Crappy Day for the Polls - Your Vote Counts for More
It's an ugly day. It's Royals Opening Day. It's Rotary Greater Kansas City Day.
There are dozens of reasons not to vote this morning. Which means that your vote counts more, if you bother to cast it.
Right now, it's cold and wet and dreary. What a perfect day to vote in favor of Question 3! It reminds me of the schadenfreude I'll feel every time I walk past a cold, wet smoker on my way into one of Kansas City's soon-to-be smoke-free bars and restaurants!
Oh, yeah, vote "YES" on all the questions, and cast a vote for Airick Leonard West!
Labels: Airick Leonard West, election, kansas city, smoking ban
posted by Dan at 4/08/2008 06:18:00 AM
4 Comments:
I love the idea of going smoke-free, but sadly a few big details are forcing me to vote against the smoking ban.
1. No smoking in tobacco shops. It is just plain dumb to ban smoking in a business like the Havanna Moon cigar shop on 39th or the Tobacconist in Westport.
2. Smoking at the Truman Sports Complex. Even the half-assed City Council smoking ban including the stadiums. Voting yes on 3 actually re-legalizes smoking at the stadiums.
I agree with both your points, but refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the very good.
I'm not going to re-hash the smoking thing - I of course voted against it. Overly restrictive for private businesses. Let your $$ vote.
Not sure why we'd want to vote for a 15 year bus tax until we get the light rail thing figured out and look at "transit" as a group, and not as one-offs.
Not sure I can come up with a rational explanation to vote for question 2. The tax isn't enough money to run the predatory lenders out of business -- so it will keep them around and have the tax passed along to the least fortunate people in our city as incremental fees. It's a horribly thought out bill that has the right idea at heart, but he execution will have the exact opposite affect.
Brent, that is exactly my thought on the outrageous fee for "payday loan" offices. Seems like the city just wants to get in on the gouging. Does anyone really think that more signs and warnings will actually prevent any of their customers from going through with these loans? Not a chance. You could have 40 pages of warnings and disclosures and they wouldn't lose one tiny bit of business.
As far as the $1000 fee, we all know that the cost will simply be passed on to the consumers. The whole thing is shameful IMO.
Post a Comment
<< Home