They’re no longer appreciating service industry workers
Shut the fuck up and pay them a living wage you animals. Don’t try and continue pitting individuals against each other. “Blame the consumer for everything” is so played out at this point.
The reality is that many of these jobs rely on tips. If they were to “pay them a living wage” then the cost of the service would just go up.
Don’t get me wrong, I want tipping to go away, and it’s gotten absurd where people are asking for tips now. But it’s absolutely stingy to not tip in these places where traditionally they would be tipped. If you don’t want to tip, don’t buy their services. It should be a recognized part of the cost: you just think it should be made official, some think it should be based on the quality of service they received.
It’s just perception. It’s the some bullshit logic why sale taxes are not included in the price and calculated at purchase… makes the product seem cheaper than it actually is.
My article certainly does not prove your point. It shows that when companies replaced tipping with high wages, they had to raise the cost of their goods/services. Which is exactly what I said.
When entrees are all up in the 30s versus in the 20s, it doesn’t matter if [customers] know that you are gratuity-inclusive.
I tip 10-15%, how are prices so much higher that then jump into the 30s for a meal? Most of my meals our, tip included, don’t hit the $30 threshold. I think that their prices, even accounting for tips included, were off.
“I think a lot of people don’t see the system as being broken, or anything. And a lot of people love tipping,” he observed. “They feel some kind of power.”
He thinks people like tipping because they have power? That’s kind of fucked.
They spend a bunch of time saying that the locations they included tips in payed $5-6 less per hour. How can they even say they ran a location with tips included if they didn’t even match the tipped wages? They overcharged for food and still didn’t pay the staff enough. I’d say that’s a lot of mismanagement rather than a failure of a no-tipping restaurant.
Here’s another core concept that places don’t seem to understand, if your business cannot make it without underpaying staff then you shouldn’t be in business. Someone else who can manage it will fill your gap in the market or the market will correct itself.
The cost of the service includes the tip if a tip is expected. The cost would stay the same if you stopped tipping and the establishment raised sticker prices to compensate.
If you count the tip as “part of the service” yes I agree that the price would stay the same. But the way I’m saying it is that there is the charge for service/goods, and then there is the tip. If we get rid of tipping, in favor of high wages, the service charge goes up.
She was dropping her son off as school. Her son was still in the car. She drove into the bus lane accidentally. The officer’s response was that he was “scared she was going to run someone over” … while her son who goes to the school is in the car. You could verify that in a 5 second radio call to the front office.
We need to re-think policing in general if cops are allowed to enforce their worst fears instead of seeing what’s actually happening.
I don’t believe for a second that that cop was actually afraid. This reads like he is a bully who grasps at every opportunity to pounce on someone who is in a weaker position than him. Classic bully behaviour that will continue as long as he gets away with it.
My read was that she was trying to bypass the line of cars dropping off kids, and he was trying to stop her so she wouldn’t run over a kid exiting a vehicle. If you’ve ever dropped off kids at school in the morning, you know this is a major nono. The problem is that, if you rush someone yelling “STOP” in that situation, you run the risk of making them panic and do something even more unexpected (like accidentally turn into the bus lane). It would have been better to flag her down calmly, and explain the problem. But this guy was so obsessed with enforcing The Rules that he got aggressive and created a much worse situation for everyone involved.
You can point out that someone fucked up and incited the initial incident while still acknowledging that the response was overblown. If someone breaks into my house and I kill them thats one thing, if I instead lock them in a shed and torture them for a month they are still a victim while also initially putting themselves into the situation. Ones a fuck around find out scenario the other is disproportionate insanity.
Without knowing the exact layout of the lanes, I couldn’t be sure, but I do think you’re correct. She did need to stop, but he only escalated the situation.
Considering she had PTSD from a previous police encounter, it sure seems like a regular crossing guard or traffic director without a gun on their hip would’ve prevented this from escalating in the first place.
When people were protesting unarmed black people getting murdered in 2020; Donald publicly told police to rough them up during arrests, sent out DHS in unmarked vans to snatch people off the streets, tear gassed a group of protesters so he could hold his little Bible upside down. There’s probably a bunch I am forgetting, it was a long fucking year.
That was the same year his dimwitted response to the pandemic caused tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths than otherwise.
He committed an insurrection. You want Repubs in power forever telling cops to beat the shit out of not only protestors, but voters? Go ahead with it.
Republicans also says you can’t criticize Israel. (they will happily let you attack jews, but not the state Israel, because of their Christian extremist cults)
Trespassing. You have the right to assembly, but that doesn’t extend to anywhere, any time.
These protestors could protest on the sidewalk, or get a permit and do a planned protest in a public park, or even work with the city to close roads for a planned march. As long as they kept it peaceful, police would have very little justification to arrest anyone.
Instead, they are doing it on college campuses, or public roads without permission. And when they are told to leave, they refuse. At that point, you are trespassing, and the police are justified in arresting you.
Civil disobedience grabs far more attention than protesting legally. We’re here talking about their cause because it made headlines due to civil disobedience. But activism has its costs.
Is it tresspassing, though? Not trying to argue with you, to be clear. They’re students paying tuition and housing fees. I guess I could see that arguement if they weren’t students. Though I agree, civil disobedience and disrupting the status quo is the only way to get people to take notice and do anything.
Afaik, universities are private. Specifically, Columbia University is definitely private.
And the ruling you’re talking about has a lot of restrictions which wouldn’t apply here anyway.
You can’t discriminate against cause. If you allow one protest to give speeches in the Quad, I suppose you would be required to give other causes equal access to the Quad.
These students created an encampment, which goes beyond past permitted protests at that university, afaik. I doubt university admin would allow that under any circumstances, even if they agree with the cause, because it sets a dangerous precedent.
But, again, this is a private university. These rules do not apply.
“The NYCLU claims that the suspension of SJP and JVP violated Columbia’s own policies regarding student protests. Citing the policies and procedures established after the protests of 1968, the NYCLU asserts that Columbia’s actions violate the established policies. The statement notes that although private universities such as Columbia University and Barnard College are not bound by the First Amendment, they are bound by their own policies when regarding disciplinary actions against student groups. Moreover, the NYCLU raises concerns that the University’s actions were motivated by the student groups’ political stance in support of Palestinian rights.”
Public school rules don’t generally apply to universities. Though there is a constitutional right present due to most schools being government or quasi-government actors and college campuses being traditional public forums (again, very generally), the exercise of some rights are more broadly interpreted while other are more narrowly interpreted.
Are the colleges these protesters being arrested from public schools, or private universities? As far as I was aware, most colleges/universities are private. Community colleges are public.
Some have already been forced to drop all charges against all students that were arrested precisely because the protests are legal and the students were peaceful. No laws were broken
Are they? When I was in college, I don’t think I ever saw somebody from college demonstrate, it always was someone from the outside who relied on the fact that universities allowed it.
No, it is not. It is the accurate term describing the legal justification that the police need to legally remove the protestors from the premises.
So many of the replies around this topic live in the clouds. There’s a reason protestors are being forcibly removed. People should understand the nuances of free speech and freedom of assembly. Choosing to disobey is taking on risk to your well-being.
These are facts. This is not commentary on whether the protestors are “right” or “wrong”. But we should all know the risks they are taking for doing so, and understand when the universities and police are actually overstepping their authority.
You’re replying to people who can’t believe the injustice of these laws by explaining that the laws are legal. No consensus will be reached; these are two completely different perspectives. Personally, I think laws, being a made up construct, should generally promote positive behavior like stopping genocide, so I easily side with the protesters and commenters here expressing indignation alongside them.
The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.
The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.
And that’s precisely why it is so important to keep the legality of specific actions in mind while evaluating the actions of both the protestors, and the police, while having the conversation on protests and the responses such as these.
This conversation is the result of a direct reply to yet another comment indicating a lack of understanding of what is legal when protesting in the USA.
The morality of both the protestors and the authorities is far more subjective. But I keep seeing the same basic question “I thought it was legal to protest in the USA, how can they arrest them?”, so clarifying the boundaries of your rights is a good starting point, IMO. And frankly, bears repeating due to how frequently this is misunderstood and misrepresented.
Most of these protests are being done in zones designated by the university for protest. They are supposed to be allowed to protest there, as long as it doesn’t disrupt people getting to class and such.
The first amendment in USA gives them the right to protest even on the school ground and the school can’t deny permission if the students are peaceful. And they are.
You yourself cited the requirement to be expression neutral. And I have provided links showing they weren’t and that multiple student groups are suing because of it.
Are the students expected to just sit back and stay silent when the university doesn’t allow them to express themselves on equal terms?
That’s literally what protests are for, and also literally why charges were withdrawn against a whole bunch of students in at least one case, because it wasn’t a “clear case of trespassing” when the students protested peacefully.
At least one police department has already figured it out
If the only legal way to protest is to do it alone in a field then the legality of the protest is a moot point. Protesting is about the public getting heard and the cost is to productivity. The cost shouldn’t be an arrest record and stigma. This isn’t because two or three assholes are disrupting a campus. Students are getting arrested in dozens. Professors are getting arrested too. What the colleges and universities are doing against their own students is unacceptable.
That’s correct, you do not. Like ALL “rights” in the USA, there is another law waiting in the shadows that completely contradicts it or makes it so that it’s not possible without it being illegal.
You can protest. But only with permits on public and private land, without trespassing, obeying all police orders even if those are themselves illegal, blah blah blah.
The sooner Americans realize all their freedoms do not exist in reality the sooner something can be done to fix it.
The first amendment has absolutely no references to permits. In fact it explicitly says you absolutely do not need anything, and that protests are legally protected free speech.
You may protest all you want on public or federal land. I know. I routinely tell cops to “fuck off,” because I know where I happen to be standing. I have yet to be arrested for a protest that I attended, and I have never even attempted to get a permit.
Privately owned property is the only place they can summarily arrest you, and that’s just a trespassing charge.
Yeah keep reading. You’re given one fake right and there are 100 other laws. Just because you’re the right shade, telling a cop to F off, is a crime in itself even if they’re completely wrong. Most people would be arrested just for that.
And that is the entire point. If “the law” is completely discretionary based on the encounter you have with the enforcers and the punishers (police, DA, judges, etc), then you have no rights. Step out of line and you’re in prison.
Too many people worship the law as if it was the word of god. They don’t realize we are actually making this shit up as we go, and the laws can be changed at any moment.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
You can look it up, the federal code has over 5,200 crimes and that was over 2 years ago last I could find that someone counted. The average person unwittingly commits over 2 felonies a day.
Small accounting errors, felony. Putting your pills into a reminder box and traveling accross straight line, felony. Accidentally drive an ATV or dirt bike onto unmarked federal land, felony. Delete CP of a used laptop, felony.
The fact of the matter is any felony that is common to commit, are kind of boring. The federal code is so long and complex that you can find thousands of cases of people being unexpectedly tried for odd felonies. The federal code has become so cumbersome that no one actually knows the law until you’re in a court room with a bunch of lawyers paid to research that specific law.
Thanks for the suggestion! I looked it up and I feel a little bit more skeptical about your claim however I can see a number of those that could easily be trumped up or falsified especially things like injury to an officer and stuff like that.
It’s a tactic to break the protest, scare the protesters into compliance. Arrest them all, haul them off to jail. Ruin their futures. Then drop charges since they do have the right to protest, but now they won’t anymore
Oh, okay, cool, so the justice system cares if you say it’s unfair and you can’t afford the judgment now? Because I’m pretty sure that’s news to most people.
They should really make some sort of incentive to keep these people alive. Like if a whistle blower dies before the verdict of the trial/hearing make it an automatic assumption and multiply the punishment by 3 times (Treble!). Then you would have companies doing everything to not have whistle blowers die, not what we have today.
Your competitors take out contract hits against your whistleblower and you need to have bodyguards to protect them.
And then your head of security and the whistleblower fall in love until at the end of the movie the competitor assassin gets into the court waiting room and the head of security throws themselves into the ninja star’s way and dies in the whistleblower’s arms as the ultimate sacrifice is made for love and corporate profits.
Because don’t you think that in itself is a form of witness intimidation? Won’t people be hesitant to volunteer to testify during a lengthy trial if it means a security guard literally watching them sleep and shower for months.
I meant not that the witness would be obligated to accept that, but that a company would be interested to offer to pay for various measures to preserve their health, sanity and all that.
But the claim was that he committed suicide, say you’re concerned about the company killing you so you accept their security. Couldn’t the security then just have a good reason to be in your house to “find the body” when you “slip in the shower”
So then someone else can kill him like others have said. But depending on what is being whistleblowed, someone in the company taking the fall for murder might not be as bad as what could be discovered. Especially if government agencies are included in this.
Or, short of that… If you’re whistleblowing on Boeing, you should go to Airbus and Lockheed and tell them, “it’s in your best interest that I stay breathing”.
While McConnell refused to convict Trump in the Senate trial on House impeachment charges of inciting the insurrection at the Capitol, which could have left him (Trump) ineligible to serve again as president …
So McConnell could have stopped this whole shit show a while back, but didn’t because why???
Disagree. If you go by what his actions are and whether or not they serve the agenda of Putin, you eventually come to realize there’s virtually none that specifically go against him.
He waves the flag, and sings the standard russia Bad songs when he has to.
Moscow Mitch will always be known for choosing trump over informing the country of russia’s obvious and detailed interference in the 2016 election. On that alone, George Washington would have shot him.
He’d rather wriggle a bit further up Trump’s ass. I mean, he had a brush with conscience a while back, but it’s warm and cozy up there and consequences are scary.
I think he was scared of the mob turning against him.
This is the correct answer. Republicans are scared shitless of their deranged constituents and get daily reminders that include death threats if they don’t tow the line.
My prior belief was that “toeing the line” meant you are figuratively tiptoeing past a boundary line, testing permissible actions. Downvote me through the floor, guys, I earned it.
PSA: it’s actually supposed to be “toe the line”, aka stand with your toes on the line like a good drone. Earlier versions of the phrase included “toe the mark” or “toe the scratch”. They are adhering to the party line, not pulling it along behind them.
Yeah, you got that completely backwards. There are a lot of different takes on the origin, but they generally all involve people on one side of something putting their toe right up to a line, so toeing the party line means to line up with the rest of the party.
Like so many idiomatic expressions, “toe the line” has nautical origins. It meant to put your toes on a plank or line drawn on the deck, usually for disciplinary purposes. In other words, “toe the line” means to show willing conformity with the requirements of an authority.
Also, there are many lines on a boat, but only a few ropes, and the tow rope is one of them. No well-drilled sailor would ever call a tow rope a “tow line”, unless he wanted to meet the captain’s daughter!
Mitch McConnell has a long history of changing his opinions to suit whatever he thinks will get him more votes. He won his first election in 1977 against a Democrat incumbent by making promises to abortion rights groups and labor unions that he would support them. Then he turned around and voted against their interests when he decided he could drum up more support from the conservative voters in his district. Why do you think he has always been in favor of allowing the wealthy to donate as much as they want to campaigns? Because then he wouldn’t need to bother making promises to lots of people to raise money. He could just go to a few people and he’d be set. No need to bother with actually representing the voters.
Without Trump they have absolutely no chances electorally. Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility and they allowed themselves to get taken over by a hostile foreign power through the magic of debt and leverage. Hard core Trump supporters intend for the whole country to get taken down with them.
Regular Americans are struggling to survive in a nightmare dystopia. News and weather at 11.
Not surprising that a lot of boomers got left behind. The American system is designed to grind everyone to zero with overwhelming debt to keep everyone working at nonliving wages.
Making sure income can’t match debts is a form of wage slavery. Company towns with mines back in the day. This current “economy” is that bullshit on steroids.
Marketing and the media are also to blame. We’re constantly bombarded by advertising and people telling us that what we have isn’t enough. We’re so status conscious and aware if how much is out there that they have us chasing dreams straight into massive debt.
I’m in my 50s with no savings. It isn’t lifestyle or marketing driven though. I just have had very few years where we had any extra. Also three teenagers and the price of food is killing me, cost of cars too. It’s just surviving that’s gutting me.
It’s still a bad argument. You should be able to have kids and not starve. The fact that people choose no kids and still starve shows how fucked things are. We are all fighting the same fight, though our positions may be different.
A society in which the poor can’t afford 3 kids and retirement savings is a failed society. I’m not one of those birth rates people but you absolutely should be able to afford to have the replacement rate number of children
Companies spend millions of dollars to influence your behavior and have mountains of studies to prove that it works, but it’s your fault if you’re swayed by advertising.
Private ownership of things made by people is perfectly reasonable; the person who made the thing should own it and be able to sell or transfer it as desired. So a rock you found isn’t made by people, so yeah, but a painting, or a chair, etc, was.
It’s land that wasn’t made by people where private ownership gets really ridiculous.
I can relate to that, but even in this manner, most of the goods made are the result of vast investments of time efort and money of lots of peoples over decades, just for few individuals to be the owners of.
Well, under a free market economic system, each of those people is paid for their input to the thing, and only participates in that when they decide it’s worth their time to do so.
Only the owner (or shareholders) Researchers in universities, are getting paid by public funding from tax payers money (which is agood thing). Every major development is the product of lots of tiny developments and advansments in which the creators or inventors didn’t get their compensation from the end product. Workers in manufacturing are getting paid the least amount of compensation the owner can get away with, or even worse, manufacturing is moved to countries with even less protection for workers. Oh, and workers need protection from the owners.
Only in frictionless spherical cow in a vacuum territory - that is to say in theory in unachievable ideal conditions. In the real world the market is wildly distorted and people are forced by a variety of external pressures to participate even if they don’t believe they are being offered what they are worth.
It is true that once production of an item becomes a greater task than simply the work of one person, the ownership of it can be considered more complex, but my point was that at least something created by people makes sense to be owned by its creator.
I kinda get the feeling that food was the first form of property. Land (by way of good shelter) was probably a close second with good rocks and sticks.
This point neither supports nor erodes the logic of ownership of territory or land; it merely points out that it has a very long history. Many things have a long history, some of which have consistent reason and logic behind them, and some which do not.
I think they’re talking about art specifically. Like what’s the point of owning art if you ain’t showing anyone? And why should anyone care if ou destroyed art you weren’t willing to show it anyways?
Thanks. Original art have some kind of intrinsic aura, by the art proccess itself. That’s the difference between arts and craft or even art and design. The fact that concept of having the right to destroy art just because you’ve paid someone, sound so obvious and natural to people is weird…
This doesn’t seem like a dickheaded move to me. First, it was a C&D letter, which has no legal status, and second, the stalker thing is a legitimate concern, especially since the MAGA camp is all riled up about her.
But like, shouldn’t she be taking it up with the FAA then? I’m sure you can apply for delay or exemption in extraordinary situations like this one undoubtedly is?
That is the source of the data after all. If you don’t actually stop the data source from publishing your data, others will continue to use it.
It’s a dumb approach that makes it look like a hurt ego thing rather than a legitimate concern.
FAA LADD and PIA programs are just there. Swift has no excuse outside of her getting called out for CO2.
This was a non issue when Musk did it. It continues to be a non issue whilst Swift does it. Aircraft enrolled in both programs do not prevent lookup databases from third parties from getting the data eventually, but prevents in most cases real-time tracking unless there’s literal people standing at the airport watching and reporting.
No, she’s just being petulant about this issue because she’s embarrassed that she’s being told her flying around in a private jet is destroying this planet we’re all living on.
The FAA obviously. It's publically available data, so it's totally useless to keep one person from publishing the data when anyone can take over and continue.
Not for someone to be a stalker. You’re saying the only thing keeping some people from being a stalker is how easy the info is to find, or parse, even.
info being public and it being broadcasted in an easily-readable format
What is the bar for difficult or easy to read data? Is a CSV difficult enough? How do you even quantify difficulty of readability to meet that standard? If I build a tool to parse that new data, does that mean every agency would have to change formats and make the data harder to read?
Yeap, this is a lot more to do with people utilizing his data to point out exactly how bad her private jet use is for the environment than it is about personal privacy.
It’s not like his data is giving any more information than her social media accounts or tour schedule. What exactly is a stalker supposed to do with the information? Are they going to break into the airport and then elude her security detail? Wouldn’t that be a lot harder than just following her after a show?
The data comes from the FAA. It’s public data. All this guy has done is put an interface on it. Unless Swift’s legal team can prove that each individual stalker used an interface hosted by this guy I don’t see how he can be thought of as responsible for anything. And even if they did use an interface hosted by him, he’s still not doing anything other than showing public data. Data that the FAA clearly believe is in a legitimate public interest to make public. If she’s got an issue with that, they’re the people to go after.
I live under Iraq and this comment made me look up whether she’s a billionaire. Guess that’s why she’s been in the news so much lately. Jesus. I wish the billionaire count was going down, not up.
In the short-term more billionaires might be better. The more there are the more there are to claw at eachother’s throats. Hopefully they all kill eachother in the process.
This 10000000 percent. You can’t become that without being a horrible person. It entails having copious amounts of money than others could have instead.
Rape in pro birth States was already above the national average. Now that they have given rapist the green light to try to extend the control over their victims indefinitely with a child.
The folks I know who are big runners would not be able to handle this psychologically, put in an insane amount of work and do everything to take care of your body and make yourself better only to be beaten by a guy who clearly gives no fucks
Ambiguous title. The pastor didn’t ask for money from the freezing people. He took them in for free. The city then criminally charged him for violating zoning rules:
Chris Avell, pastor of Dad’s Place in Bryan, Ohio, was arraigned in court last Thursday because he kept his church open 24/7 to provide warmth to the unhoused.
Ohio law prohibits residential use in first-floor buildings in a business district. Since the church is zoned as a Central Business, the building is restricted from allowing people to eat or sleep on the property.
If these people get angry at someone performing a good deed because that makes then look bad, they’re going to hell.
If even the least absolutist christian sect, the church of England, teaches that as they did to me during my childhood, then those fuckers aren’t even close to being Christian. They’re just wearing a crucifix.
I wonder if there’s a first amendment defense to be made here. The pastor was following his religious tenets by sheltering the poor in the church in their time of need.
So by this logic church patrons would have to leave the premises to eat a snack, participate in a church meal, or even eat one of those wafers they sometimes hand out.
Yup. Serve the body of Christ? Straight to jail. Your sermon is so boring someone dozes off, believe it or not, jail.
Of course, this doesn’t really happen, through the magic of selective enforcement the only people getting the boot are those preventing the homeless from freezing to death, ruining the plans of the local administration.
The doctrine of transfiguration is not the same thing as communion. When protestants take communion they are not under the belief they are eating the literal body of Christ. Instead it’s purely symbolic. Catholicism holds that your salvation literally hinges on eating that piece of bread and wine every week since they believe it is literally Christ’s body once it’s blessed. It’s like the literalist opposite of gnostic views
Buddy you’re trying to nitpick something that no one cares about that still has the same result. At the end of the day the people will still be eating the cracker in a business zoned church.
Whatever beliefs or arbitrary labels are held behind the gesture do not matter at all to what is being talked about
Yep, and what boundaries constitutes a church, synagogue, mosque or place of worship these days, and why is one religion tax free, yet a philosophical movement is not? To whom is respon$ible for making these institutions exempt of taxation? I for one would be a proud supporter of a church that actually upholds the tenants of biblical teachings, and also follows in the footsteps of those morals, but it’s all just a sad sad part of modern day capitalism. This Pastor is a hero and should be heralded as such.
Not that I particularly care if churches are or are not taxed but arguing that religion is philosophy just is empirically wrong. Philosophy is rarely passed generation to generation but religion is almost always is. No one would call an 8 year old a Hegellian but they would grasp the idea that the 8 year old is Muslim and should be given hallel food. A Marxist solider who dies in combat isn’t going to get a Marxist funeral. A Platoist is not going to request a Platoist leader to provide them comfort in their final moments. No one is bringing their family to weekly Russellian services where they sing about the glory of set theory. No desperate person has begged their local Utilitarian thinker to pray away the Utility Monster.
You’re right. The only difference between philosophy and religion is the cult aspect. So why are we rewarding the culty versions that indoctrinate children into being unable to think for themselves rather than actual philosophical movements? Its backwards as fuck. Religon is much of why humanity is so stupid. It requires faith. Faith and critical thinking cannot coexist when the faith involves meaning of life stuff.
Technically you are correct, but this is far from the first instance of this kind, probably already even in 2024. I knew immediately what it meant b/c of that context… sigh, unfortunately:-(.
Still, thank you very much for clarifying - Lemmy is shared world-wide, and not everyone may have picked up on that, especially non-native speakers. You are preventing misunderstandings hence promoting Truth, exactly as that pastor would have wanted:-).
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation, but it seems to me the problem here isn’t the zoning laws, but draconian enforcement during an emergency.
Usually in times of hardship, anyone with half a brain knows not to strictly enforce laws like this that were clearly not intended to stop churches, businesses, or private individuals from helping people.
It’s like charging someone for violating zoning by taking in neighbours whose homes were destroyed. In normal times, there are laws against turning yourself into a boarding house without a permit, but nobody reasonable would enforce that after a tornado.
The regulation/law could have been written better. That’s why I called it overreach. They could have written an emergency clause or wrote an emergency regulation/law that specified overruling certain laws.
That’s what I meant by overreach. I’m generally pro regulations when it comes to safety which is what the sleeping and eating one I assume was written about.
Seems like a shooting range next to a school could be a deterrent.
Hmmm, which school to shoot up? This one next to a bunch of folks with weapons and ammo within arms reach practicing marksmanship or any of these other ones without that?
You mean like here in maryville, tn, where the new Smith and Wesson factory and test range shares a property line with Middlesettlements Elementary School?
Nothing quite like kids hearing gunshots outside at school.
And it wasn’t just “allowed” by zoning laws. The city basically did backflips to get the plant to move here. They even convinced the city of Alcoa to cede the land to the city of Maryville without telling Alcoa why they wanted it.
Bunch of shady shit all around, but the whole county basically sucks Smith and Wesson’s dick now. They even had a big festival on the day the plant opened to celebrate it.
he building is restricted from allowing people to eat or sleep on the property.
Okay… so any business in the ‘business district’ is restricted from allowing people to eat or sleep on their property.
If I was a lawyer, I’d record people eating in their business district buildings and present that to the court right next to the law that says they’re not allowed to do it.
I would fight tooth and nail to ensure whatever judicial overreach is screwing over poor people also screws over rich ones.
No eating in the business district means no break rooms. And if Christian churches are in the business district, I’d imagine this means no communion wafers either.
How many of those businesses work people so hard/overnight so they are sleeping in their offices? Its Ohio so probably not many but its probably still happened.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.