Asked about the persistence of docketed items that have or would ban items in Newton — such as plastic bags and leaf blowers — Alderman At Large Jim Cote told attendees at the Newton candidates forum in the Highlands on Sunday that he was opposed to all this “over regulation.” He even joked that he was in favor of eliminating the committee that oversees these proposals, the Programs & Services Committee, so “we can ban bans.”
Anyone else want to ban bans? Or are you glad when aldermen step in to regulate things like bags, smokeless tobacco, leaf blowers, Styrofoam, blogs (ok hopefully not blogs) etc.
I only support regulatory bans on things that have a direct negative impact on someone besides the user, like leaf blowers. But I’d gladly live with leaf blowers to be free from any bans.
I think the BoA has consistently abused their authority by banning things that should not logically fall within their jurisdiction. Was it really intended by our Charter that the BoA be able to ban consumer items like plastic bags and smoking cessation devices? Was it right that the BoA banned medical marijuana dispensaries [even for a short time] after they were overwhelmingly approved by voters?
Too much government! Not enough freedom!!
Competent and reasonable regulations on negatively externalized economic/business practices with a deleterious social and health effect are fine with me. That’s a more technical definition of “ban” for at least most of the things under consideration. I think other measures to nudge or influence human behavior when it also has harmful externalities that affect others can potentially be reasonable, but it certainly gets much dicier and should be approached with more caution.
In general, it makes the most sense to take each proposal individually and assess the merits independently, rather than lumping everything together and representing it as some kind of tidal wave.
As to the moral or political authority of the Board to intervene (since I can’t really speak broadly on the legal or charter authority), in most of these cases, it actually makes some sense to tackle it locally. First, because it theoretically allows for a more local expression of popular preferences, although as Mike’s comment observes, the Board hasn’t always adhered to that. Second, because on some issues, the higher levels of government have entirely abdicated any responsibility that they have to act systemically on some public health challenge (whether direct like smoking or indirect like many environmental concerns), and thus is necessarily falls to the local level of government to act. This is, after all, the decentralized system we have in this country.
When will our mayor stand up to protect the disabled of Newton? And is it not in his best interest to do so as soon as possible?
http://southborough.wickedlocal.com/article/20150720/NEWS/150729589