I am not a lawyer, but if that were the law as written, and my daughters were litterbugs, that would be exactly the argument I would use in court on their benhalr.
It’s a good sentence structure if the intention is to make it sound like it was taken from the Bible, or an etched sacred stone or something.
Is there any compelling reason why such a code should not read “If one should litter on the highway, they shall be fined $500”?
Perhaps they have been doing it piecemeal, and now there’s not much left and they decided to clean up.
Tidier laws that don’t rely on “oh, by the way, ‘cow’ also means other large domestic animals, like ‘horse’” clauses are valuable all by themselves.
I re-wrote some internal documentation last year to switch from “he or she” to “the ___”, where ____ was the role of the person to do this or that. I did it both to be gender-inclusive and also to read more precisely and gracefully.
There was one clause that was hard to re-word, so I suppose it cost my employer something. But overall, my spending the time to review the documentation and update it was well-spent. For instance, I updated some descriptions of processes that were out-of-date as part of the same review.
Berkeley spends way more than $600 to clean the carpets in city hall, for no other reason than clean carpets make people happy.
This is marginally more important than cleaning the carpets.
Here’s what I’ve learned in the last few posts:
Berkeley spending $600 to make stylistic edits to its laws: we need fiscal discipline!!!
Trump running trillion dollar deficits: [crickets]
If I’m a sovereign citizen, sure.
I for one am outraged. Not by this - this* is just stupid. I’m just generally outraged.
“Woe unto them that cast their litter by the public wayside, for they shall have $500 taken from them.”
*thread
Imagine having such a deep thirst for hating liberals that you oppose $600 for proofreading.
Yeah, but Berkeley.
Wait – if “woman” is implicitly part of “man,” does that mean they were supposed to be registering for the draft all these years?
Many, many, many places have already done this, and why people are making such a big deal about this example is genuinely baffling. Local governments, quasigovernmental institutions, and private businesses have been excising sex-specific lingo from codes, regulations, SOPs, and official documents for a long time now. The sky has not yet fallen.
“Littering on the highway shall be punished by a fine of $500 for each incident.”
Or, considerably better, “Littering on the highway shall be punished by a fine to be set annually by [X Municipality].” (And you’d better make it clear somewhere whether the fine is per incident or per piece of litter.) If the code lists a specific fine, inflation will make it nonsensical over the years; so specifying the amount means you’re going to need to rewrite the code every few years anyway.
OF course, IME, you’re going to need to do that anyway; because no matter how hard you tried to address in the code every situation that was going to come up (if only to specifically allow it), somebody’s going to come in two months after you finally got the revision through all the hearings and votes with something you never thought of, and/or with new information about something you did think of which means that, going off the information you had at the time, you got something wrong.
I think most places have cleaned up their gendered references in municipal codes while in the process of doing otherwise necessary rewriting. Saves printing as many versions, and simplifies the hearing process (I don’t know whether this change in this Berkeley code requires a public hearing process.)
Yep, it almost inevitably happens. Then there’s the converse, how every new term you have some member thinking of proposing the exact same thing you already did last term because they did not catch that the last revision included that. Always fun to tell them “it already says that”.
I don’t think there’s any reason to believe that doing it piecemeal wouldn’t cost more. If the entire municipal code can be revised for $600.00, that is about the cheapest legislative overall imaginable. I charged more than that to revise an employee handbook to exclude potential references to medical marijuana.
But when you revised the handbook, you did so for a purpose: to update the handbook to comply with the new policy regarding medical marijuana. This update serves no purpose at all except to make liberals feel better.
And you would rather the government continue to insult it’s own people?
So this serves no purpose except for this purpose?
I’m not willing to pay 6 cents for that purpose let alone $600.
Then it’s a good thing it isn’t up to you, who apparently feels updating manuals for policies he doesn’t like is a waste of money. :rolleyes: