The ESA and your comments raise an interesting dilemma for me. On the one hand I abhor government intervention into our lives. On the other hand, I love such places as the Boundary Waters (I will never forget sitting on the lake shore with my youngest son watching two bald eagles fight over the same prey on the far side of Lake 4 and many more such memories) and if we don’t take steps to protect such wilderness it and the bald eagles will be gone; lumber companies drool over the thought of getting into the Boundary Waters. So, what do lovers of liberty do?

Comment by BJ Eddy — October 18, 2007 @ 1:28 am

This story misrepresents the actual situation in two ways:

First, part of the issue is a long political fight over water rights between Alabama and Georgia. Alabama wants the water released so that it can have the water.

Second, this in no way endangers any people. This is a controlled release; they’re not just unleashing a flood upon the poor people downstream. The harm to one group of people (water users in Georgia) is exactly offset by the benefit to another group of people (water users in Alabama).

So drop this nonsense about environmental laws hurting people. There are some good examples of this (such as the Klamath River situation), but this is most definitely not an example of environmental laws hurting people.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 18, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

Chepe:

I understand that the fight between Alabama and Georgia is part of the drought issue. I didn’t address that angle because I don’t have a dog in that fight and I don’t know very many of the details (though it’s my understanding that Alabama isn’t doing anything to conserve water or to otherwise help the situation).

You don’t believe there is a water crisis in Georgia? The local papers seem to disagree. The water levels are at or near historic lows relative to the population.

This has wider implications than just Georgia. Other states will likely face similar problems in the future (Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Colorado). If the ESA is contributing to a water shortage, then the ESA needs to be amended or preferably, ended.

Comment by Stephen Littau — October 18, 2007 @ 3:58 pm

You don’t believe there is a water crisis in Georgia? The local papers seem to disagree.

I never intimated any such thing.

If the ESA is contributing to a water shortage, then the ESA needs to be amended or preferably, ended.

This is a matter of making choices about what we as a people want. The trade-offs are real and they are often complicated, and they are sometimes weird. The classic case was the snail darter back in the seventies. This little fish prevented the construction of a dam. In that case, I feel, the ESA did everybody a disservice. There are also lots of weird cases of insignificant species stopping projects. But there are also plenty of cases where the ESA is much easier to justify. How about the protection of the bald eagle? It is quite possible that, were it not for the protection afforded by the ESA, the bald eagle would no longer exist in this country.

Another important point is that the ESA often carries lots of side benefits. For example, in the Klamath River case, farmers were using so much water from the Klamath River that the salmon runs were being reduced, having an impact on the salmon fisheries offshore. So who’s more important, farmers or commercial fishermen? (Actually, I don’t think that the ESA got caught up in that dispute directly, although there was some entanglement involving something at Klamath Lake, I believe.)

Anyway, the point I’m making here is that this issue is a lot more complicated than “worms versus people”. I see the ESA as a clumsy starting point, a way of developing some experience in handling a really tricky problem that’s only going to get worse. I think it’s time to rewrite the ESA to provide more precise protections. There are some areas in which the environment is still getting clobbered, and others in which the ESA is overkill.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 18, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

For example, in the Klamath River case, farmers were using so much water from the Klamath River that the salmon runs were being reduced, having an impact on the salmon fisheries offshore.

Sorry Chepe but your facts are totally wrong. The Federal Klamath Irrigation Project uses from between 2 and 5 PERCENT of the water available in the Klamth River - depending on what type of water year it is. Average yearly flow out the mouth of the Klamath River is 12 MILLION acre feet! The Klamath Project farmers use between 245,000 acre feet (1992) and 348,000 acre feet (2002) to irrigate their crops - crops that may help feed you by the way.

Before the water shut off of 2001, all know causes of declines in the salmon runs in the Klamath River were blamed on logging practices, ocean conditions and over fishing by commerical and non US fishermen. No where was the blame placed on the farmers and ranchers in the Upper Klamath Basin.

The ESA played a HUGE role in the water shut off of 2001. We were shut off becuase of the Biological Opinions (BO) for the endangered Lost River suckers and the shortnosed suckers who live in Upper Klamath Lake AND, we have to supply water down stream in the Klamath River for the endangered coho salmon. Both BO’s were involved in 2001 and are still affecting lake levels and down stream flows today.

Please visit http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org or http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org to learn the facts.

Comment by Barb Hall — October 18, 2007 @ 10:20 pm

Barb, you are presenting a version of events that is distorted in favor of the Klamath farmers. For example, you left out the fact that the Klamath River shutoff took place during a drought. You talk about “average yearly flow” of the Klamath River, but the yearly flow of the Klamath River in 2001 was much much lower — which is why there was a cut-off. And then in 2002, the water was restored to the farmers, which reduced water flows in the river and killed about 70,000 salmon, the worst fish die-off in US history. This in turn led to the idling of the offshore fishing industry and huge economic losses to the commercial fishermen.

This was NOT a matter of people starving to protect cute little fishies. This was a battle over money between farmers and fishermen. Yes, the ESA was used as a legal basis for their court case. But this was not a matter of a bunch of big-city environmentalists depriving hard-working farmers of their rightful income. Let’s be honest about what was driving this dispute.

Comment by Chepe Noyon — October 18, 2007 @ 11:18 pm

He will be hung out to dry (no pun intended)… like I was during the run up to the Gulf War… as the saying goes, you can run… but you can’t hide….from the US Govt. Retire while you can!

Comment by Dr US Army — October 19, 2007 @ 11:08 pm

Looked at on its face, each piece of wasteful spending isn’t much compared to the federal budget. But when you start adding up the nickels and dimes, it adds up to a lot.

I did a little checking on the Old Chicago Post Office, though, and it appears that the problem has been finding a buyer who would do something with the property…apparently that’s been an issue for a long time. Fortunately it looks like that may be coming to an end:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=24666&seenIt=1

I imagine the reasons the feds were holding onto the property was because the city and state didn’t want to accept the costs for maintenance and liability (such as asbestos) of an abandoned historical building so the federal government got stuck with it.

Comment by UCrawford — August 8, 2007 @ 2:22 pm

On the plus side, the lack of development over the last ten years did allow the post office to be used for shooting on the two newest Batman movies :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_post_office

Comment by UCrawford — August 8, 2007 @ 2:26 pm

I wonder if the federal government couldn’t find a buyer because the red tape involved would strangle even the most determined of buyers. Plus, with this being Chicago, who knows how many city regulations might have prevented the sale as well. I remember a few years ago when New York and Pennsylvania lost power how more taxes were needed to upgrade the electric system. Needless to say, no one paid attention to the many electric companies jumping at the chance that just couldn’t make it a worthwhile investment once the EPA got involved. Government failure upon government failure? Definately time for more government intervention.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — August 8, 2007 @ 2:29 pm

Trumpetbob,

I’ll bet you’re right…the city planning commission also had to hack off on whatever improvements were made and who knows how much hassle that eventually became. Plus, consider just how much it’s going to cost to remove and properly dispose of asbestos from a 2.5 million square foot facility, reconstruct the inside so as not to violate the historical status of the building, and still turn a profit. I can see why it took ten years to get rid of the place. The mock up that the company did on the new structure looked pretty sweet though, and it’s not like downtown Chicago (or most metropolitan areas) couldn’t use more housing.

Comment by UCrawford — August 8, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

Although it looks like the city’s going to chip in about 17% of the budget for rehabilitating the place (roughly $60 million). So that’s basically 30 years worth of maintenance costs. Of course, there would probably be a bit of tax revenue generated by the property since it will have over a million square feet of residential and commercial properties. Oh well, at least it gets the property off the federal government’s books so it’s Chicago’s problem now.

Comment by UCrawford — August 8, 2007 @ 2:52 pm

Therefore what happens in Illinois is true for Minnesota? Did you actually look up the expenditures of the Minnesota’s government or any article regarding it?

Comment by VRB — August 8, 2007 @ 4:29 pm

VRB,

I think Stephen was referring to the politicians in the federal government saying they should raise taxes, not Minnesota’s government.

Comment by UCrawford — August 8, 2007 @ 4:38 pm

VRB,

The money was spent by the federal government in Illinois rather than in Minnesota. The post illustrated how the federal government has money, but spends it unwisely. It would be interesting to know how Minnesota has spent its gas tax money and also how the federal funds given to the state were spent. Without any evidence, my gut is telling me that like in everywhere else, Minnesota has gotten a few new buildings or roads or bridges named after some politician. I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, but knowing government, not very likely to happen.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — August 8, 2007 @ 4:39 pm

In response to VRB’s inquiry, here is a link to CAGW’s “Piglet Book” for Minnesota. I haven’t had a chance to read through it yet but I bet there’s some choice cuts of pork to be found.

http://www.taxpayersleague.org/pdf/2006PigletBook.pdf

Comment by Stephen Littau — August 8, 2007 @ 5:54 pm

Bush just shot down the Democrats’ attempt to get a gas tax hike by saying it’s their fault for misspending highway dollars:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/bush.newser.ap/index.html

If I’d known that it would take a Democratic Congress to turn Bush into a fiscal conservative, I’d have voted Democratic in 2002 :)

Comment by UCrawford — August 9, 2007 @ 12:36 pm

My county did something similar with the house numbers. And like your neighbor, my house was targeted. Seems the sign we have had at the end of our driveway for the 15 years we have lived there wasn’t good enough. So the county wanted us to put the numbers on the house. Only one teeny tiny problem: our driveway is a fifth of a mile long so no one can see the house from the road. We even had a cop show up and it turned out he didn’t have a clue what the law said. As he pointed out, the numbers we pointlessly put on the house were “too small.” Needless to say, the pizza guy can find our house without a GPS system and correct size numbers on the house; I wonder why the emergency people can’t? Guess next time someone needs a trip to the hospital we should order pizza rather than call an ambulance. Just another example of the market upstaging government.

Comment by trumpetbob15 — May 18, 2007 @ 3:00 am

It’s revenue generating. A few will either forget to remendy or just wont bother and wind up haveing to pay a fine.

Comment by VRB — May 18, 2007 @ 9:11 am

Just be glad you don’t live south, in Rancho Sahuarita–the most annoying fake suburb in Arizona (and that’s saying something).

Words cannot describe the idiocy of the HOA down here. Nor can they adequately describe the self-centered neighbors.

Comment by Sahuarita Citizen — May 18, 2007 @ 5:00 pm

Government oppression is universal. Bureaucrats
are bullies. Give them a clipboard and they think that you are living there only at their dispensation. Give them a badge and then talk about oppression!

Comment by Thane Eichenauer — May 19, 2007 @ 10:17 pm

Robbins Editorial…

Thanks to Liberty Papers for pointing out this editorial on Robbins v. Wilkie that appears in the Colorado Springs Gazette. The Papers has a few other choice comments as well….

Trackback by PLF on Eminent Domain — March 26, 2007 @ 6:44 pm

I wish I could say I was surprised, but sadly, I am not. More and more it seems that some people, both in and out of government, are forcing their way into our homes, our yards, and our lives, and tearing our rights away from us.

It’s a sad thing, and I hope the supreme court rules for the homeowner.

Considering the results of Georgia v. Randolph, I have high hopes.

Comment by Ted — March 26, 2007 @ 9:49 pm

Honestly, I would hope that there would not need to be any kind of explanation or argument for this one…

How this isn’t an intuitive understanding in all people… I just can’t fathom it.

Fundamental rights of property, are so integral to our concept of freedom, liberty, and society; those who would abuse them in such a manner cannot possibly understand, or for that matter function within, our society or government.

Comment by Chris — March 26, 2007 @ 11:58 pm

Where the amicus stated the claim that hasrasment was “not speciffically forbiddden in the Constitution” then it would become a state perogative, not federal. The federal government is restricted to only those things that are specifically allowed to it in the Constitution.

Comment by William Whiteley — March 27, 2007 @ 11:45 am

The real question, foundational to this case, is whether you have absolute rights over your property so long as you are a law abiding citizen.

Comment by Adam Selene — March 27, 2007 @ 11:53 am

Adam,

I disagree as whether that’s a primary issue in the case. The question appears to largely center on whether the government can retaliate against you for not going along with what they ask.

Check out this discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy:

If the BLM did the same thing to punish Robbins for exercising his First Amendment right to criticize the agency, his Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the BLM, or his right to engage in religious practices that the BLM disapproves of, the unconstitutionality of the agency’s actions would be unquestionable. Everyone agrees that these rights would be worthless, or at least gravely impaired, if government could punish people for exercising them. The same point applies to citizens’ constitutional right to avoid uncompensating takings of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Note that this issue is separable from the question of the substantive scope of constitutional property rights. Even if you believe that the scope of constitutional property rights should be very narrow, there is still good reason to forbid the government from punishing people for exercising those (admittedly narrow) rights.

What the BLM is doing here is no different from a a mafia protection racket. You pay your protection money (in this case sign over an easement), and if you choose not to, they’ll make sure your life is a living hell.

The question is not whether Robbins has the right to say no to the government when they request an easement, the question is whether the government should be allowed to harass and retaliate against him for legally saying no.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 27, 2007 @ 1:19 pm

I’m not saying that the question is whether he can say no about the easement. One central question here is, can a government agent come onto your property if you tell the agent no and there is no reason to believe you have broken a law? Did the BLM and BIA employees have warrants? Did they have court orders? I don’t think, from reading the news stories so far, that they did.

Comment by Adam Selene — March 27, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

Your suggesting that a central question is whether the feds have trespassed?

I think that one of the central questions here is not whether Robbins in any way acted illegally. But as Ayn Rand once pointed out, when you make so many things illegal that it’s impossible to live without breaking a law here or there, you’re always going to be a lawbreaker. If you watch someone closely enough, you’ll find laws that they’ve broken. For example, they’ve cited him in violation of the “grazing laws”. I never knew there were grazing laws, but so be it. The suit, though, suggests that they selectively cited him and singled him out for breaking the same laws his neighbors were breaking, in an effort to harass him.

The Supreme Court isn’t answering a question as to whether the grazing laws are Constitutional. They’re answering the question whether the selective and arbitrary enforcement of these laws, prosecuted in a way to be punitive and retaliatory to Robbins, is Constitutional.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 27, 2007 @ 2:59 pm

and that question boils down to, honestly, whether you own your property, or not.

Comment by Adam Selene — March 27, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

I recognize that the Court is trying a narrow case, but, like Kelo before it, there is a broader principle involved.

Comment by Adam Selene — March 27, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

Those scalawags! Frustrated that the state won’t curtail freedom, and that Virginia law limits their ability to actually ban smoking. But they figured out a way to do it anyway. They found a loophole!

It seems no silly “laws” will stop these people from exercising their nanny power.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — March 1, 2007 @ 8:26 am

My wife and I are suffering a VERY SIMILAR attack on our property rights and are awaiting a date from the Montgomery Co Circuit Court as to when our appeal will be heard. We applied for and were granted 2 seperate times a Mont. Co. MD DPS building permit to setup a used, older 14×60 industrialized modular building as an accessory building in our 20,000 sq ft back yard to use for storage like a large shed. Because the neighbors didn’t like how it looked (like a large construction trailer) and wouldn’t wait till we had a chance to finish setting it up, erect a fence and overall improve its looks, they appealed against us. Eventually they got the exact same county council (as in the Duffy case) to rule against us and have our building permit cancelled. Whereas all the parties in the Chevy Chase case were quite well-off and well-connected, we and our neighbors are all very middle class, working class. We are delighted to stumble on this case in time to hopefully use it as a precident to argue from in our case. The only problem is that we are so poor that we can not afford a lawyer. Instead we are appealing Pro Se and have spent countless hours drafting our own initial Memorandum tediously outlining in woefully inadequate detail our arguments. We have just filed this document with the court and expect to receive a hearing date any time. If anyone knows anyone that could offer us any legal advice or assistance we would be ever so grateful. Time is running out. Please contact me at crewsl@gc.adventist.org or call me at 301-680-6555 if you have any help or suggestions to offer.

Thanks a lot..!

PS. It was because of my wife’s father’s death last year and her mother’s Altzheimer’s that we moved to & bought this small house on 2/3 acres last fall and need the extra storage space of the accessory building that’s being denied us.

Comment by Larry Crews — January 28, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

The Duffy’s dont sound like the little guy.
If nobody else in the neighbor is allowed to over build
why should they be granted favors ??
Alot of these selfish individuals, although knowing the current
zoning rules, just go ahead building thinking they can grandfather it in after the fact.
The world is not a family but a community of others.

Comment by Markangelo — January 29, 2007 @ 11:42 am

Yeah, wouldn’t want to let someone build anything on their own property that the “Community” doesn’t like. You tell ‘em Markangelo!

Comment by Adam Selene — January 29, 2007 @ 12:19 pm

So you think people should be able to build a five story building all the way to their property line? Sure that’s hyperbole, but there HAVE to be laws in place to PROTECT property owners from others destroying their property value.

Comment by Dabney Johnson — January 31, 2007 @ 1:31 pm

There have to be laws in place to protect me from your desire to regulate what I may do with my property.

If I cause damage to your property through my actions on my property why wouldn’t you bring a civil suit or criminal charges, depending on the situation? Why the need to regulate and intervene and control my property?

Comment by Adam Selene — January 31, 2007 @ 6:46 pm

Dabney,

Does the fact that the County Zoning officials initially approved the construction of the Duffy’s home mean nothing to you ?

If it weren’t for the actions of a few politically connected neighborhood busybodies, who, by the way, didn’t object when other neighbors got similar zoning variances, this never would have been an issue.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 31, 2007 @ 7:42 pm

“Does the fact that the County Zoning officials initially approved the construction of the Duffy’s home mean nothing to you ?”

The initial construction did not include razing the whole house. The county did make a mistake by saying they didn’t need further permits to continue to tear down their house one wall at a time. However, two wrongs don’t make a right. This may sound harsh, but who’s to say that their intent wasn’t to circumvent the process by starting with a renovation when their intent was a tear down? I’ve seen builders leave a foundation and one wall up so they could do a “renovation” instead of a new build, only to replace that wall later in the construction.

Comment by Dabney Johnson — February 1, 2007 @ 2:04 pm

“If I cause damage to your property through my actions on my property why wouldn’t you bring a civil suit or criminal charges, depending on the situation? Why the need to regulate and intervene and control my property?”

You have a very interesting view of the law and why laws are established. I should have to sue and incur unbelievable costs and hardships after you build something that ruins my property value? That’s terribly backwards Adam. If you want to do something that has been deemed potentially damaging to others, the burden should be on you.

Comment by Dabney Johnson — February 1, 2007 @ 2:07 pm

While this new legistlation is more a cosmetic fix than it is helpful to the average florida homeowner, at least they are trying.
The idea that coastal residents in Florida should pay higher premiums is bunk. Almost 70 percent of floridas residents live in coastal areas and just about all of those areas had LESS damage than inland places like orlando during hurricane charley.
Hurricanes frances jean and ivan did most their damage to coastal areas but a katrina type event would never occur in florida. The storm surge is worse on the coast, however with Hurricane Andrew in 1992, a category 5 storm, the damage was great but the loss of life and property came nowhere near what happened in new orleans.
You seem to think every person that “chooses” to live in coastal florida owns a condo part time and have huge disposable incomes. The reality is most people are either retired on fixed incomes or they work in one of floridas main industries, like tourism and hospitality, which happen to be located near the coastal regions and beaches.

As a resident of Floria since 1989 I am appalled by how easy it has become for developers to build whatever they want wherever they want. Maybe less people would be a good thing, but remember that people dont always choose where they live. Hard working floridians love this state and all its flaws and no amount of hurricanes will change that. We just want to put food on the table and not be raped and pillaged by our insurance companies every time a storm blows through.

Comment by Jeff — January 22, 2007 @ 10:49 pm

You talk about coastal Florida, I live 40 miles inland and a recent quote for my modiest home has more than doubled than twice of last years coming in at $4000.00 and 800% higher than when I move into my home 10 years ago, which is about what my morgage is for the year. I’m not sure what the cure will be but at least the legestlators are trying to do something. I think ‘04 & ‘05 hurricane seasons were an anomely which the insurance industries are taking advatage of.

How would you like to pay a double morgage suddenly out of the blue when you have college expenses, health expenses, and just trying to get by and raise a family? I doubt you would like it… take your dribble someplace else.

Comment by Pete — January 23, 2007 @ 2:42 am

Hi Kevin! I have to “third” these guys - I’m a native Floridian who has lived here for 45 years now. The hurricanes we endured three years ago were
the first of that magnitude that our area had suffered in my life. We live about 15 miles inland, and while our property flooded (exterior only - no interior damage) we sustained no damage worth reporting from any of the storms. We were blessed. But it matters not - our insurance has tripled in the five years we’ve lived here. This with no claims made to the insurance company. As for the “allowing us to choose higher deductibles”, well as others have said, at least it’s something! Our insurance mess down here is becoming untenable, and I’d venture to say that MOST of us are hard working and responsible - certainly most of us that have lived here all our lives. My sister and her husband live in South Florida (north of where Andrew came through a few years ago - and about 30 miles inland) and while they had no claims, have put up roll away shutters, done everything they possibly can to hurricane proof their home, their insurance company last year summarily dropped them one month before hurricane season - leaving them no options other than Citizens to get through the season - at more than double the already exhorbitant rate they were already paying. They’ve since been able to get private insurance again, but until you’ve been here, you just can’t believe how out of control this problem is.

Comment by LeftBrainFemale — January 23, 2007 @ 3:57 am

Pete, have you ever stopped to consider that the intrusion of the government into the marketplace is what caused your insurance woes?

Comment by Adam Selene — January 23, 2007 @ 10:01 am

Actually, yes, it was the intrusion of government into the marketplace in our state which has in part caused the problem (along with too much development in coastal areas) but we’re in so deep now, I don’t know how it can be rectified.

A bit of history: This program (under other names in the past) has been in effect in Florida since 1972. While it seemed, apparently, to our lawmakers at the time to be a good direction to go, it was also effective for many years - at least 30 years - where there was no real trouble.

This system was based on a model in which the private insurance market was to play the greatest role in insuring Florida property holders and Citizens was to act as the insurer of last resort.

While Citizens was granted the authority to assess other property insurance policies in case of a deficit, for many years, it was difficult for anyone to imagine a scenario where the assessment mechanism would take effect and require policyholders to subsidize the insurance for those policyholders in Citizens. Enter 4 storms in one hurricane season criss-crossing central Florida and the rest is history. Now we’re in dire need of some type of reform - whether that means that government needs to back out of it entirely, I don’t know. Seems that in our over-developed state there really isn’t an easy answer.

But, as frustrating as it is to us, we have a lot in Florida to be thankful for. We don’t have a state income tax, so I suppose my insurance dollars going to help support Citizens for others in the state is something that we must live with for the time being - and, by the way, at this point, it’s only the Floridian taxpayers that are having to pay for the otherwise uninsurables in our state - not Americans in general.

Comment by LeftBrainFemale — January 23, 2007 @ 12:18 pm

You know, every time that a state government has regulated insurance, it has turned into a disaster. Insurance companies have pulled out of the market, prices have gone up, more people have had difficulty obtaining insurance. Every time the state has deregulated insurance, it has proven to be a boon to consumers, with more choices, lower premiums and more people able to obtain insurance.

Why would we do anything different, given the track record? Is this the old “it just hasn’t been done right” thing?

Comment by Adam Selene — January 23, 2007 @ 12:33 pm

Hey, it makes sense to me - I just don’t see it happening here anytime soon. I suppose if it were deregulated here, then those who live in high risk areas and can’t afford insurance would be forced to sell out to those who can . . . and that would probably force property values down . . . hmmm . . . not sure I like that idea, LOL! We’re sitting on our retirement “egg” right now, hehehe.

Comment by LeftBrainFemale — January 23, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

I am willing to bet it would not force property values down, except maybe in the short term.

Comment by Adam Selene — January 23, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

No, you’re probably right - market would level itself, but I’m afraid it’s a moot point. I’m afraid on many counts I’ve lost faith - not in the system, but in the idiots who are determined to “run/ruin” it! ;-)

Comment by LeftBrainFemale — January 23, 2007 @ 1:56 pm

Once the market corrected after the deregulation, insurance costs, even on the coast, should be expected to go down. Lower insurance costs means people are more likely to want to acquire that property. Insurance prices in Florida are not high because of hurricanes.

Comment by Adam Selene — January 23, 2007 @ 2:06 pm

If you want to know the single biggest thing that government can do to destroy an insurance market, I’ll tell you: Mandating coverage.

One of the ONLY reasons insurance works is that insurance companies, in a free and vibrant market, can take on enough low-risk insureds as not to break the bank. Once coverage mandates are tossed in, all bets are off.

Comment by Quincy — January 23, 2007 @ 11:14 pm

Quincy ~ I’d say that has definitely been proven to be the case in Florida. It took a while thanks to relatively calm weather all those years, but . . . here we are now. The sad thing is, we all pay for it - as we’re required to when still paying on a mortgage, but we’re all terrified to use it unless for a major claim because we fear being dropped or another premium increase.

Comment by LeftBrainFemale — January 24, 2007 @ 5:21 am

For those of that don’t know it, a number of other states already have laws on the books that forbid insurance rates to reflect losses in other states. That means that to the extent Florida tries to require insurers to subsidize rates there with profits from other states, it can’t be done. I’d fully expect that other states are going to follow suit.

Comment by abnormal — January 25, 2007 @ 5:21 am

Our vote controls these people in government. Who controls us? I posted this on my blog as we are on similar wavelengths.

Comment by bosscauser — January 4, 2007 @ 5:57 pm

“Virginia law generally protects the right of landowners to develop their property.”

Moreover, the general rule* is that states have plenary authority over their political subdivisions. Virginia could not only nullify any such plot by the county board, but could also simply dissolve the county outright and start over. So the notion of a county holding its state hostage is a bit laughable, even by Virginia standards.

*There are exceptions based on state constitutions (e.g., Colorado). I don’t know whether Virginia has a “home rule” provision in its state constitution.

Comment by KipEsquire — December 3, 2006 @ 4:24 pm

[…] I wrote about the Prince William moratorium both here and at The Liberty Papers on Monday, and it appears that the Board of County Supervisors backed down somewhat from what was originally proposed: […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Slow Growth Taking Over In D.C. Metro Area — December 6, 2006 @ 10:05 am

It’s not entirely correct to label these restrictions (which I oppose) as “zoning laws.”

Here the “zone” follows the sex offender; in traditional zoning the “zone” is anchored to the geography.

Residency restrictions are considered a penal matter; zoning laws are direct restrictions of property rights.

I’m just saying…

Comment by KipEsquire — November 27, 2006 @ 10:19 am

They concede that the county has a right to control zoning in this manner, and try to claim an “exemption” because they’re a church.

Conceding the county’s right is the first problem. I posted yesterday at The Unrepentant Individual about the “Poker Players Alliance”. They’re fighting Congress’ recent battle to ban internet poker.

I’m all for fighting Congress. But the PPA is suggesting that Poker shouldn’t be banned because it’s a “skill game” (which it is, of course), rather than because we are adults and deserve freedom. As if it’s just fine that Congress can ban online blackjack, but somehow poker is more special and should be allowed.

I don’t want FairFax county to claim that this church can’t offer these classes. But the reason for that is that it is the Church’s property, not the county’s. Not that they should get some freedom of religion exemption.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — July 18, 2006 @ 10:58 am

Brad,

From the philosophical standpoint, I agree that the Church makes a mistake when it concedes the County’s right to even create the zoning regulation in question.

From a legal standpoint, though, knowing Virginia law and more importantly the judges in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where this case was filed, this argument would be a loser.

Comment by Doug Mataconis — July 18, 2006 @ 11:03 am

[…] I’ve also got a few things up over there as well, including an article on the impact of land-use regulation on the price of homes, another about the impact of a specific type of land-use regulation on a Fairfax County family, and a discussion of the risks we would face in calling a Constitutional Convention. […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » At The Liberty Papers — July 14, 2006 @ 9:24 am

Not that I’m a big fan of using one statist infringement of rights to trump another, but why don’t they just claim an ADA defense? After all, with blind kids, those trees are a legitimate impediment to the disabled…

This sort of BS shouldn’t happen at all, but if they’re going to make you fight, it’s easier to use their own rules against them.

Comment by Brad Warbiany — July 15, 2006 @ 10:22 am

[…] Second, its the very first Carnival of Real Estate at Zillow Blog, which includes my post from The Liberty Papers about Zoning Laws and Property Rights. […]

Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Carnival Time — July 18, 2006 @ 2:12 am

[…] Last week, I wrote about a Fairfax County, Virginia zoning ordinance that was forcing a family to accept trees that they didn’t want on their property, today’s Washington Post, though, has an article showing how zoning and land use laws can interfere with more than just property rights. McLean Bible Church, a Tysons Corner megachurch, has sued Fairfax County so it can continue to offer religion classes that officials say violate zoning rules. […]

Pingback by The Liberty Papers»Blog Archive » Zoning Laws And Religious Freedom — July 18, 2006 @ 7:31 am

How Zoning Laws Distort The Housing Market

…

Trackback by Below The Beltway — July 9, 2006 @ 11:13 am

Absolutely right.

100%

Comment by Ray Hyde — July 9, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

[…] "We should have a law for this" is a phrase that become common idiom. The notion that government can regulate the market, or better – human condition, is common and accepted as fact of life. The general acceptance is that government’s agencies have only the public interest in mind, and that the people working in them are competent enough to make such regulations.I argued , as many others, that such believe is not only wrong practically but is immoral. Doug, from the Liberty papers , brings another example for the effect of government regulations. He quotes an article from the Washington Post about high housing prices around Washington DC. Among other reasons the Article points to:Architect Christian Lessard said he and the other developers of MetroWest, the 2,250-home project underway near the Vienna Metro station, would happily build a larger number of smaller homes, but community opposition limited the number of units they could build. To make back the cost of the land, he said, the builders designed the townhouses they were allowed to build to be as large and expensive as possible—about 2,500 square feet, a size that in similar developments sells for about $500,000.Lessard acknowledged that the outcome was not ideal.Put simple, the government by limiting the number of homes built driving the prices up and making the ability of people with lower income to buy a house. Maybe when Doug’s suggestion will sound less radical we will have better hope…Here’s a radical idea. Stop telling developers what they can do with their property and let them build housing based on market demand rather than economic necessities created by your regulations. Maybe it just might work.    Free Market, Government Regulations, Libertarianism […]

Pingback by