State Senate Bills I Find Interesting (SB 236 – SB 250)

Conclusions:
SB 236: SUPPORT
SB 237: OPPOSE
SB 238: OPPOSE
SB 239: OPPOSE
SB 240: SUPPORT
SB 241: SUPPORT
SB 242: SUPPORT
SB 243: SUPPORT
SB 244: SUPPORT
SB 245: OPPOSE
SB 246: SUPPORT
SB 247: OPPOSE
SB 248: OPPOSE
SB 249: SUPPORT
SB 250: OPPOSE

SB 236 would prohibit local governments from adopting property development moratoriums except under explicitly defined circumstances. Any moratoriums that are adopted would automatically expire 60 days after the date of adoption. Finally, you got to like this clause, which is the first time in 236 bills I’ve seen anything like it:

Nothing in this chapter is intended to preempt or preclude any rights or remedies otherwise available under the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Georgia, or Georgia law.

Now, I know there is the local control argument, but I see this as a way to keep local politicians honest. If they want a moratorium, they would be forced to show evidence that new construction would cause existing infrastructure to be over-capacity AND show how they plan to bring existing infrastructure to a capacity that could handle the new development. Then they would have a 60 day head start to work on the infrastructure before any new developments could be proposed. Plus, there is that Constitution clause in there. Because of these reasons, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB 236: SUPPORT

SB 237 further enhances anti-price gouging laws and is cosponsored by SWGA’s Sen George Hooks (D-Americus). Because it restricts the rights of businesses to set their own prices and further increases government control on the market, I must strenuously OPPOSE this measure.

SB 237: OPPOSE

SB 238 allows the Board of Regents the authority to grant service-cancellable loans to students at the Medical College of Georgia. If the loans aren’t repaid through service, the student would have to pay back twice the amount owed. Because the State should not be involved in education to begin with, because these ‘loans’ essentially make the student an indentured servant to the State, and because if this were a private action you would have Senators decrying this practice as deceptive and unfair, I must most strenuously OPPOSE this measure.

SB 238: OPPOSE

SB 239 would force parents who move to Georgia to enroll their child in school within 10 days or face prosecution. Because it further increases government involvement in private education decisions, I must most strenuously OPPOSE this measure.

SB 239: OPPOSE

SB 240 deals with arbitration of property tax decisions and basically says that if arbitration is entered into, the loser pays the costs of arbitration. Previous law placed the burden of paying for arbitration strictly on the taxpayer. Because of this change, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB 240: SUPPORT

SB 241 would make all records of pardons and paroles open records rather than confidential state secrets. Because it opens up government and allows for more transparency, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB 241: SUPPORT

SB 242 would prohibit public agencies from withholding any money from the wages or salary of its employees that would go directly or indirectly to any political donation. Because political donations should be the express concern of private citizens and not their employers – particularly when that employer is a public agency – I wholeheartedly SUPPORT this measure.

SB 242: SUPPORT

SB 243 would ban any bonuses to employees of the Georgia Lottery Corporation if the lottery’s net proceeds do not exceed 30 percent. While the bigger issue here is that government should not be involved in gambling – and neither should it limit private involvement in gambling – I see this measure as similar to an act of the Board of Directors of a private organization as to how its employees shall be compensated with bonuses. Because of this, I do not have a problem with this bill and therefore I SUPPORT it.

SB 243: SUPPORT

SB 244allows caregivers to perform basic living activities – such as bathing, feeding, etc – for patients that a patient would normally perform for his/her self were s/he able, under the direction of the patient or his/her agent. Evidently, such care has previously been banned by law, or at least not explicitly allowed by law. Because it further increases the level of individual freedom in healthcare and is therefore a step in the right direction of getting government out of that industry altogether, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB 244: SUPPORT

SB 245 would force insurance companies that cover chemotherapy to cover orally administered anti-cancer medication at the same levels as injected or IV anti-cancer medication. Because this represents unwarranted government regulation of private decisions, both on the part of the insurance company and the individual who has chosen the insurance company, I must OPPOSE this measure.

SB 245: OPPOSE

SB 246 basically allows for the same notice to victims of a violent juvenile being released from custody that another Senate Bill from this session provides if the perpetrator is an adult. Because such notice is a genuinely good thing, I SUPPORT this measure.

SB 246:SUPPORT

SB 247 would force builders of new homes to include accessibility features for the disabled in every new home built. While I have no problem with a builder choosing to put these features in a new home he is building, I object to the State mandating that he must put these features into every new house he builds. This could cause potential buyers to not choose to buy this particular house, and therefore would cause the builder to lose money due to a State action. Because it limits private decisions, I must most strenuously OPPOSE this measure.

SB 247: OPPOSE

SB 248 continues and furthers the EPIC FAILed Drug War, and for that reason alone should be OPPOSEd. Specifically, it further monitors prescription drugs and provides for more government programs to achieve this goal.

SB 248: OPPOSE

SB 249 doubles the amount of some exemption in relation to bankruptcy laws. I tend to think this is a good thing, but could be wrong on this. If someone has further information, PLEASE let me know, but until that point I will mark this bill as SUPPORT.

SB 249: SUPPORT

SB 250 changes the ‘disruption of public school’ law to note that the disruptive action must be ‘knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly’ conducted. I OPPOSE this measure again on two grounds: 1) that the State shouldn’t be involved in education to begin with and 2) unless provable physical damage has been done, the State has no business regulating private actions.

SB 250: OPPOSE

Advertisements

One Response

  1. […] I Find Interesting (SB 236 – SB 250) Written by Jeff on March 22, 2009 – 8:35 am Conclusions: SB 236: SUPPORT SB 237: OPPOSE SB 238: OPPOSE SB 239: OPPOSE SB 240: SUPPORT SB 241: SUPPORT SB 242: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: