This morning's news features two big stories about hefty increases in local regulations and red tape:
The first involves "problem properties". After this summer's various neighborhood potlucks designed to bring attention to problem properties and the difficulties in getting the City to do anything about them, Lincoln is proposing a bevy of changes to how it handles these sorts of things. The changes include substantial alterations to the housing code, new inspection rules, stiffer fines, and so on.
The second article describes a host of proposed changes to deal with problem pups. Or rather, dangerous dogs. Again: more regulations, more fines, and so on.
All together, these two news stories feature a huge (proposed) increase in local regulatory activity. Yet these proposals aren't, for the most part, seen in that light. Instead, most people seem to perceive both of these moves as the benevolent government coming to the rescue. Why is that?
And to be clear: no, I don't want Lincoln to turn into a wasteland of problem houses; and no I don't want children to be mauled by dangerous dogs. The validity of these particular actions is a completely separate issue. I'm just interested in thinking about why sometimes government is greeted as a White Knight, while other times it is the Great Satan. The public loves certain intrusions into their lives and loathes others. Finding the patterns and inconsistencies is great fun to think and talk about.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
You call ‘em “neighborhood potlucks” but in truth they were conceived and organized by Neighborworks and most likely funded in part by federal grant money. Not much different to ACORN or the Teabag Parties.
Regarding the dogs, its a no win situation for the Council. If they do nothing and some more little kids get mauled, people will blame the Council for not taking steps to control the dogs. If they do too much, people will blame them for excessive regulations. If they do everything “perfectly”...well, people will still find 101 reasons to blame them for something. Generally speaking, we as a people and society just don’t like government period, and that goes for all Americans, and certainly for Lincolnites. Its just a matter of degree.
Personally, I would favor greater measures to control these damn dogs. It would be wonderful if there would be no need to impose any regulations at all. But sad fact of the matter is, so long as there are some irresponsible dog owners out there, there will be a need for someone to establish effective controls if the owners aren’t doing anything.
Just my personal beef: I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy or support for humans who try and keep violent animals as pets, train bears to be like ice follies, or other nonsense. Next on the news? Some doofus will try and train a 400 pound gorilla to use a battle axe. Gee, what could possibly go wrong??
You make a good point about the contradictions people hold when assessing when and where they want the government creeping into their lives. Nationally, the people who thought they were being stripped of all of their freedoms by the domestic anti-terrorism wiretapping program are the same people who don’t mind a law that requires jail time for people who don’t buy health insurance.
As for the local regulations, who knows what they’ll come up with. I stopped paying attention when Robin Eschliman’s resolution to ban furniture from porches went through. If someone can tell me how that improved anyone’s life, please let me know. Our city government is a complete disaster right now.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.