06-08-2016, 02:03 PM
As long as they "grow houses" instead of food
Environmental/worker protection (read: insurance) makes local food production too expensive to be practical; better that someone build houses to increase the tax base.
Alternative is to "preserve" the land as "open space" -- which often means purchasing it from a developer, using public funds, thereby increasing the budgetary load without adding any revenue.
CO2 = fossil fuels = greed = republicans
This is exactly correct: assigning blame is far, far more important than addressing the actual problem. (Bonus round: there is no fundamental difference between "R" and "D", both are more than happy to leverage "the environment" to win voters.)
Consider the "tsunami safe room" requirement. Does it actually increase safety by a meaningful margin, or does it merely increase the cost (including: materials, shipped in on barges that burn oil) of housing? Funny how nobody was concerned about "environmental impact" when there was money on the table.
Environmental/worker protection (read: insurance) makes local food production too expensive to be practical; better that someone build houses to increase the tax base.
Alternative is to "preserve" the land as "open space" -- which often means purchasing it from a developer, using public funds, thereby increasing the budgetary load without adding any revenue.
CO2 = fossil fuels = greed = republicans
This is exactly correct: assigning blame is far, far more important than addressing the actual problem. (Bonus round: there is no fundamental difference between "R" and "D", both are more than happy to leverage "the environment" to win voters.)
Consider the "tsunami safe room" requirement. Does it actually increase safety by a meaningful margin, or does it merely increase the cost (including: materials, shipped in on barges that burn oil) of housing? Funny how nobody was concerned about "environmental impact" when there was money on the table.