Nanny-state mentality takes hold at city hall

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Many, many years ago, as one of his last acts before retirement, the associate publisher of the newspaper where I worked officially banned smoking in the building.

Back in those days, most of the reporters were male, too many of them smoked and most of them viewed this as heresy.

It wasn’t lost on them that the dear man issued the mandate and then moved to Naples, Fla., soon afterward.

A non-smoking colleague was so inflamed by this edict that he took up the habit. What a stupid thing to do, I thought at the time. But I’ve thought of him frequently in recent days as I’ve mulled around the idea of painting a colourful mural on my garage door.

Not because the artistic muse is moving me to express myself. Actually, it’s more a reaction to the truly dumb decision of our city council, one of several councillors have made recently in what one dear friend referred to as the “strata mentality.”

They must control everything, and everything must be the same. In doing so, they keep pushing their noses into matters that really are none of their business.

Let’s start with the proposed pesticide bylaw.

Give her credit, because Coun. Tina Lange is right. Their use is a health issue, so perhaps there is an argument to be made for some restrictions on their use. And Coun. Pat Wallace is also right when she points out that health is a provincial matter.

Our council, however, actually contemplated a bylaw that would restrict pesticide use by people who spray their lawn, what, maybe once a year? Who have a few fruit trees?

But it would have exempted those who use the chemicals intensively — golf courses (must have those gorgeous greens, you know) and commercial-orchard operators.

Not the most effective bylaw, it would appear. Swat a fly, but ignore that big bees’ nest next to you.

The proposal has been sent back for reworking. Its next incarnation should be interesting to read.

Consider next the decision to get involved in how the free-enterprise system works in this city, by mandating a minimum drink charge for pubs and bars.

The rationale? To stop binge drinking.

Is that not the duty of the barkeepers? And do we not have regulations already in place to ensure that duty is enforced, and consequences the proper authorities can enforce to ensure this?

This is not the responsibility of municipal government. It is a policing matter, both through the liquor licensing officials and the local police.

This reality, combined with the fundamental laws of economics, are what should govern how much one pays for a drink in public.

And it is also the responsibility of parents to teach their children about binge drinking. I know that doesn’t preclude it from happening, but I’d rather have my children show restraint because they learned about the consequences of too much drinking from my husband and me, and understand the legal and health issues, instead of having their decision based on the amount of money they would have to spend.

And now, we have the graffiti bylaw, which will not only require the victims to pay for the crime, but has now deemed graffiti to be much more than what I always thought it included.

Now, if I want to paint that mural on my garage door, I would be violating the city’s rules unless I first get permission. And it’s almost worth doing it to see what would happen.

What criteria will be used to grant permission? Is our municipal government now taking on the job of art critic as well? Would a rendition of Edgar Degas’ ballerinas be approved, while one of his After the Bath series be turned down?

And what city councillor would actually decree something like that could be considered graffiti?

It would add a completely new twist to that age-old debate: is it art or vandalism?

Whatever it is, it’s none of council’s business.

dale@kamloopsthisweek.com

© Copyright 2007 Kamloops This Week