Austin bag ban and the state legislature (Abbott: 2014, lawyers)

[SergeL]

Bag ban in Austin, and other places just simply unpractical and inconvenient. Just another "feel good" legislation that doesn't solve any issues, but instead it brings a lot of pain.

Just think about it. The cost of plastic bags already included into the price by retailers. Those plastic bags are available in 99.9% retail stores around the country, but here in Austin they just making extra profit by not offerings bags to the customers.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's not like the "free" bags (which you end up paying for with higher prices) were anything great after all.

Come on, you're basically complaining about not getting crappy bags that split open randomly.

actually no, we are complaining about the city mandating which bags stores are allowed to provide.

Bags werent really a problem before. If the city can ban things like bags, they literally can ban anything else they want to that isnt really a problem;

Just like the cell phone ban it was a non existent problem (or a solution that does nothing), but the precedent for govt over reach that it sets is terrible.

some of the negative side effects are food poisoning rates going up (in other places this has been done), more expensive bags being offered instead - and thrown away.

Plastic Bag Ban Responsible For Spike In E. Coli Infections, Study Says

I would rather see the city actually tackle the traffic problem and open up the balcones canyonland preserve for actual use by people

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Austin97

Bags werent really a problem before.

Yes, they were, since they were non-recyclable (and actually would jam up recycling machinery).

Originally Posted by Austin97

Just like the cell phone ban it was a non existent problem

Non-existent? You mean you've never seen a traffic accident?

Originally Posted by Austin97

some of the negative side effects are food poisoning rates going up (in other places this has been done),

And by "places". You mean 1 disputed study done in 1 place _before_ bags were really banned.

And one which has never even tried to explain an actual mechanism. I don't know about you, but my food _never touches my bags_.

Originally Posted by Austin97

I would rather see the city actually tackle the traffic problem and open up the balcones canyonland preserve for actual use by people

Holy non sequitor Batman.

[Aquitaine]

I need to go to the doctor because I'm with Novacek on this one.

[tom331]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

I need to go to the doctor because I'm with Novacek on this one.

[Austinite101]

A lot of people I know who were iffy about the ban at first don't want to see the ban tossed now. The biggest "pain" for most people was remembering to bring reusables when grocery shopping. Now, many Austinites have formed the habit of bringing the bags with them. It seems like the people who complain about the ban the most are either the people passing through town or living in surrounding areas that don't have the ban.

Unfortunately the Legislature is now butting in and making a big deal about something that really isn't a big deal to the people it actually affects.

[PrimusPilus]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

I need to go to the doctor because I'm with Novacek on this one.

I'm with you on this one

[scm53]

I hope all the Machiavellians here understand that someone can see this as a laudable goal, that is terminally flawed in its creation. That the why may be worthwhile, but the how is basically illegal.

And all those slinging the "hypocrisy" charge need to go back to civics class. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States". When Texas sues the federal government, it is almost always over the federal government's overreach in this area. It is a constitutional issue. The Texas Constitution says that home rule charter cities, which Austin is, are free to do most anything -- provided it doesn't conflict with the Constitution or state statute. The state is acting within the Constitution to enact statutes on a variety of subjects, including solid waste disposal, and any home rule city -- including Austin -- doesn't get to decide if they want to follow them or not. It isn't "Austin bashing" to expect it, or any Texas home rule city, to act in accordance with the law.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by scm53

I hope all the Machiavellians here understand that someone can see this as a laudable goal, that is terminally flawed in its creation. That the why may be worthwhile, but the how is basically illegal.

And all those slinging the "hypocrisy" charge need to go back to civics class. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution says that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States". When Texas sues the federal government, it is almost always over the federal government's overreach in this area. It is a constitutional issue. The Texas Constitution says that home rule charter cities, which Austin is, are free to do most anything -- provided it doesn't conflict with the Constitution or state statute. The state is acting within the Constitution to enact statutes on a variety of subjects, including solid waste disposal, and any home rule city -- including Austin -- doesn't get to decide if they want to follow them or not. It isn't "Austin bashing" to expect it, or any Texas home rule city, to act in accordance with the law.

The law, that is, that hasn't been enacted yet, is stupid and pointless, and that citizens are airing their disgust with. No problem here; no need to resort to "10th Amendment" big guns. It's just (one more) incredibly stupid law before the Texas legislature; it's what they do, fiddle while Rome burns, then go home in June, leaving the rest of us to clean up their mess as best we can.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by pop251808

The law, that is, that hasn't been enacted yet, is stupid and pointless, and that citizens are airing their disgust with.

Au contraire. The law already exists, and has since 1989.