Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Poetic Justice Souter
Several bojillion readers have just forwarded this proposal to build a tax-revenue generating, job creating hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare, New Hampshire. That'd require the demolition of the house there after it's seized via eminent domain from it's current owner—some guy named Dave Souter. According to the press release:
The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
UPDATE: And New Jersey had better watch out as well.
|6.28.05 @ 2:19PM|#
Even though such a proposal might be reasonable economically, and damn funny poetic justice, it is still wrong. I'll cling to my reading of the Consitution until they reinterpret it from my cold, dead fingers.
|6.28.05 @ 2:27PM|#
Forgive this way, way off-topic comment, but...
just a moment ago I thought to myself, hey, maybe I should buy a
Reason T-Shirt. So I followed the link and saw the goods.
Here's my question. Since most people on this board are always
complaining that there are few too women 'round these parts, would
it hurt to put up a couple of items for women? (If there already
are such animals and I just missed them, well, then, you've hidden
them well!)
|6.28.05 @ 2:47PM|#
Which book has the more unreadable prose - the Bible or Atlas Shrugged? Hmmmm....... Either way, both are good for insomniacs.
|6.28.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Why I've never seen a better investment opportunity. I can't wait to stay and dine there. I think I'll eat cake.
|6.28.05 @ 2:50PM|#
maybe we should use ED to boot the entire population of the state of pennsylvania, and serve the common good by converting it into a space where one can own land without being booted off of it.
|6.28.05 @ 3:10PM|#
Somehow I don't think the funding of this little venture will be much of an issue.
MP|6.28.05 @ 3:15PM|#
All kidding aside, the courts would strike this down as arbitrary and capricious. Thus it would lose on Substantive Due Process grounds, another fine "out of our ass" invention of our SCOTUS overlords.
|6.28.05 @ 3:21PM|#
From the second article:
"Dibs on Nevada," said California Governor
Schwarzenegger.
After all the depressing news on the freedom front as of late, any
humor is greatly appreciated Julian - thanks for passing those
along.
Think we can start a collection to support the project in New
Hampshire? Maybe Reason can get a conference room or
something named in its honor.
|6.28.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Perfect idea. Let's do the same for homes of Breyer, Ginsburg,
Stevens, and Kennedy too. See how it feels now. Let's practice on
them what they preach.
Another idea. For the justices who support race-based affirmative
action, let's replace them with minorities like Janice Rogers,
Walter Williams, Emilio Garza, and Alberto Gonzales, among
others.
|6.28.05 @ 3:28PM|#
LOL, yes, I already got my SDoSD baby dolls (see, SOMEBODY was thinking about how hot Smacky and Jennifer and I would look), that was what made me want a Reason one.
|6.28.05 @ 3:31PM|#
Reminds me of when Clinton declared a big chunk of Utah off limits to any development, and Robert Redford had much praise for the decision. Some Utah politician was soon looking into having Redford's Sundance ranch similarly listed. You've got to love people who support laws that are great....for other people.
secret designer|6.28.05 @ 3:42PM|#
LOL, yes, I already got my SDoSD baby dolls (see, SOMEBODY
was thinking about how hot Smacky and Jennifer and I would look),
that was what made me want a Reason one.
Unfortunately, the secret designers cannot design a Reason
babydoll, lest the secret designers be outed during the copyright
infringement case. Then the secret designers would have to get day
jobs.
|6.28.05 @ 3:49PM|#
Given that this is Free State New Hampshire, let us suppose that
a member of Souter's local council, animated by similar animus,
decided to make Souter's home a park. This would surely fall under
public use. Would this be acceptable to the commenters here, since
that is pretty much following the letter of the Constitution? And
if not, is the eventual goal Constitutional amendment? Barring
that, it seems that some other, necessarily non-judicial, procedure
must be developed to keep ED abuse in check.
Anon
|6.28.05 @ 3:50PM|#
Haha, smacky...a house frock! Crackin' me up...
I could wear it to the Super Food Mart when I shuffle up there to
get my cigs and Pepsi. Make sure I show it off.
|6.28.05 @ 3:52PM|#
Isn't one of the primary purposes and justifications for
government to protect property rights? And now, since property
rights have essentially be negated, doesnt this decision make the
purpose of government moot and render its justification for
existence nugatory?
A couple of weeks ago, this would have been a stupid idea. They
fucked up in announcing thier motivations. If they would have asked
for a Hotel 8 or something, then after it opened, buy it out and
THEN make it into the museum.
Still, I think the city can go forward. Souter would be forced to
argue why HIS house should be spared. I think that the courts would
let him off the hook. But the bullshit reason that they would give
would just undermind the respect for the authority of the
court.
I think we can now see how local governments can use this to
intimidate people. You fight city hall, they turn your house into a
7-11.
|6.28.05 @ 4:00PM|#
I'm in. Incorporate the hotel-building firm, sell shares in a dutch-auction style offering. Allow us to pay fees should the issue be oversubscribed (as I think it would).
The Wine Commonsewer|6.28.05 @ 4:07PM|#
TWC is going out on a limb here to predict that this is just a very pleasant dream but will never happen. That's because Justice Souter is one of those politically well-connected people that Justice O'Conner was referring to when she said this:
The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process
Emphasis added.
The link is to a Newsday story that carried the quote, nothing real
fun.
|6.28.05 @ 4:10PM|#
I could wear it to the Super Food Mart when I shuffle up
there to get my cigs and Pepsi. Make sure I show it off.
Now that's what I call s-s-sexy! Ha ha. That would be great free
advertising for Reason. I expect a portion of the profits when they
decide to implement my suggestion. Oh! I've got another one: Reason
overalls. They would look great at the county fair, smeared with
raw goat milk, pig shit, and french fry grease. See? What a great
advertising campaign I've thought of for Reason. (*pats self on
back*)
(Hey, it's better than pop-up windows.)
|6.28.05 @ 4:10PM|#
"Barring that, it seems that some other, necessarily
non-judicial, procedure must be developed to keep ED abuse in
check."
My thoughts exactly. I propose a National Planning Commission,
which state, local, and federal governments would have to appear
before, and get a permit, before they can do any eminent domain
takings. Or maybe any takings that will result in a private use on
the taken land.
Here's how it works - under the Due Process and Equal Protection
powers, Congress adopts legislation in recognition of the threat to
those rights that the current state of takings law poses. The feds,
of course, have the right to stick their nose into any government
action in order to make sure that the states and municipalities
aren't depriving people of their privileges and immunities under
the Constitution.
They then empower the National Planning Commission to review all
takings cases, or whatever subset they deem worthy of close review,
to make sure they are sufficiently protective of due process and
equal protection rights.
Now, to do this, they'd have to draw up a set of standards (or pass
enabling legislation, allowing the Commission or HUD or somebody to
do it for them) that the governments' actions have to meet. For
example, the standards might require a showing that the minimum
amount of land is being taken, that there was an adequate public
process, or that the public purpose goals could not be achieved
without the takings. They could also make them do a parcel by
parcel defense of the takings, and show why alternatives are
inadequate. They could also define economic status as a category of
concern under the equal protection clause, which would subject any
taking that disproportionately impacts lower income people to a
high level of scrutiny. It is well within the power of Congress to
draw up pretty much whatever regs it wants, in order to protect the
rights it is authorized to protect.
So the Commission gets one member appointed by the president, one
by the HUD Sec, one from Commerce, one from Transportation, one
from Interior, one from EPA, and one from the Civil Rights Division
of Justice.
Whaddya thinka that?
|6.28.05 @ 4:21PM|#
it sounds like just the thing. more commissions and standards are just what this country needs, as they clearly are the driving force behind all that is good in the world.
|6.28.05 @ 4:41PM|#
joe,
My first thought is that all people appointed to a national
planning commission would already be pre-disposed to favoring ED
most of the time. So the standards would be lax. After a time
legislation would be passed, a la PATRIOT, listing all the valid
reasons to bypass the planning commission anyway.
|6.28.05 @ 4:49PM|#
Joe,
I know you posted that sarcastically, but some reasonable criteria
could be established, at least at the state level. Maybe a
checklist of conditions where a private to private taking would be
acceptable,as a last resort. Excluding things like "We'll build a
bigger, more expensive home on this land and pay more taxes." Maybe
including something like building people new homes of the same
square footage, on the same acreage. Something that holds
developers to their promises of jobs and taxes.
Anything is better than connected crony wants land, uses rented
pols to get it.
|6.28.05 @ 4:50PM|#
I know you posted that sarcastically...
i don't know that. do you think he knows that?
|6.28.05 @ 4:51PM|#
Russ D,
One of the purposes of my plan is to put these decisions firmly
within the field of politics. If something as outrageous as the
Kelo takings was passed, the president would have hell to pay.
There would be a strong incentive to staff the commission and write
regulations in ways that are broadly acceptable to society.
|6.28.05 @ 4:54PM|#
There would be a strong incentive to staff the commission
and write regulations in ways that are broadly acceptable to
society.
As opposed to now, when there's suddenly a very strong incentive to
pay real close attention to a theoretically accountable group of
jackasses who maintain their power by having elections for
municipal positions in off-years.
Fark that. National bureaucracy is the answer here.
|6.28.05 @ 4:56PM|#
David,
I am completely serious. I believe there are constitutional rights
issues at stake, and that current state of the law doesn't
adequately protect them. We need them to be more vigorously
protected. There should be state-level protections as well, but
just as we don't let the city fathers of Possumbutt, Louisianna
decide how to protect the Bill of Rights rights of the residents of
their black slum, we also need the feds to have a mechanism to
protect the rights of property owners. And it would foster good
planning practice, too.
BTW, if anyone were to object to a National Planning Commission on
the grounds that they don't want politics injected into the
pristine product of city planning efforts, I volunteer to laugh in
his face and tell him horror stories.
|6.28.05 @ 4:58PM|#
As for Resason advertisements on articles of clothing, why stop
there?
Why not on rolling papers and bullets? School voucher forms?
|6.28.05 @ 5:04PM|#
what then makes you think that the products of said "NPC" will
be pristine by contrast? maybe we need a National Planning
Commission Review Panel. then in a few years, a National Planning
Commission Review Panel Review Board. which of course would
necessitate an Office of National Planning Commission Review Panel
Review Board Internal Affairs.
yes, the ONPCRPRBIA is clearly the answer.
nmg|6.28.05 @ 5:05PM|#
joe was not being serious. The "national plannign commission"
title alone should give it away. I am certain he was merely mocking
those who loudly protest violations of states' rights (which often
happens on this board) yet are dismayed by the Kelo case which joe
apparenlty mistakenly believes was based on a respect for states
rights. If that is the case I would ask him why the states aren't
allowed to define "speech" as "anything you say in your own home
only". Why aren't they allowed to define "privacy" any way they
like, including "any action that is not an abortion"?
Hmmmmmm?
(correct me joe if I'm mistaken but I just can't believe that
anyone would seriously offer such a proposal as your "national
planning commission", even the title conveys ominous overtones of
central planning/Maoism)
nmg
|6.28.05 @ 5:05PM|#
I think I've figured out joe's problem, and it's not statism,
per se. It's something like "politicaphilia." Any collective
decision, any decision reached by "the political process" must be a
good one. As opposed to my view, and P.J. O'Rourke's, that
"Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
possessing merit."
Of course, "politics" is still our best answer for solving some
problems. But politics should be a last resort. Decisions reached
outside of politics, by people negotiating freely, should be the
rule.
|6.28.05 @ 5:10PM|#
As for Resason advertisements on articles of clothing, why
stop there?
Why not on rolling papers and bullets? School voucher
forms?
Derwood,
They do offer the reason thong. Brilliant, because when you see it
up close you're open to suggestion(and advertising).
|6.28.05 @ 5:10PM|#
my thoughts exactly steve. otherwise we might end up with a $20 million ONPCRPRBIA.
fyodor|6.28.05 @ 5:13PM|#
joe, it's not the job of a commission to protect constitutional rights, it's the job of the courts. And that's the answer to your question whether your joking or serious.
|6.28.05 @ 5:14PM|#
I was going to say, they do at least offer the Reason thong.
I assume this is intended for female wear, right? Please don't tell
me that men wear those.
|6.28.05 @ 5:25PM|#
Some people bitch, some people try to solve
problems.
Would rather have more bitching and less problems solving - at
least bitching doesn't fuck things up worse than they already are
:-)
|6.28.05 @ 5:25PM|#
fyodor
Actually, every public official swears to "defend the
constitution". So I would say it's every public official's
duty to "protect constitutional rights". But when was the last time
you heard a politician say "I can't vote for that, it's
unconstitutional!"
(I can think of only two, one from each party, and they're
considered slightly KOOKY.)
And frankly the last few presidents don't even seem to be aware of
its existence, and one of them had been a professor of
constitutional law (but you wouldn't know it from his
administration).
|6.28.05 @ 5:28PM|#
BTW, if anyone were to object to a National Planning
Commission on the grounds that they don't want politics injected
into the pristine product of city planning efforts...
Wow, zing, because anyone here in these never-ending
threads has even suggested anything like that.
Somehow, I think anyone with a brain could guess why libertarians
and federalists might not like a National Planning Commission.
the regulator|6.28.05 @ 5:31PM|#
I wear my reason thong everytime I go to Possumbutt, Louisianna. The city fathers dig how it looks on men.
|6.28.05 @ 5:31PM|#
Hmm several comments about how this could be ruled unlawful due
to capriciousness/arbitrariness and how they should have hidden the
purpose of the hotel. But as I understand it, the proposal is
neither capricious nor arbitrary. The hotel could only be built on
the property of a supreme who voted for the measure for it to
actually make money.
So this is one of 5 or so places that it could be, but the only
such place in the proposed town. This is the traditional
justification for economic developement ED use. Acquiring property
to lure a big developer to your town instead of having them choose
to go somewhere else. As far as I can see the proposal fits
squarely within the supreme court ruling.
|6.28.05 @ 5:39PM|#
Never mind New Hampshire: I'd like to erect a nature preserve in Crawford, Texas...
|6.28.05 @ 5:43PM|#
Andrew is exactly right - it's not arbitrary or capricious at all. It's not like someone randomly picked this site - it has become valuable for its symbolic nature. That is undeniable if someone is willing to spend the money to build the hotel. How the site became valuable for another purpose is irrelevant. And given the reasoning in this case, the city would be well within its rights to determine that such a development would be more beneficial, or better serve a "public purpose" than Justice Souters home.
|6.28.05 @ 5:45PM|#
"National Planning Commission"
If that came to fruition K st. would nut in thier collective pants.
Think about the lobbying that would go on there.
"Some people bitch, some people try to solve problems"
Its not that you are trying to solve the problem Joe its you are
trying to do it with the force of the sword "government". Thats the
problem.
|6.28.05 @ 6:28PM|#
I believe there are constitutional rights issues at stake,
and that current state of the law doesn't adequately protect them.
We need them to be more vigorously protected.
Doing more of the same and expecting a different result is the
essence of insanity.
Get this through your head:
It doesn't matter how goddamned many laws you put on the books. If
the judge and jury are in bed with the accused, then we all know
how the law is going to be "interpreted" before we even begin. The
Constitution is easily circumvented through creative
interpretation, and any other laws can be as well.
|6.28.05 @ 6:33PM|#
correct me joe if I'm mistaken but I just can't believe that
anyone would seriously offer such a proposal as your "national
planning commission", even the title conveys ominous overtones of
central planning/Maoism
Paging Mr. Lowry. Mr.
Lowry?
|6.28.05 @ 8:27PM|#
<pedantic>
...after it's seized via eminent domain from
it's current owner...
Golly, Julian, you too? I thought I only saw that kind of crap on
Slashdot. And even after you got the first "it's" correct.
Sheeeeesh.
</pedantic>
|6.28.05 @ 9:52PM|#
And only now, after submitting, do I notice the second
"it's."
Which should embarass both Julian and me greatly.
|6.28.05 @ 10:27PM|#
Well, irregardless, cjp, we knows you meaned well, and if you was mistaken, most people could care less.
|6.28.05 @ 10:52PM|#
joe,
One of the purposes of my plan is to put these decisions firmly
within the field of politics.
It already is in the field of politics. ED can't happen without the
blessing of government.
If something as outrageous as the Kelo takings was passed, the
president would have hell to pay.
Even if I wanted to be that naiive, the average voter would at
least have to have heard of the damn thing. Has Eminent Domain ever
been brought up as a plank topic at the GOP, Democratic, or Green
party conventions?
There would be a strong incentive to staff the commission and
write regulations in ways that are broadly acceptable to
society.
Much like the precedents which favored the extremely wealthy or
office holding elites who owned most of the mills and
railroads.
joe, why put in some convoluted legislation and committee when
there's a much simpler idea: leave it up to the owners of the
properties in question. You could even convolute it and rather than
make it plot-by-plot decisions, publish the plan and notify the
present owners that X number of lots are considered for a plan and
let those owners decide as a group whether to sell or not to sell.
Not unlike a condo board. (The states could decide whether it's
simple majority, 2/3rds, etc. that push the sales through.) I don't
see why someone who lives on the other side of town should have a
say.
And what kind of unimaginative cretins work in the average
development authority anyway? They come up with a plan, get 80% of
the property owners to agree to sell, and then these brilliant
planners are completely stumped as to finding ways to develop
around the unsold lots? Jeeziz, this happens all the time in
private transactions.
|6.28.05 @ 11:11PM|#
Stevo,
congradulations on working two self-antonyms into that finely
copy-edited reply.
Of course, the only reason their self-antonyms is do to misuse.
Which begs the question: does a word/phrase have any objective
meaning, or is it's meaning merely decided by popular fiat? I
suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...
|6.28.05 @ 11:17PM|#
Yes! And a practical, real world way to fight this outrage is to vote for tax and spending limitation initiatives if they come up in your state so the governments won't have as much money to carry out eminent domain condemnation and purchase proceedings.
|6.28.05 @ 11:41PM|#
There should be state-level protections as well, but just as
we don't let the city fathers of Possumbutt, Louisianna decide how
to protect the Bill of Rights rights of the residents of their
black slum, we also need the feds to have a mechanism to protect
the rights of property owners. And it would foster good planning
practice, too
joe,
I had an argument earlier this year with a guy from Boston (a Ph D.
candidate no less), who could not defend against my argument that
the South was more successfully integrated than the North...
So explain to me how, in the name of all that is tolerant, people
in the Northeast, who are subject to the de facto
segregation of living in the "best areas" there, are better
integrated, and live on better day-to-day terms with minorities,
than people from the deepest, most segregated areas of the
South.
You are all Provincials, in the worst sense of the word.
There are good reasons that Canadians the negative connotations of
the word "provincial."
Adam|6.28.05 @ 11:55PM|#
I suppose the Free State Project has fifty people (by my rough survey of the "WE MOVED!" section of their website) strategically situated to capitalize on it. Early results from freestateproject.org don't seem encouraging that they're jumping on this and riding it for the mileage that they could get out of it. Who knows, maybe something good will come of it.
|6.29.05 @ 12:26AM|#
Kevrob: zoom! There it goes, right over your head :)
Re-read closer; you may find more...
|6.29.05 @ 12:39AM|#
Quick aside here...
What's with the Reason thong being described as "...
designed to fit juniors" and "... sizes run small"? I didn't
realize that the 12-year-old rebellious schoolgirl demographic was
a hotbed of libertarian activity?
|6.29.05 @ 1:29AM|#
I was going to say, they do at least offer the Reason
thong.
I assume this is intended for female wear, right? Please don't tell
me that men wear those.
This is an outrage! Where the hell are the Reason banana
hammocks?!?!
|6.29.05 @ 8:31AM|#
I'm a free-stater living (currently) in Texas, and a co-worker
approached me yesterday afternoon about this. Basically I think
it's a cute stunt but will never fly. Why?
1) Freestar Media and its CEO Logan Clements are not in the real
estate development business. This is not a game for amateurs, I
assure you--I worked in commercial real estate for four years and
it is practically impossible to get things done in the industry
unless you have experience, credentials, and PULL. What is their
business plan, other than an in-your-face John Galt moment in the
spotlight? Will the hotel make money? (Businesses that are not set
up with a primary purpose of turning a profit are immoral.)
2) The Towne of Weare needs to have some tangible evidence that
this is more than a joke. No Board member can afford to allow his
reputation to be at stake, or to get on the bad side of a Supreme
Court justice, unless the benefits to him from the project are
significantly greater than those two major downsides.
3) Do the Cilley Road homeowners support this effort? My guess is
that they're a pretty upscale neighborhood, not zoned for
commercial development (if zoning applies in NH as I guess it
does). What is this going to do to their property values, even
assuming a market like we've had the last several years? My guess
is that they'll do all they can to oppose such a thing, and they'll
be listened to.
4) The opinion in Kelo vs. New London did not hold that the local
government must award the property to a developer, only that it may
do so. Remember that the Poletown decision was overturned last
year. This is meaningful. Not all eminent domain land grabs are
going to be held to be legal even under Kelo.
5) That said, the Freestar Media plan is just wrong. It is
obviously a bad-faith attempt to defraud Souter of his property in
retaliation for his vote. In this country, we do not intimidate or
punish judges personally for doing their job, no matter how much we
disagree with them. Nothing Souter did is contrary to established
law. Interpretation of the Constitution is the responsibility of
the Supreme Court. The people may now use the built-in cheks and
balances to either attempt to bring a new case hoping that the
SCOTUS will overturn Kelo, or induce Congress to pass a
Constitutional amendment that is more in conformance to popular
opinion, or pass laws at the state and local level that are less
permissive than the Kelo ruling. Probably all three will
happen.
I might be wrong about some of this, but I am surely not wrong
about all of it. IANAL.
|6.29.05 @ 9:42AM|#
All you liberty lovers might want to look up the concept of
"checks and balances." Using one branch or level of government to
keep other branches or levels in line is the fundamental principle
undergirding our system of government.
It's also pretty shallow to decide that the idea can't possibly
have any merit, because the name kinda sorta reminds you of
something you read in a sci-fi book.
Russ D, I realize you would like to have no eminent domain takings.
Me, I'd like a have a majic pony that shits Hershey's kisses. It's
time to get off the high horse and think about what can actually be
done about the problem.
db, I can buy the premise that the most successfully integrated
areas of the country in 2005 are in the South. There are a lot of
reasons for this, but one of them would have to be the decades of
federal pressure that has been concentrated there. The
best-integrated, most racially just areas of the country were most
certainly not located in the South in 1955.
R C Dean|6.29.05 @ 9:52AM|#
The best-integrated, most racially just areas of the country
were most certainly not located in the South in 1955.
I wouldn't be shocked to discover that they were. Many Southerners
had worked out reasonably good relations within their communities
by 1955.
Its no accident that Boston is the byword for violent reaction to
school busing: the North was just as de facto segregated as the
South, and perhaps more successful at walling off their black
communities from day-to-day interaction with the white communities.
When bussing broke down those walls, Boston blew up, but Atlanta
didn't. Curious, no?
|6.29.05 @ 9:54AM|#
fyodor, courts are not the only branch of government that is
responsible for protecting rights. The courts are where individuals
go for redress when their rights have been, or are about to be,
violated. However, it is common practice for one branch or office
of government to be charged with checking other branches, in order
to make sure they aren't violating anyone's rights.
If you rely on the courts, you are establishing a system in which
the individual landowner has to prove that his rights have been
violated. A commission, on the other hand, can put the onus on the
governments to prove that their plans pass muster. In addition, the
courts have to wait until an actual violation occurs before
redressing it, while an administrative commission, with review
power over government actions, can nip bad actions in the bud.
|6.29.05 @ 9:59AM|#
RC, good points. The southern system of race relations, going
back to slavery days, was one in which the physical presence of
black people in white areas was a normal part of life, while in
many northern areas, the races lived in different communities. The
South "needed" to have "White Only" signs on its bathrooms because
there actually were white people and black people walking down the
same streets and going into the same stores.
Nonetheless, this physical proximity should not be conflacted with
racial justice. You could say your neighborhood is integrated if
all of the homeowners are white, and have live-in black domestic
help, but it's not going to get an invite to the NAACP Awards.
|6.29.05 @ 10:00AM|#
That's right, "conflacted." You got a problem with "conflacted?" Yeah, well, flact you, buddy.
|6.29.05 @ 10:32AM|#
Joe, I specifically mentioned checks and balances in the post that appear immediately above the one where you bitch that noone looked it up. :)
|6.29.05 @ 10:50AM|#
joe,
I don't know how you can assume I want no ED takings, based on my
proposal I'm making it a given! All these ED cases are based on the
fact that a few people hold out. Rather than get into the insipid
and specious debate about "public use" and "public purpose", let's
cut right to the chase and spell out how the process of takings
would occur and the possible defenses. We all tend to forget that
these high-profile ED cases come right down to the issue of
corporate welfare which always gets ignored.
Meanwhile, you are a city planner. You even called the New London
situation corrupt yourself. And your solution is to put another
level of city planners on top of that!! Talk about a high-horse
solution. That ain't checks and balances, that's the fox guarding
the hen house.
|6.29.05 @ 10:56AM|#
At least Joe's got chicken.
http://www.warcraftmovies.com/movieview.php?id=1666
|6.29.05 @ 11:07AM|#
Russ,
If the only city planner you have regular contact with calls New
London's plan "corrupt," what makes you so certain that city
planners would be unable and unwilling to to the same in an
official capacity? Trust me, New London's clearance plan is not
what most practicing planners would consider responsible
practice.
Anyway, the people on my proposed commission wouldn't have to be
city planners. Most people who serve on local planning boards
aren't planners.
the regulator|6.29.05 @ 11:20AM|#
I can buy the premise that the most successfully integrated
areas of the country in 2005 are in the South
uh...Unless things have changed since 2003, the south I lived in
(north Florida, Baton Rouge, Houston) is still highly segregated.
Much of the segregation centered around economics, but to many
people color was still an issue. That said, I think that the way
different people dealt with one another was more honest and open,
even if it wasn't always positive. When I grew up in NJ, it was
much more about maintaining the appearance of acceptance while
working to ensure that integration would never happen. Oregon is
like that too -- it's a big group hug but please keep the Mexicans
out of our whitebread town.
|6.29.05 @ 11:30AM|#
What's with the Reason thong being described as "...
designed to fit juniors" and "... sizes run small"? I didn't
realize that the 12-year-old rebellious schoolgirl demographic was
a hotbed of libertarian activity?
This is in consideration of:
1.) Libertarians who are anti-child pornography laws and
2.) Libertarians who are pro- lowering the legal age of consent to
14 and
3.) Libertarians who are anti-fat lawsuits and anti-fat pig
Americans.
Am I right or am I right or am I right? :)
|6.29.05 @ 12:20PM|#
speedwell-
...or to get on the bad side of a Supreme Court
justice...
In this country, we do not intimidate or punish judges
personally for doing their job, no matter how much we disagree with
them.
So in this country it is a bad idea to get on the bad side of
Supreme Court justices, presumably because they will abuse their
authority to retaliate, persecute, defraud, etc. But on the other
hand its not acceptable to use a horrible legal policy that they
approved on the judges themselves.
I see, it's all clear now. Why don't we just call them "Dukes",
"Barons", "Lord", etc.?
|6.29.05 @ 12:26PM|#
Maybe they mentioned the thong size to keep people that
shouldn't be wearing a Reason thong, or any thong for that matter,
out of them. Perhaps they were worried about a inapropriate thong
wearer being declared a "blight" or eyesore and being seized by the
municipality under eminent domain.
On the other hand no one mentioned children or child pornography,
why are you fixated on them?
|6.29.05 @ 12:36PM|#
"I see, it's all clear now. Why don't we just call them "Dukes",
"Barons", "Lord", etc.?"
Damn good question, actually.
But seriously, libertarians are the LAST people I would have
expected to advocate retaliating against sitting judges for the
good-faith performance of their duty, to paraphrase the Volokh
Conspiracy blog. Heinlein or no Heinlein, aren't free courts
supposed to be one of the linchpins of a properly functioning
anarchy (or near-anarchy)?
|6.29.05 @ 1:29PM|#
But if the courts are just affirming and extending bad decisions from 70 years ago just so the powers that be are not disrupted, is that considered to be free courts? Seems like their hands are tied by the New Deal and the New Society.
|6.29.05 @ 2:05PM|#
On the other hand no one mentioned children or child
pornography, why are you fixated on them?
Gee, I dunno, because I'm a child pornographer? (Please interpret
this as sarcasm).
"Designed to fit juniors" implies designed to fit older children
and junior high schoolers (maybe some high schoolers as well).
Also, if you read carefully, someone did mention children
(namely: 12-year-old rebellious school girls). No fixations for me,
just agreeing with Deus ex Machina that it is indeed a strange
marketing demographic. Thanks for the free consulation anyway,
Sigmund.
|6.29.05 @ 4:24PM|#
No fixations for me, just agreeing with Deus ex Machina that
it is indeed a strange marketing demographic. Thanks for the free
consulation anyway, Sigmund.
smacky-
If that were entirely true you wouldn't be so defensive and
overcompensating in your explanation. You seem to be in denial. How
long have you had these fixations that you repress so
fervently?
I may have to seek judicial intervention for you. Unless you date
my college roomate's kid. But if you break up with him all bets are
off and I'll see that you are secretly committed to the most
abusive facility that employs the most damaging "treatments" I can
find. And of course no one will believe someone as "sick" as
you.
Cheers
|6.29.05 @ 5:48PM|#
freudian bureaucrat --
Interesting. Tell us more. What makes you feel that way?
Also, let's discuss how you feel about your whore mother.
|6.29.05 @ 6:52PM|#
What's with the Reason thong being described as "...
designed to fit juniors" and "... sizes run small"? I didn't
realize that the 12-year-old rebellious schoolgirl demographic was
a hotbed of libertarian activity?
Those aren't common sizes offered by CafePress? I had the vague
impression you're just paying for a semi-cheap print on a
pre-selection of available sizes and items.
|6.29.05 @ 6:57PM|#
smacky: I now think Sigmund/bureaucrat is trying to be funny by
playing a role, that of the intrusive know-it-all psychobabbling
mind-reader wannabe, rather than actually picking on you.
However, let the record show that I did the chivalrous thing and
stood up for you. By slipping in a reference to his mother as a
whore. Just like Galahad would do.
|6.30.05 @ 2:43AM|#
Here's how it works...[Congress would] empower the National
Planning Commission to review all takings cases, or whatever subset
they deem worthy of close review, to make sure they are
sufficiently protective of due process and equal protection
rights...they'd have to draw up a set of standards...that the
[land-grabbing] governments' actions have to meet... [T]he
Commission gets one member appointed by the president, one by the
HUD Sec, one from Commerce, one from Transportation, one from
Interior, one from EPA, and one from the Civil Rights Division of
Justice.
After thinking about it, I'm going to recant my earlier, flippant
remark. Without sarcasm, I think this actually sounds like a decent
idea. Considering the frenzy of
eminent domain use (and more land-grabbing
frenzy), I could see worse than a 7-person commission having to
approve all of these cases. Even if the commission were a virtual
rubber-stamp (and I have to admit, I'd expect it to be pretty close
to one once public attention drifted away), the delay caused by the
backlog would heavily discourage governments from opting for
takings.
|6.30.05 @ 3:02AM|#
smacky: I now think Sigmund/bureaucrat is trying to be funny
by playing a role, that of the intrusive know-it-all psychobabbling
mind-reader wannabe, rather than actually picking on
you.
That's about right. Unless smacky is actually someone who did
something mean to me in real life, then she's not very nice.
However, let the record show that I did the chivalrous thing
and stood up for you. By slipping in a reference to his mother as a
whore. Just like Galahad would do.
And people say chivalry is dead. I can't comment on the accuracy of
your accusation, since I neither know nor care about my mother's
sex life. She is quite a backstabber, however. Thanks for your
gallantry.
|6.30.05 @ 11:13AM|#
Eric,
What do you think is more likely to happen: a) governments will
reduce their planning because their ideas can't meet the
commission's standards; or b) governments will draw up their plans
to comply with the commission's standards from outset thereby
quickening the condemnations because the property owner can't fight
the ED taking on a standards basis.
|7.1.05 @ 3:37PM|#
Both, Russ. The commission would still have to review the plans to confirm that they met the standards. In other words, they'd have to read them (or at least wait long enough to seem like they did) before rubber-stamping them. Hence, a delaying mechanism.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245