Friday, July 17, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congress Kills Jobs; Doesn't Care

Neither the left nor the right has reason to oppose reform of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, foolish legislation adopted last year with little thought to its ramifications, but Congress won't reform it, and Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee continues to refuse to even hold hearings.

CPSIA reform wouldn't end the recession, but it would end some job losses at no greater cost than the passage of the bill. As Congress is going to pay itself anyway, why not?

Carter Wood of the Shopfloor.org blog more details in "CPSIA Update: Jobs Being Destroyed, Congress Looks Away," or visit my Outrage of the Day for March 16, "Waxman Drags Feet on Needed CPSIA Reform."

---

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

Labels: Congress, Legal Reform, Outrage, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Chuck Schumer's Hypocrisies

Climate Depot unveils two shocking examples of hypocrisy by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when it reports that global warming zealot Schumer is seeking federal aid for New York farmers because below-average temperatures are affecting crop yields.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Hypocrisy #1: Schumer has been co-sponsoring climate legislation that would have immense negative economic effects on the American public, supposedly in the interest of preventing global warming. So now he wants to hit up the taxpayers because it's too cold?

Hypocrisy #2: To hear him tell it, Schumer is extremely worried about farmers in New York who lost crops due to below-average temperatures. Federal funds are needed, he says, to mitigate the damage of nature: "We must provide immediate assistance after the unusually low temperatures that destroyed... crops and profits for the season."

But does Schumer do anything when federal laws -- federal laws he supports, such as the Endangered Species Act -- restrict vital water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, causing what one California Congressman, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D), called a "Dust Bowl migration," as thousands of families are moving away from his district, thanks to unemployment nearing 50 percent in some communities.

Schumer calls upon the federal government to act immediately when nature hurts the farmers of his state, but when policies he ardently supportS hurt the farmers of California, he just doesn't care.

---

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

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Liberals, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 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

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

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Must Read: Dear AIG, I Quit! by Jake DeSantis

Please read this New York Times reprint of a letter by A.I.G employee Jake DeSantis to A.I.G CEO Edward M. Liddy.

There is much in it that hasn't been revealed by the mainstream press, to its shame (typical).

As I read it, I had this vision, a fantasy, of AIG employees picketing the homes of Members of Congress.

Won't happen.

Too bad.

___________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Media, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:24 PM

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Sorry, Lady, Let Him Die

I made up the quote in the title, but I might as well not have.

A lady in Britain was given a parking ticket for pulling off the road to resuscitate her four-year-old son.

The local authorities were unmoved by her appeal, saying what she did was unnecessary.

Hat tip: Walter Olson and Scott Greenfield on Twitter.

___________________

Labels: Government Power, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:17 AM

Monday, March 16, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Waxman Drags Feet on Needed CPSIA Reform

Today's Outrage of the Day to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), for his refusal to hold hearings on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), legislation adopted last year (see this blog's prior coverage here and here) that has forced charities and thrift shops to toss out large volumes of used clothing and other goods, caused used bookstores to toss out children's books published before 1985, halted sales of dirt bikes, handmade toys and other children's goods, and more.

Congress adopted this law in apparent response to widespread reports of children ingesting dirt bike parts.

No, not really. Congress adopted adopted this law in part because it has no idea what it is doing (that's what happens when lawmakers vote on bills no one has read, coming from an ideological bias that the bigger government grows, the better we'll be), but that's no excuse for not revisiting the issue now that the truth is kicking many people in the teeth.

Every day this law remains unreformed, jobs get killed and books (some of which are irreplaceable) get tossed away.

You can tell that to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), though, chairman of the House Committee with jurisdiction, and he'll tell you he'll get to it later.

As Walter Olson put it on his Overlawyered blog:

...Waxman, for his part, has announced his intent to hold no hearing on the law until the Obama Administration installs a new chair at the Consumer Product Safety Commission. That serves the multiple functions of 1) stalling (while more small enterprises are driven out of business and thus are neutralized as political threats); 2) reinforcing the impression that the ball is in someone else’s court on addressing the law’s harms; 3) assisting in orchestrating whatever hearing is eventually held, since he expects an ally of his own to be installed as CPSC chair...

So now, as Overlawyered reports it, ordinary citizens are now planning their own "people's hearing" on the matter, hoping through direct action to get some relief.

It shouldn't be necessary. Congress made a huge mistake. It should admit it, and fix it.

For more on this, visit Overlawyered's CPSIA tag.

Hat tip (as if you couldn't guess): http://overlawyered.com.
___________________

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Power, Jobs, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:12 PM

Thursday, February 19, 2009

New York Times Editorial Covers Up Book Ban

A New York Times editorial published this week has been excoriated by Walter Olson, proprietor of the popular "Overlawyered" blog and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and justly so.

The subject is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), a law that went into effect earlier this month and which even now is causing libraries, thrift shops and used book stores to throw away large volumes of used children's clothes and toys and any children's books published before 1985.

Don't take it from me:

If you browse through the racks of children's clothing at area Goodwill stores, you'll notice half the supply is gone - all because of a new law being implemented by the federal government Tuesday morning.
-KPTM FOX 42 News, Omaha, 2/9/09 (Hat tip for the link: Ace of Spades.)

...our realistic choices are:
1. Shut down our children's section, or
2. Ban kids 12 and younger from the library.
-Librarian, Idaho (Hat tip for the link: Ace of Spades.)

Chip Gibson, president and publisher of Random House Children’s Books... 'This is a potential calamity like nothing I’ve ever seen. The implications are quite literally unimaginable,' he said, noting that children’s books could be removed from schools, libraries and stores; nonprofit groups like First Book would lose donations; and retailers, printers, and publishers could ultimately go out of business. 'Books are safe. This is like testing milk for lead. It has to be stopped.'
-Talkback on Publishers Weekly, 1/12/09 (Hat tip for the link: Overlawyered.com.)

'The economy is tough enough right now, and now I'm not allowed to sell dirt bikes?'
-Hitching Post Motorsports (MN) sales manager Andy Buddensiek, as quoted by KARE 11 News, Twin Cities. The Motorcycle Industry Council estimates that $100 million dollars worth of motorbike inventory may have been frozen nationwide. As sales of adult ATVs are unaffected, some worry that children will ride adult ATVs that are too difficult for them to properly handle. (Hat tip for the link: Overlawyered.com.)

...unless the law is modified... handmade children's products will no longer be legal in the U.S.
-Handmade Toy Alliance (Hat tip for the link: Overlawyered.com.)

There are many, many more specific examples of damage this law is doing on Overlawyered.com, some of which are heart-rending.

Here's what the New York Times published:

Unfortunately, the commission has yet to implement important aspects of the new law. The delay has caused confusion and allowed opponents to foment needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises like libraries, resale shops and handmade toy businesses. (Emphasis added)

Needless???

Walter Olson at Overlawyered put it this way, in part:

...The Times editorialists warn against “needless fears” that the law “could injure” smaller enterprises. Got that? Not only will they not be driven out of business, they won’t even be “injured”. So small enterprises from coast to coast are just imagining things if they plead desperately for places like the Times to notice that they have already closed down, or will have to do so in the foreseeable future, or have lost thousands of dollars in unsalable inventories. Motorbike dealerships around the country are just imagining things if they think they’re staring at massive losses from the inability to sell their products, even though news-side talent at the New York Times has in fact covered their story well — coverage which the editorial studiously ignores.

For as long as anyone can remember, the New York Times has unthinkingly taken its line on supposed consumer-safety issues from organized groups like Public Citizen and Consumers Union. In this case, the result of such reliance has been to render the nation’s leading newspaper a laughingstock.

It appears the New York Times' belief that regulations have no harmful economic or social benefits is so calcified, it didn't even examine the question of whether anyone was being harmed by CPSIA before declaring news of such harm as being the product of mere "needless fears."

Meanwhile, a significant part of our nation's cultural heritage (children's books published before 1985) is literally been thrown in the dumpster, and many small businesses and charities and the people they serve are being hurt. Some are being hurt quite a lot.

Shame on the New York Times for putting its passion for regulation ahead of the truth.

Cross-posted on Newsbusters

__________________

Labels: Business, Government Power, Media, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 PM

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

First They Banned All the Books

Though in this particular revolution, it appears they are starting with children's books published before 1985.

Possibly that's to get us used to the idea.

To be fair, though, Congress didn't only vote to ban books. The legislation behind this, the Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act of 2008, also eviscerates a significant chunk of our nation's cultural heritage, kills jobs (see the links below for stories about what this is doing to some small businesses), and hurts charities.

(If you hadn't yet heard that used bookstores, thrift shops and other establishments have begun throwing out large numbers of children's books, as well as children's clothes, toys and other goods, read this article by the Manhattan Institute's Walter Olson, and then head over to his superlative website, Overlawyered.com, for more details and updates.)

I checked to see if our fearless leader voted for this bill, but he blew off the vote entirely. His chief-of-staff Rahm Emmanuel, then an Illinois Congressman, was an original co-sponsor in the House, and Rep. Bobby Rush, also of Illinois, was the main sponsor.

In the Senate, the only "no" votes were: Allard (R-CO), Barrasso (R-WY), Bunning (R-KY), Burr (R-NC), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), DeMint (R-SC), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Kyl (R-AZ), Vitter (R-LA) and Wicker (R-MS).)

Folks, this is what big government gets you. Brace yourselves for more.

P.S. If you sell used clothes on EBay, yard sales, etc., beware. The penalty for breaking this law is fines up to $100,000, prison time, or both. You don't have to harm anyone to go to prison.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades.

Labels: Business, Congress, Environment, Jobs, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:53 PM

Sunday, February 01, 2009

Yet Another Way Governments are Killing Jobs

Coyote Blog writes about cases in which local governments have forced people who want to start new businesses to prove their new business is "justified by the marketplace," that is, won't harm their likely competitors too much.

Hat tip: @WalterOlson.
____

Labels: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:39 AM

Friday, January 30, 2009

Regulation Expected to Push Gas Stations Out of Business

From Alfred Lee at the Pasadena Star-News, information that new environmental regulations in California will push some gas stations out of out of business:

Dozens, and potentially hundreds, of gas stations around California are choosing to shut down rather than comply with a state mandate that would require owners to purchase new equipment to reduce vapor emissions at the pump.

The requirement, known as Phase II in the state's Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program, is set to go into effect in April. It requires gas station owners to individually purchase tens of thousands of dollars of equipment designed to prevent harmful vapors from escaping into the air when gasoline is pumped.

But smaller retailers say that the requirement puts an unfair burden on businesses that don't sell enough gasoline to offset the extra cost - and that don't contribute much to the problem in the first place.

Among them is George Fasching, who after 31 years of selling gasoline at Fasching's Car Wash in Arcadia, stopped in December.

"I came to the decision that I was too small a volume operator to continue on with the expenses imposed by the bureaucracy of the state," Fasching said.

April's requirements would have cost him $35,000, he said. Fasching used to sell the gasoline as a convenience for his car wash customers, and blames the new regulations for forcing him to stop.

"It will have some effect on my business, but at least I have the relief that I don't have to deal with these people anymore," he said.

As of the end of December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District had heard back from 3,109 of its 4,500 sites about EVR Phase II.

Seventy-six - or 2.4 percent - indicated they will be shutting down on April 1, 2009 rather than upgrade their sites...

Read the rest here.
____

Labels: Business, Environment, Environmental Justice, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:21 AM

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Will Economic Crisis Make Obama Think Twice About Global Warming Regulation?

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli's latest Townhall.com column examines President-elect Obama's attitude toward global warming regulation.

He asks, "Will the economic crisis make Obama think twice about cap-and-trade?, and answers: "There’s no sign yet that it will."

Read it all here.
____

Labels: Business, Climate, Economics, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:16 PM

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Capping Greenhouse Gases: Here's Why Not

Husband David has an op-ed in today's Washington Times as well as other papers on what a cap on greenhouse gas emissions would due to our economy.

An excerpt:

When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight.

Yet government-mandated restrictions on carbon emissions would do precisely that, adding enormous additional weight to an economy already reeling. This additional weight shouldn't just be thrown from the bus -- it should be thrown under it.

Most econometric studies agree that restricting greenhouse-gas emissions would slow our already sluggish economy.

A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.

Other studies suggest smaller economic costs: Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.

Sharp emissions restrictions would also push the costs of energy and other consumer products higher. According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.

The people most vulnerable to such price increases are the poor. A 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office examining the costs of cutting carbon emissions just 15 percent noted that customers "would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would." Indeed, the lowest quintile income group would pay nearly double what the highest quintile income group would, as a proportion of income, pay in increased energy costs.

And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming. With emissions from China, India and other developing nations growing at breakneck speed, even this modest benefit would be completely erased.

Some argue that we should undergo this pain anyway to set an example for others to follow. The European Union tried that and now, apparently, they're throwing in their collective recycled-material towel... Read it all here.

____

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:38 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, 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

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

NCPPR's Almasi Comments on CAFE in National Review

In the May 5 print edition of National Review, Fred Schwarz described how the catalytic converter was perfected just as automakers faced potentially crippling federal emissions requirements. Liberals cite this as proof that all that is needed to make technological breakthroughs happen is to give industry a swift regulatory kick in the pants, but this particular development was a happy coincidence. Had a breakthrough - discovered after many frustrating failures - not come when it did, the auto industry could very well have been devastated.

Schwarz sees the development of the catalytic converter as another step in the march of science that will, in time, bring about the changes some people hastily want to mandate.

Schwarz’s article is great but for the one line. Schwarz calls newly-mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards "feasible." Hardly. They are most likely to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and subsequently more dangerous in the short-term before (in the minds of the regulatory crowd) the long-hidden formula to fuel cars with water is unveiled.

National Center for Public Policy Research Executive Director David Almasi explained one of the problems with increased CAFE standards in a letter to the editor that now has been printed in the May 19 National Review (print edition). David's letter is reprinted in its entirety below:

Fred Schwarz is right to predict that science will achieve regulatory goals at its own pace ("Machina ex Machina," May 5).

He also says that "[current] CAFE standards are quite feasible, and while opponents have criticized them on economic grounds, at least no engineering miracles will be required." True - but the biggest problem with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy system concerns safety, not economics or engineering. By historical precedent the easiest way for automakers to meet higher fuel-efficiency requirements is to make cars and trucks smaller, lighter and inherently less safe. A 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences estimated between 1,300 and 2,600 accident-related deaths each year can be attributed to CAFE standards.

It’s also the case that these new CAFE standards will raise the price of new vehicles large enough for family use by thousands of dollars. If you don’t like paying an extra buck a gallon for gasoline, just wait until you have to spend an extra ten grand for the car.

Thanks, Congress.
_____

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:52 PM

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

EPA Jeopardizes Children in Potentially Dangerous Sludge Experiments

Project 21's Deneen Borelli is not happy about the EPA and other federal agencies conducting de facto experiments on families in poor, black families:

EPA Sludge Tests a "Modern-Day Tuskegee Experiment"

Children in Poor Black Neighborhoods Potentially Imperiled by EPA Studies

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

Washington, D.C.: Revelations that the federal government conducted potentially dangerous sludge-related experiments on children in Baltimore is condemned by Project 21 black leadership network fellow Deneen Borelli, who is demanding more answers about the origins of the experiment and wants to know how much other reckless policymaking is permeating federal agencies.

The Associated Press reported April 13 that researchers using federal grant money selected nine families in poor, black Baltimore neighborhoods to test if sludge could reduce child health risks from lead. Sludge derived from human and industrial waste was tilled into the families' yards and grass was planted over it.

The AP story said families were told that lead found in the soil in their yards posed a health risk and that the sludge was safe. The study, the findings of were published in 2005, did find that sludge bonded with the harmful metals lead, cadmium and zinc in the soil. However, concerns about the health risk of the sludge appear to have been overlooked, and no follow-up medical examinations of the families were reported.

The AP says, "epidemiological studies have never been done to show whether spreading sludge on land is safe."

A similar experiment was done in a poor, primarily black neighborhood in East St. Louis, IL.

"This is no less than a modern-day Tuskegee Experiment," said Borelli. "The government appears to have clearly failed - in the case of the EPA - in its mission 'to protect human health and safeguard the environment.' In fact, it is failure on both counts. For federal bureaucrats at EPA and HUD to knowingly allow this experiment to take place and jeopardize the health of children and adults is outrageous."

In 1993, the EPA began allowing Class B sludge containing human feces, medical waste and assorted chemicals to be used on farmland, in national forests and for mine reclamation efforts. EPA managers have been hostile to critics who questioned whether the sludge is safe. The hostility included angry calls and letters to public critics and unfounded ethics complaints imperiling the careers of critics within the agency. EPA scientists David Lewis and William Markus, who spoke out about the unknown potential dangers of Class B sludge, were retaliated against by their superiors, but later sued the EPA and won a $100,000 settlement.

In March a federal judge ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to compensate Georgia farmer Andy McElmurray because sludge used in his fields to grow corn and cotton to feed livestock contained extremely high levels of arsenic, toxic heavy metals and PCBs. U.S. District Judge Anthony Alaimo wrote that government-endorsed data on the sludge was "unreliable, incomplete and, in some cases, fudged." Judge Alaimo further wrote, "senior EPA officials took extraordinary steps to quash scientific dissent."

Borelli wants to know if there are other issues championed by the agency in which necessary assessment was bypassed to meet desired political goals.

"One can't help but compare the scandal in Baltimore to global warming policy promoted by environmental activists and many of their supporters in the government bureaucracy," added Project 21's Borelli. "In the case of the EPA, the agency's lack of sound analysis regarding climate change will undoubtedly lead to dire economic consequences. For instance, the American Council For Capital Formation predicts '...the United States would lose between 1.2 and 1.8 million jobs in 2020' and that the 'primary cause of job losses would be lower industrial output due to higher energy prices, the high cost of complying with required emissions cuts, and greater competition from overseas manufacturers with lower energy costs.' We can't be allowed to run headlong into a crisis without proper scientific evidence. In Baltimore and the nation as a whole, it looks as if the government is putting policy goals ahead of public welfare."

Between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study on the effects of syphilis on black men. In the process, researchers intentionally denied full knowledge and treatment for the debilitating sexually transmitted disease to the 399 black men studied. Called the Tuskegee Experiment because government researchers used the renowned black institution's medical facilities, the race-based study led to the deaths of 128 of the study's subjects while 59 wives and children contracted or were born with syphilis.

The AP story was written by John Heilprin and Kevin S. Viney.

-30-

_____

Labels: Corruption, Government Power, Project 21, Race, Regulatory Victims, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:49 AM

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Eliot Spitzer's Bigger Scandal

Senior Fellow Tom Borelli looks at an Eliot Spitzer scandal even larger than the one that caused him to resign as governor of New York State.
_____

Labels: Business, Government Power, Legal Reform, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

A Second Look at Levee Rehabilitation

Peyton Knight penned this letter to the New York Times in response to a February 27 op-ed by Alex Prud'homme, "There Will Be Floods." The Times did not print it, so I'll give it some exposure here:

Alex Prud'homme paints a scary picture of America's antiquated system of levees and fingers two culprits: a backlogged Army Corps of Engineers and lax wetlands protection due to a recent Supreme Court ruling on the Clean Water Act. There are two contradictions here.

He invokes the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, yet fails to mention that it was a wetlands protection lawsuit, filed by an environmental group, which prevented a massive hurricane barrier from being built 30 years ago. As Joseph Towers, former Army Corps chief counsel in the New Orleans district, lamented, "If we had built the barriers, New Orleans would not be flooded."

In addition, the Supreme Court ruling Prud'homme bemoans (Rapanos v. U.S.) should enhance the Corps' ability to focus on backlogged projects. Now the agency can spend less time regulating every isolated wet area in the country and focus on more pressing projects like levee rehabilitation.

_____

Labels: Environment, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:00 PM

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Government Health Care Threatens Burgers and Fries?

Three Mississippi state lawmakers have introduced legislation to ban Mississippi restaurants from serving food to obese people.

We've written before how government bans on tobacco use in bars and resturants have reduced customer traffic in those establishments (here and here, for example). One can only imagine how few customers restaurants would have if they had to do height and weight checks on all patrons at the door.

As reported in the Junkfood Science blog, the bill's lead author, Republican W. T. Mayhall, Jr., says one of the reasons he wrote the bill is to "call attention to the serious problem of obesity and what it is costing the Medicare system."

I'm well aware of the way government health care systems deny people access to health care through waiting lines, cancelled operations, rationing of expensive drugs, etc. (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here for some examples), but this is perhaps the first case of it threatening access to burgers and fries.

Doggone government health care fanatics not only want to end our lives early, they want to cut out half the fun of what life we'll have left!

But perhaps I fret needlessly. The bill bans serving food to obese people, but says nothing about serving alcohol.

Hat tip: Q and O.
____

Labels: Business, Government Health Care, Government Power, Political Correctness, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:01 AM

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Seven Million Americans Can't Afford Health Insurance...

and it's the government's fault.
_____

Labels: Government Health Care, Health Care, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:57 PM

Sunday, October 14, 2007

World's Worst Neighbor

Parents in Brooklyn were threatened with a $300 fine by New York City because their six-year-old daughter drew a chalk flower on the family' front stoop.

It seems a contender for the title of "world's worst neighbor" called the city on the family, claiming the flower -- soon washed away by rain -- qualified as "graffiti."

The good news is that city officials, after learning the full details, sided with the family. No fine will be imposed.

There is, apparently, some sanity in government.
_____

Labels: Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:20 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

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Missouri River Plan Hurt Local Residents

In an effort to protect endangered birds and fish, a federal judge restricted the amount of dammed water allowed to flow into the Missouri River. As a result, water levels became too shallow for regional farmers to ship goods by barge, forcing them to use more costly transportation alternatives.

Missouri River Plan Hurt Local Residents

Citing the need for lower water levels to protect the endangered Least Tern, Piping Plover and Pallid Sturgeon, a coalition of environmental groups sued the government to restrict the amount of dammed water that would be permitted to flow into the Missouri River.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon, commenting on the region's economic reliance on the river, noted that "water for Missouri is like blood for our bodies; the flow of the Missouri River helps keep our economy alive."

Though she acknowledged the economic hardship that would result, a federal judge ruled the well-being of these protected birds and fish outweighed human concerns.

Noting, "there is no dollar value that can be placed on the extinction of an animal species," U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Gladys Kessler ordered a reluctant U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reduce the flow of the Missouri River beginning in July of 2003. While the Corps initially refused to obey the order and was cited in contempt of court, Kessler's decision was later sustained on appeal and water levels were dropped in August.

Almost immediately, the reduction in flow caused the river level in Kansas City, Missouri to fall by six feet. This virtually eliminated the ability of barges to operate on the Missouri River and forced local farmers to seek more costly alternatives, such as air, rail and road, to transport their products. Transporting goods by barge makes good economic sense for farmers. An average 15-ton barge can carry the equivalent of 870 truck payloads.

In the spring of 2004, towing companies normally serving Sioux City, Iowa announced they would not be able to deliver the 50 to 60 regular bargeloads of fertilizer due to uncertain river depths. Big Soo Terminal manager Kevin Knepper lamented: "We have lost our spring and the most profitable season. It's just too late to get up and running and make any money... [W]e're [now] concerned the rail industry will not be able to service the additional tonnage that we're going to need to move this spring."

As a result of a diminished Missouri River, pollution and other environmental harm became an unintended and pressing concern for the region. Nixon predicted "the increased congestion and air pollution stemming from the loss of river transportation [will] be immense." Within weeks of the river dropping to levels not seen since the dustbowl era, water temperature rose to a point nearly exceeding Missouri water quality standards.

Although Kessler's decision in 2003 had been upheld, a different federal judge assigned to the river litigation has since ruled differently. In June 2004, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in Minneapolis ruled in favor of the Corps and blocked the contempt citation.

Sources: Associated Press (June 21, 2004; February 17, 2005; May 25, 2005), Sioux City Journal (February 28, 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: Environment, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:46 AM

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

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Amazonian Tribal Art or Endangered Species?

While secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Lawrence Small violated federal bird protection regulations when he imported Amazonian tribal art that, unbeknownst to him, contained feathers of endangered birds.

Amazonian Tribal Art or Endangered Species?

The government entrusted Lawrence M. Small, the former secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, with overseeing America's national museums, research centers and libraries and the National Zoo. When he opened his own private art collection, however, Small found himself entangled in allegations that he was violating a federal law related to protected bird species. As punishment for his violation, the government required Small to serve a hard labor sentence of 100 hours, involving planting trees or other such outdoor projects for the community.

Prior to entering public service, Small visited South America several times as a bank executive and became enamored with Amazonian art. In 1998, Small purchased approximately 1,000 pieces of Amazonian tribal art from anthropologist Rosita Herita for roughly $400,000. The collection contained various exotic headdresses, capes, masks and armbands adorned with vibrantly colored feathers. Small contends that he submitted the appropriate permit and legal documentation necessary for the purchase. Small believed none of the feathers nor species included in the collection were protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Photographs of Small's collection were published in Smithsonian magazine in 2000. Officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service later claimed several pictures showed feathers from endangered species, including the Scarlet Macaw, Harpy Eagle and Roseate Spoonbill. Possession of a collection with such feathers constitutes a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act. Small, who was hired for the Smithsonian position because of his management rather than research skills, argued he had no prior knowledge that some of the feathers came from endangered bird species, and that he sought and acquired the proper documentation for the purchase. Assistant U.S. Attorney Banumathi Rangarajan, however, contended Small could not have been an uninformed buyer because of the extensive amount of research he already performed with regard to the art and the time he spent in South America. Small, responding to the charges against him, commented, "I can state categorically that I [had] no knowledge that any species in the collection [was] listed under the Endangered Species Act or that [I] imported any pieces in the collection other than in a lawful manner."

Small pled guilty to federal misdemeanor charges related to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in January 2004. His position with the Smithsonian was unaffected, but Small was sentenced to two years probation, required to perform 100 hours of community service and submit a letter of apology to five national publications as a result of the incident. Small had hoped to read books on endangered species and to lobby Congress to alter the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as his community service. Instead, in June, 2005, a federal judge ordered Small to perform physical labor on a "project or projects designed to improve the natural environment."

Sources: Washington Post (January 21, 2004; January 22, 2004; January 24, 2004), Associated Press (January 26, 2004), The Washington Examiner (August 1, 2005), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Archaeology Magazine (September 19, 2002)

**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, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:36 PM

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

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

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Let It Sit, Mayor Bloomberg, Let it Sit

Showdown in New York: Spurred in part by information in a new report by New York State Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky (D), the state legislature is worrying that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to charge drivers $8 to enter lower Manhattan on weekdays would put a disproportionate burden on low and middle-income drivers.

Mayor Bloomberg has other priorities, namely, the $500 million in tax dollars the Bush Administration has promised New York if the driving restrictions are adopted by next Monday. As reported in the New York Times:

"With this window of opportunity rapidly closing, it’s imperative that our state leaders put aside their competing interests and come together on this issue,” the mayor said. “To leave this half a billion dollars just sitting on the table would be absolutely ridiculous."

"Sitting on the table" is mayor-speak for not requiring the residents of the other 49 states to subsidize a new transportation bureaucracy in New York City-- a bureaucracy that, apparently, would hurt low and middle-income people.

Not incidentally, the $8 toll is unlikely to relieve traffic congestion. Assemblyman Brodsky's report says it would increase driving speeds an average of one sixth of one mile per hour. By comparison, a typical comfortable walking speed for a healthy adult is three miles per hour.

I previously blogged about this here.

Addendum: Streetsblog, which has a different take on this issue than I do, has a link to Assemblyman Brodsky's full report in a post today.
_____

Labels: Government Spending, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:33 PM

Friday, June 29, 2007

CAFE Standard Profiteering

Timothy Carney, writing in the Examiner, on the corporations and lobbyists who are profiteering from Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, and how much money some of their PACs give to House and Senate candidates:

While ratcheting up CAFE won’t result in miraculously more fuel-efficient cars, it also won’t drive automakers out of business. Instead, it will likely drive them toward the loophole in CAFE — the renewable fuel credit.

To have any chance of meeting the 35-mpg average, carmakers will need to start selling flex-fuel cars that have inflated mpg ratings for CAFE purposes. This will spur consumption of ethanol.

While raising the CAFE requirements would be a stick in the eye of the Big Three (whose political action committees [PACs] in 2006 gave about $1.3 million to federal candidates), it would clearly be a gift to the ethanol industry, whose strong connections to lawmakers are legendary. Ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from grain, usually corn, benefits from special tax breaks, protective tariffs, and federal and state handouts, as well as government mandates.

In the 2006 election cycle, the PAC for Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the nation’s top ethanol maker, gave $120,000 to federal candidates while fellow agribusiness giant Cargill, No. 2 in ethanol, gave $223,000 to House and Senate candidates.

Also pulling for ethanol -- and thus benefiting from stricter CAFE standards -- is Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm that has invested $30 million in a Canadian ethanol maker.

Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla, who recently penned a New York Times op-ed along with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., calling for even more ethanol mandates, is also heavily invested in ethanol...

Profiteering through the expansion of a regulation that kills a couple of thousand Americans per year can be described in one short phrase: Blood money.
_____

Labels: Business, Congress, Energy, Environment, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:57 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

Sunday, June 24, 2007

CAFE Standards Hypocrite

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was the prime sponsor of legislation adopted by the Senate Thursday that will require automakers, under Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), to drastically increase fuel economy to 35 mpg for cars and SUVs over the next 13 years.

The measure, should it become law, will force manufacturers to make vehicles much smaller and lighter, which will make them far more dangerous places to be in the event of a collision. The bill also will result in price increases of $6,000-$7,000 per vehicle (rough estimate; this may be optimistic). Familes who need to seat more than two children are likely to pay far more, as the way the government's CAFE Standard regulations are structured forces automakers to try to sell more small vehicles than large ones. Thus, the automakers are likely to have little choice but to price small vehicles artifically low, and family-sized vehicles artificially high. Thus, families and anyone else needing a large vehicle will pay far more than $6,000-$7,000 more than they would now, not including inflation. (People who are willing to drive extremely small vehicles may get a discount; that is, maybe they will pay only a couple of thousand more.)

Keep that in mind as you consider this: Majority Leader Harry Reid drove to a news conference to promote this outrage in a Chevrolet Suburban, which gets 15 mpg. Michelle Malkin has a picture.

Apparently, Hypocrite Reid says he needs his two Suburbans for security -- his personal safety. Yet if Reid's CAFE increases are adopted, some people will die. Some will be small children and babies too small to even know the name of the branch of government that killed them, or the names of the Congressional leaders who rode in gas guzzlers to promote the bill that would push them into the unsafe mini-cars that drove them to their deaths.

I call Harry Reid a hypocrite in this post, but that really is too nice a word.

Addendum, 7/23/07: Michelle moved the post with the picture to here, and there's another one here.
_____

Labels: Congress, Environment, Liberals, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:35 AM

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Children Banned from Private School Sports Teams

High school athletics regulators in Maine banned two home-schooled students from a private school's track and cross-country teams, requiring them to join their local public school's athletics program to compete.

Children Banned from Participating in Private Schools' Sports Teams

Students Douglas and Laura Pelletier, who are home-schooled, participated in the track and cross-country teams at Seacoast Christian School. But Douglas and Laura's future in interscholastic sports was threatened when the Maine Principals' Association (MPA) selectively prevented home-schooled students from playing for private schools' athletic teams.

Under Maine state law, home-schooled children are allowed to play on the teams of both public and private schools. In November of 2002, however, MPA executive director Richard Durost issued a memorandum to MPA member schools, which comprise all of Maine's public schools and many private schools, that said a private school would jeopardize its eligibility to compete with other MPA schools if home-schooled children played on its athletic teams. Although this conflicted with state law, Durost and the MPA were steadfast in enforcing the new ban. As the MPA regulates high school interscholastic extracurricular activities in Maine, a school's sports program could be significantly impaired if it violated an MPA policy.

In March of 2003, the Home School Legal Defense Association filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in Portland, Maine on behalf of the Pelletiers and other Maine home schoolers, arguing that home-schooled children should be allowed to participate in high school sports at private schools. In May of 2003, a judge ruled against the family, forcing the children to go through their local public school if they want to take part in interscholastic sports. The judge ruled that the family's right to choose private education was not burdened because they had the option to enroll in private or public schools if their children wanted to participate in sports. The Pelletiers have not appealed the decision.

In a letter to the MPA, the Home School Legal Defense Association pinpointed what it believed the issue had always been about: a desire "to give public schools a monopoly on homeschool students who are also athletes."

Source: Home School Legal Defense Association

**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: Education, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:53 AM

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Family Investigated for Sending Child to College

An ace student who skipped high school to complete college was prevented from receiving the associate's degree she earned while still a teenager. Because the child prodigy was not 19 years old, state education regulators in New York did not allow her to sit for a G.E.D., which the college required in order to award the degree.

Family Investigated for Sending Child to College

When child prodigy Angela Lipsman graduated from the eighth grade at New York City's Public School 187, she immediately began taking full-time college-level courses at the Borough of Manhattan Community College and the Fashion Institute of Technology. Although the 15-year-old earned enough credits for an associate's degree, her father, Daniel, became subject to an investigation for alleged educational neglect because Angela skipped high school to go directly to college.

Angela and her father live in the Washington Heights neighborhood. Daniel had vowed that he would "go to prison before my daughter goes to a city high school." Local high schools suffer from overcrowding, and the educational environment is so poor that Washington Heights' George Washington High School saw just 37 percent of the student body graduate on time in 1998.

New York Education Department regulations require children to be enrolled in school until the age of 17, and say that Angela cannot get a general equivalency diploma until she is 19. Even though Angela had maintained a 3.84 grade point average in her collegiate classes, the college would not give her the degree she earned because she never received a high school diploma. Daniel filed an age-discrimination lawsuit challenging the age requirements, but New York State Supreme Court Judge Bernard Malone ruled that Angela should not have been allowed to skip high school - even if it was to go straight to college.

Daniel Lipsman asserts that the state should not dictate what age a child must be in order to move on to the next level of schooling: "If the kid can demonstrate the achievement, give him or her the credential. She has a birth certificate. A G.E.D. is not a substitute birth certificate. This law is irrational and serves no legitimate governmental interest."

Angela had to travel to New Jersey in order to take her GED test. She then faxed the results to Excelsior College in Albany. Ironically, she received her associate's degree a week before she got her GED. In January, 2005, Angela received her bachelor's degree with a 3.87 G.P.A. from her 53 undergraduate courses. She has completed four graduate courses and plans to earn a master's degree before she turns 18.

Sources: New York Daily News (July 16, 2003), New York Post (July 16, 2003), Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Lipsman

**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: Education, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:49 AM

Monday, June 04, 2007

Parents Lose Legal Custody of Home-Schooled Children

The Massachusetts Department of Social Services took legal custody of two children, not because of any allegation of abuse or neglect, but because their parents were deemed "unfit" relating to home-schooling their children.

Parents Lose Legal Custody of Home-Schooled Children

To the consternation of officials from the Waltham Public Schools and the Massachusetts town's Department of Social Services (DSS), Kim and George Bryant decided to home-school their son, Nick, and daughter, Nyssa.

This decision ignited a legal fight between the local government and the Bryants that lasted over six years and became so contentious that the DSS took legal custody of the children.

The DSS was awarded legal custody of the Bryant children after the school district obtained a court ruling in 2001 stating the Bryants were "unfit" parents because they didn't file an educational plan or grading system meeting school district approval. The Bryants countered that their plan was very similar to one accepted for a familyin Framingham, another eastern Massachusetts school district.

Nonetheless, Kim and George were determined to be in "educational neglect" of their children, and the DSS was awarded legal custody of Nick and Nyssa. The children, however, continued to live with their parents and Bryants continued to provide and pay for all of the children's expenses. At no point did the DSS offer or provide any services. George Bryant explained, "DSS did virtually nothing to support the 'health' of my family," while claiming legal custody of the children. Both sides additionally agree the children were never abused mentally, physically, sexually or emotionally by their parents.

On June 12, 2003, DSS officials and four police officers arrived at the Bryant home at 7:45 am and ordered the children be taken to a hotel, where they would be given a standardized test. DSS worker Susan Etscovitz charged: "We have legal custody of the children and will do with them what we see fit... They are minors and they do what we tell them to do."

After the DSS failed to convince Nick and Nyssa to go to the hotel to sit for the test, the Framingham Juvenile Court issued a same-day ruling ordering their parents to take them. At the hotel, the children continued to refuse to take the test. Nyssa said, "We don't want to take the test. We have taken them before, and I don't think that they are a fair assessment of what we know." George Bryant echoed his daughter's complaint, saying, "Private school students do not take standardized tests. Why should our children be subjected to this, against their will?" He added: "We do not believe in assessing our children based on a number or letter. Their education process is their personal intellectual property." Surprisingly, Waltham School Superintendent Susan Parrella provided support to the Bryants' cause when she weighed in on the matter in quote to a local newspaper: "An acceptable home school plan is in place right now. I was not aware of any testing occurring today."

Nonetheless, a court hearing to determine whether a complete transfer of custody of the Bryant children to the DDS would take place due to their noncompliance was scheduled for the next day. But the hearing was later postponed indefinitely. George Bryant commented, "We were told [Thursday] that we must show up [Friday]. Several hours later we received a note in our door from DSS saying that it will be discussed at a later time." Since the issue was left unresolved, the Bryants were burdened for some time by the possibility that DSS officials and police officers would arrive at their door to demand their compliance with school district regulations, or perhaps to take the children to foster homes.

The Bryant case may be an extreme example, but home-schooling families in the Bay State often face hostile local governments. Scott Somerville, a staff attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, notes "Massachusetts is a barbaric [state] for homeschoolers."

While Nick continued to be home-schooled, Nyssa chose to enroll in a public high school in the neighboring Belmont Public School District in the fall of 2003. To facilitate her placement, Kim compiled a transcript highlighting the work Nyssa completed during her home schooling. As a result of her past educational achievement, Nyssa began high school a grade above most students in her age group. She made the school's highest honor roll every semester.


Sources: Townhall.com (June 18, 2003), WorldNetDaily (June 2003 coverage), PrisonPlanet.com, Talon News (June 17, 2003), GOPUSA News (June 17, 2003), Childrenfirstamerica.org, Penwing.com, Home School Legal Defense Association, Kim Bryant, George Greeley Bryant

**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: Culture, Education, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:16 AM

Friday, June 01, 2007

Home Schoolers Banned in Calvert County

Calvert County, MD bans the use of a county building by home-schooled students on the grounds that such instruction, though open to the public, would duplicate county services and waste taxpayer dollars.

Activities Banned From Community Center: Alcohol, Crime... and Home Schooling?

You can take a foreign language class at community centers in Calvert County, Maryland. You can play ultra-violent fantasy wargames, possibly even ones based on pagan beliefs. You can even participate in Bible study classes. But Lydia Goulart and Kyle Travers have found out the hard way that you can't teach a class in fiber arts or host a geography club there if your lessons happen to be in conjunction with home schooling.

In Calvert County, using a county building to "home school" children ranks among prohibited activities like alcohol use, criminal acts or hosting for-profit events. According to county officials, allowing home schooling parents to use public facilities for their classes and extracurricular activities would be a waste of taxpayer money because it would create "duplicate services" already provided by the public schools. This decision stands despite the fact that Goulart and Travers planned on opening their activities to the public and sought to utilize rooms that otherwise were empty.

The Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, arguing Calvert County officials violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law. The court ruled against Goulart and Travers, allowing the ban on homeschooling activities to continue. HSLDA appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. On September 26, 2003, the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court overturned the District Court, affirming that teaching the young is protected under the First Amendment. However, the court also held that the Community Center had not violated the rights of the homeschoolers by excluding them from the facilities. HSLDA decided not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sources: The Home School Legal Defense Association, The Daily Record (Baltimore, Maryland) (September 29, 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: Culture, Education, Regulation, Regulatory Victims, Social Issues

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:26 PM

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Free Transportation Service Shut Down by Government

The Santa Barbara City Council drove pedicab operators out of business by requiring that they get a driver's license, undergo a criminal background check, obtain a business license and carry insurance.

City Council Shuts Down Free Transportation Service

Imagine a free public service that relieves the aching feet of tourists, gives kids a safe ride home from the movies at night or keeps someone who might have had one too many drinks at the local pub off the roads -- and is environmentally-friendly, too. Then imagine government regulations shutting the service down.

It happened in Santa Barbara, California.

Pedicabs - bicycle rickshaws able to carry up to six people per trip - were becoming increasingly popular in Santa Barbara. The young men who peddled people around town maintained an informal business, didn't keep regular hours and did not charge a fare for rides. While they accepted tips, drivers did not demand them. The Santa Barbara City Council effectively put them out of business, however, by passing a law in December of 2002 that required pedicabbers to jump through expensive bureaucratic hoops. These requirements included getting a driver's license, undergoing an FBI criminal background check and obtaining a business license and proof of insurance. All of this was to be paid for by the pedicabber. Insurance alone can cost more than $1,000.

Thanks to these imposed costs, pedicabbers were unable to continue operations. Most of Santa Barbara's pedicabbers are now out of business.

Sources: ABC News (August 28, 2003; August 29, 2003), Commuter Bicycles

**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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:35 AM

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Braiding Hair Requires a License?

To practice her craft legally, Arizona regulators wanted Essence Farmer, an experienced African-style hair braider, to supposedly 'learn' her unique specialty by completing a $10,000, 1,600-hour cosmetology course that does not include African hair braiding techniques.

Braiding Hair Requires a License?

Essence Farmer first began braiding hair when she was ten years old. Specializing in African-style hair braiding, which is considered a form of natural hair care because it does not use chemicals or artificial hairstyling techniques, over the years Farmer refined her skills and developed a devoted and trusting list of clients. In 1999 and 2000, she was braiding five to six clients per week out of her parents' West Valley, Arizona home. Like other African hair braiders and natural hairstylists, Farmer operated her business "underground" because she was not a state-certified cosmetologist.

While attending Prince George's Community College in suburban Maryland in 2000, Farmer practiced her trade legally and without regulatory interference at the Blowouts Salon and Hairstons. She later returned to Arizona, intending to open her own legitimate hair-braiding business. Unfortunately, her plans went against a 1996 law requiring all hairstyling professionals to be licensed by the Arizona Board of Cosmetology. Acquiring this license is not an easy task for naturally-skilled stylists such as Farmer. To become a licensed cosmetologist in Arizona, one must attend a board-approved cosmetology school and pass an examination. Both criteria result in unnecessary hardships for prospective natural hairstylists. A one-year course at an approved institution can cost nearly $10,000. The training is also rigorous: 1,600 hours of study are required to master a variety of styling and beautifying techniques. Not a single hour is dedicated to natural hairstyling or to the African-style hair-braiding. The required examination is on matters unrelated to African hair-braiding.

Farmer filed a lawsuit in Superior Court of Maricopa County in December, 2003 challenging Arizona's cosmetology licensing statutes, claiming the occupational licensing laws inhibit viable employment opportunities. Relief proved to be at hand, however. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law Senate Bill 1159, which exempts natural hairstylists from the onerous cosmetology requirements.

Commenting on her victory, Farmer said, "I've already begun the process of opening Rare Essence Braiding Studio. It is thrilling to be at the center of a movement that will allow entrepreneurs to take their first step on the road to self-employment."

Sources: The Institute for Justice, Tim Keller, Arizona Board of Cosmetology

**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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:31 AM

Friday, May 25, 2007

"Big Easy" Made Selling Books Not-So-Easy

For two years, the City of New Orleans stalled the opening of a street book vending business because the booksellers did not have a required permit - a permit, however, that was non-existent and could not be issued by the city.

"Big Easy" Made Selling Books Not-So-Easy

Josh Wexler and Anne Jordan Blanton love books and have always dreamed of starting their own bookstore. After moving to New Orleans in August 2001, they decided to start a street vending business to sell books because they did not have enough money to open a storefront operation. The City of New Orleans, however, kept them from opening their business for nearly two years.

New Orleans requires that street vendors obtain specific permits to sell their goods, which Wexler and Blanton were willing to do. While street vendors in New Orleans can get permits to sell razor blades, flowers or food, nowhere in the city code does it mention permits to sell books. Their Catch-22 situation was that vending without a permit - something that was required yet didn't exist - is a misdemeanor crime punishable by up to five months in jail.

City officials were steadfast in preventing Wexler and Blanton from selling books on the street. The couple sued the City of New Orleans in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr. ruled in their favor on June 17, 2003, determining that the city's restriction on selling books on streetcorners just because it had not created a permit to regulate the practice was unconstitutional.

Since the ruling Wexler and Blanton have opened their bookstand, successfully completing their personal "Battle of New Orleans."

Sources: Institute for Justice, Josh Wexler

**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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:29 AM

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Child's Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Government Regulators

The St. Paul, Minnesota government shut down a seven-year old's lemonade stand because she did not hold a $60 state beverage license.

Seven-Year-Old's Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Government Regulators

If an entrepreneurial child in St. Paul, Minnesota wants to set up a lemonade stand, he or she must first learn about the costly and overbearing world of government regulation. That's because before serving the first customer, the child will need to obtain a $60 license to sell beverages. That's what seven-year-old Mikaela Ziegler found out after the city's Office of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection shut down her refreshment stand.

On August 27, 2003, Mikaela was in her fourth day of selling packaged lemonade, orange juice, water and soda pop. A woman identifying herself as a city inspector approached her stand and told her, "You can't sell pop without a license."

Mikaela was considered to be in violation of St. Paul's Legislative Code Chapter 331A.04(d)(24), which mandates a license for "a temporary establishment where food sales shall be restricted to pre-packaged nonpotentially hazardous foods or canned or bottled nonalcoholic beverages; operating no more than fourteen (14) days annually at any one location." Although no one had complained about Mikaela's stand, Licensing Director Janeen Rosas cited complaints about unlicensed vendors operating at the nearby state fair.

Mikaela's father, Richard, calls the situation "laughable" and "tragic." He rhetorically asked the Minneapolis Star-Tribune: "Is there anything sacred anymore? We're not running a business here. This is fun and games for kids. I think [Mikaela] netted, after paying me, a whole $13."

Source: Minneapolis Star-Tribune (August 29, 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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:34 PM

Winkelman v. Parma City School District

I've updated a past post about the couple that was threatened with a fine because they went to court on behalf of their minor son without hiring a lawyer.

In short, the U.S. Supreme Court has now weighed in on behalf of the parents.

Says Tony Mauro, writing for Legal Times:

Parents do not need to hire lawyers to litigate public school special education disputes involving their children, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 7-2 decision in Winkelman v. Parma City School District says parents have “independent, enforceable rights” in a free, appropriate education for their children under the Individuals With Disabilities Act. As a result, they can pursue those interests not just at the administrative appeal stage, but into federal court as well.

“It is not a novel proposition to say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education and upbringing of their child,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that “a parent of a child with a disability has a particular and personal interest” in pursuing equal opportunities for the child.

The opinion did not disturb the longstanding rule that pro se litigants can only represent themselves, not others. Kennedy said there was no need to rule on that issue because the Court was saying that parents, in pursuing these claims, are enforcing their own rights, not just the rights of their children.

The ruling came in the case of Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, who were dissatisfied by the educational plan devised by the Parma, Ohio school district for their son Jacob, who has autism spectrum disorder. When administrative appeals ended, Sandee Winkelman, a nurse, schooled herself in legal procedure and took the case to federal court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that parents could not litigate under IDEA, setting the stage for their high court appeal.

School districts, claiming that the cost of special ed litigation goes up when parents rather than lawyers are involved, fought against parental representation. In some cases, local bar groups have also complained that parents without lawyers were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

But parents said the high cost of legal fees, as well as the dearth of lawyers willing to take on these often-complex lawsuits, made self-representation necessary...

There's more. Read the rest here.
_____

Labels: Education, Legal Reform, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:29 PM

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Fourteen-Year-Old Worker Fined $352 for Not Filing Tax Return on $3.16 Paid in Taxes

A Pennsylvania tax collection bureau fined a teenager $352 and threatened her with arrest for not filing a local income tax return on $316 of work.

Fourteen-Year-Old Worker Fined $352 for Not Filing Tax Return on $3.16 Paid in Taxes

Laurie Hanniford, a 17-year-old high school junior in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, was mystified by the certified letter she picked up at the post office in May, 2003.

Was it her senior driver's license, or perhaps something from a college?

Unfortunately, no. It was a criminal complaint threatening her with arrest.

Hanniford called her parents from the post office. According to the Associated Press, Hanniford's mother said Laurie "couldn't drive, she was crying so hard."

When she was 14 years old, Hanniford had worked part-time as a swim instructor. That summer, she made $316. The $3.16 she owed in taxes was deducted from her paychecks. Three years later, the letter said, she was being fined $352 - more than she had made - for not filing a local tax return in conjunction with the $3.16 she had paid in taxes.

The Capital Tax Collection Bureau, which collects taxes from 75 localities and school districts, said it had sent her three notices informing her that she had to file a return. It took legal action when she did not respond. The Hannifords said they never received the letters, and the CTCB's own bureau director admitted that the notices are often mistaken for junk mail.

"It's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of to fine her - she was 14 at the time - for taxes that have already been paid," said Hanniford's mother Sarah.

Even though Hanniford had paid her taxes on time, she still paid a heavy price for not filing the paperwork. The teenager was forced to appear in front of District Justice Susan Day to defend herself, where she pleaded no contest. Her fine was then reduced to $77.

According to the Associated Press, about two dozen other teens received letters similar to Laurie's.

Sources: Pittsburgh Post Gazette (June 6, 2003), CBS News (June 6, 2003), Associated Press (June 8, 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: Regulatory Victims, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:28 PM

New York Requires City Tour Guides to Pass Stringent Tests

New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs required Jane Marx, a veteran New York City tour guide, and all 1,300 existing licensed guides to pass a stringent test of arcane information of little practical use. Because Marx refused to take the test, she is not considered one of the city's superior guides.

New York Requires City Tour Guides to Pass Stringent Tests

For 23 years, Jane Marx has led tours in New York City. She can tell visitors about the history and geography of the Big Apple, as well as humorous and informative anecdotes about the city, but she doesn't know exactly how big the Bronx is in proportion to cities in Europe. Because she is unaware of this bit of trivia, city officials do not consider her among New York City's best tour guides. She considers it insulting, but is nonetheless thankful it didn't rob her of her livelihood - as it once threatened to do.

In May 2003, Gretchen Dykstra, commissioner of New York City's Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), decided to replace the existing tour guide licensing exam, which all tour guides at the time had taken and passed when they were first licensed, with a much longer and more arcane version.

Many questions expected guides to know information that has little real use in their line of work. For example: "The physical size of the Bronx is approximately the equivalent to what European city? (a) Paris, France (b) Copenhagen, Denmark (c) London, England (d) Brussels, Belgium." One month after the new test was required, only 36 percent of those who took it were able to correctly answer the 120 questions out of 150 needed to pass.

A chief complaint among New York City's approximately 1,300 licensed tour guides at the time was the new testing requirement essentially revoked their licenses. According to the Guides Association of New York City, the test punished guides "without provocation, just cause, due process or misconduct." There were no complaints on record against the conduct of a tour guide to spur such a radical overhaul of the licensing system.

"You know what is not in the test? How do you get 8th graders interested in New York?" notes Marx. She maintains the qualities which make a good tour guide - humor, warmth, kindness, presentation of information - cannot be gauged by mini-essays and multiple choice questions. While knowing facts is certainly important, a test that quizzes minuscule dates and names cannot be an accurate arbiter of excellence in tour guiding. Marx asserts that tour guides' customers are on vacation and not "going for [a] Ph.D." She says they want to be entertained as much as they want to be educated.

After half-a-year of bureaucratic wrangling with the DCA and the New York City Council, the Guides Association succeeded in relaxing the requirements of the new test. In January 2004, threatened with yet another City Council hearing on the test, DCA commissioner Dykstra went along with Guides Association demands that tour guides who already have licenses not be required to take the new exam. In addition, the number of questions new applicants must get right to pass has been lowered from 120 to 97, the average score of applicants who took the exam in the first months it was administered. However, those who take the exam and score 120 or above are awarded a star on the DCA's online list of licensed tour guides. "I am starless," says Marx, who refuses to take the exam, "which leads the reader to interpret I took the test but got less than 120."

Sources: The Gotham Gazette (July 7, 2003), Fox News (June 30, 2003), National Public Radio (June 2, 2003), Jane Marx

**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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:28 AM

Monday, May 21, 2007

Bicycle Carriages Outlawed After Taxi Drivers Find Them Threatening to Business

The survival of the Las Vegas pedicab industry has been threatened since the Nevada Transportation Services Authority passed regulations that mandate pedicab drivers must carry insurance and ban pedicabs altogether along the busiest - and, thus, most lucrative - sections of the Las Vegas Strip.

Bicycle Carriages Outlawed After Taxi Drivers Find Them Threatening to Business

Bill Jones is used to maneuvering around roadblocks. As pedicab driver on the Las Vegas Strip, Jones would maneuver his half-bicycle, half open-air carriage through congested streets where locals and tourists alike flock.

Now Jones and other employees of Silver State Pedicabs must contend with a potentially monumental barrier in the form of the Nevada Transportation Services Authority (NTSA), which wants to eliminate pedicabs altogether.

Clark County pedicabbers say they provide a valuable and unique service for this bustling area. The NTSA, created in 1997 to regulate limousines, tour buses, moving companies and tow-trucks, argues that pedicabs are a threat to pedestrian safety.

The Clark County taxi industry also considers pedicabs a threat - to its own business.

In an effort to eliminate the pedicabs, Clark County officials began creating obstacles that threatened the pedicabs' survival. Pedicabbies are already prohibited from charging a fare for their services. To counter this, pedicabs often display "not for hire" signs, so driver's earn their pay solely on tips. Drivers like Jones say they can earn between $100 and $300 for rides on the five-mile Las Vegas Strip, making the pedicab industry a viable and lucrative form of employment.

However, in March 2004, Clark County commissioners voted to ban pedicabs on the busiest thoroughfares of the Strip, from Russell Road (South end) to Sahara Avenue (North end), and 200 feet east of the Strip. Pedicabs may operate outside the restricted area where far fewer pedestrian and tourist traffic are present, but operators must carry insurance. The regulations follow an example initiated by the city council in Santa Barbara, California, where bureaucratic requirements resulted in the extinction of the pedicab industry.

Sources: Associated Press (November 13, 2003), Nevada Transportation Services Authority, Las Vegas Review-Journal (March 3, 2004), Business Week (February 8, 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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:35 AM

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

Friday, May 18, 2007

Casket Salesmen Required to Have Embalming Expertise

The Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors ordered closed a casket business offering 30 to 50 percent discounts off competitors' prices because its owner - a Baptist pastor - was not a licensed funeral director, as is mandated under Tennessee law.

Casket Salesmen Required to Have Embalming Expertise

After his mother-in-law's funeral, Nathaniel Craigmiles saw the exact casket that had cost him $3,200 in Tennessee selling for only $800 in a New York City store.

Craigmiles, pastor of Marble Top Missionary Baptist Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee, saw a good business opportunity. He opened his own casket store and set his prices 30 to 50 percent below what other Tennessee casket dealers were charging.

After the business was open one week, however, the Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors ordered Craigmiles to stop selling caskets. If he refused to stop, Craigmiles risked having his business shut down, the imposition of fines and, possibly, a jail sentence. That's because Tennessee law states that anyone who sells a casket must also be a licensed funeral director. To accomplish this, one must go through two years of training (which costs thousands of dollars), embalm 25 bodies and pass a license exam.

Craigmiles filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, arguing that Tennessee's regulation violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chief Judge R. Allan Edgar agreed, saying consumers should have a choice when purchasing caskets and ruling that the requirement of a license to sell a casket was illegal. Edgar also said caskets sold by funeral directors are marked up between 250 and 400 percent, with some examples as high as a 600 percent markup.

The state of Tennessee appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, Ohio. That court found the only difference between caskets sold by individual retailers and the Tennessee Board of Funeral Directors was the cost. The court ruled unanimously in favor of Craigmiles, and he was allowed to re-open his business.

"The government's good old boy network drove me into bankruptcy, but now I'll finally be able to help my parishioners and others cut their funeral costs," said Craigmiles.

Source: Institute for 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: Business, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:32 PM

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Seattle Nixes Competition

With a nod to economic favoritism, Seattle hands exclusive rights for removal of commercial and residential waste to two politically-connected corporations, while forbidding small local trash haulers the chance to compete legally.

Seattle Eliminates Businesses for the Long Haul

Ron Haider of Haider Construction in Seattle, Washington could rely on Joe Ventenbergs' Kendall Trucking to haul construction-related debris from his work sites more quickly, less expensively and, he said, more reliably than competitors Rabanco, Ltd., and Waste Management of Washington (WMW). Haider said, "Joe provided better service at a better price and worked in a timely fashion. He was more environmentally conscious, too." But Haider's ability to work with Ventenbergs began to be curtailed in April 2001 when the Seattle City Council entered into a seven-year contract with the two other companies for the removal of the city's commercial and residential waste.

An ordinance in Seattle's municipal code mandated that all hauling of commercial and residential waste was exclusively delegated to Rabanco and WMW, affiliates of the national companies Allied Waste Industries and Waste Management Incorporated, respectively. Each company was awarded a territorial monopoly (Rabanco in the northern part of the city, WMW in the southern). No other companies were legally allowed to collect or remove these types of debris. Initially, smaller local haulers like Kendall could still legally haul construction waste - but that soon changed.

In October 2002, largely as a result of successful lobbying efforts by Rabanco and WMW, Seattle's municipal code was amended to expand the scope of its contract with the two companies to include construction waste. For Ventenbergs, the City Council's action was a drastic blow to his business, as the removal of construction waste is Kendall's main service. In February 2003, city officials informed small business haulers that most of their work would be eliminated. Privately-owned businesses like Haider's would be required to use the services of either Rabanco or WMW. Jeanette Peterson, an attorney representing both Ventenbergs and Haider, commented that, "with the stroke of a pen, the city of Seattle [had] transformed a legal business into an illegal business."

Based on the assertion that the municipal code constricts economic liberty, Haider and Ventenbergs filed a lawsuit against the city in May 2003, claiming that the change in the municipal code creates territorial monopolies and is therefore unconstitutional. Haider also asserts he has the right to hire the hauling company of his own choice. In addition, the suit argues, the city is engaging in economic favoritism by creating an oligopoly over the waste-hauling industry that benefits Rabanco, WMW and their parent companies. City Councilwoman Margaret Pageler disagrees with Haider and Ventenbergs, saying, "We'd like to be kind to small-business people, but in fact we have a contract that's consistent with state law, and the ordinance simply brought the city law in compliance with the contract and the state law that precedes it."

On February 23, 2004 the King County Superior Court in Seattle ruled that Haider and Ventenbergs were not entitled to relief under the privileges and immunities clause in Washington's state constitution. The Washington State Court of Appeals Division I upheld the ruling in February 2005, and the territorial monopolies over hauling construction waste in Seattle continue.

Sources: The Seattle Times (February 25, 2004; February 15, 2005), Seattle Post-Intelligencer (May 16, 2003), Cascade Policy Institute, The Institute for Justice, Ron Haider, Seattle City Council, Jeanette Petersen

**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: Business, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:30 AM

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Advertising a Home Sale Requires a Broker's License, California Claimed

California regulators nearly shut down a company for offering homeowners the opportunity to advertise their own homes for sale on the Internet.

California Tries to Require Broker's Licenses for Web Sites Carrying Real Estate Ads

Some homeowners choose to forgo the high cost of real estate sales commissions by selling their homes themselves.

In 1997, Damon Giglio opened up a whole new world for independent sellers with the creation of the Forsalebyowner.com website. For up to $700 a listing, sellers can make their homes available to a nationwide market of prospective buyers. Regulators in California, however, tried to force Giglio and the owners of similar sites to become licensed brokers. This would have ruined Giglio's business in California and may have led to new restrictions in other states.

In 2001, Giglio received notice from the California Department of Real Estate advising him that anyone advertising property listings in the state must be a licensed broker. In collecting a fee to "list," "advertise" or "offer" properties for sale without state certification, one runs the risk of individual penalties of up to a $10,000 in fines and six months in jail and up to $50,000 in fines for businesses.

Getting a broker's license is a costly endeavor. Giglio contends the two-year, college- level process is unnecessary for his service - essentially posting on-line classified ads. Even though for-sale-by-owner classified ads have appeared in California newspapers for years without newspapers being penalized, state regulators have forced at least one of Giglio's Internet competitors out of the California market.

With the assistance of the Institute for Justice, Giglio won a lawsuit against California regulators in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in Sacramento. Federal District Judge Morrison England found the distinction that requires independent websites to obtain a broker's license while exempting newspapers that print real estate advertisements was "wholly arbitrary" on First Amendment grounds. The court ruled that "there appears to be no justification whatsoever for any distinction between the two mediums."

In 2004, the State of California decided not to appeal the decision.

Sources: Institute for Justice, USA Today (May 19, 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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:22 PM

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Flower Arranging Requires Government Approval

The dream of becoming professional florists is on hold for three accomplished floral arrangers in Louisiana because the state mandates they pass a $150 two-part flower exam partly judged by arbitrary and selective criteria.

A Rose, a Tulip, and a Carnation: May I See Your License?

Sandy Meadows, Shamille Peters and Barbara Peacock all consider themselves blessed with a knack for designing floral arrangements. Their keen sense of blending color schemes, foliage types and other design aspects was developed through years of experience in the floral industry. Meadows spent a combined nine years as both a floral clerk and supervisor. Shamille boasts a similar resume while Barbara has worked with flowers and designed floral arrangements for her church, friends and relatives since she was a child. But their goal of becoming florists turned out to be a much more difficult goal to accomplish than the women expected. Each woman's individual quest to become a professional florist was severely inhibited by Louisiana's mandatory florist-licensing exam.

As preposterous as a state-mandated flower exam might sound, the success rate of perspective applicants is even harder to believe. Over the past three years, passage rates for the exam peaked in 2003 at a mere 46 percent. The year before, the success rate was only 43 percent. Legal experts argue the reason for the low rate of success among applicants is not a viable one. The Louisiana Horticulture Commission (LHC) assumed the responsibility for administering the Retail Florist Exam in 1939, authorizing only those people who successfully pass a two-part exam. This $150 exam consists of a written component and a practical, hands-on design test in which applicants create four different floral arrangements. The latter half of the exam is especially prone to subjectivity. Instead of using impartial judges to grade the Commission's exams, the LHC employs state-licensed florists with whom prospective florists will compete in the marketplace if they pass the test. Thus, legal experts note, a situation is created where the judges can effectively control development and competition within their own industry.

LHC judges are asked to determine whether an applicant's four floral arrangements meet indeterminable and subjective criteria such as a proper focal point, whether the arrangement was constructed in a size proportional to its container, if and how the flowers were effectively spread and whether or not the flowers and greens were properly picked. Many applicants have complained to the LHC that they believe the judges' discretion and subjectivity obstruct the opportunity for applicants to obtain florist licenses.

One example that aptly demonstrates the arbitrary and subjective nature of judging occurred when one aspect of an applicant's wedding arrangement received three perfect scores on the appropriate size of wire on her greenery (five out of five) and two failing scores (zero out of five) from the five-judge panel. These wide-ranging and inconsistent scores exhibit how the guidelines for grading and potential bias on the part of the judges toward future competition can contribute to the exam's exceptionally low rate of success.

Meadows, Peters and Peacock are only three of many victims of this licensing program. Combined, the three women have already flunked the exam ten times despite their many years of experience. After their initial failures, Peters and Peacock enrolled in floral design courses at local community colleges in hopes of bolstering their chances to pass the exam. These efforts have so far proved only to be both fruitless and costly.

All three women have dedicated innumerable hours in their quests to become licensed florists in Louisiana. While all three are currently employed in other fields, the extremely subjective nature of the state's licensing exam presents them from practicing their desired vocation. In December 2003, Meadows, Peters and Peacock filed a lawsuit against the LHC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in Baton Rouge, claiming that the requirements to become a licensed florist are anti-competitive and monopolistic. However, in March 2005, Judge Frank Polozola upheld Louisiana's florist licensing law, citing public health and safety concerns.

Despite the ruling, the women continue to fight for the opportunity to become professional florists in Louisiana.

Sources: The Institute for Justice, The Louisiana Horticulture 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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:08 PM

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

Monday, April 23, 2007

Government Says Yes -- Then Says No

The District of Columbia government halts the building of a new cellular phone tower seven months into its construction, despite having issued permits permitting construction, thereby costing its builder $250 million in various expenses and leaving area residents without adequate cellular service.

Government Approves Building Permit, Then Outlaws Construction

Residents of the Tenleytown neighborhood of northwest Washington, D.C. aren't happy with the quality of cellular phone service in their area. But when construction was started on a new tower that would improve both cellular service and television broadcasts, those same, politically-powerful residents complained to the District of Columbia City Council that the tower would be too tall. The council then halted the construction, at an estimated cost of $250 million to the tower's owner, American Towers Corporation (AT).

In March 2000, 13 city agencies approved a permit for AT to build a 756-foot tower in Tenleytown to improve cellular phone service and serve as a new broadcast tower for several local television stations. The new tower was to be constructed in an area that already contained several broadcast towers.

Seven months after issuing the permits and after the building of the tower was well underway, then-Mayor Anthony Williams ordered a halt to construction. In conjunction with that order, the City Council invalidated AT's permits by passing the "Moratorium on the Construction of Certain Telecommunications Towers Emergency Act of 2001."

The D.C. government did not condemn the AT property or offer to buy the land from AT - officials merely outlawed the completion of the tower. It remains unfinished; standing at nearly 300 feet.

AT sued the District of Columbia and Mayor Williams in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. AT argued that it was victimized by the Tenleytown residents who had the ear of local politicians and who wanted to stop the tower for aesthetic reasons. Although city officials had approved the permit to build the tower, lawyers for the city argued that AT's tower would have been too tall. AT asked for $250 million in damages to permit it to recover money the company had already invested, delayed construction costs, the cost of litigation and projected profits the company would lose by not finishing the tower.

AT did not win its case in Superior Court, and the lawsuit was subsequently rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Seeing dim prospects and mounting legal bills in their federal case, AT decided not to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company's appeals to the D.C. Office of Zoning have been equally unsuccessful.

The District of Columbia then ordered AT to remove the unfinished tower. However, the D.C. Superior Court stayed enforcement of the District's order, while a separate lawsuit brought by AT seeking damages for the unfinished tower is before the court.

Bob Morgan, vice president and general manager of AT, expressed the company's dismay in an op-ed published in the Washington Times. "What seems clear to anyone who gives some serious thought to the situation is that the administration's decision is plainly a matter of favoritism. A few members of a small, politically-important neighborhood start pumping their fists in the air and the administration springs into action."

Not only is AT out millions of dollars, but many Tenleytown residents' cellular phones still don't work well.


Sources: Washington Post (November 1, 2002), Northwest Current (March 19, 2003), Washington Times (October 23, 2000; November 30, 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: Business, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:47 PM

Friday, April 20, 2007

Suing for a Lap Dance

A quadriplegic man sues a Florida strip club for failing to provide a handicapped-accessible "lap dance" area.

Lap Dancing Location Leads to Lawsuit

Edward Law, who has been a quadriplegic since a diving accident in 1987, visited the Wildside Adult Sports Cabaret, a strip club in West Palm Beach, Florida, in May and June of 2002. A month later, he sued the club in U.S. District Court. He claimed it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the room reserved for "lap dances" was inaccessible to the disabled. Law claims that the stage where dancers perform is too high and blocks the view from his wheelchair.

In order to get a lap dance, Law did not have to sue the club. Bret Rudowsky, Wildside's general manager, said that because of Law's disability, he would have allowed Law to receive erotic private time with a dancer in other areas of the bar. Before the lawsuit was filed, Rudowsky had never received a complaint from a disabled customer.

Steve Howells of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities believes that lawsuits should be one of the last resorts used to resolve ADA-related complaints. If a disabled person is unsatisfied with a business' accommodations, Howells says, individuals should complain to the management. Had Law done this, the club would have complied with his request. Instead, Law hired Anthony Brady, Jr., a lawyer who has sued more than 100 companies for ADA violations, to represent him in court. They filed a lawsuit requesting compliance with the law as well as an unspecified amount of money in attorney's fees. Since the only difference between what could be done in and out of court is money, suspicion was raised that the lawsuit was more about personal gain than protecting the rights of the disabled. Law also filed a lawsuit against another West Palm Beach strip club, the Landing Strip. Both of Law's suits were voluntarily dismissed in 2002.

In response to these and other ADA-related lawsuits, including a high-profile suit filed against a hotel owned by actor/director Clint Eastwood, the ADA Notification Act was introduced in February 2003 and reintroduced in June 2005. The bill would require a person to contact a business and explain how it violated the ADA's accessibility provisions before filing a lawsuit. The business would then have 90 days to correct the violation before a lawsuit can be filed.

Sources: Adult Industry News (July 15, 2002), Ragged Edge Online (July 22, 2002), Thethoughtpolice.com, The Washington Times (February 13, 2002)

**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: Business, Congress, Legal Reform, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:59 PM

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

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Smelling Delicious a Civil Offense in New York City

Coffee company spends over $30,000 fighting New York City's air pollution citation for smell of roasted coffee.

In New York City, Smelling Delicious Can Get You Fined

New York City's Gillies Coffee Co., founded in 1840 and one of the oldest coffee merchants in the United States, has built its reputation on its own delicious, fragrant brand of coffee. But not everyone likes the aroma of freshly-brewed coffee: New York City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has cited Gillies for "polluting" the air - in an industrial area - with the smell of roasting coffee.

Incredibly, the DEP ruled that the "fugitive odors" coming from the Brooklyn business - namely, the smell of roasting coffee - is an illegal air pollutant that violates the New York City Air Pollution Control Code. Hy Chabbott, the co-owner of Gillies, has agreed to pay the $400 fine but says it will be impossible for the company to meet the DEP's demand that they completely eliminate the coffee smell in the future.

"Research has shown that coffee smells like coffee. There is nothing that can reasonably be done to separate the natural smell of already roasted coffee from a coffee business," explained Donald Schoenholt, president of Gillies. "Under the current interpretation [of the NYC Air Pollution Control Code]," Schoenholt asserted, "shoe stores, barber shops, doctor's offices and flower shops are all in violation of the law."

Gillies was convicted of the violation on April 2, 2003 by the city's Environmental Control Board, the municipal administrative court run by the DEP. The matter cost the company over $30,000 on legal bills. Schoenholt is constantly aware that his company could be fined again, because the law has not been taken off the books.

"Once it has been established that you are a polluter either through conviction or because you admit guilt by paying a fine," Schoenholt told the Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, "you are on the slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before you're forced to move your business from New York City."

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York City's DEP has also fined pickle companies, bagel bakeries, and doughnut shops for aroma violations.

Schoenholt says: "It's really hard to live like this as a business owner. I don't know if I'm going to be in business in one year, in five years. I can't really put a dollar amount on the harm that's been done."

Sources: Reuters (April 22, 2003), Donald Schoenholt, Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer (April 26, 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: Business, Environment, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:29 PM

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Smoking Bans Hurt Neighborhood Restaurants and Bars

New York's smoking ban causes the closure of a popular Buffalo bar and restaurant, leaving nearly 20 employees without work.

Small Neighborhood Restaurants and Bars Hurt Most by Smoking Bans

The Royal Pheasant, a popular bar and restaurant in Buffalo, New York since 1944, has permanently closed its doors.

Owner Jacqueline O'Brien says her establishment was forced out of business by a drastic decline in customers attributed to a statewide smoking ban. Like many other New York restaurant and bar owners, O'Brien contends that such establishments have the right to decide its own smoking policies.

The closing of the Royal Pheasant forced nearly 20 people out of work. While the smoking ban contains a provision allowing businesses to apply for a waiver, very few establishments have actually been able to acquire one.

Besides the Royal Pheasant, nine other Erie County bars and restaurants closed soon after the ban went into place. Small neighborhood restaurants have been the most adversely affected by the ban. Patrick H. Hoak of the Innkeepers Association of Western New York has reported that some of the smaller bars and restaurants that have not closed have experienced drops in sales of 50 percent.

Sources: The Buffalo News (December 9, 2003; January 25, 2004; October 2, 2004), Innkeepers Association of Western New York, New York State Department of Health

**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: Business, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Monday, April 16, 2007

Smoking Bans Hurt Small Business

Delaware's indoor public smoking ban cost one establishment 70 percent of its business and a $350 fine from the state's health department.

Small Business in Financial Trouble After Delaware Smoking Law Forces Patrons Across State Lines

The Delaware legislature has outlawed smoking in all public enclosed indoor areas. This ban extends to bars, restaurants, nursing homes, prisons and all other publicly owned buildings.

The ban economically endangers many local establishments, such as Desiree Mulford's Breakers Bar and Billiards in Newark. Many of Mulford's customers have taken their business to neighboring states, where they can still enjoy smoking indoors. "I'm ten minutes from the Maryland line," said Mulford. "Not only do smokers go, but the nonsmokers go, too. They want to go where the crowds are."

While 25 percent of Delaware's population smokes, Delaware bar owners estimate that about 80 percent of their patrons do.

After a 70 percent decrease in business, Mulford decided to allow smoking at Breakers despite the new law. "For every one person I lost because there was smoking here, I gained ten," she said. But things changed after these practices were published in a newspaper article, and Breakers received a $350 fine from the Delaware Division of Public Health. Mulford began to receive registered letters from the state that described complaints it had received and unannounced visits state officials had made. The bar's previously-approved permits to construct a kitchen were revoked as a result of the decision not to enforce the ban. This compelled Mulford and her business partner to enforce it once more. After reinstating the ban, they lost more than 50 percent of their business and had to stop paying themselves just to keep the bar open.

The Delaware House of Representatives passed an amendment to their Clean Indoor Air Act in March of 2003. In an effort to help small businesses, this legislation would have allowed smoking in some bars. But strong campaigning by anti-smoking activists led to the bill's defeat in the state senate by a two-to-one margin. Delaware's Governor Ruth Ann Minner was also strongly opposed to the amendment despite the crippling effect the bill has had on some local businesses.

Dwindling crowds are making it difficult for Desiree Mulford's business to survive. She considered closing Breakers and opening a restaurant and nightclub in New Jersey, but New Jersey adopted a ban on smoking in public buildings, except gambling areas in casinos, in January 2006.

Sources: Desiree Mulford, Washington Post (July 7, 2003), Baltimore Sun (June 22, 2003), Associated Press (January 27, 2003), News Journal (April 9, 2003; June 1, 2003), The Record, Smokefreeworld.com

**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: Business, Government Power, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:08 PM

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

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Parents May Be Fined for Helping Their Own Son

The Cleveland Bar Association has made an outrageous decision: It is attempting to get an Ohio couple fined because they went to court on behalf of their minor son without hiring a lawyer.

Says the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

The bar charged [Brian and Susan Woods] with unauthorized practice of law and threatened a $10,000 fine, saying that although the Woodses were allowed to represent themselves, they could not act as lawyers for their son. The charge is normally filed against nonlawyers who provide legal services for pay, but is rare against parents.

The parents largely won the case for their son, settling it after the school district agreed to send their son, who has autism, to a private school.

More from the Plain Dealer:

Michael Harvey, the Rocky River lawyer handling the charges for the bar association, said the goal is to protect the rights of children. Harvey said special education laws are so complex that children need experts, not untrained parents, looking out for their rights.

"You hope parents will do the right job for the child, but that's not always the case," Harvey said.

Harvey said that although the bar is officially seeking a $10,000 fine, it would be happy with an admission that the Woodses broke the law and an agreement not to do it again.

Brian Woods thinks he's being intimidated to prevent parents from handling cases themselves - and to protect the large fees lawyers charge for such cases, which can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars.

The parents, in suing the public schools, were suing the government. The government has a law saying they can't handle the case on the child's behalf without professional help -- apparently because the consequences to the child of losing to the government are excessively dire.

The government would do better to can the laws saying people need professional help to fight the government and instead run a government people don't need to fight.

Addendum, 10/30/06: On Oct. 27, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide if the parents had the right to appear in court without a lawyer.

An AP report says, in part:

Justices to Take Up Autism-Case Dispute

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 (AP) - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider an appeal by an autistic child and his parents, who want to sue over his school accommodations without hiring a lawyer.

The parents, Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, say they cannot afford a lawyer to argue their court case against the school district of Parma, Ohio, near Cleveland, over the education of their son, Jacob.

The federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled that the Winkelmans, suing under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, had to find a lawyer to represent Jacob, although other federal courts have ruled differently in cases involving that law.

The Bush administration then urged the justices to take the case, saying that in adopting the measure, Congress clearly intended that parents be able to represent their children in such court proceedings.

The Winkelmans’ suit contested Parma’s plan to educate Jacob at a public school. They wanted the district to pay his yearly tuition of $56,000 at a private school that specializes in educating autistic children.

Whether Jacob should have private schooling at public expense is not before the justices, only the question of his parents’ right to go into federal court without a lawyer....

Addendum, 5/23/07: The U.S. Supreme Court has now weighed in -- on behalf of the parents.

Says Tony Mauro, writing for Legal Times:

Parents do not need to hire lawyers to litigate public school special education disputes involving their children, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The 7-2 decision in Winkelman v. Parma City School District says parents have “independent, enforceable rights” in a free, appropriate education for their children under the Individuals With Disabilities Act. As a result, they can pursue those interests not just at the administrative appeal stage, but into federal court as well.

“It is not a novel proposition to say that parents have a recognized legal interest in the education and upbringing of their child,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority, adding that “a parent of a child with a disability has a particular and personal interest” in pursuing equal opportunities for the child.

The opinion did not disturb the longstanding rule that pro se litigants can only represent themselves, not others. Kennedy said there was no need to rule on that issue because the Court was saying that parents, in pursuing these claims, are enforcing their own rights, not just the rights of their children.

The ruling came in the case of Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, who were dissatisfied by the educational plan devised by the Parma, Ohio school district for their son Jacob, who has autism spectrum disorder. When administrative appeals ended, Sandee Winkelman, a nurse, schooled herself in legal procedure and took the case to federal court. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that parents could not litigate under IDEA, setting the stage for their high court appeal.

School districts, claiming that the cost of special ed litigation goes up when parents rather than lawyers are involved, fought against parental representation. In some cases, local bar groups have also complained that parents without lawyers were engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

But parents said the high cost of legal fees, as well as the dearth of lawyers willing to take on these often-complex lawsuits, made self-representation necessary...

There's more. Read the rest here.

Labels: Education, Legal Reform, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:36 PM