Category: property rights

Categories
judiciary property rights too much government

© Is for California

You might think that there’s nothing a government won’t try. You’d be right. But I was near stupified to learn that the state of California copyrights its laws. And it’s not alone.

The state tries to control — through copyright — how you can access its laws, where and how you store them, etc. The state makes available its building codes, plumbing standards and criminal laws online, but requires you to ask for permission to download them!

The state’s out to make money. It charges $1,556 for a digital version, more for a print-out, and makes nearly a million dollars a year selling what is legally ours.

Yes, what’s ours. We are a nation of laws, not of men, and we have the right to own and reprint our laws as much as we want. The purpose of copyright is to ensure private parties can maintain some control over their intellectual property. But the laws themselves are, in point of elementary political theory, the intellectual property of all. Not of state bureaus.

Thankfully, heroic Internet technician and mover and shaker Carl Malamud believes in government transparency. And he, unlike Al Gore, really worked to help build the Internet.

On Labor Day Mr. Malamud published the whole California code online. Available for free.

Obviously, Malamud is spoiling for a fight. Good. He should win it. He has, after all, the law (if not the state) on his side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
local leaders property rights

The Redding Alternative

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that it is constitutionally okay for states and towns to grab property for pretty much any reason at all, citizens have been trying to prevent governments from doing so.

The track record is spotty. Officials and private interests who like to grab private property are aware of public outrage over the court’s decision. So they often support “protections” against eminent domain abuse with loopholes you could drive a truck through.

In a recent California election, two alleged property-protection measures were on the ballot. Proposition 98 was the real deal. Proposition 99 was the fake. Unfortunately, the phony measure was the one that passed. It was the measure that had by far the most advertising, being bankrolled (you guessed it) by land-grabbing special interests.

Friends of property rights can eventually try another ballot measure. Meanwhile, voters and elected officials in towns and counties can act independently to protect property owners, as the town council of Redding, California, has done. By a majority of three to two, the council voted to forbid officials from grabbing property just to flip it to another private owner.

Redding Councilman Ken Murray, who proposed the new law, says he wanted “to make it really hard for some future councilperson to willy-nilly take property from one person and give it to another just to jack up our revenue.”

Great move! Let’s hope it works.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall property rights

Two Pols vs. the People

Governor Deval Patrick laid his cards on the table pretty plainly when he vetoed a home rule petition from the town of Amesbury, Massachussetts.

Had Patrick signed off, the town could have adopted tougher restrictions on the use of eminent domain than the state as a whole. In fact, the town would have banned the use of eminent domain to transfer property between private parties.

Patrick says he rejected the petition because of “significant opposition to this bill at the local level.”

That opposition certainly isn’t coming from property owners worried about developers trying to grab their land.

As for Amesbury voters, they passed the measure to submit this petition at the ballot box, and it was unanimously approved by the town council. Then it made it through the state legislature before reaching the governor’s desk. About a month before he vetoed it, Governor Patrick himself voiced support for the bill when he was in Amesbury.

Of course, the persons who want a free hand to grab property whenever they like are the ones who oppose the petition. These include the current Amesbury mayor, Thatcher Kezer, who says there’s “no need” for Amesbury to differ from the rest of the state when it comes to stomping on property owners.

Deval cites such opposition as if it could justify his contempt for Amesbury voters and their property rights. But politicians like Kezer will never voluntarily relinquish the power to rob their neighbors.

Unfortunately, that’s common sense.

I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Arnold v. Tourkakis

To history’s pile of outrageous court decisions Missouri’s Supreme Court just added another whopper.

The town of Arnold, Missouri, had set its sights on an area it wants to redevelop, declared the property “blighted,” and is taking it by force. From residents who don’t want to sell. Residents like Homer Tourkakis.

Tourkakis, a dentist, stood up to fight for his business and his rights.

He thought he had a good case. After all, this land grab is not for a public use, but merely to flip over to private developers

Because of the infamous Kelo decision, he knew that the Fifth Amendment couldn’t help. But he did have the Missouri Constitution. It says government’s “chief purpos” is to secure the individual’s right to “the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry,” and that “private property shall not be taken for private use with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner.”

But Mr. Tourkakis was saddled with something he didn’t count on: his state’s highest court. The judges one-upped Kelo, ignored the state constitution, and overruled a lower court.

Governments, the court said, have an “unlimited and practically absolute sovereign power of eminent domain” to take our property at their whim.

Tourkakis is fighting the decision. What can he do, after his state’s highest court ruled against him?

He can change the law. He’s working with Missouri Citizens for Property Rights on two voter initiatives. And you can help: Go to 4agoodcause.com.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Saving a Scandigooginesian Denny’s

Can zoning laws stop time?

Consider the Denny’s in the Ballard district of Seattle, Washington.

It’s an odd building, and, in its own odd way, a landmark. The community adapted to it. Lots of people talk of it fondly — even the ones who would normally zone out a Denny’s on principle.

But it is a Denny’s. Or was until it closed a few months ago. And the owners want to sell it to a developer.

They filed to get it declared a landmark, hoping that it wouldn’t be. Well, play with fire, get burned. Lots of people glommed on to the proposal. Seattle’s Landmark Preservation Board decided in late February that the building should not be demolished.

There was much yammering about its unique architecture. There’s apparently a style called Google, and while I’ve ogled at the building in the past, it’s still, well, a Denny’s. Because it’s in Ballard, a community of Seattle known for high concentrations of Scandinavians, one architect was quoted calling the building’s style “Scandigooginesian,” because of Scandinavian, Google and Polynesian influences.

Unique, yes. But worth voiding private property right to sell? Hardly.

Sure Ballard defined itself by the building. But communities change, and redefine themselves with new development, like Ballard did when the building was built in 1964.

Besides, if folks in Ballard had patronized the Denny’s well enough, it would still be in business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights

Castle in the Hay

The haystacks, covered with tarps and old tires, were ugly.

And yet no one complained.

The people near Honeycrock Farm, Salfords, Redhill, Surrey, knew that Robert Fidler was building something behind his haystacks. But, maybe because they were, at heart, good British people, they said nothing.

But what Fidler had built behind the stacks of hay was a mock Tudor mansion, complete with cannons and turrets and such.

Tastes differ as to its beauty, but hey: it was a lot better than hay.

After building it for two years, he and his family lived in it for four. Without telling anybody.

And then came down the haystacks.

And came trouble.

Fidler thought that he had gotten around the local planning laws by living in his structure for four years without complaint. Too bad, then, that the Reigate and Banstead Council says that rule is void — because nobody had been given a chance to see it.

They had seen ugly haystacks, instead.

Now, you probably thought that zoning laws and building codes were there to protect neighbors. But the neighbors had no complaints about ugly haystacks with blue tarp. A nice house in olden style?

Why complain about that?

Well, some did. Why shouldn’t Fidler have to go through the same Kafkaesque nightmare they did?

I guess they didn’t appreciate the cleverness of the ploy.

Not so clever, however, that he’ll be allowed to keep his house. Too bad.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.