Category: property rights

Categories
political challengers property rights

Trump vs. Private Property

If real-estate magnate/pink-slip impresario Donald Trump can’t comb over his hair plausibly, how does he expect to convincingly coif his wheeler-dealer track record?

Over the past several months, Trump has been making disturbing noises about pursuing the GOP presidential nomination. Perhaps those encouraging him want the Republicans to remain almost as unpalatable to freedom-loving folk as the Democrats.

Trump has an atrocious track record when it comes to limited government and private property. Like many developers in collusion with bureaucrats and the tax man, he doesn’t hesitate to use eminent domain to steal what ain’t his. All in the name of the so-called  “public good,” of course, a catchall concept used to excuse almost any kind of ruthless predation.

Michelle Malkin reminds us that in the 1990s Trump  “waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City. . . . The real-estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limousine parking lot—Coking’s private property be damned.” Fortunately, the valiant Institute for Justice took up her cause. She prevailed.

Trump’s comments on the 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London are candid enough. The justices ruled that government officials could treat the Constitution as irrelevant with respect to property. Trump says he agrees  “100 percent “ with the Kelo decision.

That confession alone makes the idea of a President Donald Trump 100 percent repugnant.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
judiciary property rights

Pest Control for Pesky Evidence

Should courts be outlawed from thwarting outlaws?

The Environmental Protection Agency has acted to unilaterally ban a pesticide in use for decades. Writing for the Cato Institute’s blog, Ilya Shapiro notes that the agency’s move exemplifies “a growing trend among federal agencies and courts to incrementally expand the government’s enforcement power by adopting statutory interpretations that go beyond their plain meaning and intent.”

The pesticide is carbofuran, used to protect crops since 1969. What is the evidence that carbofuran poses a hitherto un-comprehended threat to human well-being? Federal law requires EPA to provide for a “notice and comment” period before altering an established legal threshold for pesticide residues on food. If “material issues of fact” are then raised, the agency must conduct a public evidentiary hearing. National Corn Growers indeed raised “material issues of fact” regarding the alleged hazards of carbofuran. So an evidentiary hearing is mandatory.

The DC Circuit ruled, however, that scientific disagreements are insufficient to trigger judicial review and that decisions about new residue tolerances should be left entirely to the EPA. If upheld, the decision means the agency could determine all by itself whether its regulatory actions are consistent with law. Even when they obviously aren’t.

Along with the National Corn Growers and other industry groups, the Cato Institute and Pacific Legal Foundation are challenging this latest assault on property rights and the rule of law — an assault you might even call a pestilence.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Sad Ending to a Vexing Tale

Officials of and lawyers for Columbia University must be chortling in ecstatic gloat. They’ve gotten away with something very much like theft.

But it’s all above-board and legal, thanks to the Supreme Court, which would not hear the case of property owner Nick Sprayregen, from whom Columbia aims to take property. Sprayregen doesn’t want to sell, as he makes quite clear in something he wrote a few days ago for The Huffington Post.

Yup, this is another travesty of “eminent domain.”

Actually, I’ve written about this case before. Two years ago I called your attention to some of what was going on, calling it a scam: “Columbia has acquired many buildings in the neighborhood, but is not maintaining them. Because of Columbia’s own run-down buildings, the state has formally declared the neighborhood to be ‘blighted.’ If the entire area is now condemned, full ownership can be transferred to Columbia.” In 2009, Damon Root wrote in the New York Post more extensively about Columbia’s tricky maneuvers.

The first legal battle against Columbia succeeded, but an appeals court ruled against that initial finding, on dubious grounds.

Sprayregen understands what’s at issue:

Eminent domain is not for private institutions like Columbia to expand their profit-making efforts beyond what the free market would allow. I believe that what Columbia has been trying to do is illegal. . . .

You might think that the Supreme Court, after Kelo, would want to clarify the matter. No such luck.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights free trade & free markets property rights too much government U.S. Constitution

Hooray for IJ

Let a thousand floral arrangements bloom.

Louisiana has just abolished the “demonstration” section of the state’s licensing exam for florists. The new law came in response to a lawsuit by florists working with the Institute for Justice. IJ argued that the four-hour demonstration requirement was “arbitrary, subjective and antiquated,” and allowed state-licensed florists to determine the fate of their future competitors.

The outcome represents yet another victory for the “merry band of libertarian litigators” who regularly do battle “in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion on behalf of individuals whose most basic rights are denied by the government. . . .”

Founded in 1991, the Institute for Justice has successfully fought to lift caps on the number of licensed taxis in Minneapolis; eliminate laws around the country that prevent competition in every kind of occupation, from animal husbandry and interior design to hair braiding and pest control; restore freedom of speech undermined by vague and arbitrary campaign finance regulation in Florida and enemies of property rights in Tennessee; protect businessmen and home owners from eminent domain abuse in Arizona and Ohio.

IJ’s many successful efforts to defend the rights of individuals are having a major impact. Looking back over the many installments of Common Sense, I find that I mention this group’s work again and again.

With good reason. They keep fighting the good fight, and winning.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Domain of Eminent Irony

You reap what you sow.

That’s the lesson being taught to developers in Ozark, Missouri. A few years ago, a company called Hagerman New Urbanism benefited from Ozark’s use of eminent domain power to trample on the property rights of local citizens. The city shoved residents off their property. Hagerman got the stolen land.

But Ozark is unhappy with the progress of redevelopment. The city wants to pull the plug and give the land to somebody else. How can they, though? After all, Hagerman now “owns” the land. Right? Yeah, right.

The parties are in court fighting about whether the city owes money for the work done so far and other contractual matters. But judicial processes are long-winded and messy. And spending money is expensive. So the city is threatening to use eminent domain yet again. This time against the very developer who benefited from the first land looting.

Local activists like Jane Carpenter, who fought the original use of eminent domain, may appreciate the poetic justice here. But as a matter of principle they don’t support a new eminent domain grab. They say it would signal to businesses thinking of coming to Ozark to stay the heck away.

Good points. Still, I doubt that many folks in Ozark or elsewhere would shed any tears over Hagerman being forced to glug down its own poisonous medicine.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Bitterroot Water Ruling

“Frankly, I’m an Obama guy . . . You hear these sort-of horror stories about the government is gonna take your property, or they’re gonna confiscate your ground, and I always thought it was some sort of libertarian gobbledy-gook. But in this case this is exactly what’s happening.”

That was Huey Lewis; this is the news: The Mitchell Slough, in the Bitterroots of Montana, is a century-old irrigation ditch. Newcomers to the area, including rocker Huey Lewis, worked on the slough to make it better for fish. Though farmers were at first skeptical, the redigging and unsilting made the slough better for agriculture as well as for fish.

But those fish are valuable. Other folks covet them.

In Montana, natural water bodies must be accessible to the public. So the recreation lobby took the slough’s owners to court.

At first, the historical facts of this man-made water system held sway. But the Montana State Supreme Court overturned all this, caving in to the intense political pressure to open up the slough to public access.

People with fishing rods may rejoice now, but their victory will be Pyrrhic. The fish and wildlife will degrade. Basically, Montana’s highest court unleashed what is called the “tragedy of the commons.” Public access of a common resource often leads to overuse, in this case, over-fishing. It’s sad news for Huey Lewis, farmers, fishermen . . . and fish.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Scurvy Tricks in Texas

It should be a truth universally acknowledged that your average crew of incumbent politicians in possession of a reform agenda must be in want of an actual reform.

Last summer, the Texas Legislature got hold of a bill intended to prevent abuse of the state’s eminent domain power. And legislators proceeded to mangle it beyond recognition.

The act of bad faith was quickly reported by the Institute for Justice, an organization that actively combats plundering of private property all around the country. IJ alerted supporters to the bill’s alterations, explaining how that at the very last minute, in a reconciliation conference, lawmakers dramatically weakened the measure.

Note, the weakening occurred after it had passed both houses in a much stronger form.

The bill’s point had been to prevent the use of eminent domain for private redevelopment. But the final language allowed lawmakers to confer eminent domain power to any private entity at any time, regardless of other language in the measure.

In November, voters eager for better protection of their property rights overwhelmingly approved Proposition 11, despite its lax provisions. Whether abuses of eminent domain will actually be curtailed as a result depends on the whims of lawmakers and the courts.

One thing is certain, though, were Texans to possess the right of citizen initiative they could act on their own to bring real reforms to the ballot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Markets Without Mauling

Bribery, insider deals, political influence — must this be how we do business?

No.

Horror stories abound, featuring developers and governments in dark collusion, grabbing stunned innocent persons’ private property. This corrupt, banana-republic way of getting things done hardly serves the public interest. It serves, instead, the dealmakers and the politicians. Not many others.

Is there any way to expand your business other than by unleashing unfriendly bureaucrats and politicians on people who possess what you want? Well, yes, there is.

Former ABC news correspondent – and now Fox Business channel star — John Stossel, observes that cities like Anaheim, California, have figured out how to allow development to proceed without systematically trampling on property rights. In Anaheim, zoning and other regulations have been relaxed, making it easier for businesses to go where they want to. But also easier to expand by staying where they are.

If an owner doesn’t want to sell his property to make way for a project, a developer must build around him. Despite this heretical reliance on voluntary cooperation and respect for the rights of others, however, Anaheim has not withered away.

Stuff still gets done.

Amazing? Not really. This was once the usual American way. It’s only become unpopular . . . with politicians.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Property Grab, Bad

Good news and bad news. The good news is that a New York appellate court has ruled against the plundering of private property.

The court determined that New York State cannot use eminent domain to grab land for Columbia University’s expansion project. According to the ruling, assertions that the neighborhoods to be grabbed are “blighted” are mere sophistry, cooked up to justify a decision that had already been made — hardly a shocking revelation to longtime students of eminent domain abuse.

Property owners in the threatened area are jubilant about the ruling. Nicholas Sprayregen, an owner of self-storage warehouses who has refused to sell to the university, says he was “always cautiously optimistic.” But he also knew that “we were going against 50 years of unfair cases against property owners.”

Unfortunately, an appeal of the decision will be heard in the New York State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, which just ruled six to one that the state was justified in grabbing land to turn over to a Brooklyn developer for the so-called Atlantic Yards project.

Columbia already owns some 95 percent of the land they wanted for their multi-billion-dollar project. As Sprayregen notes, they could easily proceed without the 5 percent owned by the holdouts. But to avoid a little inconvenience, university officials seemed willing to violate the rights and destroy the livelihoods of others.

It’s sad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights U.S. Constitution

Not Robbed Until Proven Guilty

You are “innocent until proven guilty” in America, with one big exception: Under civil forfeiture laws, police don’t have to prove that a crime has actually been committed in order to seize your property. And once your boat or car is stolen by your government, the burden falls to you to prove your stuff is innocent.

Police departments are getting rich from the loot they seize from folks never convicted of a crime. As the Institute for Justice argues, civil forfeiture laws provide an ugly incentive for police “to enforce the laws in ways designed to maximize forfeiture income rather than to minimize crime.”

Now a challenge has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Alvarez v. Smith concerns six people whose property was seized by Chicago police, though three of them were never charged with a crime.

The Institute for Justice, the Cato Institute, the ACLU and the Reason Foundation have filed amicus briefs arguing that due process was denied.

In favor of more free-wheeling civil forfeiture are a number of state governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other groups representing government entities that spend the proceeds from the seized loot.

During oral arguments, Judge Sonia Sotomayor asked the pertinent question, “You take the car and then you investigate?”

Backwards justice is no justice at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.