The last facet of this issue that we will discuss right now is the government’s role and its effect on us. The Constitution was set up with specific restrictions on what the government can do to us, for us, and despite us. It was one of the great fears of the founding fathers that we as a people would become complacent and not be vigilant in keeping our government in check. Patrick Henry said, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." We have not only the option but the responsibility to restrain our government and keep them in check.
I firmly stand behind the proposition that the government at any level should do only those specific tasks that we ask them to perform for the general welfare of all. Some examples are Police and Fire services, road construction, water, power, and sewage treatment. While this is not an exhaustive list, I see the intrinsic value in limiting the government’s intrusion into our lives.
That being said I feel that when the government seeks to be involved in the market, directly or indirectly, it is overstepping the bounds that we have placed on it and it needs to be reminded that the power of our government stems from the people. We are the masters of our representatives and we set the limits on what we allow the government to do.
It seems that perhaps you address two separate issues in your thoughts. The first is constitutional authority which is better addressed at the state (or federal) level; and, second is implementation of a state requirement at the local level.
ReplyDeleteWhile you have made a clear point on the duties and limitations of government, you have not associated how resolution for your specific grievance can be attained with the local government that you specifically lay blame to in this instance.
It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained. ~ Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers -23
The local authority has a range within which they can plan, but they do not have the authority to ignore the requirement altogether. The local authority (City in this case) has an "end" they are required to meet, they must have a "means" by which to meet it.
Addressing the state lawmakers would be a more appropriate, if less satisfying, venue for advocating your position in this case.
Respectfully,
- Politicalinclin
I chose to make my comment under "Connecting the Dots 2". Thanks, gonemoderate
ReplyDeletePerhaps a little more information would be helpful. I have discussed with several county and state officials and the GMA does not require a certain amount of open space or parks. There is no "requirement" beyond providing parks and open space. Each city is allowed to decide if they want more or less parks and the only real consideration is how much grant money that would be available to the city if the plan a certain way.
ReplyDeleteSo the "end" that the city has to meet is self imposed and not required by a higher governmental authority beyond having "sufficient" open space and parks. We decide locally what sufficient is.
I contend that $27,000,000 is beyond sufficient. I am still interested to see what your opinion is on this.