In Case You Missed It

"In Case You Missed It" is a new category I'm adding to the blog. It will consist of interesting things I've come across that I think you should read and/or know. I'll do this periodically and hope you'll enjoy the the highlights and take the time to read the entire articles linked.

Presidential Property - Tim Higgins at Just Blowing Smoke takes a look at the concept of personal property and the interference of the government when it comes to contracts and salary. He makes a really good argument for why government has no authority in the matter, not that anyone in D.C. is listening...

Not News: 4Q09 Treasury Collections Down 11% from Previous Year - Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog, known for paying attention to fiscal matters, details how revenue projections from the Congressional Budget Office are off and won't likely be met. This is critical! Congress spends based upon their projections, but it looks like the CBO is taking lessons from Toledo budget predictions - creating estimates of income that clearly are not based in reality, nor reflective of the collections so far.

Employee Compensation in State and Local Governments - Cato Institute takes a look at the costs of employee compensation in state and local governments and how those costs are not really going down, despite reduced revenues. Many continue to assert that government workers have better benefits to compensate for a lower wages than what they could earn in the private sector. But the figures from Cato proves this to be a myth.

The average Average Compensation for 2009 (in Dollars per Hour Worked) is $26.01 for state and local employees but only $19.39 for the private sector. Even when you break down the nation by regions to account for significantly varying wages across the states, you find that government employment often pays around 26% more than private employment does.

I hope you'll take the time to read the entire bulletin.

The Patriot Post:

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Property: the foundation of all rights

The Cato Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation whose mission is "to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

They produce numerous publications, including a Handbook for Policymakers that focuses on issues with recommendations. I thought this portion dealing with Property Rights was very informative and am sharing it with you. I hope you'll read the entire chapter.

34. Property Rights and the Constitution

America’s Founders understood clearly that private property is the foundation not only of prosperity but of freedom itself. Thus, through the common law, state law, and the Constitution they protected property rights—the rights of people to freely acquire, use, and dispose of property. With the growth of modern government, however, those rights have been seriously compromised. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has yet to develop a principled, much less comprehensive, theory for remedying those violations. That failure has led to the birth of the property rights movement in state after state. It is time now for Congress to step in—to correct its own violations and to set out a standard that courts might notice as they adjudicate complaints about state violations. In the Property Rights and the Constitution chapter of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers, Roger Pilon explains why Congress should:

- Enact legislation, to guide federal agencies and to provide notice by the courts, that outlines the constitutional rights of property owners under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause,

- Follow the traditional common law in defining "private property," "public use," and "just compensation,"

- Treat property taken through regulation the same as property taken through physical seizure, and

- Provide a single forum in which property owners may seek injunctive relief and just compensation promptly.

Read more...

Smoking banned inside homes

And they make fun of those who warn of the 'slippery slope' ....

"Housing complex owners vote to ban smoking

By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff

It's not just indoor public places in Eau Claire where lighting up is prohibited. Now residents of a south side, owner-occupied housing complex will have to snuff out smoking in their homes, the most recent sign of public anti-smoking sentiment.

Members of the Fairfax Parkside Homeowners Association on Wednesday voted to outlaw smoking inside residences that are part of the 34-unit development. The ban also prohibits smoking in shared spaces, such as porches and garages, but does allow it in yards and on patios."

If I lived in that complex, I'd want them smoking INSIDE the homes and not out in the open where the smoke could drift into my house/yard ... but what do I know? And in this particular case, the issue is that the complex has connecting units, so there seems to be some validity to the concern of smoke from a neighbor 'drifting' into another's home.

The issue here is the 'vote' wherein the majority dictate to the minority and use the 'majority rule' to violate another person's personal property rights. At least in this case, the rule makers are a private group - not the government - and if anyone doesn't like the rule they don't have to live in that complex.

But anti-smoking proponents will use this as an example of what government should do ... and that slippery slope just keeps getting slicker.

Finkbeiner, Block still trying to dictate to United Way

I knew it was too good to be true.

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner and John Robinson Block, publisher of The Blade, are still trying to interfere in a private property decision.

The Toledo Free Press has the details of their attempt to 'rally then tenants' against the United Way.

A history of the pressure these individuals have tried to exert is available, chronologically here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Yes, I know that's a lot of background to catch up, but that's the way things work in Toledo and with our local paper. The publisher of The Blade spoke and politicians dutifully fell in line to try and preserve a dilapidated, costly building. And despite the fact that the United Way has broken ground on their new building, the fight is not over.

Apparently, Carty, Block or both convinced a local company to develop a renovation plan for the building. However, their plan addressed only two levels of the multi-floor building, was as costly as building new, and was rejected - as were the previous plans to renovate.

I'll say it again - if Carty and Block want the building to stay up, they can purchase it and do with it whatever they please. However, this being Toledo, they are used to bullying, expecting people to ask 'how high' when they say 'jump,' and getting their way when they attempt to dictate to others.

Perhaps the United Way, with the backing of The Stranahan Foundation, will be able to continue to resist this pressure.

For the good of all Toledo, I hope so.

New developments in United Way building saga

Michael Miller, editor of the Toledo Free Press, called in to the morning show on WSPD today to give a preview of a story they're developing on the United Way building saga.

According to Miller, the United Way consulted with Mayor Carty Finkbeiner about their plan to demolish the existing building and construct a new one. Carty offered no objection to the plan.

However, Miller said, upon receiving word from John Robinson Block, the publisher of The Blade, Carty switched his position on the demolition and is now opposed to it.

Miller also has a copy of the architectural/engineering report prepared for the United Way board which details all the problems/issues with the building, including mold and elevators and HVAC that are past their projected lifespan. Also, the building, built in 1969, is not compliant with the more recent Americans with Disability Act. The United Way has stated that renovating the building is much more expensive than building a new one, hence the decision of the board.

We all know the editorial board and publisher of the paper have taken strong positions in favor of preservation of buildings. They have also, in the past, supported such efforts with own funds (Valentine Theater). In this case, the practicality of the situation seems to escape them.

What's more important: having the United Way in a cost-efficient building that gives them more funds with which to accomplish their mission - or 'preserving' a 19-year-old structure of steel and brick?

Paper, Mayor hate poor people and the planet

It was only a matter of time before Mayor Carty Finkbeiner weighed in on the plan to demolish the existing United Way structure and build a new one.

What I didn't expect, however, was employing the force of government, through a zoning regulation, to prevent this non-profit from going through with its plans.

In a letter to the United Way's board chairman and president, and to the Stranahan Foundation, Carty urges them to reconsider their decision due to the 'value' of the building.

"The building is far too valuable to the community to simply knock down and replace with a smaller, generic office building. Cities known for their quality of life embrace a preservation ethic that benefits the entire community, rather than a tear down mentality. Toledo has made great progress in renovating the re-using distinctive buildings that enhance community identity and pride, and I am convinced that the demolition of the United Way Building will halt this progress and be a step backwards for the City and for the United Way."

I'd love to know who, exactly, Carty spoke to at the United Way prior to determining that demolition of the building would be a 'step backwards...for the United Way.' This letter could have been written by The Blade editorial board, but it is signed by the mayor.

The arrogance and presumption of the mayor doesn't stop with his conclusion that a less-costly and more efficient building is a bad thing for the United Way. No - he invokes the power of government to threaten the non-profit agency.

"As a point of information, the United Way Building is located within the Downtown Overlay Zoning District and demolition of the building would be subject to review by the Toledo City Plan Commission, with comments solicited from the City Historic District Commission. The City Plan Commission has the authority to impose a waiting period of up to six months from the date of the hearing of the application.

Again, I respectfully urge you to reconsider your decision to demolish this unique and distinctive building and to explore all other options. The City and I will assist the United Way in every way possible - except the demolition process."

While he didn't say it, Carty didn't need to point out that he appoints all the members of the Toledo City Plan Commission...wonder what decision they will make considering the opposition to the demolition from both the Mayor and the paper?

But, if that's not enough, the Toledo City Historic Districts Commission also weighs in on the issue. As the self-described "historical conscience of the City" they suggest selling the building if the United Way decides not to renovate it. It is, they insist, the embodiment "of the spirit of a community that works together." They also "extend an invitation for continued dialogue between all interested parties for an equitable and just solution that benefits both the United Way of Greater Toledo and the City of Toledo."

Considering that the only parties are the United Way and their tenants, I cannot imagine just what type of dialogue they want to host - or whose definition of "just solution" will be employed.

There are many free-market and private property proponents who see overlay districts, historic districts and plan commissions as a way for government to dictate their wants and wishes to private property owners ... always in the guise of the 'greater good' for the community. This appears to be a classic example that fits their concerns to a 'T.'

The United Way is a private organization and they own the property. The building on the property no longer fits their needs and detracts from their ability to fulfill their mission of aiding and assisting the needy in the community.

Now, a bunch of people who don't have to pay the bills for the building have decided that the 'historical' or 'cultural' aspect of the brick and stone (which are not that old, mind you) are more important than the mission of the United Way. And they're threatening the force of government to prevent this private property owner from doing what they think is best with a building and property they own.

Sadly, between the force of government and the coverage of the local newspaper, the United Way will become bogged down in what other people want rather than in their continuing mission to help meet serious needs in the community.

No matter what is decided, the United Way will present the outcome as something they support and agree with, because they're dependent upon the good nature of the mayor and the paper for continuing donations. But that factor alone makes the opining by these two inappropriate and an abuse.

Sadly, the law may require the United Way to go through the rigmarole of the Plan Commission and bow to the process if not to the actual desires of people who won't have to foot the bill for the building they're so anxious to maintain.

And these liberals and Democrats who are constantly telling everyone they they stand up for the 'little guy' will force these actions against the United Way to the detriment of the many families who rely upon the services the United Way funds.

How many families will have to go without food or coats or heat this winter because money the United Way could have spent to help them was, instead, spent paying for an inefficient and costly building?

And what about the energy consumption of this existing building? Isn't its lack of energy efficiency wrecking the planet and contributing to global warming? Wouldn't it be better for the United Way to have a new 'green' building with solar panels, rooftop garden and other such environmentally friendly amenities? Aren't the mayor and the paper contributing to the global climate crises by opposing the destruction of this non-green building????

Their actions on this issue should be a clarion call to all that the liberals and the Democrats are not really looking out for the best interests of the 'working families' of the city - they're exhibiting their hypocrisy in their quest for government control and their idea of aesthetic perfection.