Tag: regulations

Categories
litigation property rights

Miami’s Property-Grabbing Vice

Miami, property rights, permits, regulations

All Chad Tausch wanted to do was add a few rooms to his Miami home.

In many cities, homeowners need a permit to make such additions. But although the city had no problem with his proposed construction, it required something more than a permit fee: half of Tausch’s front yard — without even offering to pay for it. No land surrender, no permit.

The city has been making the same demand of other homeowners who need alteration permits. 

The city has a plan, a goal: Pile up land that the city might one day use to widen roads. The Institute for Justice (IJ) has identified “more than 1,000 homes threatened by this scheme across 66 streets.”

“The right to prevent the government from unlawfully taking your property is a right recognized from the very start of this nation,” says Suranjan Sen, an attorney with IJ. “The city of Miami cannot simply decide to take your property away because it wants it.”

Well, thus far, the city has thus simply decided. It’s been operating the scheme for years. The question is whether it’s constitutionally entitled to do so; obviously, no.

Tausch didn’t submit to the extortion. Instead, he turned to IJ for help in challenging Miami’s practice in court. As a result of the litigation, the city has waived the land-for-permit requirement in his case.

Victory! But what about all those other homes on the 66 streets, which remain in jeopardy?

Well, the Institute for Justice is continuing the lawsuit, seeking to liberate all Miami homeowners from the city’s sneaky scheme.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
regulation

I Can’t Believe It’s Not Overkill

butter, Costco, regulations, Common Sense

Butter is made from cream, which is derived from milk. Not a new truth; it’s never been anything but.

B-but — some people are allergic!

And we must protect them.

Under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (FALCPA) of 2004, milk is one of nine major allergens that must be explicitly declared — either in parentheses after the ingredient (e.g., “cream (milk)”) or in a separate “Contains: Milk” statement. 

Which is why Costco had to recall 79,200 pounds of butter. A labeling oversight meant that perfectly good and safe butter was placed on the big box store’s shelves without the explicit warning that butter contains milk. The FDA issued a Class II recall, and Costco began the process on October 11.

“Voluntarily,” we’re told. 

No doubt “voluntary” because neither Costco nor the bulk of its customers wants to get into arguments about government regulation designed to protect people with cows’ milk allergies.

In a world run by common sense and not a federal bureaucracy, however, even the most litigious lawyers would surely be satisfied by extra signage at point of sale — something like

ALL BUTTER IS MADE FROM MILK.
PEOPLE WITH ALLERGIES KNOW THIS.
THIS BUTTER IS NO EXCEPTION.
USE WITH CUSTOMARY CAUTION!

But even this may strike us as bending too far backward for people whose responsibility is to know what the stuff they ingest is made from. They must protect themselves. If milk makes you ill, you’ll forswear all butter and reach for some good oil, or even margarine.

Something like I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter . . . but only in its original spray and vegan versions . . . all others contain milk!

I can’t believe this isn’t Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment regulation

Fix-It Man Pardoned

Troy Lake, regulations, Trump, pardon

Troy Lake, the mechanic who helped truckers and bus drivers keep their vehicles going by removing crippling emissions systems, paid the price — jailed for this “crime,” and also fined $52,000. 

Prosecutors made an example out of the Wyoming fix-it man for following a practice that had become mandatory to keep rigs — in his case, at least 344 heavy-duty diesel trucks — on the road.

I’ve discussed his case, saying that President Trump should pardon him for this non-crime.

Though Troy Lake served about seven months in a federal prison, and he’s been out for a while, the conviction was still hanging over his head.

Now President Trump has indeed pardoned Mr. Lake.

He learned about it from a congratulatory voicemail left by U.S. Senator Cynthia Lummis, calling to “let you know how very sorry I am that this even happened to you guys but how delighted I am that the pardon has come through.”

“It’s great,” says 65-year-old Lake, who broke down after hearing the good word. “It’s news that, you know — I guess I look at it as, there are some good things that happen in the world.”

Troy and his wife, Holly, also tearfully relieved by the news, are grateful to Senator Lummis, Wyoming legislators, and others who went to bat for him.

About the environmental regulations that sent him to prison for helping diesel drivers survive, he says, “We need to sit down and think about a more logical way of doing it, not putting people out of work.”

Talk about an understatement.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

Defending Groupthink?

groupthink, Covid, OBEY

The Atlantic is a beautiful magazine, expertly designed and printed, lovely to behold: an excellent showpiece for your coffee table . . . but marred by absurdities. 

Currently, consider David Merritt Johns’s article “MAHA’s Blinkered War on ‘Groupthink’” — and when I shift to reader mode, a second title appears: “In Defense of ‘Groupthink.’”

Of course The Atlantic defends groupthink! It’s been working mightily to shore up totalitarian mob-think, woke half-think, for years!

“More than 1,300 academic papers and dozens of books have been published on” the target concept, groupthink, Mr. Johns explains. “Even after all of this time and effort, the evidence is wanting. In fact, most experts now believe that the old story of groupthink being a prime cause of bad decision making is wrong. Some don’t think that the phenomenon is even real.” 

All this is to attack the Make America Healthy Again movement — without ever addressing any (yes, any) actual argument Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has actually made about “the jab” (various innovative coronavirus treatments from Pfizer, Moderna, etc.) in particular or the full panoply of vaccines in the various government-stamped vaccine schedules more generally (much less the disturbing rise, in America, of autism, auto-immune disorders, and obesity).

The entire essay is an elaborate evasion . . . to defend the thinking of a very large group of tax-paid/regulator-defended professionals.

“Our nation’s thinking isn’t broken,” Johns concludes, “and this administration shouldn’t try to fix it.”

The opposite is true: American political and bureaucratic culture has been corrupt and delusional for decades, at the very least.

And we should all be trying to fix it.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies

Having a Ball

MAGA, The Washington Post, regulations, White House

Live long enough and everything will happen, at some point. 

Even bizarre, incomprehensible things, such as Saturday’s Washington Post editorial, “In defense of the White House ballroom.” In short, a defense of, ahem . . . Trump. 

The paper began by noting the ballroom was something of a Rorschach test, with Trump’s opponents viewing his actions as “reckless” while his supporters see “a change agent unafraid to decisively take on the status quo.”

But the editors add that “it has become far too difficult to build anything in America,” before concluding: “Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”

Wait. The Post has been virulently, unrelentingly anti-Trump, until it relented last November by not endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president. Was that or is this a sign the Post editorially is moving toward Trump? Is this influenced by billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos?

I don’t think so. In this lightning-strike instance, the capital’s premier newspaper is offering non-TDS thought. Believe it or not.

As editorial board explains:

  • “Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating.” 
  • Other presidents have demolished or built onto the White House: Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Obama, etc. 
  • “Preservationists express horror that Trump did not submit his plans to their scrutiny, but the truth is that this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process.”*

For this one shining moment, The Washington Post recognizes that America’s regulatory regime does not work. So broken, in fact, that MAGA must be embraced. 

If only for one dance.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* The editorial also notes that “the White House is exempt from some of the required regulations that other federal buildings must comply with.”

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets regulation

Regulating Refineries to Death

California, regulations, fuel, engery

Punish them! 

That might as well be the explicit goal of California’s regulators and politicians — and all too many voters — for the results are clear enough. All who refuse to use electric cars and solar energy must suffer . . . with ever-higher gas prices, at the very least.

Two major oil refineries that provide gas for California as well as a few neighboring states have announced that they are closing their doors. They can’t hack it.

One analyst predicts that in consequence of these closures and related destruction of production, the price of gas will shoot up to $8 per gallon.

Lane Riggs, CEO of Valero Energy, which is closing a refinery near San Francisco, says the state’s tough “regulatory enforcement environment” is to blame for the loss of the sixth-largest refinery in the state.

Also throwing in the towel is a Los Angeles refinery, this one the state’s seventh-largest, operated by Phillips 66.

Brittany Bernstein notes that Phillips announced the closure “just 72 hours after California passed ABX-2, which requires refineries to hold additional inventories of finished stocks.” Yet another arbitrary burden on a company’s ability to function.

Last year, Chevron moved its headquarters from California to Texas because of the toxic environment for producers in California.

The researcher who’s predicting $8 per gallon gas, USC Professor Michael Mische, says Californians have “legislated ourselves into a situation where the costs are extraordinarily high and the political environment is extraordinarily harsh.”

Solution: reverse and undo. Please permit me to assume that this is possible.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
regulation

Ban Banning Gas Stoves

gas stove, fuel, regulations, freedom

Not long ago, you would’ve been labeled a conspiracy theorist if you suggested that a government report about how terribly unhealthy gas stoves are and how they ought to be banned meant that plans were in the works to ban gas stoves. 

“No, the government’s not taking your stove,” CNET said in January 2024.

What were we all worried about?

Tightening regulations, that’s what.

Absent a Trump administration, we would have witnessed a long series of ever-stricter regulations — always ratcheting up — to save us from the horrors of gas stoves.

Though we have been reprieved from many anti-energy Biden administration initiatives, a gas-stove ban may yet be coming to a state near you. 

Do you live in New York State? Well, your anti-gas-stove politicians want to ban installation of new gas connections. You need a connection to the gas to get the gas into the stove.

It’s being litigated right now. An Empire State regulation forbidding new gas infrastructure will take effect next January unless a court challenge succeeds. Even though it’s all just a conspiracy theory. . . .

Judge Glenn Suddaby is giving plaintiffs, who argue that the impending regulation imposes arbitrary hardships, time to submit new arguments. Then, if he’s not persuaded, he’ll dismiss their challenge. 

Unfortunately, the facts being promoted in New York State aren’t enough by themselves to motivate this judge to make a rational ruling.

No, government isn’t going to take your stove. But politicians and activists do seek to force you to give up your stove in the future. For want of fuel. Or because they’ve added sin taxes on the fuel or the stoves. Or both. 

Or something else.

That’s how the progressive regulatory agenda works.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies

Newsom Defends Gas-Car Ban

California, electric cars, climate change, global warming, regulations, ban

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted 51 to 44 to repeal a Biden-era waiver that let California set its own standards for regulating air pollution, stricter than national standards. 

Congress’s action means that California may no longer ban sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

With presidential prospects in mind, Governor Gavin Newsom has recently been trying to position himself as one of the less-unhinged Democrats; he has a podcast and talks (!) to conservatives. To keep up this act, he would have had to accept defeat of his autocratic attempt to circumvent markets and outlaw consumer choice in the auto industry.

Instead, Newsom is suing to overturn Congress’s good deed, which he says is all about “making America smoggy again.”

“This is not about electric vehicles,” he says. “This is about polluters being able to pollute more.” More than what? Gas cars aren’t a new thing. And electric cars, for all their novelty and appeal, come with a host of trade-offs from high price to extra weight to battery-charging problems — and EV pollution. 

Slogans don’t change that.

The tradeoffs hardly make electric cars automatically preferable to consumers free to make up their own minds what kind of car to buy.

When electric cars sell and develop in competition with gas vehicles, fine; no problem. But when government makes gas vehicles disappear by fiat? The salutary incentives provided by direct competition will also disappear. And our roads become filled with ill-fit technology.

The most fundamental issue here is not electric vehicles. And it’s not pollution. 

It’s freedom. 

To which Governor Newsom, sad to say, remains staunchly opposed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
property rights regulation

Death of a Cemetery

property rights, meadow, cemetery, graveyard

Not everything worth fighting for, or against, is being taken up President Trump and Elon Musk. There are other battles. For a moment, at least, let us direct our attentions closer to home to consider the causes taken up by, say, the Institute for Justice and Pacific Legal Foundation.

Unlike a taxpayer-funded NGO, always on the march to push big government or social decay, these organizations go to bat for people around the country who are being abused by local governments. 

As an example, take a current IJ case, Brooks Township in Michigan, which has been struggling to prevent Peter and Anna Quackenbush from opening a business: a cemetery. 

This was to be a “green” burial forest that the township board blocked because it disliked the idea.

After losing a court fight over a proposed ban of all new cemeteries as a way to block Peter and Anna’s particular cemetery, the township is now seeking to impose an ordinance dictating that “No new cemetery shall be created, installed, constructed or instituted . . . unless a written cemetery permit has first been approved and issued by the Brooks Township Board under this Ordinance.”

In other words, a de facto ban by a Board that has made clear its determination to stop Peter and Anna from opening a cemetery on their own property. If this ordinance is allowed to stand, no permit will be issued to them. It’ll be the end of the cemetery. 

Worth fighting against.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption regulation too much government

Killing a Bureau

consumer protection, bureaucrats, paperwork, regulations, freedom

First, Trump fires the holdover director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a radically anti-business agency. He appoints the new treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, as acting director.

Bessent orders the agency to stop everything — “rulemaking, communications, litigation,” Bloomberg Law reported. “A source inside the bureau who asked to remain anonymous said the order appeared to shut down the CFPB altogether, for the time being.”

So far, so good.

Trump replaces acting director Bessent with Russ Vought, a former and also the new director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The CFPB’s website goes dark and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) begins to audit the books.

Musk and his team will find bad things. But “efficiency” isn’t quite the issue. Suppose the Bureau proves to be extremely efficient and noncorrupt at the task of making businesses extremely inefficient?

The mission itself is bad.

This agency sets its own budget, is perversely cut off from congressional oversight, has been able to run wild. One of its strokes of genius: treating video games as bank accounts.

Now we have oversight. Internal. “The calls are coming from inside the house”; it’s being gutted from within.

RedState hopes the CFPB’s “hyperaggressive regulation-writing and legal thuggery will be markedly reduced” and that the agency may even be closed.

Yes, end it: as critics have long argued. Why does this agency exist except to harass and murder businesses and free enterprise? One of many federal agencies that should expire. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Previously on the CFPB:

Give Them Credit — February 2, 2014
Invulnerable Government — November 28, 2017
Peel Back the Onion — November 30, 2017
Protector Protection — January 6, 2020

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts