days earlier, Eschliman was trying to argue that the city shouldn’t restrict what businesses can go into the Antelope Valley project, nor should the city try to control buildings’ appearance. She wants to tell people they can’t have couches on their porch on behalf of the neighbors, but if a company doesn’t want a carwash next to their multi-million dollar headquarters, tough luck, because that’s FREEDOM.

   Personally, I”m a reverse hypocrite from where Eschliman is standing; I think it’s totally fine to impose design standards on a development that is getting a hefty sum of public money for the purpose of controlled redevelopment, and I’m not crazy about the couch ban from that “freedom” perspective.

   [Reply]
5. Mike Honcho says:

   September 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm

   Yes, Neal, I am coming down in favor of government intrusions into people’s freedoms. This shouldn’t be anything new, as I have LONG supported the Lincoln smoking ban, as well as the state smoking ban. I support such ‘intrusions’ when there are good reasons for doing so. I felt the smoking bans were necessary because smokers weren’t going to move their unhealthy, hazardous habit outside, no matter how much pressure fellow citizens exerted. With the couch ban…the couches can pose public health hazards when they start harboring rodents and parasites. Furthermore, there are already many ways in which the government regulates a home’s appearance, and there are many things the government forbids us from doing on our own property that aren’t just for reasons of safety and health, but also for aesthetics.

   But I also agree with you that design standards for the Antelope Valley project are totally appropriate.

   [Reply]
6. neal says:

   September 23, 2008 at 2:23 pm

   I am coming down in favor of government intrusions into people’s freedoms. This shouldn’t be anything new, as I have LONG supported the Lincoln smoking ban, as well as the state smoking ban. I support such ‘intrusions’ when there are good reasons for doing so … Furthermore, there are already many ways in which the government regulates a home’s appearance, and there are many things the government forbids us from doing on our own property that aren’t just for reasons of safety and health, but also for aesthetics.

   I’ll remember that the next time you want to talk about slippery slopes or seatbelts.

   As far as the public health thing … where do you see the line being drawn? I think I have bats in my attic, and bats are known disease carriers. Would you think it reasonable for the city to require homeowners to seal their attics to prevent bats from moving in?

   Honestly, if public health and disease are the concerns, I don’t really see one policy being any more extreme than the other, which is why I’d support neither.

   [Reply]