This axiom from Tip O'Neil is a challenge to the broad national and world issues City Councils sometimes address. Cities have passed resolutions on Iraq troop withdrawal, including Boulder. In 2000 Aspen passed a resolution to request the feds create "legislation appropriate to stabilize the population of the United States and insure sustainability".
The Lafayette News reports on the disagreement with the City Council's potential resolution stating, in part, “The City of Lafayette and its citizens encourage a moratorium on federal immigration raids until fair and humane immigration reform is passed in Washington.”
While such a statement is by design symbolic, is it worth bringing national legislation debates into local Council rooms? If we can't agree on where to place a hardware store without a ballot issue, is it worth creating a forum for debate on a national issue that ultimately we have no direct influence over? I'm just asking...
As a side note, near-term federal immmigration reform is unlikely given the disparate stands taken by the House and Senate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
War is not healthy for children and other living things.
The city has posted the original proposed proclamation and now a redrafted one. The council was told at the last meeting that the Latino Advisory Board supported the original unanimously. But the draft minutes of that meeting are not available to verify what occurred or if the meeting did occur, which is what minutes are for.
Since I was quoted in the Lafayette News yesterday, my view on this is public.
Now to Dan's point, LN did not publish the full text of the original. I had to request the original be posted since the council agreed to consider the original. The public, unless they check the city council agenda or the Camera writes something about, is not aware of the second version (LN won't be out until Wednesday). And typically there are no public hearings on a proclamation. So how will the general public weigh in on Dan's question and express views on either one (no the emphasis is "general public".
Heard on the radio today:
"A liberal's heart is always greater than the taxpayer's wallet."
Another one that goes back years and years:
"Democracy is the system whereby we always think the other guy is paying for it."
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
I think they should go back to internment camps like they had in WWII. They have one in Guantanimo
All the informative and insightful highlights of talk radio right here on your local blog!!
Save the whales!
Mr. Bensman, I read your comments about this nonsense, thanks for stating the obvious. Unfortunately you probably have a target on your back now for saying what needed to be said. Local govt's have plenty to deal with in their own jurisdictions than to be weighing in on issues like this. Makes as much sense as proclaiming "we will follow the current law", well, duhh. The only upside I guess is to put people on record as to their intelligence and regard for the law.
Post a Comment