Sunday, June 18, 2006

Laziest Post Ever...

Because of musical commitments, I got home really late last, early this morning. The bright sun, meanwhile, also got up really early this morning, and despite the favorable orientation of my bedroom window, reflected rays brightened my day far earlier than I hoped.

After fumbling around for a while, I read a host of great articles in The Sun today that I wanted to say something about, even just a sentence or two (ala Round Up). Alas, my prolonged fumbling and decreased mental capacity made it difficult to accomplish this goal in the time allotted, and now it's time for me to leave.

So, I'll put it on you. Any thoughts on the stories in today's Sun? As for me, I like that the paper has finally named Larry Carson's weekly column. They chose "On Politics," while I'm sticking with the name I gave it months ago: "Politics, Shmolitics." Also, the county government's harassment of The Pack Shack, Ellicott City's "adult bookstore," is more unseemly than the establishment itself.


Anonymous said...

Does that mean you'd be comfortable with a "Pack Shack"-like establishment maybe 150 feet from your home?

Why do you think it's harassment that the County wants adult businesses located no closer than 300 feet from homes? Distance restrictions also apply to liquor license holders.

Hayduke said...

It has nothing to do with whether I'd want to live within 150 feet or whatever of a porn shop. I live under the tyranny of CA for a reason, after all.

Also, I have no problem with making it illegal of other adult establishments to be within a certain proximity of houses.

My problem is the targeting of an existing, legal (grandfathered) business. If the county really wants to get rid of the shop, use eminent domain and take it over. Or, buy it.

But to change the rules specifically to get rid of something that some people don't like -- but clearly others do, otherwise it would have closed by now -- is not right. It's big government muscling its way into things it shouldn't, and it doesn't sit well with me, especially since the last crusade it went on ended up costing taxpayers $200,000.

By the way, do you know the exact distance between the Pack Shack and the closest house. I can't imagine it's less than 150 feet, but I've never measured.

Anonymous said...

Yes, CA can be a blessing at times, providing that much more assurance that surprises like Pack Shack don't pop up in your neighborhood. Now if only CA would be more diligent about picking up broken glass along some paths near village centers. Unfortunately, this broken glass is a dangerous and costly symptom for nearby residents of the village centers' liquor stores. I'm not saying its the liquor stores' fault, I believe it's a fraction of their clientele.

Yet, knowing of dogs that came back from walks on CA paths with sliced bloody feet requiring stiches and lengthy recuperation, even after CA was requested to clean up the paths more thoroughly and more often, just demonstrates the side effects some businesses can have on adjacent neighborhoods.

Existing legal businesses do get impacted from time to time when communities seek protection from feared or demonstrated detriments of those businesses - a few examples being regulations to ban smoking indoors, to reduce noise output, to require additional oversight for financial institutions or publicly traded companies, etc.

But why should the appearance that new regulations providing one community protection is impacting just one business make that protection unacceptable? Would you similarly object to the state legislation requiring employee health care provisions for businesses employing 10,000+ that only impacted WalMart?

"big government muscling its way into things it shouldn't..."? Multiple arrests on the premises + distance from the property Pack Shack leases to the nearest home's lot being about 150 feet (eyeballed from aerial maps). You do the math.

Who knows what it would have cost the County a few years ago to buy the property, but it's currently valued (per the County website) at more than 70% above the $188k the County had to pay in legal costs.