It’s just a bill
Friday, May 3, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The problem with stories like this (and we see these sorts of stories all the time) is that the quoted “critics” will never be in favor of the legislation no matter what changes are made. They’re not critics who can be swayed or even who want to be swayed.
And while it is important to hear the perspective of “Heck No” votes and addressing some of their concerns could help convince members who haven’t yet come to a conclusion, Rep. Flowers has already made up her own mind about this bill…
The chief sponsor of a Senate bill to tax and regulate adult use of recreational cannabis is answering some of the concerns raised by critics. […]
State Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago, said she has concerns for her community.
“I don’t see where the community is going to benefit and quite frankly I don’t see where the state is going to benefit,” Flowers said. […]
Flowers said she’s worried about the possible social costs.
State Sen. Heather Steans, D-Chicago, said Flowers’ concerns are legitimate. However, she said legalization isn’t an endorsement.
“What it does do is say ‘we know that people are getting a safe product and you know that they’re now going to card people or to make sure that they’re not under 21 [years old], so you’re really limiting it,” Steans said.
* Not mentioned in this column is, right or wrong, the bill passed the Senate unanimously last month…
Illinois gardeners, growers and landscapers are ready for spring.
With the “last frost” date approaching for most of the state, planning, building, tilling and planting will soon be in full swing.
But hold on …
You got a license for that?
A bill passed out of the Illinois Senate would create a new hedge maze for anyone with a green thumb. It’s an unfortunate example of just how confusing and unnecessary new licensing regimes can be. And unsurprisingly, it’s being pushed by a special interest group looking to grow its own bottom line.
Senate Bill 1899 says that anyone working in the field of landscape architecture must obtain a special license from the state. That means passing an exam, and you’ll need to jump through some high hoops just to take it.
* Related…
* Coal, nuclear interests spar at Senate committee hearing: “Illinois ratepayers will be compelled to buy what amounts to be the most expensive megawatt hours under the guise of a clean energy market that isn’t a market at all,” she said, adding that FERC has not yet officially made the capacity market changes Exelon has written the bill to address.
* Sen Plummer sponsors resolution rescinding 1861 Corwin Amendment
- Generic Drone - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:37 pm:
Another case of those with connections trying to lock others out. This needs to stop in order to have oppertunities for all.
- Blue Dog Dem - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:44 pm:
This Plummer fella is at the forefront of some bigtime legislative action.
- OneMan - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:46 pm:
So you are going to require 2 more years experience that is required to sit for the PE exam in Illinois? Your saying you need more experience than is required for someone to sit for the exam that allows you to sign off on plans that if done wrong can kill hundreds of people?
This is nuts.
- wordslinger - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:48 pm:
Attaway, Sen. Plummer, that’ll show those 1861 Dixie secessionists they’ll find no support here.
Now, how’s about the contemporary secessionists in Illinois?
- Collinsville Kevin - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 12:49 pm:
Mary Flowers, with mind set firmly in the early 20th-century, meet Jason Plummer, mind set firmly in the mid-19th.
- Blue Dog Dem - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:02 pm:
This Plummer fella is fast tracking it to some sort of bigtime national prominence. I sense an ambassador appointment in the not to distant future.
- illini - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:10 pm:
I will give my Senator some credit. Repealing an unapproved 1861 Constitutional Amendment may be only bill he proposes that will get bi-partisan support.
But then he has to prove he is relevant and involved in the big issues facing our state.
- 47th Ward - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:13 pm:
===You got a license for that?===
That’s a bit alarmist, don’t you think? Maybe the writer doesn’t know this, but landscape architecture is a bit more advanced than landscaping or gardening.
We don’t let people like George Costanza charge fees for architecture services without a license. Landscape architecture is the design, including plumbing, slope, soils, drainage and other highly technical and important parts of building a beautiful outdoor space.
Trust me, if your next door neighbor is installing an elaborate garden, you’re going to want him to use a trained and licensed professional.
- Illinois Resident - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:24 pm:
I get tired of the reefer madness. People have been consuming cannabis for thousands of years. Man made laws do not stop that. These people need to grow up.
- Red Skeptic - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:30 pm:
Wasn’t Rep. Flowers going to the Human Rights Comm? Or is she serving in both roles?
- Proud Sucker - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:31 pm:
Agree with you OneMan, that is very odd. I get the fast track if you have a BSLA and intern for a LA, but to go to 6 years if you have an engineering or architecture degree is absurd. In truth, two years for all disciplines should be fine. I cannot say I picked-up more practical knowledge the last two years before I sat for my PE exam.
- Huh? - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:37 pm:
The landscape architecture legislation is merely reauthorizing a statute that is due to sunset January 1, 2020.
The Professional Engineering Practice Act and Architecture Practice Act are due to sunset at the same time and will have to be reauthorized.
- 62656 - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 1:47 pm:
Requiring a license to perform landscaping seems unnecessary. Reading the bill, it appears there is already a Landscape Architecture Act of 1989 with licensing so I am not sure what this bill changes, but eliminating licensing requirements for landscaping would probably be a good idea.
- Techie - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 3:22 pm:
“State Rep. Mary Flowers, D-Chicago, said she has concerns for her community.
“I don’t see where the community is going to benefit and quite frankly I don’t see where the state is going to benefit,” Flowers said. […]
Flowers said she’s worried about the possible social costs.”
—
For someone to express such concern about social costs of legalization suggests they are ignorant of the social costs of criminalization. Social costs like your family members being imprisoned for nonviolent offenses. Like losing your student scholarships for nonviolent offenses. Like not having the freedom to use a very safe, multi-purpose medicine at will. Like people of color being convicted at much higher rates than whites.
Getting rid of all those costs while adding to the state treasury seems like quite a few communities will benefit.
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 3, 19 @ 4:23 pm:
It’s unfortunate when people complain about a bill they haven’t read and then speculate about the implications. 1) The professional regulation of this field has been in place since 1989; this bill is a authorization. 2) It does not prevent a homeowner from doing whatever they want with their yard. 3) It does regulate those who wish to claim to be professionals in the field of landscape architecture and wish to charge fees for those professional services.
I have no way to judge the professional qualifications of someone in this field. The regulatory system ensures uniformity of qualifications and provides a mechanism to sanction bad actors. We have this for architects, engineers, and a host of other fields in which it is very difficult for the general public to judge the qualifications of the purveyors of those services.