Odj, I agree with your 10:45 comments completely! This is just one more example of how ridiculous land use rules can become. They usually evolve from rules described as "common sense protections" to this kind of childish silliness. Just this week I was told by a lady who lives in a Greenville subdivision that they do not allow pickup trucks, even if a truck is brand new and is the family car of the owner. Now, today's story about this boat trailer. Many areas now require a minimum size for all new homes, probably to make them unaffordable to "commoners" who may want to live there for some reason I cannot imagine. Yes, odj, your 10:45 comments are right on target.
Silvbul, the E-Verify system mentioned by AntonellaB is free, and available to any employer. I've been told by employers who use it that it's very easy to use and takes very little time. You're right about the danger of profiling, so the legislature took care of that problem by requiring it regardless of race or ethnicity. Beginning January 1, ALL local and state employers must use E-verify for all new hires. Private employers will have to use E-Verify or a drivers license beginning in January, on a phased in basis according to number of employees. Depending on knowledge and intent, those fake id's you mentioned can now have serious penalties for employee and employer. E-Verify is free, easy, and the accuracy results are amazingly high (I've seen 99%+).
School officials are not allowed to ask if students are here legally or not, and any student who walks through the door must be enrolled. So, if legal status checks are a no-no, how does Willie know that most, if not all of our enrolled students are legal citizens? Well? Does anyone old enough to read that comment really believe that? He's right, however, about the new law that was just passed. It will come down hard on employers who hire illegals. This newspaper recently told us about a public meeting this Thursday, at which the new law will be explained to employers and to members of the public who want to learn more about the new law. I hope the meeting room is full of employers who want to avoid prosecution, and members of the public who want to learn more about how to report violations to state agents. The commenter is right about more jobs being available to unemployed legal citizens when we crack down on the anti-American employers who pass over legal workers to hire cheaper illegal workers.
Oh, now I see, Kat. You're just looking out for the merchants in nearby cities who would lose business. The Chambers of Commerce in those cities certainly owe you a debt of gratitude for selflessly looking out for their businesses this way. Surely I was mistaken, thinking your goal was to control or stop a project that many in your area may want, and would support. And you were just thinking about business losses in other areas, and increased tax burdens on us. Gosh, how benevolent. But, whether through a zoning board, city council or some other means, it's apparent from your last post that you are really into this control thing, so there's no need to continue this. And you still haven't told me the correct number of grocery stores, or the harm another would do. Tired of waiting, so have a good evening.
Kat, if your last few lines are referring to the fact that I do not live in Clemson, you're right. I do not. But I'm in Clemson 2 or 3 times each week, and I do shop there. And odj is right, competition keeps prices down. I also shop occasionally at the Central Wal-Mart, and would like to see a K-Mart and Target there also for the same reason....competition. I do not have to live in Clemson to want that competition and convenience as a Clemson area shopper. You did not answer my question, but I'm not surprised. I asked why some activists in Clemson, or anywhere else for that matter, would oppose plans to build a grocery store, not counting the arrogant, self-centered, "We already have enough". What, exactly, is the correct number of grocery stores? Tell us how one more would degrade the quality of life in Clemson. Tell us why it's not what I mentioned in my first post, the selfish attitude, "I already have all the development I want and I need, so let's stop now". Why do some in Clemson oppose a Wal-Mart, a Lowes, or a new geocery store, as vehemently as if the developer had proposed building a toxic waste incinerator next to an elementary school? Come on, folks, find something important to complain about. Is it an attempt to control all growth EXCEPT what those already living in Clemson decide to allow? Is it, "I'm here now, I have what I want, so close the gate"? Extremely selfish? If not, why not? Explain the destruction another store would do to Clemson's quality of life. Using your "of the people..." reference, why would "the people" oppose a grocery store, even if activists have the ability to convince zonocrats to crush another business? Why?
No, Kat, I'm not a stockholder. In fact, I've never heard of the Hamilton Property Group. I even agree with the comment at the top, that we may have enough grocery stores and/or offices already. But the decision to build another one or not is not my call, the commenters, or yours. Personally, I don't understand why Hamilton would want to build a new store, or offices spaces, with so many competitors already. But, good decision or not, it's not mine to make, and it shouldn't be yours or zoning bureaucrats' either. I have a very simple question fou you, Kat. What gives you, me, or anyone else including government the right to decide if enough grocery stores or offices already exist, or if one more will be too many? Have you decided on a cut-off number? How many is exactly the correct number? I guess I just don't understand the mentality of any person, or any group that feels it has the right to dominate and control how many of a particular kind of store they will allow. Maybe those who opppose this development should tell us why, and the answer is not, "We already have enough". What self-centered arrogance that answer would be!
To the Clemson commenter: If you don't want another grocery store in Clemson, don't shop there if it is built. If you want more green space, plant some trees on land YOU own. If you want to open an office in that empty office space you mentioned, go for it. If you don't like paving, be consistent and don't park on any parking lots in Clemson to prove your commitment. If clearing, building and paving are damaging "paradise", is the home you live in built on land that was once tree-filled green space? Does it have a paved driveway? Do you buy groceries in any of those grocery stores you mentioned, all built on former green space? Or is it a matter of, "Since we already have all the development I want and I need, let's stop now"?
DelewareBob, here's wishing you success in getting a tough law in Delaware. I appreciate this effort to let employers know what hiring illegals can do to them if they get caught. Tough penalties can include up to 5 years in prison for some offenses, huge fines, permanent loss of business licenses, and a premanent felony record. Even the now common practices of sending vans or trucks to pick up illegal workers at parking lots in town and transporting them to job sites is a serious offense. Possessing or producing false identification, more tough penalties. As you said, Bob, taxpayers who pay for all the free (free to the illegals) medical care, schools, welfare, etc. need some relief from this onslaught of illegals, and the new law should scare any employer with any sense at all into compliance. Good luck in Delaware.
I want readers to notice that only the first line in the comment above is mine. The remainder, about the brother-in-law and other officers is MyTake's. If you're driving along, and those headlights coming up behind you are an officer in a hurry (for whatever reason), and you're not speeding or breaking some other law you're not going to be stopped. My point remains, you won't have to worry about what kind of attitude an officer may have if you obey the law and don't do anything to get stopped. Pretty simple. Thanks for the agreements, Poorfarm and Daltreygirl.
Here's another person asking what can be done about police officers' attitudes and speeding. The person above even said his encounter was with an officer who was (his word) "hateful". Want to avoid that "hateful" officer, a complaint to city hall, a ticket, a fine and insurance problems? Don't speed. Don't speed. DON'T SPEED!!! This isn't rocket science, folks. What's so difficult about understanding that "45" on a speed limit sign means don't go faster than 45? Griping about speed traps and police attitudes seems like a confession to me.
Home
Posted on December 3 at 1:05 p.m.
On Neighbors sue Oconee County administrator
Odj, I agree with your 10:45 comments completely! This is just one more example of how ridiculous land use rules can become. They usually evolve from rules described as "common sense protections" to this kind of childish silliness. Just this week I was told by a lady who lives in a Greenville subdivision that they do not allow pickup trucks, even if a truck is brand new and is the family car of the owner. Now, today's story about this boat trailer. Many areas now require a minimum size for all new homes, probably to make them unaffordable to "commoners" who may want to live there for some reason I cannot imagine. Yes, odj, your 10:45 comments are right on target.