This confusion is so widespread that some states, including California and Michigan, have gone so far as to issue official statements informing the public that the requirements do not originate from the state or local government, but from the retail establishments themselves. Georgia could do the same, but relevant organizations like the Georgia Alcohol Dealers Association could also address this issue without any need for government intervention; the intended result would not necessarily be the banning of bags, but the elimination of widespread forced bagging and the notion that establishments need to supply bags.
Space Flight Noise, Atlanta's Transit Awakening, and Confusing Stream Buffer Rules Highlight the 2016 Legislative Session
Last year the Georgia Supreme Court threw the policy into confusion when it declared that the buffer only applies when “wrested vegetation” (permanent vegetation) is present along rivers and streams. This effectively means that the buffer could apply and then not apply every few feet along a single river. For example, if a property owner has a lot that abuts a river, the rule may apply for the first two feet where vegetation is present then not apply along the next 15 feet if no vegetation is present… and then apply again along the next 30 feet where vegetation is present. This clearly creates a confusing and somewhat silly situation….So the Georgia House took up HB-966 to declare once and for all that the buffer applies along all state rivers and streams regardless of whether vegetation is present.
The disorganization in how to handle the disagreement between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama over water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Water Basin (ACF Basin) was made apparent again today in an article from the […]
While the Supreme Court cleared the way for Mapache to challenge title, it still must produce legible documents that clearly show the marshlands and tidelands were conveyed by the Crown. Back in 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court heard a similar case. In Black v. Floyd, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed by the Supreme Court because the landowners could not clearly show the property was conveyed by the crown. They had the documents, but they were so illegible that as a matter of law the court was able to rule for the State of Georgia. The landowners stated that the documents instructed the grantee to drain swamp and marsh “if any such contain herein.” The Court, though, said that even if the documents did say that, it wouldn’t be enough to show that the Crown clearly intended to convey tidewaters.
Atlanta is set to take a major step forward in creating desirable development while North Fulton and the rest of the northern suburbs continue along the path of roads and traffic. After the […]
Sigh. Any hope of MARTA expansion has once again been taken off the table. After several bills were introduced in the Georgia Senate with bi-partisan support to allow citizens to vote on […]
Last summer the Georgia Supreme Court severely restricted the application of a buffer rule along all state streams – a buffer seemingly designed to protect water quality. The Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation […]
Roads can be built in a year or two, but a train may easily take at least 5 years to build. A train costs more too. Much more. Therefore, we should not build the […]