If a bill passes, why does the time of passage matter?
The opposition is using the time it was passed – early in the morning, after hours of public testimony – as a point of criticism. I am at a loss to understand why this is a talking point. The fact that there was hours of testimony, presumably for and against, means this is a controversial issue where no consensus has been reached. I think it’s a not-uncommon belief that changes to the status quo should only happen when there’s a reasonably strong consensus from most stakeholders about the best way to change things. I think this is particularly true the more local of a political process you’re talking about. I think the only way you can combat this belief is by either showing that the opposition was acting in bad faith (that is, you could talk until you were blue in the face but no one was going to change minds, and there is no prospect for changing positions, and no compromise is possible because they wouldn’t be happy with anything except the status quo), or by making the case that th
