That makes the assumption the church has the (likely) hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital needed to renovate and refurbish these properties so that they’re livable for the aforementioned folks.

It is also entirely possible the church didn’t have a shit ton of money laying around to pump into these buildings. Their revenue is probably some donations and the offering at their services, they’re probably not just sitting on millions of dollars to renovate and refurbish random property. This isn’t like the Catholic Church owns it

What even is the insinuation here lol? You think the church decided years ago that it wanted a garden so badly it needed to purposely let these buildings rot and cross their fingers the zoning board would approve their changes?

Idk why everyone is getting so mad at the church here. The church is not obliged to renovate & refurbish vacant, boarded up buildings at their own expense because we think they look pretty. I like them too, but unless we’re gonna crowdfund the repairs I don’t see the point of just letting blighted building rot

I mean they’re currently vacant and boarded up, I have a really hard time believing the assessor would be valuing them so significantly that the church would find it cheaper to tear them down to pay some measly property tax values in a hypothetical situation that hasn’t happened yet

BPD can suck a dick but this entire post is stupid, and your comment was untrue as well. Hence why you didn’t even address my rebuttal. BPD does so many things wrong, we don’t need to stretch to find them

I would bet lots of money there are more patrol cars and officers in sandtown or mondawmin than there are in Roland Park

Ugh those silly rich people, not wanting to feel unsafe after a murder

No you’re right, they do have jurisdiction within 100 miles of a US border. But I thought they’d be doing more stuff like checkpoints (similar to what they do down South) rather than operations like assisting an ICE raid. It’s totally possible it’s a multi-agency operation, I honestly have no clue how that works!

Would CBP be there for an ICE raid though?

A war zone? Yeah me either, I’ll grant you that. But I still get the same looks when I tell progressives in DC or NYC I live in Baltimore lol. They may be PC enough not say it, but they definitely don’t think it’s a safe place to live

You don’t think there’s a link between poverty and crime…?

The perception that Baltimore is very unsafe doesn’t tend to be exclusive to one political party.

Interesting! Thanks

Is it still like a red light district or is that more of a historic thing?

Exactly! Happy to see it passed :)

Lol that’s exactly what I thought. You admit there are valid reasons as to why certain requirements for the eligibility of politicians to run should be put into place, you just don’t agree with mine. And that’s okay, you don’t have to be for term limits. But you certainly cannot claim I’m removing a choice from the voter when you endorse policies would also, by what you have stated, remove a choice from a voter as long it’s for a “tangible reason”.

I’ve answered the question several times already, I don’t know how many more you’d like me to repeat it: I don’t think it’s beneficial for democracy or society for a politician to hold indefinite power. To expand upon that:

I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.

By your logic, a monopoly is okay and good because consumers chose it and we shouldn’t remove that “choice” from consumers. But that’s not always true. Sometimes we do need to ensure one entity (person or company) does not obtain too much power or presence over society or a legislature or a field of enterprise.

To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”? I don’t buy the argument at all that setting basic standards and ethics for politicians is robbing voters of their choice.

The choice is not being taken from voters; they are absolutely able to amend or change any part of the state constitution either through referendum like this proposition or through their candidates to the state legislature. And by that logic, any law or bill passed removes a choice for voters. If voters truly feel the policy needs to be changed, they can enact that change again. You’re treating this like it’s not able to be changed once it gets voted on and that just isn’t true

If the voters pass an amendment establishing term limits, you can’t possibly argue the voters aren’t getting a choice in determining the longevity of a politicians’ career. That is the voters making a choice. It’s obviously able to be changed if the voters decide they don’t want term limits.

So modify it. If trump voters were able to amend the constitution to give trump unlimited terms, you wouldn’t mind that at all and you see nothing wrong with that.

Yeah you say that, but I guarantee if trump had said “term limits are anti-democratic, I’m gonna change the law so I can run for a third term” you wouldn’t be singing the same tune. It’s preposterous to state that limiting politicians from holding positions of power indefinitely is “anti-democratic”

Thank you. I really don’t understand why suddenly everybody is acting like opposing unlimited stints in power is conservative, even if Sinclair supports it. I’m sure Sinclair is also against kicking puppies, that doesn’t mean we can’t agree on some basic issues.

I think the data could be interesting were it easier to read. Not sure why Timor and Turkmenistan were deemed necessary to label but the US, China, Russia, Indonesia, etc weren’t…? That’s like what, 25-30% of the global population amongst 4 or so countries and none of them are labeled lol?

Ravens > Commanders > Steelers