Jump to content
Sorry, about the abrupt end I don't generally post. I still think you cannot mathematically use the 35 to 1 ratio comparing individual donors (Koch brothers) with a group that even if only 62% (according to your figures) of their memberships still represents a large population. Even if you used the 18 largest unions (as individual donors) the number would be closer to 2 to 1.
Personally I think all campaign contributions should be limited, I don't have a dog in this fight. We are never out of election cycles anymore because of vested interests of politicians and contributors on all sides of of the political spectrum. I would rather vote on issues and ability than advertising campaigns, but all limits to this endless campaigning seem to fail miserably. That being said, there still is a difference, regardless of spin, that
These figures are somewhat disingenuous and are comparing apples to oranges. Labor unions, whether one agrees with them or not, are considered the agents and representatives of the millions of people who belong to them, they are not individual stakeholders. Koch Industries represent a very small number of individuals. Both are competing for political power that will help their membership (family) but looking at total dollars without looking at the numbers of people involved isn't logical or reasonable. How many people are members of those 18 different unions? Divide the totals by those they represent to get a more accurate, per capita figure for political donations.
Several years ago the City of Steamboat Spring opted to allow nightly rentals in all neighborhoods. There are only a few exceptions. If a neighborhood has an active registered homeowners association with preexisting covenants that preclude rentals of less than 29 days, the homeowner association can pursue legal action (at considerable cost). If a homeowner who rents out on a nightly basis receives more than three police visits in a year, their license may or may not be revoked. Most of the annoyances in nightly rentals don't rise to the level of requiring police intervention, but are still not what neighbors expect to live with on a daily basis. When someone buys a house in a neighborhood zoned for residential use shouldn't the expectation of a relatively stable neighborhood population be part of the equation?
I live next door to a home that is used for short term rentals in town. There are no rules as to how often it can be rented and so my neighbors and I deal with new tenants almost every week during the winter and summer seasons. A constant influx of strangers who are in party and vacation mode negatively changes the rhythms of a quiet residential zoned neighborhood. Traffic and noise levels increase enormously. There should be limits on the number of days that can be rented or else what is the purpose of zoning? When does a home change from a residential property to a commercial enterprise and what protections (other than calling the police) are afforded to the neighboring homeowners to insure their lifestyles and home values won't be impacted? I would rather have a few returning college kids once in a while than a steady stream of unknown visitors.
Last login: Friday, April 4, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |