Why is this an article? If they would have followed the law requiring application for a NC drivers license or ID within 60 days of establishing permanent residence in NC, this would not have been a story. You've taken the word of someone who didn't feel the need to follow state law (a very long standing and easily discoverable state law) to try to bash another state law. They should have been cited for failure to procure a new license/ID.
When someone who breaks or ignores the law feels/believes they are disenfranchised or discriminated against by subsequent law, then the precipitating fact they didn't follow the law should be the only discussion up for debate.
I feel for anyone who stands to lose their insurance as it's an important tool for all who receive it. What I fail to understand is how anyone who supports the ACA can explain away what's happening to those who have decent employer provided coverage.
Our nation has long fallen behind the Europeans where employee benefits are concerned. For those families where one member has wonderful employer provided coverage, those employers are now paying high penalties for providing said coverage and the law demands that if the spouse is offered coverage by their employer (no matter how good or bad said coverage is), they must take it instead. So, rather than an individual reap the rewards of landing a great job in a great company that will pay the insurance for their family while the family pockets some savings from not having to pay premiums through the spouse's company policy; the employer now pays a penalty, the spouse has sub-par coverage and the family loses just a little bit more of the income they've worked hard to achieve.
Do you really think this impacts the 1%? This hits every middle class family in America that has fought and worked to improve their lot in life.
Addition by subtraction never adds up to a positive gain.
Blatantly dodged bringing up Soros and Bloomberg using their billions to force their Democratic agenda down the throats of everyone else while making sure to reference rich white Republicans. How quaint. Apparently rich white Democrats pushing their own agenda is ok?
The article on the PRIP program is disingenious at best. The reason you don't see Durham politicos signing on at the state level is because the income the licenses will generate is too enticing. The fact is, across the country, cities and counties have long had the ability to "keep tabs on slumlords, protect renters and allow responsible landlords to maintain their property values"'; they failed to do so. This, like other rental programs around the country, just creates another "license" fee (i.e. - another tax) for ALL landlords to pay whether they've had complaints or not (read the program FAQ's more closely, it's not just for those with violations - http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/nis/Pages/NIS_P…). It's a fairly typical government approach to finally getting around to dealing with problematic issues; don't use the tools available to them for years to deal with troublemakers and then create a new ordinance or law that applies to all, even those who have never had issues. If they're doing this to "protect the renters", what's to keep them from extending this to annual "proactive" inspections of owner-occupied housing? They already have the right to perform inspections of poorly maintained owner-occupied housing. I would imagine that those that have worked so hard to renovate or build new homes in the "designated" area would be up in arms if they were asked to pay an annual license fee and be subjected to annual inspections all because the City didn't do its job enforcing an existing code on the house down the street.
Now it's a "raid"? Why do you insist on referring to the Occupy actions as "taking over", "using", etc. rather than what it was - BREAKING AND ENTERING. It's a freaking crime, regardless of political affiliation.
The police responded to A CRIME and entered a building not knowing what kind of resistance or danger they might encounter from an unknown group of people who had ILLEGALLY broken into someone else's private property.
Stop dancing around this fact. If the police had received a call of overnight breaking and entering into City Hall, should they enter the building with guns drawn or with a carrier of Starbucks for the perpetrators? How would the politicians who call the Hall home want the police to react? If you don't back the police on this, you're no better than the criminals who "took over" something that wasn't theirs to take.
@michael and @charlie
Who in their right mind believes that this is ok simply because the building was "a giant empty building, not being used and not going to be used"? It's still private property and breaking and entering (this was NOT simply trespassing) is explicitly illegal, whether it's a home, commercial building or a tool shed.
If you believe everything should be community property, tell us where we can pick up the keys to your house....
Why is there even a debate about this? The triggering moment in the entire issue (without which this article would never have been written) is that a group of people committed a CRIME and broke into someone else's property. They made a choice to commit an act that, it almost all circumstances, is responded to in this manner by law enforcement.
For every person crying about the unfair treatment of this group, ask yourself how you would want law enforcement to react to a breaking and entering call at your home or business with a large group of people involved?
The cops did what cops are supposed to do when faced with a group of people who did what they WEREN'T supposed to do.
All Comments »
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation