I always wonder why a transfer of private property into public (meaning government) hands is described in so many media reports as an act of "preservation," or "protection," even though the West's public lands have been mismanaged by federal bureaucrats on a scandalously-massive scale. Private land owners tend to be far better conservationists not only because they have the pride of ownership but because, unlike red tape- and litigation-bound federal agencies, they are free to actively manage their properties for economic and ecological outcomes. The two goals aren't contradictory, contrary to media myth; they're complementary, as this piece in the High Country News reminds us.
It's time to stop stupidly assuming that every transfer of private land into government lands automatically guarantees a higher level of care and stewardship, since the forest health crisis now ravaging the American West is a stinging rebuke to that odd idea. It's time, too, to rediscover the benefits and virtues of private conservation and active forest management -- which just may be the keys to saving the last healthy swaths of forest and rangeland in the West.
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label property rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Heaven Help Us
I think NIMBYism has gone too far when the target of the naysaying moves beyond landfills and nuclear waste dumps, to focus on . . . monasteries. Yes, monasteries. The kind that have monks.
"To maintain their seclusion, the monks have their eyes on a 2,500-acre ranch about 50 miles away in a rugged area with creeks fed by looming mountains. The area has few roads, a few widely dispersed ranch homes, a few scattered oil and gas wells. The ranch is about 14 miles from the nearest public road, and the nearest town, 20 miles away, is Meeteetse, population about 350, that is most famous for the arrest of outlaw Butch Cassidy in 1894.
They plan to build a monastery mainly of stone with 30 separate hermitages for monks, a small dormitory for men in training to become monks, a commons area and a church spire rising the equivalent of 15 stories.
Ranch owner Dave Grabbert, whose family has held the property since 1938, has agreed to sell to the religious order, and he describes the two monks he has met as personable, intelligent and "just decent guys."
"I don't care if they're Hindus, Buddhists or what they are, but being decent people, that's really a plus in this day and age," Grabbert said. "Not everyone is."
Some of his neighbors object to the sale, citing concerns about traffic, wildlife, water -- and questioning whether the massive stone structure fits with the rural landscape.
"The plans look like someone took an old cathedral and just dropped it onto our beautiful landscape," Mary Elliott, who lives about 15 miles from the site, wrote to the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted the religious order wouldn't be paying property taxes.
"As their contribution to this community will be prayer rather than property taxes the town will take a large loss on the currently paid property taxes," Elliott wrote. "As for prayer, I am sure we are all grateful for that but are capable of doing that ourselves."
Heaven help the country that has lost its mind.
Not to mention its soul.
P.S. An editorial writer at The Casper Star Tribune apparently had the same reaction to this story as I did, resulting in this well-deserved scolding.
"To maintain their seclusion, the monks have their eyes on a 2,500-acre ranch about 50 miles away in a rugged area with creeks fed by looming mountains. The area has few roads, a few widely dispersed ranch homes, a few scattered oil and gas wells. The ranch is about 14 miles from the nearest public road, and the nearest town, 20 miles away, is Meeteetse, population about 350, that is most famous for the arrest of outlaw Butch Cassidy in 1894.
They plan to build a monastery mainly of stone with 30 separate hermitages for monks, a small dormitory for men in training to become monks, a commons area and a church spire rising the equivalent of 15 stories.
Ranch owner Dave Grabbert, whose family has held the property since 1938, has agreed to sell to the religious order, and he describes the two monks he has met as personable, intelligent and "just decent guys."
"I don't care if they're Hindus, Buddhists or what they are, but being decent people, that's really a plus in this day and age," Grabbert said. "Not everyone is."
Some of his neighbors object to the sale, citing concerns about traffic, wildlife, water -- and questioning whether the massive stone structure fits with the rural landscape.
"The plans look like someone took an old cathedral and just dropped it onto our beautiful landscape," Mary Elliott, who lives about 15 miles from the site, wrote to the Planning and Zoning Commission. She noted the religious order wouldn't be paying property taxes.
"As their contribution to this community will be prayer rather than property taxes the town will take a large loss on the currently paid property taxes," Elliott wrote. "As for prayer, I am sure we are all grateful for that but are capable of doing that ourselves."
Heaven help the country that has lost its mind.
Not to mention its soul.
P.S. An editorial writer at The Casper Star Tribune apparently had the same reaction to this story as I did, resulting in this well-deserved scolding.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Hoop Schemes
Following a move to a posh new arena in Brooklyn, the NBA's New Jersey Nets just announced that they will change the team's name. The most fitting new name I've seen proposed is The Brooklyn Bulldozers -- since the land the arena sits on was stolen through eminent domain. The Brooklyn Bandits wouldn't be bad, either. I also kind of like the New York Land-Grabbers.
Or the team could be renamed The Brooklyn Oligarchs, denoting its ownership by Russian tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov, who made his fortune the ex-Soviet way, by leveraging an incestuous relationship with government, but learned that the same sort of corrupt, crony-capitalism also exists in the United States, if you are rich enough to own a basketball team and can buy enough influence in the Big Apple.
Or the team could be renamed The Brooklyn Oligarchs, denoting its ownership by Russian tycoon Mikhail Prokhorov, who made his fortune the ex-Soviet way, by leveraging an incestuous relationship with government, but learned that the same sort of corrupt, crony-capitalism also exists in the United States, if you are rich enough to own a basketball team and can buy enough influence in the Big Apple.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Where There's a Will
Government will probably grab the crab shack, one way or another.
The owners survived eminent domain; now comes civil forfeiture, stemming from a pot bust. Might as well draw the curtains on Johnson's Crab House. The government always has another card to play.
The owners survived eminent domain; now comes civil forfeiture, stemming from a pot bust. Might as well draw the curtains on Johnson's Crab House. The government always has another card to play.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
All the Right Enemies
I was surprised (but not displeased) to see a "Richard Pombo for Congress" ad in today's online version of The Colorado Springs Gazette. We're a long way from California's 19th District, where Pombo is running, and readers may wonder who he is and why they should care about this race.
More about who he is can be found at his campaign website. Why his candidacy matters to out-of-state voters is explained in the recent Wall Street Journal column republished on the site (reading the original requires a subscription). The Reader's Digest condensation is this: Gang green hates Pombo because he is a stalwart defender of property rights and was an effective counterweight to their extreme agenda when he previously served in Congress. He fought abuses and misuses of the Endangered Species Act. He fought for economic freedom and regulatory reform, and against the encroachment of the federal government.
The Big Green Machine mustered all its might (and all its smear tactics) to knock him out of Congress once; it badly wants to keep him from getting in again. Isn't that reason enough to learn more about Richard Pombo? He must have been doing something right if so many wrong-headed people want to keep him out of Congress.
Some congressional races take on national significance. This may be one of them.
More about who he is can be found at his campaign website. Why his candidacy matters to out-of-state voters is explained in the recent Wall Street Journal column republished on the site (reading the original requires a subscription). The Reader's Digest condensation is this: Gang green hates Pombo because he is a stalwart defender of property rights and was an effective counterweight to their extreme agenda when he previously served in Congress. He fought abuses and misuses of the Endangered Species Act. He fought for economic freedom and regulatory reform, and against the encroachment of the federal government.
The Big Green Machine mustered all its might (and all its smear tactics) to knock him out of Congress once; it badly wants to keep him from getting in again. Isn't that reason enough to learn more about Richard Pombo? He must have been doing something right if so many wrong-headed people want to keep him out of Congress.
Some congressional races take on national significance. This may be one of them.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
O Radical, Where Art Thou?
Protest marches on college campuses are old news, at least since the 1960s. But what makes this march different, and noteworthy, is the mysterious absence of students -- students who are usually quick to join in on civil rights fights.
This protest was organized not by students, or by the faculty, however, but by residents of neighborhoods near Columbia University, who fear the school will use eminent domain in pursuit of a West Harlem expansion project. A New York appeals court recently slapped down the school, ruling that its efforts to displace holdouts, through eminent domain, were unconstitutional. The protesters are asking Columbia not to appeal the decision; to build around the holdouts. But school officials are noncommittal.
It's curious that Columbia's famously-radical students are largely silent on the issue. This isn't the '60s, I know. But isn't the indignation of students stirred by seeing working-class people bullied by the school into giving up their homes and businesses? One of the school's few libertarians raised his voice in protest, yet campus liberals (the self-styled champions of civil rights) haven't much been heard from.
Where is the anger?
Where is the outrage?
Where is the outcry for justice?
All are absent in this case, except from non-students in the neighborhood.
Does apathy explain it? Or could it be that Columbia students, so quick to see injustice elsewhere (and everywhere), can't see it when it's right under their noses? Has self-interest in this case trumped self-righteous indignation? Perhaps, more ominously, the liberals at Columbia don't see property rights as a civil right, although they were recognized by the country's founders as paramount. The big brains at Columbia surely must see that all civil rights are undermined if a person isn't secure in her person or possessions. Don't alarm bells go off at seeing the state empowered to take someone's property, virtually at will?
This highlights a curious blind spot on the part of American left-wingers, who are so shrill in defense of other (arguably less-important) civil rights. Property rights apparently rank low on the list of causes they'll take to the barricades for, perhaps because these rights stand as obstacles to other agenda items, like "economic justice," redistribution of wealth, social equality, government regulation, etc.
Property rights aren't recognized in the leftist fantasy land called Cuba, just as they were absent in the former Soviet Union (with which many American liberals had a love affair, let's not forget, right up to the moment the wall came down). Property rights are the first things to go when leftists take power, because they carve out a zone of individual autonomy and control that statists can't tolerate. And even here, in the civil rights-happy U.S., property rights are looked on with suspicion and scorn by the left -- are seen as speed bumps that slow the pace of state-sponsored "progress."
That, more than anything, may explain the strange absence of student radicals from the anti-Columbia protests.
This protest was organized not by students, or by the faculty, however, but by residents of neighborhoods near Columbia University, who fear the school will use eminent domain in pursuit of a West Harlem expansion project. A New York appeals court recently slapped down the school, ruling that its efforts to displace holdouts, through eminent domain, were unconstitutional. The protesters are asking Columbia not to appeal the decision; to build around the holdouts. But school officials are noncommittal.
It's curious that Columbia's famously-radical students are largely silent on the issue. This isn't the '60s, I know. But isn't the indignation of students stirred by seeing working-class people bullied by the school into giving up their homes and businesses? One of the school's few libertarians raised his voice in protest, yet campus liberals (the self-styled champions of civil rights) haven't much been heard from.
Where is the anger?
Where is the outrage?
Where is the outcry for justice?
All are absent in this case, except from non-students in the neighborhood.
Does apathy explain it? Or could it be that Columbia students, so quick to see injustice elsewhere (and everywhere), can't see it when it's right under their noses? Has self-interest in this case trumped self-righteous indignation? Perhaps, more ominously, the liberals at Columbia don't see property rights as a civil right, although they were recognized by the country's founders as paramount. The big brains at Columbia surely must see that all civil rights are undermined if a person isn't secure in her person or possessions. Don't alarm bells go off at seeing the state empowered to take someone's property, virtually at will?
This highlights a curious blind spot on the part of American left-wingers, who are so shrill in defense of other (arguably less-important) civil rights. Property rights apparently rank low on the list of causes they'll take to the barricades for, perhaps because these rights stand as obstacles to other agenda items, like "economic justice," redistribution of wealth, social equality, government regulation, etc.
Property rights aren't recognized in the leftist fantasy land called Cuba, just as they were absent in the former Soviet Union (with which many American liberals had a love affair, let's not forget, right up to the moment the wall came down). Property rights are the first things to go when leftists take power, because they carve out a zone of individual autonomy and control that statists can't tolerate. And even here, in the civil rights-happy U.S., property rights are looked on with suspicion and scorn by the left -- are seen as speed bumps that slow the pace of state-sponsored "progress."
That, more than anything, may explain the strange absence of student radicals from the anti-Columbia protests.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
No Laughing Matter
Not so long ago in America, finding a note attached to the front door, announcing that your property was being seized to pave the way for a new football stadium, wouldn't have been credible enough to elicit more than an incredulous shrug. But such highly-improbable abuses of eminent domain became all-too-plausible after the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 2005 Kelo ruling -- which explains the genuine alarm that swept neighborhoods near Baylor University last weekend in the wake of a Friday night prank in which faux eviction notices appeared on hundreds of homes.
Reports the Waco Tribune:
"Prank letters no joke to residents around Baylor University, who feared losing their homes to make way for new stadium
Baylor University sophomore Jordan Washington was alarmed when she saw the notice that had been taped to the door of her 10th Street home sometime Friday night.
The official-looking flier said the university was seizing properties in the neighborhood to make way for a new, $255 million football stadium to be built next March over an area from Speight Avenue at 12th Street to La Salle Avenue at Seventh Street. And it described how her home had been condemned under the state’s eminent domain law so Baylor could buy it.
All of which, Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman emphasized, is “absolutely false.”
Pranksters slipped the fliers under doormats and taped them to the doors of houses and apartment buildings in neighborhoods east and south of campus, Fogleman said. Baylor police canvassed the area Saturday afternoon and collected at least 232 of them."
One hates to see people needlessly alarmed, but my hat goes off to these pranksters. They may have just been out for a little fun, but they also managed to make a political statement of sorts, by demonstrating how deeply unsettling the Kelo ruling is to many Americans. What made the prank work was the plausibility of the scenario – something that wouldn’t have been taken seriously in pre-Kelo times.
Reports the Waco Tribune:
"Prank letters no joke to residents around Baylor University, who feared losing their homes to make way for new stadium
Baylor University sophomore Jordan Washington was alarmed when she saw the notice that had been taped to the door of her 10th Street home sometime Friday night.
The official-looking flier said the university was seizing properties in the neighborhood to make way for a new, $255 million football stadium to be built next March over an area from Speight Avenue at 12th Street to La Salle Avenue at Seventh Street. And it described how her home had been condemned under the state’s eminent domain law so Baylor could buy it.
All of which, Baylor spokeswoman Lori Fogleman emphasized, is “absolutely false.”
Pranksters slipped the fliers under doormats and taped them to the doors of houses and apartment buildings in neighborhoods east and south of campus, Fogleman said. Baylor police canvassed the area Saturday afternoon and collected at least 232 of them."
One hates to see people needlessly alarmed, but my hat goes off to these pranksters. They may have just been out for a little fun, but they also managed to make a political statement of sorts, by demonstrating how deeply unsettling the Kelo ruling is to many Americans. What made the prank work was the plausibility of the scenario – something that wouldn’t have been taken seriously in pre-Kelo times.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Three Cheers for "The Kelo Curse"
Maybe there is a just God out there after all.
Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court approved the bulldozing of a New London neighborhood, so the city could hand the land to a company promising more tax revenue, the city has yet to profit from its act of theft. Instead, the cleared lots still stand vacant, like a gaping wound. The company, and all the promises it made, never materialized. New London is no better off today than before it embarked on this notorious abuse of eminent domain. The wages of sin . . . is vacant lots.
And I for one, in a slightly malicious way, hope the "Kelo curse" will continue.
Here's the AP:
Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK'd seizure
NEW LONDON, Conn. — Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.
There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.
But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.
Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."
"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision."
Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.
New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would complement a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.
Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.
The decision was sharply criticized and created grassroots backlash. Forty states quickly passed new, protective rules and regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some protesters even tried to turn the tables on now-retired Justice David Souter, trying unsuccessfully in 2006 to take his New Hampshire home by eminent domain to build an inn.
In New London the city's prized economic development plan has fallen apart as the economy crumbled.
The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula. But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones. In July, backers halted fundraising for the project's crown jewel, a proposed $60 million, 60,000-square-foot Coast Guard museum.
The poor economy meant that donations weren't "keeping pace with expenses," said Coast Guard Foundation president Anne Brengle.
The group hopes to resume fundraising in the future, she said.
Overall, proponents say about two-thirds of the 90-acre site is developed, in part because of a 16-acre, $25 million state park. The other third of the land remains without the promised residential housing, office buildings, shops and hotel/conference center facility.
"If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that."
A new engineering tenant is moving into one of the office buildings at 1 Chelsea St., and a bio tech firm with as many as five employees is getting ready to move into an existing building on Howard Street, Brooks said.
Kelo, paid $442,000 by the state for her old property, now lives across the Thames River in Groton, in a white, two-bedroom 1950s bungalow. Her beloved pink house was sold for a dollar and moved less than two miles away, where a local preservationist has refurbished it.
Kelo can see her old neighborhood from her new home, but she finds the view too painful to bear.
"Everything is different, but everything is like still the same," said Kelo, who works two jobs and has largely maintained a low profile since moving away. "You still have life to deal with every day of the week. I just don't have eminent domain to deal with every day of the week, even after I ate, slept and breathed it for 10 years."
Although her side lost, Kelo said she sees the wider ramifications of her property rights battle.
"In the end it was seven of us who fought like wild animals to save what we had," she said. "I think that though we ultimately didn't win for ourselves, it has brought attention to what they did to us, and if it can make it better for some other people so they don't lose their homes to a Dunkin' Donuts or a Wal-Mart, I think we did some good."
Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued Kelo's case before the Supreme Court. He calls "massive changes that have happened in the law and in the public consciousness" the "real legacy" of Kelo and the other plaintiffs.
The empty land means the city won a "hollow victory," he said. "What cities should take from this is to run fleeing from what New London did and do economic development that is market-driven and incorporate properties of folks who are truly committed to their neighborhood and simply want to be a part of what happens," he said.
Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court approved the bulldozing of a New London neighborhood, so the city could hand the land to a company promising more tax revenue, the city has yet to profit from its act of theft. Instead, the cleared lots still stand vacant, like a gaping wound. The company, and all the promises it made, never materialized. New London is no better off today than before it embarked on this notorious abuse of eminent domain. The wages of sin . . . is vacant lots.
And I for one, in a slightly malicious way, hope the "Kelo curse" will continue.
Here's the AP:
Conn. land vacant 4 years after court OK'd seizure
NEW LONDON, Conn. — Weeds, glass, bricks, pieces of pipe and shingle splinters have replaced the knot of aging homes at the site of the nation's most notorious eminent domain project.
There are a few signs of life: Feral cats glare at visitors from a miniature jungle of Queen Anne's lace, thistle and goldenrod. Gulls swoop between the lot's towering trees and the adjacent sewage treatment plant.
But what of the promised building boom that was supposed to come wrapped and ribboned with up to 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues? They are noticeably missing.
Proponents of the ambitious plan blame the sour economy. Opponents call it a "poetic justice."
"They are getting what they deserve. They are going to get nothing," said Susette Kelo, the lead plaintiff in the landmark property rights case. "I don't think this is what the United States Supreme Court justices had in mind when they made this decision."
Kelo's iconic pink home sat for more than a century on that currently empty lot, just steps away from Connecticut's quaint but economically distressed Long Island Sound waterfront. Shortly after she moved in, in 1997, her house became ground zero in the nation's best-known land rights catfight.
New London officials decided they needed Kelo's land and the surrounding 90 acres for a multimillion-dollar private development that included residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park that would complement a new $350 million Pfizer pharmaceutical research facility.
Kelo and six other homeowners fought for years, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2005, justices voted 5-4 against them, giving cities across the country the right to use eminent domain to take property for private development.
The decision was sharply criticized and created grassroots backlash. Forty states quickly passed new, protective rules and regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some protesters even tried to turn the tables on now-retired Justice David Souter, trying unsuccessfully in 2006 to take his New Hampshire home by eminent domain to build an inn.
In New London the city's prized economic development plan has fallen apart as the economy crumbled.
The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half of the Fort Trumbull peninsula. But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones. In July, backers halted fundraising for the project's crown jewel, a proposed $60 million, 60,000-square-foot Coast Guard museum.
The poor economy meant that donations weren't "keeping pace with expenses," said Coast Guard Foundation president Anne Brengle.
The group hopes to resume fundraising in the future, she said.
Overall, proponents say about two-thirds of the 90-acre site is developed, in part because of a 16-acre, $25 million state park. The other third of the land remains without the promised residential housing, office buildings, shops and hotel/conference center facility.
"If there had been no litigation, which took years to work its way through (the court system), then a substantial portion of this project would be constructed by now," said John Brooks, executive director of the New London Development Corp. "But we are victims of the economic cycle, and there is nothing we can do about that."
A new engineering tenant is moving into one of the office buildings at 1 Chelsea St., and a bio tech firm with as many as five employees is getting ready to move into an existing building on Howard Street, Brooks said.
Kelo, paid $442,000 by the state for her old property, now lives across the Thames River in Groton, in a white, two-bedroom 1950s bungalow. Her beloved pink house was sold for a dollar and moved less than two miles away, where a local preservationist has refurbished it.
Kelo can see her old neighborhood from her new home, but she finds the view too painful to bear.
"Everything is different, but everything is like still the same," said Kelo, who works two jobs and has largely maintained a low profile since moving away. "You still have life to deal with every day of the week. I just don't have eminent domain to deal with every day of the week, even after I ate, slept and breathed it for 10 years."
Although her side lost, Kelo said she sees the wider ramifications of her property rights battle.
"In the end it was seven of us who fought like wild animals to save what we had," she said. "I think that though we ultimately didn't win for ourselves, it has brought attention to what they did to us, and if it can make it better for some other people so they don't lose their homes to a Dunkin' Donuts or a Wal-Mart, I think we did some good."
Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued Kelo's case before the Supreme Court. He calls "massive changes that have happened in the law and in the public consciousness" the "real legacy" of Kelo and the other plaintiffs.
The empty land means the city won a "hollow victory," he said. "What cities should take from this is to run fleeing from what New London did and do economic development that is market-driven and incorporate properties of folks who are truly committed to their neighborhood and simply want to be a part of what happens," he said.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Shakedown in Shanksville
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Monday announced that a $9.5 million deal has finally been struck to acquire the last land parcels needed to move forward with a Flight 93 Memorial near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, bringing a supposedly happy ending to a decidedly ugly affair, in which Salazar threatened and used eminent domain against landowners who wouldn't sell, or wouldn't sell for what the feds were offering.
The “breakthrough” delighted Flight 93 families, who now can have a memorial open (they hope) in time to mark the 10th anniversary of 9-11. But the heavy-handed tactics undoubtedly left some hard feelings in and around Shanksville, where property rights were trampled, and American citizens were intimidated, in order to meet a timetable set by politicians and Flight 93 families.
Here's the final chapter in a nutshell, courtesy of the New York Times:
"The announcement ends years of bargaining with landowners. Negotiations intensified at the end of last year when, with some parcels still in limbo, the Families of Flight 93, a nonprofit group that has been helping with the purchases, asked the Bush administration to get something done before it left office.
This summer, with time running short to get the first $58 million phase of the memorial completed in time for the 10th anniversary of the crash, the Interior Department set a deadline for the remaining landowners and threatened to take the land through condemnation."
Salazar avoided the bad publicity that might come from bulldozing over the holdouts, but only because he held all the cards and the landowners knew it. "Christine Williams, whose family owned about 6 acres with a log cabin they had planned to retire to, said she was pleased to settle, given the alternative of government seizure," reported The AP (italics added). Williams really didn't have a choice, in other words. She made the best of a no-win situation -- the lot of many a landowner confronted with a government "taking."
That she wasn't physically evicted from her log cabin is just a technicality, which saves Salazar the bad publicity such a scene would bring. But make no mistake: the Williams family was forcibly evicted from its cabin. Yet most news coverage painted a smiley face on the whole affair, making it seem like everyone involved walked away happy.
Would it be nice to have a memorial built in time to mark the 10th anniversary? Of course. Does that justify using threats to make "willing sellers" of those who weren't willing? I don't think so. I have to believe those being memorialized in Shanksville would rest a little easier if they knew that those trying to honor them had exercised a little more patience, and avoided the use of such tactics, with landowners who stood in their way.
In a lame attempt to echo Lincoln, Salazar spoke of the “fields of western Pennsylvania” having become “hallowed ground for a grateful nation" after the events of 9-11. "Thanks to the collaborative efforts of the landowners, the Families of Flight 93 and the employees of the National Park Service, we have reached this important milestone in properly honoring the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who gave their lives that day," he said.
But that overstates the “collaborativeness” of the landowners, some of whom sold under pressure or are having their property taken through eminent domain. The land in question, although maybe not “hallowed” before the jetliner came down there, was valued enough by some owners that they put up a fight. Salazar’s attempted echoes of Gettysburg are strained and slightly gag-inducing. None of the Gettysburg National Cemetery land was acquired through threats or intimidation. I’m not sure “honest Abe” would have approved.
Most media coverage of Monday's announcement left it unclear whether eminent domain had even been used. Most stories glossed right over that detail. Only one report (of the 8 or 9 I read that night) confirmed that eminent domain was used to acquire one critically important parcel, with the final sale price still to be settled in court.
"A 275-acre property at the heart of the future memorial, which includes the crash site itself, will be acquired through eminent domain, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a news conference,” reported USA Today. “The price of the land will be set by the court. The National Park Service and the landowner, Svonavec, a mining company, had not been able to agree on a price." It took the Associated Press several days to generate a story that focused any real attention on the eminent domain angle.
Salazar’s hard bargaining over money strikes me as odd and unnecessary, since the $9.5 million the feds will reportedly spend on these last parcels is probably what his department blows on staples each year. Governments at all levels are notorious for wasting taxpayers' money. They do it as a matter of routine, on a grand and obscene scale. Yet they suddenly become penny-pinchers, and "good stewards of public money," when it comes to paying the victims of eminent domain what they are owed, in accordance with The U.S. Constitution.
Given the dislocation and trauma such proceedings can mean for the victims, paying these people "fair market value" for their property, as determined by an appraiser, is a rip-off and crime. They should be paid 3 or 4 times the fair market value, at least, in order to compensate them for the pain and suffering they endure at the hands of the government. When these cases go to trial, juries routinely award compensation far in access of what governments were willing to pay -- one demonstration of the injustices that are perpetrated when governments use eminent domain to drive a hard bargain.
Why didn’t Salazar just pay the locals their asking price, whatever it was, plus a few million more for their trouble? Who would object, or even notice, given the way Interior and other federal agencies spend money? I wouldn't call it a waste of money. I would call it "reparations," which the government should pay for perpetrating an injustice upon American citizens, who became targets of a government "taking" simply because they happen to live near where a tragedy occurred. That, in my view, would be money well spent.
So yes, Ken Salazar's Interior Department "reached agreement" with the holdouts. But reaching such agreements becomes a lot easier, and the terms of sale can be surprisingly affordable, when you have the hammer of eminent domain as leverage. That the second victims of Flight 93 are surrendering their land for a good cause may provide some of them consolation. But this “happy ending” is nothing Americans can be proud of.
Perhaps a small plaque or historic marker can be placed somewhere near the Flight 93 Memorial, noting the sacrifices local property owners made in order to accommodate those pushing the project. “This is the spot where America's belief in the sanctity of private property was laid to rest,” it might say. We can call it the American Property Rights Memorial.
The “breakthrough” delighted Flight 93 families, who now can have a memorial open (they hope) in time to mark the 10th anniversary of 9-11. But the heavy-handed tactics undoubtedly left some hard feelings in and around Shanksville, where property rights were trampled, and American citizens were intimidated, in order to meet a timetable set by politicians and Flight 93 families.
Here's the final chapter in a nutshell, courtesy of the New York Times:
"The announcement ends years of bargaining with landowners. Negotiations intensified at the end of last year when, with some parcels still in limbo, the Families of Flight 93, a nonprofit group that has been helping with the purchases, asked the Bush administration to get something done before it left office.
This summer, with time running short to get the first $58 million phase of the memorial completed in time for the 10th anniversary of the crash, the Interior Department set a deadline for the remaining landowners and threatened to take the land through condemnation."
Salazar avoided the bad publicity that might come from bulldozing over the holdouts, but only because he held all the cards and the landowners knew it. "Christine Williams, whose family owned about 6 acres with a log cabin they had planned to retire to, said she was pleased to settle, given the alternative of government seizure," reported The AP (italics added). Williams really didn't have a choice, in other words. She made the best of a no-win situation -- the lot of many a landowner confronted with a government "taking."
That she wasn't physically evicted from her log cabin is just a technicality, which saves Salazar the bad publicity such a scene would bring. But make no mistake: the Williams family was forcibly evicted from its cabin. Yet most news coverage painted a smiley face on the whole affair, making it seem like everyone involved walked away happy.
Would it be nice to have a memorial built in time to mark the 10th anniversary? Of course. Does that justify using threats to make "willing sellers" of those who weren't willing? I don't think so. I have to believe those being memorialized in Shanksville would rest a little easier if they knew that those trying to honor them had exercised a little more patience, and avoided the use of such tactics, with landowners who stood in their way.
In a lame attempt to echo Lincoln, Salazar spoke of the “fields of western Pennsylvania” having become “hallowed ground for a grateful nation" after the events of 9-11. "Thanks to the collaborative efforts of the landowners, the Families of Flight 93 and the employees of the National Park Service, we have reached this important milestone in properly honoring the courage and sacrifice of the men and women who gave their lives that day," he said.
But that overstates the “collaborativeness” of the landowners, some of whom sold under pressure or are having their property taken through eminent domain. The land in question, although maybe not “hallowed” before the jetliner came down there, was valued enough by some owners that they put up a fight. Salazar’s attempted echoes of Gettysburg are strained and slightly gag-inducing. None of the Gettysburg National Cemetery land was acquired through threats or intimidation. I’m not sure “honest Abe” would have approved.
Most media coverage of Monday's announcement left it unclear whether eminent domain had even been used. Most stories glossed right over that detail. Only one report (of the 8 or 9 I read that night) confirmed that eminent domain was used to acquire one critically important parcel, with the final sale price still to be settled in court.
"A 275-acre property at the heart of the future memorial, which includes the crash site itself, will be acquired through eminent domain, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said at a news conference,” reported USA Today. “The price of the land will be set by the court. The National Park Service and the landowner, Svonavec, a mining company, had not been able to agree on a price." It took the Associated Press several days to generate a story that focused any real attention on the eminent domain angle.
Salazar’s hard bargaining over money strikes me as odd and unnecessary, since the $9.5 million the feds will reportedly spend on these last parcels is probably what his department blows on staples each year. Governments at all levels are notorious for wasting taxpayers' money. They do it as a matter of routine, on a grand and obscene scale. Yet they suddenly become penny-pinchers, and "good stewards of public money," when it comes to paying the victims of eminent domain what they are owed, in accordance with The U.S. Constitution.
Given the dislocation and trauma such proceedings can mean for the victims, paying these people "fair market value" for their property, as determined by an appraiser, is a rip-off and crime. They should be paid 3 or 4 times the fair market value, at least, in order to compensate them for the pain and suffering they endure at the hands of the government. When these cases go to trial, juries routinely award compensation far in access of what governments were willing to pay -- one demonstration of the injustices that are perpetrated when governments use eminent domain to drive a hard bargain.
Why didn’t Salazar just pay the locals their asking price, whatever it was, plus a few million more for their trouble? Who would object, or even notice, given the way Interior and other federal agencies spend money? I wouldn't call it a waste of money. I would call it "reparations," which the government should pay for perpetrating an injustice upon American citizens, who became targets of a government "taking" simply because they happen to live near where a tragedy occurred. That, in my view, would be money well spent.
So yes, Ken Salazar's Interior Department "reached agreement" with the holdouts. But reaching such agreements becomes a lot easier, and the terms of sale can be surprisingly affordable, when you have the hammer of eminent domain as leverage. That the second victims of Flight 93 are surrendering their land for a good cause may provide some of them consolation. But this “happy ending” is nothing Americans can be proud of.
Perhaps a small plaque or historic marker can be placed somewhere near the Flight 93 Memorial, noting the sacrifices local property owners made in order to accommodate those pushing the project. “This is the spot where America's belief in the sanctity of private property was laid to rest,” it might say. We can call it the American Property Rights Memorial.
Monday, August 3, 2009
No Justice
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- the Boo Radley of the federal bench -- is moving up in the world, reports the New York Times, giving up his iconic New Hampshire farm house for some nicer place closer to town. And when it comes time for Souter to unload the old place -- the sort of humble digs befitting a man once billed as a latter-day Abe Lincoln -- he'll do so voluntarily and happily, completely free from government intimidation or coercion or blackmail.
Unlike the home sale forced upon Suzette Kelo of New London, Connecticut, whose court case will forever attach like a stain to the retiring justice's name.
Unlike the home sale forced upon Suzette Kelo of New London, Connecticut, whose court case will forever attach like a stain to the retiring justice's name.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Is Sotomayor Soft on Property Rights?
We now know where Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor stands on the wisdom of Latinas. But where does she stand, and what does her record say about her position on property rights? On that subject, too little has been said and written in my opinion.
One person who's studied the issue closely, and come to some ominous conclusions, is Ilya Somin, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University. Here's a link to his July 16 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, for those who want a lengthy and detailed analysis of the nominee's record on the issue.
Somin judges Somotayor a "capable jurist with an inspiring life story," but finds her positions on property rights "troubling" and "disturbing."
One person who's studied the issue closely, and come to some ominous conclusions, is Ilya Somin, an assistant professor of law at George Mason University. Here's a link to his July 16 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, for those who want a lengthy and detailed analysis of the nominee's record on the issue.
Somin judges Somotayor a "capable jurist with an inspiring life story," but finds her positions on property rights "troubling" and "disturbing."
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Ken Salazar's Hard Bargain
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar continues to take a personal hand in the government's effort to force a group of Shanksville, Pennsylvania, farmers to part with their property, for use as part of a Flight 93 memorial. Salazar is using the threat of eminent domain to hasten the "negotiations," because the feds want it built before the 10th anniversary of 9-11. Otherwise, a touching photo-op with grateful survivors might me missed.
One Salazar deadline for landowners has come and gone. A few have come to terms, but holdouts remain. He hasn't brought the hammer down yet. But what, really, can be complicating and prolonging these one-sided "negotiations," unless the feds are trying to nickel and dime the farmers.
That's the really odd thing about these situations. Governments at all levels are notorious for wasting taxpayers' money. They do it as a matter of routine, on a grand and obscene scale. Yet they suddenly become penny-pinchers, and "good stewards of public money," when it comes to paying the victims of eminent domain what they are owed, in accordance with The U.S. Constitution.
Given the dislocation and trauma such proceedings can mean for targeted landowners, paying these people "fair market value" for their property, as determined by a government-paid appraiser, is a rip-off and crime. They should be paid 3 or 4 times the fair market value, at least, in order to compensate them for the pain and suffering they endure at the hands of the government. When these cases go to trial, juries routinely award compensation far in access of what governments were willing to pay -- one demonstration of the injustices that are perpetrated when governments use the hammer of eminent domain to drive a hard bargain.
Why doesn't Salazar just pay the Pennsylvania farmers their asking price, whatever it is, plus a few million more for their trouble? Who would object, or even notice, given the way Interior and every other federal agency spend (and squander) money?
I wouldn't call it a waste of money. I would call it "reparations," which the government should pay for perpetrating a great injustice upon American citizens, who became the targets of a government "taking" (a euphemism for theft) simply because they happen to live near where a tragedy occurred. That, in my view, would be money well spent.
The victims of Flight 93 at least will have their memorial. But how peacefully will these heroes rest if the government creates a second group of Flight 93 victims -- the landowners of Shanksville, Pennsylvania -- by callously mishandling the situation in an effort to drive a hard bargain and "get the deal done"?
One Salazar deadline for landowners has come and gone. A few have come to terms, but holdouts remain. He hasn't brought the hammer down yet. But what, really, can be complicating and prolonging these one-sided "negotiations," unless the feds are trying to nickel and dime the farmers.
That's the really odd thing about these situations. Governments at all levels are notorious for wasting taxpayers' money. They do it as a matter of routine, on a grand and obscene scale. Yet they suddenly become penny-pinchers, and "good stewards of public money," when it comes to paying the victims of eminent domain what they are owed, in accordance with The U.S. Constitution.
Given the dislocation and trauma such proceedings can mean for targeted landowners, paying these people "fair market value" for their property, as determined by a government-paid appraiser, is a rip-off and crime. They should be paid 3 or 4 times the fair market value, at least, in order to compensate them for the pain and suffering they endure at the hands of the government. When these cases go to trial, juries routinely award compensation far in access of what governments were willing to pay -- one demonstration of the injustices that are perpetrated when governments use the hammer of eminent domain to drive a hard bargain.
Why doesn't Salazar just pay the Pennsylvania farmers their asking price, whatever it is, plus a few million more for their trouble? Who would object, or even notice, given the way Interior and every other federal agency spend (and squander) money?
I wouldn't call it a waste of money. I would call it "reparations," which the government should pay for perpetrating a great injustice upon American citizens, who became the targets of a government "taking" (a euphemism for theft) simply because they happen to live near where a tragedy occurred. That, in my view, would be money well spent.
The victims of Flight 93 at least will have their memorial. But how peacefully will these heroes rest if the government creates a second group of Flight 93 victims -- the landowners of Shanksville, Pennsylvania -- by callously mishandling the situation in an effort to drive a hard bargain and "get the deal done"?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Shanksville Ultimatum
It would be nice to have a memorial of some kind, somewhere, to the brave passengers and crew of Flight 93. Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the site where the plane came down after passengers led an uprising against hijackers, would seem like the best place to built it. But we do the dead no honors by allowing the U.S. government to seize that land, by threatening the use of eminent domain.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar traveled to Shanksville last week, attempting to negotiate an end to the impasse by meeting with landowners. But the shameful ultimatum he laid down -- sell within a week or we'll use eminent domain -- betrays the ugly truth, that the federal government is bullying Americans off their land, is trampling their property rights, in order to meet some deadline for getting the project finished.
All the folksy charm Salazar can muster doesn't disguise the fact that he's in this case an intimidator, a henchman and a thief. He likes wearing cowboy hats, a prop meant to convince people he's in touch with his rural roots. But I hope he didn't wear one of his white hats to Shanksville. Black would have been more fitting on this occasion.
Reports the Philadelphia Inquirer:
"The order (to sell) came hours after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) met with people who own 500 acres in and around the Shanksville area, where Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, and with victims' relatives eager to see the memorial built in time for the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
"After meeting with the landowners and the Park Service today, I have high hopes that the parties are close to agreement and will be able to reach consensus over the land in the next week so we can keep the memorial on track without using eminent domain," Salazar said. "Only if the parties are not able to reach agreement will we have to use the last resort of eminent domain to acquire land."
Kendra Barkoff, Salazar's spokeswoman, said the deadline was essential to keep the construction on track. He directed National Park Service officials to meet with landowners early next week and report to him by Friday.
The decision by the National Park Service last month to pursue eminent domain touched off fierce criticism in an area where local residents have been deeply involved in efforts to plan the park and establish and staff the temporary memorial at the crash site. Two local members of the Flight 93 Federal Advisory Commission were so angry about the government's seizure plans that they resigned."
Trampling the rights of some Americans in order to "honor" other Americans is ironic, incongruous, and outrageous. It will forever leave a stain on any memorial built there. However welcoming they are to sightseers, locals will long remember the strong-arm tactics used by the federal government to get the property.
Perhaps a small plaque can be placed somewhere near the Flight 93 memorial, noting that this is also the place where America's belief in the sanctity of private property was laid to rest. We could call it the American Property Rights Memorial.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar traveled to Shanksville last week, attempting to negotiate an end to the impasse by meeting with landowners. But the shameful ultimatum he laid down -- sell within a week or we'll use eminent domain -- betrays the ugly truth, that the federal government is bullying Americans off their land, is trampling their property rights, in order to meet some deadline for getting the project finished.
All the folksy charm Salazar can muster doesn't disguise the fact that he's in this case an intimidator, a henchman and a thief. He likes wearing cowboy hats, a prop meant to convince people he's in touch with his rural roots. But I hope he didn't wear one of his white hats to Shanksville. Black would have been more fitting on this occasion.
Reports the Philadelphia Inquirer:
"The order (to sell) came hours after Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) met with people who own 500 acres in and around the Shanksville area, where Flight 93 crashed on Sept. 11, 2001, and with victims' relatives eager to see the memorial built in time for the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
"After meeting with the landowners and the Park Service today, I have high hopes that the parties are close to agreement and will be able to reach consensus over the land in the next week so we can keep the memorial on track without using eminent domain," Salazar said. "Only if the parties are not able to reach agreement will we have to use the last resort of eminent domain to acquire land."
Kendra Barkoff, Salazar's spokeswoman, said the deadline was essential to keep the construction on track. He directed National Park Service officials to meet with landowners early next week and report to him by Friday.
The decision by the National Park Service last month to pursue eminent domain touched off fierce criticism in an area where local residents have been deeply involved in efforts to plan the park and establish and staff the temporary memorial at the crash site. Two local members of the Flight 93 Federal Advisory Commission were so angry about the government's seizure plans that they resigned."
Trampling the rights of some Americans in order to "honor" other Americans is ironic, incongruous, and outrageous. It will forever leave a stain on any memorial built there. However welcoming they are to sightseers, locals will long remember the strong-arm tactics used by the federal government to get the property.
Perhaps a small plaque can be placed somewhere near the Flight 93 memorial, noting that this is also the place where America's belief in the sanctity of private property was laid to rest. We could call it the American Property Rights Memorial.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Property Rights Don't Grow on Trees
The college town of Boulder -- where predations on property owners are commonplace --reportedly is considering the use of eminent domain to take land it says is needed for a bike path. But what really has locals enraged isn't the land grab, or the violation of civil rights this entails -- but the fact that some trees might have to be removed to make way for the project.
That's Boulder for you.
Of the 58 comments posted in response to the Boulder Camera story as of 9:45 this morning, the last time I looked, only 4 expressed concerns about the trampling of property rights, and the abuse of government power, this involves. Most of the rest expressed anger about the trees.
But trees grow back. Do property rights?
That's Boulder for you.
Of the 58 comments posted in response to the Boulder Camera story as of 9:45 this morning, the last time I looked, only 4 expressed concerns about the trampling of property rights, and the abuse of government power, this involves. Most of the rest expressed anger about the trees.
But trees grow back. Do property rights?
Friday, October 24, 2008
Consult your conscience, not the law
The city of Colorado Springs has suspended its cleanup sweeps of homeless camps in order to “study the law” on their legality, according to a report in this morning’s Gazette. But do city officials really need to study the law, searching for technicalities, on an issue that’s really about “right” and “wrong”?
Colorado Springs will suspend publicly financed cleanups of homeless camps until the city can clarify legal and ethical issues surrounding the monthly sweeps, Mayor Lionel Rivera and other city leaders said Thursday.
Part of what's at issue: whether the city has the right to remove blankets, sleeping bags and
other belongings the homeless keep on public lands - and whether it's appropriate to exercise that right.
Even if the city is technically within its rights to confiscate and dispose of the property of the homeless, in its drive to beautify Colorado Springs, we all know that stealing from people, that confiscating their property, is wrong, even if they happen to be unattached to a mailing address and living under a bridge. People don’t surrender their property rights or other civil liberties when they take to the streets. And it’s doubly inhumane to snatch and destroy the few possessions they carry around with them, when they have so little else to cling to.
That the injustice of this situation didn’t dawn on city officials until the media began reporting on it, sparked by a Barry Noreen column in The Gazette -- kudos to Barry on that one -- and before the city was threatened with a civil rights lawsuit, shows a glaring blind spot on someone’s part.
That these injustices were done in the name of doing “good,” by a group that tasks itself with beautifying and cleaning-up Colorado Springs, shouldn’t be a surprise. Do-gooders frequently can also do ill, because they're so convinced that they’re doing the right thing that they don’t stop to question whether someone is being wronged in the process.
"If anything we do violates any laws, we welcome a court test to determine what should be done instead," Deborah Cunningham, executive director of Keep Colorado Springs Beautiful, told the Gazette. But do we really need a “court test” to come up with a better course of action – one that maintains public safety while also protecting the rights of the homeless? Do we really need a court order or judge to tell us how to proceed, or can we figure this out for ourselves?
Colorado Springs doesn’t need to study the law on this one. It needs to consult its conscience. And it appears that this process is underway, even if belatedly.
Colorado Springs will suspend publicly financed cleanups of homeless camps until the city can clarify legal and ethical issues surrounding the monthly sweeps, Mayor Lionel Rivera and other city leaders said Thursday.
Part of what's at issue: whether the city has the right to remove blankets, sleeping bags and
other belongings the homeless keep on public lands - and whether it's appropriate to exercise that right.
Even if the city is technically within its rights to confiscate and dispose of the property of the homeless, in its drive to beautify Colorado Springs, we all know that stealing from people, that confiscating their property, is wrong, even if they happen to be unattached to a mailing address and living under a bridge. People don’t surrender their property rights or other civil liberties when they take to the streets. And it’s doubly inhumane to snatch and destroy the few possessions they carry around with them, when they have so little else to cling to.
That the injustice of this situation didn’t dawn on city officials until the media began reporting on it, sparked by a Barry Noreen column in The Gazette -- kudos to Barry on that one -- and before the city was threatened with a civil rights lawsuit, shows a glaring blind spot on someone’s part.
That these injustices were done in the name of doing “good,” by a group that tasks itself with beautifying and cleaning-up Colorado Springs, shouldn’t be a surprise. Do-gooders frequently can also do ill, because they're so convinced that they’re doing the right thing that they don’t stop to question whether someone is being wronged in the process.
"If anything we do violates any laws, we welcome a court test to determine what should be done instead," Deborah Cunningham, executive director of Keep Colorado Springs Beautiful, told the Gazette. But do we really need a “court test” to come up with a better course of action – one that maintains public safety while also protecting the rights of the homeless? Do we really need a court order or judge to tell us how to proceed, or can we figure this out for ourselves?
Colorado Springs doesn’t need to study the law on this one. It needs to consult its conscience. And it appears that this process is underway, even if belatedly.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Runaway Boulder Crushes Residents
It's bad enough when a city or town declares an entire neighborhood "historic," over the objections of property owners who (quite understandably) fear that their freedom to renovate or demolish a home or business will be usurped by some historic preservation committee. But even more alarming is the possibility that such designations could be made piecemeal, targeting individual properties that the city, or busy-body neighbors, don't want changed.
Simply by declaring a property "historic," the city acquires veto power over what that property owner can do with it. The individual's rights are thereby trampled in order to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the collective.
That's exactly what occurred Tuesday evening in the collectivist commune called Boulder, where the owners of an old cottage found themselves separated from their property rights on a 5-3 vote by City Council. Just like that, Boulder's Planning Board "will gain veto power over any plans they submit, and the proposed expansion will fall under more stringent standards" according to the Boulder Daily Camera. (Read the entire story here.) Even the city's historic preservation planner recommended against the action, arguing that designating the house a landmark didn't balance public and private interests. But the city went ahead anyway, depriving Michael and Michelle Clements of the ability to renovate the cottage as they see fit.
"The couple says they’ve already spent more than $100,000 fighting to build their dream home on the property, while maintaining all but a wooden addition to the cottage that was built in 1952," The Daily Camera reports.
Michelle Clements said at the meeting that the process she and her husband have had to endure so far has been “468 days of emotional and financial devastation.”
She told the council she’s had enough of the city’s process.
“We should have the comfort of knowing we can build without the heavy hand of government hanging over our heads,” she said."
But Americans can no longer enjoy that comfort -- which serves as the foundation for all the other rights and freedoms they hold dear -- when elected officials and appointed planning boards can use coercive historic preservation in this way. If such abuses of power can't be overturned in the courts, they should at least be condemned in the court of public opinion.
But where are the pickets? Where are the protests? Where are Boulder's indignant human rights activists now, when the most fundamental of civil rights -- the right to be secure in your person and possessions -- is being trampled by their elected officials, in their backyard? The silence is deafening -- and reveals a dark and disturbing blind spot in the collectivist mindset.
Given the way this city rolls over its residents, and crushes their rights, they don't call it Boulder for nothing.
Simply by declaring a property "historic," the city acquires veto power over what that property owner can do with it. The individual's rights are thereby trampled in order to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the collective.
That's exactly what occurred Tuesday evening in the collectivist commune called Boulder, where the owners of an old cottage found themselves separated from their property rights on a 5-3 vote by City Council. Just like that, Boulder's Planning Board "will gain veto power over any plans they submit, and the proposed expansion will fall under more stringent standards" according to the Boulder Daily Camera. (Read the entire story here.) Even the city's historic preservation planner recommended against the action, arguing that designating the house a landmark didn't balance public and private interests. But the city went ahead anyway, depriving Michael and Michelle Clements of the ability to renovate the cottage as they see fit.
"The couple says they’ve already spent more than $100,000 fighting to build their dream home on the property, while maintaining all but a wooden addition to the cottage that was built in 1952," The Daily Camera reports.
Michelle Clements said at the meeting that the process she and her husband have had to endure so far has been “468 days of emotional and financial devastation.”
She told the council she’s had enough of the city’s process.
“We should have the comfort of knowing we can build without the heavy hand of government hanging over our heads,” she said."
But Americans can no longer enjoy that comfort -- which serves as the foundation for all the other rights and freedoms they hold dear -- when elected officials and appointed planning boards can use coercive historic preservation in this way. If such abuses of power can't be overturned in the courts, they should at least be condemned in the court of public opinion.
But where are the pickets? Where are the protests? Where are Boulder's indignant human rights activists now, when the most fundamental of civil rights -- the right to be secure in your person and possessions -- is being trampled by their elected officials, in their backyard? The silence is deafening -- and reveals a dark and disturbing blind spot in the collectivist mindset.
Given the way this city rolls over its residents, and crushes their rights, they don't call it Boulder for nothing.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Journey to Planet Hamptons
At least once a day, while selecting the news stories I post on Local Liberty Online, I shake my head and ask, "Is this really happening in America?" But giving wider exposure to the tyranny that lurks in America’s backyard, and finding ways to combat it, is what LLO is all about.
Today's believe-it-or-not story comes from The East Hampton Star, out on Long Island, where a man, after being caught by authorities clearing a playing area for his kids, is attempting to atone for his environmental crimes by buying another piece of property and donating it to the city. Because this is the Hamptons, that lot will cost the man nearly $500,000 -- money obviously is no object for the swells living there. But putting that issue aside, the whole situation, as written up by The Star, seems surreal, if not Kafkaesque.
So please join me on a journey to Planet Hamptons, which seems like an alien world from the United States of America we all think we know so well. And don't forget to read the second item, about the new paddleboarding regulations imposed on East Hamptonites.
Read it and weep:
"Greg Weinstein, a resident of Old Orchard Lane in East Hampton who was cited for clearing too much of his two-acre house lot, has offered the East Hampton Town Board a deal so that he can keep the land as is.
Mr. Weinstein bought the property largely the way it is and likes it that way, his attorney, Jeff Bragman, told the board on Tuesday. The lot is in a water recharge zone where the amount of clearing is restricted to protect groundwater. The property now has about a half acre more cleared than allowed. Mr. Bragman said the open area was ideal for Mr. Weinstein’s children. He added that Mr. Weinstein had had a small, additional area cleared for a practice soccer goal for them.
Normally, cases of this kind are resolved in zoning court, and property owners wind up rectifying violations, which in this case would mean replanting. The deal Mr. Weinstein has proposed in order to keep his land the way he prefers is that he would buy a piece of property that the town has been hoping to preserve and make a gift of it.
The proposal, Mr. Bragman said, has already passed muster with the zoning court judge, Lisa Rana, who sees it as a viable settlement to the overclearing court case, the lawyer said, as long as the town board agrees.
Mr. Weinstein has already signed a $490,000 conditional contract to buy the lot that he would give to the town — a 33,000-square-foot parcel off Old Stone Highway in Springs. Mr. Bragman said the land contains wetlands and “has been a thorn in the side of the town and the [zoning board of appeals] for a couple of years” because its owner is pursuing a plan to build a house there.
Mr. Bragman said he had told his client that he could resolve the matter by revegetating the property at a cost of between $10,000 and $20,000 instead of spending hundreds of thousands more.
But, he said, Mr. Weinstein had given him a budget of $500,000 and he had been “cold-calling” owners of properties the town has eyed, particularly those in water recharge zones. The Old Stone Highway property was suggested to him by Larry Penny, the town natural resources director, who had tagged it as an environmentally sensitive site.
Opinions on the town board were mixed, though all agreed to hold a public hearing on the idea.
“What is the special circumstance here?” Councilman Pete Hammerle asked. “Are we saying that the clearing restrictions we have in our town code don’t really matter as much on this lot? A lot of people aren’t going to be able to propose this kind of solution.”
“This is not just a rich guy buying his way out of the problem,” Mr. Bragman told the board. Essentially, he said, “anybody going before the court is going to be buying their way out of the problem,” by spending money to rectify violations, and pay a fine.
It is “legitimate,” Mr. Bragman said, to ask the board to decide, “on balance, over all, does this make environmental sense?”
“I’m suggesting it is worth it to trade about 20,000 square feet of clearing here — that’s probably been cleared for 15 years or so — in exchange for picking up 33,000 square feet of non-clearing on a wetlands property. But also no house, and no septic system, so you’re eliminating a unit of density. On balance, it makes sense,” he said.
Board members expressed some concern about setting a precedent. Such a proposal would not arise often, Mr. Bragman said, “but it is a way of engaging private people who can do this to come in and save the town some preservation dollars.”
“It’s like fees in lieu of the clearing ordinance,” Councilwoman Pat Mansir said, referring to a mechanism by which developers of some commercial property may pay into a fund ostensibly used to buy land for parking instead of providing the parking normally required.
“Had he done the clearing himself, I would say absolutely not,” Town Supervisor Bill McGintee said, citing a situation where “someone who over-cleared then wants to buy their way out of it. But under the circumstances I could be supportive of this,” he said.
John Jilnicki, the acting town attorney, advised against any change to the town code that would officially allow those not in compliance with zoning laws to resolve their cases in ways that would permit them to avoid following the rules. However, he said, exceptions could be made in the context of a settlement of the zoning court case.
Councilman Hammerle remained opposed, but agreed to listen to public opinion about the idea at the hearing. In addition, he pressed the board, “If we could spell out the ‘special circumstances’ parameters as clearly as possible. . . .
So that this doesn’t set a precedent and open a can of worms.”
To Regulate Paddleboards
Stand-up paddleboarders will soon be required to wear life jackets (or other personal flotation devices) while crossing a body of water in East Hampton Town. Near-shore paddlers, or those paddling the boards in the ocean, may continue to do so without them.
Ed Michels, the town’s chief harbormaster, said on Monday that an incident during a paddle last month from Fresh Pond, Amagansett, to Fort Pond Bay, Montauk, led to his department’s decision to define paddleboards as vessels for the purpose of regulating them under the town code. During the cross-bay paddle, the participants spread out, and one paddler fell off his board, was unable to retrieve it, and required help. At another point, a boat came dangerously close to a paddler, Mr. Michels said
The town code says a vessel is any “watercraft (including wind surfboards) or other contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation in water. . . .” The code requires vessel operators to abide by Coast Guard regulations on safety equipment. The stand-up paddleboard is an updated variation of an old, Hawaiian board. They are longer, wider, and thicker than the average longboard used for surfing. Most are made of epoxy-covered foam. Paddles are made of wood or lightweight carbon fiber.
“If you’re on a surfboard and go 100 yards offshore, okay. But if you put a sail on it and head for Connecticut, it’s a vessel,” Mr. Michels said. Mr. Michels said he had discussed the issue with the state boating administrator and Coast Guard officials who agreed with the policy. “If they’re close to the beach, okay. But if they’re out in the open, we’re going to make them come back if they’re not wearing a p.f.d.,” the chief harbormaster said.
Mr. Michels said the p.f.d. did not have to be of the type the Coast Guard calls type one — the most buoyant, usually with a foam composition. The type two, near-shore safety belt or vest used by water skiers would be sufficient, he said."
Today's believe-it-or-not story comes from The East Hampton Star, out on Long Island, where a man, after being caught by authorities clearing a playing area for his kids, is attempting to atone for his environmental crimes by buying another piece of property and donating it to the city. Because this is the Hamptons, that lot will cost the man nearly $500,000 -- money obviously is no object for the swells living there. But putting that issue aside, the whole situation, as written up by The Star, seems surreal, if not Kafkaesque.
So please join me on a journey to Planet Hamptons, which seems like an alien world from the United States of America we all think we know so well. And don't forget to read the second item, about the new paddleboarding regulations imposed on East Hamptonites.
Read it and weep:
"Greg Weinstein, a resident of Old Orchard Lane in East Hampton who was cited for clearing too much of his two-acre house lot, has offered the East Hampton Town Board a deal so that he can keep the land as is.
Mr. Weinstein bought the property largely the way it is and likes it that way, his attorney, Jeff Bragman, told the board on Tuesday. The lot is in a water recharge zone where the amount of clearing is restricted to protect groundwater. The property now has about a half acre more cleared than allowed. Mr. Bragman said the open area was ideal for Mr. Weinstein’s children. He added that Mr. Weinstein had had a small, additional area cleared for a practice soccer goal for them.
Normally, cases of this kind are resolved in zoning court, and property owners wind up rectifying violations, which in this case would mean replanting. The deal Mr. Weinstein has proposed in order to keep his land the way he prefers is that he would buy a piece of property that the town has been hoping to preserve and make a gift of it.
The proposal, Mr. Bragman said, has already passed muster with the zoning court judge, Lisa Rana, who sees it as a viable settlement to the overclearing court case, the lawyer said, as long as the town board agrees.
Mr. Weinstein has already signed a $490,000 conditional contract to buy the lot that he would give to the town — a 33,000-square-foot parcel off Old Stone Highway in Springs. Mr. Bragman said the land contains wetlands and “has been a thorn in the side of the town and the [zoning board of appeals] for a couple of years” because its owner is pursuing a plan to build a house there.
Mr. Bragman said he had told his client that he could resolve the matter by revegetating the property at a cost of between $10,000 and $20,000 instead of spending hundreds of thousands more.
But, he said, Mr. Weinstein had given him a budget of $500,000 and he had been “cold-calling” owners of properties the town has eyed, particularly those in water recharge zones. The Old Stone Highway property was suggested to him by Larry Penny, the town natural resources director, who had tagged it as an environmentally sensitive site.
Opinions on the town board were mixed, though all agreed to hold a public hearing on the idea.
“What is the special circumstance here?” Councilman Pete Hammerle asked. “Are we saying that the clearing restrictions we have in our town code don’t really matter as much on this lot? A lot of people aren’t going to be able to propose this kind of solution.”
“This is not just a rich guy buying his way out of the problem,” Mr. Bragman told the board. Essentially, he said, “anybody going before the court is going to be buying their way out of the problem,” by spending money to rectify violations, and pay a fine.
It is “legitimate,” Mr. Bragman said, to ask the board to decide, “on balance, over all, does this make environmental sense?”
“I’m suggesting it is worth it to trade about 20,000 square feet of clearing here — that’s probably been cleared for 15 years or so — in exchange for picking up 33,000 square feet of non-clearing on a wetlands property. But also no house, and no septic system, so you’re eliminating a unit of density. On balance, it makes sense,” he said.
Board members expressed some concern about setting a precedent. Such a proposal would not arise often, Mr. Bragman said, “but it is a way of engaging private people who can do this to come in and save the town some preservation dollars.”
“It’s like fees in lieu of the clearing ordinance,” Councilwoman Pat Mansir said, referring to a mechanism by which developers of some commercial property may pay into a fund ostensibly used to buy land for parking instead of providing the parking normally required.
“Had he done the clearing himself, I would say absolutely not,” Town Supervisor Bill McGintee said, citing a situation where “someone who over-cleared then wants to buy their way out of it. But under the circumstances I could be supportive of this,” he said.
John Jilnicki, the acting town attorney, advised against any change to the town code that would officially allow those not in compliance with zoning laws to resolve their cases in ways that would permit them to avoid following the rules. However, he said, exceptions could be made in the context of a settlement of the zoning court case.
Councilman Hammerle remained opposed, but agreed to listen to public opinion about the idea at the hearing. In addition, he pressed the board, “If we could spell out the ‘special circumstances’ parameters as clearly as possible. . . .
So that this doesn’t set a precedent and open a can of worms.”
To Regulate Paddleboards
Stand-up paddleboarders will soon be required to wear life jackets (or other personal flotation devices) while crossing a body of water in East Hampton Town. Near-shore paddlers, or those paddling the boards in the ocean, may continue to do so without them.
Ed Michels, the town’s chief harbormaster, said on Monday that an incident during a paddle last month from Fresh Pond, Amagansett, to Fort Pond Bay, Montauk, led to his department’s decision to define paddleboards as vessels for the purpose of regulating them under the town code. During the cross-bay paddle, the participants spread out, and one paddler fell off his board, was unable to retrieve it, and required help. At another point, a boat came dangerously close to a paddler, Mr. Michels said
The town code says a vessel is any “watercraft (including wind surfboards) or other contrivance used or capable of being used as a means of transportation in water. . . .” The code requires vessel operators to abide by Coast Guard regulations on safety equipment. The stand-up paddleboard is an updated variation of an old, Hawaiian board. They are longer, wider, and thicker than the average longboard used for surfing. Most are made of epoxy-covered foam. Paddles are made of wood or lightweight carbon fiber.
“If you’re on a surfboard and go 100 yards offshore, okay. But if you put a sail on it and head for Connecticut, it’s a vessel,” Mr. Michels said. Mr. Michels said he had discussed the issue with the state boating administrator and Coast Guard officials who agreed with the policy. “If they’re close to the beach, okay. But if they’re out in the open, we’re going to make them come back if they’re not wearing a p.f.d.,” the chief harbormaster said.
Mr. Michels said the p.f.d. did not have to be of the type the Coast Guard calls type one — the most buoyant, usually with a foam composition. The type two, near-shore safety belt or vest used by water skiers would be sufficient, he said."
Monday, September 1, 2008
Keeping People in their Places
Bill Vogrin, who writes the "Side Streets" column for The Colorado Springs Gazette, last week unceremoniously exhumed the unsavory racist origins of neighborhood covenants in Colorado Springs -- covenants that continue to vex property owners of all colors and creeds today. Here's some language -- described as "boilerplate" for the era -- from a 1940 covenant placed on homeowners in one part of town:
"No lot in said tract shall at any time be lived upon by any person whose blood is not entirely that of the Caucasian race, and for the purpose of this paragraph, no Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, Hindu or any other person of the Ethiopian, Indian or Mongolian races shall be deemed to be Caucasian . . . If persons not of the Caucasian race be kept thereon by such a Caucasian occupant, strictly in the capacity of servants or employees of such occupant, such circumstance shall not constitute a violation."
We've come a long way since then, thankfully. Overt racism, at least of this sort, is today mostly hidden from view. But it's useful to at least recall the racist and exclusionist origins of these and other localized restrictions on property rights if we want to appreciate the continuing injustice at their core. Zoning laws have similar roots: they were first used in California to keep the Chinese on the other side of the tracks.
The overt racial overtones fell away as time passed. The Progressive era saw these sorts of laws put to use by organizing "experts" and uplifters. Along the way, their constitutionality was weighed and affirmed (wrongly) by courts. And they gradually became an entrenched part of the American landscape; unquestioned, unchallenged, but clearly unjust and un-American.
These laws began as a means of segregating people, along racial or socioeconomic lines, and they continue to function as such, albeit in much more subtle ways. Does that mean that people who support zoning, codes and neighborhood covenants, in their contemporary context, harbor racist leanings? Of course not. But they do tend to be the sorts of people who want to keep people in their places, figuratively and sometimes literally, forcing conformity to the collective by setting conditions on property rights. They value order more than they value freedom, regimentation more than property rights.
The fundamental unfairness that lies at the root of such rules persists, even if time and familiarity have made them, to most people, a respectable part of the modern American landscape.
"No lot in said tract shall at any time be lived upon by any person whose blood is not entirely that of the Caucasian race, and for the purpose of this paragraph, no Japanese, Chinese, Mexican, Hindu or any other person of the Ethiopian, Indian or Mongolian races shall be deemed to be Caucasian . . . If persons not of the Caucasian race be kept thereon by such a Caucasian occupant, strictly in the capacity of servants or employees of such occupant, such circumstance shall not constitute a violation."
We've come a long way since then, thankfully. Overt racism, at least of this sort, is today mostly hidden from view. But it's useful to at least recall the racist and exclusionist origins of these and other localized restrictions on property rights if we want to appreciate the continuing injustice at their core. Zoning laws have similar roots: they were first used in California to keep the Chinese on the other side of the tracks.
The overt racial overtones fell away as time passed. The Progressive era saw these sorts of laws put to use by organizing "experts" and uplifters. Along the way, their constitutionality was weighed and affirmed (wrongly) by courts. And they gradually became an entrenched part of the American landscape; unquestioned, unchallenged, but clearly unjust and un-American.
These laws began as a means of segregating people, along racial or socioeconomic lines, and they continue to function as such, albeit in much more subtle ways. Does that mean that people who support zoning, codes and neighborhood covenants, in their contemporary context, harbor racist leanings? Of course not. But they do tend to be the sorts of people who want to keep people in their places, figuratively and sometimes literally, forcing conformity to the collective by setting conditions on property rights. They value order more than they value freedom, regimentation more than property rights.
The fundamental unfairness that lies at the root of such rules persists, even if time and familiarity have made them, to most people, a respectable part of the modern American landscape.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Aspen's Slippery Slope: Where regulating is the first resort
The Aspen Times reported recently that the number of second homes in nearby Snowmass Village exceeds the number in Aspen. “Between 61 percent and 68 percent of all single-family residences and condominiums in Snowmass Village are second homes,” according to the Times. “A 2007 study by the nonprofit organization showed that 58 percent of residences in Aspen are vacation homes.” The study was commissioned by something called The Sopris Foundation.
That’s interesting though not exactly shocking, since both towns are ski resorts catering to a jet-setting crowd. So what, one may wonder, is the relevance? Why, one may ask, is someone spending money to study the obvious?
The answer is hinted at in the story’s lead: “The percentage of second homes sitting vacant and theoretically wasting energy is higher in Snowmass Village than in Aspen, a new study has determined.” Because they frequently sit empty, second homes evidently are considered wasteful to the area's energy efficiency enforcers. This study is obviously intended to generate a regulatory response, given that this is the People’s Republic of Pitken County. And you can bet the Green Shirts will be demanding something more Draconian than a reminder to second-home owners to lower the thermostat and turn out the light when they blow out of town.
The agenda is made explicit further down in the story. “The finding is significant . . . because the Aspen study determined that second homes use as much energy per square foot per year as fully occupied units, even though second homes are unoccupied an average of 277 days annually," according to The Times. "When information about energy usage learned in the earlier study is applied to Snowmass Village, it indicates that the town's total residential carbon emission output is 57,221 tons per year . . . At least 35,000 tons and possibly at much as 39,000 tons comes from second homes, the study indicated.”
The Sopris Foundation wants to see the information used by the "community stewards" of Snowmass Village -- which has a slightly Orwellian ring to it -- to promote "responsible energy use." It hopes to see “bold leadership” in "regulating second home energy use, including outlawing heated driveways and sidewalks and more restrictions on home sizes."
And sure enough, only a few days later, the regulatory wheels were turning. Only a few voices of reason were heard. The second homeowners of Snowmass are obviously going to be dragged by force into Aspen's orbit. And the implications for property owners and businesses could be severe, as these recent stories suggest.
That’s interesting though not exactly shocking, since both towns are ski resorts catering to a jet-setting crowd. So what, one may wonder, is the relevance? Why, one may ask, is someone spending money to study the obvious?
The answer is hinted at in the story’s lead: “The percentage of second homes sitting vacant and theoretically wasting energy is higher in Snowmass Village than in Aspen, a new study has determined.” Because they frequently sit empty, second homes evidently are considered wasteful to the area's energy efficiency enforcers. This study is obviously intended to generate a regulatory response, given that this is the People’s Republic of Pitken County. And you can bet the Green Shirts will be demanding something more Draconian than a reminder to second-home owners to lower the thermostat and turn out the light when they blow out of town.
The agenda is made explicit further down in the story. “The finding is significant . . . because the Aspen study determined that second homes use as much energy per square foot per year as fully occupied units, even though second homes are unoccupied an average of 277 days annually," according to The Times. "When information about energy usage learned in the earlier study is applied to Snowmass Village, it indicates that the town's total residential carbon emission output is 57,221 tons per year . . . At least 35,000 tons and possibly at much as 39,000 tons comes from second homes, the study indicated.”
The Sopris Foundation wants to see the information used by the "community stewards" of Snowmass Village -- which has a slightly Orwellian ring to it -- to promote "responsible energy use." It hopes to see “bold leadership” in "regulating second home energy use, including outlawing heated driveways and sidewalks and more restrictions on home sizes."
And sure enough, only a few days later, the regulatory wheels were turning. Only a few voices of reason were heard. The second homeowners of Snowmass are obviously going to be dragged by force into Aspen's orbit. And the implications for property owners and businesses could be severe, as these recent stories suggest.
Here's a story about how Aspen is forcing a couple to rent their property to a county employee, because of old deed restrictions designating it "affordable housing." Here's one about how the city is forcing trash haulers to offer recycling, but prohibiting them from raising rates to cover additional costs: story. Here's another about how an Aspen condo board, taking the prevailing contempt for property rights to its outlandish conclusion, is planning to prohibit smoking even inside private residences. In 2007, city council passed an "emergency ordinance" designating structures built in the 1970s as "historic" -- story -- meaning owners couldn't demolish or make major alterations without a permission slip. After a mild backlash, the city softened the law a bit -- story -- but it's still outrageous. Residents who claim the ordinance causes hardship are required to prove it by bringing their personal tax returns down to City Hall.
And such stories represent just the tip of the iceberg.
Absentee homeowners are an easy target group, since they're only sporadically in town, they don't typically show up at town meetings and they aren't well organized to fight back. And let's face it, if you're wealthy enough to own a second home in Aspen, you're wealthy enough to shrug off most of the extra costs and complications new rules and regulations create -- wealthy enough, too, to hire a lawyer to find loopholes or go to battle for you, if necessary. If you prevent second homeowners from operating their driveway heaters while away -- yes, some Aspenites have driveway heaters -- they can easily afford to hire a plowing company to ensure that they have an ice-free path to their 5,000 square-foot "log cabin."
There are all sorts of workarounds available to the wealthy that aren't available to the rest of us. But the damage being done to personal liberty and property rights along the way is incalculable, and will do far more harm to the less-affluent, living in any communities that follow Aspen's example.
It may be this Second Home Syndrome, along with the ability of part-timers to absorb the punishment, that explains the ability of a few radical year-rounders (most genuine "locals" were priced-out long ago) to turn Aspen into the politically- and ecologically-correct fiefdom it's become. It may even be that year-rounders are exacting a sort of revenge against their absentee neighbors by waging regulatory warfare against them.But I digress. This isn't a discourse on how group psychology impacts urban policy. Whatever the root causes of Aspen's reflex-regulating, the danger is that other communities, in Colorado and elsewhere, will follow its lead, given that chasing fads is as prevelant in the world of municipal governance as in the world of high fashion. Here, for instance, is a story about how nearby Eagle County is playing follow the leader.
Questions about whether such regulations are reasonable, fair or trample property rights don't get raised much in Aspen, except by the uncool few who will will take a stand on practicality or principle. Here's a profile of one brave soul, Marilyn Marks, who has infuriated the social engineers at City Hall by erecting a few moguls on Aspen's slippery slope. But for the most part, it's been a well-groomed Green run for the petty despots in charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)