05-25-2007, 03:19 AM
Aaron, The point is not so much whether developers opposed it but how sound the bill is. In this case the engineering community, the State and County agencies that are responsible for flood mitigation and land are deeply concerned. They are virtually begging the Council to allow for at least a 90 day review of the amendments made by council. And yet the response - again from the Tribune Herald - is "we will not give 90 days to review." How wise is that? Is this the quality of legislation that we want and will do us good? Is this the quality of thinking, consideration and thoughtfulness we expect from our legislators? That is the point.
Even if you think that developers are routinely cheating, lying for themselves alone sons of guns - when their alarm is more than mirrored by those technicians who are responsible - it is just possible that the legislation is really bad (as in this case). This does show the folly of simply plowing ahead without listening to the - typically objective - engineers and/or technicians who are responsible. You and I may make that mistake - but we are not the ones charged with making responsible decisions because we can make law. This is part of the problem here.
Hopefully, the Council will see the wisdom of backing off for reasonable review - and then move ahead when corrections have been made that incorporate the desired public protections. At that point does it really matter what the developers have to say. (By the way, does it make any more sense to paint all developers with the same brush - then it does to paint any other group with the same brush?)
Even if you think that developers are routinely cheating, lying for themselves alone sons of guns - when their alarm is more than mirrored by those technicians who are responsible - it is just possible that the legislation is really bad (as in this case). This does show the folly of simply plowing ahead without listening to the - typically objective - engineers and/or technicians who are responsible. You and I may make that mistake - but we are not the ones charged with making responsible decisions because we can make law. This is part of the problem here.
Hopefully, the Council will see the wisdom of backing off for reasonable review - and then move ahead when corrections have been made that incorporate the desired public protections. At that point does it really matter what the developers have to say. (By the way, does it make any more sense to paint all developers with the same brush - then it does to paint any other group with the same brush?)