They Paved Paradise, And Put In A Parking Lot

Private property rights are a fundamental part of the underlying legal basis of every successful government throughout history. On a very general basis, if you show me a listing of the rights that the citizens of a given country enjoy relating to the ownership of private property, particularly real estate, I can tell you a good deal about the health and output of the resulting economy on a per capita basis.

Historically, in communist, socialist, and fascist countries where the government controlled or limited their residents’ property rights, there has always been a corresponding reduction in the economic output and quantity of individual wealth generated. If you can’t acquire the right to own “stuff”, why work--other than to avoid the threat of a taskmaster’s whip? Further, why expend your best efforts when just showing up will do?

In the United States, our government has recognized the citizens right to very broad based property rights protections under the law, beginning with the Constitution and filtering down through state and local governments. Unfortunately, like every other freedom in this country, there are a number of forms of infringement that continue to creep into our lives on a yearly basis.

Take zoning laws, for instance. Thomas Sowell makes an excellent argument for the reality of zoning laws contributing to the high cost of homes in California. Once you get your own piece of paradise, you don’t want your neighbors being too close by or putting in trailers lest you have to look at their laundry hanging on the line outside.

Zoning laws, or the lack thereof, have been huge issues in the last two places I have owned property and/or resided, Mexico Beach, Florida and St. Simons Island, Georgia. Both locals are adjacent to the beach. One property was about three blocks from the shoreline, while the current one is a mile from the waves and a few hundred yards from a salt marsh. The local officials in both locations are constantly considering zoning requests and the value a given owner can expect to command for a given piece of property rises and falls with the banging of the gavel of local despots on the city council or zoning board. The zoning for both lands changed radically over the years, severely limiting my options for development.

Who are these people to tell me what I can do with my land? Is it my land or isn’t it? How can you change the rules on me after I already own it? The tendency here in the Golden Isles, like most coastal areas, is a constant conflict between occupancy densities versus the rising cost of land. The problem is, the very laws that the government enacts to encourage green space and lower density at the same time serves to increase the price of land and increase the occupancy density in spite of the enforced property line setbacks and building height restrictions they demand. "If I can only build four stories high, I’m going to by God cover as much of the property as I can with as many units as I can" is the developers attitude.

Another, more abusive trend is embodied in the change being made nationally in the interpretation of eminent domain laws. Historically, the concept of eminent domain was used to force the owner of land needed for public use like a roadway or utility line to sell or otherwise grant easement rights to the government or a so called “public” utility in order to meet the needs of the public good. How things have changed.

Take the little central Alabama city of Alabaster, Alabama, for instance. Alabaster sits adjacent to Interstate 65 just south of Birmingham. The city and the county is an exurb that is still mainly a bedroom community for Birmingham. There are several county roads that have interchanges where they cross I-65. A developer has decided that he wants to build a shopping center including a Super Wall Mart at one of the interchanges. The problem is that the owners of some of the land the developer wanted liked their little piece of paradise and didn’t want to sell.

So what did the developer do? Did he find another piece of land at another intersection to buy or make the owners a price offer that they couldn’t refuse? Noooooo. The developer went to the City and told them about all of the property and sales taxes they were missing out on by not having a Wall Mart in town. He then let the city do his dirty work for him. The city followed the national trend and used the idea of increasing the tax digest as “public use,” condemned the land, forced the owners to sell, then turned around and sold the coveted land to the developer for use in the shopping center project. Their attitude was basically, "tough shiskey."

There are a number of initiatives at the state level to change laws making this form of theft easier to achieve. I don’t have the time or the energy to talk about every state’s efforts, but I encourage you to follow your local news and contact your state politicians to express your outrage if you can. Remember, private property rights are fundamental to our freedoms, and this infringement isn’t John Ashcroft’s fault.


Update: November 13, 2004

George will has a nice editorial in the Washington Post that addresses this issue. I hope the Supreme Court will hear the Connecticut case and put an end to this theft.

Announcing The Redneck Gourmet

Well folks, its official--no topic is safe from my ranting and raving. Take cooking, for instance.

Last weekend I started The Redneck Gourmet and I just wrote my third post this morning. Stop on by for some non-political reading.

The Fat Lady Has Sung, But It's Not Over--Part II

Hello CBS…we're still waiting.

What’s it been, six, eight, ten weeks, and I can still see Dan Rather’s sullen scowl every evening (IF I change channels from FOX News or Food Network.)

What about the “independent” CBS investigation? You know, the investigation into how obviously forged documents, documents that could be reproduced by a sixth grader with a ink jet printer and a word processor, were allowed to be used as a basis for a nationally broadcast CBS 60 Minutes news story attacking the person of a sitting President of the United States of America in the heat of a re-election campaign.

We've been waiting patiently, and it’s not like your executives there at CBS can’t make a decision if they want to. After all, they only took two days to fire the producer whom committed the heinous crime of daring to interrupt the last five minutes of the prime time show “CSI: NY” to break the news that old Yasser Arafat had finally bought the farm.

Noooo, the public was outraged, and CBS couldn’t allow that. Not only did they do a thorough investigation and fire the producer within 48 hours of the scandalous event, they are also going to make amends to their viewers by re-broadcasting the entire CSI:NY episode so everyone can see the final five minutes.

America is vindicated. I know I’ll sleep better tonight.

Oh, and CBS….we’re STILL waiting….

Giving Him The First Degree

Thank God the Scott Peterson trial is over with in theory--on to the sentencing phase.

And of course there is the appeal phase.

Then there is the other appeal phase.

Then there is the state supreme court phase.

Then there is the Federal Supreme court phase.

Does California freeze, fry, or inject their murderers?

I'm just glad the damn thing is over with. But don't worry, the media already has the next pretty girl murder case set up to wear us out with. You did see the story about the murdered beauty queen in Napa Valley.

Just watch...

It's My Party and I'll (Lie) If I Want To

Ever heard of a the concept of having a paradigm shift? A paradigm shift involves completely changing the way you think, feel and/or view a part of the world around you. Relationships, jobs, religion, politics, you name it--you might feel better as a result of a paradigm shift, or you might just want to blow your brains out or at least get the hell out of Dodge as a result of your newly found revelations.

While the mainstream media (MSM) has been attempting to elect John Kerry and loosing their collective minds over Abu Ghraib prisoners being forced to wear panties on their heads, while they’ve been wondering if Colin Powell or John Ashcroft personally authorized the purported prisoner abuse as a matter of standard operating policy, there is a real international scandal out there involving an organization and their high ranking leaders that really deserves American’s attention, yet you barely hear it whispered about by Dan Rather or written about on the front page of the NY Times.

EVERYONE, QUICK, LISTEN UP, BECAUSE I’M GOING TO SHIFT YOUR PARADIGM WHEN IT COMES TO THE UNITED NATIONS.

The scandal is known as the UN Oil For Food Program (OFF) and the scope of the corruption is growing on a daily basis. You’ve heard about this multi-billion-dollar so-called humanitarian effort, haven’t you? You know the program, the one overseen by the UN that was set up to prevent the people of Iraq from starving to death as a result of international sanctions imposed as a result of the 1992 Gulf War? Oh sure you have. You know, the program that was supposed to let Saddam sell Iraq’s only marketable natural resource, crude oil, in return for dollars used to buy limited non-military products like rice and beans and milk and McDonalds Burgers? Oh come on, you know…the program overseen by Kofi Annan’s son, the program that granted “oil vouchers” to Kofi Jr. and various French and German and Russian leaders and diplomats and businessmen at ridiculously low prices to be sold on the open market for huge profits?

Yeah, you know, THAT program, that’s the one. Nothing illegal or underhanded, just good old-fashioned graft and corruption, USA mafia style you know? The program designed by dictators, for dictators.

Well, it seems that we have a problem, Houston. It seems that the program didn’t quite accomplish it’s goal of punishing Saddam, instead it made him rich(er.) It also didn’t seem to prevent Saddam from buying military materials, according to documents that US forces have captured in Iraq. Now that the cat is out of the proverbial bag, Kofi Jr. and Kofi Sr. seem to have a bad case of amnesia and are making it difficult for us to find out what was really going on with the Oil for Food program.

But never fear, there will be an investigation to get to the bottom of things. The problem is, the UN is investigating itself, with a team lead by Paul Volker, and woe be it to any outside organization (like the US Senate) that wants to speed things along on an independent basis.

Here is a letter to His Excellency, Kofi Annan, from Norm Coleman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Investigations. It seems that Kofi is so busy that it took him four months to respond with a big old “get lost” to the honorable Senators. He’s too busy stalling Mr. Volker’s investigation to answer ole’ Norm.

I presently can’t add much in the way of discussion to this issue other than to point out that any position that allows you to be referred to as “His Excellency” should also require you to constantly wear those little “Elf” shoes with the curled up tips and have some psycho pervert like Michael Jackson or John Hinkley as your chambermaid.

Does anybody know if Charles Manson has butler skills?

Do Unto Others...

Liberals love to tell you how they are compassionate and “concerned” about taking care of the less fortunate in our society. To this end, the liberal politicians love to help us take care of our stuff, particularly our money. They think that our feeble little minds just can’t possibly take care of the needy in our midst. They believe that they can spend our money better than we can, so they tax our asses off under the guise of helping their causes.

Well, the Catalogue For Philanthropy has just published their “Generosity Index” and it reveals some rather disturbing facts about our liberal friends. The index is published on a state-by-state basis and factors personal income versus charitable giving to produce a state ranking.

Number one on the list—the state of Mississippi. Mississippi is dead last in income, but her residents are number five in charitable giving. The number two on the list, Arkansas, is number forty-seven in income, but number six in giving. You can scroll down the list and find that the top 25 states are all conservative, based on last week’s elections.

Good old liberal New York state is number twenty-six on the list, with a income rank of fifth and a giving rank of ninth. And all of those lovely California ex-hippies-- you know, the ones that don’t understand air pollution and homelessness—they are number twenty-nine. Their income ranking is sixth, but their charitable giving level is a dismal seventeenth.

I say we start a campaign for making these loudmouths put their own money where their bleeding-heart mouths are. Who are they to take everyone else’s hard earned money to spend on their pet causes while they sit home on their own wad of cash?

Is it just me? Just wondering…

Barbara Streisand Joins The Liberal Meltdown

This morning I was doing my normal snooping for news and reading my favorite Blogger sites when Matt Drudge's site alerted me to yet another liberal meltdown on the internet.

Barbara Streisand has a website that she has used in the past to promote her personal agenda, including making a number of "Michael Moore" type rants against the Republican Party and President George Bush. You do remember that it was her and her husband, James Broland, who were major forces behind the Ronald Regan bashing movie that caused all of the stir earlier this year?

My advise to Ms. Barbara is to keep on raking in the millions making the rare acting and/or singing appearance and leave the thinking and voting to the balance of America. I have this theory that every dollar you earn costs you one brain cell, and when you start getting into the hundreds of millions you start becoming long on financial where withall and short on mental capital. I submit most of the Hollywood elite as evidence to support this thesis.

And I rest my case, your honor...

The Fair Tax Plan Is Really Fair

The only thing certain is death and taxes. People have been complaining for a long time about both. In the Bible (Book of I Kings, Chapter 12) the Israelites petition their new king, Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to cut their income taxes. In the words of the King James Bible, they say:

“Thy father made our yoke grievous: now therefore make thou the grievous service of thy father, and his heavy yoke which he put upon us, lighter, and we will serve thee.”

Politicians being as they are, King Rehoboam talks things over with his administration and three days later he gives them his answer:

“And now whereas my father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”

So there it is Folks, ask for a tax cut and you get a tax increase—and they throw in some whips and scorpions (can you say IRS audit?) for good measure.

So not much has changed in the past 2500 years when it comes to income taxes. Everyone thinks that their taxes are too high and the next guy making more money should have to “pay his fair share.” The idea of fair taxation has often caused conflict. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Fair or not, the income tax has been a reality for us here in the US since the Civil War when President Lincoln imposed a temporary income tax to fund the war effort.

It took an act of congress in the form of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution in order to allow the federal government to impose a permanent tax on income. The original income tax code required the filing of only a one page form and the entire tax code was only 14 pages. Individuals with incomes of over $4,000 annually were taxed, and most Americans made much less.

Our income tax was supposed to be temporary. It wasn’t. It was supposed to be fair. It isn’t. In its present form it costs this country, in addition to the actual taxes, additional billions in lost productive time and expenses (lawyers/accountants) just to comply with the record keeping and filing of forms. (Almost) everyone hates it, it dominates local and national elections, but no one ever does anything about it other than deflect the cost from themselves’ and their family/peer group.

Forget about taxing only the rich, about deductions and rebates, earned income credits, and all of that other politically expedient crapolla the dominates the evening news and every political campaign—there is an alternative out there that is actually getting some serious consideration in Congress.

The Fair Tax Plan, also called the National Retail Sales Tax, could be the answer. That is, if the politicians are willing to give up the substantial amount of political influence they currently wield as a result of being able to spend our hard earned money on their political constituents.

Here is how the Fair Tax Plan would work. The federal payroll and income taxes on all personal and corporate income would be eliminated, to be replaced with a 21% to 23% sales tax on all goods and services at a retail level. You would still pay state and local income taxes if you pay them now. Georgia would still demand 6% and Florida would get nothing out of your check.

At first you want to jump out of your seat and yell “A 23% FEDERAL SALES TAX, I CAN’T AFFORD TO EAT!” But wait a minute while I explain the benefits.

The Fair Tax would mean that companies and individuals would pay no income tax on their incoming money. Your paycheck would increase dramatically because you are only having state and local income taxes and things like insurance deducted. Meanwhile, the before-sales-tax cost of goods and services would go down substantially. This is because products produced for sale at a retail level would have no imbedded taxes included in their cost. Things like taxes on the raw materials and the employers so called “contribution” to the FICA/FUTA payroll taxes. Manufacturers are also removed from the task of collecting taxes on their employees’ wages so their administrative overhead cost goes down. Estimates indicate that the cost of a domestically produced consumer item already includes at least 23 cents on every dollar of “imbedded taxes” and tax admin costs.

“So I just break even in the process” I might ask? No, you government schooled bonehead. If I make $75,000 this year, I only pay taxes on what I spend. If I save $10,000, I pay no taxes on that amount. Get it? Also, the government would give everyone a monthly rebate check equal to the sales tax paid on the basic cost of living (food, clothing, and shelter) based on the poverty level rate for each size family. This means that the poor people will not only not pay income tax, they won’t pay anything but state sales tax on their bread, milk, Reeboks, and spinner rims for the Escalade.

The revised tax law would encourage earning, saving, and investing. Of course, if you are a drug dealer or a house painter running a cash-only business and you’ve made all of your money “under the table” for the past 20 years, you will suddenly start having to pay your fair share. The entire underground economy in this country would suddenly be forced to start paying taxes. Experts actually project that the federal revenue stream will go up, allowing services to be maintained while the deficit spending is eliminated. Note that I would still like to see a review of existing services and the reduction or possible removal of the Federal government’s involvement in things like education and the retirement business.

The only losers in the process would be tax lawyers, accountants, and the Internal Revenue Service. They would just have to find something else to do rather than have us support their government mandated non-essential existence. Every one else would be winners.

Imagine if you could wake up on New Year’s Day and know that every day for the next three hundred sixty five days you would not owe the Federal Government one thin dime—unless you bought something new at the retail level.

Who do I call and where do I go to sign up?