Friday, August 21, 2009

What's Happening Now

Is national health insurance Constitutional? No. Not convinced yet? Go here then.

"It's almost as if the president has no experience..." Ya think?

What planet is this guy on?

Independence Institute: Medical coverage is like a game show. (90 sec. video)

Write about the Fifth Amendment, get sued.

Death panels are real.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Health Care, Legal Reform, Liberals, Property Rights, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:46 PM

Thursday, June 18, 2009

CWRA's Chances of Passage

Senator James Inhofe believes it is doubtful the the Clean Water Restoration Act will pass the full Senate.

I am a bit less sanguine, but readily acknowledge his superior familiarity with the Senate.

Here's hoping he's right.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM

CWRA Approved by Senate Committee, As Expected

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Clean Water Restoration Act by a party-line vote this morning.

This was expected.

Prospects for CWRA on the Senate floor are less predictable. It could go either way, although the left appears to have an advantage given 1) its control of Congress, and 2) the limited public attention (even from conservative media) the onerous provisions of this massive bill are receiving.

On a more positive note, excluding the bigger-the-government-the-better crowd, the more Americans look at this bill, the less they like it. And why would they like it? Who wants to get a federal permit, or the very least have to investigate whether they need a federal permit, just to landscape their own back yards?

It is not as though the original Clean Water Act, which is a powerful law by anyone's definition, has been repealed or expired. We don't need CWRA to have clean water.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 PM

Inhofe on CWRA

Senator James Inhofe's opening statement on CWRA from the hearing is a useful addition to the debate.

I hadn't previously realized the National Association of Realtors and had come out against the bill (perhaps I should stop reviewing the environmental groups' propaganda sheets, which often claim only right-wing dirty water lovers oppose CWRA).

An excerpt from Senator Inhofe's statement:

I see this bill as a significant part of a hostile agenda aimed squarely at rural America. Whether it’s new energy taxes from cap-and-trade legislation or more unfunded environmental mandates, it’s clear that this bill is yet one more raw deal for rural America.

Allowing EPA and the Corps to exercise unlimited regulatory authority over all inter- and intrastate water, or virtually anything that is wet, goes too far and is certainly beyond anything intended by the Clean Water Act. But, that is what S. 787 does. It vastly expands Federal control of private property, despite assurances contained in S. 787. In fact, the very premise of the bill is to override a State’s fundamental right to oversee waters within its borders and to usurp the power of land owners to manage their property as they see fit. The Constitution never envisioned federal jurisdiction being boundless; it carves out room for state and local governments and private property owners to manage their resources.

Two of my Republican colleagues have filed amendments to S. 787, which highlight some very legitimate concerns with the bill. I have chosen not to try and amend the bill because, frankly, I don’t think this bill is fixable. Allow me to just briefly list some of the groups that have expressed concerns with this bill that are not covered by any the amendments filed today: The Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of REALTORS, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Association of Airport Executives, and the list goes on for about 14 pages...

Senator Inhofe's statement on CWRA should be read in its entirety.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 PM

Pop Quiz on the Clean Water Restoration Act

1) Which two states hate the Clean Water Restoration Act so much, their legislatures actually passed resolutions urging the Congress not to enact it?

A. Texas and Oklahoma
B. Georgia and Alabama
C. Washington and Oregon
D. Idaho and Montana
C. Rhode Island and Massachusetts

2) Which of the following groups oppose the Clean Water Restoration Act?

A. National Association of Counties
B. National Cattlemen's Association
C. American Farm Bureau
D. National Association of Home Builders
E. All of the above

3) Which is more accurate:

A. The original Clean Water Act, which remains in effect, was intended to cover all waters in the United States, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited its scope. The Clean Water Restoration Act would simply restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act.

B. The original Clean Water Act, which remains in effect, limited federal authority to "navigable" waters of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this definition. The Clean Water Restoration Act would expand federal authority beyond navigable waters to virtually every drop of water in the United States, including water on private property.

Answer to 1: D - Idaho (House and Senate) and Montana (Senate).
Answer to 2: E
Answer to 3: B

If you didn't get 3-out-of-3, visit our Clean Water Restoration Act Information page.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Quote of Note: Clean Water Restoration Act Means Troubled Waters

"For years, the 1972 Clean Water Act has been misused in the name of protecting America's waters and wetlands. The statute’s original limitation that its key provisions only apply to navigable waters was largely ignored. Instead, the law was broadly applied to a wide variety of circumstances, including remote and inconsequential drainage ditches or temporary puddles and even to completely dry land.

The statute’s complex and costly provisions interfered with the economic use of the lands it encompassed, including farming and ranching operations, construction of housing and other buildings, and domestic oil and gas production.

Fortunately, two Supreme Court decisions, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States in 2001, and Rapanos v. United States in 2006 partially reined in these excesses.

Now, the CWRA seeks to overturn these Supreme Court decisions and make the statute more expansive than ever. In fact, it would turn the Clean Water Act into what some analysts believe to be the most dangerous federal intrusion on private property rights in existence..."

-Ben Lieberman, "The Clean Water Restoration Act Means Troubled Waters For Property Owners," Heritage Foundation The Foundry blog, June 17, 2009

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:32 PM

"The Biggest Bureaucratic Power Grab in a Generation"

If you haven't visited the National Center for Public Policy Research's new Clean Water Restoration Act Information page (or even if you have), you can get a good 2 1/2 minute summary of CWRA from Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) from the video above.

Senator Inhofe starts the video with "Rural America, watch out!" and goes on to call CWRA "the biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation."

If you have a blog or web page yourself, please consider posting this video. Although few people have heard of this bill, Senator Inhofe is not exaggerating about its scope.

It's important that people become educated about CWRA -- the issue is that big.

P.S. Our Clean Water Restoration Act Information page provides links to addition information about CWRA from a variety of sources.

The legislation is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee June 18.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Land, Liberals, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:09 AM

Monday, June 15, 2009

Backyard Puddles to be Regulated by Feds?

The American Farm Bureau is reporting, correctly, that if the Clean Water Restoration Act (Senator Russ Feingold's S.787) becomes law, the federal government will claim the authority to regulate "all water" in the United States.

"S. 787 would remove any bounds from the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that the regulatory reach of the act would extend to all water -- anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater," says a letter signed by the group.

Nearly two years ago, the groups's president, Bob Stallman, explained in more detail:

Since its enactment in 1972, the Clean Water Act has regulated “navigable waters,” or waters of the U.S. The proposed legislation would delete the term “navigable” and replace it with “all intrastate waters” and add confusing language allowing the federal government to regulate “activities affecting these waters.” Although technical and hard to get your head around, these terms, if interchanged, would pose serious consequences for most landowners.

The legislation would grant -- for the first time ever -- the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all wet areas within a state, including groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, municipal storm drains and gutters. It would grant these same agencies -- for the first time ever -- authority over all activities affecting those waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in water or adds a pollutant. With unfunded mandates, this slippery slope takes away power from state and local jurisdictions, shifting the control to the federal government for development and use of local land and water resources.

What does this mean for the typical residential landowner? Likely, a lot of hassle, expense and time spent in court. The legislation clearly states "all waters." Those of you with farm, stock and even goldfish ponds – beware.

The legislation is scheduled to be voted upon in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a Clean Water Restoration Act Information webpage here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:39 AM

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Clean Water Restoration Act Information Webpage Created

The National Center for Public Policy Research has created a webpage with links to resources about the Clean Water Restoration Act.

The page has links to resources about CWRA published not only by the National Center, but by a variety of other organizations as well. If you are a columnist, blogger, speaker or talk show host planning to address the issue, you will find plenty of useful information on the page.

As National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith noted below, the legislation is scheduled for a markup and vote in the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

You can visit the page here.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:05 AM

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Clean Water Restoration Act Scheduled for Senate Committee Vote June 18

An important message from National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith on the Clean Water Restoration Act, which is less about protecting our nation's waters and more about expanding the federal government's power to regulate private property.

From R.J. Smith:

I received an email at 11:05 p.m. last night from Senate Environment and Public Works staff that Senator Barbara Boxer and company are going to bring the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) up for full committee mark-up and vote in their Thursday 18 June business session scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in the EPW Hearing Room, 406 Dirksen.

This is Senator Russ Feingold's S.787, which was introduced on April 2.

With the Democrats having nationalized the financial, banking and automobile industries -- bringing a strong layer of socialism to the key portions of the US economy -- they are now moving to nationalize the American land and water.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Federal government only had the authority to regulate "navigable waters" and control the discharge of pollutants and dredge and fill activities within those navigable waters.

The so-called Clean Water RESTORATION Act restores nothing. That is a hoax. Instead, it removes the restrictive and limiting terms "navigable" waters and unconstitutionally extends the Federal regulatory authority over ALL waters of the United States. This includes the driest desert areas that may only hold water for a few weeks a year during summer monsoon rains. And it includes completely isolated prairie potholes (small ponds and marshes) with no connection whatsoever to any other waters.

Furthermore, the bill will now prohibit ALL activities affecting all waters of the United States. This means that anything a landowner, a business, a county roads department, a waterfowl conservation program undertakes that could conceivably affect anything that is wet -- will be subject to the discretionary jurisdiction of Army Corps or EPA bureaucrats. They will then be able to make the lives of family farmers, ranchers, tree farmers, home builders -- almost anyone and everyone -- literally impossible. They will have the total power to force every farmer or rancher or ordinary business owner to run a gauntlet of permits, red tape, delays -- that will delay projects long enough and cost so much as to essentially shut down or bankrupt even the most necessary and innocuous projects.

There are copious examples of wetlands horror stories over the last 20 years in which people have been imprisoned and fined staggering amounts for simply building their own home, cleaning up dumps, or creating habitat for waterfowl. And that occurred under the CWA restrictions of "navigable waters" and prohibitions only on discharging pollutants and dredge and fill activities.

Once those constraints are removed by the CWRA, life will quickly become a bureaucratic nightmare with no exit -- particularly so throughout all of rural America. This bill would be much more honestly named "The Rural Cleansing Act of 2009."

This will be a tough battle given that the E&PW Committee make up is 12 Ds and 7 Rs (which includes Senators George Voinovich and Lamar Alexander).

It is important that people who are concerned about this enlist the help of the agricultural community, especially county and state farm bureaus. They should notify not only the members of the Senate E&PW but also the Senate Agriculture Committee.

It is also vital to contact Rep. Collin Peterson Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and request that he ask for oversight hearings on the impact of the CWRA on America's farmers and the nation's food production.

They should also request that the farmers and ranchers they know and their county and state farm bureaus and cattlemen's associations contact the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, asking them to strongly oppose the CWRA.

Addendum (6/14/09): For more information on the Clean Water restoration act, please visit our new CWRA information webpage at http://www.nationalcenter.org/CWRA.html.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:03 PM

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Do As I Say...

...not as I do.

(With apologies to National Center for Public Policy Research board member Peter Schweizer for stealing the title of his book.)

Hat tip: Climate Depot.

---

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Environment, Liberals, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:38 PM

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

U.S. House Holds Kangaroo Hearing to Fool Public About Causes of California Drought

The National Center for Public Policy Research has sent a 'kangaroo' to a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives Resources Committee on climate change and the California drought.

The kangaroo's appearance will to protest the fact that the hearing is expected to ignore the contribution of environmental regulations in exacerbating the drought, and also the fact that only representatives of government agencies, mostly federal, have been invited to testify.

Our press release explains:

'Kangaroo-Court' Hearing a One-Sided View of California Drought

Regulations Making Water Shortage Worse

For Release: March 31, 2009 10:30 AM

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C.: The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources is holding a one-sided hearing this morning on the California drought that is expected to blame climate change for a critical water shortage while glossing over the role of activist-inspired environmental policies in exacerbating the shortage, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

The hearing, entitled "The California Drought: Actions by Federal and State Agencies to Address Impacts on Lands, Fisheries, and Water Users," will be held today, March 31, at 10:30 am in Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building.

Only representatives of government agencies will be permitted to testify at the hearing. Most of the witnesses will be from federal agencies.

To draw attention to the biased nature of the proceedings, The National Center for Public Policy Research will send a representative to the hearing best suited for a kangaroo court - a kangaroo.

"At the height of a California drought and during a serious recession with massive unemployment in California's Central Valley, one would hope that the committee cared enough about agricultural workers and minorities to invite as witnesses actual unemployed farm workers from the scores of communities closing down," remarked R.J. Smith, a Senior Fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research. "Let's have an open Committee hearing and hear real people discussing the impacts on their lives from government regulations and their massive job losses - instead of more government bureaucrats who are only causing the problem."

California - the nation's largest producer of tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, apricots, strawberries and many other crops - risks agricultural losses of over $2 billion for the upcoming season and $3 billion in total economic losses in 2009. According to a University of California at Davis study, 80,000 jobs could be lost in the Central Valley.

Although global warming is expected to receive much of the blame for this economic disaster, government regulation is a more significant - and preventable cause - of it, according to The National Center for Public Policy Research.

For example, state and federal water officials have sharply cut agricultural water deliveries in California so that more water can go out to sea as part of an effort to protect the Delta Smelt - a three-inch long fish listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In February, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation announced a "zero allocation" of water from the Central Valley Project, cutting off the massive federal irrigation system that serves numerous California farms. The supply of water from California's State Water Project is 20 percent of normal.

"By demanding that the water flow into the Pacific Ocean, government meddlers have forced farmers to abandon production, threatening both the nation's fresh food supplies and the jobs of farm workers, many of whom are among the nation's poorest minorities," said Mr. Smith. "Ironically, the cut-off of agricultural water has done nothing to help the Delta Smelt. Every year less water is diverted for agriculture, yet the fish population continues to decline."

The state of California also deserves blame for the water shortage because it has failed to build the water infrastructure necessary for the state's growing population.

Donn Zea, President of the Northern California Water Association, wrote in the March 5th edition of the San Francisco Chronicle that although California's population has doubled over the past 40 years, the state has not meaningfully updated its water storage capacity since 1967. "As a result, when drought hits, we have an amount of water suitable for California in 1960 - not 2009," wrote Mr. Zea.

The Resources Committee - which has a history of promoting global warming alarmism - is expected to explore the dubious link between a modest increase in global temperatures and localized weather patterns devastating California.

"If certain members of the House Natural Resources Committee want the world to believe that a regional drought in an arid area of California is further 'proof' of global warming, then let's hope that they apply the same reasoning to the floods that are ravaging eastern and central North Dakota," remarked Dr. Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research. "By the thousands, residents of Fargo and Bismarck are trying to protect their cities from the rising waters of the Red and Missouri Rivers. The blocks of ice on the Missouri River north of Bismarck were so huge that explosives were used to blow them up. Will Chairman Rahall invite Fargo's mayor and other North Dakota officials before his committee to testify on how ordinary citizens spent hours in sub-freezing, snowy weather protecting their homes and businesses from the effects of global cooling?"

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-profit 501(c)(3) communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems. For more information, visit the National Center's website at www.nationalcenter.org or call (202) 543-4110.

-30-

Here's hoping our 'kangaroo' (actually, a man in a kangaroo costume) is able to draw some attention to government regulations that are needlessly hurting Californians.

___________________

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:23 AM

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Pickens Plan May Test Obama's Leadership

From David Almasi:

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli's commentary on the inherent problems within the "Pickens Plan" was published in today's Washington Examiner newspaper.

Billionaire T. Boone Pickens claims altruistic reasons for promoting the construction of massive wind farms and converting trucks and fleet vehicles to be powered by natural gas in order to lessen U.S. demand for foreign oil. Deneen points out the plan may result in both misery for politically-weak urban communities and money for Pickens.

Ultimately, she notes, the Pickens Plan may be a test of President Barack Obama's leadership.

In "Pickens Plan is Hot Air That May Burn America," Deneen writes:

Converting vehicles to natural gas taps a resource now used by power plants to generate electricity. To compensate, the Pickens Plan suggests massive wind turbines. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 100,000 such turbines - many the size of 40-story buildings - would be necessary to handle just 20 percent of the nation's electricity needs.

To deliver that power, the Energy Department further estimates 12,650 miles of new transmission lines would be needed by 2030 at a cost of between $64 and $128 billion...

...Pickens compares the proposed new power grid to the construction of the 46,000-mile interstate highway system decades ago. Sadly, back then it was often the poorest neighborhoods selected for eminent domain evictions to make way for new roads.

So-called "negro removal" in Detroit's Paradise Valley and Newark's Central Ward helped spark the July 1967 riots that collectively led to 66 deaths. Highway construction destroyed hundreds of thousands of homes in a process the San Francisco Chronicle in 1959 called "a crime that cannot be prettied up."

Pickens has not assured the public his plan would not repeat this exploitation of minorities and the politically-disadvantaged.

Pickens would also likely profit from his plan, thanks to taxpayer support. He testified before Congress that his plan might succeed only with the wind energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), which was recently extended by the $787 billion bailout bill.

Mesa Power, a Pickens' company, wants to build a 2,700-turbine wind farm in Texas. According to a report by the National Center for Public Policy Research, "Pickens' firm stands to receive between $1.66 billion and about $3 billion in PTC payments alone over 10 years, a significant portion of its original investment."

Regarding the proposal as a challenge for the President, Deneen notes:

Obama's leadership will soon be tested. Will he side with the little guy, protecting their homes and guarding their access to affordable energy? Or will he deliver for special interests like T. Boone Pickens and anti-energy environmental organizations?

If he chooses the latter, it won't be the change so many people thought they voted for last November."

To read the entire commentary, click here.

_____

Labels: Business, Energy, Environment, Project 21, Property Rights, Race, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:13 PM

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Diverse Coalition Appeals to Congress Regarding Unjust Provisions of Omnibus Land Management Act

Readers with an interest in property rights, civil rights or simply staying out of jail for doing something one has no idea is illegal will want to review the coalition letter sent to the Congressional leadership, the Attorney General and to President Barack Obama by the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences and the National Center for Public Policy Research during the last 24 hours.

The letter was organized by John Berlau of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner,

Our respective organizations have diverse viewpoints, but we share a deep and abiding belief in due process under the law. We believe that that Congress should perform careful diligence before adding violations to the criminal codes, that federal crimes should be narrowly defined and show clear criminal intent, and that the use of asset forfeiture must be narrowly tailored so that it does not unduly punish the accused before a trial has proven their guilt. As such we have grave concerns about sections of the pending Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009, which passed the Senate last week as H.R. 146, regarding "paleontological resources preservation."

These sections, now contained in the bill under Subtitle Dof Title VI, seek to empower the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to"protect paleontological resources on Federal land using scientific principles and expertise." We understand that preventing theft of and harm to important fossils on federal land is a serious objective. However, we are concerned that the bill creates many new federal crimes using language that is so broad that the provisions could cover innocent human error. There is also, in defining the crimes, a troubling lack of words such as "knowingly" that clearly establish criminal intent as a prerequisite for prosecution. As Georgetown University legal ethicist John Hasnas has written, to serve the greater goal of justice, all criminal laws must require the government to establish that "one had to knowingly or at least recklessly act in a morally blameworthy way to be subject of criminal punishment."

H.R. 146 would make it illegal to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface or attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or deface any paleontological resources located on Federal land" without special permission from the government. Penalties for violations include up to five years imprisonment. "Paleontological resources" are loosely defined as all "fossilized remains ... that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth." We are troubled by this definition that paleontological organizations say could cover many common rocks that adults and children collect. The Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences has warned that with this wording, it is easy to visualize "a group of students unknowingly crossing over an invisible line."

We are also concerned about the bill's prohibition against "false labeling" of fossil specimens, an offense that also carries criminal penalties. The bill makes it a crime to "make or submit any false record, account or label for, or any false identification of, any paleontological resource excavated or removed from federal land." This broad language could criminalize innocent misidentifications, limit scientific inquiry, and infringe on the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. Fossil labeling is a complex process, and even the top museums of the world have been known to revise labeling in their exhibits upon scholarly review or new facts being discovered ..Thus, the fear of making an honest mistake in fossil labeling or even having fossil identifications proven "false" in light of new scientific discoveries could have a chilling effect on new research in paleontology.

We are pleased that the Senate recently improved provisions regarding forfeiture. Language in earlier versions of the legislation would have allowed government officials to engage in the pretrial seizure of "all vehicles and equipment of any person" accused of theft or harm to a "paleontological resource." Forfeiting a person's property without a conviction undermines the bedrock principle of our legal system: that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Past abuses of forfeiture led to bipartisan passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, and we had feared that these provisions would go against the spirit of these reforms. The Senate heeded our concerns with an amendment, and as passed on March 20, "vehicles and equipment" were removed from the forfeiture language, so that the forfeiture provisions apply only to the "paleontological resources" taken from federal land. This is a marked improvement, and we would oppose any attempts to reinsert forfeiture of personal property in a revised bill.

Above all, we are concerned that a bill containing new federal crimes, fines and imprisonment, and forfeiture provisions may come to the House floor without first being marked up in the House Judiciary Committee. That committee is tasked with providing centralized oversight of criminal legislation, thereby enhancing the fairness and consistency of those enactments. As such we strongly urge that the criminal provisions of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act be stripped from any final legislation until they are subject to Judiciary Committee review and amendment."

Representatives of the signatory organizations of this letter would be happy to meet with you or members of your staff to address these concerns.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director
American Civil Liberties Union
Washington Legislative Office

Tracie Bennitt
President
Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences

John Berlau
Director, Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Kyle O'Dowd
Assoc. Executive Director for Policy
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

David A. Ridenour
Vice President
The National Center for Public Policy Research

Cc: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
House Majority Whip James Clyburn
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith
President Barack Obama
Attorney General Eric Holder

For more information on this issue, see this blog's previous coverage of this here and here.
________________________________

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Endangered Species, Environment, Government Power, Legal Reform, Liberals, Property Rights, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM

Massive Omnibus Public Land Management Act to See Another Vote

By R.J. Smith:

Sometime today the Omnibus Public Land Management Act will come up for its final vote in Congress. A courageous band of defenders of energy production, natural resources use, public multiple-use of the public lands, and property rights and private land ownership have tenaciously fought this massive 160+ bill package since the fall of 2007.

On Thursday 19 March the Senate completed the complicated bill switch, replacing H.R. 146 (the Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act) with S.22 and then voting on that. The Senate passed the bill 77-20 (2 NV). 20 GOP voted Nay. 21 RINOs voted Yea to further shut down the West, destroy domestic energy production, lock-up tens of millions of acres of public lands in categories that much of the public will never be able to use. Destroying energy production, mining, timber harvest, grazing, and recreation.

Bad enough in normal times. Unforgiveable in a recession and energy shortage.

In addition to the 1,000 miles of new Wild and Scenic River designations there were 2,800 miles of new National Trails that will have the authority to shut down anything that can be seen from the trails that the Feds disapprove of.

Senator Reid had allowed Senator Coburn to offer 6 amendments, 5 of which were defeated, and one of which the Democrats had agreed to pass on a voice vote.

Coburn's successful amendment was to the Paleontological Resources Protection Act section of the Omnibus which would criminalize any private collection of fossils on the public lands. His amendment removed the criminalization of "casual and unintentional" collection of rocks that may contain a fossil or portion of a fossil. However, any knowing collection of a fossil is now a felony, with the Feds having nationalized all fossils on public lands and essentially closing down amateur and independent paleontological discovery, research and collection on the public lands.

But the most important provision of Coburn's amendment was that it removed the bill's draconian provisions to apply civil asset forfeiture laws to all who collect any fossils -- giving the Feds the authority to seize the vehicles and equipment and even the homes, ranches, farms and lands of amateur and professional paleontologists.

Because the original H.R. 146 had already passed the House, the complicated Senate actions sent the Omnibus and the Battlefield bill back over to the House on Monday, with the House needing only to vote to concur with the amended Senate bill.

Yesterday the House Rules Committee voted to consider it under a closed rule -- eliminating the possibility of a motion to recommit and all amendments to the bill. The House Natural Resources Committee minority members had submitted about a dozen amendments for the Committee to consider, but they were rejected. There will now be a one hour debate on the rule and then a one hour debate on the Omnibus -- and then a simple majority vote, guaranteeing that this monstrous bill will pass.

The Democrat leadership even rejected an amendment to codify the right to carry concealed weapons on National Park and National Wildlife Refuge lands -- one of the last regulations from the Bush Department of Interior. A week ago a U.S. District Court judge issued an injunction blocking the regulation. Reportedly the Democrat leadership promised the pro-gun, conservative and Blue Dog Democrats that they would bring up a stand-alone bill to restore Second Amendment rights. But it is highly unlikely that Rep. Pelosi and other extreme liberals will ever allow such a bill.

The genuine hero in the long convoluted efforts to kill this terrible bill was Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and everyone should make an effort to thank him. He kept the land-grab bottled up for almost a year and a half.

In the House, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rob Bishop (R-UT) certainly deserve your thanks for fighting this bill in the House and for attempting to have honest and open hearings and debates on the scores of bills in the Omnibus which the House had never considered or debated.

This is another massive "mystery meat" bill with well over a thousand pages of bills which no one has read or understands. Driven by the shameful lust of Congressional members to bring pork to their districts at the expense of American freedom, energy production and security, natural resources use and the locking-out of more and more of the public from the use of their lands.

It is a step closer to making America a Third World country and a feudalistic nation with the government owning an ever-increasing majority of the land and resources.

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith. To send comments to the author, write him at info@nationalcenter.org. Please state if a letter is not for publication or if you prefer that it be published anonymously.

Addendum: Here's how the vote ended up.
________________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:12 AM

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Harry Reid Tries Again

Today's Outrage of the Day goes to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his reported intention to try again to get the monster Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (S. 22) into law without proper deliberation.

Following the bill's defeat last Wednesday (under suspension of rules) in the House, Reid reportedly plans to try again by attaching the huge bill as an amendment to a bill, H.R. 146, "The Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act," that has already received House approval, and is to be voted on early this week in the Senate.

As National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith pointed out in this extensive commentary last week, it's likely that no one has read the bill-cum-amendment, as it's 1,294 pages long and nine inches thick. There have been no hearings, mark-ups or floor debate about most of it.

What's the hurry, Harry?
___________________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:51 PM

Thursday, March 12, 2009

NY Times Blog's "Fair Analysis" of Public Lands Bill

R.J. Smith is calling this post by Kate Phillips on the New York Times Caucus blog "a pretty fair analysis" of recent Hill action surrounding the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (S. 22).
___________________

Labels: Congress, Land, Media, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:03 AM

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Omnibus Public Land Management Act Defeated - For Now

A followup to our blog post on the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (S. 22) posted during the wee hours this morning, from the New York Times, by Eric Bontrager:

The House rejected an amended omnibus package of more than 160 public lands, water and resources bills despite a last-minute change designed to ease concerns about the bill.

By a vote of 282-144, the House failed to pass S. 22 (pdf) under a suspension of the rules, which barred any amendments from being added to the bill but also required a two-thirds majority for passage...

Read the rest here.
___________________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:21 PM

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 on House Floor Today - 170 Bills in One; Half Have Had No Hearings

By R.J. Smith:

S. 22, the giant Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, will go to the House floor today (Wednesday, March 11) under suspension of rules. This means debate will be limited to a mere 40 minutes and amendments will not be permitted. Congressmen will be asked to vote on the bill without knowing what is in the 1,294-page, 9-inch thick bill! Some 170 separate bills have all been rolled into this one omnibus. Nearly half of them have never had any hearings, review or mark-up in the House.

The major concern with the bill is the vast expansion of every sort of Federal land ownership, including new and expanded National Parks, National Trails, National Heritage Areas, National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, National Preserves, National Historical Parks, National Historic Sites, and more.

It creates 82 new Wild and Scenic Rivers including over a thousand miles of rivers.

It will also create millions of acres of new Wilderness Areas.

In addition, S. 22 will give legislative authority and statutory permanence to the National Landscape Conservation System. The NLCS was created by decree in June 2000 by then Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. It effectively removed at least 26 million acres from BLM multiple-use management, giving these lands near-Wilderness status. Federal bureaucrats and environmentalists have longed to give this new land-management system official designation, placing it on a par with the National Park System and preventing future secretaries from opening the lands to even necessary and vital energy exploration.

This massive Omnibus bill would lock up millions of acres of land at the height of an economic recession and at a time the U.S. is struggling to improve energy security. Instead of creating jobs and increasing resources, energy supplies and wealth -- it would destroy them. It will shut down cattle grazing, mining, timber harvest, energy exploration and production and recreation.

And it will add another $10-12 billion of Federal spending.

Hundreds of millions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas will be locked up. It will kill a vital new Liquefied Natural Gas terminal/port in Massachusetts so that Congressman Barney Frank -- who frequently rails against oil companies for pushing energy prices higher -- won't have it spoil his view.

The Omnibus creates a new Coastal and Estuarine Conservation program as well.

It also includes provsions providing Global Warming and Climate Change programs on public lands.

Under the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act it makes it a Federal crime to collect or pick up fossils or fossilized rocks on any Federal lands. It will become a Federal crime for school children to collect fossilized sharks' teeth. And in a scary twist it would extend civil asset forfeiture, permitting the government to seize ownership of all vehicles and equipment used in the gathering of any fossilized material.

The good news is that because the bill is coming up under suspension, it requires a 2/3 vote of the House of Representatives. This means only 146 votes against the bill will be sufficient to derail it.

Please spread the word about this bill and encourage people to contact their Congressman. Because it is coming up tomorrow, time is of the essence.

Thanks for your help.

Update here.
______________

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:01 AM

Monday, September 08, 2008

Project 21 in Washington Times

Project 21 members and staff have been published in the Washington Times' op-ed page several times recently. Fans of the group may wish to click on one or more of the following:

"Speed-Limit Myths" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie takes on Senator John Warner of Virginia's trial balloon favoring a federal mandate to lower speed limits. After explaining who/what really would benefit from such a policy (hint: not the environment, but it involves something green), Massie suggests that "it might be better if Mr. Warner just drove off into the sunset. If only he could go a little faster."

"History is the Final Judge" - Project 21 member Ak'Bar A. Shabazz asks, "if we disregard the calls for freedom and democracy in places such as Tibet, where are we placing ourselves as it relates to world history?," and quotes Martin Luther King, Jr., saying "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

"Property Rights" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein examines the government's use of eminent domain power in a predominately black city to take choice land from small businesses in order to sell it to large ones. He says, "Self-professed champions of the poor don't help when they oppose eminent domain reform. Doing so simply allows government to take from one and give to another - at the expense of communities - just to rake in tax dollars."

"Let Them Eat Cake" - Project 21 member Kevin L. Martin calls on Congress to allow more oil drilling, saying "There may be a day when we all have electric cars, but the one I have right now doesn't have a plug, solar panel or hydrogen converter. It takes gasoline. While I don't object to the possibility of alternative energy sources in the future, I know that most Americans own cars that need gas and live in homes that are powered at least in part by coal. When the elites stifle access to plentiful power, the financial burden is a lot smaller for them. They can afford to pay more for a hybrid car and rave about getting better gas mileage. They can also feel better about their indulgences when they buy imaginary 'carbon credits' that give them the moral authority to use more energy than they want to allow the masses. Like Marie Antoinette, they think the rest of America can 'eat cake' like they can. Sadly, we can't."

"The Civil Rights Shakedown: Myth or Reality?" - Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli takes a look at shakedown allegations against Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and describes her own effort to urge a corporate board not to be part of such a process. Deneen wrote, in part, "Frustrated by what appears to me to be a long history of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton using semi-subtle campaigns to pressure corporations to donate, I spoke up at the JPMorgan shareholder meeting. After Mr. Jackson spoke, I took his place at the microphone and asked Mr. Dimon and his board: 'Will there ever be a day where you will stand up and say 'No' to Mr. Jackson and to his demands and messages of victimization and divisiveness? This is the United States of America, and this is not the 1960s. People should be hired based on their talents and they should be retained based on their results. There should not be color-coded hiring in the United States.' Shareholders clapped. But, unlike Mr. Jackson's, my question went unanswered."

"Gaining Access with Identification" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein turns the Voter ID debate into a civil rights issue -- but maybe not in the way you think: "The bottom line is that someone without proper identification is out of step. And those who want to keep them there are out of line."

"Black America is Still Not Free" - Project 21 research associate Reece Epstein reviews the new book "Sweet Release: The Last Step to Black Freedom" by psychologist Dr. James Davidson, Jr.: "...although he criticizes liberals, Davidson is quick to note he is no conservative. He writes: 'My behaviors and ideas [are] anything but conservative. Trying to improve one's social and economic lot by rejecting traditional societal and black community standards for achievement seemed antithetical to [being] conservative.' The apolitical goal of Sweet Release is to create advancers: 'What you seek is simply not in the 'hood. It never has been, and it never will be... We must now move beyond our own remaining chains, beyond the mental barriers that keep so many of us constrained in our thoughts and deeds.'"

"Governance drives this crisis" - Project 21 associate and Initiative for Public Policy Analysis executive director Thompson Ayodele asks, "Hunger is an everyday problem in Africa. What can be done about it?," and answers, in part: "For one thing, a better governmental infrastructure and incentives can stimulate production if done right. Anything that would dampen competition, and thus lower the incentive to produce, should be avoided. When these programs are instituted, they must be administered with professionalism and transparency."

"Too few Watts: 'Segregated News' is Not the Answer" - Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie isn't too thrilled about former GOP Congressman J.C. Watts' plans to create a black news television channel: "...the question begging an answer is what exactly constitutes 'black news.' There are things that happen to black people in black communities that don't really have an impact on the rest of America, but that doesn't mean they should be provincial to black America. News happening in America is American news, and it should be everyone's concern."

"Jesse Jackson Outrage Strategy: No Dough, No Go?" - Project 21 staff director David Almasi and research associate Justin Danhof wonder why Jesse Jackson never challenged XM Satellite Radio for alleged racial insensitivity for a gold tooth ad similar to one run by Toyota which Jackson did protest. They ask: "Remember when Jesse Jackson challenged XM Satellite Radio for its racist advertising? Probably not, since it never happened. Why he didn't is the question." Could it be because Toyota has more money?
_____

Labels: Climate, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Government Power, Human Rights, Media, Project 21, Property Rights, Race, Regulation, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:45 PM

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights and How We Can Fight It

David Ridenour shared news of a new property rights information resource with the National Center for Public Policy Research's email list last night:

Dear Friend,

I'm writing to tell you about an excellent new book – and exceptional resource – that will be released tomorrow, "Government Pirates: The Assault on Private Property Rights and How We Can Fight It." It was written by my friend Don Corace and I had the privilege of getting an advance peak at the book.

The book details a series of property rights horror stories, some that you've no doubt heard about, such as the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain case, and some that might be unfamiliar to you.

Corace tells the story, for example, of Jim and Tom Stephanis, who fought the City of Pompano Beach to build a hotel on a 1.3-acre site where their restaurant once stood. They fought the city for 31 years, during which time the Pompano government officials stonewalled the project through bureaucratic shenanigans and frivolous lawsuits. The city even deliberately violated a court order. The Stephanis brothers won nine consecutive lawsuits and numerous appeals before a chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court intervened, ordering an appeals venue change and hand-picking the judges who would hear the case – a highly-irregular and controversial move. This was the turning point in their battle and the Stephanises ultimately lost millions they'd invested in the project. Within a year of their final blow – the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to hear their case – Jim Stephanis suffered a major stroke. Today he works as a wine manager for a liquor store. His brother, Tom, is retired.

Government Pirates provides especially good insights on how government and outside special interests collaborate to take away Americans' property rights. As a successful real estate developer, Corace has seen this process up-close, first-hand.

If you'd like to take a look at sample pages of the book or see where you can tune in to hear Don Corace talking about the book (he'll be on Hannity and Colmes this week, for example), check out the Government Pirates website. Journalists and bloggers can download a press kit or email publisher HarperCollins here. To pre-order Government Pirates right now, go here.

This book is not only a must-read, but a vital reference book for your library. I encourage you not only to purchase it, but to tell others about this truly important contribution to the property rights movement.

Best,

David A. Ridenour
Vice President

_____

Labels: Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:43 AM

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Congressman Paul Broun Fights for Property Rights

A note on the fight to protect property rights from National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith:

To all --

Once again freshman Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia's 10th is on the House floor fighting for property rights.

Congress has been sending lots of bad Green Federal land grab bills to the floor under suspension of the rules, allowing no amendments, and very limited debate, and trying to sneak them by on a voice vote. This has given cover to a surprising number of GOP members, including supposed conservatives, who have been attempting to sneak some Green earmarked pork to their districts with no recorded vote.

Good ol' Paul Broun is down there making certain there are recorded roll call votes taken. The strategy: Stop the bills if you can. Make people think twice with a recorded vote. Hold the RINOs' feet to the fire.

If you haven't visited Paul Broun's website and seen his Congressional Property Rights Action Caucus and the weekly e-letter that his staffer Stephen Kraly sends out, do so. And get on the mailing list for the newsletter. And for those of you who remember Aloysius Hogan and all the great work he did with Senator Jim Inhofe: Aloysius is chief-of-staff for Rep. Broun. You've got some friends in an increasingly hostile Congress.

-- RJ

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Spending, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Weyrich: Congressional Hearings on Land Trusts Needed

Conservative leader par excellence Paul Weyrich has written a column about National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso's National Policy Analysis paper, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."

Paul begins:

Phil Truluck is today Executive Vice President of the Heritage Foundation. He is the right-hand man of Edwin J. (Ed) Feulner, Jr. In 1973 he worked under my supervision. Then as now he is one of the most able and tireless laborers for the cause I ever have known. That year he worked day and night on the liberal's pet cause of that era - namely, land use. Had the land use bill passed the federal government would have been able, in effect, to do away with private property.

Although others took credit for the defeat of that terrible bill, I can state without fear of contradiction that it was Truluck's work that was responsible for the outcome. It is true that this bill has not reared its ugly self for the past 35 years but no bad idea ever dies in Washington. The National Center for Public Policy Research has issued a new study which contends that the federal government has found a new way to restrict the use of private property. A total of 37 million acres throughout the nation is under the control of land trusts. The best known of these is the Nature Conservancy. Dana Joel Gattuso, a senior fellow at the National Center, is author of the report, "Conservation Easements: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly." It seems that the Conservancy approaches land-rich but cash-poor farmers. In return for donating their land for supposed conservation purposes, the land owners are provided with federal and state tax breaks provided they agree never to develop or use the land for anything other than farming or ranching.

But the next thing that most often happens is a land flip...

Paul ends the piece with a call upon Congress to hold hearings to expose the way conservation easements are being abused, with an eye toward amending the law to prevent these abuses.

Read the rest of Paul's commentary here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:36 PM

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Government Land Acquisition on the Sly

Joe Thomas of WCHV in Charlottesville, Virginia has posted a podcast online of his radio interview with National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow Dana Joel Gattuso.

Dana, as many of you know, is the author of the absolutely excellent new paper on conservation easements, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," published by the National Center for Public Policy Research on Tuesday.

If you are among the millions of Americans concerned about the steady growth of government, and you aren't already aware -- as most aren't -- of the explosive growth in conservation easements and how these easements are a door through which governments are exerting greater ownership of and control over private land (typically without the taxpayers knowing about, or any legislature ever voting for, the expansion), then I urge you to read Dana's study.

For a shorter summary of what the issue is all about, I recommend our press release, ably written by Judy Kent, and reproduced below.

Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759-7476 or email info@nationalcenter.org

Landowners Beware - The Government's Found a New Way to Control Your Land

Conservation Easements Not What They Used to Be, Says New Report

Washington, D.C.: Under the guise of making more land accessible for the public's use and providing tax relief for land-rich but cash-poor landowners, the government has found a convenient way to restrict the use of private land - often without the original landowner's knowledge. Enter The Nature Conservancy and other large land trust conglomerates that approach farmers or large landowners with what seems like a "win-win" for all involved. In return for donating their land for conservation purposes, the landowners are provided with federal and state tax breaks and agree never to convert, develop or use the land for any purpose other than farming or ranching.

A total of 37 million acres of land throughout the United States are currently under the control of land trusts.

However, according to a new report by the National Center for Public Policy Research titled, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," all-too-often that acquired land, placed under "conservation easements," goes from the land trust right into the governing hands of the largest landowner in the United States, the federal government. Dana Joel Gattuso, author of the report and senior fellow of the National Center, explains these "prearranged flips" provide a back door approach to acquiring land control that is good for the government and the original land trust, but bad for the unsuspecting landowner, who has been kept out of the loop.

How profitable is it for conglomerates like The Nature Conservancy to participate in flips? Gattuso cites their annual report, which states about a fifth of the land trust's annual support and revenues come from the sales of easements to the government. "In one example, The Nature Conservancy bought an easement for $1.26 million, then directly sold it to the federal Bureau of Land Management for $1.4 million," she says. The Nature Conservancy certainly isn't alone, the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, one of that state's largest land trusts, has sold more than 700 of its 850 easements to the state and federal government.

Besides being able to take control over more and more land, "Government agencies like the arrangements because they are able to restrict activity on private property absent public approval, unlike land purchases, zoning laws and other land conservation regulations, which can draw heated opposition - and great angst," Gattuso says. According to a Department of Agriculture report on easements, "conservation easements provide opportunities for public agencies to influence resource use without incurring the political costs of regulation or the full financial costs of outright land acquisition." It is troubling that "easements, absent reforms, could evolve into the prevailing method for government to shift lands unobtrusively from private to public control under a pretense of private stewardship," she states.

This trend toward more government involvement in land trusts troubles Gattuso. While conservation easements "have become the rage in land conservation - rising in number from 740 in 1995 to 6,500 today - so has the role of government and government's influence over land trusts." Initially, the benefits of land trust involvement with easements created the possibility of an effective land stewardship program. "Yet land trusts, particularly the larger organizations, are changing their focus from independent and private approaches, to working in tandem with government agencies in an effort to assist government in controlling private lands," she cautions.

Gattuso says the biggest reason landowners enter into a conservation agreement is to obtain relief from burdensome taxes - especially death taxes, which break up well-managed lands. Tax benefits are extended to everyone, from wealthy landowners who own hundreds of thousands of acres to struggling farmers who have inherited a hundred-acre farm. These easements, however, extend into perpetuity and can become a big concern when future generations inherit the affected land, the report says. Environmentalists presently view this as beneficial, but what is ecologically-beneficial one day, may not be the next. Legal and policy experts agree these binding agreements that extend into perpetuity "ultimately become antiquated and, therefore, useless or even harmful. The rule fails to recognize that conservation needs - as well as definitions of scenic, aesthetic and cultural - change over time, and that the easement may eventually lose any ecological benefit or even become a detriment. Modern views in ecology hold that the environment is in a constant change rather than in search of a stable end-state," Gattuso reports.

Robert J. Smith, also a senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research and a foremost authority on property rights, shares Gattuso's concerns. "Short-term conservation easements were once considered a method to protect lands short of fee simple acquisition. But over time they have morphed into perpetual lock up of lands in a single use. This is not only disastrous from an environmental viewpoint, because nature is forever changing - but it is also the antithesis of a free market because they preclude all future choice," he says.

Additional problems with tragic consequences arise when there are different interpretations of what a conservation easement allows. There is no shortage of landowners who offer their own disastrous story of their involvement with conservation easements. As an example, the Property Rights Foundation of America cites the case of a farmer who bought a 42-acre property in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Wanting to build a farmhouse to house three generations of his family, he didn't expect to run into any problem with a conservation easement that had been placed on the land. The easement noted the land could be used only for farming or nature conservation, and for small buildings related to those uses. However, the French and Pickering Creeks Conservation Trust sued to stop the construction, claiming the farmhouse did not fall within the parameters of what was allowed to be built on the land. A judge with the Chester County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the farmer and noted the construction of the farmhouse "does not offend the easement definition of a 'small building' incidental to farming use." Construction on the farmhouse continued and so did the legal stranglehold the Trust held against the family. The Trust appealed the judge's decision all the way to the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Ultimately, the tragedy of how these conservation easements can be misunderstood is evidenced by the bulldozing of the family's farmhouse, which destroyed the dreams of three generations of family farmers and 15 years of savings.

The paper, "Conservation Easements: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," by Dana Joel Gattuso is available online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA569.html.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a free-market communications and research foundation established in 1982 and located on Capitol Hill.

-30-

_____

Labels: Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Should Earmarks be Spent on Lobbying? Should Lobbyists Represent Congressmen?

Should earmarks paid for with public funds be spent promoting projects under consideration by Congress?

Is it OK for a lobbyist to represent a Congressman at a meeting about one of the Congressman's bills?

As far as I know, these things as legal, but are they proper?

Husband David has an op-ed on TownHall today that examines at a case in which both seem to have happened.

At issue is the creation of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, which will run from Gettysburg, PA to Charlottesville, VA, unless President Bush vetoes the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (S. 2739), which is now on the President's desk.

Heritage areas are National Park Service preservation zones in which environmentalists, federal officials and local activists influence local land-use decisions, frequently in ways that restrict the rights of private property owners and make property ownership more difficult for those of low or moderate income.

The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 is the same legislation that would allow taxpayer money to be spent studying places "that are significant to the life of Cesar E. Chavez." Chavez was, of course, the ultra-militant leader of the United Farm Workers and a man who, as Project 21's Joe Hicks has said in Congressional testimony, "did or said little to reign in the violence" against workers by union organizers. Members of Congress who find this form of domestic terrorism worthy of honor are trying to use tax funds in an effort to make Chavez seem like another Martin Luther King, Jr.

As Joe Hicks pointed out on May 5, "To say the jury is still out on the legacy of Cesar Chavez is an understatement. Unlike other individuals who have been honored in the manner suggested by this earmark, the politics behind and the consequences of Chavez's activism remain dubious."

Hicks, once a member of the Communist Party USA, trained UFW members in "revolutionary theory" and marched arm-in-arm with Jesse Jackson at Cesar Chavez's funeral in 1993.

If you have an opinion on using earmarks to promote legislative proposals, Congressmen being represented by lobbyists, national heritage areas or even the use of tax dollars to honor dubious labor union organizing techniques, drop by TownHall.com to learn more and leave your views.

Addendum, May 8: The White House has signaled its comfort with the above, signing the bill into law today. The full text of the White House statement:

On Thursday, May 8, 2008, the President signed into law:

S. 2457, which authorizes the Mashantucket Pequot (Western) Tribe to lease certain land to entities for up to 75 years, rather than 25 years as under current law,

S. 2739, the "Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008," which designates the 106,000-acre Wild Sky Wilderness in Washington State; designates three new National Heritage Areas; expands several national parks; authorizes funding for specified water projects; modifies two existing energy programs; applies U.S. immigration law to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and grants the Commonwealth a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives.

I can't say I'm surprised President Bush signed this, if only because he's signed a lot of bills that appear to be contrary to a limited government philosophy, and it is his Administration's National Park Service that worked in favor of the legislation and failed to fully comply with a Freedom of Information Act request regarding its activities (not that I am under any illusion that National Park Service officials thought they were doing the bidding of the man the voters elected when they did these things). When it comes to expanding government's size, "just say no" has not been the hallmark of this Administration or its agencies.

On a more positive note, however, it's almost a miracle the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area was not adopted two years ago. When proponents of legislative proposals get a million bucks worth of help in tax money from Congress before they are even incorporated, its a pretty clear sign they've got Congressional support and a leg-up over those of us who rely on voluntary donations to pay our bills. Before we started this fight to remind Congress that federalism and the Fifth Amendment right to private property are worth defending, national heritage areas tended to sail right through Congress. Even genuinely conservative Members hadn't stopped to think about the contradiction between their beliefs and what national heritage areas do and are. Now opposition to them is the new, though for all that, fairly strong conservative position on Capitol Hill. We may not have been able to stop the wasteful (and far worse) behavior surrounding the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, but we've most likely slowed the creation of more of these elitist boondoggles.

Those interested in more information about national heritage areas -- as this particular policy battle is far from over -- might find the following resources helpful:

"The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area: An Example of How Pork-Barrel Politics Can Threaten Local Rule and Property Rights," by Peyton Knight for the National Center for Public Policy Research, available here

"Another Federal Assault on Property Rights: The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act," by Ron Utt for the Heritage Foundation, available here (this is the paper in which Dr. Utt revealed that the private organizers of this heritage area have "acknowledged that they are contemplating additional wealth-enhancing opportunities through the creation of a privately owned, for-profit real estate investment trust (REIT) to acquire properties in the heritage area and presumably develop them for the benefit of the REIT's shareholders...")

To read a coalition letter signed by over 110 organizations, elected officials and concerned citizens about heritage areas sent to Congress in September 2007, go here (pdf)

For a short handout-style document on heritage areas, "What People Are Saying about National Heritage Areas," suitable for distribution at public meetings, go here (pdf)

Or, simply go to the National Center for Public Policy Research's search page and type in "national heritage areas" -- we've got 80 documents so far, and, no doubt, more to come.

Thanks to all who joined us in this effort. While supporters of limited government had a setback today, because of our work together on the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, our support for the next battle federalism and property rights battle is much deeper. I'm confident that victories lie ahead.
_____

Labels: Congress, Corruption, Government Power, Government Spending, Labor Unions, Liberals, Project 21, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:41 PM

Friday, May 02, 2008

Project 21's Nedd Joins Other Religious Leaders at UN Public Health Conference

From David Almasi:

Project 21 member Council Nedd II, a bishop in the Episcopal Missionary Church, is returning from Geneva, Switzerland, where he helped lead a non-governmental organization (NGO) delegation to the World Health Organization's (WHO) Working Group on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property. Council was there to defend the intellectual property rights that currently protect patents on prescription medications.

Activists are seeking WHO approval to circumvent these patents, saying the needs of the poor and afflicted outweigh a drug company's intellectual property rights.

Council and three other members of the international clergy -- Bishop Emeritus Albilio Ribas of Sao Tome & Principe (Roman Catholic), The Rev. Fr. Anthony Ojeh of Asaba, Nigeria (Anglican, like Nedd) and Pastor William Daldoum of the Nations Upon the Rock Church in Sudan (Pentacostal) -- have signed a statement of principles regarding faith, health care and the protection of individual property rights (the patent on medicines, in particular). They see patents and the protection of them as vital to ensuring new and better health care advancement in the future.

These men -- who have engaged in health care-related missionary work in African countries that include Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Sa Tome & Principe, Angola, Sudan and Nigeria -- decry the claim that "patents deny patients access to medication" and instead want to promote "the importance of intellectual property rights to advancements in developing world health care."

To follow is their statement:

Whereas it is being said in certain quarters that patents deny patients access to medication, we the clergy gathered in Geneva, Switzerland, based on our hands on experience in our public health missionary activities, particularly in Uganda, Ghana, Kenya, Sa Tome & Principe, Angola, Sudan and Nigeria hereby declare and affirm that:

The most important issue here is keeping people alive and healthy.

Drug counterfeiting which is prevalent in Africa and particularly in Uganda, Ghana, Sudan and Nigeria denies patients access to life saving medicines because of the abysmally poor and dangerous quality of the counterfeit drugs.

Scientific and technological research and development are very important in guaranteeing the development and production of new quality life saving medications and in effect opens the door for patients to access quality medication.

Counterfeit and inferior drugs worsen and complicate ailments and the condition of patients. In very many cases, counterfeit drugs destroy lives and deplete needed human capital. Patients should be protected from counterfeit drugs.

Patents are a driving force for incentives in drug research and development. If researchers insist on being rewarded through patent protection for their inventions and discoveries, so be it. The important thing is that lives are saved thereby and not destroyed. The laborer after all is deserving of his pay.

Considering that all human beings are individually gifted, and if it be necessary to preserve patents as an incentive, monetary or otherwise to encourage further scientific and technological discoveries in quality life saving drugs, then we should do it. More especially as we cannot at this point rule out the possibility of the emergence of new diseases that could threaten human existence in the future, we need to preserve incentives to encourage an individual to use his/her gifts for the benefit of others especially in matters of human health. After all our civilization does not encourage us to force a man to use his natural gifts for the benefit of his fellowman. Such an individual may refuse his gift, and if he does so, that is a matter between him and his maker.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is a Miracle Healer. He tells us in the book of John 14:12 that "The things I do ye also can do them." The effect of this is that it is in our power to be miracle healers through gifted scientists by preserving the instrument that encourages them to find solution to our health problems. Patent protection seems to effectively do that. The starting point is to discover the solution such as the drug and then ensure that the patient is able to access the solution. First the solution must be available, and then we ensure access.

In light of the above, patents actually do save lives. The issue is to ensure that people are kept alive and healthy.

Counterfeit and fake drugs do not save lives. They destroy lives. Existing medicines must be made available to those in need of them, wherever they may be. We must not allow bad politics to take precedence over the safety of human lives and good health today and tomorrow.

God Bless. Signed this 30th Day of April 2008,

The Most Rev. Albilio Ribas, Bishop Emeritus of Sao Tome & Principe

The Right Rev. Council Nedd II, Bishop of the Chesapeake, EMC

The Rev. Fr. Anthony Ojeh, Asaba, Nigeria

Pastor William Daldoum, Nations Upon the Rock Church

For more on this issue, I recommend a New Visions Commentary, "Underserved and Overlooked," by Council Nedd that Project 21 published in February.

_____

Labels: Foreign Policy, Health Care, Patents, Property Rights, Religion, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:15 PM

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Flaws in Clean Water Restoration Act Exposed in Congressional Hearings

From Mike Hardiman comes this roundup of information about recent Congressional hearings on the Clear Water Restoration Act:

Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives recently held hearings on the Oberstar/Feingold Clean Water Restoration Act. These hearings are a clear sign that the environmental community intends to push this controversial legislation to a vote in both houses of Congress sooner rather than later.

The Senate hearing was held on April 9 under the direction of bill co-sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer of California, and the House followed on April 16 with a hearing chaired by the legislation's House sponsor, Representative James Oberstar from Minnesota.

Contrary to the sponsors’ wishes, the two hearings exposed numerous flaws and very strong opposition to HR2421/S1870, the proposal to dramatically expand the federal government's role in land use regulation.

Senate Hearing

The Senate hearing, held by the Environment and Public Works Committee, unveiled several issues to which bill sponsors had difficulty responding.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma spoke at length regarding the bill's removal of the phrase "navigable" from the term "navigable waters." He claimed it would lead to a dramatic expansion of federal authority over wetlands from navigable waters to nearly anything that is wet.

Both witnesses and Senators supporting the bill denied that it would be an expansion of power, despite the removal of the key modifying word "navigable." Meanwhile, a witness opposing the bill, rancher Randall Smith, said of removing the word navigable, "it is a dream for litigators" and "it opens up a whole can of worms."

Supporters stated that the bill's purpose is only to clear up confusion generated by a recent Supreme Court decision, known as the Rapanos case, while opponents showed that it was actually a considerable expansion of authority.

Bill supporter Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a former federal prosecutor and state attorney general, lectured at length witness David Brand, a county engineer from Ohio opposed to the legislation. Whitehouse insisted repeatedly that "we are just picking up where we left off (before the Rapanos decision)."

Brand replied, "No, and repeating that doesn't make it true."

An exasperated Whitehouse responded, "Yes, it does make it true."

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was opposed to the bill, and stated that he could not think of any kind of water that was not covered by the bill.

Attempting to contradict him, Clinton-era EPA Administrator Carol Browner said puddles were exempt. Vitter asked for a definition of a puddle, and Browner was unable to directly answer the question. Senator Whitehouse unconvincingly chipped in, insisting that "EPA has no interest in chasing puddles."

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming asked witnesses how the proposed bill benefits ranchers and farmers. Bill supporters did not address the question, while opponents said it would be harmful.

House Hearing

Representative James Oberstar is both the bill sponsor and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which held its own hearing April 15. This marathon session featured twenty-three witnesses and forty-four congressmen questioning them, resulting in an eleven hour hearing that stretched into late evening.

Oberstar accused the Supreme Court of "legislating from the bench" and said his bill only sought to repeal two court rulings on wetlands from recent years which protected private property, the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions.

This was challenged by congressman John Mica of Florida, who said the Oberstar bill would "fundamentally alter the course of water regulation" and produced a display featuring several hundred organizations opposed to the legislation and a pile of petitions several feet high opposing the bill.

Oberstar said his bill would clear up ambiguity that had been created by the Supreme Court. Mica agreed that there would be no ambiguity under the bill, because there would be no restriction on federal control of all water, since any non-federal or private rights would be overridden.

Congressman John Boozman from Arkansas pointed out that the bill proposes to regulate all "activities" near waters, instead of current law, which says only "discharges" into waters are regulated.

Some members were undecided. Congressman Nick Rahall from West Virginia did not take a position for or against the bill, but said "whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting." After several witnesses complained about both current law and the proposed legislation, Congressman John Salazar from Colorado told them there must be more than complaints, and asked how to make the bill better.

Witness Virginia Albrecht pointed out another major change proposed in the bill, that federal agencies be given the power to regulate "to the limit of constitutional authority." Congresswoman Thelma Drake from Virginia agreed that these are "absolute words" which could fundamentally change federal-state relationships.

Attorney Robert Trout testified that "if this bill passes, it will put my kids through college" because of all the new litigation that will be generated.
Witness Linda Runbeck, a former Minnesota state legislator, said the bill negatively impacts private property rights and hurts families because most of their net worth is tied up in the land they own, which may be sharply devalued by the bill. She also brought up the poll commissioned by the National Center for Public Policy Research, which shows that when the bill is described to them, most Americans stating an opinion do not support it.

Overall, a very thorough airing of opinion was had in the two hearings, and the legislation's many weaknesses were displayed out in the open and for the record. However, the bill's supporters remain determined first to wipe out gains made by property owners in the Supreme Court, and, second, to expand federal authority beyond current law.

_____

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:55 AM

Monday, March 03, 2008

Peyton Knight on Eco-Terrorism – Listen LIVE

From David Almasi:

National Center for Public Policy Research Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Peyton Knight will be on KIRO in Seattle on Monday night at 3:00 pm PST (3 pm eastern) to talk about the eco-terror attack in the Seattle suburbs last night that destroyed several area homes under construction.

You can listen by clicking here and looking for the KIRO on the air tab in the middle of the page.

_____

Labels: Environment, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:45 PM

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Some of Us Support Species, While Others Support the Endangered Species Act

In an article reviewing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's new book, "A Contract With the Earth," Salon refers to The National Center for Public Policy Research thusly:

Gingrich also inspired the wrath of some conservative think tanks for defending the Endangered Species Act.

The entire National Center document Salon linked to shows there was a lot more at stake than us supposedly attacking the Endangered Species Act, while Newt Gingrich "defended" it.

In fact, we were trying to reform a failed Act, and Gingrich was blocking reform.

Here's what Salon linked to, from 1996:

House Speaker Newt Gingrich is the single greatest threat to needed reform of environmental laws, announced the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research on June 24. The Speaker's efforts to stymie meaningful reform of the Endangered Species Act, his support for legislation that would threaten private property and subvert efforts to base legislation on sound science, and his efforts to give the environmental establishment veto power over all environmental legislation mean the Speaker should be the poster boy of the environmental movement -- not its villain -- says the group.

In recent months, environmental groups have been attempting to use the Speaker's waning popularity to sink regulatory relief efforts. But Newt Gingrich and the environmental movement are like two peas in a pod. In fact, says the group, Newt Gingrich has staked out environmental positions that are so radical that some of the staunchest environmentalists appear moderate by comparison. For example, Gingrich recently blocked changes to a dolphin protection measure that had been given the green light not only by environmental establishment Republicans like Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), but by environmental groups like Greenpeace. In May he also urged Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) to abandon eforts to pass property rights legislation -- a measure supported by over two-thirds of the electorate.

"Given the Speaker's apparent contempt for private property rights, his penchant for 'junk science' and his indifference to the plight of Americans suffering under unreasonable regulations, he ought to be the environmental movement's poster boy -- not its villain," said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Ironically, at the very time Speaker Gingrich has been villified by the environmental movement, he's been working to ensure that they have greater say in the nation's policies. Recently, Gingrich established a House Task Force on the Environment designed to give environmentalists veto power over all environmental legislation. Gingrich appointed Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to co-chair the Task Force, one of the House of Representatives' most rabid environmentalists -- Democrat or Republican. Boehlert received a 92% score in the League of Conservation Voters' environmental scorecard -- higher than 53% of House Democrats.

Our complaints about then-Speaker Gingrich on environmental issues only began with the the Endangered Species Act. There was a lot more to it than that.

Yet the Endangered Species Act was, and remains, a failure. Nonetheless, as Speaker, Gingrich blocked reform intended to improve the Act.

Here's what The National Center recommended for Endangered Species Act reform when Gingrich was Speaker, taken from a 1995 press release of The National Center's Environmental Policy Task Force:

The Endangered Species Act has failed to protect endangered and threatened species while needlessly violating the constitutional rights of individual citizens and costing the nation billions of dollars, according to the Environmental Policy Task Force. The Task Force has just released guidelines for effective Endangered Species Act reform that can protect both species and the rights of the American people.

The guidelines, published in two just-released Talking Points on the Economy cards, "Checklist for Endangered Species Act Reform" and "A Species Protection Plan That Works for Both Wildlife and Humans," include four general recommendations for effective reform and six specific policy recommendations. Among the Environmental Policy Task Force's general recommendations is that Congress recognize that the current Endangered Species Act has failed before attempting to reform the law. Some 900 plants and animals are currently listed as either "endangered" or "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act with another 4,000 species either candidates for future listing or in the process of being listed. But in the 21 years the law has been on the books, only 27 species have managed to get off the "endangered" list. Seven of these delistings were due to extinction and the remaining were due to data error, court orders or species improvements completely unrelated to the Endangered Species Act. The Act has been an abysmal failure because it actually encourages the destruction of species habitat.

"The greatest fear of any landowner is that their property will be identified by federal bureaucrats as potential habitat for an endangered species. Federal restrictions on the use of the land that result can render a property worthless," said David Ridenour, Vice President of The National Center for Public Policy Research and Director of Environmental Policy Task Force. "If landowners are destroying wildlife habitat today, it is only because the current Endangered Species Act has taught them that if they want to keep any of their investment they must extract whatever natural resources their land possesses quickly and make the land as inhospitable to wildlife as possible."

The fundamental flaws of the Endangered Species Act -- including its failure to protect endangered species -- means that the Endangered Species Act has outlived its usefulness and must go, according to Environmental Policy Task Force. In its place, the Task Force suggests that a voluntary, incentive-based species protection plan be adopted that includes such incentives as tax breaks and even cash payments to reward individuals for wildlife preservation. Rather than using the government's coercive powers to force individuals to shoulder the burden for species protection that the country as a whole desires, individuals would be rewarded for responsible stewardship by the public.

"The Endangered Species Act is out of control because the bureaucrats who enforce it don't have to pay for it. They transfer the cost of protecting endangered species habitat from the public at large to private individuals," said Congressman John Shadegg (R-AZ), a member of both the House Resource Committee and the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee's subcommittee on natural resources who will likely play a key role in Endangered Species Act reform. "Congress can restore rationality to the system by making the Fish and Wildlife Service pay for what it demands."

The Environmental Policy Task Force's reform guidelines recognize the underlying reasons for the Endangered Species Act's failure and thus represent a bold departure from past reform efforts. If there is to be meaningful Endangered Species Act reform, there can be no room for sentimental attachments and "good intentions" alone simply won't do.

"Now is not the time to be reaffirming the failed approach of the past," said John Shanahan, policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation who helped devise the Task Force's recommendations. "What is called for is a new vision which for the first time protects people and wildlife alike."

The Environmental Policy Task Force is a project of The National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation and resource center based in Washington, D.C. The Task Force was established to find and promote innovative, workable solutions to environmental problems -- solutions that minimize the suffering of working Americans while still protecting the environment.

Gingrich opposed what we suggested; supporting instead the status quo.

Did the Gingrich status quo protect species? It's years later now, so let's examine what happened:

ESA's 32 Years of Failure

In the 32 years the ESA has been on the books, just 34 of the nearly 1,300 U.S. species given special protection have made their way off the "endangered" or "threatened" lists. Of this number, nine species are now extinct, 14 appear to have been improperly listed in the first place, and just nine (.6% of all the species listed) have recovered sufficiently to be de-listed. Two species - a plant with white to pale-blue flowers called the Hoover's Woolly-Star and the yellow perennial, Eggert's Sunflower - appear to have made their way off the threatened list in part through "recovery" and in part because they were not as threatened as originally believed.

A less than 1% recovery rate isn't good. Some environmental groups, however, insist that this statistic proves the opposite - that the ESA has been very effective. These organizations note that, since 99% of all the species given special protection have either recovered or are still on the endangered and threatened lists, these species all "still exist" and, therefore, the ESA has worked. The "still exist" standard, however, tells us little about the true status of endangered and threatened species and certainly does not prove the efficacy of the ESA...

... Just 36% of the species on the endangered and threatened lists are currently believed to be stable or improving - meaning that 64% are declining...

-David Ridenour, 2005

So what Gingrich was "defending" was a status quo that leaves 64% of species in decline.

I guess some of us support species, while others support the Endangered Species Act.
_____

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Environment, Media, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:20 AM

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act: Congress Continues to Feed Overstuffed Park Service

From Peyton Knight:

On Wednesday, members of the House Natural Resources Committee will vote on the "America's Historical and Natural Legacy Study Act" (H.R. 3998), a massive bill that would direct the National Park Service to "study" the prospects of adding multiple new properties to its already expansive fiefdom.

Included in the bill is the "Mississippi River Study Act" which would set the wheels in motion for creating a new national trail along the entire Mississippi River.

Last year, I had the honor of testifying before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands on behalf of The National Center for Public Policy Research. Below is an excerpt:

The Mississippi River Trail Study Act… carries significant, negative property rights implications for landowners in the path and vicinity of the proposed trail - whether the trail be the river itself or an adjacent, land-based trail. Its timing is bad because it would drain resources from an agency that is already stretched well beyond its capacity. It also comes at a time when Americans across the nation are demanding that government use of eminent domain power be strictly curtailed. A national scenic or historic trail the entire length of the Mississippi River would bring a new threat of eminent domain to property owners in as many as ten states.

The National Park Service (NPS) is currently running a maintenance backlog estimated to be anywhere from five to ten billion dollars. This is not a recent development. Ten years ago, the U.S. Department of the Interior estimated this backlog to be $4.5 billion...

The failure of the Park Service to adequately protect many of our public lands and historic treasures is well documented by the National Parks Conservation Association. Yosemite National Park in California needs a new sewer system and electrical upgrades, and lacks necessary trail and campground maintenance. Yellowstone National Park has decrepit buildings and over 150 miles of roads that need repair. Travel to backcountry cabins in Washington's Mount Rainier National Park is impossible because of neglected bridges and trails. The foundation of the visitor center at the USS Arizona Memorial in Hawaii is crumbling and literally sinking into the ground. Ancient stone structures are collapsing at Chaco Culture National Historical Park in Mexico. Many historic structures at Gettysburg National Military Park need rehabilitation.

Increased funding is not the answer to what ails the Park Service. According to Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget Lynn Scarlett, "Since 2000, the National Park Service's budget has grown by 20 percent, one of the greatest increases for a non-defense agency. The Park Service's $1.8 billion operating budget for 2005 represents spending of more funds per employee, per acre, and per visitor than ever before."

…[N]ational scenic and historic trails pose numerous, serious threats to property owners unfortunate enough to lie in their path. These threats include land acquisition, restrictive easements or increased land use controls and restrictive zoning measures.

But perhaps chief among the threats posed by such trails to landowners is the condemnation of private property through eminent domain. As professional engineer and Property Rights Foundation of America president Carol LaGrasse has noted: "It is impossible to build a trail of any significant length without using some measure of coercion on property owners - either eminent domain or the threat of it. Because a trail is like a highway, a railroad or a utility line, it has to be built in one continuous length.”

In addition to laying the groundwork for a national trail along the Mississippi River, H.R. 3998 would direct the Park Service to consider expanding two existing national historic sites, one existing national trail, and a huge national recreation area dubbed "the Rim of the Valley Corridor" in California. Also included in the bill are four, yet-to-be-classified, new Park Service units and another national trail that would wind through Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

That's quite of bit of additional programming for an agency that continues to suffer a multibillion-dollar maintenance backlog crisis. Just three months ago, in testimony before the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Bill Wade, Chair of the Executive Council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, reported: "The National Park Service estimates its backlog at $8 billion."

It is mind-boggling why Congress would continue to feed the Park Service when the agency has already bitten off way more than it can chew. It just doesn't get any more irresponsible than that.

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Spending, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:03 AM

Thursday, October 25, 2007

House Passes Massive Heritage Area Bill, But Not Without Controversy

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1483, the "Celebrating America's Heritage Act." The bill would create six new national heritage areas, including the controversial Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area, and increase federal funding for nine existing heritage areas by 50 percent.

That's the bad news.

But the National Center for Public Policy Research's Peyton Knight sees some good news:

The somewhat good news is that the bill was hotly debated on the floor of the House, and when it was finally put to a vote, 122 congressmen (all Republicans) voted against it. This represents the most opposition to a heritage area boondoggle since 1994, when the House passed the "American Heritage Areas Partnership Program," which received 137 "no" votes and later died in the Senate.

H.R. 1483 passed despite the objections of congressmen Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Virgil Goode (R-VA), who recognize the threat the Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area poses to local governance and the rights of property owners in their districts. In a rather unprecedented move, promoters of the heritage area in Congress opted to force the heritage designation on congressmen Bartlett and Goode, rejecting the Congressmen's request to have their districts removed from the heritage area's boundaries.

During debate on the floor of the House, Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) made strong arguments against H.R. 1483 and stressed the need to return to fiscal sanity and better protect property rights. He pointed out that if two congressmen can be run roughshod with a heritage area designation they do not want, so too can property owners within the boundaries of a heritage area. Congressman Bishop also entered into the Congressional Record a coalition letter (pdf) spearheaded by The National Center and signed by 114 groups and local leaders calling for an end to National Heritage Areas.

Congressman Bartlett made an impassioned argument for strong property rights protections and a fiscal restraint, neither of which is represented in H.R. 1483. Congressman Bartlett also pointed out the irony that H.R. 1483 doesn't so much hallow America's heritage as it tramples upon it.

"All of our nation's founders knew of the intimate connection between personal liberty, taxpayers' interests and property rights," said Bartlett. "H.R. 1483 tramples over rather than honors these hallowed principles."

One month ago, when the Celebrating America's Heritage Act passed the House Natural Resources Committee along mostly party lines, 15 Republicans on the committee signed a letter in opposition to the measure, calling it "a thumb in the eye to private property rights advocates and fiscal responsibility."

"Those who will not celebrate are private property owners who may have an empowered, enriched, and Congressionally-blessed heritage area management entity to spar with," reads the letter.

Earlier this week, The Heritage Foundation published an excellent report on national heritage areas, and suggests that if H.R. 1483 makes it to the president's desk, he should veto it. The Heritage report concludes:

"H.R. 1483 would deepen the federal government's involvement in select local economic development initiatives at considerable cost to taxpayers and at the expense of the core mission of the NPS [National Park Service], whose faltering stewardship over the nation's most precious natural and historical places leaves much to be desired. Of potentially greater concern is the growing role for NHAs [national heritage areas] in interfering with the property rights of private citizens. This Congress should reject approaches that designate new NHAs or expand existing ones. If H.R. 1483 is passed, the President should veto it."

For more on National Heritage Areas, a few of our more recent publications are here, here (pdf), here, and here, among others; some oldies-but-goodies on the subject are here, here, here, here and here. Or just plug "national heritage area" into the National Center's search engine; goodness knows you'll find plenty to read.
_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:00 PM

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Sane People Believe the Reverse

So you are a group who believes that we must disregard our proud American heritage.You are a sorry bunch.You probably also believe in legalizing drugs because there is money to made.Or why not sell the Washington Monument to the Communist Chinese.

Frederick Schroeder

That silly letter is probably a response to what the National Center's Peyton Knight said in "New National Heritage Areas Curb Real Economic Growth, Say Critics," on CNSNews.com Monday.

It is amazing how many people believe that if you don't shower something -- in this case, six regions of the United States -- with earmarks and then take steps to federalize them, you don't value them at all.

Most sane people believe the reverse.
_____

Labels: Congress, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:08 AM

Friday, September 28, 2007

Celebrating America's Heritage Act Wins in House Committee in Mostly Party Line Vote

An update on this week's action by the House Resources Committee on the Celebrating America's Heritage Act, a step toward federal zoning (with pork attached). Peyton Knight contributes this update:

On Wednesday, the House Natural Resources Committee passed the Celebrating America's Heritage Act, 23 - 12, on a mostly party line vote. The bill would create six new National Heritage Areas and significantly increase federal funding for nine existing heritage areas. Rep. Henry Brown (R-SC) was the only Republican to join 22 Democrats on the committee in support of the bill.

Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) offered a commonsense amendment to the bill that would have excluded Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's (R-MD) and Rep. Virgil Goode's (R-VA) districts from the controversial Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area - one of the new heritage areas created by the bill. Congressmen Bartlett and Goode are rightly concerned that the Hallowed Ground heritage area, which is being pushed by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), does not sufficiently protect the property rights of folks who own land and homes within the proposed boundaries of the area. In order to protect their constituents' rights, they want no part of it. In a rather unprecedented move, Heller's amendment was voted down, thus forcing a heritage area designation on two congressmen who don't want it in their districts.

We've received reports that Rep. Wolf, a powerful senior member on the House Appropriations Committee, actually attended the hearing, despite not being a member of the Resources Committee, and sat prominently at the witness table, staring down his colleagues in an apparent effort to make certain his heritage area emerged unscathed.

In addition, we received word that an attorney from the D.C. law and lobby firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld also attended the mark-up to help lobby support for Wolf's heritage area.

During the vote, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) made a compelling argument against national heritage areas, and read portions of the coalition letter (pdf) that the National Center for Public Policy Research delivered to members of the committee earlier this month, signed by over 100 influential think tanks, state policy groups, elected officials, sportsmen and grassroots leaders. The letter opposed the creation of any additional heritage areas. Rep. Bishop also entered the National Center's letter into the Congressional Record.

As soon as the mark-up ended, Congressmen Bartlett, Goode and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) rushed to a meeting of the Republican Study Committee, where they informed their colleagues of the dangers (pdf) of national heritage areas in general and the Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area in particular.

_____

Labels: Government Spending, Liberals, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:44 AM

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Pushing Pork

Rep. Raul Grijalva's "Celebrating America's Heritage Act," which would better have been titled "In Praise of Pork," will be voted on Wednesday in the House Resources Committee.

Our press release:

Congressional Self-Dealing Alive and Well

Legislation that Would Enrich Select Special Interest Groups to be Voted on This Week

Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11
or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Washington, D.C. - This Wednesday, the House Natural Resources Committee will vote on a bill that would funnel over $135 million of federal pork to special interest groups in select members' districts. The "Celebrating America's Heritage Act," put forth by Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), would create six new national heritage areas, including the controversial Journey Through Hallowed Ground. It would also increase congressional funding for nine existing heritage areas by 50 percent. This self-dealing is indicative of a Congress that has little interest in reforming ethics or earmark abuse, says the National Center for Public Policy Research.

"The only heritage celebrated in this bill is the unfortunately strong tradition of congressional self-dealing to pet special interests," said Peyton Knight, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the National Center. "The rhetoric from Congress about reigning in spending and eliminating earmarks is apparently just that. This bill would establish permanent pork pipelines to numerous members' districts."

National heritage areas are creations of Congress in which special interest groups, whose work at times has been funded through secret Congressional earmarks, team up with the National Park Service to influence decisions over local land use previously made exclusively by elected local governments and private landowners.

For instance, the special interest group lobbying for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground heritage area (which has been quietly slipped into the Grijalva bill) received an anonymous one million-dollar earmark in the 2005 transportation bill. Incredibly, the group wasn't even incorporated at the time. This is an instance where one pork-barrel earmark was distributed to bolster support for another pork-barrel earmark.

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has observed: "[O]nce a federal line is drawn around property for a heritage area, the door for annual federal earmarks and grants is opened."

According to figures from the National Taxpayers Union, the Celebrating America's Heritage Act's $135+ million price tag is equal to the annual federal income taxes paid by 33,276 middle class Americans. Ironically, it is the middle class that stands to lose the most, as heritage area interest groups are typically hostile to property rights and frequently use their muscle to restrict land use and make housing more expensive for middle-income buyers.

Earlier this month, The National Center delivered a coalition letter to congressional leaders signed by a diverse group of 114 think tanks, local government officials, civil rights organizations, grassroots leaders, farmers, ranchers and sportsmen calling on Congress to oppose the creation of any new national heritage areas.

"Despite cries for more accountability, less self-dealing and stronger property rights protections, Congress is putting forth legislation designed to enrich pet interest groups and erode Americans' property rights," said Knight. "It's little wonder why congressional approval ratings are at floor level. Congress isn't tone deaf, it's earless."

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, D.C.

- 30 -

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Spending, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:36 AM

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Earmarks & the Kelo Decision Rolled Into One

The Hill newspaper's Congress Blog covered the letter we organized, signed by 114 organizations and local leaders, calling on Congress not to support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for the creation of new heritage areas.

It begins:

Congress Expands Opportunity for Self-Dealing While Claiming Progress on Ethics

While Senators were congratulating themselves for passing ethics reform, they approved a series of “national heritage area” bills significantly increasing the potential for self-dealing and corruption. National heritage areas are creations of Congress in which special interest groups, whose work at times has been funded through earmarks, team up with the National Park Service to influence decisions over local land use.

The federal government should not be forcing taxpayers in one state to pay for special interest lobbying in another.

In response, The National Center for Public Policy Research brought together 114 policy groups and local leaders to call on Congress not to support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for the creation of new heritage areas.

The letter is being delivered to the House and Senate leadership and members of the natural resource committees September 4.

If the investigations into earmarking abuse tell us anything, it is that we need greater accountability, not less. National heritage areas push us toward less government accountability. Committees composed of unelected and unaccountable individuals - some of whom have a financial stake in local land use decisions - are given substantial influence over these very decisions through national heritage area designations. If you think power corrupts elected officials, just wait and see what it does to unelected ones.

Dr. Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation has described how a federally-funded partnership seeking Congressional authority to manage a proposed new heritage area is apparently planning to use its management authority, if granted by Congress, to give itself a “near monopoly on real estate development opportunities” within the proposed heritage area. Such a monopoly presumably would be immensely profitable.

“National heritage areas are nothing more than government sanctioned looting of private property rights, and in many instances, minorities and lower income folks bear the biggest brunt of this theft,” said Deneen Borelli, Fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network.

The letter also thanks Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) for his “leadership on this important issue.”

The Hill is read by nearly everyone on Capitol Hill, so it is getting increasingly difficult for Congressmen and Senators to claim that they don't know why there are serious ethical and Constitutional problems with national heritage areas.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted local zoning decisions made by the federal government, they would have written the Constitution that way.
_____

Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:40 AM

114 Groups & Leaders Write Congress About National Heritage Areas

The National Center for Public Policy Research on Tuesday delivered to the Congressional leadership, as well as the members and leadership of the natural resource committees, a letter signed by 114 organizations and leaders calling on Congress to stop creating and funding national heritage areas.

The letter says:

Dear [Elected Official]:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against government abuse of property rights. The "bridge to nowhere" and other wasteful programs triggered angry protests against the practice of earmarking.

National heritage areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one.

National heritage areas are preservation zones where land use and property rights can be restricted. They give the National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many with histories of hostility toward property rights) substantial influence by giving them the authority to create land use "management plans" and then the authority to disburse federal money to local governments to promote their plans.

As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on heritage areas states: "[National heritage areas] encourage local governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their property."

The proposed "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act" provides a good case study on how heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and influence projects.

The chief lobbying organization for this heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage area - an earmark that was granted before the organization was even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense of the rights of local landowners.

We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle of representative government and this inherently local function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests the authority to develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance their efforts.

Once established, National heritage areas become permanent units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAO, "sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting federal funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received funding reauthorization from the Congress."

Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights protections and less pork-barrel spending - not more earmarks to programs that harm property rights.

Please do not support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

Sincerely,

David Ridenour
Vice President
National Center for Public Policy Research

J. William Lauderback
Executive Vice President
The American Conservative Union

John Berthoud
President
National Taxpayers Union

Paul Poister
Executive Director
Partnership for the West

Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America

William Niemeyer
Mayor
City of West Alton, MO

Ryan Ellis
Executive Director
American Shareholders Association

Peter Flaherty
President
National Legal and Policy Center

Steve Snow
Supervisor
Loudoun County, VA

Carol W. LaGrasse
President
Property Rights Foundation of America

Tom DeWeese
President
American Policy Center

Rachel Thomas
Property Rights Advocate
Huachuca City, AZ

Rose Ellen Ray
Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights
Loudoun County, VA

Paul Driessen
Senior Policy Advisor
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

Maxine Korman
Korman Ranch
Hinsdale, Montana

Gerald Hobbs
President
Public Lands for the People

John Grigsby
Vice President
Taxpayers for Accountable Government

Don Parmeter
Executive Director
American Property Coalition

Leo Schwartz
Chairman
Virginia Land Rights Coalition

Pat King
Anvil Ranch
Tucson, AZ

Tom Borelli, Ph.D.
Portfolio Manager
Free Enterprise Action Fund

John and Connie Morris
Members, Tongue River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus

Brad VanDyke
Representative
Rural Utahns for Local Solutions

Jerry Hamilton
Environmental Coordinator
Formation Capital Corporation

F. Patricia Callahan
President and General Counsel
American Assoc. of Small Property Owners

Erich Veyhl
Publisher
Maine Property Rights News

Dane vonBreichenruchardt
President
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

Mark Williamson
Founder and President
Federal Intercessors

New Mexico Federal Lands Council

New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.

Beth Machens
Board of Aldermen
City of West Alton, MO

Janet M. Neustadt
Board of Aldermen
City of West Alton, MO

William J. Richter
Board of Aldermen
City of West Alton, MO

Deborah Anderson
Treasurer
City of West Alton, MO

Susan Silk
City Clerk
City of West Alton, MO

Charlotte Meyers
Assistant Administrator
City of West Alton, MO

Ora B. Anderson, Jr.
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of West Alton, MO

Ray Ponciroli
Board of Aldermen
City of Portage, MO

Paul M. Weyrich
National Chairman
Coalitions for America

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

Jay Lehr
Science Director
The Heartland Institute

Jim Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Bill Moshofsky
Vice President
Oregonians In Action

Niger Innis
National Spokesman
Congress of Racial Equality

Gregory Cohen
President and CEO
American Highway Users Alliance

Richard Falknor
Executive Vice President
Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Linda C. Runbeck
President
American Property Coalition

Thomas K. Remington
Managing Editor
U.S. Hunting Today

Lew Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee

Jon Caldara
President
Independence Institute

Dan Byfield
President
American Land Foundation

John Taylor
President
Tertium Quids

Susan Carlson
Chairman and CEO
American Civil Rights Union

Gary Palmer
President
Alabama Policy Institute

Lenore Hardy Barrett
State Representative
Idaho

Jonathan DuHamel
President
People for the West-Tucson

Jack and Patricia Shockey
President and Director
Citizens for Property Rights

Fred Grau
Executive Director
Take Back Pennsylvania

Mike Dail
Chairman
American Land Foundation

Chuck Cushman
President
American Land Rights Association

James Stergios
Executive Director
Pioneer Institute

Deneen Borelli
Fellow
Project 21

Marilyn Hayman
Chairman, Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights

Bruce Colbert
Executive Director, Property Owners Association of Riverside County, CA

Randall and Ruth Lillard
Farmers and Landowners
Madison County, VA

Joyce Morrison
Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist
Fieldon, IL

Donald Castellucci, Jr.
Councilman, Town of Owego
Tioga County, NY

Milari Madison
Property Owner
Loudoun County, VA

Robert L. Sansom
Farmer and Landowner
Madison County, VA

Mary E. Darling
Sonoita, AZ

James Vadnais
Port Angeles, WA

Floyd Rathbun
Fallon, Nevada

Steven and Peggy Breen
Boise, Idaho

Peggy Bogart
Access Advocate

Dan Goulet
Portland, OR

Susan Freis Falknor
Bluemont, VA

Fred L. Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Matt Kibbe
President
FreedomWorks

Mychal Massie
Advisory Council Chairman
Project 21

Steve Baldwin
Executive Director
Council for National Policy Action, Inc.

Caren Cowen
Executive Director
New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association

Randy T. Simmons
Mayor, Providence City, UT
Professor, Utah State University

Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Leroy Watson
Legislative Director
National Grange

Kelsey Zahourek
Executive Director
Property Rights Alliance

Roy Cordato, Ph.D.
VP for Research and Resident Scholar
John Locke Foundation

C.J. Hadley
Publisher/Editor
Range Magazine

Elizabeth Arnold
Grassroots Consultant, Environmental Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK

Greg Blankenship
President
Illinois Policy Institute

Bill Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

Jane Hogan
Secretary
Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc.

Katherine Lehman
President
People for the USA Grange #835

Howard Hutchinson
Executive Director
Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties

C. Preston Noell III
President
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Dr. William Greene
President
RightMarch.com

Leo T. Bergeron
President
Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed Council

Eugene Delgaudio
President
Public Advocate of the U.S., Inc.

Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D.
Charter Member
Virginians for Property Rights

John McClaughry
President
Ethan Allen Institute

Richard O. Rowland
President
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

James W. Jarrell, Sr.
Board Member
Virginia Bear Hunters Association

Harold L. Stephens
Member
Citizens to Protect the Confluence

Jerry Fennell
Chairman
Jicarilla Mining District

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
National Center for Public Policy Research

Judy Keeler
Secretary
Bootheel Heritage Assoc. (Animas, NM)

Alexandra H. Mulkern
Mechanicsville, MD

Lee Riddle
Brookings, OR

Stephen L. Ralston
Columbia, PA

Mark Pollot
Boise, ID

Billy Jean Redemeyer-Roney

D.J. McCarthy
Civil Engineer

Clifton McDonald
Needles, CA

Kirk and Jeri Hansen
Clayton, ID

Suzanne Volpe
Sterling, VA

Amy Ridenour
Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

A press release, "Hypocrisy Watch: Congress Expands Opportunity for Self-Dealing While Claiming Historic Progress on Government Ethics," describing the project in more detail is available here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:39 AM

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Possibly Non-Existent Mouse Shatters Family's Dreams

A Wyoming family's dream to build an indoor horse-riding arena on their property is on hold because the area on which they want to build is designated critical habitat for Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse - whose existence as a separate, identifiable species is being debated.

Possibly Non-Existent Mouse Shatters Family's Dreams

When Jim and Amy LeSatz inherited property in Chugwater, Wyoming from Amy's grandfather in 1998, they had visions of building their own indoor horse-riding arena. They planned to raise and train horses and host clinics for other horse owners. Instead, the LeSatzes are forced to continue to use an arena 25 miles away because of Endangered Species Act restrictions designed to protect the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse - an animal whose very existence is currently under debate.

The Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed as a threatened species under the ESA in May of 1998. As the LeSatzes began formulating their plans to build their own riding arena, they found the only suitable area where it could be built was among 31,000 acres designated as critical habitat for the mouse. The host of restrictions governing the use of the land made development too costly. Therefore, the LeSatzes must chauffeur their horses back and forth to the existing indoor arena. The cost to rent the arena and transport the horses - something they've had to do for nearly seven years - continues to be significant. The LeSatzes believe that constructing their own arena would dramatically ease these escalating costs. Thus far, however, the critical habitat designation for the mouse has prevented that from happening.

This situation may change as research puts the very existence of the species in question. New research by Rob Roy Ramey II, former curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, indicates that the mouse never really existed. Instead, he argues the mouse is genetically identical to another species, the Bear Lodge Meadow Jumping Mouse, which is common enough that threatened status or critical habitat designations aren't necessary. But Ralph Morgenweck, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Denver, says the new research doesn't mandate immediate changes, saying "we're trying to be deliberate in our work, trying to get the best science we can and review of the science we do have, in making this decision [to de-list]." LeSatz is not happy with the delays: "Jim and I have always been good stewards of the land. We covet it. Once they de-list the mouse, we can finally begin our plans to build our own arena."

Coincidentally (or not), environmental groups are now asking for the protection of the Bear Lodge Mouse - which is known to reside in areas as far north as South Dakota and as far south as Colorado Springs - based on claims that it suffers from habitat degradation similar to what has been alleged for the Preble's Mouse. This is disputed by Kent Holsinger, an attorney for Coloradans for Water Conservation and Development. Holsinger requested the de-listing of the Preble's Mouse, and claims: "The bottom line is, [critical habitat designation] has been a wonderful tool for environmental groups to try to stop things."

Commenting on her family's enduring hardships, Amy LeSatz said, "A tiny little mouse comes in and changes your whole perspective. I've had more of an education in endangered species than I've ever wanted." FWS officials said they hoped to resolve the issue of whether to de-list the Preble Mouse by 2006, but the year came and went without a determination. Plans for the LeSatz family's riding arena remain on hold. Meanwhile, radical greens have been able to force the Denver Museum to terminate Dr. Ramey because he dared to do genetic research on the true status of the mouse.

Sources: CNNnews.com (June 11, 2004), Associated Press (June 11, 2004), Amy LeSatz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Endangered Species, Environment, Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:25 AM

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Power Line Asks About Journey Through Hallowed Ground

Paul Mirengoff of Power Line has asked Senator John McCain what he thinks about the federal Journey Through Hallowed Ground legislation:

Towards the end of the interview, I asked McCain about legislation recently proposed in the House that would use federal money to create a multistate land use planning body for a wide (and apparently unspecified) swath of land in four states where civil war battle fields and other historic landmarks are located ("The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act") . Some property rights advocates fear that this legislation would limit private property rights while giving environmentalists and wealthy land owners extraordinary power to thwart construction of all but the most expensive houses and estates in the Virginia segment of the "corridor."

Senator McCain responded that, as a general matter, he favors resolving these kinds of matters cooperatively at the state and local level, and with respect for private property rights. Since this particular matter involves multiple states, he seemed receptive to the idea of a voluntary interstate compact.

It is nice to see politicians being asked about this. Next maybe we'll see Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) being asked why he arranged for the lobbying entity for JTHG to receive federal dollars via earmark to lobby for its own power-grab. (They'll argue it was for a scenic byway, but money is fungible, and how many groups -- outside of Alaska, that is -- receive a million-dollar federal grant before they have even been incorporated?

I well remember the morning husband David discovered this earmark while doing research at the kitchen table in his PJs while simultaneously watching the children. "Pajamas media" -- at work.
_____

Labels: Conservatives, Environment, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:05 PM

Saturday, August 04, 2007

City Evicts Houseboat Resident for a "Biting" Wiener Dog

One maverick resident of Riviera Beach, FL discovered the price of obstructing the city government's waterfront redevelopment plan, which would uproot thousands of local residents and businesses to benefit a private development company: repeated harassment by city henchmen, arrest, eviction from his houseboat and a ridiculous order to muzzle his supposedly biting wiener dog.

City Evicts Houseboat Resident for a "Biting" Wiener Dog

Fane Lozman is accustomed to heat. He lives on a two-story houseboat docked on Slip 452 of Florida's Riviera Beach Municipal Marina. The area once served as a fishing village and is universally known for its hot and humid summers. But Lozman's challenge to the City of Riviera Beach's plan to uproot thousands of residents for part of an economic development plan landed him in a different kind of heat - the thuggish political payback sort.

In May 2006, at the request of Mayor Michael Brown, the Riviera Beach City Council hastily approved a $2.4 billion economic redevelopment plan for a 400-acre area on the Municipal Marina, which is owned and operated by the City of Riviera Beach. It did so knowing that then-Governor Jeb Bush would soon sign into law new state property protections that would prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic purposes. Nevertheless, as the Palm Beach Post reported, "A condition of the agreement was the city's promise to use eminent domain on behalf of Viking."

Lozman and thousands of other Riviera residents, private home and business owners were at risk of being evicted so that Viking Inlet Harbor Properties, a private company, could build a hotel, condos, restaurants and an aquarium on the waterfront. In addition to Viking, Wayne Huizenga, owner of the Miami Dolphins professional football team, stood to benefit because of his heavy investment in the project.

Lozman believed that the city was abusing its powers of eminent domain by seizing property to transfer it to a private company. In June 2006, Lozman sued the city for inadequately notifying the public of its development plan.

After Lozman filed the lawsuit, the city and, literally, the city's henchmen, harassed Lozman repeatedly. One month alone, George Carter, the marina operator where Lozman's boat is docked and a longtime city employee, called the police on Lozman at least six times for dubious violations. Responding to one such call by Carter in August 2006, police threatened to arrest Lozman for changing a door on his own private boat, which Hurricane Wilma had damaged, before the arrival of another approaching storm.

"[Carter] doesn't want me doing work on my boat," Lozman explained. "But there's no rule against it. He's just going after me because of what I'm doing with the city. He's good friends with Mayor [Michael] Brown. They've got him doing this to me."

In July 2006, Carter ordered Lozman to muzzle his dog, a ten-pound Dachshund "wiener dog" named Lady, to prevent it from biting. Though the dog was leashed and had never hurt anyone, Carter claimed that two people had complained that the dog lunged towards them. "If your dog was to bite someone the liability may be a problem for the marina," wrote Carter. If Lozman did not comply, "The city must ask you to vacate the marina at the end of this month."

Despite the threat, Lozman refused to follow the order because the extreme summer heat would kill Lady. As Lozman explained, "It's 110 degrees heat out here, and this dog has a black coat, and she has to pant when it's hot. She would drop dead of a heat stroke."

On August 11, 2006, the city sent Lozman an eviction notice, citing insubordination. The letter claimed Lozman "knowingly put the City of Riviera Beach in a defenseless position if [his] dog was to bite someone." It continued, "Mr. Lozman, we both know it's not if, but when the dog bites someone."

Lozman had until the end of August to move his boat. But refusing to be bullied into submission, Lozman filed another suit against the city on First Amendment grounds, contending that his eviction from a public area was, in effect, politically-motivated retaliation for obstructing the city's waterfront redevelopment plan.

"What about these mom-and-pop people who live here [in Riviera]?," asked Lozman.
"[The city is] going to turn this place into a giant megayacht marina for only the richest people. So I could have either thrown up my hands or fight a rotten group of corrupt a**holes."

In November 2006, Lozman was arrested at Riviera Beach City Hall for disorderly conduct, trespassing and resisting arrest without violence. During the public comment portion of a City Council meeting, Lozman had spoken out against public corruption. Councilwoman Liz Wade ordered police to forcibly remove Lozman from the hearing room.

"It is outrageous that a citizen gets arrested because he chooses to participate in a public meeting," said Lozman. Florida prosecutors eventually dropped the arrest charges, citing difficulty of prosecution.

Meanwhile, Lozman continued his suit against being wrongfully evicted from the Municipal Marina. In March 2007, Florida's 15th Circuit Court ruled in favor of Lozman. A jury determined that Lozman's protected speech "was a substantial or motivating factor" in Riviera Beach City's decision to evict Lozman. "This is a victory for all Americans," said Lozman after the ruling. "What makes America beautiful is our freedoms."

Lozman is currently seeking damages from the city. Meanwhile, the City of Riviera Beach abandoned its plans to use eminent domain as part of its multi-billion dollar redevelopment plan. Because of Florida's 2006 legislative action limiting municipalities' eminent domain powers, as well as an unfavorable real estate market, Viking Inlet Harbor Properties has stopped work on the redevelopment project and is considering a scaled down plan that does not rely upon the use of eminent domain.

Sources: Broward-Palm Beach New Times (August 10, 2006, August 24, 2006, March 8, 2007), City of Riviera Beach v. Fane Lozman (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, FL, March 2, 2007), Palm Beach Post (May 9, 2006, June 25, 2006, October 20, 2006, January 23, 2007, February 17, 2007, March 7, 2007)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:05 AM

Monday, July 30, 2007

City Condemns Family Home, Citing Lack of Two-Car Garage

Citing a desire for additional tax revenue, the City of Lakewood, OH designated an everyday neighborhood as "blighted" so that it could transfer the property to a high-end real estate developer. The designation threatened to displace an entire community until local citizens fought back and won.

City Condemns Family Home, Citing Lack of Two-Car Garage

Jim and JoAnn Saleet have lived in their home since 1965. They raised their four children there. They relax on its porch while they listen to the Cleveland Indians baseball games on the radio.

The Saleets had planned on leaving the property to their daughter Judy after their deaths, but the City of Lakewood, Ohio has proposed plans that would force the Saleets to instead sell their home to the government so it can be turned over to a real estate developer.

The Saleets live in an area of Lakewood called the West End. Citing its eminent domain power - the government's ability to purchase private property to use for the good of the public - Lakewood Mayor Madeline Cain announced that the city planned on taking the homes of the Saleets and other West End residents. Normally, land taken through eminent domain is used for projects such as building schools or highways. Mayor Cain, however, wants to turn over the land in the Saleets' neighborhood to private corporations seeking to build condominiums and a high-end shopping center. She justifies the use of eminent domain because the increase in tax revenue for the city is a "public use."

In December 2002, the Lakewood City Council officially approved Cain's eminent domain proposal through both a "community development plan" and a finding that labeled the Saleets' neighborhood as "blighted." By designating the area "blighted," city officials could be justified for taking privately-owned land and turning it over to developers, Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate, CenterPoint Properties and Heartland Developers, LLC.

The designation of the Saleets' home as blighted, however, is misleading and deceitful. Factors used to classify the West End homes as "blighted" include the lack of a two-car garage and having less than two bathrooms or three bedrooms. Ironically, the homes owned by Mayor Cain, all of the members of the City Council and the vast majority of Lakewood residents would be considered blighted by these standards. But only the West End has been targeted for condemnation by the city.

The Saleets and other families, with the help of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, sued the City of Lakewood in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in May 2003. Judge Kathleen Ann Sutula ruled against the city's request to dismiss the case in July 2003. Finally, in November of 2003, the citizens of Lakewood rejected the development plan through a referendum vote. Moreover, in March 2004, the citizens approved a second ballot initiative to repeal the blight designation that had threatened the community.

Sources: Institute for Justice, Washington Post (June 22, 2003), Cleveland Plain Dealer, Associated Press (November 5, 2003)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:03 AM

Friday, July 27, 2007

Family's Land Confiscated to Create Shopping Center

The City of Hampton, VA condemned a local couple's property for a public road. But after taking the property for a meager amount, the city gave most of it to a private retail shopping center.

Family's Land Confiscated to Create Shopping Center

In September of 1999, city officials in Hampton, Virginia declared their intention to take a three-quarter-acre property owned by Frank and Dana Ottofaro. It was only after the City acquired the land from the Ottofaros that the couple discovered that the majority of the property would be transferred to a $129 million private retail development that would include the entertainment club, "Five," as well as McFadden's Salon and a 105,000 square-foot Bass Pro Shop for hunters and fishermen.

The land officials sought to condemn under the city's power of eminent domain was supposedly needed for the construction of a new public road, which was claimed to "serve a public purpose by improving the City's transportation network and by providing improved access to underutilized property within the city of Hampton." To compensate the Ottofaros for their property, the city proposed paying the couple $164,000. The Ottofaros rejected the offer, claiming that similar properties in Hampton were valued at much higher rates. Then they filed a lawsuit against the city to keep their property. At the time, they didn't even know the city wanted their property for a shopping and entertainment center.

The Ottofaros lost the battle for their land in January 2003, when the Suprerne Court of Virginia ruled in favor of the city, and allowed their property to be condemned. The couple was compensated only $170,000 for their land. It was only after reading the ruling that the Ottofaros learned that in reality only 18 percent of the condemned land would be used for the proposed road. The remaining 82 percent of the Ottofaros' former land that was not needed for the construction of the road would instead be transferred to the Hampton Industrial Development Authority, a governmental body that oversees the city's economic development plans. It then planned to lease the land to a shopping mall.

The court's ruling produced a great deal of confusion over the city's ability to transfer the condemned property. In the opinion, Justice Leroy R. Hassell wrote, "The City asserts that the landowners' property was condemned for public use and that the residue of the property will not be transferred to a private entity for a private purpose." In a subsequent paragraph, however, he continues, "According to the record, the City may transfer the residue of the landowners' former property to the Hampton Industrial Development Authority, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, which will lease the property to a private developer." In effect, the judge's ruling allowed the taking because the property would be leased for a private developer's use - not sold.

Following the ruling the Development Authority, which had entered into a development agreement with Hampton Roads Associates, LLC in November of 1999, was given the go ahead to create the Power Plant of Hampton Roads retail shopping center. The Bass Pro Shop opened in November 2003, joined by numerous other retail shops, hotels and restaurants.

Hampton officials project that the 18 percent of the Ottofaro property that will beused for the new roadway will serve a public benefit by serving an estimated 25,000 vehicles each day by 2018. However, questions of political patronage are raised by the court's ruling on the remainder of the land. John Taylor, president of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy said, "The Ottofaros' case serves as an instructive example of the potential harm inherent in the condemnation power when political entities use broad discretion in its application and commercial development is in play."

Sources: Defenders of Property Rights, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, Bacon's Rebellion (April 28, 2003), Ottofaro v. City of Hampton: January 10, 2003, Virginia Supreme Court Ruling. Hampton-development.com, Daily Press (April 12, 2004), The ChesapeakeBay.com (October 24, 2003),Virginia Business (October 2004), Coliseum Central

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:18 PM

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Senate Committee Passes a Parade of Pork - Threatens Property Rights

From Peyton Knight:

A cynic might view today's action in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee as a rare example of congressional efficiency. The committee managed to pass a bevy of pork-barrel legislation that simultaneously expands the ever-growing federal estate and threatens the rights of private property owners.

The Committee's timing is curious. Since the Supreme Court's dreadful ruling in "Kelo v. New London," Americans nationwide have clamored for stronger private property rights protections. Americans are also increasingly angry about wasteful spending and pork-barrel earmarks like the infamous "bridge to nowhere."

So it makes perfect nonsense that the Senate Resources Committee would respond with a slew of pork barrel programs that threaten private property rights. Is it any wonder congressional approval ratings are so low?

Among the bills passed today:

- The "National Heritage Areas Partnership Act" (S. 278), a bill that would establish "a system of National Heritage Areas" throughout the country, thereby accelerating the creation of new national heritage areas.

National heritage areas are congressionally designated preservation zones where the National Park Service and select special interest groups (typically organizations in pursuit of a rigid preservationist, anti-property rights agenda) as a partner to manage local land use policy. In other words, they result in federal and special interest land use planning.

The federal government funds the interest groups and the interest groups spend money lobbying local governments for land use restrictions in the heritage area. In addition, the interest groups gain the added muscle of the National Park Service to strengthen their influence.

Entranced by the opportunity to siphon millions of dollars of pork back to their home states and districts, congressmen rarely pay any mind to the negative property rights implications associated with national heritage areas.

Should S. 278 eventually become law, expect congressmen to line up at the trough to get their slice of the national heritage area pie.

- Legislation (S. 289, S. 443, S. 444, S. 800, S. 955) to create five new national heritage areas, including the especially controversial "Journey Through Hallowed Ground."

- Legislation (S. 817, S. 1182) to expand the boundaries and/or increase funding for six existing national heritage areas and corridors. Note that funding for national heritage areas is supposed to terminate after a specified period of time. This is one of the big talking points from the pro-heritage area crowd. They claim that they only need millions of federal dollars over a period of a 10 or 15 years, after which point they'll be self-sufficient and no longer in need of federal support. To date, no heritage area has ever had its federal funding terminated. When they reach their funding expiration, they simply ask Congress to extend their funding, and Congress is only too happy to oblige. As such, heritage areas are permanent drains on federal resources, and on a National Park Service that currently suffers a multi-billion dollar maintenance backlog crisis.

- Legislation (S. 169) to grant land acquisition authority to the federal government to grab land adjacent to 10 existing National Trails.

- Legislation (S. 647) to create a new federal Wilderness Area in the state of Oregon.

- Legislation (H.R. 1100) to grant land acquisition authority to the federal government to expand the boundaries of a National Historic Site.

- Legislation (S. 637, H.R. 407) to "study" the prospect of creating two more national heritage areas.

_____

Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:58 PM

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Sports Arena Hat Trick Penalizes Property Owner

The Detroit government low balled a local landowner for the sale of her property that it deceitfully said would be developed into a parking lot. As it turns out, the land was wanted for a hockey arena - a far more valuable project than a parking lot. The government also acquired the land on behalf of a private businessman, and it then tried to transfer the land to that businessman's firm to build the arena.

Sports Arena Hat Trick Penalizes Property Owner

Detroit property owner Freda Alibri received an offer she couldn't refuse. The Detroit/Wayne County Stadium Authority, a public entity, approached her in 1997 wanting to purchase land she owned. The stadium authority wanted the land for two new sports stadiums and parking lots.

Alibri gladly sold the government the property, but later discovered that some of the parking lot land, which she sold to them at a parking lot price, was instead intended to be the site of a third sports venue that made the land worth a whole lot more. Furthermore, the third venue wasn't even a public project presided over by the Stadium Authority, but rather a private venture. When Alibri protested, she was told to be happy with what she got, but she considers the transaction to be an abuse of the government's power of eminent domain.

The taxpayer-funded Stadium Authority was reportedly acquiring land so new stadiums could be built for both the Detroit Tigers baseball team and the Detroit Lions football team. In addition to property Alibri owned directly on the site of the planned stadiums, she also owned a one-acre parking lot located several blocks away. While the Stadium Authority bought the property she owned directly where the stadiums were to be built for more than $6 million, they also said they needed her parking lot, ostensibly for stadium parking. Alibri sold the lot to the Stadium Authority for $268,498.

It was later discovered that the money the Stadium Authority used to buy Alibri's parking lot was "borrowed" from Mike Ilitch, the owner of the Detroit Tigers and the Detroit Red Wings hockey team. Ilitch owned several properties close to Alibri's parking lot. He was considering building a new hockey arena on the site of the property the Stadium Authority bought from Alibri with his "loan." In 1998, the Stadium Authority tried to repay the loan by transferring Alibri's former property to an Ilitch firm. Alibri cried foul, arguing that she was deceived by the Stadium Authority so Ilitch could cheaply acquire land for his new hockey arena. She estimated her parcel would sell for almost $2 million as land for a prospective arena as opposed to $268,498 for stadium parking.

Fred Steinhardt, a condemnation lawyer with clients in the same area, told the Detroit News, "Sweetheart doesn't adequately describe what's going on. They're condemning parking lots so Mr. Ilitch can have parking lots? What's that all about?" If Ilitch's private firm could acquire the land at 1997 prices through the public Stadium Authority, then he would avoid having to buy the property for his hockey arena from individual owners at higher prices in the future. Alibri went to court and got an injunction to stop the deal. She then sued to have her property returned. After a favorable trial court ruling was overturned on appeal, the case was brought before the Michigan Supreme Court. In July 2004, the Court sided with Alibri and returned her land.

Sources: Detroit News (August 14, 2000), Metro Times (April 23, 1997), Alibri v. Detroit/WayneCounty Stadium Authority (Michigan Supreme Court, Lansing, Michigan)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:11 AM

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Ohio Supreme Court Smacks Down Effort to Eject Families from Homes

The City of Norwood, Ohio designated a community of 99 well-maintained homes and businesses as "blighted" so that a real estate developer could build offices, condominiums and stores in its place. Although the vast majority of the community had been cleared, a group of affected homeowners challenged the city's abusive condemnation of their property and won in the state's Supreme Court.

Ohio Supreme Court Smacks Down Effort to Eject Families from Homes

Carl and Joy Gamble lived on Atlantic Avenue in Norwood, Ohio for more than 35 years, but real estate developer Jeffrey R. Anderson wanted them and their neighbors out. Anderson wanted to add the Rookwood Exchange - a new community that was to include condominiums, offices and stores - to his neighboring Rookwood Commons development. To displace the Gambles and other community residents, Anderson convinced city officials that the Gambles' community was "blighted."

Anderson paid for an August, 2003 study that declared 99 homes and small businesses in the community as "blighted." Designations were based on factors such as broken pavement on sidewalks, standing water on roads and the subjective determination that streets were of poor design.

With a designation of "blight," the city is equipped with the power to condemn any land in the neighborhood. The properties were condemned and were turned over for Anderson's use.

In reality, the Atlantic Avenue neighborhood is far from blighted. It is populated with well-maintained homes. In fact, the study Anderson requested indicated that not one house was dilapidated or had an owner who was delinquent in tax payments.

Norwood City Councilman Will DeLuca conceded, "We all agree that we're not going to find houses with broken windows, gutters falling down and your typical blight." Of the 99 properties, the City cleared all of them except for one business and two homes - including the Gambles' - whose owners have refused to sell their property. Joy Gamble says she has no desire to move: "We are not interested in selling our home... We just want to be left alone to enjoy what is rightfully ours. The city shouldn't try to take our home just so a developer can make money off of our land."

The Gambles and eight other community homeowners filed suit against the city of Norwood in September of 2003 to remove the "blighted" distinction from their homes. Berliner, the homeowners' attorney, regards the "blighted" label as misleading. She argues, "This is a thriving, mixed-use neighborhood. [It's] conveniently located and highly desirable, that's why the city wants it and that's why [the developer] wants to build there." Tim Burke, the lawyer for Anderson and the City of Norwood, disagrees, arguing that Rockwood Exchange is a public purpose. "It does create a beneficial use. It does benefit public welfare."

In December of 2003, the trial court dismissed the blight challenge. Although the Ohio Court of Appeals sent the case back to a lower court for review, the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the city's application of eminent domain. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County ruled in January of 2005 that the development group headed by Jeffrey Anderson was free to demolish the Gambles' home. However, although the Gambles were forced to move out, the Ohio Supreme Court granted a stay to the demolition, and agreed to hear the case.

On behalf of the property owners, Institute for Justice attorney Dana Berliner argued the case before the Ohio Supreme Court on January 11, 2006.

On July 26, 2006, as an Institute for Justice press release put it, "The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously held that the City of Norwood could not use eminent domain to take Carl and Joy Gamble's home of 35 years, as well as the rental home of Joe Horney and tutoring center owned by Matthew Burton and Sanae Ichikawa Burton, for private development - specifically, a complex of chain stores, condominiums and office space planned by millionaire developer Jeffrey Anderson and his Rookwood Partners."

The Institute further noted that "the Ohio Supreme Court explicitly rejected the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Kelo decision of June 2005, in which that Court held that local governments can take property from one person and transfer it to another because the new owner might produce more taxes or more jobs than the current one."

Sources: Cincinnati Enquirer (March 25, 2003; September 10, 2003; September 24, 2003; June 15, 2004), Business Courier (April 12, 2004), Institute for Justice, Tech Central Station (October 1, 2003)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:44 PM

Saturday, July 14, 2007

"A Virtual Blank Check to Condemn Private Property"

In a case that received a national outcry against property rights abuse, Susette Kelo took the City of New London, Connecticut all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Kelo fought to save her dream home whose property the city government wanted transferred, not for public use, but to benefit the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

Supreme Court Rules Governments Can Take One Property Owner's Land and Give It to Another

There were families who lived on Walbach Street in the historic Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Connecticut, whose members had resided there since 1895. Susette Kelo, who purchased her dream home there in 1997, does not boast such a lineage, but has nonetheless been overjoyed with her view of Montauk Point and Fisher's Island. But these happy times may soon be over. Since the fall of 2000, Kelo and other residents have been engaged in a fight to save their homes from a redevelopment plan that advances private business interests.

On the day before Thanksgiving in 2000, Kelo and her neighbors were informed their community would be taken from them and demolished under the city's power of eminent domain. Rather than building a hospital, road, park or other public necessity usually associated with eminent domain evictions, the land is instead being redeveloped to benefit the Pfizer pharmaceutical company - which first moved into the area in 1998 - and other non-public businesses. These plans are being executed by the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), which is exercising the city's power to implement eminent domain decisions as part of a transfer of authority authorized by New London city officials in January 2000. In addition, the NLDC has final authority to make decisions with regard to contractors.

Among the proposed redevelopment plans is an expansion of the existing Pfizer campus, the construction of a new hotel and athletic club and a new high-end housing development. Prior to the announcement of the NLDC's redevelopment efforts, the historic Fort Trumbull area was regarded as one of the poorest communities in Connecticut. It was also listed in 2000 by the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation as one of the state's most threatened historic places. While NLDC president Claire Gaudiani contends the overall goal of her group is to enact urban planning promoting "social justice," she has not specified how exactly the NLDC's plan to expand private businesses and build luxury homes translates into positive change for the area's lower classes.

Kelo and her neighbors believe the NLDC is engaging in an unconstitutional abuse of eminent domain powers. In addition, they argue the economic redevelopment plan, as currently designed, seeks to benefit only the rich and politically powerful. For example, the Italian Dramatic Club - a prestigious social club with influential members located within the proposed redevelopment area - was spared demolition. Private homeowners were not granted exemptions.

Political and economic patronage also seems to resonate throughout the NLDC's proposal. George M. Milne, Jr., is a member of the NLDC's board of directors. When the proposal was being developed, Milne was Pfizer's senior executive vice president for global research and development. A significant portion of the redevelopment plan calls for the creation of a bioscience research park to accommodate Pfizer research partners and related businesses. The NLDC plan also includes the creation of a conference center and hotels. Milne retired from Pfizer in 2002.

Kelo and her neighbors filed a lawsuit against the NLDC. Their case was heard before the Connecticut Supreme Court in December 2002. By a 4-3 majority, in March 2004 the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled against the Fort Trumbull homeowners. Their lawyer, Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice, warned that, "If allowed to stand, this decision gives local officials a virtual blank check to condemn private property at the whim of private parties."

The residents appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But in a very controversial decision, a slim 5-4 majority established a troublesome and perhaps far-reaching precedent by siding with NLDC. The Court's decision effectively expanded the power of eminent domain to permit local governments to clear homes and businesses for private development.

"Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded - i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public - in the process," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in her sharply-critical dissent. "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Institute for Justice's request for a rehearing in August 2005. In September, Fort Trumbull residents received eviction notices. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell intervened on the residents' behalf, according to Kelo, but a statewide moratorium on eminent domain takings, which NLDC voluntarily agreed to, applied only to new takings. The state legislature did not act to address eminent domain abuse, and the city government gave the remaining residents a May 31, 2006 deadline to accept a settlement or be evicted.

Exhausted, and faced with forever losing her home, Kelo reached a compromise with the City of New London in June 2006. The agreement saves Kelo's home, though it will have to be moved to another neighborhood. Kelo says she submitted the same compromise agreement "years ago but was turned down flat" by the NLDC. "I am not happy about giving up my property, but I am very glad that my home, which means so much to me, will not be demolished and I will remain living in it," says Kelo.

Sources: New London Development Corporation, The Heartland Institute (September/October 2001), Pfizer, The Institute for Justice, Reason Magazine (2004-2005 coverage), Washington Times (2004-2006 coverage), Hartford Courant (2004-2006 coverage), Tom Blumer's BizzyBlog (June 30, 2006)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:23 PM

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Urban Redevelopment Commission Can't Take Curley's Diner

Owners of a beloved Stamford, Connecticut diner challenged the government's abuse of eminent domain powers to take their property and transfer it to a private development company. Despite winning in court and having the support of 7,000 residents, the diner must still endure the city government's push to have large-scale development projects built at their doorstep, surrounding the tiny restaurant.

Urban Redevelopment Commission Can't Take Curley's Diner

Greek immigrants (and sisters) Maria Aposporos and Eleni Begetis have owned Curley's Diner - a revered staple of downtown Stamford, Connecticut - since the 1960s. That almost changed in October of 1999, when Stamford Urban Redevelopment Commission (SURC) attorney Bruce Goldberg flatly told Aposporos, "We're taking your property and we're giving you $240,000 for it."

Aposporos believed SURC officials were abusing their powers of eminent domain - the government's ability to take private property for a public use - because the SURC wanted to transfer the property to Corcoran Jennison and Berkeley Partners Incorporated, a private company seeking to build an upscale 11-story apartment complex and new office space and retail stores on the Curley's Diner site. Aposporos filed a lawsuit against the SURC to keep her restaurant. In a demonstration of community support against the condemnation, nearly 7,000 Stamford area residents signed a petition protesting the SURC's plans to close the beloved diner.

In February of 2002, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in favor of Aposporos. The city was ordered to pay over $100,000 in legal fees incurred by Aposporos and Begetis. Commenting on her victory, Aposporos said, "This is my paradise. I [still] have my view of the park, of the trees and the flowers." But not willing to admit defeat, SURC's now former executive director Laszlo Papper proclaimed, "They [Aposporos and Begetis] have the property and the [development] is going to go around it." Since the case's closing, the city hardened its push for development with a "super-block" Target retail store that opened just north of Curley's Diner. Its latest plans are to erect three buildings for 410 apartments and a 500-car parking garage on land around the diner. Aposporos says there are those in the city government "who think they can do whatever they want."


Sources: Fairfield County Weekly (April 17, 2003; May 15, 2003), Connecticut Libertarian (August 2002), Mugged by the State (Regnery, 2003, pp. 24-27), Stamford Urban Redevelopment Commission, Connecticut Post (October 13, 2004), New York Times (October 9, 2004)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:38 PM

City Destroys One Auto Business to Make Landscaping for Another

Claiming it was trying to save 4,900 area jobs, the City of Toledo, Ohio evicted 83 homeowners and 16 businesses so that carmaker DaimlerChrysler could use their condemned land to expand its manufacturing plant.

City Destroys One Auto Business to Make Landscaping for Another

In Toledo, Ohio, city officials waged a five-year campaign to oust Kim's Auto and Truck Service to accommodate the expansion of an existing DaimlerChrysler Jeep manufacturing plant.

Kim and Herman Blankenship, the owners of Kim's Auto and Truck Service, are the last remaining holdouts in the city's campaign. They are also the targets of one of the most egregious examples of eminent domain abuse because their property, if turned over to DaimlerChrysler, is expected to simply become open space.

The Blankenships steadfastly refuse to allow city officials to condemn their land, which is located on a corner lot approximately 300 yards from the manufacturing plant. Terry Lodge, the Blankenships' attorney, doesn't understand why city officials are fighting so hard to take his clients' property. Lodge said: "From the very start of planning for the manufacturing plant, the area currently occupied by Kim's Auto was designated as a landscaped green-space." Kim adds: "They just want landscape. Why uproot somebody's business for that?"

In 1999, the Blankenships and other area residents and business owners were informed by the city that 83 homes and 16 businesses were slated to be condemned under the city's power of eminent domain - the government's ability to take private property, with just compensation, for the public good. This taking was to facilitate the expansion of an existing DaimlerChrysler Jeep Plant. City officials agreed to transfer the land - approximately 160 acres - to the company to begin construction. In order to keep the manufacturing plant in Toledo, city and state officials offered Chrysler over $280 million in tax breaks and other incentives. The city also took out a $28 million loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to cover the costs of relocating property owners.

Lodge asks, "How can you condemn property and have it handed over to another business entity?" Former Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner, who approved the manufacturing plan, said it was necessary to maintain 4,900 jobs. Opponents of the plan, however, insist the plant's assembly line draws heavily on automated lasers and robots and will not create the spinoff jobs promised.

The dispute over the Blankenship property went to trial in September of 2002, after the manufacturing plant's addition was completed and fully operational. A Lucas County Common Pleas Court jury ruled in favor of the Blankenships, valuing their business at $104,000. Toledo's law director, Barbara Herring, applauded the jury's decision, claiming, "They've been offered a very fair value for their property." The Blankenships disagree, saying that rebuilding their business would cost nearly $500,000. In addition, Kim's clientele includes a large number of small trucks. Their current location, approximately 150 feet from Interstate 75, is an ideal location that would be extremely difficult to duplicate elsewhere. Public interest attorney Dana Berliner, who, in her study, "Public Power, Private Gain," called this ouster of property owners "one of the top ten abuses of eminent domain," has pointed out, "many, if not most, condemned businesses never reopen."

The Blankenships appealed the ruling, claiming the market value cited for their property is too low. They also continue to assert that the city is attempting to condemn their property without an appropriate public cause. The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld the jury award in October of 2003, arguing that the city did not abuse its discretion in condemning the land. In their quest to keep their property, the Blankenships have enlisted the support of the Center for Study of Responsive Law, a non-profit organization of Ralph Nader. Commenting on the Blankenship case, Nader said, "The purpose of eminent domain should be for a public purpose. It should be for a bridge, a dam, a highway."

However, in October of 2004, the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to issue a stay to protect the property and refused to hear the case. The Blankenships' shop was destroyed in 2004. A subsequent appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court did not provide the Blankenships any relief. An application referred to Justice John Paul Stevens of the Supreme Court for injunction pending appeal was denied in October of 2004, and the Supreme Court eventually declined to hear the Blankenships' case in August of 2005.

Sources: The Pacific Legal Foundation, The Institute for Justice, Toledoblade.com (March 7, 2002; June 4, 2004; July 15, 2005), Terry Lodge, Herman Blankenship, Associated Press (June 17, 2004; August 17, 2005)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____

Labels: Government Power, Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:38 PM

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Kelo v. New London Update

Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog provides a recap and and update to the events behind one of the most reviled U.S. Supreme Court decisions of recent years.
_____

Labels: Legal Reform, Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:59 PM

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

More Journey Through Hallowed Ground Conflicts of Interest

From Peyton Knight:

A local Virginia newspaper, the Loudoun Times-Mirror, recently wrote a rather one-sided "news" piece promoting Rep. Frank Wolf's Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area.

Biased reporting is nothing unusual, however, there is more to this story than meets the eye.

When the writer from the Times-Mirror spoke with me before writing her story, she implied that the National Center had written the pro-private property rights alternative to the Wolf bill that was introduced by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD). I informed her that we did not write Congressman Bartlett's bill. She apologized for the mistaken inference and continued her interview. Unfortunately, this did not prevent her from writing what she wanted to write (or perhaps was directed to write, as you'll see later), as her published piece stated that the National Center had "written a substitute" bill for Rep. Bartlett.

When I called the Times-Mirror office, the reporter apologized, and I was assured that a retraction and correction was in the works. In the next week's edition, the retraction did not appear on the paper's website, but one of the paper's editors called to assure me that a correction appears in the print edition. The editor also informed me that they do not publish such retractions on their website, however, they correct the online version of the story itself. The corrected piece can be found here. (We would direct you to the incorrect piece, but it no longer exists on the paper's website.)

The Times-Mirror hit-job awas not lost on Congressman Bartlett, either. His rebuttal to what he called "unprofessional and inaccurate reporting" can be found on the paper's website here. Congressman Bartlett sets the facts straight, and also reveals that the Times-Mirror did not even bother to contact him or his office prior to running their original, incorrect story.

Now the interesting part. The Loudoun Times-Mirror is owned by Arthur Arundel, who also sits on the board of directors of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership. The Partnership is the federally funded special interest group that helped write Wolf's Heritage Area bill, and is currently lobbying Congress for its passage, as the group acknowledges here.

It appears that the Times-Mirror may have put its self-described "devotion to high quality community news" on the back burner so that it can more readily pursue its owner's devotion to his pet special interest project. Should the Wolf Heritage Area bill pass, the Partnership, which Mr. Arundel serves as a board member, would stand to receive a minimum of one million dollars per year in federal funding.

As they say, don't let the truth to get in the way of a good story - or in the way of a million-dollar-a-year, taxpayer subsidized, joy ride for you and your friends.

I wonder if the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership counts the Times-Mirror's devotion to its anti-property rights agenda as an example of "local support"?

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Media, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:14 PM

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

Frank Wolf's Journey Through Hallowed Ground Proposal Draws Criticism from Heritage Foundation; Lashes Out at Principled Critics

From Peyton Knight:

The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, a taxpayer-supported gang of preservation interest groups that apparently exists primarily to lobby for Rep. Frank Wolf's (R-VA) "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act" (H.R. 319), put out a press release a couple weeks ago calling us names.

According to the Partnership's release:

The [Hallowed Ground Heritage Area legislation] has recently been tagged by The National Center for Public Policy Research, a right-wing ultra conservative lobbying organization as being a federal assault on property rights.

Several points:

1. While we can't say exactly what the Partnership means by "right-wing ultra conservative," within the context of this issue, it seems to mean "in favor of private property rights and limited, local government." If so, we're guilty as charged.

2. The National Center is not a "lobbying organization," but rather a non-profit educational foundation. As such, we seek to educate the public about the dangers of initiatives like National Heritage Areas, and how they harm property rights and local government. Unlike the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership has acquired lawyers and land-use planning agencies to help them write legislation and lobby for it on Capitol Hill, as the Partnership has bragged of doing (and some thought Rep. Wolf wrote the bill!). It does so although its coalition receives significant funding from federal tax dollars.

3. Finally, while we certainly consider Rep. Wolf's National Heritage Area to be a "federal assault on property rights," we've never actually used that catchy phrase. However, Dr. Ronald Utt of the venerable Heritage Foundation recently dubbed Wolf's boondoggle exactly that in an excellent paper entitled, " Another Federal Assault on Property Rights: The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act."

Dr. Utt writes:

H.R. 319 would significantly threaten the rights of many private property owners living in the designated area while providing a financial windfall to a select group of landowners who have already developed their properties. At risk would be the housing and homeownership opportunities for middle-income and moderate-income families through exclusionary zoning and other legal mechanisms that are used to upgrade a community's demographic profile.

The private organizers of the [Journey Through Hallowed Ground] partnership have also acknowledged that they are contemplating additional wealth-enhancing opportunities through the creation of a privately owned, for-profit real estate investment trust (REIT) to acquire properties in the heritage area and presumably develop them for the benefit of the REIT's shareholders in a way that shelters their profits from the state and federal corporate income tax.

Some might say such cogent analysis smacks of "right-wing ultra conservatism." Perhaps even double-secret right-wing ultra conservatism.

Such folks are advised to sit down while reading Dr. Utt's paper.

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Liberals, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:29 AM

Friday, May 04, 2007

Government Puts Rat Control Business Out of Business

The Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission (ASPCC) halted a teenager's innovative - and popular - rat control business because he failed to hold a $78 state-regulated commercial pest control license and pass an exam covering over 40 pages of laws and rules unrelated to his mesh wire rat prevention devices.

Rat Prevention, Prevented

When 17-year-old Christian Alf's grandmother had a problem with rats entering her home through exposed roof vents, she turned to her grandson for help. Using easily- obtainable diamond stucco mesh wire, Alf created a makeshift, yet very effective, way to prevent the rats from entering.

Talk of Alf's good work spread from his grandmother to her Bible study group and elsewhere in the family's Tempe, Arizona community. Alf soon began equipping other homes with similar rat-deterrence devices. Making $30 per home, Alf was able to save money for college.

The Arizona Republic ran a story about Alf's part-time job in February, 2004.
Approximately 250 callers inquired about his services. Not all of the calls, however, were requests for rat control. One caller was an inspection officer for the Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission (ASPCC). He informed Alf that a state-regulated license would be required for Alf to continue performing what was considered by the state to be commercial pest control.

The following day, the inspector arrived at Alf's home to tell him that he was in violation of state law and could face fines up to $1,000 for performing pest control without an appropriate permit. To obtain a license, Alf would need to pay $78 and pass an exam covering over 40 pages of laws and rules that are unrelated to his mesh wire rat prevention devices. Furthermore, even if Alf obtained a license, he would be required to work for a licensed pest control company as an apprentice to someone holding a Qualifying Party license. The time, energy and loss of income that would be required to meet these requirements brought the popular business to an immediate halt.

Legal experts contend Alf's business is not subject to ASPCC authority. Since Alf does not use pesticides or chemicals - he is only placing a mesh wire construction over roof openings - they argue he should not be subject to the regulatory policies. Lisa Gervase, executive director of the ASPCC, counters, "There is no discretion as to what method he is using to control the pest. If he's doing pest control work, it requires a license, both in terms of health concerns and financial concerns."

Alf appealed his case to the ASPCC, inquiring as to whether or not he can resume his work. Responding to the threat of legal action, Gervase and the ASPCC "determined that the limited, specific facts of this matter do not constitute the business of structural pest control." With the case ruled in his favor, Alf commented, "I'm glad that the Commission has now said I can go back to work. There are a lot of people who need my help."

Sources: The Arizona Republic (February 28, 2004), The East Valley Tribune (March 16, 2004), The Goldwater Institute, The Institute for Justice, The Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:04 AM

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands

As conditions for granting a building permit, the Washington County, Oregon government demanded that Grimm's Fuel Company pay it $1,200 up front, build concrete sidewalks and make various other public works improvements.

Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands

Grimm's Fuel Company specializes in landscaping, heating and yard debris recycling services in and around Washington County, Oregon. In May of 2000, owner Jeff Grimm applied to the City of Tualatin for a building permit to add a 7,200 square-foot extension to house an additional three employees and store extra office supplies. The permit was readily approved by city officials, but officials from Washington County intervened before Grimm received the permit. The County made additional demands for an extraordinary number of conditions they said had to be met before Grimm could begin construction.

County demands included the payment of a $1,200 administrative deposit, installing concrete sidewalks along the business' property, eliminating one of three accesses to the county-owned Cipole Road (accesses Grimm had maintained for decades) and dedicating an additional right-of-way for "adequate corner radius" at the intersection of Cipole Road and Highway 99.

Grimm contended that all of the demands were expenses the county should pay for, and that he should not be required to incur the costs of the changes just to receive a building permit.

Tualatin officials reviewed the county demands, but refused to impose them. City officials argued that the addition to Grimm's property in no way required such radical changes.

The architectural review of Grimm's proposed addition, prepared by Tualatin officials, said: "The county has also required that right-of-way be dedicated along SW Cipole Road and that a sidewalk be installed along the property's frontage... The county has not submitted any findings supporting their requirements. Therefore, [Tualatin officials] are not recommending that these requirements be included as conditions of approval for this development." The city government, however, did not aggressively challenge county officials' continued assertion that the permit fell under their jurisdiction due to Grimm's county road access. This left Grimm at the mercy of county government and hostage to their demands.

After two years of negotiations with Washington County officials failed to reach an agreement, Grimm decided to officially apply for a county building permit. Since the problems revolved around the county's demands regarding the city permit, Grimm thought that applying directly to the county might force a resolution. But county officials refused to let him apply for a permit, creating legal standing for Grimm to file a lawsuit to force the county to take action. This led to a settlement before the case went to trial. The settlement allowed Tualatin officials to grant Grimm his building permit by waiving the condition for him to obtain an access permit from the County. Grimm's addition was finally completed as initially approved - without the county's conditions.

Sources: Oregonians in Action Legal Center, Dave Hunnicutt,
Jeff Grimm, City of Tualatin Planning Department

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Government Power, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:42 AM

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Historic Home -- or Run-Down Shack?

For over two decades, a developer battled Washington, D.C. officials for permission to replace a so-called "historic" run-down shack - which the developer owned - with commercial and residential units for the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

Tiny "Historic" Shack Prevents Development of Valuable Land

Capitol Hill is home to some of the most valuable real estate in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Since the 1970s, however, militant preservationists have prevented the development of a number of very valuable plots under the guise of protecting a form of run-down shack they call a "shotgun house."

Larry Quillian purchased ten adjacent, mostly-vacant lots on the 1200 block of Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast more than 25 years ago. He planned to remove the remaining structures and construct two-story buildings for retail tenants and residents. Quillian found his dreams for the land destroyed by a 1978 law - passed after he bought the land but before construction had started - that declared the entire Capitol Hill neighborhood a historic district.

Historic district rules dictate that new projects involving demolition of existing buildings must be beneficial to the neighborhood. To meet this requirement, Quillian planned a mixed-use development that would consist of ground-floor retail and second-floor residential units - exactly the type of structures city planning officials have urged developers to build for the last 30 years.

But the Capitol Hill Restoration Society (CHRS) took issue with Quillian's plan because it necessitated the demolition of a so-called "shotgun house," a tiny one-story residence so-named because a single shotgun blast through the front door would easily exit through the back window. Insisting that the ramshackle structure was an important piece of the "historic fabric of the community," the CHRS brought Quillian's project to the attention of the city's Historic Preservation Review Board in 1987, which shot down his proposal to build the commercial and residential units.

Quillian then offered to give the shotgun house to the CHRS for free two years later. He proposed a deal in which the CHRS would be able to restore and use the house as it saw fit while Quillian retained control of the lot. CHRS officials rejected Quillian's offer on the grounds that the deal was bad for the CHRS from an investment standpoint, but they continued to insist that Quillian restore and maintain the shotgun house, doing so with his own money.

Quillian refused to pay the estimated $300,000 that would be needed to preserve the run-down shotgun house. Since he was unable to remove it and develop the property, its condition gradually worsened. Quillian hoped the city would demolish the shack due to sanitation concerns. The Washington, D.C. City Council, however, passed a law in 2001 specifically aimed at preventing "demolition by neglect." Under the new law, the city is given the ability to use taxpayer dollars to restore and refurbish broken-down properties and then bill the properties' owners. The Historic Preservation Review Board decided to use Quillian's property as a test case for the previously unenforced law.

Quillian, who had no intention of paying for the restoration of the shotgun house, did not plan on giving in to the demands of the CHRS or the Review Board. "I don't really care anymore," he explained. "I don't have to develop the site. I can always give it to my grandchildren and let them battle the Restoration Society for the next 30 years."

Although Quillian had been waiting to see if the District of Columbia would try to restore the shack and bill him for the repairs, it appears this will not be necessary. A Texas development company decided to purchase the house from him. It plans to include the old structure among new apartments it is constructing in the area.

Sources: Washington City Paper (November 1, 2002), The Hill (September 11, 2002; November 13, 2002; May 18, 2005), JPI Development Co.

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:42 AM

Monday, April 30, 2007

Treehouse Fight Costs Family, Taxpayers $58,000

The government of Clinton, Mississippi goes after a family's treehouse, after granting a permit to build. Case ends up before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

$58,000 Spent Fighting Over a Treehouse

Two anonymous complaints about a treehouse have cost a Clinton, Mississippi homeowner at least $28,000 in legal fees and local taxpayers about $30,000 in a fight to have a playhouse torn down.

In early 1997, Mary Welch sought and received permission from the city's permit department to build a treehouse - a structure that is not defined by city ordinances - in her front yard. After receiving the two anonymous complaints in 2002, however, Clinton Mayor Rosemary G. Aultman ordered the Welch family to tear the treehouse down. The family appealed the demand to the city's planning and zoning board. Despite not being able to find any ordinance banning such structures, and the fact that 51 out of 54 neighborhood homeowners signed a petition in support of the treehouse, the board still ruled that the treehouse should be restricted from the Welchs' front or side yard. City officials also denied the Welchs' request for a conditional use permit that would have granted a special exemption and allowed the treehouse to remain in place.

The Welch family challenged the planning board's claim in Hinds County Circuit
Court, where Judge Tomie Green ruled in favor of the Welch family. In her ruling, Green pointed out that no city ordinance defines a treehouse. The city board voted to appeal the ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court in August of 2003. However, the court sided with the Welches and will allow the treehouse to stay.

Despite the Supreme Court's finding that the city's use of the ordinance was "unconstitutionally vague," the city has not offered an apology to the Welch family nor amended the zoning ordnance. The Welch family has accumulated at least $28,000 in legal bills since the controversy began, while the city has spent roughly $30,000 on a case that most Clinton residents did not want pursued. A poll conducted by the Southern Research Group found 76 percent of registered voters in Clinton preferred that city officials resolve the issue by granting the special exemption to the Welch family. Instead, the city remained on a crusade against a treehouse, adding frustration and mounting legal bills to the Welch family while wasting taxpayer dollars.


Sources: Mary Welch, Saveourtreehouse.com, The Clarion-Ledger (July 24, 2003; August 5, 2004)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:32 PM

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Separation of Church and State?

A church in downtown Warrenton, Virginia must use local government-mandated wood instead of fiberglass to fully restore its deteriorating steeple - at a cost of $262,000 more for the church.

City Tells Church It Must Spend $262,000

For over 130 years, the Warrenton Baptist Church in Virginia has been recognized by its intricately-carved 65-foot steeple. While the structure has remained strong over the years, time and weather have taken a toll on the shingles, siding and molding. Church members proposed replacing the current wood steeple with a fiberglass replica, but city officials rejected the plan, instead demanding the church pay an estimated $262,000 more than they have budgeted to have the existing steeple fully restored with wood.

The Warrenton Architectural Review Board rejected the fiberglass steeple replacement on the grounds that the material would "clash" with the vintage appearance of the historic district in which the church was located. Church officials appealed the decision to the Warrenton Town Council, but the Council unanimously rejected their appeal. Members of the church then filed suit in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County, arguing that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."

The church had preferred to spend the funds on charitable works, and even considered relocating. Ultimately, however, it decided to acquiesce to the city's demands.

Sources: Washington Post (February 22, 2004), Fauquier Citizen, Fauquier Times-Democrat

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:31 PM

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The Polka Dotted House Gambit

Local preservation officials in a "planned community" outside Atlanta reject homeowner's renovation plan that would add a front stoop to his house.

The Squeaky Wheel, or in this Case, the Polka Dotted House, Gets the Grease

Avondale Estates, a suburb of Atlanta, is recognized as one of America's first planned communities. City officials are known to enforce strict guidelines regarding home improvements.

Some argue that the officials with the city's Historic Preservation Commission, which is the agency that oversees and approves renovations, use government power to impose their personal ideas of good taste, rather than historical accuracy, on the community.

When resident Stan Pike got caught up in a related regulatory nightmare, he found an inventive way to "brush aside" the problem.

Pike owns a second house in Avondale Estates that he was renovating to resell. The house has a previously-built addition with rounded corners, and an architect suggested that Pike build a matching rounded front stoop to balance out the house. The addition had been built in the 1960s with rounded edges because city officials told the previous owner that squared corners would not leave enough lawn between the house and the street. Nonetheless, the Historic Preservation Commission rejected Pike's request because a Commission consultant judged the project as "less appropriate" for the neighborhood.

Two days after the ruling, Avondale Estates residents discovered that Pike had repainted the house lime green with purple polka dots. He further threatened to plant flowers in old toilets and scatter them around the yard in protest of the Historic Planning Commission's rejection of his project. In less than a month, Mayor John Lawson and the City Commission overruled the Historic Preservation Commission, with Lawson saying Pike's plan would not be "substantially detrimental" to the home's appearance. Afterward, Pike said he would repaint the house.

Randall Carlson, a builder who has done work in Avondale Estates, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the city's preservation officials should have their power curtailed: "Most people are not going to do anything that would detract from the value of their home. I think the [commission] should be a last resort, only if people do something way out of line."

As a result of years of complaints, city officials are entertaining changes to allow more flexibility for home alterations and additions. One proposed change would shrink the historical district, while a second one would establish four categories of homes. The strictest guidelines would apply only to homes with the most historical significance.

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution (May 8, 2003; May 28, 2003; October 14, 2004)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:38 AM

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Neighbors' Views Trump Homeowner's, When It Comes to Building an Addition

In the name preserving "open space" and the "historic fabric" of Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, a group of preservationist elitists stop a homeowner - for three years - from adding modest additions to her historic home to meet her family's needs.

Arbitrary Regulations Give Neighbors More Power than Homeowner Over Home

Amy Bayer adores her stately home in the Old Town Historic District of Alexandria, Virginia. Built around 1815, its red brick walls and historic architectural design compliment the neighborhood. The only drawback is that the house isn't big enough for her family's needs. Yet when Bayer sought to add onto her home, she discovered that her neighbors believed they should have the final word on her plans. Worse, they possessed the means to create a bureaucratic nightmare for Bayer if she didn't bow to their wishes.

Bayer purchased her home in 1994. In 2001, she decided to build a guest room and a family room to accommodate her children. After consulting the city's design guidelines on home additions, she submitted plans to Alexandria's Board of Architectural Review (BAR), which must grant approval to changes on historic properties. Bayer and her architect were careful to harmonize their plans with the historic fabric of Old Town Alexandria. They kept the plans within the architectural style of the rest of the home and met all regular zoning requirements. While most of her neighbors supported her plans, the neighbors on the side of the property where the addition would be built - Lawrence and Ashley O'Connor - believed the addition would hurt the historic district by "shrink[ing] the limited open space in the neighborhood." While this concern may be true for most Old Town properties, the Bayer property is uncommon because the house sits on a spacious, multi-lot parcel of land. Nonetheless, the BAR rejected Bayer's plans after the O'Connors and local preservationists voiced their opposition at hearings and public forums.

Bayer appealed the BAR decision to Alexandria's City Council, arguing that her home was no different from hundreds of others in Old Town approved for similar improvements in the past. The City Council agreed with Bayer and approved her plans. The O'Connors and the preservationists appealed the decision in state court, contending that the Alexandria City Council failed to use proper standards when it decided the case. In May of 2003, Alexandria Circuit Court Judge Donald Haddock ruled against Bayer and ordered the City Council to rehear the case. At that point, Bayer sought a compromise by seeking BAR permission to build a free-standing addition connected to the house by a covered walkway. This idea was based on the notion that the BAR justified its original denial not with concern for open space, but on the grounds that any "demolition or encapsulation" (the tearing down of walls or closing in of original architecture) of the house - no matter how minor - threatens the goals of the historic district. Bayer offered this compromise despite the fact that the BAR routinely approves "demolition and encapsulation" plans similar to her original plans.

The O'Connors and preservationists again threatened to block Bayer's plans. Not wanting to delay her addition any longer, Bayer capitulated. She submitted yet another new plan to the BAR in January of 2004 that proposed an addition on the opposite side of the house but with the same square footage as the plan submitted three years earlier. The BAR approved this new plan after her opponents dropped their legal challenge.

Three years and tens of thousands of dollars in architectural and legal fees later, Bayer was relieved that construction has finally started on the addition, but she was bitter about how cumbersome and costly Alexandria's arbitrary historic district regulations are for property owners. To help cover the cost of her fight - and highlight the inconsistency of Alexandria's laws - she is considering selling the lot on the northern side of the house (her first choice for the addition) where a brand new house could then be built by a new owner in accordance with historic district regulations. A new structure would completely obstruct the O'Connors' view and leave no remaining open space. The addition to the Bayer home that was denied by the BAR would have left 65 percent of the lot open and green.


Sources: Amy Bayer, The Washington Post (July 3, 2003; September 9, 2003)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Thursday, April 19, 2007

ADA Lawsuits Cost Businesses $309.1 Million to Win

To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the owner of a historic California candy store is forced to build a $14,000 handicapped-accessible entrance ramp.

Candy Store Owner Takes a Licking

Lanny Rose has owned the Cottage of Sweets, a candy store in Carmel, California, for more than 24 years. He says he values every customer who visits his store, noting, "My specialty store is small enough that I make it a point to take care of each of my customers."

Constructed in 1922, the building measures just 325 square feet and is designated as historic. Due to its historical classification, Rose has always been extremely careful not to remodel or alter any structural aspect of the building without the appropriate approvals.

In March of 2003, Rose received a demand that physical changes to his building were necessary. He was being sued over his business' failure to comply with Title III provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enacted by the federal government in 1990, the ADA - and specifically Title III - prohibits discrimination against the disabled, and requires public places and commercial facilities to meet various "accessibility standards." For Rose, the step leading into his store was the cause of the complaint.

To Rose's surprise, he and several other local business owners were being sued by Joseph Tacl, a 52-year-old handicapped man who had visited Carmel in 2002. Along with the Cottage of Sweets, Tacl - who became disabled in a car accident in 1993 - sued seven other downtown Carmel shops, claiming "numerous architectural barriers" prevented him from "fully and safely" visiting them. Gene Zweben, Tacl's attorney, called Carmel one of California's "least accessible towns." Zweben said the defendants in the cases were "businesses that my client had attempted to go to but was discriminated against because he wasn't able to go inside the way everybody else can."

Rose does not recall Tacl's visit, but says he and his employees have always tried to cater to the needs of handicapped customers seeking to patronize the store. He said, "We have our own store policy where we will go outside to assist our handicapped patrons into the store. We try to be helpful and give all the assistance that we can."

Those efforts apparently were unknown or not enough for Tacl. In his complaint to the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose, Tacl claimed he received "unlawful discrimination and unfair treatment." As part of the settlement eventually reached by the parties, Rose was forced to undertake a $14,000 construction project to transform the store's circular step into a slightly ramped walkway that complies with ADA's Title III provisions. Rose's insurance company, The Hartford, also paid Tacl monetary damages. Neither side will disclose the exact amount paid in damages.

It turns out Tacl is no novice when it comes to filing ADA complaints. As of April of 2003, Tacl had filed nearly 100 lawsuits against businesses in Northern California. This identifies the potential for abuse of the law. "The ADA is supposed to provide protection for the disabled, not provide an incentive or an excuse for people to sue a small business owner," says Representative Sam Graves (R-MO). "Every time this law is abused and a frivolous lawsuit is filed, small businesses and their employees are left to pay the bill." Representative Graves' office says that during the ADA's first eight years, businesses prevailed in 92 percent of ADA cases, for a total cost to them of $309.1 million, or approximately $25,000 per lawsuit.

Sources: Statement of Representative Sam Graves (R-MO) (April 28, 2003), Carmel Pine Cone (April 4-10, 2003; July 23, 2004), The Cottage of Sweets, Gene Zweben, Lanny Rose, MonterreyHerald.com (April 4, 2003), U.S. Department of Justice

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Labels: Congress, Legal Reform, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Monday, April 16, 2007

100 Tales of Dangerous Government

Today begins a new blog series: Reprinting stories from the new, fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Visit the blog every weekday for more stories or, if you just can't wait, purchase a print copy online for just $15 here, including postage and handling.

Because we want to get the important message of this book -- that excessive regulation harms people and communities -- to as many people as possible, we've also made available free PDF copies here. You can download the entire book, identical to the print edition, read it yourself, and share as many copies as you like with others. You can even post copies on your own blog or website if you like (just don't change the PDF, please!)

Here's more about the book:

"The fight for freedom begins at home. It's good to know The National Center for Public Policy Research is standing guard."
-Ted Nugent, from the Foreword

"The National Center for Public Policy Research is fighting for the freedom of all Americans. It is doing an excellent service in bringing these victims and their stories to light. Shattered Dreams is a must read for all patriots and policy makers who care deeply about America's future and yearn to right her path."
-Judge Andrew Napolitano, from the Introduction

Government Gone Wild!!!
100 Tales of Outrage to Make Your Blood Boil

As Ronald Reagan once said, the nine scariest words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." And an important new book, just out from the National Center for Public Policy Research, shows how on the mark the Gipper was. SHATTERED DREAMS: ONE HUNDRED STORIES OF GOVERNMENT ABUSE gives a hundred reasons why government left unchecked can harm even innocent, law-abiding citizens.

With a foreword by Ted Nugent and an introduction by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, SHATTERED DREAMS serves a cautionary note against those who would expand government's powers and increase its scope over our lives and livelihoods. A team of researchers and experts at the NCPPR provide a rap sheet of government's regulatory missteps, from the merely comic (like the Minnesota girl harassed for running an unlicensed lemonade stand) to the truly horrific (children ripped from the loving arms of parents whose only crime was wanting a quality education for their kids).

SHATTERED DREAMS paints a picture of government at all levels that too often is arbitrary, irrational, petty, vindictive, capricious, shortsighted, avaricious, and nasty. And the book shows these government abuses taking a significant toll in human terms-not just incurring heavy costs, but often destroying lives, wrecking communities, and occasionally even imperiling national security. The NCPPR team provides example after blood-curdling example of government breaking the law it sets, terrorizing innocent, law-abiding citizens.

SHATTERED DREAMS offers short, easily accessible tales, written in a lively style that shines a spotlight on a host of corrupt and dangerous government practices, and a slew of preposterous, ineffective, and costly regulations.

Each entry is backed up with extensive research and source notes. The book breaks down into a wide variety of sections. One shows the folly of taking endangered species protection to extremes. Another provides a mind-numbing catalog of eminent domain abuses. Still others detail the assault on private property rights or on Americans' abilities to engage in routine commercial activities.

Next time you hear someone in the news call for government "to act," keep in mind that its actions often bring with them dire consequences for ordinary (and innocent) Americans. SHATTERED DREAMS shows just how dangerous government can be, even in a "free" society.

Quotes About the Fifth Edition of Shattered Dreams:

"Wherever unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats enforce an increasing number of unconstitutional rules and regulations, the human cost is high. Shattered Dreams should alarm every citizen about the real and potential abuse by their own government."
-Reagan Administration Attorney General Edwin Meese, III
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

"Most Americans are unaware of the massive attacks on our property rights and other personal liberties, and for a good reason; they are being confiscated bit by bit in a relatively unnoticeable way. The fifth edition of Shattered Dreams gives us case by case documentation of this unpleasant process."
-Walter E. Williams
John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University; Nationally syndicated columnist

"The National Center for Public Policy Research has performed a great service by cataloging the ways in which the growth of the regulatory state threatens our natural rights to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Anyone who wishes to understand how paternalistic government is crushing liberty needs to read this book!"
-Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

"It is inconceivable that the founders of our great republic would approve of modern government's meddling into ordinary Americans' daily lives. Shattered Dreams is a stunning, retail-level case study of the inequitable application of government power. Indeed, this book shows why far too many of today's wrongful federal and state regulations not only undermine constitutionally protected liberties in an abstract sense but also ruin the lives of countless numbers of Americans."
-Mark Levin, Nationally-syndicated radio talk show host and president of Landmark Legal Foundation

"Big government is wasteful, inefficient, sinister - and funny. Half of the tales of regulatory abuse in "Shattered Dreams" are hilariously absurd - like the little girl whose lemonade stand was deemed illegal and shut down because she had not applied for a $60 license. But funny or sinister -and other stories show regulatory abuse destroying lives and fortunes - this book reveals how Big Regulation increasingly throttles our freedom. Ignore it - and the laugh will be on you."
-John O'Sullivan, Author and Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

"This collection of sometimes-funny, often-shocking horror stories should leave readers with one clear lesson: When Big Government comes knocking, don't be afraid. Be very afraid."
-Deroy Murdock, Nationally-syndicated columnist and
Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation; Distinguished Fellow, National Center for Public Policy Research

"Communities I represent in California, including Colton and Fontana, have been unable to move ahead with important development opportunities. Burdensome restrictions to protect an insect - the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly - have prevented projects that could revitalize our cities, boost economic development and provide jobs for area residents."
-Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA)

_____

Labels: Business, Government Power, Legal Reform, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:20 PM

Friday, March 09, 2007

Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act Adopted by House Resources Committee Despite Unresolved Problems

A report from Peyton Knight:

After much debate and unresolved conflict, Rep. Frank Wolf's (R-VA) Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act squeaked through the House Resources Committee on a mostly party-line voice vote Wednesday.

It was the Democrats who rammed the controversial bill through the committee, as many of Wolf's fellow Republicans voted against the bill after attempts to amend some of the more egregious portions of the legislation failed.

No doubt, this is a blow to those who believe in private property rights and commonsense limited government.

On the brighter side, this was the first time the negative aspects (namely: lost property rights, pork-barrel spending, and federal overreach) of a National Heritage Area proposal were contentiously debated prior to passage.

The Act also passed in spite of the fact that Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) had introduced a compromise bill designed to better protect the property rights of citizens in the path of Wolf's Heritage Area. Rep. Bartlett's constituents are in this path.

Rather than give Congressman Bartlett's legislation its due consideration, the Democrat majority (at the strong urging of Wolf) opted to ignore the concerns of Congressman Bartlett and many others.

Here are our first-hand notes from yesterday's action in the House Resources Committee:

* Incredibly, the Democrats, with Wolf's blessing, succeeded in stripping out the meager property rights protections present in the Act. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-NM) offered an amendment to remove the entire "property rights" section of the Wolf bill, announcing to the committee that he had Wolf's support to do so. Grijalva argued that the property rights protections present in the bill might create "management difficulties for the Heritage Area." In other words, removing property rights protections will make it much easier for Wolf's preservation lobbyists and the National Park Service to accomplish their goal of restricting land use without having to be reminded of the Constitutional rights of property owners.

So what does this mean? Was the property rights section of the bill, which was meager to begin with, nothing more than a bait and switch tool for Wolf? Wolf championed the property rights section when campaigning for the bill, but when it came time for a vote, he apparently collaborated with the Democrats to have it stripped out. Republicans on the committee firmly objected to the amendment removing the property rights protections, but it the Democrats adopted it on a party-line voice vote.

* Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) offered a good, commonsense amendment to the bill that failed. His amendment would have barred any federal tax dollars received by special interest groups under the Act from being used to lobby state, local or federal government officials. Nothing groundbreaking here. Just common sense good governance. But not to Wolf and the Democrats. Congressman Wolf has consistently resisted this modest improvement, and the Democrats didn't like it, either. The amendment was voted down 22-15 along strict party lines.

Rep. Flake also pointed out that the main group lobbying for Wolf's bill (the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership) received a one million-dollar earmark in the 2005 Transportation Bill - before the group was even incorporated. He pointed out the ethical peculiarity of a group receiving a federal earmark, and then spending that earmark lobbying for more federal earmarks. Flake quipped that perhaps Congress should have been paying more attention to this seemingly illegal situation instead of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere."

For good measure, Rep. Flake also pointed out the absurdity of bestowing millions of federal tax dollars on an organization that already, according to the group itself, has millions in the bank and is financially solvent.

* Representative Steve Pearce offered an amendment that would have simply required that property owners within the boundaries of Rep. Wolf's proposed National Heritage Area receive written notification, via a letter delivered by U.S. Postal Service, of the pending designation. Rep. Pearce argued that this is a common courtesy. Rather than draw a federal boundary around someone's land without telling them about it, as the Wolf bill would do, the Pearce amendment would have required the so-called Heritage Area "management entity" (which consists of the National Park Service and preservation interest groups) to give folks a head’s up.

Again, this is a common sense improvement that Rep. Wolf has resisted since day one. And the Democrats on the Resources Committee argued against it as well. Specifically, they argued that notifying the people who would be affected by the Wolf bill would be too cumbersome and inconvenient for the management entity. The Pearce amendment was also voted down by the Democrats on a strict party line vote, 22-15.

* Representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) made several excellent points, particularly regarding a bill that was taken up prior to the Wolf Heritage Area that would create the Steel Industry National Historic Site in Pennsylvania. Rep. Bishop pointed out:

At a time when the National Park Service is trying to reduce the maintenance backlog at existing park units, I question the responsibility of further increasing their burden by creating yet another National Park.

The committee should also be aware that this site is within the boundaries of the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area. We are often told that we should support heritage areas because they are preferable to designating National Parks. Today we can clearly see that this is not the case. In fact, it would appear that the designation of a heritage area is now the first step to designating another National Park.

In fact, the Rivers of Steel National Heritage Area "management entity" has lobbied not only for this Historic Site, but also the creation of a separate National Park. Thus, here we have a federal agency (the National Park Service) funding a group of activists to lobby for increased programming for the agency.

Rep. Bishop also argued that it "would be an irresponsible precedent" to establish the Wolf Heritage Area "over the objection of a Member of Congress [Rep. Bartlett] whose district is to be included in the heritage area." Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) was unmoved.

* Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) asked an excellent question. After pointing out that every square inch of land in the United States can be considered historically significant in some manner or another, he asked: Where does this National Heritage Area craze end?

Indeed, are we going to cover the entire United States of America with National Heritage Areas?

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:19 PM

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Property Rights Showdown in House Expected Wednesday

The House Resources Committee is is facing a showdown on property rights Wednesday.

Virginia Republican Rep. Frank Wolf's bill to allow preservation groups to create a federally-funded "management entity" to influence land-use decisions in Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia is scheduled for a vote March 7 in the House Resources Committee.

Wolf's proposal would earmark a minimum of ten million federal taxpayer dollars to the special interest preservation groups' "mamagement entity." The bill recommends that the management entity disburse its taxpayer-subsidized windfall to "states and their political subdivisions" to promote the land use policies the preservation groups favor.

The management entity would have substantial influence over land use decisions in the four states, but citizens of those states would not be permitted to vote on its leadership.

The interest groups slated to receive the funding fought proposals, such as Proposition 7 and Proposition 37 in Oregon, to require that government compensate property owners when it takes the owner's land.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), whose district would be covered by the legislation, has offered a competing bill for the Committee's consideration. The Bartlett bill includes no provisions for providing taxpayer funds to interest groups. The Bartlett bill would require local governments wishing to participate in the National Heritage Area to provide fair market value compensation to property owners in their jurisdiction if their property is devalued as a result of government action.

_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Liberals, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:51 PM

Saturday, February 24, 2007

National Heritage Area Elitism Gone Wild

From Peyton Knight:

One of the anti-property rights activists fighting for Rep. Frank Wolf's (R-VA) "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act" revealed her confusing, yet interesting, take on American government recently.

In response to critics who point out that Rep. Wolf's bill would harm the rights of the property owners within the boundaries of the proposed Heritage Area, the Piedmont Environmental Council's Andrea McGimsey let loose with this head-scratcher:

"Whose taxes are paying for your property rights? Mine are."

I don't know quite what to make of Ms. McGimsey's statement. Seriously. I haven't the foggiest. Suffice it to say she probably skipped more than few remedial government classes in her day. The right to private property is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. It is not made possible by Ms. McGimsey's (or anyone's) tax dollars.

But if it's the plight of the taxpayer that concerns her, she really ought to oppose Rep. Wolf's boondoggle, as it would siphon millions of federal tax dollars to a collection of special interest groups, who would in turn spend that money lobbying for land use restrictions on property owners.

Then again, Ms. McGimsey's outfit is one of the groups that would benefit from this pork-barrel windfall.

So more accurately, she wants every taxpayer in America to pay for her group's mission to take the property rights of citizens in Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Oh yeah. And she's tired of her tax dollars paying for your property rights. (???)

Addendum, 3/5/07: The Other Club interprets Ms. McGimsey's remarks.
_____

Labels: Environment, Government Spending, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:12 AM

Friday, February 23, 2007

Marginal Revolution: Tree Owners are Tree Huggers

Looks like a case of property rights helping the environment.

Hat tip: Heritage Policy Weblog.

______

Labels: Environment, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:41 PM