Tag: Oregon

Categories
insider corruption too much government

Engineering Government Limits

Oregon, licensing, Mat, traffic,

Lord Acton’s Law of Power states the chief problem of government: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It has broad application.

Take traffic lights. They are there to prevent accidents and make navigating roads a better experience for all. The basic idea is to establish and enforce a few basic rules and then let civilization proceed at the pace set by the people themselves. It won’t be perfect, but it won’t be tyranny, either.

But controlling traffic lights is a kind of power. 

And thus open to corruption.

Just ask Mats Järlström. After his wife got a “running a red light ticket” in Beaverton, Oregon — a town characterized on the show Veronica Mars as completely wholesome and innocent of guile — Mr. Järlström researched the yellow light timing system.

Using a sophisticated “extended kinematic equation,” obtained from his work background in Sweden, he sought to right the wrong that led to his wife’s ticket and found himself mired in government overreach.

You see, the Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying objected to his practicing engineering without a license.

The board sought to bury his findings about how yellow lights have been calibrated in Oregon — which he had shown encouraged behavior that would allow governments to maximize revenue … not safety.

That’s corruption. The intersection lights’ setup turned a safety measure into a means to fleece motorists — and the engineering board corruptly twisted its mission to suppress the truth. 

Thankfully, the Institute for Justice stepped in, and Järlström won in court.

Oregon now has new intersection lighting standards, and the power of the government professional board has been curbed.

A win for limited government!

And Common Sense, which This Is. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Oregon, licensing, Mat, traffic,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
Accountability First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Regulating Protest too much government

Dbl Standard Destruction Co.

Trump, border, wall, build, t-shirt, Donald J. Trump Border Wall Construction Co., Addison Barnes, Oregon

Addison Barnes has just won a court case against Liberty High School of Hillsboro, Oregon. The court ruled that the school acted wrongfully when, early this year, it suspended him for wearing a “disruptive” T‑shirt heralding a “Donald J. Trump Border Wall Construction Co.” 

Addison was awarded $25,000 for legal expenses, and the school has apologized to him, sort of, for the suspension.

“I brought this case to stand up for myself and other students who might be afraid to express their right-​of-​center views,” Addison says. “Everyone knows that if a student wears an anti-​Trump shirt to school, the teachers won’t think twice about it. But when I wore a pro-​Trump shirt, I got suspended. That’s not right.”

No, it’s not.

The outcome is imperfect. The apology offered by Liberty High does not acknowledge the glaring injustice of the suspension. It simply asserts that the school got the “balancing act” wrong between making students feel welcome and making them feel safe. (Because it is “unsafe” per se for kids to peacefully express political disagreements?) Nor was the teacher who imposed the suspension obliged to apologize personally.

Ideally, all schools would be privately owned, privately run. Then they could openly promulgate whatever silly policies they wished about what students may display on T‑shirts, if anything. Market pressures would tend to discourage indefensible rules. 

But today’s schooling system is not ideal.

Have you noticed?

Meantime, let’s hope that the court’s decision will discourage other schools from imposing similar double standards.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom nannyism too much government

Beaver State Bliss

gas, Oregon, freedom, invisible hand, law, pump, control

The Great State of Oregon is not at DEFCON 1. Nor are Beaver State residents gnashing their teeth over a new law that went into effect earlier this week. 

News reports proclaimed: “People in Oregon are freaking out about the thought of pumping their own gas under a new law.” But don’t believe everything you read. 

For starters, Oregon’s new law doesn’t actually force anyone to do anything. It merely allows “retailers in counties with a population of less than 40,000 … to have self-​service gas pumps.” 

But a Facebook post by KTVL CBS 10 News in Medford took it an apparently frightening step further, asking, “Do you think Oregon should allow self-​serve gas stations statewide?” The post went viral nationwide because of responses such as this:

I’ve lived in this state all my life and I REFUSE to pump my own gas . . . 

This [is] a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas.

Oregon is one of only two states — New Jersey, the other — where gas stations are banned from permitting customers to put gas in their own cars. Folks in the other 48 states have managed, as one Facebooker explained, “to pump gas without spilling the whole tank and triggering a Star Wars-​style explosion.”

Still, if Oregonians so revere their regulatory regime, protecting them from the indignity of pumping gas, why change the law even partially? 

Well, for economic reasons. As you might expect, gas stations across rural Oregon were closing at night, stranding many motorists.

Freer markets offer greater protection for real people … those not too perplexed by the prospect of pumping their own petrol. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets local leaders nannyism property rights responsibility too much government

How to Ruin a Thoroughfare

city planner, city planning, Portland, Oregon, Better Naito, business

Cities require some planning. But the further beyond a certain minimum, the greater the ease with which a central planning authority can be captured — by zealots with more stars in their eyes than brains in their heads.

Portland, Oregon, is a case in point. Students from Portland State University had this brainchild: “Better Naito,” a project to transform SW Naito Parkway to “enhance the lives of pedestrians and bikers along the Waterfront,” as Jessica Miller of Cascade Policy Institute explains. Their notion was to reduce “car capacity from two lanes to one” during the peak season (actually more than half the year), opening up the cordoned-​off lane to folks walking and riding bicycles.

I’m not kidding.

Though proponents of the program enthuse about the “positive feedback” from the public, they tend not to deal with complaints from adjacent business owners, who now “see fewer shoppers” and must accommodate “employees who experience longer commutes.”

Opponents are organizing. The Portland Business Alliance promotes its petition with a simple question: “How Exactly Is ‘Better Naito’ Better?”

Portland is a prime example of the New Urbanism in action, which seems set on creating cramped places for people to live and discouraging folks from using their own cars. I’ve talked about this before, focusing on planning critic and Cato Senior Fellow Randal O’Toole. He has long been fighting the city planning cranks who appear dubious about their very job: providing roads and sewers and waterways that serve the all a city’s citizens, native, newcomer, and traveler alike.

My advice? Sign that petition, if you vote in Portland. 

The rest of us better plan to take a hard look at our city planners.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability folly free trade & free markets general freedom local leaders moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights responsibility too much government

Against Flexibility?

Seattle, Oregon, unintended consequences, work hours, scheduling, Fair Work Week, labor

Do politicians have any idea what they are doing?

In Oregon, Senate Bill 828 just passed the Senate and is now being favorably reviewed in the House. The law would require “large employers in specified industries to provide new employee[s] with estimated work schedule and to provide current employee with seven days’ notice of employee[’s] work schedule.”

But will the measure help employees? Really?

The notion is called the “Fair Work Week.” Pushed by Democrats, it has gained bipartisan support. The basic idea: allow time (under full force of law) for workers to manage their own schedules and personal economies.

Trouble is, in the name of making work easier to manage, it attacks flexibility.

Which is something many workers want. More than notification.

Indeed, the study commissioned by the City of Seattle for their similar regulatory scheme acknowledged that reducing flexibility is not necessarily a godsend for workers. 

“A more predictable schedule,” the report noted, “is not always one that an employee would prefer. A schedule known with certainty is a cold comfort if it yields too little income to survive.” 

The report went on to explain that many of the labor market’s scheduling inconveniences are themselves the result of other government regulations, such as ObamaCare.

Christian Britschgi, writing at Reason, predicts that passing the Oregon law would mean “a fairer worker week” for some, but for others, “no work week at all.”*

Meanwhile, the Seattle study noted that it was workers in small businesses who are most likely to be discomfited by last-​minute scheduling changes. The Oregon law applies only to big businesses.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* A standard, negative consequence of most “well-​intended” legislation.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
folly free trade & free markets local leaders moral hazard nannyism property rights responsibility too much government

Housing Horror

Oregon, housing, rent control, urban, planning, low income, land, property rights

Housing in Oregon’s north-​central urban region is becoming more and more like San Francisco’s — out of the budgetary reach of huge swaths of average workers. 

“The median rental household can’t comfortably afford a two-​bedroom apartment in 28 of Oregon’s 36 counties,” Elliot Njus writes for The Oregonian. But it is worst in Portland and the three counties in the region: Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas. 

The findings come from a group called the National Low Income Housing Coalition. Njus quotes Alison McIntosh, of another group, the Neighborhood Partnerships, who not unreasonably concludes that “folks are really struggling to make ends meet.”

Well, yeah. This was predicted, long ago.

The state of Oregon began a comprehensive land-​use planning system, decades ago, to prevent urban sprawl. At about the same time the Portland-region’s three major counties began a concentrated effort to … concentrate populations within the area. Confine them. Regulate them. Economists and other critics* from the very beginning predicted rising housing costs. And other problems.

Now, of course, the usual groups react in precisely the wrong ways: rent control. The State House in Salem recently passed legislation to uncork rent control. Thankfully for renters, the Senate nixed the idea. 

But we can be sure this proven housing killer (a disaster where tried) will resurface. Common sense (as well as reams of economic research) tells folks how bad an idea this would be, exacerbating the problem it aims to solve.

Alas, some folks look at government more as magic than as just another flawed, human institution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* One set of critics can be found at the Cascade Policy Institute, which describes Oregon’s land-​use regulatory system as “the nation’s most restrictive” — adding that “every square inch of Oregon has been zoned by government planners, with the result that development of any type is prohibited on most private land.”

Printable PDF