You know what I think is stupid?
Something that's been bugging me for a week now.
I think it's stupid when a business owner, whose business involves housing people, thinks he should be allowed to continue to house those people in a sub-standard way because that's how he's always done it.
I'm obviously not talking about my landlady - she's Da Bomb. (Do folks even say that anymore? I guess in blogspeak she'd be Teh Awsim. But I digress.)
I'm talking about someone here in town, who owns three - count 'em, three - trailer parks. And now, the city has told him (and everyone else that the rules apply to) that he either has to bring the homes therein that were made before 1977 up to federal (did you hear that? FEDERAL) safety standards or move them out.
He's literally made a federal case out of this. He's suing the city.
Now, never mind that our state does not allow these trailers to be brought in any more. And never mind that our county won't allow them to be brought in from another state, or even another county within our state.
He thinks he should be able to house people in these sub-standard, patently dangerous places.
His suit is one of the more ridiculous pieces of legal rambling I've seen - and I've seen some doozies in my time here.
(Your client got mad because he's arrested for getting drunk and peeing on the side of a police station? And then you let the client, who has no driver's license because of repeated DUI, take your fancy German automobile around town to wash it, but he ends up in his neighborhood showing it off, and the cops pick him up because they know it isn't his, and that he doesn't have a license, and your fancy German automobile gets impounded? Let's sue!)
He accuses the mayor of having a bone to pick with him. Of trying to run him out of business! Our mayor happens to be an extremely nice person, with three cute kids (that he sends to public schools, when he could clearly afford private) and the most gorgeous small-town-mayor's wife you've ever seen. All precious, all five of them.
No vendettas to be found.
(Never mind that the state fire marshall started this whole movement, what with those places having aluminum wiring - who ever thought THAT was a good idea - and tiny windows that not even children can get out of in case of a fire.)
(And, never mind that the city has torn down nearly a dozen other sub-standard structures in the past year because they didn't meet codes.)
(And, never mind that the more of these sub-standard places there are in the city, the lower our fire rating will be and the higher our insurance will be?)
How, you might ask, did this idiot get to file a federal lawsuit in this case? Why, by naming not only his business enterprise, but four of his residents, as plaintiffs. And claiming that their civil rights were being denied.
And that their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were being denied, because they had to find another place to live.
Now, I have nothing against mobile homes. I've spend roughly a third of my life living in them. My parents currently live in a fairly-new double-wide that's nearly twice as big as my house. But I do have something against taking advantage of the less-fortunate.
Would it inconvenience these folks to have to find somewhere else to live? Probably. I'd be inconvenienced if it were me. But look at the bigger picture, as one of our aldermen did when the ordinance was passed:
Better inconvenienced today, then dead tomorrow.