All for it as long as its worded in such a way as not to allow NIMBYs to use it to blocked every infrastructure development going forward.
Enshrining something in the constitution does not force a resolution to a problem.
We need to dramatically cut emissions and then we will need to solve the biodiversity problem. Having a referendum takes too long even *if* we could figure out what the wording should be (which we won’t be able to). And even *if* we could hold and run the referendum in a timeframe that would be useful (we’re about 15 years behind as it stands). You would face years of that piece of legislation being tested in the Supreme Court.
It’s just not viable.
It’s the same argument with people calling for the right to housing to be enshrined in the constitution. Housing availability is a problem that needs to be solved but inserting a right to housing within the constitution is not the right vehicle for that solution to be driven through.
2 comments
All for it as long as its worded in such a way as not to allow NIMBYs to use it to blocked every infrastructure development going forward.
Enshrining something in the constitution does not force a resolution to a problem.
We need to dramatically cut emissions and then we will need to solve the biodiversity problem. Having a referendum takes too long even *if* we could figure out what the wording should be (which we won’t be able to). And even *if* we could hold and run the referendum in a timeframe that would be useful (we’re about 15 years behind as it stands). You would face years of that piece of legislation being tested in the Supreme Court.
It’s just not viable.
It’s the same argument with people calling for the right to housing to be enshrined in the constitution. Housing availability is a problem that needs to be solved but inserting a right to housing within the constitution is not the right vehicle for that solution to be driven through.