ajax, I believe some of voters choose their 'favorites' based on name recognition or proximity, rather than on actually have visited the place or enjoyed the experience. For example, voting 'floating the Boise river' as favorite outdoor activity when they have never done it, but relied on friends' tales of awesomeness. Go figure.
My first thought of the most awkward place to send the quartet was a funeral home during visitation of a loved one who passed.
Chuck, I agree that turnover - the expected or hoped for empty parking space - might encourage people to stop at a particular store, but charging so much for parking will probably discourage shoppers from coming at all. Downtown Boise is an extremely walkable area, and parking at one spot do do your shopping instead of moving your car from block to block is usually more efficient (and less likely to spew yet even more car exhaust into the air). I can get a lot of errands done in an hour, even parking at what one might consider the "outskirts" of downtown, but that high parking rate would not encourage me to have lunch downtown as well. I'll leave and go somewhere else where I can spend more than an hour eating and visiting with friends.
Problem: this doesn't work except for a short period in summer. So I respectfully disagree wi the float. Greenbelt rules.
I am not an attorney, but a simple citizen, and every year on September 17th, I read a copy of the U S Constitution and Bill of Rights--to remind me of my rights and to remember what my family and friends fought to preserve. Nowhere in this document does it state anything specific about marriage. Alcohol consumption, yes; marriage, no. Why is this even a constitutional issue?? Look to the First Amendment: several religions recognize same-sex marriage, and this amendment states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion--therefore the US can't prohibit (or adjudicate upon) faith-based recognition of same-sex marriage. This then falls to the individual states. If one state allows same-sex marriage, the constitution (Art 4 Sec 1) upholds that all states must recognize it--plainly written--and must not interfere. My male husband and I (I'm female) were married in IL, moved to FL and then to ID, and our civil union was recognized in all 3 states without question--why should this be different if I had been a man? Prohibiting same-sex marriage/civil union defies all logic. The Constitution also states in Amendment 14 that no law can be made or enforced by any state to deprive any citizen of equal protection--including the state's laws of marriage or civil union. We also have protections from discrimination based on sex (and race, creed, etc.)--so anyone discriminating against Person A for marrying a man just because Person A is also a man, or Person A for marrying a woman just because Person A is also a woman--seems to me to be against the law. Where am I wrong here? Anywhere? Just because it creeps some people out doesn't make it against the law. I'm creeped out about adults over 21 years old viewing other adults in pornographic films, but that doesn't make that illegal, either.
© 2017 Boise Weekly
Website powered by Foundation