Who Says?

A bill going before the House this week will, if passed, exempt commercial composting facilities from Act 250 environmental regulations. According to the coverage of the matter by Louis Porter proponents of the bill say its a good thing to exempt commercial composting because its "for a good purpose."

The question I have is ... who decides what's a good purpose?

Is logging a good purpose? The house I live in is made with lumber -- but-for logging I'd be without a house.  Likewise, gravel pits -- the perennial kick-dog of Act 250 -- provided the crushed stone and sand used to construct my home's foundation.  How would I go about constructing a (comparable) foundation without these products?  Don't these gravel pits, then, serve a good purpose?

Indeed, don't all of the economic activities that provide the necessities of life serve good purposes?

Comments

[GreggB]

That's it- I need to get into the same businesses as certain state legislators. Act 250 wouldn't stop me then. Or is this exception site specific?

[Hunter Melville]

It's more like you have to get the right religion... anything that's natural, is good. Wind is good, the sun is good, water is good, fire isn't so good, unless lightning started it. Animals are good; well, sometimes. But it's not good to eat them. Compost (aka excrement), if it is from an animal, is really, really good; but if it is from a human, it is really, really bad. Thus you sure as hell ain't gonna get no Act 250 septic exemptions.

Come to think about it, people are generally bad, unless they get elected and sent to Montpelier to do good. Though there always seems to be a troublesome minority of bad people who try to stop the good people from doing good. They usually represent the bad people who don't want to pay for the good stuff or do the good stuff that the good people all agree is good but can't get people to pay for or do without the threat of fines or prison.