Comment on "When does quality of life end?"

I agree with the idea that the quality of life should be from birth to death. There are a lot of laws in place to protect children in daycares, why shouldn't the same be true for the elderly. Many of the elderly in nursing homes have about as much ability to take care of themselves as children. Some don't have the cognitive ability to report those who abuse them, like children. The measures taken to protect children should be in place to protect the elderly in nursing homes.

If the new laws work, they will undoubtedly prohibit many potential employees from getting the job. With the pool of potential employees shrinking and the need for nursing homes about to dramatically increase with the baby boomers becoming older, is there going to be enough people to take care of the elderly? I don't have the information to know what will disqualify the potential employee. Is it any crime that will get someone excluded or just violent crimes. What about a reformed ex-con with a family to feed, he has kept his job at a nursing home for years and has never even thought about committing another crime, will he lose his job? It is already quite hard for ex-cons to find a job. Is this new law going to make it safer for the elderly or harder for reformed ex cons.

I know that the world isn't black and white. The shades of gray are what get us into trouble. I hope that the writers of the law take the gray into consideration. It is often impossible to tell if people have changed but that doesn't mean they cant. I don't know if a middle road is possible, where good ex-cons can keep their jobs and the bad ones get fired, but its worth hoping for.

Developing in Austin

Austin voters recently voted on Proposition 2. If passed the proposition would amend the charter to prevent the city from providing financial incentives to developments. The city of Austin would no longer be allowed to offer monetary kickbacks to would be developers.

A cities ability to attract potential developers is what can make or break a city. The developers want the best for the businesses they are developing. If a city will offer the developer tax break incentives to the business the more likely the businesses will want to be there. If the city loses its ability to give tax breaks to developing business then it will be much harder to find a developer that will be willing to build in the area. Without constant development the city will stop growing.

If Prop 2 where to be passed the cites ability to grow will be greatly hindered. The taxes that the new business would have payed to fund the government will have to be made up by the tax payers. The proposition would also force the city to break contracts already made with developers in the middle of projects. The resulting lawsuits and legal fees would have to be absorbed by the tax payer.

Though I personally don't like the idea of bribing business to build in certain areas, I do understand the economic value in the practice. If Austin voters take this tool away from there city the consequences will be felt down to the microeconomic level. If the ability to attract developers to Austin is removed the tax payer will feel the hurt and will very shortly demand an explanation.