Card Room Hangover, Legislating Morality

 It is not government's job to legislate morality. The question of the card room should have come down to zoning and/or the ability to enact a local option to expand the card room based on state legislation. That's the only thing GOVERNMENT has control over.

thank you for putting into words what has been mulling around in my brain for quite sometime. My thing was the zonning for the indoor skateboard park on 220.  "They" didn't want to rezone it because of what might happen in the future. God forbid someone sell liquor from this location if and when the current residents move. "They"finally gave the proper zonning to the property and BOARDZ is a thriving business for the skateboarders of CLAY COUNTY.   

Today makes Tommorow

Key2Life,

As many things as we agree on, this will be one we disagree on.  Funny how this blog site has your brain working all day long about issues presented here. 

I am a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, a bit of a Libertarian regarding personal behavior, and could never be accused of being a Holy-roller, but . . .

I think one of the best things about Clay County is it's small town feel, especially in the residential communities.  It may be as much mindset as reality, but I feel like I am home when I cross into Clay County from Duval.  Though the cliche about legislating morality is well worn, it is misleading.  Of course we legislate morality.  Age limits for drinking and smoking, making drugs illegal, making prostitution illegal, etc. 

To me, the government that permits gambling it approves of (the lottery - aka voluntary tax on people who are bad at math) is in a tough position to ban other forms of gambling.  That being said, I agree 100% with Durwood Smith who said at a BCC meeting, "It is a sad day when the government has to rely on gambling to fund itself."  This issue falls into the community standards category.  We, through our elected legislators, get to say what ordinances we want to impose on ourselves, and to say what types of businesses we don't want in our community.  I fully support the conservative, moralistic position the BCC has taken regarding allowing any more gambling in Clay County.

To conclude my opinion, I'll ask the rhetorical:  if we allow card tables where do we stop?  Why not full blown casinos?  Why not topless bars?  Why not adult book stores?  Why not "head" shops?  Why not massage parlors?  Though I do believe people have a right to these types of businesses, if they so choose, I also believe a community has a right to say "Not in my backyard."

I'm surprised this issue has popped up again. I was generally in favor of having a poker room at the dog track in Orange Park. I wrote about this some time ago. I'm not a gambler by habit but I do enjoy a game on occasion. However, only with friends so as to avoid paying taxes on my 25 to 50 cents winnings.   :>)

What happened to the separation of church and state in Clay County?

Why does this stupid phrase continue to rear it's idiotic head? Separation of church and state is a phrase in an obscure letter written by Thomas Jefferson (if I am remembering my history correctly) and has never been a constitutional inclusion. However, the phrase was later seized upon by others and has now morphed into something it was never intended to be. Anyone quoting this phrase is generaly not well versed in history, a topic as dear to me as animal rights so you know I'm serious about it. The closest thing to this is stating the government will not endorse one dogmatic superstition over another. (OK, so my interpretation is a little loose.  :>))

It is not government's job to legislate morality.

Since when? My (insert appropriate deity here)! This is about all the government ever does. It's long been my contention that government decides what is moral then passes an edict making it so. But they include a wink and a nod to recuse themselves of the affects. So, the best one can say of our government is they are a lying bunch of hypocrites. (Note to Homeland Security: I mean this in the nicest possible way.)

Some examples, gambling is illegal, unless the government is running it in the form of lotto or the numbers game. Prostitution is illegal, unless, as in Nevada, we can tax it or it's a business expense by a lobbyist. Illegal hallucinogenic drugs are not permitted unless they are being used by the US Senate to rewrite the tax code again. (You know you want to believe me on this, don't you?)

The ironic part to all of this is as much as the government is devoted to legislating morality, no one in government really has a clue as to what morality entails.

Lily's Lore

Lily's Lore,

You just know I had to put my 2 cents in on this one. I'm not much of a gambler either.  The lotto occasionally, or when I'm on a cruise. I've always been amazed at the way some states handle the question of legalizing some form of gambling.  With the exception of Nevada, New Jersey and various Indian casinos, the other states treat casino type gambling with a decidedly provincial attitude.  OK.  We'll allow bingo in the churches, horse racing and a state lotto. But when it comes to casino gambling, you can only have it in a card room or on a boat that must be beyond the 12 mile, or whatever, limit.  If you only have a river, the boat must be at least 200 yards from shore. You can have these things, but only between the hours of(insert whatever time limit) and never on Sundays.  Perish the thought.

I find this to be ridiculous and immature in the extreme. Either make it legal & do it right, ie. tax the hell out of it, or get off the pot & don't have any gambling at all.

I agree with 100% on government legislating morality.

On the topic of the phrase, "separation of church & state," however, I must take exception. Yes, it's true that that term is not in the Constitution.  But what is not mentioned, by ignorance or design, is that the finished product we have today, was the end result of an arduous process our founding fathers went through to produce the Constitution.

They took a great deal of time pouring through history books to find, what they might have considered to be, an ideal form of government that best suited the people and situations, not only at the time, but for the future. So the process of conceptualisation of different ideas to be put into a finished form is not only legitimate, but quite necessary. Contrary to what you said, I would think that someone would, by necessity, have to be versed in history to use that phrase, and others to bolster their arguement. I would not consider the Danbury letters any less legitimate, trivial or obscure, than I would The Federalist Papers or any other document used to provide detailed explanations as to why or how they got to the finished product.

The religious right shot themselves in the foot when they started this argument, in effect, using the criteria that if something isn't literally in the Constitution, it is neither legitimate nor worthy of consideration.  It showed a total lack of foresight, research and respect for history.  Using their thinking, neither is the right to privacy, among other things.  Using their thinking, neither are the phrases, "In God We Trust," or "One Nation Under God."  So, using their thinking, even passing a law to use these phrases would be unconstitutional solely because it doesn't appear in the Constitution.

Regardless of the subject, we must do in every day thinking, what the Supreme Court does in deciding a case.  It uses the Constitution as the starting point.  But they also must consider what the thinking was behind the process.  That's nothing more than good research and critical thinking.  OK.  Maybe they're not always what some would say, correct & we'll disagree with their reasoning.  But that's what they, and we, have to guide us. 

Is it a perfect system?  Of course not.  What is?  But it has served us fairly well especially when one looks around at some other countries. I am, as if you haven't figured out, an advocate of separation.  I do this for a variety of reasons I consider sound, but won't go into here.

I love your last sentance. You are not alone in that thinking. Great talking with you.  Always a good discussion.  Have a great one.

RichK

Baxley,

OK Baxley!  That's it!  I've had it up to here with you.  This time, you've gone too far, way beyond the limits of what is acceptable in polite society.  I find myself in complete, 100% agreement with you.  There!  I've said it, and I'm not taking it back.  OK.  Sit down, have a glass of water or your favorite adult beverage.  I'll give you a minute to recover.

Better? Good. Yes I do agree with you but I would have to add, not disagree, something to your philosophy. Regardless of the decision a person or community makes, they must be prepared to accept the consequences of their decisions.  This is pretty much a universal fact.  Yes, Clay has a, "small town feel," about it. Yes, it has a fairly good family atmosphere.  But I would be remiss in pointing out the problems we have with a relatively isolated tax base, mostly because of a lack of industry.  This has little to do with morality, but it is part of a larger problem.  No, I don't have an answer.  Apparently, neither does any one else. But one has to weigh the wishes of those who want a "small town feel," versus the realities of being a vibrant, self sustaining community. We're feeling the pains of that now.

Once again, great yakking with you.  Hope you're not feeling faint.  We wouldn't want you or any one else coming close to swooning on the blog.  Bad form.  Just another tip from uncle Rich.

RichK

Hi Rich - always a pleasure to read your posts.  And, darn it, you are right again.  It's tough to have it both ways.  It's the American way - have my cake, and eat it too.

The solution to a broader tax base is add more industry.  Adding more industry requires more development, after existing industrial space is filled up.  More development is not a popular concept it seems.  Of course, more development means less of the small town feel I love so much.  I don't know how we achieve more jobs, provide housing for a population that is increasing, and keep a small-town feel to Clay County.  I don't even know if it's possible.  I just want to feel secure in my home, and not have to worry about being shot while I fill my gas guzzling truck at a local gas station (whichever one we're not boycotting of course).  I personally prefer the feel of rural Middleburg/Lake Asbury/Green Cove to the feel of Philips Highway near downtown, or for that matter, Cassat & San Juan.

I know we (the county) are going to continue to grow, but does the growth have to happen at the lowest common denominator?  I am personally working to create some controls for future development in my community that will hopefully help preserve the "country" feel.  I'll keep you posted on how it's going.