Wouldn't it be nice if there were only two hummer owners?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Billboards Battle Trees
The scenic rights along a stretch of Highway in Osceola Florida, just outside Disney World, are in the midst of a tug of war between billboard owners and local citizens. In the 1980's this stretch of highway apparently was such an eyesore that the citizens opted to tax themselves $29 million dollars to fund a highway beautification project. Now they have bike trails and 10 foot sidewalks on either side, lush landscaping that includes hundreds of trees, and well-lit bus stops, and information kiosks.
It would seem that such a project would have unanimous support, however Clear Channel and other billboard companies began complaining to the city that the new trees block the view of their billboards and threatened their business, which they argue, threatens the tourist industry, which is a major component of the local economy. Based on these claims, and the fact that their billboards were their first, they lobbied the state Legislature. The state sided with the billboard companies and in 2006 passed a law that guaranteed a 500 foot unobstructed view of the billboards.
Obviously citizens were enraged by this legislation because in their eyes it placed corporate interests over the public interest. But the real issue isn't about the trees; it's about who gets to control what the public views on a public highway. In the end the billboard companies and the citizen compromised and settled on an agreement that the trees be trimmed back to not obstruct the view instead of cutting them down entirely.
So who is right in this situation? The billboards were there first and they say they are essential for the tourist industry; but is it right to allow private industry to dictate what the public view on a public road? As much as it pains me to say, I think since the billboards were there first they should be allowed to remain and to be seen, but not at the cost of chopping down all the trees. Pruning ordinances are a good alternative as well as adequate pre-planning on the part of the city's beautification project. Granted billboards are important to tourism; however I would argue that I wouldn't want to see an ugly stretch of highway devoid of trees and littered with billboards. A compromise is best for both the citizens and the tourism industry in my opinion. I'm curious what anyone else thinks about this.
For the entire story, visit NPR
It would seem that such a project would have unanimous support, however Clear Channel and other billboard companies began complaining to the city that the new trees block the view of their billboards and threatened their business, which they argue, threatens the tourist industry, which is a major component of the local economy. Based on these claims, and the fact that their billboards were their first, they lobbied the state Legislature. The state sided with the billboard companies and in 2006 passed a law that guaranteed a 500 foot unobstructed view of the billboards.
Obviously citizens were enraged by this legislation because in their eyes it placed corporate interests over the public interest. But the real issue isn't about the trees; it's about who gets to control what the public views on a public highway. In the end the billboard companies and the citizen compromised and settled on an agreement that the trees be trimmed back to not obstruct the view instead of cutting them down entirely.
So who is right in this situation? The billboards were there first and they say they are essential for the tourist industry; but is it right to allow private industry to dictate what the public view on a public road? As much as it pains me to say, I think since the billboards were there first they should be allowed to remain and to be seen, but not at the cost of chopping down all the trees. Pruning ordinances are a good alternative as well as adequate pre-planning on the part of the city's beautification project. Granted billboards are important to tourism; however I would argue that I wouldn't want to see an ugly stretch of highway devoid of trees and littered with billboards. A compromise is best for both the citizens and the tourism industry in my opinion. I'm curious what anyone else thinks about this.
For the entire story, visit NPR
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Women in Politics
Right now there is a heated debate in our nation about the place of women in the political world sparked by the vice president selection for the Republican ticket. Like Mr. Tuesday Pants (), I don't think women are incapable of serving in politics or that they should not serve because of some antiquated gender related issue. What I do strongly believe is that women should be held to equal standing as men in politics, but this is where I see problems emerging in two ways.
The general public response to Sarah Palin's vice president bid, at least from the female population that even remotely follows politics, is either "You go girl" or "How could she?" The "You go girl" camp are women who feel empowered that a woman is in the running for vice president and probably believe, as they should, that a women can do any job a man can. I'm not contesting this fact at all. I'm certain women have just as much intelligence and skills to run a nation as a man, I'm just not sure I want that. Again I'm aligned with Mr. Tuesday Pants, so refer to his post on Women in Politics for details on this. The "how could she?" camp pipes up this question because Sarah Palin has a 4 month old child with down syndrome and a 17 year old expecting a child of her own, and, I'm speculating here, this camp believes Sarah Palin should be more concerned with her own family right now than with running a country. "You go girl"s would say that no one has the right to tell a women how the manage her family. I pose this question though: would they feel any different about this issue if it were Obama with and a mental disabled infant? I certain hope not, but we can never know.
So do we hold Palin to a different standard because she is a woman and we criticize her decision to run despite her family situation because we think a mother should care for her family first or do we make this judgment of her simply because the we believe the needs of her family take precedent over national affairs for her as an individual? The Republican party would ask you to not consider her gender when assessing her motives and priorities. But here's the kicker as I see it.
Why did McCain choose Sarah Palin? Was it because of her political record, her experience, or other a combination of other factors related to professional career as a politician. Well these factors may have influenced McCain, but I firmly believe that he chose Palin because she is a woman, he needs to win over Clinton supporters and he thinks people will vote based on the chromosomes of his running mate and not her political history. But voting for McCain simply because there is a woman on his ticket would mean you are giving special consideration to Palin because she is a woman, but yet when considering other elements of her political career and personal situation we are expected to look the other way and not treat her any differently than we would a male candidate. You can't have it both ways. There seems to be a double standard emerging but I'm not sure many people see it. This is my take on the matter. I'm open to hear what yours is.
The general public response to Sarah Palin's vice president bid, at least from the female population that even remotely follows politics, is either "You go girl" or "How could she?" The "You go girl" camp are women who feel empowered that a woman is in the running for vice president and probably believe, as they should, that a women can do any job a man can. I'm not contesting this fact at all. I'm certain women have just as much intelligence and skills to run a nation as a man, I'm just not sure I want that. Again I'm aligned with Mr. Tuesday Pants, so refer to his post on Women in Politics for details on this. The "how could she?" camp pipes up this question because Sarah Palin has a 4 month old child with down syndrome and a 17 year old expecting a child of her own, and, I'm speculating here, this camp believes Sarah Palin should be more concerned with her own family right now than with running a country. "You go girl"s would say that no one has the right to tell a women how the manage her family. I pose this question though: would they feel any different about this issue if it were Obama with and a mental disabled infant? I certain hope not, but we can never know.
So do we hold Palin to a different standard because she is a woman and we criticize her decision to run despite her family situation because we think a mother should care for her family first or do we make this judgment of her simply because the we believe the needs of her family take precedent over national affairs for her as an individual? The Republican party would ask you to not consider her gender when assessing her motives and priorities. But here's the kicker as I see it.
Why did McCain choose Sarah Palin? Was it because of her political record, her experience, or other a combination of other factors related to professional career as a politician. Well these factors may have influenced McCain, but I firmly believe that he chose Palin because she is a woman, he needs to win over Clinton supporters and he thinks people will vote based on the chromosomes of his running mate and not her political history. But voting for McCain simply because there is a woman on his ticket would mean you are giving special consideration to Palin because she is a woman, but yet when considering other elements of her political career and personal situation we are expected to look the other way and not treat her any differently than we would a male candidate. You can't have it both ways. There seems to be a double standard emerging but I'm not sure many people see it. This is my take on the matter. I'm open to hear what yours is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)