[L]ittle-known but longstanding federal and state laws [gives] preference to the blind when it comes to operating concessions on government property....Well, that is a funny understanding of constitutional law.
On Wednesday, a crowd of regulars were quick to speak their minds in support of the Mahers. “To me, it seems unconstitutional,” said Ralph DellaCamera, a hedge fund trader passing through the station about 6:30 a.m. “That’s not the capitalistic system.”
Some customers said they would treat the new vendor warily. “I’m not looking forward to giving him any of my business,” said Stephen Mesker, a regular. “Preference is one thing when you award a contract” for the first time, Mr. Mesker said, but taking it from an existing operator is “like telling someone who owns a house: ‘Guess what? We have someone better for it.’ ”Hmmm... Don't tell him about Kelo.
The ordinary person's sense of justice means something, but it's hard to see how the law is unconstitutional or how the city can avoid it. The customers are certainly free to shun the new guy and to say in advance that they will to try to pressure him to withdraw.
I'm sure the people who passed the law thought highly of their benevolence toward the blind, don't you think?
पोस्ट्स
१४ टिप्पण्या:
I'm sure the people who passed the law thought highly of their benevolence toward the blind, don't you think?
I don't see what you mean.
Another reason I was smart to always follow this rule:
Never do business with the government.
Another reason I was smart to always follow this rule:
Never do business with the government.
The key seems to be this statement by the people administering this program, according to the Times:
"State officials say they would not have stepped in had Mr. Maher been covered by a contract. But since the concession was never put out to bid and the arrangement had no set termination date, they said it was wrong to expect them to wait until Mr. Maher moved on before taking care of a person in need. 'It just seems so unfair to say that because this couple had this location that there’s this entitlement and that they should always have it,' Mr. Sigman said."
Maher's contract was month-to-month. It seems that if Maher had had a contract of longer duration, the state would have honored it, though probably not renewed it when it expired. People lose concessions all the time. Vendors are routinely ousted so owners can make more money. Here, the vendor is being ousted so the aims of social legislation can be furthered.
Maher is very young (24), and pretty impressive -- he's been doing this for 8 years (6 as owner). Perhaps one of those CEOs or hedge fund operators can reward his industry somehow. But whether they do or not, he seems like some one who will land on his feet.
The key seems to be this statement by the people administering this program, according to the Times:
"State officials say they would not have stepped in had Mr. Maher been covered by a contract. But since the concession was never put out to bid and the arrangement had no set termination date, they said it was wrong to expect them to wait until Mr. Maher moved on before taking care of a person in need. 'It just seems so unfair to say that because this couple had this location that there’s this entitlement and that they should always have it,' Mr. Sigman said."
Maher's contract was month to month. If Maher had had a longer contract they would have honored it, and probably not renewed it when it expired. People lose concessions all the time. Vendors are routinely ousted so owners can make more money. Here, the vendor is being ousted so the aims of social legislation can be furthered.
Maher is very young (24), and pretty impressive -- he's been doing this for 8 years (6 as owner). Perhaps one of those CEOs or hedge fund operators can reward his industry somehow. But whether they do or not, he seems like some one who will land on his feet.
Well considering all of the benefits that are given towards married, straight couples - I actually think this is kind of cool.
I suspect the outraged customers will find their resolve fading when they need that coffee fix.
I remember hearing people saying they would not support Pel'Meni here in Madison, after it re-opened (following a partnership gone sour). I still won't go to the under-new-management reincarnation, but I see people in there all the time.
People need their dumplings. And people will need their coffee.
Being blind does not benefit society. Getting married and having children does.
The key seems to be this statement by the people administering this program, according to the Times:
"State officials say they would not have stepped in had Mr. Maher been covered by a contract. But since the concession was never put out to bid and the arrangement had no set termination date, they said it was wrong to expect them to wait until Mr. Maher moved on before taking care of a person in need. 'It just seems so unfair to say that because this couple had this location that there’s this entitlement and that they should always have it,' Mr. Sigman said."
It seemed that Maher's contract was month to month (whether in writing or by operation of law is not clear, though it seems the latter). If Maher had had a longer contract they would have honored it, and probably not renewed it when it expired. People lose concessions all the time. Vendors are routinely ousted so owners can make more money. Here, the vendor is being ousted so the aims of social legislation can be furthered.
Maher is very young (24), and pretty impressive -- he's been doing this for 8 years (6 as owner). Perhaps one of those CEOs or hedge fund operators can reward his industry somehow. But whether they do or not, he seems like some one who will land on his feet.
"...he seems like some one who will land on his feet."
That's totally irrelevant, and pretty callous, too. And how does the bureaucrat know the blind person is "in need"?
The new coffee guy better hope that a blind person of color or a blind gay person doesn't take a liking to his concession.
"Getting married and having children does" not benefit society.
Rearing children to be virtuous responsible educated adults does.
How is this any different from affirmative action?
Personally, I think Ann's failure to show concern for the needs of the blind demonstrates what a capitalist ideologue she is. :)
Sorry everybody for the multiple comments. I had trouble posting it, but some computer apparently rewarded my effort by repeating it.
How do you delete things?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा