How I Became a Friend of Polluters

Bob Ewing at the Institute for Justice points out that Chuck Repke, a reader of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, has revealed the true motive of my recent column about eminent domain abuse in Ohio: "What radical capitalists like Sullum want is to stop cities from going after polluters and the brownfields (polluted urban areas) they have left behind." I did not realize that was what I wanted, but I do kinda like pollution. Doesn't every good capitalist?

Comments

[joe]

Nice dodge, Jacob. Sadly, the charge was not "Jacob Sullum loves pollution," but "Jacob Sullum wants to reduce the ability of the government to go after polluters."

Which is a point you've always been quite clear on: you DO want to reduce the ability of the government to go after polluters.

What are we to make of a writer who repeatedly accuses his critics of confusing opposition to goverment with support for polluters, who then responds to a charge that he wants to reduce government by pretending he's been charged with supporting pollution?

[Jennifer]

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled for 200 years that the government has ultimate control over all land within its borders and has the ability to determine what is "public use."

Good Lord.

[MP]

I thought Jacob's article was a veiled defence of slavery and the need to keep government out of plantations.

[mediageek]

"Which is a point you've always been quite clear on: you DO want to reduce the ability of the government to go after polluters."

Yes, and Jacob is going to shave his beard, and grow his 'stache out so he can smother it with mustache wax and twirl it with his finger while evicting kids on Christmas Eve.

[John]

Jacob Sullum loves pollution," but "Jacob Sullum wants to reduce the ability of the government to go after polluters."

Translation, Jacob Sullivan wants to reduce the government's ability to do econcomic damage and destroy jobs in areas which need the jobs the most.

[Jennifer]

Joe, did you actually read the letter? What does supporting the homeowners of Norwood have to do with pollution? You may as well say "Jennifer opposes the Kelo decision because she thinks Pluto should still be considered a planet." Yeah, I oppose Kelo, I think Pluto is a planet--but what the hell does the one have to do with the other?

[mediageek]

Jennifer, forgive joe, he's just read one too many of Dave W.'s posts.

[R C Dean]

What radical capitalists like Sullum want is to stop cities from going after polluters and the brownfields (polluted urban areas) they have left behind.

Dunno about Jacob, but I have seen so much abuse by all levels of government in this area that I am perfectly willing to go on the record as saying that I want to drastically reduce the power of cities to go after "polluters".

Believe it or not, applying the common sense principles that (a) no one should be penalized, fined or held liable for anything that was legal when done, and (b) no one should be penalized, fined or held liable for anything that was done by someone else, would be a revolutionary change in the whole brownfields/Superfund/enviro regulation world.

[Xmas]

Polluters want to be able to chain the gates behind them when they leave town and are finding the cities use eminent domain to force them to take some responsibility for cleanup.

That's a new definition of Eminent Domain. I'm sure polluters would love to be paid by the government for the land they've just polluted. Even if it is less than the fair-market value of the property.

[fyodor]

joe,

I don't see where Jacob says that the charge was that he loves pollution. Then you repeat the charge as if it were an undeniable assertion. I think the point (which I wish Sullum had made more clearly himself) is that this is very much akin to calling someone who opposed the Iraq war "objectively pro-Saddam." Now, it may possibly be true that restricting emminent domain practices may at times benefit polluters. We can discuss that possibility and its implications, sure, but at the very least one should recognize, if one is being honest, that that is not Sullum's goal or reason for opposing certain emminent domain practices, anymore than the goal of anyone opposing the US invasion of Iraq was to keep Saddam in power.

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, forgive joe, he's just read one too many of Dave W.'s posts.

Nah. If that were the case, he'd've said "Jacob opposes what's happening in Norwood because his looks are starting to go."

[Ironchef]

Jesus fucking christ it's amazing how many people miss the fucking point so often.

The solution to pollution? - "It's the polluters, stupid."

Do these people get paid for extrapolating the conclusion farthest from the obvious?

[Dave W.]

Since Jacob Sullum didn't call me any names here; I would not have called him a name if I had something to say. I may not neccessarily be an eye for an eye guy when it comes to criminal law, but I sure as hell am when it comes to your insults, Jennifer. The sooner you apologize, the sooner I will.

[Lowdog]

Speaking of pollution, property rights, etc, this is an interesting article about these neighbourhoods called colonias sprouting up in Southern AZ.

Apparently there are big infrastructure problems. My friend was asking me what the libertarian response was to this...I didn't really have an answer. Anyone care to take a crack at it?

[James Feldman]

Jacob just needs to explain to Mr. Ewing that it is all about the children. All about poisoning the water table to get back at those whiny, spoiled children. That'll school 'em.

[matt]

I don't think every good capitalist should necessarily like pollution. It seems to me harmful pollution is a property rights violation, and the aggrieved parties should have the right to sue the polluter for damages. I agree with Kevin Carson and other radical libertarian types that this is best addressed through a common law approach than a regulatory approach:

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/10/air-pollution-common-law-vs-regulatory.html

[Jennifer]

Lowdog, the hardcore libertarian solution would be privatizing the infrastructure, of course, but since that's not going to happen I'd suggest that maybe some poor people would rather be able to afford a home of their own, on a dirt road, rather than having to stay in an apartment on a paved road. Requiring all residences to have certain amenities means that people are required to buy those amenities even if they can't afford them.

I read an article a few years ago (and I wish I could find it now, but I can't) about a man who bought land in the Massachusetts woods and built a cabin on it; the city forced him to leave because it is illegal to have a home without all modern luxuries like electricity. I could maybe--maybe--see the point of refusing to let a man live in a rustic shack in the middle of a standard subdivision, but if a man wants a low-cost rustic life out in the sticks, who the hell is he hurting?

[John]

Polluters want to be able to chain the gates behind them when they leave town and are finding the cities use eminent domain to force them to take some responsibility for cleanup.

The pollutors are usually long since gone. What happens is environmentalists and government regulators insists on a gold-plated clean up before the land can be used again. This does two things; it makes it nearly impossible to get any kind of redevelopment in poor areas, and forces industry to build on otherwise unpolluted greenfields, when they could have built on land that was already polluted and done less damage. Environmental laws, CERCLA and RCRA in particular, have done a lot to increase and exacerbate urban blight and poverty in this country.

[MP]

Anyone care to take a crack at it?

Short answer...it is up to the land owners to figure it out for themselves.

[rafuzo]

Which is a point you've always been quite clear on: you DO want to reduce the ability of the government to go after polluters.

The government needs all its tools to pursue polluters. If we hamstring the government in this pursuit, the terrorists will have won.

[Phil]

Holy Flurking Schnit.

Did anyone read Jacob's original linked article that the Pioneer Press letter was criticizing? No? OK, go read it.

Tell me what it's about. Is it about polluters?

No, no it is not. It's about the city trying to take occupied homes that aren't even "blighted" by the common definition but that the city called "deteriorating."

Jacob wants the government to not be permitted to do this, because it is an abuse of what the eminenet domain process is supposed to be for.

The letter-writer then leaps to an irrelevant, unsupported conclusion that Jacob must also want the government not to be able to take land for other, legitimate reasons, specifically related to pollution. He offers no evidence for this conclusions, which certainly cannot be ascertained from the column itself.

Jacob, ergo, rightly accuses said letter-writer of pulling that from his spacious ass.

Did some of you get your BA in Missing the Fucking Point?

[Dave W.]

gold-plated clean up

How do you define gold-plated?

What should the standard of cleanliness be?

Anything?

[Ed]

The least polluted countries on earth are typically the most highly developed economically. This means capitalism in one form or another. At the opposite end we have: the former Soviet Union. When no one owns the property, no one owns the pollution.

[John]

Dave W,

Gold plated means clean enough that you could start a day care center on the spot and the children could eat the dirt until they were 30 without suffering any harmful effects. No kidding. It is so expensive, the land takes on a negative value and no one will develop on it and it just sits.

[SPD]

I just read both Jacob Sullum's article and Chuck. Repke's letter to the Pioneer Press. Maybe I missed something, but I have absolutely no idea how these two are related in terms of subject matter.

Mr. Sullum's article was about private property rights, and Mr. Repke's letter seemed to be about the legal obligations of polluters in regard to what they leave behind and how eminent domain laws somehow relate to it. How asserting the rights of property rights makes one a "radical capitalist" is beyond me.

Can anyone help clarify this so-called "controversy," please? I just don't see it.

[Jennifer]

Can anyone help clarify this so-called "controversy," please? I just don't see it.

It's the same reasoning which made John Hinckley assume that the theme of the movie Taxi Driver was: "if you assassinate Ronald Reagan, Jodie Foster will fall in love with you."

Be proud of your inability to make the connection. It means that you are sane.

[amazingdrx]

Well what a silly letter.

Obviously there are no hidden motives here on the part of Jacob in picking out this straw man to knock over.

He is definitely NOT using the sad plight of these citizens in Ohio to support the rights of corporate citizens to self regulate.

That said, obviously industry self regulation will solve pollution. What is the matter with these whining, complaining enviro-terrorists?!?

Why would ANY corporation hurt it's image by polluting?

To benefit it's short term bottom line? These enviro terrorists always think the worst of corporate citizens. Maybe it's an imbalance of brain chemicals caused by their anti- americanism?

Besides that, the chemically rich air and water produced by self regulated industries smells like success!

No land owned by a corporate citizen, regardless of pollution, ought to be rehabilitated using eminent domain (unless it's to benefit a bigger corporate citizen, like Walmart), after all government is so corrupt it never does anything right.

Only the free market can efficiently rule spaceship earth, for the common good of corporate citizens everywhere!

[Dave W.]

The least polluted countries on earth are typically the most highly developed economically.

Which nations are these? What else unites them? Tough anti-pollution laws and regs? Well-developed law of nuisance and toxic tort? This seems like a fruitful path for more investigation.

I did think Sullum's "yeah I like pollution" was kind of weak. It is all well and good to say that the Norwwod thing is not about pollution, but that doesn't answer the question of what to do when a city does use eminent domain to more effectively bring a lawsuit against a polluter. It would be interesting to know what Sullum thinks, even if this is just a hypothetical.

I don't think it has an easy answer.

By allowing one party to hold all the land and sue the polluter, the suit may indeed be less fractious, more efficient and more effective. Is this a public good? It is not too much of a stretch to see serious pollution as akin to true blight, which some ppl feel should be condemnable.

Also, it is nice from a federalism perspective if localities get interested in relieving the EPA of some margin of its work.

Or maybe pollution foreclosures are a bad idea and Sullum has some good principled reasons for opposing this particular eminent domain strategy.

Maybe Sullum doesn't want to piss off potential patrons, but I think he has been asked a question to which he isn't really responding here.

[fyodor]

Phil,

To give Ewing more benefit of the doubt than he probably deserves, his point is that helping polluters is the secret agenda of people who would be so bold as to restrict emminent domain to public use. Ewing and his ilk believe that emminent domain can be used in many great and benificial manners other than just for public use. Therefore they see restricting it as a threat to those benefits. And then they take the next step of accusing those who oppose such emminent domain uses of wanting to impede those benefits.

In a nutshell, he's saying that Sullum's real reason for opposing emminent domain in Kelo is the effect such a position would have on other cases, such as those where the emminent domain would be exercised against polluting business.

Again, that's like saying that opposing the US invasion of Iraq is "objectively pro-Saddam", but it does have some logic to it, despite ultimately being utter bullshit.

[R C Dean]

Causation is always tricky, doc.

Maybe it's an imbalance of brain chemicals caused by their anti- americanism?

I prefer to believe that their anti-Americanism is caused by an imbalance of brain chemicals, personally. It seems pretty clear to me that they are victims of their own brains.

[FXKLM]

Joe: Whatever Jacob's opinions on environmental laws, the fact remains that they have nothing whatsoever to do with eminent domain unless we're talking about regulatory takings, which we're not. We can disagree all we like on environmental and property policy, but I think we can all agree that Mr. Repke's letter makes no sense.

[Jennifer]

In a nutshell, he's saying that Sullum's real reason for opposing emminent domain in Kelo is the effect such a position would have on other cases, such as those where the emminent domain would be exercised against polluting business.

True, but Ewing's conclusion that Jacob must be pro-polluter rather than pro-lower-middle-class homeowner says more about Ewing's mindset than it does about Jacob's, I think.

[MP]

Maybe Sullum doesn't want to piss off potential patrons, but I think he has been asked a question to which he isn't really responding here.

Dave W.,

Are your panties pink or purple? Please respond.

[Dave W.]

Gold plated means clean enough that you could start a day care center on the spot and the children could eat the dirt until they were 30 without suffering any harmful effects. No kidding. It is so expensive, the land takes on a negative value and no one will develop on it and it just sits.

Okay, John. I am surprised to find out that the current standard involves tat much dirt eating, but I don't know any better so I will have to tentative go along with you on that. What a bad standard. I can see why they might be concerned about some minor dirt ingestion, but assuming people will eat dirt on a daily basis seems like an excessive standard.

The other part of my question, perhaps the harder part, is what the standard should be. The best I can pull out of your answer is that it should be clean enough to develop as profitably as clean land. Or clean enough to be developed in fact. Anyway, you seem to think that development costs are somehow relevant and that cleanup costs can't be allowed to make development costs too high.

That is a bad standard, John. Too permissive. Not safety conscious. Have I misunderstood you somehow?

[fyodor]

True, but Ewing's conclusion that Jacob must be pro-polluter rather than pro-lower-middle-class homeowner says more about Ewing's mindset than it does about Jacob's, I think.

Absolutely. It's not a fair argument at all. There must be a name for the fallacy. Maybe ad hominen speculum? (Ha-ha) Cause in addition to attacking Sullum, he's attacking Sullum based on a purely speculated secret agenda.

[Dave W.]

Those were your mom's panties and she was just having me wear them because it made her real wet. I found the whole experience vaguely revolting, but mostly cause yer mom don't clean herself as well as she should.

[SPD]

It means that you are sane.

Jennifer, you take that back!

And this "brain chemical imbalance = anti-Americanism" stuff? Please, people. That's Fox News-level pathetic. Although that same brain defect may explain why so many people buy "Larry The Cable Guy" tickets.

(That's funny, I don't care who y'are.)

[Phil]

Oh, I can see how he got there, fyodor. I'm just not a big fan of Kreskin-style performances like that, or the "What you really want . . . !" kind of accusation.

[fyodor]

Dave W,

Choosing any "standard" through the political process is inevitably arbitrary and will inevitably suffer the tortured logic of that process. That's because there's simply no rational basis for such a choice, and the victory will go to whomever screams the loudest, usually those with the greatest paranoia on the matter and the greatest beef over the general idea of pollution.

That's why we say let the free market decide, and (or at least I say) tie any punishment directly to harm done. The latter always being a somewhat more difficult matter than deciding on the penalty for beating an old over the head and stealing her purse. But if we were to accept that principle, that instead of deciding on a particular standard from a centrally planned and coerced basis, we would penalize the land owner for actual harm done to others and let the free market decide the rest, I think we'd be moving in the right direction.

[jp]

Ironchef asked, "Do these people get paid for extrapolating the conclusion farthest from the obvious?"

As a former leftie, I think that's not too far from the truth. The thought process goes something like this: (1) The Democrats are the party of "the people." (2) The Republicans are the party of big business, rich whites, Christian fundamentalists, and a few deluded Joe six-pack types. (3) Therefore, anything backed by Republicans must be bad for "the people," and anything backed by the Democrats must be good for "the people." If that conclusion is not immediately obvious from appearances, then you need to keep playing with your assumptions and bending your reasoning until you can get to that conclusion.

BTW, the fourth step in the above thinking is that libertarians are amusing crackpots who are dangerous only insofar as their ideas coincide with Republican policy.

[fyodor]

I'm just not a big fan of Kreskin-style performances like that, or the "What you really want . . . !" kind of accusation.

Agreed!!

[dhex]

that letter was interesting; especially the "all your base are belong to the u.s. government" part.

amazingdrx: you need to try harder. be a fucking troll, for once, and not just half a joke wrapped in a silly handle. i mean, really.

[Dave W.]

If I understand what you are saying Fyodor, it sounds like you basically see tort (eg, nuisance, misappropriation, toxic tort, etc) law is the solution.

If so, it kind of reminds me about the proposal I made for (sort of) privatizing the FDA yesterday by saying that FDA tests could be optional, on condition that manufacturers would be required to prove effectiveness (for drugs and med devices) and safety (for drugs, med devices, food and cosmetics) in any tort suits if they opted out of FDA scrutiny.

[fyodor]

In case anyone's wondering, and I know you all are, I did leave out the word "lady" in my 12:21 post.

[SPD]

jp,

You're half right:

http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/01/study_shows_lef.php

[MP]

If so, it kind of reminds me about the proposal I made for (sort of) privatizing the FDA yesterday by saying that FDA tests could be optional, on condition that manufacturers would be required to prove effectiveness (for drugs and med devices) and safety (for drugs, med devices, food and cosmetics) in any tort suits if they opted out of FDA scrutiny.

The condition wouldn't need to be specifically crafted. An optional FDA review would give a company a "Get Out of Tort Free" card, but otherwise standard tort law would apply.

As a small gov. advocate, I've always believed that "optional review boards" are the best compromise to statist oversight boards. Health inspections and professional licences are two other good examples of government practices that could be optional.

[fyodor]

Dave W,

Tort law is one potential check on the effect of pollution crossing over property lines. That's the one given in the book "Libertarianism In One Lesson," my most significant introduction to the school. Some libertarians feel that tort law is as removed from the essential feedback loops of what's really happening as is the political process. And many libertarians are hostile to tort law in general because of its many abuses. So I'm not 100% sure what I think of that. Anyway, what I'm really saying leads more to the idea of a graduated pollution fine or tax. An idea which I am the first to admit has its flaws, primarily in its complexity and in the inevitability of involving the political process to determine the harm being done to others by whatever pollution. Still, I think it's better than either centrally planned and coerced schemes on one hand and ignoring the harm done by pollution to third parties (yes, we all know this is called externalities) on the other. (It's also better than fines that kick in at arbitrarily determined "acceptable" levels.)

[J.D. Tuccille]

Lowdog,

The Arizona Republic article addresses a serious problem, but conflates it with some points that are currently a hobbyhorse for the paper.

The colonias are a real problem largely because they are inhabited primarily by illegals who are easy prey. Because they don't speak the language, don't know their rights under U.S. law and are afraid to go to the legal system for redress, they can be easily ripped off by crooks who don't live up to the terms of property sales and other agreements. The situation is mainly a result of the victims' illegal status.

The Republic throws in water rights and septic tanks because it's currently on a crusade against rural homes that aren't part of urbanized developments. The fact is that a lot of Arizonans deliberately buy land with no water rights because it's cheap. They then truck water to the property or have it trucked by a vendor. That horrifies the Republic's writers, but it's a preferred way of life in many parts of the state.

[sage]

"The least polluted countries on earth are typically the most highly developed economically."

Forgive me for being simple-minded, but it seems that the reason for that is that when most of the citizens of a country are not worrying about where their next meal will come from, they can devote more energy to things like reducing pollution and so forth.

[jp]

SPD -- Thanks for the link. I don't doubt it.

[Dave W.]

good food for thought. Thanks, Fyodor. I'll have to see if they got the book at the library.

[Lowdog]

JD Tuccille - thank you. Got any more information on the subject?

[J.D. Tuccille]

JD Tuccille - thank you. Got any more information on the subject?

Not really. That's about the limit of my knowledge of colonias.

As for rural life ... well ... I like it.

[fyodor]

I'll have to see if they got the book at the library.

Watch out, it's dangerous stuff! Look what it did to me!!

[Ed]

Sage,

Yeah. It's a matter of priority. Eat first. Clean your room if you have the time and energy.

[Mr. F. Le Mur]

...colonias sprouting up in Southern AZ.

A friend of mine lives on some defunct mine property: no water, no electric, no phone, no sewer, access by muddy jeep road. For $18/month, it's a gonga.

[Dave W.]

I know, you make veiled refernces to being more leftwards at some point in the past and we both spent some formative years by the bay (didn't I read somewhere that you even lived in The Mission). This isn't the first time I have wondered if you are living my future in some sense.

[Jennifer]

A friend of mine lives on some defunct mine property: no water, no electric, no phone, no sewer, access by muddy jeep road. For $18/month, it's a gonga.

Pretty soon the government will require him to live in a modern household with water and electricity and phone lines and paved roads, For His Own Good. And it will only make his monthly rent increase by five or six hundred dollars. Isn't that wonderful?

If he can't afford this he'll have to live in a homeless shelter, but at least it will have electric lights.

[Vincente]

J.D., Lowdog, etc.

Colonias have been around for a while. When I was back on the Frontera in S.E. California, Colonias surrounded both Tijuana and Mexicali for years -- primarily shorthand for developments that were not in incorporated areas of either city (municipalities in MEX are a much more expansive entity than in U.S.... the city of Mexicali's boundaries stretch all the way to the port of San Felipe).

On the U.S. side, small towns built in unincorporated areas that subsisted primarily on canal water were commonly labeled Colonias.

Heber, California is often referred to as such. HUD has a grant program that is called the Colonia program, I don't have a link to it at the moment but it should be out there.

[Lowdog]

Vincente, JD - my friend's point was that the gov't might now step in and it may cost them a lot more to provide infrastructure at this point than it would have to provide it in the first place.

My first reaction was that the gov't still didn't need to step in, that the people in the colonias should pool their resources to provide infrastructure for themselves, just like being incorporated by a city or as a city. But for some reason, people think that you need gov't to somehow give you permission to do these things.

I'm not saying it would be cheap or easy, but they can be done.

[Lowdog]

Another thought - if the developers in these colonias areas made promises to provide infrastructure but haven't, they could be taken to court. And if it's not lawful to provide certain types of infrastructure, the county or whomever could sue them, as well.

[J.D. Tuccille]

Vincente,

Thanks for the info!

Lowdog,

My take is that there's a problem to the extent that colonia residents don't have clear title to their land or the developers renege on promises to provide infrastructure. Right-of-way dirt roads, septic tanks and trucked water aren't really considered problems anywhere in Arizona outside of Phoenix and Tucson. The residents need to be able to assert their legal rights and get what was promised them. The rural character of the colonias isn't a problem in itself, especially since it's what makes the colonias affordable (and may be preferred by many residents).

[Lowdog]

I'd have to agree with you, JD. In fact, my father lives in a home that has some of these issues, as well. When it rained heavily, I had trouble getting out because the roads would be so muddy. There is phone and electric out there, but he has his own well and septic tank. His home lies in an area that has still not been incorporated into any city, although the mayor of Surprise has 'threatened' to do so (not that my dad wants to pay the taxes).

I hadn't even thought about it when my friend asked, but some of these "issues" aren't really even issues to some (many?) of the residents.

[joe]

Yes, Jennifer, I read the letter. The writer charges Sullum with wanting to reduce the city's ability to go after polluters. Hence, my reaction to Sullum's mischaracterization of same.

fyodor, "I don't see where Jacob says that the charge was that he loves pollution." Uh, how about: "I did not realize that was what I wanted, but I do kinda like pollution."

John actually has a good point about environmental laws and liability steering development away from brownfields to greenfields. He overstates his point, and doesn't seem to know about what's been done on the state and federal level to address this problem, but he is onto something.

Phil, SPD, FLKLM,

Restricting the use of eminent domain to the degree Sullum proposed - public ownership or occupancy - WOULD deny the city the right to take land for the purpose of cleaning it up and making availablel for redevelopment, as neither of those activities would qualify as a "public use" under his theory.

[Jennifer]

The writer charges Sullum with wanting to reduce the city's ability to go after polluters. Hence, my reaction to Sullum's mischaracterization of same.

Sullum claims the writer said "What radical capitalists like Sullum want is to stop cities from going after polluters and the brownfields (polluted urban areas) they have left behind."

This is, in fact, what the writer said. So how was it a mischaracterization on Sullum's part?

[joe]

Jennifer,

"I do kinda like pollution. Doesn't every good capitalist?"

Don't play dumb with me.

[Jennifer]

Yes, Joe, and when Jacob said "I kinda like pollution; doesn't every good capitalist?" I'm sure he was entirely serious. His tongue was as far from his cheek as it could possibly be without leaving his mouth entirely.

[sarcasm detector]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[dhex]

joe: really, i hope everything's ok. did you happen to get a ring from your uncle recently? it might be...changing you.

[joe]

Yes, Jennifer, he tongue-in-cheek "agreed" with the charge that he loves pollution; ergo, he responded to a charge that he loves pollution.

He responded to it by dismissing it with a sarcastic joke.

Unfortunately, that wasn't the charge.

[joe]

Jennifer, consider this exchange:

Jennifer: joe, your position on takings doesn't protect homeowners enough. You don't want to restrict the government from taking their homes.

joe: Yeah, I sure do love to take homes away from people. Doesn't every good planner?

Would that be a fair response to your charge? Or would it be to create a straw man, dismiss it, and hope that the sarcasm is heavy enough for no one to notice?

[Jennifer]

Yes, Jennifer, he tongue-in-cheek "agreed" with the charge that he loves pollution; ergo, he responded to a charge that he loves pollution.

How else should he respond to the charge that he is trying to make things easier for polluters, do you think? "Jacob Sullum is trying to make life easier for polluters, by which I, Mr. Ewing, can only conclude that he thinks pollution totally sucks."

[dhex]

"What radical capitalists like Sullum want is to stop cities from going after polluters and the brownfields (polluted urban areas) they have left behind."

let's try reading this, very slowly -

what sullum wants is to stop cities from going after polluters. that seems to be his thrust in that particular sentence.

so for jacob to go "gee, i didn't know i just wanted to save polluters and their pollution" i see that as being a perfectly acceptable form of cheek.

then again, this guy also said "the u.s. government owns everything within its borders, fukkaz!" that's fucking scary as shit, so we may be expecting too much from him.

if i were to put on my john-hat, i'd say something like "gee, stealing land from the indians hundreds of years ago was bad for liberals, but when it comes to stealing land today, they're all for it. fucking colonialist fucks!" or something like that. i can't quite capture the fucknuttery required, but you get the idea.

[Jennifer]

Joe, has it occurred to you that you're spending too much time taking literally that which was never intended as such?

[Dave W.]

Of course, If Sullum would just decide whether using eminent domain to go after brownfields is good or bad and then let us know, then we wouldn't wonder so much about all this.

Some of the replies indicate that Sullum has taken a position already and thinks that continuing public ownership is the criteria. On the other hand, maybe he just thinks that a foreclosing gov't would need to own the land for the pendency of the cleanup (but could sell / redevelop after cleanup). The one guy who could really answer this is Mr. Sullum.

[Jennifer]

Of course, If Sullum would just decide whether using eminent domain to go after brownfields is good or bad and then let us know, then we wouldn't wonder so much about all this.

He shouldn't have to. He wrote an article condeming the eviction of homeowners, and some twit decided to pretend he was instead arguing in favor of polluters; why let the idiot decide what Jacob's argument was about?

It's like debating whether or not warrantless wiretaps are a good idea, and someone says "Well, the people opposed to warrantless wiretaps should explain whether or not they want al-Qaeda to conquer the United States." No, they shouldn't, and anyone who says otherwise is not engaging in an honest debate on the topic.

[fyodor]

fyodor, "I don't see where Jacob says that the charge was that he loves pollution." Uh, how about: "I did not realize that was what I wanted, but I do kinda like pollution."

Once again, you've found the weakest link in my post. And once again, it's also the least significant. Saying that "What radical capitalists like Sullum want is to stop cities from going after polluters..." is still just like saying "What people who opposed the invasion in Iraq wanted is to keep Saddam in power." Or "What people who protect pornographers under the 1st Amendment want is to corrupt our children and breakup the family" or "What people who advocate for legal marijuana want is a 24-7 global orgy." Etc, etc.

[MP]

The one guy who could really answer this is Mr. Sullum.

Dave W.,

My panties question to you was intended to express how foolish it is to call someout out regarding a position they have, when they weren't expressing anything remotely related to what they were being called out for.

[joshua corning]

You have to understand that every land owner is a polluter and the government has the inate right to take land from a polluter.

It is in the constitution. Maybe you guys should read it sometime.

[fyodor]

Actually, before joe does it again, I should point out that my first analogy (which is the only one I used to begin with) is much better than my second and third, as opposing the Iraq war clearly would left Saddam in power, just as limiting eminent domain powers clearly limits governments' attempts to use them in noble ways. My second and third examples are still relevant, if not as clearly, since Ewing's statment presupposes that using eminent domain against polluters is a fair and effective means of doing so.

[John]

Dave W,

I don't think there should be one standard. The government ought to be able to set different standards and allow land to be used for different purposes. For example, I am going to build a warehouse or a pipe yard on the site, it doesn't and shouldn't have to be as clean as it would be if I were going to build houses on the site. Instead of a set of standards tailored to land use and enforced through use covenants, we get one standard that makes it economically unfeasible to develop a lot of polluted sites.

[curmudgeon]

fyodor

"That's why we say let the free market decide, and (or at least I say) tie any punishment directly to harm done."

Later in the post you speak of "actual harm done to others".

The second part sounds like a pragmatic short term solution to pollution that might be harming someone in any particular moment. I wonder though about how harm to the land (if there's no leakage to immediately harm "others") might be evaluated. Is the disappearance of clean space of legitimate concern? Perhaps the loss of clean space is a loss of a public good?

How might adequate compensation be awarded by a court, and to whom would it be awarded? Perhaps in spite of joe's gloomy prognostication, there will be budget in Sullum's shrunken government to appropriately address environmental concerns.

[Phil]

. . . And here we get, thanks to joe, exactly the kind of Kreskin argument to which I was referring earlier. Thanks for demonstrating, joe; I'll get you that $50 in the mail this week!

[Dave W.]

foolish it is to call someout out regarding a position they have, when they weren't expressing anything remotely related to what they were being called out for.

1. It was a stupid way to ask me that question.

2. I think what the implied question in the(whoever's) rant is an eminent domain related question and had a sufficient nexus to what Sullum was writing about. The eminent domain standards applied in the important state and federal cases have important emminent domain consequences in later ed cases. The guy made a mistake in framing his implied question as a rant and an accusation, rather than as a question, but Sullum can still decry the rant-meister's techniques while still answering the implied question for the benefit of his followers & fans here at HnR. the rant may be stupid, but the question is relevant and interesting. Personally, I would be much more sympathetic to foreclosure of a heavily polluted area than the foreclosure at issue in Kelo.

[Phil]

What's more, as fyodor has pointed out so aptly, the fact that X may be a result of policy Y being pursued by Jacob doesn't mean that X is what Jacob in fact wants; Y may be an unintended consequence that can be addressed via other means. The fact that doing X to achieve Z will also cause Y doesn't mean that Y was what was wanted in the first place, and joe damn well knows it.

[Kwix]

Of course, If Sullum would just decide whether using eminent domain to go after brownfields is good or bad and then let us know, then we wouldn't wonder so much about all this.

Perhaps Mr. Sullum is being Aristotelian in his statement, forcing you to think about whether or not pro-capitalism = pro-pollution. This debate may be just what he was seeking.

That or I am wrong.

[Kwix]

That having been said, the editorial letter had jack-all to do with Mr. Sullum's original column.

I suppose the author could be referring to using emminent domain to "claim" a polluted property that the owner refuses to sell because of potential cost of cleanup but most of those lands are vacant or underutilized because of the pollution. There is currently legislation making it's way through congress that would exempt "brownfields" from protection from eminent domain. http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?IssueID=627&Article=3307

Personally, I think that businesses would love this form of eminent domain as it would releve them of the financial burden of cleanup which quite often exceeds the value of the property.

I am personally in favor of tort over E.D. because it requires an aggrieved party and not just a political whim. Can you see the corruption potential for this? A business offers to make political contributions to government officials in exchange for a two-step ED process. First, ED some "blighted" neighborhoods so the buisness can move and "generate a higher tax base" then ED thier old, polluted property so the taxpayers can incur the cost of cleanup.

[Chris]

I live near Norwood, Ohio. The situation in question has nothing to do with pollution. Norwood sits next to an up-and-coming snooty neighborhood called Hyde Park. Norwood wants a piece of the action.

And people with perfectly decent homes are getting forced out because of this.

Any businesses built on this land wouldn't be creating any more pollution than the chimney of a P.F. Chang's. The issue at hand is that of personal property rights, and the dubious legality of a city seizing your land and reselling it to make a profit.

[MP]

1. It was a stupid way to ask me that question.

Sometimes humor works, and sometimes it doesn't.

[joe]

Jennifer, I didn't take the statement literally. I understood the sarcasm. I understood the meaning meant to be conveyed with the sarcastic remark, and I responded to that.

fyodor,

Actually, your first example is the one I'll take on. 'Saying that "What radical capitalists like Sullum want is to stop cities from going after polluters..." is still just like saying "What people who opposed the invasion in Iraq wanted is to keep Saddam in power."'

No, it's not. Very, very few of the people who opposed the Iraq invasion actually wanted to keep Saddam in power. On the other hand, Jacob Sullum has been quite clear over the years: he DOES want to restrict the power of the government to "go after polluters." Comparing a true statement to a false one and declaring them equal - you don't work for the Washington Post, do you? 😉

John, I don't know what state you live in, but the EPA and Massachusetts DEP do have different cleanup standards, depending on the proposed use of the brownfield.

Yes, Phil, Sullum's intent sure is a grand mystery! Hmmmmmmmmmm, what do you think the FUCKING STAFF WRITER FOR REASON MAGAZINE thinks of restricting the government's power to go after polluters? Gee, that's a toughie. Actually, it's not. I damn well know what Jacob Sullum thinks of limiting the government's environmental protection power, and I damn well know what Jacob Sullum thinks about limiting the government's eminent domain power.

You don't? Really? You wanna stick with that answer?

[joe]

So why does it matter? It not as if a Reason writer eliding a question is a particularly rare event.

I'll tell you why. Every time somebody suggests that libertoids' opposition to government efforts to reduce poverty, environmental harm, workplace hazards, etc etc etc are tied to a lack of concern about those problems, we get treated to the same melodrama. To whit,

"How dare you? I care just as deeply about the poor/the environment/working people as any liberal! I just happen to have a different idea about how the government should work." Hand on chest, "Don't you judge my heart!"

And now, this letter writer makes a statement about Sullum's beliefs about the proper role of government, and what do we get? The same shtick. Oh, yeah, I sure do love pollution. All capitalists love pollution!

I'll tell you, it's almost enough to make one conclude that the "don't judge my heart" retort is more of a pre-packaged bit of spin than an honest statement of beliefs.

[johnl]

Is ED really a commonly employed tactic with brownfields? Was Love Canal was a "tactic"?

[Phil]

Having seen your awesome mindreading powers at work before, joe -- to whit, attributing motives to me that not only did I not hold, but were the precise opposite of my real beliefs -- I think I will take your ability to discern Sullum's motives with all the respect it deserves. Which is to say, none.

If you have extremely specific links to past writings of Jacob's on this very matter, I am in a position to be both corrected and embarrassed. Lacking that, your FUCKING CAPITAL LETTERS are a whole lot of spittle expended for very little result.

[Phil]

Pop quiz: Which of the following two things is most likely to be true?

1) Jacob Sullum honestly wants property owners to be able to pollute the environment at will, with nobody able to do a goddamned thing about it?

2) Jacob Sullum honestly believes that the government regulation and takings models are not the most optimally efficient way of dealing with the pollution problem and that some market- and/or tort-based system is?

[Eric the .5b]

Or

3) Jacob Sullum went "what the Hell does pollution have to do with ED - what a twit for thinking that's my reason for opposing ED" and gave the sort of sarcasm it merited.

[Eric the .5b]

Alternately, those who think Repke's reasoning makes sense can also argue along the lines of "what radical statists really want is to use ED to line the pockets of contractors and councilmen all over the country as they take away people's homes."

Any Repke-boosters interesting in agreeing with that? (Please avoid remarks like, "Yeah, I love to take away people's homes. We all do.")

[dead_elvis]

allowing landowners to split land up to five times without extensive long-term planning for infrastructure. The next landowner can split the property again, up to five times, making it 25 plots from the piece. And so on.

Holy craptacular! I wish California had a similar allowance, maybe I'd actually be able to afford to buy a house. And in the article they talk about it like its a bad thing.

[SixSigma]

fydor wrote:
"What people who advocate for legal marijuana want is a 24-7 global orgy." Etc, etc.

If this isn't the goal, then I'm totally revoking my NORML membership tomorrow!

[joe]

This is about a year-old grudge you're holding?

That's it. Not even reading the rest.

[joe]

Eric,

I explained the relevance of ED restrictions to environmental issues in my 1:47 post.

And I don't know exactly what a "radical statist" is. I know that I haven't met anybody who "wants to use ED to line the pockets of contractors and councilmen," whereas I have read on numerous occasions Mr. Sullum, yourself, and pretty every self-described libertarian on this site proudly proclaim that they do want to restrict the ability of cities to exercise eminent domain, and to crack down on polluters. That would seem to be a relevant distinction, if one wishes to approach the question honestly.

[johnl]

Can anyone name an example of ED being used to redevelop a brownfield? Did it work out better than Love Canal?

Sorry to get confused before about ED at Love. It's been 24 years since I read that article.

[jeffiek]

Ok Joe, restricting ED does hamper the ability of government to take polluted property. For the sake of arguement, I'll even grant that that's a legitimate function of government. So what? The government could still buy the property on the open market. Are you saying there's someone out there that doesn't want to get rid of that polluted property? Give an example ( and occupants of padded cells don't count ).

Meanwhile, Mr. Sullum's article, Kelo, and now Norwood, are about non-polluted property. It's about people's homes.

It appears that your position supports a power to accomplish an imaginary goal at the expense of damaging innocent lives. Don't you care about these people. How heartless are you? Some of these people have lived in their homes for decades. These are decent, law-abiding citizens getting evicted by the government that's supposed to be protecting them.

Bottom line is that the only reason for ED is for the government to get something at less than face value. A position whole-heartedly supported by that radical statist Mr. Repke, and apparantly by you.

[joe]

No, I don't support taking homes in stable neighborhoods for redevelopments plans, jeffiek. Eminent domain is a tool that should be a last resort, and I'd like to see a lot less of it.

But that's not really what the post, or thread, was about.

[Phil]

Shorter joe: "I've got nothin'." As usual, since your tedious and self-righteous lectures are generally long on style and short on, well, everything else. No surprise there.

I, for one, will go on record as not being in favor of preventing the government from punishing polluters. Now if we can all agree on reasonable definitions of "preventing," "punishing" and "polluters," I guess everything will be hunky-dory, huh?

[Phil]

PS: If you're going to continue the Kreskin act, it behooves you to actually get one right once in a while.

[amazingdrx]

This thread was just not up to par without me, sorry all.

Enjoy this hillarity as a consolation prize.

The BEAST 50 Most Loathsome People in America, 2005

http://buffalobeast.com/91/50.htm

[Eric the .5b]

(Why am I getting into this? Oh, well, this is what happens when you doze off on the couch and can't get back to sleep...)

I explained the relevance of ED restrictions to environmental issues in my 1:47 post.

This is the first time I've heard anyone weigh in with environmental concerns on the subject of ED. I really don't recall anyone bringing it up here before this thread. I've never come across a pro-ED person who's brought it up in any context (admittedly, pro-ED people - at least for giving property to other private parties - are rare).

I don't believe you've brought it up here before, for that matter. Now, I don't know about Sullum, but I'm not precognitive. I don't think your 1:47 post retroactively invalidates anyone's reactions to the piece.

And I don't know exactly what a "radical statist" is.

A sarcastic reference to the "radical capitalist" bit by Repke.

I know that I haven't met anybody who "wants to use ED to line the pockets of contractors and councilmen,"

I'll take your word for it. Likewise, I haven't met anybody who wants to stop ED in order to protect polluters. That's the point.

I have read on numerous occasions Mr. Sullum, yourself, and pretty every self-described libertarian on this site proudly proclaim that they do want to restrict the ability of cities to exercise eminent domain, and to crack down on polluters.

Heh. This is why I don't normally respond to you anymore, joe - the whole putting words in others' mouths thing is tiresome. I'm not going to go off into criticizing your character for it, but when exactly have I said that I wanted to restrict the ability of cities to crack down on polluters? (Hint: if anyone should be engaging in any environmental regulation, I think it should be localities and states. I've even argued local-oriented alternatives to federal environmental regulation when it comes to air quality in threads here.)

More to the point, when have I - or anyone here - said that eminent domain should be restricted in order to protect polluters? That is what the original idiot suggested. Repke claims that Sullum opposes ED because he wants to make it harder to go after polluters - and by implication, not because he doesn't like government taking people's land and giving it to other people.

Notably, that's not even a claim you're defending. Instead, you defend the two separate claims "Sullum wants to reduce government going after polluters" and "Sullum opposes ED" and act like the "WTF?" reaction to Repke is disingenuous. I find that suspect...and lame.

[BarryJV]

joe
Very, very few of the people who opposed the Iraq invasion actually wanted to keep Saddam in power. On the other hand, Jacob Sullum has been quite clear over the years: he DOES want to restrict the power of the government to "go after polluters." Comparing a true statement to a false one and declaring them equal - you don't work for the Washington Post, do you?

That's not the point. The point is that you cannot infer Jacob's position on pollution regulation from his position on emminent domain. You say that his position on pollution regulation is obvious, but I wasn't aware of it. (Unles you count second hand smoke as pollution). Do you have any direct links to or quotes from JS's articles that show his position on pollution or are you just engaging in the same fallacy as the article writer, that of assuming a hidden agenda based on your own prejudice?

[joe]

OK, I guess it's now slanderous and inaccurate to state that libertarians want to restrict eminent domain, and want to restrict government's environmental enforcement powers.

Whatever.

[Jennifer]

OK, I guess it's now slanderous and inaccurate to state that libertarians want to restrict eminent domain, and want to restrict government's environmental enforcement powers.

No, it's disingenuous and inaccurate to say that an article condemning the eviction of middle-class homeowners was written in order to make it easier for polluters to trash the environment however they please.

[BarryJV]

joe

OK, I guess it's now slanderous and inaccurate to state that libertarians want to restrict eminent domain, and want to restrict government's environmental enforcement powers.

Whatever.

This is what we get for asking you to support your assertions?

Here, I've called the Whaaaambulance for you.

[Dave W.]

No, it's disingenuous and inaccurate to say that an article condemning the eviction of middle-class homeowners was written in order to make it easier for polluters to trash the environment however they please.

Maybe, but the eviction of the homeowners in this case may affect, maybe even dispositively affect, the outcome in later pollution-related cases, should any occur.

Therefore, it is good for people to discuss whether pollution related cases *now* so that when the legislatures legislate and the tribunal rules they do so in an appropriately cabined (or broad) way, depending upon the desired policy result.

Whoever is complaining about Sullum is arguing that his standards of permissible eminent domain takings is too narrow and that if his suggested standard is applied, then it will pre-empt the possibility of (allegedly) desirable eminent domain takings in the context of pollution cleanup.

Now Sullum could say: "Look, I like the taking in Norwood, bit I don't think the standards I am suggesting for the Norwood case could or should be applied in pollution cases."

Or Sullum could say: "Look, I understand that my standard pre-empts the pollution cases you are suggesting, but I don't care because I think eminent domain is a terrible way to fight brownfields. Other methods are better and here is my preferred brownfield eradic . . ."

Or Sullum could say: "Look, I understand that my standard pre-empts the pollution cases you are suggesting, but I don't think brownfield cleanup is an efficient use of the limited funds we have for environmentalist causes -- I think cities and states should expend their efforts at reducing petroleum usage or . . ."

Or Sullum could say: "I don't think pollution is a government issue. Period."

Whoever that was complaining about Sullum wants him to consider the envirinmental consequences of the ed standard he is advocating. Sullum should and he should let us know what he thinks so we can consider his opinion on this.

[Dave W.]

should read, --I am against the taking in Norwood, but--

[Dave W.]

or Sullum could say:

"Gee, I never thought of that. I will consider what you say and maybe I will have to change my proposed ed standards to accomodate your valid concerns, aggrieved accuser of me."

I think that is what the complainer wants Sullum to say and maybe it would be the truest and bestest course for Sullum to take here.

[Jennifer]

Dave, the problem with the suggestions in your last three posts is that you'rer still letting that Ewing idiot dictate the terms of the conversation.

Think of this: you dislike high-fructose corn syrup because you believe it has bad effects on people's health. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. At any rate, the discussion is worthy of debate.

Now suppose you write an article explaining why you think corn syrup is unhealthy, and I write a letter saying "Dave is only saying this because he wants the Domino sugar company to get even richer than it is now." And you're sitting here trying to explain why you think corn syrup is bad, and everybody else is saying "No! No! Before you discuss the deleterious effects of corn syrup, you must first prove to us that this isn't a huge plot to enrich the Domino corporation!"

Yeah, extra money for Domino is one possible side-effect of getting rid of corn syrup. But to sugest that THAT is your goal is the same dishonest, off-topic bullshit that Ewing spewed in his letter.

[Phil]

Here are the results of an Advanced Google search for all items containing both "Jacob Sullum" and "pollution." Anyone (cough, cough) who wants to back up what they say is welcome to sift through them. There's only 83, so it shouldn't take long.

[johnl]

Dave W -

The other problem is that before this post, none of us here thought of ED as being any more a tool to fight polluters than a tool to fight hair loss. Maybe nobody anywhere did.

Did you read the 1981 Reason Love Canal story I linked to above?

Good work Jacob Sullum. Now you have invented a new use for ED and sold it to Joe.

[Dave W.]

For what it is worth, I agree with you about Ewing. If I were Sullum, I would have ignored Ewing because he is, like you say, not trying to have a discussion in good faith. However, once Sullum brought the issue here, I am trying to get him to consider his readers here. Once he puts this inttriguing enviro-ed issue in front of me, I am going to want to know what he thinks. It is just human nature.

Anyway, since Sullum hasn't been here on this thread, I hope maybe he is working on a column to address the intersection of environmental law and ed, without the, errr, taint of Ewing's tone-deaf rant. Ewing doesn't deserve top be addressed, but the issue does. Actually, it seems to me like research would be involved, too, because people on this thread don't even seem agreed about the basic factual issue of whether a property is currently condemned based upon pollution. Even without any opinion, it would be nice to know whether brownfield foreclosures are business as usual, or alternatively whther they are but a gleam in an environmentalist's eye right now.

[Johnathan]

I don't see how pollution is relevant in the eminent domain case, other than an excuse for government-backed looters to grab other folks' property. It is a red herring and should be seen as such.

[Dave W.]

I did read the Love Canal article. It was interesting to see how people were so unsophisticated about environmental issues back in the 1950s. Either that or the Niagara School District had exceptionally bad lawyers. Was also interesting to see how the quality of writing at Reason has improved since 1981.

I had a hard time understanding what the author wanted. I think he wanted risks to be privatized, rather than socialized. However, I wasn't really clear on his method for privatizing environmental liabilities. I think it was that if everybody had better lawyers, then it would be easier to keep environmental liabilities private. Which is, like, whatever, dude.

I mean Fyodor's method of coupling liabilities to (presumably profitable) pollution-making is interesting, but you have to trust the legislature to have a lot of integrity to set the taxes so that there is good compensation for environmental damage, rather than enviro-crusader overcompensation or lobbying-induced undercompensation. An intersting idea, but a lot of trust. Then there are tort suits which require less trust in the government (mostly because trials are extraordinarily transparent methods of decisionmaking), but may not fairly recapture damage due to the diffuse and widespread nature of the damage. It becomes difficult to make sure that the truly aggreived parties are really the ones who can bring suits, which might be difficult for causation reasons, economic reasons, etc.

I am not sure the 1981 author has a lot to add to Fyo's problematic taxes or my problematic torts. He did seem to think that Hooker Chemicals was a really nifty company. Here is Zuesse's new issue:

"Mencken-Award-winning investigative journalist Eric Zuesse produces the definitive critical work on the invasion of Iraq. Exposes smoking gun that proves Bush knowingly lied about WMD. Explains why U.S. major media went along with Bushs fraud. Details crucial role Americas Christian Right played even more important than neo-cons. Reveals Bushs plan for rejuvenating Holy Roman Empire as Holy American Empire."

(from amazon site)

[thoreau]

Dave W., please report to the food thread for my critique of the article that you dug up. And please read ALL of my comments before responding, as my opinion evolved somewhat with repeated reading of the article.

Find me another article and I'll review it, but I can't promise that I'll keep doing this ad nauseum.

[Dave W.]

I am not sure which is the food thd.

[thoreau]

This one:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/01/new_at_reason_976.shtml#012374

[Eric the .5b]

OK, I guess it's now slanderous and inaccurate to state that libertarians want to restrict eminent domain, and want to restrict government's environmental enforcement powers.

Joe, we know you have better reading comprehension than that, and multiple people have made the point repeatedly.

You're not arguing honestly, and you're trolling. Good day.