By now, everybody knows that Michael Phair's proposed anti-idling bylaw was defeated in a tie vote at the City's Transportation and Public Works Committee, with Phair and Janice Melnychuk in favour and Mike Nickel and Ron Hayter opposed. What's getting considerably less press is the fact that the motion was moved in two parts, divided, and dispensed with separately - a clause calling on the city administration to bring an proposed information campaign (and potential partners for the campaign) to the committee was carried by a three to one vote, with Hayter joining Phair and Melnychuk voting in favour.
This exposes the differences in Hayter's and Nickel's rationales for opposing the bylaw. Hayter felt that it was largely unenforceable (an allegation that was more or less conceded by the bylaw's proponents), but was fine with an information campaign, while Nickel felt that the whole thing was an unwarranted intrusion on Edmontonians' freedom of choice. Essentially, he argued that it wasn't Council's place to moralize, at least on this issue.
For that matter, even if there's a place for the state to engage in this sort of public awareness/advocacy, why is it the municipal level that should foot the bill? It seems to us that the Kyoto Accord was signed by a different level.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nickel needs to get his head on straight.
so what if your stuck in your car in a traffic jam and its minus 38 outside, are you supposed to turn your car off and freeze?, or how about a drive through, and your in line for more than 3 mins. its just the dumbest bylaw too come around in some time and hopefully you will come too see this also. thank you
Post a Comment