Tag: Missouri

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
First Amendment rights

Arresting Developments

Gustavo Rendon was arrested in broad daylight — right in front of his two boys. One St. Louis policeman threatened that his boys would be sent into foster care.

Rendon’s crime? He passed out fliers in his neighborhood. He spoke out on public policy — in this case, opposing an eminent domain land grab and promoting a petition effort to put the city’s development plan to a vote.

Dave Roland, an attorney for the Show-Me Institute, says this outrageous behavior is part of “an unsettling pattern” . . . of squelching free speech.

Roland also points to St. Louis’s attempt to force Jim Roos to take down a sign protesting the city’s abuse of eminent domain — a case still in court. He mentions a recent instance where the Northeast Ambulance and Fire District actually sought to ban citizens from public meetings.

Roland’s “most disturbing” example concerns the Missouri Municipal League. The League has filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot titles for two anti-eminent domain abuse measures, effectively putting both petition drives on hold.

At a recent meeting of the Missouri Bar Association’s Eminent Domain Committee, Municipal League attorney Carrie Hermeling admitted that their “main objective” is “to delay the gathering of signatures.” Adding, “[H]opefully we’re accomplishing that.”

Thwarting the people, denying their basic rights — quite an accomplishment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency judiciary

The Judges, the Lawyers, and the People

In legal circles, when folks think of Missouri, they think of the “Missouri Plan.” Seventy years ago, Missouri instituted a new method of selecting judges, especially the judges that sit on the state’s supreme court. The plan was copied by many other states.

It is beloved by the insiders.

A few years ago, I wrote at Townhall.com: “[T]he Missouri Bar has something of a lock on the whole process. . . . It’s supposed to be non-partisan. Bottom line is that lawyers are in control.”

A judicial commission controlled by the state bar association picks the judges that the governor must then pick from — with the bulk of the commission’s work done behind closed doors.

Missourians are shocked when informed how the process works. So are folks in other states that have adopted the Missouri Plan. It isn’t transparent and it puts key decision-making on judges in the hands of an unelected special interest.

But things may be looking up. A group called Better Courts for Missouri submitted paperwork to start a new petition. The group aims to gather enough signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010, to open up the system, make it more transparent.

Legislative attempts to change the system have failed. Generally, politically powerful lawyers are for a plan that lets lawyers have the biggest say.

Well, now they are up against competition. The people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall

Special Interests of the World Unite

Wish there were an issue that would engender bipartisan co-operation from our legislators? An idea that could bring together special interests of all stripes — from the teachers’ unions to the Chamber of Commerce?

There is: Taking away your initiative rights.

Last week, I was at the Missouri capitol testifying against several bills that would create restrictions for initiative petitions, many identical to those struck down all across the country as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment.

Show-Me state legislators also came up with something new: A bill to actually prohibit citizens from gathering signatures on more than one petition at a time.

Very convenient. It just so happens that a campaign to stop the state’s rampant eminent domain abuse requires two constitutional changes, thus two petitions.

As a representative for the state’s League of Women Voters put it, they just want to place a few more hurdles in the way of the people. She was joined by many other big capitol lobbies, united by their desire to block the citizens from playing any role in policy.

Fortunately, a number of regular folks, representatives from several grassroots groups, as well as the state’s ACLU attended, urging their representatives to do the unusual — actually represent the people.

Special interests hate the voter initiative process. They know what we know: If there is to be reform, it has to come from the people directly.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom Second Amendment rights

Show-Me Madness

What if you were profiled by the police as a terrorist simply because of your political beliefs?

A new report entitled “The Modern Militia Movement,” prepared for law enforcement agencies by the Missouri Information Analysis Center, threatens just that.

The report doesn’t detail any current criminal activity in Missouri. It does suggest to police, however, that anyone opposing government bailouts, abortion, or the Federal Reserve is a potential militia member, possibly a terrorist, or both.

The report tells police how to recognize militia members. Look for literature that is “derogatory” toward the IRS, ATF, the CIA, and the like. And look also for people who support minor party presidential candidates, or one sitting Republican congressman.

Tim Neal told the Associated Press that he has become nervous about his Ron Paul bumpersticker. Hearing a litany of the tell-tale signs that a person is in a militia, he said he “was going down the list and thinking, ‘Check, that’s me.'”

Remember, it’s perfectly legal — and peaceful — to wear fatigues.

It is also legal to train, military-style, on private property. So is paintball. And both probably qualify as good preparation for all sorts of emergencies.

Governments focusing investigations and gathering “intelligence” on citizens on the basis of peaceful, perfectly legal political viewpoints is far more dangerous. And that’s happening right now in the Show-Me state.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
government transparency

Yes, Virginia, There Is a Nebraska

Government transparency is understandably popular. Voters want to know what their governments are doing.

So smart politicians promise us more transparency, more sunshine, more info. But, being politicians, sometimes they don’t deliver. And, when they do, they often spend a whole lot more than necessary.

That’s what is happening in Virginia. Bills to put the state budget online have passed both chambers of the legislature — unanimously.

But politicians estimate that the cost to get the job done will run over $3 million. Wow. That’s a lot. How does that compare with other states?

At the Tertium Quids blog, there’s a letter posted from Ed Martin, chief of staff to former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. Martin points out that two years ago Blunt created the Missouri Accountability Portal by executive order.

The website is a national model with a searchable database of state expenditures. It’s garnered over 17 million hits from interested citizens. And it cost less than $200,000.

Then there’s Nebraska State Treasurer Shane Osborn. As the Washington Examiner recently reported, he put Nebraska spending online without the legislature passing a law. He just did it.

“I used my staff to compile the data,” Osborn said. “I just viewed it as my job.”

The grand cost of Osborn’s excellent transparency website? Only $38,000.

Sounds like there are millions of reasons for Virginia to learn from others.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.