Excuse me, but I am something of an anthropologist over here. Am I right to think the entire post is sarcastic? I think I am safe in assuming it is, some of the statements are so exaggerated and Disneyesque. But... is it hilarious? Was there great laughter on the red-faced blog at the expense of recycling and homeless people? I clicked on here because Debbie was in the tag line, but there is really no news here about her. This must be some kind of inside joke. I hope very much that it is funny. I'm going home now...

HB already recycles more than any other city in the Red County, factually speaking

Rainbow Disposal, which performs trash pickup in Huntington Beach, recycles nearly everything they get. They just got an award from the League of Conservation for their outstanding efforts at reducing the amount of waste they send to landfills. Their goal is to send nothing to landfills.

So, whatever would go to this recycling center is already being recycled anyway.

The only issues then are this: Do transients represent a threat to local residents? Should there be more of these centers at supermarkets so that low-income residents have more access? Should the city ban what essentially is an allowable use, restricting free enterprise?

Vern,

Satirical, yes. Disneyesque? The phrases and arguments used are recycled Democrat, left-wing, liberal catch-phrases. If they are exaggerated, then that came from the source.

I am simply drawing attention to a story that raises several issues (as Maynard points out), and asking where Debbie Cook stands because she has made environmentalism central to her campaign.

It seems hypocritical for a pro-environmentalist city or candidate to oppose a recycling center out of hostility towards the homeless. Does Debbie Cook, the highest elected official in HB have the political courage to stand up for the recycling center (and the homeless who would benefit economically picking up HB litter)?

I'll let you know, bro, when I find out. This story hasn't really come onto most of our radar screens out here in HB.

I still can't tell whether you really care about the environment and the homeless or whether you think they're both silly concerns. Maybe you're just trying to have it both ways, for cheap laughs.

I guess when I do similar satire of rightwing causes over at my blog, I think I at least make it clear what I'm for and against. (Unless I'm just making fun of something I think is totally ridiculous like everyone's fixation on Paul Lucas last April.)

I'm critical of top-down command-and-control recycling mandates, and skeptical of the motives of many in the environmentalist movement. (Recycling of some materials, but not all, makes good economic sense.)

I'm opposed to arbitrary governmental interference with people's right to earn a living. Cities may enforce zoning to protect public health and safety. For example, cities may use zoning to regulate adult-oriented businesses because of the crime associated with such businesses. In this case, HB seems to be equating homelessness with crime.

Having some personal experience with the homeless, I can tell you that many are mentally ill (self-medicating) substance abusers (hence, the photo) who are incapable of holding down a job, but pose little threat to public safety.

Given the economic incentives created by California recycling law, it seems only rational that these people would make money gathering recyclables.

Well, unless there's more to this particular kerfluffle than I know yet, I'd say I agree with you. If it comes to council we'll see what Debbie thinks. I think some of you conservatives over here will find she's a lot more reasonable than you think, especially compared to crazy Dana.

Mark,

But apparently you aren't concerned that the Chief of Police is concerned with potential crime. Potential crime, or even a potentially unsafe situation, trumps recycling.

Makes your entire thought process too "suspect" for my sensibilities

I'm old school when it comes to economic liberty.

Our Constitution once protected economic liberty, the right to earn a living - a liberty in our legal tradition dating back to Magna Carta in 1215, as documented by the late law Prof. Bernard H. Siegan (who I was a student of).

It was New Deal liberals and statists who destroyed this right, ushering in the era of nanny state economic regulation. I simply favor economic liberty and don't believe that the state has made a sufficient showing to justify blocking a lawful business (that happens to be recycling. I don't sit in judgment over the wisdom of whether HB needs a recycling business or no, any more than I would sit in judgment over whether HB needs a bookstore or grocery market.)