Category: property rights

Categories
property rights too much government

Slumdog Eminent Domain Victims

Does cinematic celebrity protect a person against arbitrary governmental stomping, or bulldozing, of one’s human rights to property?

Maybe it does if you live in Beverly Hills. But the answer’s a big No if you dwell in a Mumbai slum targeted by a government touting a sanctimonious “cleanup” agenda. Why? Because callously uprooting lives is part of the allegedly “acceptable” cost of that “cleanup.”

Mumbai officials have destroyed yet another shanty home of a child who starred in the popular and multiple-Oscar-winning movie “Slumdog Millionaire.” The victims are the family of Rubina Ali, who played Latika in the film. Rubina says, “I’m feeling bad. I’m thinking about where to sleep.”

Her family had not even been given any notice when cops swooped in to supervise the demolition. The week before, the home of Azhar Mohammed Ismail, who played Jamal as a child in the movie, had also been flattened. Rubina and Azhar lived in the same part of Mumbai.

One would think that fame might have helped these kids catch a break from functionaries eager to forcibly reorder the world no matter what damage is done to innocent victims in the process; perhaps they might be sensitive to the bad publicity. No such luck.

Not that whether your rights are respected should have anything to do with whether you’re a movie star. Being a human being should be enough.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Controlling the Message

In Portland, Oregon, the difference between Constitutional takings and just plain theft by government can be seen in bright neon.

The “Made In Oregon” sign on what used to be called the Bickel Building, on Burnside Street, is something of a landmark. It’s huge. It used to say “White Stag Sportswear.” It still features a white stag atop the sign. To much hullabaloo, every Christmas season the white stag’s nose gets lit, red.

Over the years, the sign’s ownership has changed. Now there are political rumblings to condemn the sign and make it public property, so to “control its message.” That’s city councilor Randy Leonard’s notion. Mayor Sam Adams (certainly not my favorite Sam Adams) and Commissioner Nick Fish have batted around the idea to buy the sign.

Jeff Alan, of the Cascade Policy Institute, makes the obvious point: If the city has a half million dollars to buy the sign, why not spend that money on real needs — like road repair or something — rather than on a neon sign?

How different were things back in 1925, when a portion of the Bickel Building, upon which the sign stands, was condemned to make room for the Burnside Bridge.

That displayed a commonsensical notion of public use.

Buying — or, worse, forcing the sale of — a sign to signal an official message? That’s Orwellian . . . if it even makes that much sense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Poison Ivy League

Columbia University officials may care about advancing human knowledge, and about nurturing young people. Their moral sensibilities may be highly refined when it comes to academic pursuits. But such virtues apparently do not prevent these guardians of learning from acting like thugs when thuggery seems convenient.

Columbia wants to expand into an area of Harlem called Manhattanville and is willing to abuse the state’s eminent domain power to do so. Who cares about morality and rights, or the foiled lives and livelihoods of innocent people, when there’s property to be nabbed, right?

It’s quite a scam, actually. 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. Which will clean things up immediately.

Meanwhile, Nick Sprayregen, the owner of several well-kept buildings in Manhattanville, is having trouble renting out units of his self-storage business because of the specter of Columbia’s eminent-domain grab. Plus, the firm that New York State used to determine whether the land is blighted had also been employed by Columbia itself — to advocate government approval of its expansion and possible use of eminent domain.

In short, we have only a perverse pretense of due process here. Columbia flunks Ethics 101 but gets an A in con artistry.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Good Property Rights Make Good Neighbors

The California Coastal Commission sought to tear down a fence on private property. The fence, on the property of Martin and Janis Burke in Torrance, California, marks the boundary between public land and private land.

This seems like a benign enough purpose. The “private” part of “private property” means you get to keep people off your property, no?

The fence also serves a wider public purpose. It stops hikers from climbing to an unstable bluff at which two people have actually died. Remove the fence and it become easier to veer off public property, easier to reach the unstable bluff, easier to die.

The story appears to be another case of bureaucrats with too much time on their hands, too eager to interfere in the lives of others in the name of some value allegedly superior to individual rights. In this case, even to individual lives.

Fortunately, the Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the Burkes, recently won a victory over the commission. A California court says the commission lacks the authority to force the fence down.

J. David Breemer, Principal Attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, notes that the foundation has a track record of deflecting the excesses of the California Coastal Commission.

One moral of the story: Property rights are a “good fence” against the predations of abusive government. They, too, should be allowed to stand.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
general freedom property rights

Barbed Logic

Bill Malcolm has grown potatoes, onions, asparagus and other veggies in his garden in Marlbrook, Worcestershire, for eight years. Unfortunately, in the past four months he has been burgled three times. Thieves stole £300 worth of garden tools. (That’s not weight, that’s British currency.)

So Mr. Malcolm erected a wire fence with a row or two of barbed wire on top. To discourage thievery.

A professional thief could make short order of the fence. But our English gardener figured that it wasn’t the pros who had stolen from him. So he proceeded.

And then came the Bromsgrove district council, which ordered the gardener to take down his fence . . . or have it be taken down by force of law.

Why?

The local government was afraid it might get sued by a thief who scratched himself on the barbs of the wire.

The fact that the thief would have been in the wrong, for trespass and for intent to steal, that didn’t matter to the council. They were only afraid of being sued.

They gave friendly advice to Bill Malcolm: Not to leave his tools at his garden, in the shed, but to take them home with him.

If you think this is idiotic, I haven’t told you the punch line. That same government, a few weeks before, said not to lock sheds, in case burglars damaged them while breaking in.

It’s nice to know what government is for, eh? That is, insanity.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights too much government

Light Rail, Too Heavy for Developers

American city planners tend to obsess over trains. Though not nearly as economical as buses, light rail trains are regarded as the gold standard in public transportation.

But ten years after Portland established its westside line, just how bad an investment light rail can be is becoming clear. So argues John A. Charles, Jr., president of the Cascade Policy Institute.

The area’s light rail system is called MAX. The westside line put up in 1998 maxed out at $963 million. Taxpayers nationwide footed nearly three-quarters of the bill, which went through over the protests of the Federal Transit Authority.

The FTA didn’t like the route, because it was run through a lot of empty area. Why? Because planners hoped that developers would build high-density housing along the line, thus justifying the route as time went on. It was a grand experiment in metropolitan planning.

Metro planners then cajoled and forced various city governments to redo their zoning laws to make the high-density developments more train-dependent. They specified an extremely scarce supply of parking.

And the developers? They stayed away in droves. As a landowner put it, “it’s never been developed” because of that very “mandated lack of parking.”

Government geniuses might think they can force people into the types of communities that people don’t want, like people were lab rats. Peculiar thing is, folks just naively thinking they are free, tend not to jump aboard that train . . . so to speak.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.