November 3, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

For once I have to defend (0.00 / 0)

George W. Bush. I hate doing it, but I have to. He made the right choice in vetoing the Water Resources Development Act.

http://www.msnbc.msn...

The act per se is fine. My problem with it was that it included earmarks that were added in conference and didn't get to be voted on. The Democrats had pledged to end that practice, so I have to thank Bush for holding them to their word

To quote Russ Feingold, "The President's veto of the WRDA bill is a welcome opportunity for Congress to modify the flawed, bloated bill. Instead of trying to override the veto, Congress should take this opportunity to fix the bill. We must make sure that Americans' tax dollars are spent on the most important priorities, not just on members' pet projects. We don't do our constituents favors by spending their tax dollars on projects that are not justified or fully reviewed. We need to put the "independent" back into independent review, a critical component of reforming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I will continue to push for Corps reforms that ensure fiscal responsibility, accountability, public safety, and environmental protections."

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:19:14 AM UTC

I know you don't like (0.00 / 0)

that I keep posting about eminent domain, and I'm willing to stop initiating it, but if blogs about it are posted, I'm not going to be passive about it. To be passive is to subconsciously agree

CPOFPA allows a lot of the regulations we think about to stay. It only affects PROPERTY regulations that transfer an ECONOMIC benefit from the owner to one or more private persons.

SEC. 19@ Private property may be taken or damaged & for a stated public use when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money
determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation. Private property may not be taken or damaged for private use

(3) "Private use" means:
(iii) regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.

Land use, zoning, consumer, environment, etc... regulations are done for the PUBLIC benefit. They don't transfer an economic benefit, but rather SOCIAL benefits, and not to private person(s), but to the PUBLIC. Labor and workplace laws are not property regulations

I know, it's circulated by people who would love for those things to be gone as well. I am aware of that, but distinguish their ideology and their proposal. Like them or not on their politics, they're not stupid on political strategy. I have no doubt they bowed to pragmatism

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 01:39:40 AM UTC

Where does one draw the line (0.00 / 0)

between benefiting private persons and benefiting the public?

I'm not the most aggressive lawyer, but I can quite easily see how one could use this to wipe out almost any regulation that has a benefit to adjoining landowners, or renters, or any identifiable individual at my expense.  For example, specific private persons are benefited if I can't run my tin smelter next to a school; private persons are benefitted by labor regulations (the "use of the property"); ditto rent control, which this is directly overturning.  You keep saying "the language does this" and "the language doesn't do that" but the language is the language, and it certainly allows all of those things.

Really, if what you care about is the horrible injustice of eminent domain transferring the homes of elderly nuns to mall developers then the "regulation of" language just needs to come out, as does the elimination of rent control, and maybe the de novo review.  That crap is a stalking horse for property rights fundamentalism and a landlord money grab.  You are really blinded by your religion on this point, or else you're deliberately deceptive; it's tiresome, and you're constant cries of "injustice" have almost nothing to do with what much of the text of the initiative is actually about.

I also note that the way that the proposed initiative is set up, it specifically directs courts to NOT defer to the local legislative authority.  Huh.  It MANDATES judicial activism.  I guess that's a good thing for conservatives when it comes to property rights, but a BAD thing when it comes to the rights of individuals.

You're shilling for a landlord power grab; they're trying to get what they really want by pretending to give a damn about homeowners.  It's like the PATRIOT ACT -- the thing was on the shelf, just waiting for an excuse, and there was Kelo -- bang.

Incidentally, it's comments like this which make me not take you seriously -- you're not doing analysis (and frankly, even though isn't my area of the law, I'm far more qualified to do statutory analysis than you are).  You're just parroting a political line developed by people who really only have a couple interests:  property rights fundamentalism and drowning government in a bathtub.

If that is your goal, that's your business, but stop pretending otherwise.  But if it's not, you're gravely mistaken in your statements. 

And I'm done with you in this thread.  Post what you like, but I have other obligations for the next 24 hours.

---

by: jsw @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 02:57:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here we go (0.00 / 0)

1. Drawing the line between transferring an ECONOMIC benefit to a private person and a SOCIAL benefit to the PUBLIC is fairly easy. Economic benefits can be measured in $

2. No private person is ECONOMICALLY benefited if you can't do that. Yes, private persons are economically benefited by labor regulations, but those regulations are not property-specific. No one benefits from rent control, but that's a different debate. Rent control is wrong morally and wrong practically

3. I'd be fine if those things were out, but I'll support this over the status quo any day

4. "I also note that the way that the proposed initiative is set up, it specifically directs courts to NOT defer to the local legislative authority." Thank God! Giving local governments carte blanche on determining if something is blighted or not, and if a taking is a public use or not is like letting the accused decide whether he's guilty. Finally the courts will decide if a taking is legit without deferring to what the local government claims. That's all it is, it's not mandating they ignore the law

5. I'd say a more accurate PATRIOT Act analogy is the notion that private takings only happen with "blighted" property. That's like saying the only people the Patriot Act affects are "enemy combatants."

I'm not shilling for a "landlord" power grab at all. I'm shilling against legalized squatting. Rent controls are legalized squatting.

I am doing analysis, you're the one parroting a political line. You can use anti-Prop 90 talking points all you want, but wishing this was Prop 90 doesn't make it that.

You're parroting the perspective of legalized theft with the help of government on behalf of those who benefit from it.

If you want the government to continue taking private property for private use, then be up front about it. But don't pretend that CPOFPA is like Prop 90, because it's not

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:11:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh wait (0.00 / 0)

scrap the "economic benefits can be measured in $" part. That's accounting benefits. But the previous statement remains

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:15:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

And further support (0.00 / 0)

for number 4:

The part you're talking about is: (c) In any action by a property owner challenging a taking or damaging of his or
her property, the court shall consider all relevant evidence and exercise its independent judgment, not limited to the administrative record and without deference to the findings of the public agency.

In no way does that encourage judicial activism

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 05:17:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

California Farm Bureau Federation (0.00 / 0)

Might I add, the California Farm Bureau Federation opposed Proposition 90 for the same reasons many did: Would have halted the land use planning and zoning that farmland depends on, the redefining of just compensation that would have made eminent domain for reservoirs, canals, etc... prohibitively expensive, and the likelihood of frivolous lawsuits and higher taxes as a result

Where do they stand on CPOFPA? They are CO-AUTHORS. I don't think they would turn around and support something that will have the same impact of what they opposed last year. I trust them on this far more than I trust the hysteria of the League of California Cities

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 21:49:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Holy crap (0.00 / 0)

Here's exhibit A in the "you're arguing with yourself" when I present it.  6 comments balanced by one "no response" comment. Seriously dude, you're talking to yourself. Does anyone remember on The Office where Ryan set Creed up with a blog that was actually a Word doc?  What's the definition of insanity?

---

by: Lucas O'Connor @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 01:34:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not arguing with myself (0.00 / 0)

First, Bush portrayed John Kerry as arguing with himself

Second, if we were actually able to edit our posts (which I realize can't be enabled), I wouldn't have that many. At least 2 of those posts were things I forgot to put in the previous one

Third, I don't care if I get no response. I'd like it, but worst case scenario I enable the casual observer to see the truth

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 01:41:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even for the internet, it's pretty shocking (8.00 / 2)

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 05:53:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]