Post

Woofworf wrote:

the new WA vote, it's sad to see how sadistic some people are. sacrificing the environment for their own personal economic benefit. truly sad and quite disgusting to see how little people care about our future. what's the point of having industry anyway if the whole world is crumbling because we messed the environment up

Aelyria wrote:

Sadism had nothing to do with it for me. I absolutely value the environment quite highly and am not keen on just letting corporations do whatever they like. My problem is that the legislation proposed is riddled with flaws and very likely to be quickly repealed if passed. For example, the hotline requirement doesn't make any provisions for prank calls, or for green spaces that don't warrant such hotlines (e.g. wildlife preserves that aren't open to the public to begin with, but still owned by the government). I also don't approve of the requirement that parks be open free of charge--fees for entry are one of the main sources of funds to maintain and protect such areas. The requirement to always use brownfield sites (defined to be places blighted by pollution!) unless it is "unviable" to do so is similarly a problem--it's a universal rule for something that needs contextual solutions.

I want to protect the environment, very much so. I don't want to do it with deeply flawed laws that are both abusable and detrimental to actual conservation efforts.

I agree with the parks. It is one of my main reason for voting against it. If legislation like this want to use higher taxations and taking money from government duties then they should have a way to help not take as much money. Requiring parks to be free takes money away. If you had to pay for the parks that would become a way for legislation to help pass, instead of taking money directly from the governments hands, you wouldn’t loose as much. Money will be lost either way but with free parks more money will be lost.