How much should the state be involved in regulating the growth in communities when you already have a county doing it, or a city doing it?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Why should a city be mandated to do something by the federal government or state government without the money to do it?
As a former mayor, I know that local governments must have control over land use decisions.
You have the biggest impact on controlling, on affecting local lives as mayor. It's so much more important than being a state legislator.
The bottom line is that we have entered an age when local communities need to invest in themselves. Federal and state dollars are becoming more and more scarce for American cities. Political and civic leaders in local communities need to make a compelling case for this investment.
States have the responsibility to create rules and conditions for growth and development, and to channel the benefits to all citizens by providing education and making people able to participate in the economies, and in decision-making.
Ultimately, stable growth will ensure that urban and rural incomes increase and people's lives improve.
We should show Washington how we do it in North Dakota. I'm running to stop the over-regulating of our economy and start growing it.
Well, I think lower taxes and less regulation would actually promote growth.
That's what mayors do. They lobby Congress to provide resources for their city.
We have to allow people in the states to make their own decisions, to get government agencies out of the way and let local people make decisions about what's best for them.