November 06, 2007

Norby's Campaign Finance Reform Goes Down

OC Board of Supervisors Chairman Chris Norby's proposal to junk most of TIN CUP is replace it with a system that is simple, transparent and comprehensible lost for lack of a second -- which is a shame. Everything Norby said at today's Board meeting is exactly right, and it's greatly disappointing the other supervisors didn't follow his lead.

Norby's proposal would have, among other things, raised the contribution limit to match the state's of $3,600 per person. As readers well know, I think contribution limits are inherently arbitrary (as limitations maven Shirley Grindle herself admits) and ought to be scrapped entirely, but increasing them to even $3,600 is an improvement.

Continue reading "Norby's Campaign Finance Reform Goes Down" »

November 05, 2007

Video: Chris Norby's Campaign Finance Reform Proposal

As I mentioned in a previous post, I drove over to the Santa Ana this afternoon to interview OC Board of Supervisors Chairman Chris Norby. I'd asked Chris on Friday if I could come by and interview him regarding his proposal to scrap much of the (in my opinion) antiquated TIN CUP county campaign finance ordinance.

My first question was the obvious one: what's contained in your proposal?:

I then followed up by asking if his proposal would keep the ban on transfers between campaign committees:, and about what his sense of support from his fellow supervisors is:

Continue reading "Video: Chris Norby's Campaign Finance Reform Proposal" »

September 26, 2007

Late Post On 9/11 Commemoration

I realize the 6th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was 15 days ago, but since blogs aren't so bound by the news cycle I shall exercise my privilege as editor of this blog by posting about the commemoration organized by the UC Berkeley College Republicans.

Not coincidentally, my oldest daughter, Jubalette #1, is a sophomore at Berkeley (where she's majoring in Political Economy of Industrialized Societies) and is secretary of the Berkeley College Republicans.

The BCRs set up this Sept. 11th Memorial:

Bcrs_911_1

Bcrs_911_2

Bcrs_911_3_2

Continue reading "Late Post On 9/11 Commemoration" »

September 19, 2007

Coastal Commission Rebuffed In Laguna Beach

I missed this story while doing the News Roundup this morning, but seeing as it reports on a heart-warming instance of a judge telling California Coastal Commission to butt out, I thought it deserved its own post:

An Orange County Superior Court judge has ruled that the California Coastal Commission does not have the authority to prevent a Catholic school's expansion in Laguna Beach.

The decision by Judge Ronald L. Bauer on Monday restarts the St. Catherine of Siena Catholic School's effort to expand at its current Coast Highway location, nearly two years after it applied to the city for a coastal development permit. 

Viva Judge Bauer! Call me old fashioned, but I believe jurisdiction over the coastlines should be in the hands of county governments, not some unelected statewide bureaucracy that functions as judge, jury and executioner. So any time the Coastal Commissariat has its ears slapped back is a good day for liberty.

Continue reading "Coastal Commission Rebuffed In Laguna Beach" »

September 18, 2007

Garden Grove Revisiting Fireworks Ban...Again

It's said the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Given that it is in government's nature to expand its suzerainty over how we live our lives, that vigilance manifests more in pushing back incursions large and small rather than expanding the frontiers of liberty.

Such is the case in Garden grove, where the recurring effort to ban the use of safe and sane fireworks on the Fourth of July is recurring again.

The impetus is tragedy of the Matua family's house burning down after an illegal skyrocket landed on the roof and ignited a fire.

Continue reading "Garden Grove Revisiting Fireworks Ban...Again" »

September 06, 2007

Dogs And Cats...And Rabbits - Oh My!

Huntington Beach Councilman Keith Bohr is the animating spirit behind his city's foray into nanny statism: specifically, an ordinance to force residents to spay or neuter their dogs and cats, and eventually their rabbits, too.

Here's how Bohr characterized opponents of his nanny state ordinance in today's Los Angeles Times story (which reads like a press release for the pro-forced neutering side):

"Nobody from any side argues that we don't have a problem," Bohr said. Opponents "are just arguing that the status quo is OK."

No, Councilman Bohr. I think what opponents are arguing is it is none of the city's business whether they spay or neuter their dogs and cats. Yes, it would be a good thing if more people spayed or neutered their pets. It would also be a good thing if children watched no more than one hour of TV a day -- but that doesn't mean the government should legislate it.

Continue reading "Dogs And Cats...And Rabbits - Oh My!" »

August 07, 2007

A Small Victory For Freedom Of Speech In Huntington Beach

Hansen Last night, the Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 to increase the campaign contribution limit from the absurdly restrictive $300 to the overly restrictive $500.

Still, it's a step away from restricting political speech and in the direction greater liberty, so I'll take it. Better to be a 100 feet from Hell heading up than 10 miles away heading down.

Naturally, the OC Register story doesn't say which councilmembers voted which way. What it is about newspaper coverage that they regularly leave out such key information. If a free press is a cornerstone of the Republic, it helps to let voters know how their representatives are voting -- not just what the margin was.

Continue reading "A Small Victory For Freedom Of Speech In Huntington Beach" »

August 06, 2007

Huntington Beach Should Abolish Campaign Donation Limits Altogether

The seven members of the Huntington Beach City Council will make a choice tonight between tentatively facing reality or keeping the scales firmly adhered to their eyes. Or in plain English, whether to approve an extremely modest increase in the campaign contribution limit to $500 or leave it at the absurdly low $300. The proposal is being pushed by HB Councilman Don Hansen, whom I've gotten to know as a sensible, clear-thinking man.

As readers of this blog know, I believe campaign contributions ought to be consigned to the dustbin of history. They're a restraint on our free speech and totally fail in their objective of cleaning up politics.

Not that that dissuades adherents of campaign contributions limits from opposing efforts to increase of abolish such limits. They venerate the ideology of campaign donation limits they way primitives worship a volcano, and with less justification.

Continue reading "Huntington Beach Should Abolish Campaign Donation Limits Altogether" »

July 05, 2007

Kudos To Orange, A Pox Upon Huntington Beach

Two weeks ago, the Orange City Council voted unanimously to create the On-The-House program to incentivize home-improvement by waiving permitting fees for home remodels, and implementing an amnesty for unpermitted additions.

On Monday, the Huntington Beach City Council voted against creating such a program, citing the conventional green-eye-shade excuse of "costs too much" and won't benefit enough people.

Kudos to the Orange City Council. Mayor Carolyn Cavecche has been pushing for the creation of this program for a year, and I'm proud every member of my city council voted for this liberty-based approach to neighborhood improvement. On-The-House will run September 10 through November 9 of this year. A second, Old Towne Orange-only phase will take place March 31 through May 15, 2008, to give Old Towne resident adequate time to negotiate the extra-thicket of rules they have to negotiate.

Back to Huntington Beach.

Continue reading "Kudos To Orange, A Pox Upon Huntington Beach" »

July 04, 2007

Happy Fourth of July!

Trumbull_signing_of_declaration_of_

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

May 28, 2007

Memorial Day in Laguna Beach

This morning I had the distinct honor to be the keynote speaker for a Memorial Day observance in Laguna Beach.  American Legion Post 222 and Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 5868 ran the event.  About 100 people attended the ceremony.  The Marines provided a color guard and a rifle team who gave the traditional 21-gun salute, with seven Marines firing three times over the sunny Pacific.  A strong contingent of at least a dozen Boy Scouts participated as well. 

Here then are my remarks for the occasion. Memorial_day_in_laguna_beach

Continue reading "Memorial Day in Laguna Beach" »

May 25, 2007

OC LIBERTY FILM FESTIVAL: Frank Gaffney’s “Islam vs. Islamists” Finally Inks a TV Deal



FROM LIBERTAS (www.libertyfilmfestival.com/libertas):

You saw this film first at OC Liberty Film Festival on May 19th. Now, as reported in The Washington Times, Frank Gaffney’s controversial PBS documentary “Islam vs. Islamists” has finally secured a deal to have it aired on public television. Click on the links above for details.

Congratulations to Frank, Alex Alexiev and Martyn Burke for finally reaching this deal.

April 27, 2007

Orange Home Improvement Holiday Update

Cavecche I spoke with Orange Mayor Carolyn Cavecche yesterday evening at the packed kick-off event for Larry Dick's 60th Assembly District campaign.

She updated me on her home improvement holiday proposal, noting it has been proposed in the City of Orange's next fiscal year budget that commences in July -- which the City Council will vote on in May or June. I'm confident it will be approved -- hopefully 5-0 -- and if so, Mayor Cavecche said the program  could start it the early fall.

Continue reading "Orange Home Improvement Holiday Update" »

April 24, 2007

Mayor Cavecche Wants Home Improvement Holiday for Orange

Cavecche Orange Mayor Carolyn Cavecche is proposing a home improvement holiday for our city.

I hope the other members of the City Council follow her lead and support it.

This program has been tried successfully in other parts of the county. Anaheim under Mayor Curt Pringle's leadership implemented such a program in 2004. During March, April and May of that year the city waived permit fees. At the end of the three months, 3,562 residential building permits were issued to Anaheim residents who invested $28.3 million into their homes.

Continue reading "Mayor Cavecche Wants Home Improvement Holiday for Orange" »

April 15, 2007

Court Rules Caltrans Can Contract Out

This just came over the transom from the OC Taxpayers Association:

To: OCTax Members

From: Reed Royalty, President

Date: April 15, 2007

Subject: Proposition 35 Upheld             

OCTax masochists enjoy long-term struggles for justice and good government.

In 1996, OCTax opposed a proposed ballot initiative, by the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG) union, which would have hidden the cost of government by handicapping private contractors in competitive bidding for state engineering work.  PECG missed the deadline for the election, so . . .

Continue reading "Court Rules Caltrans Can Contract Out" »

April 03, 2007

California Coastal Commissionski

With the fall of the Iron Curtain, droves of Russian and other Communist apparatchiki found refuge and gainful employment within the bowels of California government, or so it may seem to avid watchers and participants in the Golden States’ politburo.

A prime example is the California Coastal Commission, which has been described by one noted policy analyst as combining "bureaucratic ideology of near- Stalinist zeal with corruption of the worst kind."

Despite repeated attempts to kill the Commission, it continues to operate as a kind of Central Committee, with executive director Peter Douglas as General Secretary – ruling with an iron fist and virtually no accountability to the public as it issues nyet after nyet on development matters – unless of course, the proponent happens to be on the celebrity ‘A’ list. 

Continue reading "California Coastal Commissionski" »

March 12, 2007

Campaign "Reform" & Unintended Effects

Red County/San Diego posts a Logan Jenkins column about San Diego's ominously-titled Election Campaign Control Oridinance -- which vividly illustrates how the unintended consequences of campaign finance reform generally worsen the "problem" the reform aims to "fix."

February 27, 2007

Come on, Forbes!

In response to my last post about 10 days ago, one comment asked in part, "Who the hell is Frustrated Republican?"


Here's who:

Because their guiding economic philosophy, no matter how they try to disguise it, is socialism and because they rank the state as superior to the individual, Democratic politicians are supposed to get policy wrong.  I'm bothered when Dems propose legislation which infringes my individual liberties, but not at all surprised.


When Republicans get it wrong, however, I lose it.  Unfortunately, today far too many Republican leaders deviate from what are supposed to be our core principles... from now on, they will typically be the ones in the crosshairs of this blogger.


A great current example of such frustration comes not from an elected official, but Rich Karlgaard, publisher of Forbes Magazine, which is supposed to "get" free market economics.  His his recent article, "How Moral is Capitalism?" is the type of thing that causes me to tear my hair out.


He seemingly starts off the article well enough, describing how capitalism "delivers the goods."  But this isn't news; over the last 30 years in particular, the fact that capitalism works has become self-evident. What we need to most effectively argue now is why free markets are right, which is because they are synonymous with individual liberty.


At the very least, I wish these "defenders" of capitalism wouldn't launch into discussions of how much government is the right amount, as Karlgaard does... in doing so, they tacitly endorse the Democrat argument that government has any role at all in certain areas of our economy.  A related real-world example is W's prescription drug plan; in creating it, he established the precedent that government belongs there in the first place; he gave HillaryCare one of the big pillars it couldn't win for itself, advanced our lurch toward European-style welfare economics and virtually assured that government will be permamnetly involved in presciption drugs because such programs never die, only expand.


This from a Republican President and a Republican Congress-- UGH!!


Well, it's not just our politicians... Forbes' Karlgaard proved that all of us on the right have some soul-searching to do, that after our November butt-kicking we're all in need of re-examining our core philosophies.

February 12, 2007

DeVore on ABC News: Nanny government threatens liberties

Sunday afternoon, just as I was leaving Sacramento with my family after attending the state Republican Party convention, ABC News interviewed me on the trend to legislate every small matter – the Nanny government trend.

An excerpt of the transcript of last night’s airing is below. 

A different story on the same topic is scheduled to appear tonight on KABC 7 News in L.A. 

http://www.news10.net/video/player_news10.aspx?aid=35882&bw=

Nanny Bills or Good Government? New Legislation Triggers Debate

Written for the web by Marcey Brightwell, Reporter   

If you spank your children, eat in restaurants or buy inexpensive incandescent light bulbs for your home, you could be in for some changes. The California State Legislature is considering a string of bills this year that would impact your life.

"I call it a nanny government trend," said Republican Assemblyman Chuck DeVore. "We will lose a lot of liberty and freedom, and we will become a nanny police state. It's rather alarming."

DeVore calls it a disturbing trend, though he admits most of the bills are well intended.

Bills, such as the so-called spanking bill, have already generated controversy.

Legislation targeting light bulbs also has the noble goal of reducing energy consumption. 

Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, has proposed legislation that would require chain restaurants to post nutrition and calorie information about each meal in plan view of customers.

DeVore said he appreciated their motives, but argues that more legislation isn't the solution.

"You might as well pass a blanket law saying the Legislature of the State of California hereby outlaws stupidity," DeVore said. "I think some of these laws would have the same impact." Devore_on_abc_news

November 16, 2006

Sen. Harman Lambastes Socialist OCC Students Who Banned Pledge of Allegiance

This just came over the transom from Senator Tom Harman's office:

HARMAN CRITIZES STUDENTS’ DECISION TO BAN PLEDGE

Huntington Beach – Senator Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach) announced today his outrage and disappointment regarding the decision made by Orange Coast students to ban the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Recently, student leaders of Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa said they do not believe in publicly swearing an oath to the American flag and government at their school. They subsequently banned the pledge from their meetings.

“It is disgraceful that the students at Orange Coast publicly denounced the Pledge of Allegiance.”  ,”   remarked Harman. “Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is one way we remember our nation’s founding principles.”

“Americans have made innumerable sacrifices to protect and preserve our great democracy,” Harman commented further. “Their decision chips away at the moral fabric that binds us together and makes this country great. It weakens what so many have fought to protect, and it attempts to undermine a pillar of our foundation.’””

November 08, 2006

Liberty Film Festival

Newbannersmall3_1 This weekend I'll be heading north into enemy territory beyond the Orange Curtain -- specifically, West Hollywood.

Why? To check out the offerings at the third annual Liberty Film Festival being held at the Pacific Design Center, Nov. 10-12:

The Liberty Film Festival was founded in July of 2004 by Govindini Murty and Jason Apuzzo to celebrate free speech, patriotism, religious freedom and democracy by providing a forum in the heart of Hollywood for conservative and libertarian filmmakers. In June of 2006 The Liberty Film Festival joined the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC), an organization founded by author David Horowitz to promote intellectual freedom both in America and abroad.

Click here to scroll down the schedule of films being shown Friday evening through Sunday evening. There's everything from short parodies of the Left to straightforward documentary to original drama.

This offering being shown at 7:00 p.m. on Friday piqued my interest:

"This is DNN" - World Premiere! (29 mins., 2006)

Directed by: Bruce Wittman. Produced by: Bart Ely. A satirical look at how today's mainstream media might cover a typical day during World War II, complete with FDR protesters, war protesters, hurricane protesters - and a mockery of FDR in a Hollywood blockbuster titled "Fahrenheit 12/7." "This is DNN" is a hilarious and long overdue lesson in historical perspective. (Comedy, 29 minutes, 2006)

I've been wanting to attend the Liberty Film Festival since it's launching in 2004, and I encourage our readers to patronize it, as well. It's important to support and grow a creative venue such as this for liberty-loving artists.

October 06, 2006

Jim Gilchrist Experiences Left Wing Tolerance In Action

Here's the video of left-wing activists at Columbia University demonstrating how much they value free speech (as long as they agree with what you're saying):

There's a longer version of the clip at the Columbia University Television News site. The demonstrators forgot to don their brownshirts before jumping onstage to silence Gilchrist.

H/T to Powder Blue Report.

October 05, 2006

HBP Commission Votes To Recommend Smoking Ban On County Beaches

Tonight was my first meeting as a Harbors, Beaches and Parks Commissioner, and I found myself at the losing end of a 4-3 vote to recommend the Board of Supervisors approve a ban on smoking on county beaches.

Here's hoping the board disregards the majority recommendation and votes down this ordinance.

Fullerton Councilman Don Bankhead joined me in voting against the smoking ban, but for a different reason: he'd like to ban smoking in all county parks, and opposes a piecemeal approach. He and Chairwoman Cathy Green asked HPB Commission executive director to look into such a ban.

I post more about the meeting tomorrow.

October 03, 2006

Huntington Beach Vows To Fight Against Property Rights

Huntington Beach Mayor Dave Sullivan is retiring from office this year -- and none too soon. In news  story posted this afternoon on the OC Register website, Sullivan vowed the city would defend in court a two-year old law that could, according to the article, "force mobile home park owners to pay residents millions of dollars if they shut down their parks.":

Owners of three area mobile home parks are among a group that sued the city in June -- less than two years after the law was adopted to protect the city's roughly 6,000 mobile home residents and to preserve the 17 mobile home parks as low-cost housing.

The law requires park owners who want to shut down to relocate residents to a comparable park within a 20-mile radius or purchase the mobile homes at their in-place market value.

Why do local government officials so often treat mobile home park owners as if they weren't really  property owners and lack  real property rights? I know why: because mobile home residents tend to be vocal and organized, and councilmembers are afraid of them (as are legislators whose districts contain lots of mobile home parks).

I understand being upset if the owner of the mobile home park in which you live decides he or she wants to sell the land or develop it for another use -- but that's the risk of choosing to buy a home that's on land you don't own. Elected officials can empathize with displaced mobile home park residents, but at the end of the day the property rights of the landowner ought to take precedence, and city councilmembers ought to have the nerve to say as much. When government starts traducing the property rights of one group of people -- even in the name of "compassion" -- it traduces the property rights of everyone.

September 14, 2006

On Property

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

Do you know who wrote that? It wasn't Greenhut or Norby. It was James Madison. I haven't checked to see if he's endorsed Prop 90 yet, but if not, Gilliard's got to get that deal done. That'd be one high-profile endorsement. "Walters, Correa, Norby, and James Madison all encourage you, to vote yes on Prop 90..." Maybe on a robo-call and a mailer--or maybe 20 mailers, simultaneously.

But, alas, not all OC'ers are Madisonian in their outlook. The League of Cities, I'm told, is concerned about those oh-so-handy regulatory takings. Regulatory takings are, after all, the Vito Corleone deal of local government: You keep your land, we tell you what to do with it, and we don't have to give you a dime! (Minus the whole head-of-horse-in-bed stuff.) This concern over regulatory takings gave rise to the debate between Sen. Ackerman and Assem. Haynes on the FR yesterday.

In the debate, the Senator wrote, with my highlights:

But there is another and perhaps even more profound provision in this initiative that has not received much attention or discussion.

In the past, I have raised concerns with the effects that the "Protect Our Homes Act" would have on so-called regulatory takings. Regulatory takings are government regulations, which negatively impact the ability of property owners to use their property as they see fit. Under the POHI, property owners would have to be compensated for a wide variety of regulatory actions such as re-zoning if the regulations reduce property values, even though no property is physically acquired.

The Protect Our Homes Initiative states, "damage to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space."

The POHI could be the basis for setting aside any regulation, no matter how reasonable or beneficial to a community. ...

While this provision would not prohibit government from making rules to protect our communities from objectionable influences, it could make it economically unviable to do so.

Here's the scene:

Big Gov:  Johnny, we're not actually, physically taking your property, but we're gonna whack you for a $1 Million loss, that ok with you, Johnny?

Johnny Homeowner-Businessowner (imagine he's originally European):  Uh...

BG:  What's the matter Johnny, you look pale, you want to sit down a minute?  What's that?  No, no, we're not going to compensate you for anything, because, we're not physically taking anything--just economics at work here Johnny.  Yeah, a million dollars is a substantial economic hit.  Sorry 'bout that.  Here breath into this bag for a minute, you'll feel better.  Good talk Johnny.

Is it that profound that the government should not be able to tell you to use your property as IT sees fit, without just compensation? Isn't the very role of government to protect your freedom to use your property as YOU see fit? I don't see anything in limiting takings--of any sort--that would knock Madison's socks off.  And, under what principle should the government be able to substantially harm you for free?

Also, the "reasonableness" of local regulations is not the issue. The issue is who bears the burden of paying for reasonable regulations. If the regulation benefits the community, the community--not one property owner--should pay for the benefit. The role of government cannot be to help many by (substantially economically) harming a few.

Where does the League and the No on 90 folks get this fanciful distinction between a "regulatory" taking and a good ol' fashion, in your face, I-want-it-so-I'll-take-it taking? If I own a plot with a house on it and the government takes it, they must compensate me for my loss. Now, lets say I buy a plot where I legally could build a home and pay accordingly. Then the government changes the rules so that I can't build a home, but I can just own a dirt lot. I surely would not have spent the money for a home-suitable lot as compared to a dirt-only lot. In reality, the government as taken my house--minus the lumber and building costs--just as much as in the first example. They've certainly cost me a lot of money--imagine the value difference if the dirt lot has an ocean view.

Even where more dirt lots are needed--thus making the regulation "reasonable or beneficial"--I still lost something for someone else's benefit. The solution: Pay me for my loss. It's not that complicated. No changing the property rules of the game mid-stream without just compensation. If a community wants to change the something in town, fine. Pay the people that are put out. If the cost to do so is too high, then the citizens have made their choice. Decisions have consequences, including economic ones.

I bring all this up because Mimi Walters, the honorary state chairman for Yes on 90, speaks tomorrow at the OCBC. Each time the proposition is debated, regulatory takings come up. They come up under the guise that, no one has a problem with eminent-domain reform, oh no, there's only a problem with regulatory-taking reform. These debaters fail to note that they are the same thing--especially if it's your property being taken, I mean, regulated.

Madison had this figured out:

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

Yeah, what he said. And don't forget Madison's closer:

If the Orange County Business Council mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just Business Councils, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the Business Councils that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other Business Councils.

Alright, I'll give Adam "Fighting for the cause of liberty and getting paid well for the work" Probolsky his soapbox back now.  I'm done.  Hope to see you all tomorrow at the OCBC.

August 04, 2006

Berardino Bemoans Public Scrutiny Of Government Union Demands

OCEA honcho Nick Berardino sent this out to his troops yesterday:

From: Nick Berardino [mailto:NBerardino@oceamember.org]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: Register Article

Today the Register ran an article regarding our reopener agreement with the County.

Make no mistake. We have an agreement which was authorized by the Board of Supervisors. There has been no change to that agreement.

Unfortunately over the past several years any matter involving public employees has been exposed to undue publicity which may or may not accurately reflect the facts.  As in the past, we will have to endure that publicity once again.

We are confident the County will honor its agreement.

In solidarity,

Nick

Boo-hoo. Isn't public srutiny awful?

Hang in there, Nick. Somehow, I think you'll survive.

August 02, 2006

Villa Park Council Nixes Advisory Initiative On Repealing Fireworks Ban

The Villa Park City Council last night voted 5-0 against polacing an advisory initiaitve on the November ballot asking residents if they'd like to repeal or keep the 1987 ban on fireworks.

I wasn't able to attend, but a reader was kind enough to attend the council meeting and report back:

There was a large turnout -- more than forty -- of residents from Villa Park, plus a few from the neighboring Orange community Mabury Ranch.  The OC Fire Authority, as the city's contract fire department, made a presentation but (in my opinion) OCFA's opinion wasn't the determining factor in the council vote. Rather, it the the overwhelming opposition to lifting the ban by those residents in attendance: only one person supported placing the initiative on the ballot. 

Many of the residents there also brought signed petitions from their immediate neighborhoods which indicated a better than 90% disapproval of repealing the ban.  While those are not official and certainly not a legal vote, the number of ban supporters in attendance (combined with the number of emails and phone calls City Hall had received on the issue), and number represented by the signed petition swayed the Council to vote 5-0 to not put it to a vote.  Even Councilman Freschi, who proposed the advisory initiative and favors repealing the fireworks ban, felt the strong negative response was such that putting the advisory initiative on the ballot was uneccesary -- after all, if Villa Park residents feel an overwhelming urge to repeal the ban, they can avail themselves of the initiative process.

Oh well.

August 01, 2006

Fireworks At Villa Park Council Tonight?

An reliable source informed me the Villa Park City Council should expect to receive some heat from residents tonight at their council meeting, where they'll be voting on whether to place on the November ballot an advisory measure asking residents if they'd like to keep or repeal the existing fireworks ban. Apparently, there will be a "strong presence" there to oppose such a vote.

I'm told the Orange Coiunty Fire Authority will have someone there to present the OCFA's "concerns" about repealing the ban (Villa Park contracts with OCFA for its fire service).

I wish I could be there tonight, but I can't. I'll find out first thing in the AM what happened -- but here's hoping the Council puts it on the ballot.

July 31, 2006

Villa Park May Place Repeal Of Fireworks Ban On Ballot

Villa Park residents may get a chance to repeal their city's firework's ban, put in place in 1987:

Villa Park city staff will prepare documents for City Council to decide whether residents can vote to repeal the firework ban in the November elections.

This comes after Council member Rich Freschi brought it to the attention of the Council, which voted 3-2 Tuesday to allow staff to move forward.

Freschi said he was prompted to advocate it because of the fundraising benefits fireworks stands will bring to the city and because of the fond memories he had with his children.

"I am not asking for the city to repeal it but to allow the residents a chance to vote on the matter," Freschi said.

Kudos to Councilman Freschi. It's nice to see a councilman trying to expand the frontiers of freedom rather than those of government control.

People forget that the wave of municipal fireworks bans passed in Orange County in the late 1980s was fueled in large part by public backlash against the corruption scandal surrounding fireworks mogul Patrick Moriarty. The Moriarty scandal was playing out at the same time as the Orange County Jury issued a report calling for a ban on "safe-and-sane" fireworks. It's debatable whether the Grandy Jury report would have resulted in the wave of fireworks bans absent the combustible Moriarty scandal.

Just a little history for the sake of context.

July 30, 2006

On Government Unions

As the Board of Supervisors considers whether to approve the 4.75% one-year pay hike for county employees, there is already a good deal of discussion of the issue in the OC blogosphere. Underlying the arguments of pay hike proponents -- or so it seems to me -- is the belief that government employee unions are just trying to win the same things their private sector counterparts: the best pay, benefits, pensions and working conditions possible.

But the nature of a government union is dramatically different than a private sector union, owing to the nature of their employers -- and more specifically how their employers generate revenues to pay for union contracts.

Private companies earn revenue by persuading consumers to buy their goods and services. Governments generate revenue by taking it.

Private companies cannot throw a person into jail for not giving them money in exchange for their goods and services. Government can.

George Washington said:

How soon we forget history... Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force.

It is imperative to keep in mind the means by which government pays for the unending demands of government employee unions -- and unending they will be. To maintain otherwise is to ignore history -- history the Founding Fathers were well aware of while they hammered out the Constitution. Read Benjamin Franklin's speech at the Constitutional Convention on "The Dangers of a Salaried Bureaucracy": his warning is a prescient description of our current circumstances because his warnings were based on deep historical understanding.

That is why government unions have worked so hard since the 1970s to acquire and wield political clout. They know their ability to transfer wealth from taxpayers to their members is dependent upon their ability to inspire fear and/or loyalty in elected officials. That is why they spend so much money on local government races.

Private sector unions cannot mount independent expenditure campaigns to defeat or elected corporate directors who will in turn raid the company treasury on the union's behalf. Ultimately, private sector unions have to operate with the competitive environment of the free market, which places effective limits on their demands.

Government unions can -- and very often do -- decide who their bosses (councilmen, school trustees, supervisors) -- will be. And they will lean on them to use the the power of taxation to transfer money from taxpayers to government union members. Do I believe government unions would deliberately drive local government into bankruptcy? No. But they also know that government, unlike a private enterprise, doesn't go out-of-business. At the end of the day, governments can obtain the revenues they need by exacting it from taxpayers.

As Franklin said in 1787:

Hence, as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed; the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less.

The current struggle between local government unions and the current Board of Supervisors -- if their relationship can be thought to rise to the level of a struggle -- is a story as old as history. And while observing and commenting on local government unions demands, it is necessary to be mindful of this history and of how elected officials obtain the funds to meet those demands.

July 29, 2006

Taxpayers Deserves Some Quid Pro Quo On 4.75% Pay Hike

At the beginning of the week a I posted an e-mail from OCEA honcho Nick Berardino that his union and county negotiators had agreed to a 4.75% one-year wage increase. Several commenters took exception to my belief that county employees (who are tax-users) are getting something and county taxpayers are getting nothing, wailing and gnashing their teeth that my skepticism means I think county employees should work for free or never get a pay raise.

When the county and the union agreed to the pension spike two years ago, part of the agreement was for county employees to forgo a pay increase for three years. T-h-r-e-e years.

Not two years -- three years. This was a promise made in exchange for receiving the generous 2.7% at 55 pension spike.

Not that I'm surprised. It is in the nature of government unions to continuously seek to extract more from taxpayers. As I blogged back in August 2004:

And does anyone think the union isn't going to start demanding a pay increase in three years? If so, I have a light rail system I'd like to sell you.

It looks like I underestimated Nick and the gang at OCEA -- they didn't even wait that long before angling for a pay hike.

OCEA is backing out of their end of the bargain -- so why shouldn't the Board of Supervisors, as stewards of the public purse, seek to revise their end?

July 18, 2006

Will Lake Forest City Council Fill In The Blanks For Property Rights Tonight?

The Lake Forest City Council opens its public session tonight at 7:00 p.m. The council will return to the controversial condo conversion ordinance drawn up by city staff.

I encourage readers to read the proposed ordinance. The city is afraid of not having enough apartments if apartment owners are allowed to concert their complexes into condominiums. That's understandable. But after reading the ordinance, you get the sense that in the eyes of the Lake Forest bureaucracy, the current stock of apartments is all there will ever be -- and if any apartments go condo, then the city will have fewer apartments.

Pssst: it's possible to actually build more apartments.

But on to the ordinance.

Basically, it Unfortunately, the Lake Forest City Council is poised to make it exercising one’s property rights even harder.

The point of contention in this proposed ordinance is vacancy rates and tenant override.

Apartment owners and the city have been haggling over what the city-wide vacancy rate has to be in order for apartment owners to be allowed to pursue condo conversion. The city staff claims it cannot be less than 6%. Apartment owners counter that is unrealistic since the vacancy rate has hovered between 3% and 4% for the last several years.

In other words, making 6% the trigger would constitute a de facto ban on condo conversions.

The result: it is being thrown into the lap of the City Council.

The City Council shall not approve a Condominium Conversion Project and use permit unless it finds all of the following:

..is how the ordinance reads...

C.    That the average rental vacancy rate in apartment dwelling units within the City during the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the application is equal to or greater than ___ percent (___%).  Upon submission of the application the Director of Development Services shall obtain, at Applicant’s sole expense, a written study or report from an objective, unbiased 3rd party which provides such studies and/or reports as part of its ordinary course and scope of business on a statewide or nationwide basis, which, in the Director’s reasonable opinion reflects, that the average rental vacancy rate in apartment units then available in the City is ___ percent (___%) or higher.  If the average rental vacancy rate in the City during the twelve (12) months preceding the filing of the application is less than ___ percent (___%), the Condominium Conversion Project shall be denied unless the City Council determines that at least one of the following overriding considerations exist:

1. That the apartment complex or development, or any portion thereof, is in a deteriorated or unsafe condition, and/or constitutes a public nuisance because it is a health and safety hazard to its occupants and guests; or

2.    Evidence has been submitted that at least ___ % of the existing tenants have voted to recommend approval of the conversion.

That's right -- tonight to the five members of the Lake Forest City Council will out their heads together and literally fill in the blanks with whichever percentages strike them as appropriate.

And unless the City Council act otherwise, this new ordinance will make the property rights of apartment owners subject to the desires of their tenants -- draining ownership of any real meaning.

This "tenant override" provision is not only offensive in principle, but it ludicrously vague. What constitutes "evidence" that tenants disapprove of condo conversion? 25 signed Post-It notes from tenants of a 50-unit complex (or whatever arbitrary number Lake Forest pulls out of the air)? And why do Lake Forest bureaucrats want to take the prerogative of property ownership from the person(s) who rightly have it and transfer it to those who have not paid for it?

Ahh -- local government at its finest. It makes me feel all tingly to know this is how my property rights are being safeguarded.

It's my understanding that Mayor Pro Tem Mark Tettemer  and Councilman Peter Herzog favor a low vacancy rate standard (such as 3%) and  -- judging by the records and inclination -- should oppose a tenant override provision.

Councilwomen Marcia Rudolph and Kathryn McCullough, from what I hear, will likely side with the bureaucracy against property rights.

Thus, t'would appear Lake Forest Mayor Richard Dixon is the swing vote. Shall Lake Forest take a stand for the natural right to own and dispose of property? -Or will the city make another contribution to the ongoing degradation of that cornerstone of liberty and limited government?

It looks like it is in Mayor Dixon's hands.