spoil_of_the_cities t1_jcz2009 wrote

The politicians aren't capable of busting up weed stores themselves; they require enforcers. But they've spent years shitting on their enforcers, and unsurprisingly the enforcers are not particularly eager to serve as muscle for this racket.

They've managed a few busts by relying on the Sheriffs but the deputy's union is trying to get out of it.


spoil_of_the_cities t1_jbcwjb6 wrote

I have a generally low opinion of the City Council. I actually knew one of them back in the day and can make 1/51 of that judgment from direct personal interactions!

I hold the city's various agencies generally in higher esteem than the Council.

So I figure the bureaucracy's team is probably a bit better than the Council's team, but more importantly, less likely to manipulate things in favor of the Mayor than the Council's team would be likely to manipulate things in favor of the Council.

> Is it that you just want a smaller budget due to fiscal conservatism?

The number under discussion is an estimate of a future fact - it is better to have a more accurate estimate.


spoil_of_the_cities t1_j8ymlsd wrote

You got it kinda backwards. It's the gov't that's not allowed to discriminate.

The gov't has decided that private groups may use the public streets for parades with the proper permits. The gov't can adopt neutral requirements for those permits, but it cannot adopt religious requirements. The group authorized to hold the parade can decide who marches.

The gov't also allows private groups to hold events in parks. Let's say a Jewish group got a permit for a Jewish festival and invited others to put up tables and tents for activities, merchandise, etc. The Jewish group could refuse a table to a Christian group that focused on converting Jews. If that Christian group applied to the gov't for their own park event permit, the gov't could not refuse them because of their beliefs.