02-26-2010, 04:53 AM
Nicely put, James.
You might add to the list:
Will enforcement of the law against the unpermitted activities at SPACE cause a net community loss?
You bet.
As a kid I spent quite a bit of time working in soup kitchens and various shelters for both homeless people or battered women. Were most of these remotely in compliance with anything at all? Hell no. Why? There's no money in feeding homeless people or taking care of battered women. You run with the building you have, in the way you can, with the resources you're given. Period. And that's if you're lucky to be given anything at all. That's the reality of providing community services. There's a need for these services to be provide PRECISELY because there's no money in them, and few have the balls to provide them without assurance of personal reward. We can be assured that if there was money in homeless people or battered women Walmart would run shelters.
You always run afoul of certain kinds of people, much of the time that just don't like you, or want your property, who use the law to try to break up your projects all the time. In one case I remember a local family who owned a small department store wanted to expand their operation( and didn't like the fact that people were being fed anyway) and were perpetually launching complaints and we were inspected practically monthly. In this case, fortunately, the shelter had been given some good equipment years and years ago and there wasn't any violations to be found, until one day a non-UL listed cord was found attached to a coffee pot. And boom, that was it. SHUT DOWN. People went hungry. It was February and 2 feet of snow on the ground. Sure, the department store people had a right to complain. The had a responsibility not to because their motives where wholly selfish, greedy, and destructive. And the human cost was severe. The law is written in such a manner that the human cost is often ignored.
I don't have a lot of respect for Pharisees in general, because they're very deft and picking in choosing and exercising their enthusiasm for various parts of the law. It takes a certain sort of cleverness to ignore the obvious fact that there's a qualitative difference between running a soup kitchen and a Burger King--or a homeless shelter and a Hotel. While its perhaps sensible to expect certain levels of compliance from for profit enterprises who aren't interested in anything but financial reward--it must be recognized that for those who take on projects where there are NO financial rewards the costs of compliance are often insurmountable obstacles. But if your mission is to feed people, that's what you're going to do, law or not. If that stamp above the door says "Occupancy 30," you've got 40, and some woman and her kids shows up with her face busted in--you take her and the kids in, law or not. That's reality. I understand it's tough for some to recognize that doing the legal thing isn't always doing the right thing, but that's simply facts. I find there's generally two kinds of people anyway--those who are interested in the law and especially how it protects THEM, and those who are interested in what's "right" and best for others. I don't pretend to hope to persuade any of that former group with any of these comments. You can't really hope to get people to care, as that's more or less innate and a matter of conviction anyway. My point here is that our insistence on focusing on what is "legal" rather that "right" is going to drag us further down the road to societal impoverishment, a road we've walked quite a ways down anyway. And to assure others that share my values that there still are some folks who do care. Not only care but also recognize that in the cases of: child labor laws, workplace safety, women's sufferage, emancipation, reproductive rights, gay and lesbian rights, on and on and on--the vast majority of all the privileges, comforts, and securities we enjoy(that "we" includes the Pharisees) we provided by those who at personal cost advocated for what was "right" in spite of what the law might have said.
Quite a few really. Personally I'm a bit encouraged as I think in this time of increasing hardship it seems evident that the "all about me" people are losing ground to the "all about we." It's about friggin' time.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/
You might add to the list:
Will enforcement of the law against the unpermitted activities at SPACE cause a net community loss?
You bet.
As a kid I spent quite a bit of time working in soup kitchens and various shelters for both homeless people or battered women. Were most of these remotely in compliance with anything at all? Hell no. Why? There's no money in feeding homeless people or taking care of battered women. You run with the building you have, in the way you can, with the resources you're given. Period. And that's if you're lucky to be given anything at all. That's the reality of providing community services. There's a need for these services to be provide PRECISELY because there's no money in them, and few have the balls to provide them without assurance of personal reward. We can be assured that if there was money in homeless people or battered women Walmart would run shelters.
You always run afoul of certain kinds of people, much of the time that just don't like you, or want your property, who use the law to try to break up your projects all the time. In one case I remember a local family who owned a small department store wanted to expand their operation( and didn't like the fact that people were being fed anyway) and were perpetually launching complaints and we were inspected practically monthly. In this case, fortunately, the shelter had been given some good equipment years and years ago and there wasn't any violations to be found, until one day a non-UL listed cord was found attached to a coffee pot. And boom, that was it. SHUT DOWN. People went hungry. It was February and 2 feet of snow on the ground. Sure, the department store people had a right to complain. The had a responsibility not to because their motives where wholly selfish, greedy, and destructive. And the human cost was severe. The law is written in such a manner that the human cost is often ignored.
I don't have a lot of respect for Pharisees in general, because they're very deft and picking in choosing and exercising their enthusiasm for various parts of the law. It takes a certain sort of cleverness to ignore the obvious fact that there's a qualitative difference between running a soup kitchen and a Burger King--or a homeless shelter and a Hotel. While its perhaps sensible to expect certain levels of compliance from for profit enterprises who aren't interested in anything but financial reward--it must be recognized that for those who take on projects where there are NO financial rewards the costs of compliance are often insurmountable obstacles. But if your mission is to feed people, that's what you're going to do, law or not. If that stamp above the door says "Occupancy 30," you've got 40, and some woman and her kids shows up with her face busted in--you take her and the kids in, law or not. That's reality. I understand it's tough for some to recognize that doing the legal thing isn't always doing the right thing, but that's simply facts. I find there's generally two kinds of people anyway--those who are interested in the law and especially how it protects THEM, and those who are interested in what's "right" and best for others. I don't pretend to hope to persuade any of that former group with any of these comments. You can't really hope to get people to care, as that's more or less innate and a matter of conviction anyway. My point here is that our insistence on focusing on what is "legal" rather that "right" is going to drag us further down the road to societal impoverishment, a road we've walked quite a ways down anyway. And to assure others that share my values that there still are some folks who do care. Not only care but also recognize that in the cases of: child labor laws, workplace safety, women's sufferage, emancipation, reproductive rights, gay and lesbian rights, on and on and on--the vast majority of all the privileges, comforts, and securities we enjoy(that "we" includes the Pharisees) we provided by those who at personal cost advocated for what was "right" in spite of what the law might have said.
Quite a few really. Personally I'm a bit encouraged as I think in this time of increasing hardship it seems evident that the "all about me" people are losing ground to the "all about we." It's about friggin' time.
http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/