Back to the Dark Ages

Just when you think Virginia’s finally entering the 21st century, it takes a major step backwards.
Take gay rights. Much of the rest of the country has come to terms with gays and lesbians and is accommodating them not as sinful folk but worthy individuals who can make big contributions to society and its economy. This is especially important to create jobs after the disastrous 2007-2010 recession. Indeed, many modern corporations understand this and have internal policies to protect gays and offer them benefits similar to what they offer to married heterosexuals.
So why, one wonders, is our so-called “jobs” governor, Bob McDonnell, getting away with throttling rights for state workers who happen to be gay? Unlike Govs. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, the staunch social conservative and former graduate student at Pat Robertson’s university, which is hardly a bastion of tolerance, declined to include gays in an executive order forbidding discrimination against state workers.
Instead, McDonnell punted the issue of gay rights to the General Assembly, where a bill to protect gay state workers introduced by Democrat Sen. Donald McEachin, was killed in a House committee after being approved by the Senate. (The GOP controls the House and the Democrats control the Senate).
McDonnell is entitled to his personal views on gays which he spelled out in his infamous graduate student thesis at Regent University where he equated gays with sinful fornicators, as noted in a column by Michael Paul Williams of the Richmond Times Dispatch.
Unfortunately for the “jobs” governor, others are watching. As I noted in a story I wrote for Style Weekly, Richard S. Madaleno, a Democratic state senator in Maryland who happens to be gay, wrote to the CEO of Northrop Grumman noting McDonnell’s views on homosexuals and urging him to select Maryland over Virginia since it is friendly to gays.
Landing Northrop Grumman, already Virginia’s fifth largest employer, would be a feather in the cap for McDonnell since it would bring 300 high-paying jobs to Northern Virginia and further cement Virginia as a venue for defense contracting, which is a highly sustainable industrial sector during these days of layoffs and budget cuts.
Northrop Grumman, like a number of large corporations, is much farther ahead of states such as Virginia when it comes to diversity. NG has strict anti-discrimination policies for gays and offers generous benefits to them. In fact, a number of big firms doing business in Virginia — about 18 — offer same sex benefits. About 32 out of 50 top firms have exactly the same anti-discrimination policies that McDonnell refused to put in his executive order.
One reads a lot of pop sociology and urbanism in this post and, frankly, I often get sick of it. If I hear another tome about “clustering” by Michael Porter or another laud of the “Creative Class” by Richard Florida, I think I will be sick.
But consider what Florida wrote about gays:

“. . . the big new-ideas and cutting-edge industries that lead to sustained prosperity are more likely to exist where gay people feel welcome. Most centers of tech-based business growth also have the highest concentrations of gay couples. Conversely, major areas with relatively few gay couples tend to be slow- or no-growth places. Pittsburgh and Buffalo, which have low percentages of gay couples, were two of only three major regions to lose population from 1990 to 2000.”
So, there you have it. Too bad we are being taken back to the Dark Ages when we need forward thinking.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

213 responses to “Back to the Dark Ages”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Hmmm…

    A lot of silence by those who put McDonnell in office…

    Good post Peter!

    The crime is that by the time the majority understand what is really important to the far-right-hiding-in-moderate-clothing-types, citizens will have voted in the November 2010 election and there will be even more of them in office.

    Observer

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter,

    The picture you post along with this article is highly offensive and if it is somehow intended to link such a criminal and unChristian view of homosexuals to Bob McDonnell it's also slanderous! I ask you to take it down immediately.

    As to benefits for homosexuals, private companies are well within their rights to offer such benefits to anyone they like. They have their stockholders to answer to only and therefore it's a non-issue.

    However when it comes to state sponsored benefits where tax-payer dollars are used to support it, that's a different story.

    Last I checked, homosexual marriage was illegal in Virginia, and rightly so. For to provide such a status to two men or two women on such arbitrary reasoning as "they just want to live together as a couple" flies in the face of thousands of years of civilized societal norms.

    If we grant homosexuals such rights and associated benefits out of the public coffer, what's to stop 4 or 5 people living together in a relationship from suing for similar rights? For that matter, why can't I, if I want to live with my grandmother or aunt or uncle or even sister or brother or for that matter all of them at once, get the same benefits as a state employee for all of them? I have as much logical and reasonable attachment to these people as any homosexual couple have toward eachother. It would be discrimination to provide them benefits and not people in these other situations.

    I have no quarrel with people who want to live in relationships of homosexuality any more than I have with men and women who live together out of wedlock or those who divorce. As a Christian, sin is sin, and we all have fallen to it in our lives. That's the whole point of Christianity.

    The problem with homosexual marriage or benefits for homosexual couples is not that these people are "sinners", since as I just mentioned we all fall in that category. Rather its loosening to such a large extent the definition of a relationship that requires the state to provide benefits so that there is no reasonable argument to disqualify any kind of relationship of anyone's definition from receiving such benefits.

    Married couples and their children are provided these benefits as a courtesy and because supporting the traditional family unit is beneficial to the cohesiveness of society.

    Marriage is a relationship based in our biological function to procreate (not that we only marry to procreate, but that is a reasonable distinction for the marriage relationship that no other can claim). It would be better not to offer benefits at all than to encourage such "non-traditional" relationships to become the norm and thus remove any distinction at all of "marriage" or "family".

    For these reaons, to offer such benefits to homosexual couples out of the public coffers is patently discriminatory toward anyone who might want similar benefits, but whose relationship does not meet the standard of "two people of the same or opposite sex in a relationship".

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I agree with Peter. I disagree with McDonnell. I do not believe that God made hundreds of millions of mistakes when He made hundreds of millions of gay people. We may not understand God's plan but it is obviously not to eliminate homosexuality. In 50 years, anti-gay sentiment will be as abhorrent as anti-African American sentiment is abhorrent today.

  4. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    Groveton, you seem confused. As a Christain I don't believe God made people to sin. He encourages us to avoid sin. God gave us free will and allowed us to make own own choices in life. Of course, God hold us accountable for our choices. According to the Bible sin is sin. There isn't any sin greater or less sinful than another.

    As far as the government treating non-married couples the same as married couples, arguments can be made on many aspects of such laws. In the end, our nation's federal Constitution is based upon the rights of the individual – and we are all to be treated equally.

    Perhaps the solution is to undo the laws that favor married couples rather than extend laws that do not treat each individual the same?

  5. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Anonymous,
    I agree the picture is tough, but there is a reason. ON the very day, SB 66 was killd in committee, a group called the Westboro Baptist Church (which has nothing to do with any Baptist sect) held anti semitic and anti-gay rallies in Richmond and in Hampton Roads the previou day. They targeted such places as the Virginia Holocaust Museum where founder Jay Ipson, A Jewish Lithuanian war refugee who survived the Nazis by hiding in a farm cellar, tried to engage in dialogue the four members of the church whose motto is "God hates Fags." Thse are the same people who disrupt the military funerals of men and women who have died serving in Iraq and Sfghanistan. The photo is one of their members.

    Peter Galuszka

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The comments of Anon 1:16 AM and Reid G. make very clear why there must be a separation – an impermeable barrier – between governance and religion.

    Religion is about what one believes is best and right for themselves, governance is about that is best and right for society.

    Treat others as you would have them treat you is not religious principal it is social stability prerequisite.

    I have found that EMRs views on the First Estate (Agencies) and the new Third Estate (Institutions including churches and religious activities) expressed clearly in THE ESTATES MATRIX is a very good way to keep ‘church’ and ‘state’ in perspective.

    Observer

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Observer,

    "Treat others as you would have them treat you is not religious principal it is social stability prerequisite."

    I agree and my comments earlier are in complete agreement with that sentiment. To allow benefits for unmarrieds or for homosexual couples is not equal treatment, it is in fact creating a special class that others are arbitrarily kept from taking part in. Thus the examples I used to explain that in my argument. My argument against state funded benefits for homosexual couples rests entirely on logic, reason, and biology. It has nothing at all to do with religion.

    In the end I tend to agree with Reid that the solution may have to be for the government only to recognize individuals. Unfortunately this will likely have negative effects on marriage and the family.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Oh and Peter, as for the Westboro Baptist Church, they are some of the most hateful and unChristian people I have ever come across. Why you would in any way link them with Gov. McDonnell is beyond me and is exactly why I demanded you remove that picture from this article.

  9. 簡單嗎 Avatar
    簡單嗎

    好熱鬧喔 大家踴躍的留言 讓部落格更有活力........................................

  10. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Anonymous,
    The picture stays.

    And by the way, have you noted Atty. Gen Cuccinelli's letter to Virgnia's public colleges telling them that they cannot protect gays from discrimination?
    "Demand" whatever you want, but the picture stays.

    Peter Galuszka

  11. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I do not believe that you can sin against your inborn nature. Nobody is a born thief. Nobody is a born embezzeler. However, I know many people who are born gay. Most lived tortured and frustrating lives until they admitted their preference and came "out of the closet". God made them gay. They were gay on the day they were born. They were gay on the day they were baptized and they'll be gay on the day they die. Their preference for people of their own sex is as innate as my preference for women. Neither is learned behavior. Neither is a sin.

    I am very religious and I don't think God made hundreds of millions of His children by mistake. And I don't think those children of God woke up one day and said to themselves, "I think I'll try being gay today.".

    If the state failed to recognize marriage it would be something of a disaster. I am in the Carribean this week. I've had the chance to speak with many citizens of the island nation where I am staying. Most men admit to having many children with many different women. They say they try to "take care of their kids" but I get the impression it is more voluntary than compulsory. An America which only recognized individuals would struggle to regognize the joint responsibility that two individuals create when they have children. This already happens far too often despite complex and far reaching marriage, divorce, custody, alimony and child support laws.

  12. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Here is what our elected officials should be worried about (rather than benefits for gay people):

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/35259928

    15 great places to retire. Delaware, Michigan, big cities like Atlanta, small towns in New Mexico. Just nothing in Virginia.

    Retirement is a business where Virginia can compete. from beaches to mountains to historic towns … we have the raw materials. Unfortunatley, we also seem to have a government which stays side tracked on social issues and opaque schemes to funnel money from one part of the state to another.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "To allow benefits for unmarrieds or for homosexual couples is not equal treatment, it is in fact creating a special class that others are arbitrarily kept from taking part in. "

    Huh?

    How are they kept from taking part? by being married heterosexuals who already get those same benefits? How is this a special class any more than being married is a special class?

    Logic, my foot.

    RH

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I reiterate my objection to Virginia's pre-historic devotion to Dillon's Rule. The Attorney General does not speak for me nor does he speak for the majority of people living in Fairfax County. Only when we are free to make our own laws in accordance with our own mores will we be free in the sense intended by the founding fathers. The people of Northern Virginia believe that government should enforce anti-discrimination laws and policies protecting the private lives of its citizens.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is a good day!!

    Not just Groveton but RH too are pitching in on the side of rational human behavior.

    Anons et al have no idea how detrimental the society wide application of his misguided religions beliefs would be.

    We have new appreciation of why EMR avoids the use of ‘family’ and instead refers to Household.

    Observer

  16. Accurate Avatar
    Accurate

    Here is my take on it (for what it's worth) – I live my life on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I really don't care if you are gay, celibate, promiscuous or live in a commune; I really don't care. But if you get in my face and want to make SURE that I know you are a what-ever-you-are … then I care; and not in a good way. I don't make SURE that people know that I'm hetero, so I don't NEED TO KNOW that you are or aren't.

    In the past I've had dealings (as in commerce) with people who made sure I knew they had a 'partner'; when possible I cut those ties and found someone else. I presently work with a lady who, by her appearance, is telling the world she's a lesbian. Okay, I don't care, she doesn't talk about her partner (wife or whatever), and I don't talk about my wife. I don't ask her if she's a lesbian, she doesn't volunteer the information to me.

    Homosexuals are citizens like the rest of us. They deserve the same rights as the rest of us. At this point in time, that means that they can marry a person of the opposite sex (in all but a few states) like the rest of us. No, I don't believe that marriage is a 'civil right' and I don't believe that a gay 'marriage' is on the same level as a heterosexual marriage; but that is a different discussion.

    Bottom line, I don't need to know that you are homosexual. I don't WANT to know that you are homosexual. You do what you want in your bedroom, I'll do what I want in my bedroom (assuming neither of us are including kids, animals or dead people).

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Cuchie may do us all a favor by putting a spotlight on the immoral behavior of legislators and the deceit of rabid right wingnuts.

    By the way, Cuchie is sorta pretty, is he one of those closet fobics like the ranting ministers who get outed from time to time?

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Social issues are pretty low on my list of priorities. I don't intend to get in the middle of this debate. But I do disagree with Groveton on the issue of the Dillon Rule. I think it protects residents of Virginia from the corruption of local government. Fairfax County has pretty decent government and most elected officials that I've dealt with are generally trying to do a reasonable job.

    But, at the very same time, Fairfax County is as corrupt institutionally as Cook County, Illinois or Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Fairfax County is still controlled by developer and landowners. Government by campaign contribution. Rights to dirt are somehow worth more than other property rights. And Tysons Corner dirt is worth more than dirt anywhere else in the County. The Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce regularly sells out the interests of many of its members to advance the interests of commercial landowners and developers. I hate to think what they could accomplish if the Dillon Rule were not in place.

    Moreover, local government had a chance to rid itself from the Dillon Rule when the constitution was revised. Members of the convention asked whether they wanted home rule powers in the state constitution. They generally said "no, keep the Dillon Rule." The Dillon Rule provides an excuse for not doing what the local residents want. I've been told to my face the Dillon Rule prevents Fairfax County from doing X, Y or Z, when other neighboring counties are doing X, Y or Z.

    Removing the Dillon Rule would take away this excuse, but it would also give local government more power to favor a select few over the many.

    TMT

  19. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    If Fairfax County government is really as corrupt as TMT thinks they must be world class master criminals. Illinois, Louisiana and other nortotiously corrupt locales have all had high publicity criminal cases with convictions. Yet sleepy Fairfax County has the modern day equivalent of the James Gang running the show and there is no whiff of impropriety. No young district attornies trying to make a name for themselves by going after the corrupt politicians? No exposes in local newspapers? Not even any specific rumors circulating on various blogs?

    Meanwhile, we have state legislators writing laws and then soliciting jobs from the universities that were helped by the law.

    C'Mon TMT … if Fairfax County is really so corrupt why is there NEVER even a whisper of a scandal? Are the BoS really that proficient in the criminal arts?

    We'd better call Batman. Only a master sleuth could possibly take on the criminal genius of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Shall I point the bat lamp at the sky or will you?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton – Why did Macerich pay Fairfax County less than $900 per condo for school proffers, when most other places in the state would have collected thousands of dollars for proffers? How come the County hardly ever increases the target for cash proffers for schools when the policy statement adopted by the BoS requires annual retargeting? Why were some landowners located closer to the planned Silver Line stations not in the tax district than other landowners? Why is the Commercial & Industrial transportation tax for Fairfax County committed through 2016 and, to a large, extent, for building a parking garage in Reston instead of using it for spot improvements? Why has a committee of the Tysons Land Use Task Force, which is subject to the open meeting law, been meeting without public notice for more than a year?

    Documentation for many of these and other situations have been in the hands of the media for months and in some cases, years. Why no stories in the press? Why did the WaPo write about land developer contributions in Loudoun County, but not in Fairfax County?

    TMT

  21. Larry G Avatar

    " The impact fee schedule imposed a fee on builders equal to $2,000.00 per each new single family home…"

    that's pretty pitiful compared to what NoVa jurisdictions charge…

    did not see a date on it.. so not sure where it is.

    The Virginia Code § 15.2-2298 authorizes cash proffers for some localities that qualify as "high growth" so at least give the GA in Va some credit with regard to the Dillon Rule compared to NC.

    And just to point out – that Maryland, often perceived as a Home Rule State is, in fact, also a Dillon Rule State.

    I too view the current mindset with respect to the "crime" of homosexuality as simply Neanderthal.

    We've always had to put up with people that think this way. It's taken generations to rid ourselves of those who would discriminate against those who are "not our kind" but the job is still not done unfortunately.

    We'll have to deal with it the same way that discrimination against black people was done – by more and more people standing up for what was right until the Neanderthals were beaten back.

    It gauls me even more than many of them claim to be religious just as the self-righteous whites who would not allows blacks in their churches claiming that it violated God's plan.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well, now Larry G. has checked in with a civilized perspective.

    Even Accurate is, well Accurate.

    Good work.

    Observer

  23. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Two points:

    Groveton brings back memories:

    For nearly three decades EMR and his partners were one of the main sources of hard currency for a remote Neighborhood-scale enclave around a secluded bay on a small Caribbean island.

    When it came to food, we ‘bought Bay.’ (For those who use Core Confusing Words it is ‘buy local’.)

    The majority of those in the neighborhood were subsistence farmers and fishermen. When one of the hand-hewn boats went out to pull traps or when a school of fish came far enough into the Bay so it cleared the reef (so they could be trapped in a large hand hauled net dumped out of a boat) we went down the beach to buy fresh fish.

    We waited patiently for someone to offer to sell us fish but before that there was a mysterious division of the haul. It took us years to understand how the fish were divided.

    The boat owners got their share, the person who brought the gasoline got his share, those who owned the traps and / or did the pulling and net setting got their share, the widow of the person who built the boat got her share and then there were always several ladies who came by and just picked out some prime fish.

    It was a long time before we came to understand that their rights were established by the existence of children by various fathers who may or may not have been present that day. The rights were established by the process to which Groveton alluded.

    On a different topic:

    Both Groveton and TMT have a very good basis for their laments about land use controls and governance but the cause (and the solution) has everything to do with the Commonwealth legislators and nothing to do with Judge Dillon. His rule is just an excuse.

    There is in fact very little difference on-the-ground between the results in Dillon Rule states and Home Rule states.

    The problem is dysfunctional governance structure. The states have the ‘reserved powers’ to fix the problem but it is convenient not to do it.

    The fact is Fairfax County is NOT a ‘local’ government. It is a SubRegional government exercising Neighborhod, Village and Community level controls.

    There are 1.056 MILLION people in the County. That is bigger than 8 states, bigger than the Federal District and bigger than all four of the other territories of the US of A. It is twice as big as Wyoming and larger than Montana, the fourth largest state by area.

    And by the way, Groveton check out the record. Supervisors went to jail over zoning-for-sale at Baileys Cross Roads. Ever wonder why there all those tall buildings there?

    The result of that scandal is a system that TMT correctly describes as corrupt if not illegal.

    EMR

  24. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Excuse Me, EMR, TMT, etc.,

    This post is about a wholly bad infringement of civil liberties. It is NOT another deadly boring tome on land use or "human settlment patterns" or whatever the **** you want to call it!

    Why can't you all understand what is going on and get away from your freaking vocabulary and numbers just for a few minutes?

    Peter Galuszka

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter – the problem is not the Dillon Rule. That's my only point.

    What people do in the privacy of their homes and lives is up to them. Neither do I care what, if anything, companies do with their benefit packages.

    I do think that many people, both left and right, tend to muddy the waters where the role or non-role of "religious-type" beliefs and public policy are concerned. Those on the right tend to want a mixing of the two when social behaviors are concerned. So do those on the left when the issues are economic. But there is also quite a bit of history for bringing in more religion to oppose slavery and support civil rights. (And vice versa.)

    Again, I wonder what the "rule" is. If we don't want people pushing social policies for religious reasons (and that's what we are really saying) and we don't want people from organized religion pushing social policies, doesn't that also mean we don't want them pushing economic policies as well? Or do we really want a wall between religion and public policy or just a wall for those positions that are inconsistent with our own views?

    If we don't want a priest, minister, imam or rabbi opposing gay marriage, do we want priest, minister, imam or rabbi supporting gay marriage? Then shouldn't we also not want a a priest, minister, imam or rabbi supporting or opposing welfare reform, changes in immigration law, etc.?

    I don't like rules that look like "heads you win, tails I lose" or vice versa. But I think that's what we have in the so-called culture war set of issues.

    TMT

  26. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Here are the real villans ….

    http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+vot+H1104V0039+HB1287

    This bill would have added "sexual orientation" to the list of discriminatory practices. It was referred by the House of Delegates to the Laws Committee where it was put on indefinite hold by a vote of 5 – 3….

    The 5 who voted to kill the bill in committee were all Republicans:

    Cosgrave – Chespapeake
    Carrico – Galax
    Scott, ET – Culpeper
    Gilbert – Woodstock
    Anderson – Woodbridge

    The 3 who voted to move the bill forward were all Democratic

    Ward – Newport News
    Carr – Norfolk
    Torian – Prince William County

    With one exception (Anderson) the bill was killed by Republican representatives from downstate/rural Virginia. With no exceptions the politicians who wanted to move this bill forward were from upstate/urban Virginia.

    Here are the problems I have with this whole process:

    1. McDonnell is not to blame. The General Assembly has voted 25 times over the last 20 years on this issue. Each bill has either been voted down or killed in committee. Why should the governor have to write executive orders reversing the clear and obvious direction set by the General Assembly. As usual, the clown show in Richmond (i.e. the General Assembly) is the problem.

    2. This is clearly a Dillon's Rule issue. In 2002 Fairfax County tried to include "sexual orientation" in the list of forbidden discriminations. The AG of that day wrote an opinion saying that the policy could not be enforced because it did not have enabling legislation from the General Assembly. In other words, we the people of Fairfax County cannot protect our citizens from unwarranted discrimination because our masters in Richmond won't allow it. Here's some more Dillon-esqe homophobia to consider:

    http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?p=60129

    3. The gutless wonders in the General Assembly lack the courage to simply vote on the bill. Instead, they quietly kill it in committee.

    4. I see no reason why my neighbors should be subjected to the Hee Haw logic of rural/downstate Virginia. If people in Galax or Culpeper want to discriminate against gays – that's their business. I still think it's wrong but that's their business. When they start telling us in Northern Virginia that we can't protect our neighbors from discrimination … that's BS.

    This is a classic example of Dillon's Rule run amok. Decisions like this should be delegated to the locality in the Virginia Constitution. It's this same pattern of a small minority of red necks controlling the whole state that got us Massive Resistance. And it will end the same way … with the federal government stepping in to slap Cosgrove, Carrico, Scott, Gilbert and Anderson back into the dark rat hole from whence they came. Then the right wing nut jobs in the Virginia Republican Party can all stand around complaining about how unfair it all is to have the federal government telling them what to do.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton – I don't buy having a protection – special privilege in one county and not in another. Either the state protects something or it doesn't. The laws ought to be consistent throughout the state when it comes to personal rights. It's like saying blacks or Hispanics can vote only in certain counties.

    We could have initiative, referendum and recall like many states. That might well get your anti-discrimination law passed despite the General Assembly. But those citizen-control mechanisms would also open the ballot to taking away the special privileges that big landowner/developers have. So that will never happen.

    And keep in mind that the Fairfaxes, Arlingtons and Alexandrias could have gotten rid of the Dillon Rule when the state constitution was re-written, but they turned it down. But then, these were the same clowns who, 30 years later, voted to send $107 million more to Richmond in exchange for $7 million in new revenue for Fairfax County Public Schools, cuz Mark Warner, John Chichester, Bill Lecos and Fred Hiatt said it was for education. It was to buy off RoVA so that they would kill any bills that might place sensible controls on real estate development, according to a couple of state delegates from outside this area.

    We enable most of our own problems in NoVA. We may be better educated here than the folks in RoVA, but it's not their fault that we allow ourselves to be played for fools.

    TMT

  28. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Let's be clear. The protection from discrimination varies from state to state and from employer to employer. We have that policy for the Virginia employees of my company. It's just the state's own employees who don't get the protection.

    And why stop at states? A state employee in Northern Virginia can't get relief from discrimination at her job but can look across the Potomac River and see same sex marriages being performed in DC.

    If this is such a universal thing then it ought to be federal law. Maybe Cuccinelli would stop his letter writing campaign if that happened.

    Your point about getting rid of Dillon's Rule in the run up to the 1970 constitution is a bit vague. It wasn't Northern Virginia politicians who said, "no". It was some groups called The Virginia Municipal League and The Virginia Association of Counties.

    Here's the Municipal League's members today. Fairfax County is not a member.

    http://www.vml.org/AboutVML/MemLGvt.html

    VACO seems to have all the counties although each county has one board member.

    http://www.vaco.org/Region.html

    I am curious how you know what members supported or opposed the dillution of Dillon's Rule back in 1969.

  29. Larry G Avatar

    yep.. Groveton has jumped the tracks here.

    Do you REALLY wanted the definition and penalties for murder or even speeding to be different in Culpeper than Fairfax?

    but I do not totally agree with TMT on the Religious-Government aspect of Homosexuality or even the non-Religious but personally held views of it WHEN those views become the impetus for laws that treat such people differently than others.

    It really boggles the mind to think that such laws still exist and still are advocated at the same time we do have the bedrock equal protection clause of our Constitution.

    Make no mistake. This is not about what people's personal beliefs – it's about imposing them on others even if it is in violation of the very basis of our Constitutional tenets.

    Now I guess what TMT was saying is that it's just as bad, if we are, in effect, IMPOSING on those who would discriminate – laws that forbid it – essentially throwing up the whole concept to interpretation – depending on what we define as criminal behavior – since we do LEGALLY discriminate against folks who have broken the laws.

    By setting up Marriage as a specific concept with, in fact, discriminatory advantages, we have, in effect, said that any other arrangement is not only less moral but less legal – no?

    Religion is at the root of many of our problems in Governance IMHO.

  30. Larry G Avatar

    You know if one really want to appreciate the limits of how religion can effect governance, consider places like Afghanistan where the literacy rate is in the teens (I think) and the laws are often direct implementations of their religious beliefs right on down to the discriminatory treatment of women.

    Chew on this:

    " Islamic law is now the most widely used religious law, and one of the three most common legal systems of the world alongside common law and civil law (Roman law).[1] During the Islamic Golden Age, classical Islamic law may have influenced the development of common law,[2] and also influenced the development of several civil law institutions.[3]"

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

    then check out the warning banner on this article:

    " The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2010)

    This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject."

    then this:

    " Homosexual activity is illicit under Sharia; however, the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example, these countries may allow the death penalty for sodomy and homosexual activities: Iran[107], Mauritania[108], Nigeria[109], Saudi Arabia[110], Somalia[111], Sudan[citation needed], United Arab Emirates[citation needed], and Yemen"

    how's the death penalty for discrimination?

    Then WAY BACK to one of Groveton's original comments – Do you think there is less homosexual "sin" in those countries that do have the death penalty?

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Observation 1:

    “Religion is at the root of many of our problems in Governance IMHO.”

    Larry G. is exactly right!! No need to plead ‘humble opinion’ on this point.

    Observation 2:

    The entire discussion of jurisdictional and locational differences strongly supports the argument that ‘states’ and ‘municipalities’ are outdated territorial designations and that the laws and regulations that guide society must be based on the current economic, social and physical structure of human settlement, not historical happenstance.

    Observation 3:

    Peter G. needs to lighten up a bit.

    TMT did not raise the Dillon Rule issue and made a good observation in the context of the prior comments.

    EMR also only responded to prior comments.

    Intolerance of physical and economic reality may be as detrimental to the future of society as intolerance of social reality.

    Observer

  32. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    It's probably good that there were Virginians with more grit in 1959 than there are today. Some people on this blog suggest that no area of the state should be able to offer the civil right of protection from descrimination based on sexual orientation until all areas offer that right. They harp on about laws in one part of the state being different from laws in other parts. As if that doesn't happen with real estate tax rates, city charters, annexation and a myriad of other things.

    However, there is powerful precident for local resistance to Richmond's tyranny.

    On Feb 2, 1959 Stratford School in Arlington County admitted African-American students in direct contradiction to the laws passed by the General Assembly and the edicts of the governor. The governor even went so far as to dissolve the Arlington School Board in an effort to prevent Arlington's compliance with Brown vs. the Board of Educations. However, Arlington would not be bowed by the racist pigs in Richmond.

    I suppose if there had been blogs in 1959 there would be commentators complaining that integration in one or two Virginia jurisdictions was a mistake since it was not unifom across the state. Those commentators would have been wrong then just as those who say localities should not extend civil rights to their citizens are wrong now. I don't know how to explain this any better than I have tried over and over again … Virginia is a state with a long and well deserved reputation for bigotry and social stupidity. It is only through the actions of a few right-minded Virginians that the abominations of the clown show in Richmond are overcome. Today, we face yet another of those situations.

    For anybody actually interested in understanding Virginia history, I'd strongly suggest watching the following documentary, "Locked Out". If you can honestly say that localities should blindly follow our "leaders" in Richmond after watching this video I feel very sorry for you.

    http://classroomclips.org/watch/3261

  33. Larry G Avatar

    I think there is a role for Richmond – for all "Richmonds" clown-shows and all.

    and I would point out that wrongful state laws can and are overturned over time but also acknowledge that for every Arlington there were 100 other places that would not budge until Lyndon Johnson signed in 1964 – a Federal Law overruling the states much like a Richmond would overrule Virginia localities on matters of law.

    Groveton is running his own mini-version of States Rights ala Fairfax County style.

    I'm not defending the Dillon Rule per se or opposing Home Rule per se but pointing out that there is a Governance Hierarchy and it's not an unnatural or particularly unusual one.

    I would say that more than a few people would not like the idea at all that Fairfax County could, themselves, decide what taxes to levy and how much without any involvement of the state.

    I dare say that if they had this power, that Tysons Corner would be a done deal and folks like TMT and yourself would be turned into ATMs for developers.

  34. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    For LarryG and TMT (and, for different reasons, RH):

    http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_whitemarsh_0307mar07,0,2994073.story

    How stupid of Hampton to forget to ask "Mother, May I?" before trying to protect the Bay.

  35. Larry G Avatar

    It cuts both way Groveton. For every example you can name, I can name a counter example.

    No state in the union has this "right" according to the various interest groups including the more famous Kelo case.

    There are some things the Fed needs to control. Some things the states need to control and some things the local jurisdictions ought to control.

    In most every example, there are counter examples that call for the control to be vested in the other bodies.

    I have another reading assignment for you:

    " IS HOME RULE THE ANSWER?
    CLARIFYING THE INFLUENCE OF
    DILLON’S RULE ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT"

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2003/01metropolitanpolicy_jesse%2520j%2520%2520richardson%2520%2520jr/dillonsrule.pdf

    page 23:

    Arguments For Dillon's Rule and Home Rule

    then page 26:

    FIFTY-STATE REVIEW OF DILLON'S RULE

    then page 36:

    States Ranked by Degree of Local Discretionary Authority

    counties only: 13 Virginia

    sorry Pete – but the Dillon Rule encompasses land-use AND Human Rights as well as the concept of States Rights and the authority of the Fed when it comes to human rights – as Groveton pointed out.

    I will also point out that it was the State of Virginia that ended Massive Resistance of the counties that chose to continue it even as other counties chose not to.

    Of all the various and sundry topics covered in BR, Governance in General and this issue in specific are one of the more meaty ones IMHO.

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Plucinski said Friday he would press ahead with plans to build the home on his land, subject to the usual permissions. He said the zoning change had added an extra obstacle.

    …..

    Plucinski's proposal provoked opposition in 2007 from a number of local residents who were concerned his home would overlook White Marsh and the Chesapeake Bay.

    In the fall of 2007, hundreds of people put up signs in their yards protesting the development.

    Construction of a gravel access road in 2008 came to a stop when the city learned Plucinski had put in dirt fill that included pieces of brick and concrete."

    Well, good luck getting the "usual permissions". I'm willing to bet tat the local government will continue to throw up every possible roadblock, and adding cost to his project at every turn.

    God forbid you should recycle brick and concrete, after all.

    Notice also the property rights claim here " Residents were concerned that his house would overlook White marsh and the Chesapeake Bay". Who owns the rights to looka t the Bay, and who owns the rights to look at a pristine shoreline while visiting the Bay?

    ———————-

    I think you should pay your taxes to your closest local government, and then if the next a larger unit needs money, let them negotiate with my local representatives, and not come after me individually.

    That way, if the state wants to impose rules the locality does not agree with, then the locality can start cutting off funds.

    If I tried that indivisually, I'd be in the slammer,but it's a lot harder for the state to throw Fairfax in jail for civil disobedience.

    RH

  37. Larry G Avatar

    local issues reported elsewhere has a way of losing important details that can dramatically change one's opinion after they catch those details.

    The FIRST thing I usually ask in cases like this is what kind o sewage treatment is involved.

    Because – if water and sewer is available – then the locality made a clear statement about whether or not they intended for that location to be developed.

    But things get tougher when there is no central water & sewer available and in places like Whitemarsh – you often end up with this issue:

    Onsite sewage systems; prohibits VDH from issuing permits that are located in a wetland. (HB132)

    Now if you want to see a knock down – drag out – process go take a closer look at the sides involved in this issue.

    This is an example of why we have State and Federal level laws.

    If each locality sets their own standards for something like this, then who becomes responsible for the damage done to the Chesapeake Bay from localities that have standards too low to prevent leaking sewage systems?

    A developer would put 50 houses on 50 acres and claim that each had an on-site sewage system – therefore no need for govt involvement – right?

    or.. you actually have a rule but all it does is specify the design of the system without any post-installation monitoring to insure that it works not only when it's new but we know when it needs to be repaired or replaced.

    When such systems fail, the developer is long gone and the subsequent owner has a significant "property rights" issue.

    Ray will say that the owner was given the "right" to dump sewage on the property – no matter what and that requiring him to retrofit would be "illegal".

    You'll find in many localities that once these systems go in – there is no follow-up on them at all unless some neighbor starts to smell or get the effluent on their property on in the creek but ultimately, whose job is it to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and keep it clean?

    Does it make sense for 75 separate jurisdictions to each implement their own "home rule" standards, some of which will be so minimal as to allow virtually open sewers?

    or should the State have a standard?

    or should all the counties that border the Chesapeake Bay have a unified standard and if so how would that happen without a state level mandate?

  38. Larry G Avatar

    Groveton – I also want to remind you that even WITH state laws against discrimination that some schools in Virginia for years and years and some still do – "track" students essentially dividing them up so that you have low, medium and high classes and guess what the racial percentage is of the "low" classes?

    All perfectly legal – because those classes while "separate" were also "equal".

    These localities left to their own would not change…"Home Rule" in those localities would not be a good thing IMHO.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The ONLY thing that matters is that the zoning change was issued AFTER the man bought the property, with the implicit understanding that construction would be allowed.

    After all the county would NOT have changed the zoning if they had some othr way to prevent costruction.

    They can easily prevent construction: all they have to do is buy the property, or compensate him for the loss in value due to not being allowed to build.

    No other conditions apply, either proactively or retroactively, because none of them change the rules and expectations in place when the property was purchased.

    In fact, it sounds as if he was already issued a building permit, which was then revoked on a technicality. If they really wanted gravel instead of crushed concrete, they could have made him change, but instead they issued a stop work.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "You'll find in many localities that once these systems go in – there is no follow-up on them at all "

    Why is that a condemnation against the sytems instead of the government of them?

    RH

  41. Larry G Avatar

    It's not the type of "fill", it's the fact that "fill" was done.

    You cannot put any kind of "fill" in waters that flow (which means they leave your property) without a permit.

    If you do that without a permit – then none of the other permits you got relate to this permit.

    here's the law:

    http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/permithandbook/permitdetail.asp?id=37

    If they downzoned after he was vested – I'm on your side and he ought to prevail.

    but the big thing you often ignore is the word "permit".

    how do you know what you do need a permit for?

    even that is not the question.

    the question is that you cannot build – without permission – and that includes an access road.

    the fact that you must have a permit means that you do not have, never did, an unrestricted right although I will fully admit that in this case – the way the this particular law is enforced is not uniform at all.. and is selective at times – and yes.. is used as a 'gotcha' by some localities who will look the other way in other similar circumstances especially those involving people with money and ready, willing and able to defend themselves in court.

  42. Larry G Avatar

    it's not a condemnation of the systems… it's proof positive that the mere specification of a system is not a guarantee that it will work now or in the future.

    In a municipal waste-water treatment plant, you have the design standard BUT you ALSO have the requirement to DAILY monitor your outflow to insure that it stays in compliance with the rationale for the design specified AND that the plant may have to be modified if it is not performing according to what the design was billed to do.

    home systems do not have this monitoring and developers and the makers of home systems – know this.

  43. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "If each locality sets their own standards for something like this, then who becomes responsible for the damage done to the Chesapeake Bay from localities that have standards too low to prevent leaking sewage systems?".

    The Federal government is the only entity that has a prayer of being responsible for the Chesapeake Bay. Our 200+ year history of strong, centralized state government has all but killed the Bay.

    You sure picked an odd example to plead for the status quo.

  44. Larry G Avatar

    looks like Groveton would just have a Fairfax gov and a Fed Govt , eh?

    Yo GROVETON ! Could you tell me who defined the boundaries of Fairfax.. and what process they used in doing that?

    Would you be in favor of an EMR-like change and transform NoVa into FAIRFAX-NOVA?

    What counties would you include and which ones would you exclude and why?

  45. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "home systems do not have this monitoring and developers and the makers of home systems – know this.".

    Not so sure about that. Municipal systems are designed to take gray water, clean it until the majority is relatively clean and then pump the cleaned "water" into a river or other body of water. Home systems are designed to hold the gray water until the worst settles out in the septic tank and then distribute the cleaned water over a relatively large area where it will leach into the soil and be further cleaned by percolating through the ground. The rate at which the ground can absorb this water (known as the perc) is established long before any construction permit is issued and is based on soil conditions. Septic fields eventually fail (like in 40 -50 years). When that happens, the water does not perc and backs up into the septic tank which overflows. There may be some unclean runoff during this time (just like there is with almost every municipal system when the storms come). However, it would be the odd homeowner who could turn a blind eye to this.

    I have a septic tank, a septic field and a well. I get my well water tested. I have the best reason in the world to ensure that my septic field is percolating and not contaminating the ground water – I drink the ground water.

  46. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "Would you be in favor of an EMR-like change and transform NoVa into FAIRFAX-NOVA?".

    Yes.

    EMR has always been right about that. What worries me is that he might be right about the rest too.

  47. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "What counties would you include and which ones would you exclude and why?".

    Again, EMR is right. It's about getting all the regions drawn differently, not just NoVa – Fairfax. I don't have nearly the time required to even start the discussion of this today although I think taking EMR's ideas down to the next level of practical detail would be a very useful exercise.

  48. Larry G Avatar

    Groveton – do you understand how wetlands work?

    the drinking water well is drilled BELOW the wetland and much of the water in a wetland often does not "percolate" but in fact runs off.

    This is why they do that perc test.

    What they are now advocating is "constructed" drain fields put on land that does not "perk".

    The concept is that the water will filtrate through the constructed layers to emerge clean and pure at the point where it flows into the wetland or groundwater near the surface.

    In many places where this is done – the well is located upstream of the constructed drainfield – for good reason.

    You may or may not have good reason as a landowner DEPENDING on whether or not there is a possibility of your well being polluted or not.

    In many cases, with the sewage outflow located in such a way to run off away from the well area.. you may not care.

    Experience tells us that this is actually the case when a developer is the builder of the septic system and the subsequent owner is led to believe by the developer and the approving authority that it is a good design that will perform.

    Who would you go after if it turned out that the constructed drainfield did not work.. or it worked for 5 years and quit and could not be rehabilitated but instead had to be completely rebuilt?

    If you were the landowner and facing a 50K bill.. would you then just start buying bottled water ?

    these are issues that we know that if left to individuals will turn out bad.

    This is why we have government.

    You seem to think we don't need government because you would not purposely pollute your own well.

    while that's true.. we know that folks without your financial resources might not be willing or able to fix a bad situation.. especially one they did not create but bought with govt-endorsed expectations from another buyer.

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It's not the type of "fill", it's the fact that "fill" was done.

    There is nothing in the story that suggests he was filling wetland, or that if he was it was without permits to do so. All the story mentioned was a gravel access road that was built with material other than gravel.

    Is it "fill" if you are not raising the elevation?

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If they downzoned after he was vested – I'm on your side and he ought to prevail.

    but the big thing you often ignore is the word "permit".

    Well at least we mostly agree on the first part: I'd only change the word vested to the word invested.

    As to the second part I have never ignored permits, but from the story posted we have no idea what happened. Youare assuming that wtlands and wetland permits are involved.

    I only assumed that since he started building, he must have had a building permit. The application for the building permit generally includes a check list of other required permits and a disclaimer that it is void if the other permits are invalid.

    RH

  51. Larry G Avatar

    didn't the story say "fill"? Usually "fill" in that context – in an area like that area – near sea level… implies "filling" a wetland.

    But the rule is that you cannot put fill in ANY stream that is considered waters of the US and within the jurisdiction of the Corp of Engineers.

    most any stream or wetland crossing now days requires a permit and if you don't get it, you are in violation and can be forced to remove the fill – thus your access.

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From your citation:

    "What is the Purpose of this Permit?

    To prohibit the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including special aquatic sites such as wetlands. "

    In other words, don't bother to apply.

    RH

  53. Larry G Avatar

    Apparently Ray, you don't read the references supplied:

    " To prohibit the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States, including special aquatic sites such as wetlands. "

    read this reference to understand – even if you don't agree with it:

    http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/permithandbook/permitdetail.asp?id=37

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Apparently Ray, you don't read the references supplied:"

    The very first two sentences tell you that the purposes of this "permit" is to prevent what the permit is supposed to allow.

    This doesn't strike you as cynical?

    Why do I need to read anything after that? Basically, it starts off saying , "don't bother to ask"

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the mere specification of a system is not a guarantee that it will work now or in the future.

    No, but specification of the system does imply that the government is complicit in allowing the sytem. Therefore if the government demands a new specification in the future (The old system "failed") then the govermnet should share the costs of the new requirements.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "When such systems fail, the developer is long gone and the subsequent owner has a significant "property rights" issue."

    No he doesn't.

    The new owner bought the system and now he owns it. Unless the developer did NOT build t according to specs, or unless the developer sold it subject to a warranty, then the owner owns what he owns.

    However, the government previously approved the system in place, and allowed it to be sold. If they now require a better, more expensive system in order to meet THEIR new requirements, then they should not expect to hold the (innocent) landowner entirely responsible.

    RH

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Fill ususall just means fill. Nothing in the usual use of the word implies wetland.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you were the landowner and facing a 50K bill..

    I'd put in an incinerating toilet.

    RH

  59. Larry G Avatar

    re: " govermnet should share the costs of the new requirements."

    according to you – the government is never allowed to benefit from new/updated info …..

    why would you even agree they could come up with the original regulation in the first place?

    You will find that most permits say something to the effect that the permit is based on CURRENT available info and CAN CHANGE and MAY if need be.

    And that's why the permit is usually for a specific period of time.

    This is NO DIFFERENT than a prescription drug thought to be safe and then over time, as more info is developed, it is found to be less so than originally thought and has to be restricted or removed.

    In your world.. apparently.. if this happens.. the drug manufacturer is due compensation for taking away their "right" to make and sell that drug – eh?

    you're totally screwed up on this stuff fella.. in my view.

    If someone is dumping a pollutant found to be unsafe, I want them stopped and no I will not pay them to stop.

    show me ONE PLACE in the ENTIRE WORLD that does this.

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I have the best reason in the world to ensure that my septic field is percolating and not contaminating the ground water – I drink the ground water."

    Where do you think it percolates TOO?

    Some of it gets into surface plants and gets respired or evaporated to the air. some of it may eventually work its way to the surface and become runoff. The rest of it goes into the ground water.

    The septic tank collects solids and allows for some anaerobic processes to take place. This is the stinky part. The liquid part is distributed in shallow soils where aerobic processes and adhesion to the substrate further clean the water. Within a short distance it is clean enough to drink, which is why septic fields are allowed with 100 feet or so of wells.

    When a system fails it is because the septic tank was not puped often enough to remove the sludge, which then clogs up the drainfield. Soil types also affect how long the drainfiels will last.

    There is no reason why you cannot scoop up a drianfield. Bring in new dirt (of a better type) and put down new drainlines. That should cost a fraction fo $50,000.

    Except it is prohibited in many areas.

    Or, you could put in a rotating biological contactor, also for a fraction of $50,000.

    And also prohibited in most areas.

    RH

    RH

  61. Larry G Avatar

    " There is no reason why you cannot scoop up a drianfield. Bring in new dirt (of a better type) and put down new drainlines. That should cost a fraction fo $50,000."

    prohibited – why?

    do you know what a constructed drainfield is?

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the government is never allowed to benefit from new/updated info …..

    JESUS!

    The government is US!

    None of us are allowed to benefit at the exclusive expense of our neighbor.

    Who do you think is benefiting when the government benefits? It is US.

    And the governments first responsibility is to to protect us equally. How then can government possibly "benefit" from sticking the costs of a new requirement designed to protect everyone—-onto a few individuals?

    NO ONE, benefits from that kind of idiocy. It may LOOK as if they do, from a certain narrow perspective.

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If someone is dumping a pollutant found to be unsafe, I want them stopped and no I will not pay them to stop."

    So you are claiming and stealing a property right you never had before, because it was not "found" to be unsafe before.

    That is exactly the certain narrow perspective I was talking about.

    You are looking at it the wrong way. You are not paying them to stop. You are compensatng them for investments they made in good faith. It was YOUR stupidity that allowed them (and probably encouraged them) to make certain investments.

    All that is required is that yuo do not damage their property which they invested in legally. They have the same right to have their property protected from confiscation or deliberate obsolescence as you have for your property to be protected from pollution.

    You ar not entitled to MORE of anything, unless you are willing to pay for it.

    RH

  64. Larry G Avatar

    " And the governments first responsibility is to to protect us equally."

    it does. new information that leads to new rules – that affect everyone.

    new cell phone laws apply to everyone – whether you own a cell phone or not.

    in your world.. the ones who own the cell phones have been discriminated against whereas the ones without cell phones have not.

    … THEREFORE those who don't have cell phones OWE compensation to those that do who's cell phone rights have been "restricted".

    more bizarro logic guy

    good thing they keep you away from making laws…

  65. Larry G Avatar

    " You are looking at it the wrong way. You are not paying them to stop"

    the new restrictions apply to EVERYONE – including me.

    we are all equally treated.

    I am not allowed to continue to do something that was originally thought ok but later found to be not so.

    Whether it is pollution or texting while driving or driving with unsafe brakes.. the new rules apply to everyone.

    that's equal protection.

    that's what the constitution calls for.

    In your world – the folks who text with their cell phones are owed compensation from those that don't….

  66. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "But the rule is that you cannot put fill in ANY stream that is considered waters of the US and within the jurisdiction of the Corp of Engineers.

    most any stream or wetland crossing now days requires a permit and if you don't get it, you are in violation and can be forced to remove the fill – thus your access."

    some of this is currently under review of the Supreme Court and the general expectaton is that the court will rule that the law has been applied too strictly.

    There has been a longstanding compaint agianst the fact that most anything can be considered wetland – even if it is wet only once in a while.

    I stand by my argument that the story does not say anything about wetlands, only an access road.

  67. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the real issue, to get back to this thread, is whether gay people should pay more for their sewage treatement thant straight people.

    RH

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I am not allowed to continue to do something that was originally thought ok but later found to be not so."

    Necesary but not sufficient.

    Everyone now faces the same proscriptions, but that does not mean they are equally protected.

    You are NOT equally protected if you do not face the same financial consequences.

    You have no property claim if you are now prevented from doing something you were not doing anyway.

    But the guy who invested with certain expectations does have a property claim.

    You are now claiming the right to ADDITIONAL protections, albeit based on new knowledge.

    Why should HE have to bear the total financial responsibility for society's sudden gain in information?

    No, if we wnat and demand more protection, and if we think it is worth whatever it costs, (benefits are more than costs) then we should agree to share those costs, willingly and without malice.

    What you are doing is childishly and retroactively administering blame "It's not My fault, Its not my fault, it's not my fault, its not fair mommy, why should I suffer just because the cost of Daddy's Chemo went up?"

    RH

  69. Larry G Avatar

    " What you are doing is childishly and retroactively administering blame "It's not My fault, Its not my fault, it's not my fault, its not fair mommy, why should I suffer just because the cost of Daddy's Chemo went up?"

    Blame? There is no blame. Who are you going to blame if new information comes to light that reveals harm in something previously thought not so?

    there is no blame but the practice will have to stop.

    I don't blame anyone for this.

    but I also don't expect to pay anyone either.

    now if you are expecting compensation and don't get it then YOU might be the one whining about being treated unfairly but that would be you not me – right?

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    that's what the constitution calls for.

    First of all, show me where it says that we are eqully protected just because we are equally proscripted.

    Second of all, that is not all the constitution calls for.

    "Theft, arson, vandalism, and fraud have traditionally been considered to be crimes. This is because they violate property rights. Rape, kidnapping, and murder have traditionally been considered to be crimes. This is because they violate the right to self-ownership. Thus we can conclude that any violation of property rights or the right to self-ownership is a crime."

    We are all proscribed from theft arson and vandalism and we are all protected equally (or at least proportionately) and we pay to enforce those protections (equally or proportionately).

    Environmental stealing is no different.

    "Social cost is the cost to others or to the society as a whole arising from private activities. Every activity may have a social cost in varying degrees. However, when the property rights are poorly defined and enforced, social cost becomes greater because the individuals who pass the cost to the others have a greater ability to do so…."

    "The right to own and control property and the right to self-ownership is the codification of human rights. There can be no human rights without property rights and the right to self-ownership. Rights are not collective, but belong to each and every individual, regardless of race or religion."

    Or sexual preference.

    Or previous occupation.

    RH

  71. Larry G Avatar

    "equal" means that the law applies equally.

    it does not mean that it will have an equal effect.

    It only means that you as an individual will not have a different law because of your circumstances.

    In your world – EVERY SINGLE LAW that applied to everyone but affected people in different ways would require compensation to those affected – right?

    so.. virtually every single law that placed restricted on everyone that was passed by the Va GA and Congress would require compensation – right?

  72. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "equal" means that the law applies equally.

    That is only one thing it means.

    It also means equal protection, not just equal obligation. Top suggest that it is only that is missing half of what equality means: equal obligation AND equal protection from excess obligatation.

    The law, and government exists primarily to protect people and their property.

    If that isn't happening then the law, however it is written, is not doing its number one job, and people are not being treated eqully.

    To claim that the law APPLIES equally to all when the actual applicaztion is moot except for a few cases, and the affects and effects are completely different is cynical in the extreme, and it is just plain wrong.

    You cannot really tell me that you think it would be OK if the majority wrote a law that ONLY bankrupted yourself, and they claimed it was for the public benefit.

    RH

  73. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In your world – EVERY SINGLE LAW that applied to everyone but affected people in different ways would require compensation to those affected – right?

    ——————————

    Only if it affected property that they had invested in under different rules.

    Governments job is to protect people and property, No?

    Every people and every legal property, including gay people.

    RH

  74. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And, by the way, the main reason to do this is that it is cheaper, faster, better, AND more equitable.

    It is more efficient and you get more and better environmental protection in the end.

    Or, you can have CERCLA where entire towns conspired to drag out the hearings on liability because having all those lawers in town was now their main industry.

    RH

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    virtually every single law that placed restricted on everyone that was passed by the Va GA and Congress would require compensation – right?

    =============================

    Probably a good deal of them would, but compensation is not required for everyone who now must comply, because they were not doing anything that requires loss of previous investment.

    Remember, most of those those same laws were passed having survived a cost benefit analysis that shows the benefits (to everyone) of the bill exceed the costs.

    That being the case, what possible argument can there be against using some of those benefits to pay off the few persons whose costs FAR EXCEED their benefits?

    You have already made the money to make compensation with, or at least you claim you have.

    Other than blind, stupid, self-serving, and counterproductive selfishness, what possible reason wouyld you have for NOT compensating?

    It had better be a lot better reason that you have ever coughed up so far, if you expect it to countermand the sprit of the Constitution and the basic reason for the existence of law and government – protecting people and property.

    ==============================

    Now, some people take that aregument one step too far. They claim that government has no right to take any of your property, and therefore has no right to tax you.

    But, we institute governments to ensure life, liberty and the pursusit of happiness, and therefore government must be paid for. It should be paid for as equally as the protections it provides are given.

    If a new law protects us ALL form kepone, we should ALL expect to pay for that protection, including the guy who makes kepone. But he should not have to pay more than the rest of us pay. not because he makes Kepone, and not because he is gay.

    RH

  76. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "You seem to think we don't need government because you would not purposely pollute your own well.".

    I don't think that at all.

    My favorite governmental entity (Fairfax County) did a fine job of inspecting the construction of the house I built in Great Falls. I was very happy to have their inspectors checking on the construction at various points along the way. Unlike the nameless, faceless bureaucrats who light my money on fire in Richmond, I saw and spoke to the inspector on multiple occasions.

    I also needed to have a perc test performed before I could have the land zoned for anything. Therefore, I struggle to understand your point regarding septic systems as it applies to the zoning situation in Hampton Roads. A large house was approved for construction. In Fairfax, if the house were on septic, the perc test would have had to already been conducted and the ground would have had to perc for a maximum number of bedrooms. I assume the same would be true for Hampton Roads. So, I wonder how the perc could have changed and caused the authorities to reduce the approved size of the house based on the perc.

    My point about the well and septic being the property owner's responsibilty was to point out that people (like me) who own their own well and septic systems pay pretty close attention to how those systems are working. If the septic is overflowing, you notice and do something about it. Typical symptoms of a failed septic field include:

    o Mushy ground or greener lawn in the area of the septic system.
    o Sluggish drains in your home.
    o Plumbing backups.
    o Outdoor "sewage" odor.
    o Gurgling sound in pipes or drains.

    I suppose a homeowner might just hope that these problems go away or don't contaminate the ground water. I also suppose that a homeowner might try to save money on garbage pick-up by dumping his or her garbage into the wetland.

  77. Larry G Avatar

    My point is that home septic systems are not required to monitor their system whereas every sewage system with discharge pipe is required to.

    Both kinds of systems can have problems and can fail.

    Septic systems have the added problem of being designed on the premise of several random "perk" holes and a soil map.

    The "design life" of a septic field is approximate and is subject to a lot of factors and most people do not care if their system is working or not as long as it's not causing surface drainage problems.

    Not that they don't care per se but more like out of sight out of mind just like with folks with municipal sewage service.

    Septic fields can and do "fail" in that they pollute ground water and/or water not on the surface that some distance away surfaces.

    Septic fields are not monitored for failures like these.

    The Chesapeake Bay folks are convinced that septic fields in areas like Hampton where the ground water can be but a few feet from the surface are polluting much more so than septic systems where the ground water is deeper and there are a lot more layers of soil and gravel to "perk" the effluent.

    I have a well/septic also by the way and I am but several hundred feet away from a water supply reservoir and I have my system pumped out per the law but there is no monitoring of my system to insure that it has not failed below ground level and is sending sewage into the water table and thence into the lake that supplies water for the county.

    My point here is that this is EXACTLY one of those issues – just like sewage treatment plants where you DON'T want a HOME RULE type approach and you DO NEED a state standard and even the current state standard is not up to snuff but at least – it's maintained state wide.

    Now Hampton was ostensibly trying to do better but their approach was to create a conflicting law that if upheld would allow other localities to do the same thing – and possibly to then have LOWER standards than the state.

    Hampton was also not using science. None of them do like I said because while the State does require performance monitoring of every effluent pipe .. there is no such standard for septic tanks.

    Chesapeake Bay repeats the mistake by making the unsubstantiated claim that septic tanks pollute and also contribute nitrogen and phosphorous to the load in rivers but no one – not the State.. not the Chesapeake Bay folks actually monitor the outflows from septic fields so their claims are not backed up with data.

    But.. on the issue.. Groveton – no , we do not want 134 separate standards for septic fields in Virginia just like we do not want 134 separate legal standards for murder or speeding or conceal carry permits or 134 different license plates databases.

    The State has a legitimate reason for existing in terms of some functions even though it's 135 arbitrarily-drawn boundaries.

    The Brookings Report looking at Dillon vs Home Rule DID point out that there are issues with a large number of separate smaller scale jurisdictions than fewer but larger ones but at the end of the day – some things need uniform standards and in fact even you are arguing for that in a round-a-bout way because you are arguing for a NoVa jurisdiction with essentially jurisdiction-wide standards across what are, in fact, multiple jurisdictions that comprise NoVa.

  78. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Both kinds of systems can have problems and can fail.

    ===============================

    Any kind of system that does anything, can and will fail. Even Prius accelerators.

    You, We, no one, cannot afford to spend an infinite amount of money to make everything perfect forever, which is what it would take.

    And you have no right to require that someone else spend an infinite amount of money for your incremental protection.

    RH

  79. Larry G Avatar

    who said anything about infinite?

    Do we now spend an infinite amount of money to monitor wastewater treatment outflows?

    do you, in fact, have a clue, how much it costs to monitor on a percentage basis?

    but the bigger question is .. why would you specify a design for wastewater treatment – municipal and individual septic – that does cost money – if you don't know if that expenditure of money is justified or not – if it is enough or too much?

    Approving septic tanks on a premise – un-proven by data is dumb.

    It's like telling yourself that you refuse to pay more than 30 dollars for gasoline even though you know that 30 dollars worth will leave you short of your destination.

    so because you refuse to pay $35 and actually get to where you want to go…

    you pay almost that much and FAIL at your intended goal.

    that's DUMB.

    We've got the Chesapeak Bay folks yammering about their contribution of nitrogen and phosphorous to the killing of the Bay but when you ask them to provide data that proves their point or what changes in design, performance, and monitoring to deal with that issue – they are mostly mute just repeating over and over that there is a problem and it's going to take a bunch of money to fix it.

    They have no clue how much money because they have no clue what the specifics of the problem is or is not, nor how to fix it with new/better designs.

    Because of this – the developers weigh in on the opposite side advocating for the status quo claiming that it is working just fine and we cannot justify tougher standards.

    NEITHER side is particularly interested in backing up their position with actual data.

    Isn't that interesting?

  80. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "….home septic systems are not required to monitor their system whereas every sewage system with discharge pipe is required to."

    You are not required to monitor the oil in your car, but you know you will face economic consequences if you don't.

    How would you monitor your system, anyway, other than the rather obvious symptoms Groveton mentions.

    Septic systems have discharge pipes, but they end, ususally, on your own property. Water from the drainfield then it becomes part of the ground water, which eventually becomes part of the surface water.

    The end result is the same: water and waste go bck into the environment.

    Would you propose that septic systems have some kind of sampling trap so that the degree of treatment can be measured? Periodic core drillings around your drainfield?

    You have already mentioned that your area has a periodic pump out requirement. What about one of the main causes of septic field failure: growth of vegetation?

    What if you monitored your drainfield and it was working fine, but you suffered from lethargic bacteria: the water was just not as clean as it might be.

    ===================================

    "most people do not care if their system is working or not as long as it's not causing surface drainage problems."

    If it is not causing surface drainage problems, then it is working. As far as I know, yousimply cannot filter water through more than a few feet of dirt without it coming out clean. You are running a giant chromatograph, where the clean solvent goes through and the teltale stain is left behind.

    That isn't a failure, it is the way the system works.

    You cannot put a drainfield in rock, because there is very little filtration, bacterial action, and adhesion. In that case you might have wastewater leaking rapidly through cracks in the rock and entering the groundwater.

    Otherwise, if your wastewater goes into the near surface soil and stays there, being absorbed by surface vegetation, and acted on by aerobic bacteria, eventually moving into the general groundwater, then you've got a pretty good system.

    Every source of nutrients that gets into the waterways and eventually to the Bay is a source of concern, but you would be way better off worrying about other sources first.

    ==============================

    Face it. This guys neighbors do not want him to have a house. It is not about impacts: that is just an excuse.

    RH

  81. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "My point here is that this is EXACTLY one of those issues – just like sewage treatment plants where you DON'T want a HOME RULE type approach and you DO NEED a state standard and even the current state standard is not up to snuff but at least – it's maintained state wide."

    "But.. on the issue.. Groveton – no , we do not want 134 separate standards for septic fields in Virginia just like we do not want 134 separate legal standards for murder or speeding or conceal carry permits or 134 different license plates databases.".

    Translation: Incompetence is fine so long as it is consistently applied.

    Side note 1: (which seems to have been forgotten): Hampton was trying to go above and beyond the state's legislation (which LarryG notes as ineffective).

    Side note 2: (which seems to have been forgotten): LarryG has repeatedly said that Virginia's strict adherence to Dillon's rule in all matters does not stop localities from making their own land use decisions. The Hampton matter proves this wrong in at least one case.

    Final side note: The vast majority of members of the General Assembly come from jurisdictions which do not border the Bay. I question whether they have adequate knowledge to make land use decisions that affect the Cheasapeake Bay.

  82. Larry G Avatar

    " if it is not causing surface drainage problems, then it is working"

    Ray – if you knew ANYTHING at all about the environment that you claim to have a degree in… you'd know that septic systems that directly dump into ground water are heavy polluters and that this can and does happen in places where the water table is close to the surface which is especially the case in and around wetlands.

    How would you know?

    well you could require at the time the system is put in a simple downstream pipe that can be periodically sampled after the initial baseline sample is taken.

    That could be done at the time of pump-out – a required part of pump-out.

    dye markers could be required once every few years so that the dye would show up in surface water if there was a problem.

    If the Chesapeake Bay folks want to advocate for systems that better sequester nitrogen and phosphorous then they need this data to back up their advocacy.

    Neither side appears to REALLY WANT TO KNOW much less to really pursue cost-effective strategies to deal with it.

    so basically we have the two sides arguing really foolish concepts.. neither of them really willing to put their money where their mouth is.

    Developers could do the same thing and PROVE that the existing systems work just fine and do not need further restrictions but do they do this?

    Nope.

    so we don't know – and we don't want to know.

    why? well because if we knew.. it might actually force us to do something ..and it might actually cost someone some money…

    so we don't know and we don't want to know.

  83. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Pigs at the Trough or … LarryG's vaunted General Assembly at work or … why you can't trust Richmond and must dillute Dillon's Rule:

    http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/lobbyists-stop-antiloophole-bill-hotel-taxes

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    who said anything about infinite?

    Do we now spend an infinite amount of money to monitor wastewater treatment outflows?

    =================================

    You did, although you may not understand what you said.

    Zero pollution will require infinite costs to control.

    Zero mechanical failures will require infinite costs to control.

    That is why we do not have zero rail crashes or zero air crashes.

    It is also why we do not have perfect monitoring of watewater treatment facilities, let alone perfect operation. If we built watewater treatment sataions the way we build the Space shuttle,the entire sytem would have double or triple redundant backup. Which is what we require for home septic systems: we design them with safety factor and capacity for a hundred year life and then require 100% back up site.

    Ultimately, that won't be enough, and someone will demand 400% back up. Same with flood plain protection: first it was 50 feet, then a hundred, then four hundred feet, then they wanted to prevent development in land adjacent to the flood plai in order to protect the flood plain which was there to protect the streambed.

    It doesn't take too long before you can see infinity. There is no activity that does not affect someone else. What we are engaged in now is a long drawn out process to determine what we will allow others to do which affects us and what we expect them to allow us to do, which affects them.

    RH

  85. Larry G Avatar

    Groveton – I don't think it serves ANYONE's best interest to have 134 different jurisdictional approaches to problems that affect things beyond those jurisdictions.

    this is not a plea for incompetence nor support for doing LESS than Hampton wants to do but what good is what Hampton wants to do – if in doing so – it opens the door to other adjacent jurisdiction totally GUTTING their regs?

    You, in fact, argued that the Feds needed to set standards because Va would not.

    so you are, in affect arguing for a Fed version of the Dillon Rule while at the same time arguing that Fairfax/Hampton should not be subject to "higher authorities" because "they" know the right thing to do.

    I don't profess to know all the answers but I can clearly see positions that are inconsistent and yours are – totally subjective and totally self-conflicting pointed only at your own interests – your own arrogant view that your county knows best when over time – we're constantly reminded that jurisdictional-only approaches to problems – are …problematical when the issue extends beyond that jurisdictional boundaries.

    You'd probably be the last one to advocate a Fairfax-only drivers license realizing just how redundant and cost-ineffective such a thing would be but you argue in effect for exactly that approach on other things.

    Similarly, it would do little good for Fairfax to have very tight septic field standards if an upstream jurisdiction had none and you guys got their effluent.. you'd be up in arms.. you'd be screaming for the clown show in Richmond to "do something" right?

    you need to rethink this stuff a bit.

  86. Larry G Avatar

    re: " Zero pollution will require infinite costs to control."

    we never said infinite and we never said zero pollution.

    We said a defined standard that can be verified that the standard is being met.

    that's not infinite and it's not zero but that's the way you apparently think… too bad.

  87. Larry G Avatar

    The problem that we have is that we define a standard but we don't want to test to see if we are meeting it.

    So.. we set a standard for the Chesapeake Bay and the Rivers that go into it – including the streams that flow into the rivers but then we refuse to test those waters to see if they meet that standard.

    The Chesapeake Bay folks use a MODEL and steadfastly claim that actual testing of the water is not needed so they have a model that says the water at a certain place has some percentage of stuff in it but they wont' actually test it to show that their model is accurate.

    the developers are just as bad in the opposite way.

    they don't want to test because they fear that the results will generate even more restrictions and costs.

    so no one REALLY wants to get to the problem and deal with it in an honest way.

    Groveton's septic tank, my septic tank – MAY be just fine but I think it truly ignorant to say that we know they are because we do not see polluted surface water.

    At that point we WOULD know but how long is it bad underneath but you don't know?

    Is it 20 minutes or 20 years?

    The folks down in Hampton Roads – where the water table is close enough to the surface that you can hand-shovel your way down to it fear that many septic systems are, in fact, dumping directly into the ground water.

    Now.. I don't know, don't pretend to know but what I do believe is that we CAN find out and that we need to find out BEFORE we proscribe restrictions and costly infrastructure.

    It could be – in the final analysis that most folks SHOULD be on municipal sewer – that it may be better for everyone to get cleaner surface water than to pretend that septic systems sitting directly on top of near-surface ground water are safe.

    we must WANT TO KNOW.

  88. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "You, in fact, argued that the Feds needed to set standards because Va would not.".

    That's not what I said. Is said the Fed needs to set standards because staes beyond Virginia border the Bay. Therefore, this is a multi-state problem that cannot be solved by any one state. This is true even when some states (like Maryland) are working competently on the matter while other states (like Virginia) are working incompetently on the matter.

    The problem is that water flows and pollution put into the Bay on the Virginia shore has a bad habit of ending up elsewhere.

  89. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "septic systems that directly dump into ground water are heavy polluters and that this can and does happen in places where the water table is close to the surface which is especially the case in and around wetlands."

    ================================

    Isn't that what I said?

    I used rock as an example, but I also explained what is supposed to happen BEFORE discharge to the groundwater.

    The situation you describe is a system that does not "perc". But for those situations there are PLENTY of alternate systems that woul work just fine.

    No, you cannot expect a drainfield to work if you put it underwater. but if it has enough dirt around and under it, it should work just fine.

    My drainfield is about 80 miles from Chesapeake Bay, but if I put a radioactive tracer in it, I could eventually detect that tracer in the Bay. I'd detect it a lot faster from drainfields closer to the Bay, and I'd probably detect it almost immediately if I put it in a municipal system.

    That does not mean the systems are failing, but it does mean it would cost a lot more to keep that compound out of the water.

    You, my rfriend are the one that does not understand environmental science and environmental economics.

    ===================================

    Environmentalists are not looking for systems that work; the only systems that work to their standars are the ones that prevent, as described in your wetlands citation.

    As EMR pointed out:

    "It was a long time before we came to understand that their rights were established by the existence of children by various fathers who may or may not have been present that day. The rights were established by the process to which Groveton alluded."

    You can bet that these rights are not written down anywhere, but you can also bet that there would be a lot of trouble if someone came in and changed those rights for the worse.

    Much of what "environmentalists" do is try to change someone else's rights to the worse. I have no problem with that as long as they pay for the damage they cause in the search for more, better, and mostly free social and environmental benefits.

    RH

  90. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "I don't profess to know all the answers but I can clearly see positions that are inconsistent and yours are – totally subjective and totally self-conflicting pointed only at your own interests – your own arrogant view that your county knows best when over time – we're constantly reminded that jurisdictional-only approaches to problems – are …problematical when the issue extends beyond that jurisdictional boundaries.".

    I believe that ALL counties know best over time. That's because counties govern close to the people. And people can see for themselves what the county-level problems are. And the county supervisors are residents of the county. Therefore, they have an understanding of the county's specific problems.

    That's why I advocate for SOME level of home rule rather than the complete lack of home rule for counties which now part of the Virginia Constitution.

    You attempt to make home rule a "black or white" matter regarding things like driver's licenses is transparently disingeneous.

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The problem that we have is that we define a standard but we don't want to test to see if we are meeting it."

    ==============================

    Exctly what I have been arguing for years. You are the one that has preveiously argued that we cannot test because the results are nebulous.

    You can put tracers in as you suugest and you will find traces of those dyes, just as we find traces of hormones, antibiotics, motor oil, BPA, Pthalate Esters, and everything else.

    The only way you DON'T find those things is if youhave a perfect system, which costs an infinite amount of money.

    RH

  92. Larry G Avatar

    re: " This is true even when some states (like Maryland) are working competently on the matter while other states (like Virginia) are working incompetently on the matter."

    could you handle a friendly amendment adding "jurisdictions" to "states"?

  93. Larry G Avatar

    " The situation you describe is a system that does not "perc"."

    no… it's the opposite – it not only "perks" but it streamlines and does not flow through gravel layers but instead directly into the water table.

    There are lots of different ways that a septic field can "fail" besides the typically-thought "perk" way.

    the point here is not to argue about all the different ways they may or may not fail but what things you have in place to catch them when they do.

  94. Larry G Avatar

    "worse" is when you pollute your neighbors…. and you don't want to be responsible for it claiming instead that you are "entitled" to pollute your neighbors because you "have no choice" because you must pollute to live

    and all that rot you spout over and over

    you do NOT have the right to pollute and how much you do pollute is not your decision but those that are impacted by it.

    That's in the law and constitution fella.. you know.. the liars and thieves you talk about who wrote them.

  95. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    we never said infinite and we never said zero pollution.

    =================================

    But you claim there is no right to pollute. the obvious implication is that whoever controls that right will eventually try to enforce it.

    But now you are saying that you will tolerate some pollution.

    The only difference between that and my position is that I would say that you MUST tolerate some pollution.

    Now we are only arguing about relative costs, and the best way to figure those out is with some kind of market mechanism. So just let pollution or the right to pollute be property and let it be bought and sold.

    Under that system, whoever can make the most productive use for the least amount of pollution comes out ahead. We all come out ahead.

    But, we ahe to decide how much pollution we will tolerate and measure it as accurately as we measure any other recorded deed.

    RH

  96. Larry G Avatar

    re: "black or white"

    in fact, Groveton, I argued the opposite – that SOME things DO REQUIRE higher authority government than the local jurisdiction.

    If you read the Brookings Report, you'd see that Home Rule is not the panacea that some think it is.

    Maryland is a Dillon Rule state also but they do it in a very different way than Virginia but in the opinion of the Brookings folks both Maryland and Virginia score near the top in local discretionary authority compared to other Dillon Rule States.

    My point – consistent from the very beginning was and is that you need some things done at the State level and that there are some dangers inherent in Home Rule also.

    I never advocated strict 100% absolute Dillon Rule at all.

    but I do see where we need a State level authority to exist as opposed to every jurisdiction having total home rule – which you seem to have argued at times … implying that the "clown show" has no purpose when, in fact, even you will admit when pushed.

  97. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "..you do NOT have the right to pollute and how much you do pollute is not your decision but those that are impacted by it."

    By they, you mean government, but governments priomary job is to protect peoples property equally.

    THEY do not have the right to demand infinite protection for their proerty entirely at your expense.

    All tht rot,as you call it is not rot. With enough time and money, I could identify any known pollutant almost anywhere on the planet.

    According to you, whoever put it there had no right to do so, but I've got news for you, whoever put it there was all of us.

    There is no way around this: whatever you do will affect someone else. Whatever they do will affect you. You have the same right to live as they do, and you have to expect to accept their affects as they accept yours.

    We have government to ensure that one isn't greater than the other, and neither one is outright dangerous.

    RH

  98. Larry G Avatar

    re: " You are the one that has preveiously argued that we cannot test because the results are nebulous"

    No – you are confused as usual.

    Setting a standard and testing for compliance to that standard is a WHOLE LOT SIMPLER endeavor than attempting to decide all the costs/benefits involved – over generations.

    you can't even understand the difference in complexity between these two?

  99. Larry G Avatar

    re: " But you claim there is no right to pollute. the obvious implication is that whoever controls that right will eventually try to enforce it.

    But now you are saying that you will tolerate some pollution."

    well of course. we set a standard and we enforce that standard (in theory).. by DEFINITION if you have a standard and you issue permits then you ARE ALLOWING .. SOME POLLUTION but the two essential truths REMAIN:

    1. you as an individual do NOT have the RIGHT to pollute ANYTHING as an inherent right

    2. – the question of how much that you can pollute with permit is NOT DECIDED by you

    neither of the two things above implies ZERO POLLUTION except in your view.

  100. Larry G Avatar

    re: " By they, you mean government, but governments priomary job is to protect peoples property equally."

    not in the way you believe guy.

    Government is empowered in the Constitution to make land-use decisions on behalf of ALL citizens even if it results in restrictions on SOME citizens.

    This is why they have the power to zone and to restrict development and pollution.

    The Constitution Grants them that authority as well as the equal protection clause which ONLY says that any law must apply equally in its strictures – not it's effects.

    you foolishly say that many laws do not affect people but you do not see what you do not want to see.

    mobile cell-phone texting could well be the basis for very lucrative businesses but on the other hand – it can lead to dangerous behaviors so we trade off the law that applies to everyone even though it may directly and adversely affect some.

    In your world – the folks who are materially affected by this law are due compensation by the folks who are not…

    more bizarro world logic… not practiced anywhere on the face of the earth …..

    yet you persist in this..

    so I'll persist in pointing it out whenever you persist.

  101. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Government is empowered in the Constitution to make land-use decisions on behalf of ALL citizens even if it results in restrictions on SOME citizens.

    ================================

    Show me where it says that in the constitution.

    As far as I know there is only one reference to property in the constitution, and zero references to land use.

    RH

  102. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    a WHOLE LOT SIMPLER endeavor than attempting to decide all the costs/benefits involved – over generations.

    ==============================

    The law requres cost benefit analysis and Every president since Reagan has enforced this requirement.

    Doesn"t matter what standards we are talking about: they all boil down to costs, and how much ae you willing to pay for the standards you want.

    RH

  103. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    neither of the two things above implies ZERO POLLUTION except in your view.

    ===============================

    The government of Pennsylvania already has an experessed policy of attaining zero pollution.

    It cannot be done, of course, but that is the policy.

    If the person doing the polluting has no say, then what is to prevent others from murdering him by requiring zero pollution?

    If the person doing the polluting has no say, then none of us have asay because we are all polluters.

    You will think those statements are nonsense, but they are not, because they go exactly to the point of what we will tolerae and what we expect others to tolerate.

    Since we all MUST pollute we all MUST have some right to do so. Some level below which the government cannot govern and cannot "permit".

    RH

  104. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you foolishly say that many laws do not affect people but you do not see what you do not want to see.

    ===============================

    They do not have an actionable loss of property and others do.

    Cell phones are a new invention: that entals new proerty rights which we have not worked out yet.

    There is nothing inconsisent in my views, it is your that don't hold up to common standrds aof decency.

    RH

  105. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I've said over and over, i don;t care all that much what kind of new rules you make as long as you don't hurt someone in the process.

    If there is a way to prevent that from happening, why would you NOT want to use it?

    That is the one thing you have never explained.

    Which leads me to believe that the only reason is selfish greed and the leagal ability to pull one over on someone.

    But you will never convince me that just because a new rule applies to everyone equally that they are equally affected by it.

    A new setback rule has an immediate large dollar based effect on those that have not built yet, and it might have an eventual effect on those that already have built.

    If there is a way to equalize those costs so that everyone pays and everyone benefits then it seems to me that government has an OBLIGATION to do that because its primary job, after all is to protect people and property.

    RH

  106. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    In your world – the folks who are materially affected by this law are due compensation by the folks who are not…

    ==============================

    No. People who are adversely materially affected by a new and different rule imposed after an investment is made under previous expectations are due compensation from those folks that are positively materially affected.

    Not those that are materially affected by those that are not materially affected.

    That is an important distinction. Especially when the new rule is advertised to have positive net benefits – and what rule doesn't?

    The people who are positively affected ought to be eagerly willing to take part of their gain and share it with the losers.

    Why?

    Because when the losers see that they willbe fairly compensated they will be less likely to bitterly oppose the next initiative.

    You get more done and you get it done cheaper. That is why you should favor compensation as the default position – not the opposite.

    ——————————-

    And once again, this isn;t my world: I didn't invent this stuff, and it does work in the real world.

    Economy, Environment, Equality.

    RH

  107. Larry G Avatar

    " The law requres cost benefit analysis and Every president since Reagan has enforced this requirement."

    if that's true then what is your complaint?

  108. Larry G Avatar

    " The government of Pennsylvania already has an experessed policy of attaining zero pollution."

    more silliness and foolishness fella…

    the definition of a PERMIT is to acknowledge that there is pollution and to approve of it within limits.

    Pennsylvania also issues permits.

  109. Larry G Avatar

    " There is nothing inconsisent in my views,"

    except no where on the face of the earth do they conform to your views. you're so far out in left field on them that you're reduced to calling every elected official a thief and a liar…

  110. Larry G Avatar

    " I've said over and over, i don;t care all that much what kind of new rules you make as long as you don't hurt someone in the process."

    except you do not get to decide the definition of "hurt" and you do not get to enforce your definition either.

    We have a system – judicial, legislative and administrative that conducts due process to determine what harm is and under what circumstances it can be approved.

    A LOT of folks could claim HARM from not being able to have lead in gasoline, agent orange for killing weeds, and being forced to buy a car with seat belts.

    We look at each of them and decide that the harm inflicted is worth the benefit.

    We do this thousands of times ..every time a new law is passed guy.

  111. Larry G Avatar

    " No. People who are adversely materially affected by a new and different rule imposed after an investment is made under previous expectations are due compensation from those folks that are positively materially affected."

    yes.. your argument is that people who lose control of their car while texting have that "right" and it cannot be taken away from them without compensating them… right?

    since they are "materially" affected by the new restriction, then they are owed compensation from those who now benefit from not being run into by the texting folks…

    right?

  112. Larry G Avatar

    " Constitutional challenges

    [edit]Facial challenges
    There have been notable legal challenges to zoning regulations. In 1926 the United States Supreme Court upheld zoning as a right of U.S. states (typically via their cities and counties) to impose on landowners. The case was Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. (often shortened to Euclid v. Ambler), 272 U.S. 365 (1926). The village had zoned an area of land held by Ambler Realty as a residential neighborhood. Ambler argued that it would lose money because if the land could be leased to industrial users it would have netted a great deal more money than as a residential area. Euclid won, and a precedent was set favorable to local enforcement of zoning laws.
    The Euclid case was a facial challenge, meaning that the entire scheme of regulation was argued to be unconstitutional under any set of circumstances. The United States Supreme Court justified the ordinance saying that a community may enact reasonable laws to keep the pig out of the parlor, even if pigs may not be prohibited from the entire community.
    Since the Euclid case, there have been no more facial challenges to the general scheme."

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

    " Police Power

    The authority conferred upon the states by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which the states delegate to their political subdivisions to enact measures to preserve and protect the safety, health, Welfare, and morals of the community.

    Police power describes the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution.

    The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." State legislatures exercise their police power by enacting statutes, and they also delegate much of their police power to counties, cities, towns, villages, and large boroughs within the state."

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Police+Power

  113. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When Stephen Munday spent £20,000 on a wind turbine to generate electricity for his home, he was proud to be doing his bit for the environment.

    He got planning permission and put up the 40ft device two years ago, making sure he stuck to strict noise level limits.

    But neighbours still complained that the sound was annoying – and now the local council has ordered him to switch it off.

    The windmill owner was induced to make his investmemt under the known property rights at that time. Having subsequently reallocated his rights, shouldn't the neighbors at least be expected to buy their newfound property by reimbursing him for the loss of his investment?

    The biggest issue here is the uncertainty in property rights allocation. The UK effectively allocated a property right to the windmill owner and then subsequently expropriated it. If property rights are not enforceable, why would we expect to see bargaining for the rights according to the Coase theorem?

    As long as the government allows you to steal, why bargain in good faith?

    RH

  114. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    HARM from not being able to have lead in gasoline, agent orange for killing weeds, and being forced to buy a car with seat belts.

    ==================================

    No, because none of those example did a prior investment exist.

    But, suppose i own a gas station and I get a load of leaded gas. that same day a new law is passed and I can no longer sell my gas.

    I'm suposed to eat the cost of this gas and the cost of disposing of it in a landfill that can accept lead? for the benefit of everyone, including myself. And you think this is "equal protection"?

    Give it up, Larry. Your arguments are not logically supportable without a preamble claiming superior rights.

    RH

  115. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    except you do not get to decide the definition of "hurt" and you do not get to enforce your definition either.

    ===============================
    You are claiming a superiror right again, the right to decide who is "hurt".

    My position requires no such claim and ONLY a claim of equality.

    =============================

    Hurt mean financially hurt. It means paying a disproportionate burden or recieving a disproportionate benefit.

    You have never described why you would NOT want compensation to be the de facto standard. Where is the benefit of not paying appropriate compensation?

  116. Larry G Avatar

    what about the money you had invested in the gasoline refinery that had to be changed so that the gasoline ended up being unleaded?

    how about the folks who had cars that needed leaded gasoline for proper octane?

    how about the trucks and other heavy-duty equipment that performed better and the engines lasted longer when using leaded gasoline?

    How about the farmers who crops were destroyed by weeds and insects that could have been killed by the "right" kind of insecticide/weed killer?

    when I bring these up Ray – you run away from them.. then return later to spout off again about people "rights" being taken away and not compensated.

    My position is not unique to me.

    My position is basically the system that we have in place right now and the way it works which is the same position that our legislative, administrative and judicial systems also support.

    you do not have the right to pollute even if you used to.

    you can't have that right taken away if new info reveals that it's much more harmful than initially thought.

    when we outlaw it – we outlaw (or restrict) it for everyone and no one is compensated when we do this.

    this is the way the system works.

    this is the system that you say is run by liars and thieves.

    As far as I know there is not a country in the world that treats pollution as a right than cannot be taken away.

    Every society has the right to outlaw and restrict those things that they deem harmful to that society regardless of who was making a profit off of it.

  117. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " Constitutional challenges

    ================================

    You never showed me where the constitution said what you claimed it did, instead you digressed to zoning law.

    Zoning law was upheld onthe basis that it allowed for long term planning. That meant planning on the part of both the town and those that bought property under the rules in force.

    But since then that argumet has been subverted by those (like yourself) that claim jurisdictions can make any change they like at any time. This invalidates the basis under which zoning was originally approved.

    You buy a lot under one set of zoning rules. the zoning gets changed and then either you owe money for bieng granted additional property rights (upzoning) or youare owed money for losing proeprty rights (downzoning).

    Nothing in this position means that you cannot keep pigs out of the parlor. You just cannot make an ordinance to keep pigs out of the parlor, and then redefine the parlor.

    RH

  118. Larry G Avatar

    " You never showed me where the constitution said what you claimed it did, instead you digressed to zoning law."

    what part of the following do you not understand?

    " The right of states to make laws governing safety, health, welfare, and morals is derived from the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""

    this is settled Law guy.

    you lost – a long time ago.

  119. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What about the money you had invested in the gasoline refinery that had to be changed so that the gasoline ended up being unleaded?

    =================================

    Good question.

    Unleaded fuel is more expensive so those that buy it eventually pay for the new investment. YOU STILL HAVE THE REFINERY, AND THE RIGHT TO RUN IT, SO YOU HAVE NOT LOST YOUR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT.

    But suppose you made 10% profit before and after you can only eke out 1% profit. Had you known what government was about to do you would not have made the investment. In that cse you would hae a claim for loss because the refinery is now worth a lot less since it can produce less profit.

    RH

  120. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What about the money you had invested in the gasoline refinery that had to be changed so that the gasoline ended up being unleaded?

    =================================

    Good question.

    Unleaded fuel is more expensive so those that buy it eventually pay for the new investment. YOU STILL HAVE THE REFINERY, AND THE RIGHT TO RUN IT, SO YOU HAVE NOT LOST YOUR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT.

    But suppose you made 10% profit before and after you can only eke out 1% profit. Had you known what government was about to do you would not have made the investment. In that cse you would hae a claim for loss because the refinery is now worth a lot less since it can produce less profit.

    RH

  121. Larry G Avatar

    " Nothing in this position means that you cannot keep pigs out of the parlor. You just cannot make an ordinance to keep pigs out of the parlor, and then redefine the parlor."

    Ray – the ruling lets the jurisdiction DEFINE what is and is not a pig in a parlor OR EQUIVALENT in terms of a perceived threat to the health and welfare of the population.

    You don't get to decide. They do.

    In the original 1926 Supreme Court Case :

    " The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926. The zoning ordinance of Euclid, Ohio was challenged in court by a local land owner on the basis that restricting use of property violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though initially ruled unconstitutional by lower courts, the zoning ordinance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1926 case Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.. In doing so, the Court accepted the arguments of zoning defenders that it met two essential needs. First, zoning extended and improved on nuisance law in that it provided advance notice that certain types of uses were incompatible with other uses in a particular district. The second argument was that zoning was a necessary municipal-planning instrument."

    do you acknowledge that the Supreme Court DID RULE that zoning IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

  122. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You still never showed me where the constitution said what you claimed it did. It says nothing about land use.

    It does say something about property rights.

    If you diminish property rights in the search for public health and safety, that is a public use which must be compensated for.

    I have not lost anything, but the Tenth amendment has been twisted many ways to enable the states to get around the most basic tenets of the Declaration and the Constitution: government is instituted among men to allow people to live, to make a living, and enjoy the fruits of their labors.

    If you put a sewer plant on my proerty to promote public health, you still have to pay me for the property.

    If I buy land to build on and you prohibit me from building for public health reasons, you still owe me for the loss in value to my property, which is more than compensated by the increase in property (health, the right to live) which accrues to everyone (including myself, except I alone absorb a greater cost.)

    RH

  123. Larry G Avatar

    Ray – how dumb can you pretend to be?

    " Unleaded fuel is more expensive so those that buy it eventually pay for the new investment. YOU STILL HAVE THE REFINERY, AND THE RIGHT TO RUN IT, SO YOU HAVE NOT LOST YOUR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT."

    but you did lose all the "investment" you had in all the production machinery that was related to producing leaded gasoline – no?

    did we compensate then when we took that "right" away?

    how about all the folks who POTENTIALLY could have made money off the "right" to produce leaded gasoline?

    did they also lose that right?

    were they compensated for losing that right?

  124. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "First, zoning extended and improved on nuisance law in that it provided advance notice that certain types of uses were incompatible with other uses in a particular district."

    My argument exactly. it is valid when it provides advance notice.

    So I buy a property under certain zoning thinking that I have advance notice.

    And then they change the parlor, reducing the value of my property.

    As soon as they do that they have taken away the advance notice that was the reason zoning was approved.

    It is next to impossible to get to court on this, but subsequent to 1929 the Supreme court has ALSO ruled that there is such a thing as regulatory taking. At present, regulatory taking is narrowly defined, but such a thing does exist.

    The only problem we have is that it is not uniformly applied to all property.

    If you take one of my bundle of sticks, have you taken my property or not?

    That seems perfectly clear to me, but that has not got to court, yet.

    In the meantime, local jurisdictions instead of taking the high road, and following the sprit of the law, have taken to following only the letter, which means that thousands of people have been deprived of property (maybe for health and safety but always for some public benefit).

    The supreme court has ruled that compensation must be paid for regulatory takings, but local jurisdicitons have cynically and deliberately used tht ruling to get away with stealing as much as they can, while they can.

    RH

  125. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    but you did lose all the "investment" you had in all the production machinery that was related to producing leaded gasoline – no?

    ================================

    I'm not a chemical engineer, but from what i know about process machinery, probably not.

    We do not know the anwser to this question because we do not have the facts at hand.

    The situation is that a refiner made a big investment under rules we made up. Then we changed the rules, because we expected some monetary benefit (better health).

    IF his investment was damaged, thenwe owe copmpensation, and we should be happy to pay it.

    If you insist on looking at it froma liability basis, it is not his fault that what he was doing was legal and now is not legal. That is our fault.

    RH

  126. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how about all the folks who POTENTIALLY could have made money off the "right" to produce leaded gasoline?

    ================================

    We've been through that before, they have no prior investment so the change in rules did not devalue their investment. It might change their choice of what to invest in next.

    Probably they will look for an investment where property rights are more secure.

    RH

  127. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You cannot logically justify zoning on the basis that it allows for long term planning, and hten argue that zoning can be changed at will.

    You cannot logically justify arguing that someone upzoned should pay but someone downzoned should not get paid.

    You cannot logically claim that zoning is an improvement over nuisance law, and then use it to create a nuisance.

    RH

  128. Larry G Avatar

    " Then we changed the rules, because we expected some monetary benefit (better health)."

    absolutely NOT!

    we changed the rules because in allowing it originally we assumed (wrongly) that it was not harmful.

    What you are saying is that anything found to be harmful is not allowed to be stopped unless we compensate all the folks who benefit from it.

    the law works the opposite.

    you cannot benefit from something that is determined to be harmful – period.

    As soon as it is determined that the over the counter pills you sell (at a profit) are harmful – they are outlawed and you are out of business.

    period.

    because the law says that you ONLY have that right as long as it is determined to be not harmful to others.

    it's a provisional right subject to removal at any point where it is determined to be harmful to others.

    you produce that product under those ground rules from the start.

  129. Larry G Avatar

    " You cannot logically justify zoning on the basis that it allows for long term planning, and hten argue that zoning can be changed at will.

    You cannot logically justify arguing that someone upzoned should pay but someone downzoned should not get paid.

    You cannot logically claim that zoning is an improvement over nuisance law, and then use it to create a nuisance."

    you sure can. because the standard they are meeting is not yours but instead the law and the courts who have said that your logic is wrong.

    the local government gets to determine the logic per the courts rulings – not you.

  130. Larry G Avatar

    You forgot the second part of the Supreme Court Decision:

    " The second argument was that zoning was a necessary municipal-planning instrument."

    it did not define it as long-term planning guy.

    it said – "planning".

    a duly-elected government is empowered to "plan" and the Constitution grants them Police powers to carry out the planning as long as they do it through the proscribed due process which basically says that they must notify you, hear you and not pass laws that just apply to you.

    otherwise, your unabridged rights extend ONLY to what you have explicit approval to do or the time period indicated.

    For instance, an approved plat is not forever. You can lose the right to build if you don't exercise the granted right within a certain timeframe.

    you could have had the right in the past to build a hotel but if you did not – they can and do change the rules so you cannot build one now – at least as a "by-right".

    Government has the authority to change these rights.

    This authority has derived from 200 hundred years of Constitution and law and the judicial and legislative workings with regard to them.

    You are talking about hundreds of thousands of fellow property owners acting in their roles as legislators and judges and so I do find it nothing short of amazing that you easily label all those folks as liars and thieves… without apology.

  131. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Someone deleted my earlier post on RH and his property rights phobia. So we will put down again our long standing problem with RH:

    The RH’s (one person or several?) comments fall in two general categories:

    1) Justify selling / renting urban dwellings on his wife’s family’s hayfields

    2) Asserting the absolute superiority of individual property rights in land over all other considerations.

    I am concerned about RH’s misleading comments on the nature and scope of individual property rights on land.

    I own a farm in the Piedmont. I do not claim to be an environmentalist and I am concerned about government limits on the use of my land for agricultural activities. RH’s statements are not doing me, our fellow farmers or himself any favors.

    My friends and I have had good success at the county and state level by presenting facts and not trying to hid behind inalienable ‘rights’ to secure recognition of our legitimate interests.

    We have found that acknowledging that farmers are a minority in contemporary urban society is the place to start a rational conversation. By respectfully requesting a hearing and not pretending to be protected by a universal right, we have in fact preserved our ‘rights.’

    A friend recently shared a copy of Part Four of Mr. Risse’s new book “Trilo-g.” In this Part, “The Use and Management of Land,” he points out that in an agrarian society property rights applied to land were very important. However, in an Urban society the parameters of “use and management” of land are far more important than the historical concept of ‘ownership’ or a theoretical bundle of private rights.

    Impacts from the use and management of land that worked well as individual rights in an agrarian society do not work well when there are widely distributed cumulative impacts from the use (and misuse) and management (and mismanagement) of the land which is the point that Larry G. has made over and over. Larry G.’s pointing out that you cannot have compensation for exercise of the police power for ‘taking’ and not have fees for ‘giving’ is unassailable.

    Like the divine right of kings, the infallibility of the Church, Primogeniture, the right to own and sell slaves, and other ideas that have guided (and misguided) human activity in the past, private rights in land must be seen in the context of current reality – contemporary urban society.

    Advocating the absolute primacy of private property rights in land is as useful as suggesting that this or that religion has the only ‘true’ message. That is where the original post started vis a vis sexual preferences.

    From a practical perspective one might as well insist that ‘everyone’ adopt the Amish dress code or quote the Unabombers Manifesto concerning technology as to suggest that the concept of private property rights in land – and everything else – must trump all other economic, social and physical considerations.

    RH’s statements on the current topic is an example of RH is becoming more and more agitated and posting less and less useful information. Larry G. seems to enjoy sparing with RH.

    For me it is personal, he is making protection of my rights harder by making the discussion of private rights in land a fringe activity for debate among true believers.

    RH presents himself as a hayfield sage, a good old boy speaking simple truths. He has the ability of twist arguments to an extent that is breath taking.

    But he seems to be getting more agitated. What is next? Driving his tractor into the Reflecting Pool? Flying one of the small airplanes he champions into the offices of HUD, ULI or the County Administrator?

    John F.

  132. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I stiol don;t understand why you are soo hard over on compensation.

    If you damaged someone else's property by accident, you would repair it as a matter of common courtesy, plus, it is an expected social norm.

    Why then, would you think it is OK, under any circumstnaces, for the government to deliberately damage someones property, ESPECIALLY when the proposed reason for doing so is to benefit other people?

    Never mind the Constitution, or the Supreme Court, which has already acknowledged, and demanded payment for, regulatory takings, what other name can you give such activity other than stealing?

    RH

  133. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH and his property rights phobia.

    =================================

    This is no phobia, I just have strong feelings about what is obviously right and wrong. It is based on very simple and basic premises, right from the very first sentences of the Constitution.

    Or just call it the Golden Rule. I cannot support government ativities that are different from what I would support for myself or expect from other people in my private life.

    Nor do I support property rights extremists who would go so far as the idea that property rights ecxcludes the right of government to collect taxes. There is nothing in my view of things that prevents government from taing any action it deems necessary to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty".

    I just think that when they damage one person to help many, it is common courtesy to see to it that he is made whole. There are many ways to do this, and a lot of them don't even cost anything.

    For example, when a landowner loses building lots due to regulation changes, we can increase the allowable density on the remaing land to make up for it. Some communities do this, and others do not, but to me it is a matter of simple courtesy to recognize and compensate unequal burdens when they occur.

    RH

  134. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The RH’s (one person or several?) comments fall in two general categories:

    1) Justify selling / renting urban dwellings on his wife’s family’s hayfields

    ==============================

    This is a lie.

    My comments apply to everyone. As far as her personal situation goes, the county is free to zone my wife's proerty as agricultural, but they owe her compensation for loss in value from its previous zoning.

    I would make the same argument for anyone in her position.

    RH

  135. Larry G Avatar

    what you are advocating is extortion.

    you want people to pay others to NOT damage them – as if this was a "right" that could not be taken away without someone paying them not to damage others.

    What our system says is that you cannot damage others – PERIOD – no matter your rationale – your really bizarro rationale that folks who do this have a "right" and besides they have "no choice".

    "I have a "right" to dump kepone into the river and besides I cannot help it – and you have to pay me to stop doing it"

  136. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    2) Asserting the absolute superiority of individual property rights in land over all other considerations.

    ==================================

    Also a lie, as anyone who reads my work can easily see.

    I'm only one person.

    I assert that proerty rights are essentially tied to ones labor, ones livliehood and therfore his life, which is the most essential liberty. A major claim I make which distinguishes my arguments from the property rights nut cases is that a) prperty rights are not sufficiently defined or protected: we need many more proerty rights in ADDITION too those tied to land. b) Strong proerty rights are an essential and necessary element to good environmental management at the lowest cost. Low cost environmental management means you get to manage a lot more stuff.

    RH

  137. Larry G Avatar

    re: " proerty rights are essentially tied to ones labor, ones livliehood and therfore his life, "

    that does not give you the right to harm others in pursuit of your own self interests.

    your rationale sounds like a guy robbing a bank and claiming that since he cannot hold a job he must do something to make a living.

    " prperty rights are not sufficiently defined or protected"

    but they are – backed up by over 200 years of Constitution and laws.

    you just don't agree.

  138. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you want people to pay others to NOT damage them –

    ===================================

    That is not true, Larry.

    Someone has something of value, bought and owned legally, which is then reduced in value in order to make some other social value greater.

    That person has done nothing wrong, other than the rules around him have changed, through no fault of his own.

    That person deserves fair compensation. compensation is not extortion it is a trade of one thing of value for another.

    What you are doing is saying that the populace has infinite rights to claim any new "property rights" or new protections for their property without regard for what it does to the property of a few individuals.

    In my view this is clearly wrong, it is morally and ethically corrupt and selfish, and I don't understand why you cannot see it as such. I used to see things as you do, but i finally recognized that I was allowing environmental zeal to interfere with logical reasoning, economic reality, and simple right and wrong.

    RH

  139. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    that does not give you the right to harm others in pursuit of your own self interests.

    ================================

    Nor others to damage mine in pursuti of their self interests.

    When we pass a new regulation we do so with the recognition, often with explicit, measured, and published recognition that this regulation is for the the self interests of the public.

    By your own statement this does not give the public the right to damage others in pursuit of their self interests.

    There is NOTHING in my artguments that suggests anything one sided. All I'm arguing for is common decency – payment for damages caused – same as if you backed over someones mailbox.

    RH

  140. Larry G Avatar

    " Nor others to damage mine in pursuti of their self interests."

    preventing you from damaging them is not damaging you.

    in your world a policemen is a "superior right" for the victim and unfair to the criminal.

  141. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    but they are – backed up by over 200 years of Constitution and laws.

    =================================

    And one of them is that regulatory takings exist and must be compensated for.

    All we are arging about is a matter of degree. Even you have agreed that it is a matter of vested interest.

    If someone takes one stick from your bundle of sticks, would you call that stealing, or not? If someone takes a dollar from your wallet, and leaves you the rest, is that stealing or not?

    I say it is.

    If you don't agree then as far as I can see, you must be in favor of stealing.

    RH

  142. Larry G Avatar

    " If someone takes one stick from your bundle of sticks, would you call that stealing, or not? If someone takes a dollar from your wallet, and leaves you the rest, is that stealing or not?"

    you don't have the bundle of sticks that you think you do.

    the government ALSO has a bundle of sticks and their sticks are bigger and more numerous than your bundled and that fact has been backed up by 200+ years of legislation and court rulings.

  143. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    preventing you from damaging them is not damaging you.

    ==================================

    Of course it is. I had broperty worth X and now I have property worth X/2.

    They got new protections from damage. From new dangers never recognized before. Never mind that the dangers might not be real, and the protections virtually worthless.

    It cost them nothing for their newly claimed protections (proeprty rights) but my property is still worth X/2.

    Of course I am damaged. Even if the REASON or JUSTIFICATION for damaging me is prevention of damage to them, it has has no place in this argument whatsoever.

    I'm still damaged and and they got new protections they never had before.

    How can you say that damage to me is not damage? Just because you claim the purpose of damaging me is to prevent some new and previously undeclared damage to you?

    There is no cost to you for compensating me. You still wind up better off and with more protection than before: you just have to share your good fortune to ameliorate the damage to others such that your new costs for your new protections are equal to their new costs for their new protections. (The new rule benefits EVERYONE, right?)

    It is exactly as if I was forced to buy insurance for them.

    RH

  144. Larry G Avatar

    " I'm still damaged and and they got new protections they never had before.

    How can you say that damage to me is not damage?"

    Because the activity that you engaged in was a right ONLY IF it did not cause harm to others.

    You were never given the right to harm others to start with.

    You only had the right to do something as long as it did not result in harm to others.

    Once it does, you are stopped.

    you're arguing that it "harms" a bank robber for us to stop him from robbing banks.

    your "liberty" is limited to those things you can do to better yourself that do not harm others.

    once you cross that line, you lose that right.

  145. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you don't have the bundle of sticks that you think you do.

    =================================

    It does not matter if I counted the sticks right. Afterword you have one of them and I do not.

    Is it stealing, or not?

    What you are claiming is not that i did not knw the number of sticks in my bundle. What you are claiming that you really owned one of my sticks and I did not know it. You are asserting a new and previously unrecorded property right.

    By doing that, you get something for nothing, and I have less than before.

    I maintain that transaction is indistinguishable from outright theft.

    The question remains, why would you want to do such a thing? What benefit is it EXCEPT that it makes it appear that you get something for nothing?

    (In the final analysis, it only APPEARS that you get something for nothing. The countervailing result is that if property is not protected people will pay less for it and demand higher returns for investing in it. As a result, your argument is not only ethicaly corrupt, it is economically counterproductive.)

    RH

  146. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Because the activity that you engaged in was a right ONLY IF it did not cause harm to others."

    =================================

    If it was not known to cause harm then the harm was not evident, and no harm was done.

    By your own previous argument when pollution is below some threshold it is not pollution. he did not "cause" harm to others because he had no way of knowing what he was doing. He was operating conensually above the threshold he was given.

    What you have done is lowered the threshold, and you act as if it was his fault.

    This is not only wrong, it is beside the point. At the end of the day, no matter how it happened or what the justification you got more stuff and he got less. he did nothing "wrong", until you made it wrong for your own benefit.

    You got more and he got less. He did not get paid. there is no other way to describe that transaaction other than theft.

    Besides that, it is a stupid and counterproductive transaction.

    RH

  147. Larry G Avatar

    " Afterword you have one of them and I do not.

    Is it stealing, or not?"

    you never had some of the rights you think you had to start with.

    some of the rights are provisional rights that are not not unilateral and are restricted per the circumstances and whether or not you cause harm to others.

    You have the right to engage in activities that benefit you – ONLY if those activities do not harm others.

  148. Larry G Avatar

    " By your own previous argument when pollution is below some threshold it is not pollution."

    that's not true.

    It is STILL Pollution but it is deemed acceptable until and unless newer information indicates otherwise.

    You have not lowered the threshold.

    The threshold WAS ALWAYS – whatever level was deemed to be not harmful.

    If new information surfaces that shows that levels previously thought okay or not – then the acceptable levels are changed accordingly.

    You're screwed up on what the threshold his.

    It's not the original level. It's the level at which it is deemed not harmful – and that level can and does change.

    the only "right" you have to is to pollute AT THE LEVEL that is deemed NOT HARMFUL.

    This is why you have a PERMIT that has to be renewed and the limits inside that permit can be changed.

  149. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You still have not explained one thing.

    Some one gets damaged as a result of your action. It does not matter what he was doing before your action or even whether your action is deliberate or accidental.

    Normally you would expect to compensate him.

    Suppose you have a collision with someone who is driving a stolen car. You do not owe him anything because he is doing something that is known to be illegal.

    But your argument is as if you had a collision with someone who legally owned his car, and then you changed the rules of ownership, such that he was suddenly and unknowingly driving a car that was "not his".

    He did nothing wrong but you PUT him in the "wrong" by your own deliberate actions, in such a way that you could avoid the consequences of damaging his property.

    I do not see the difference between that and stealing.

    RH

  150. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It is STILL Pollution but it is deemed acceptable until and unless newer information indicates otherwise.

    You have not lowered the threshold.

    =================================

    Of course you have, you just "deemed" an new level to be damaging.

    What you are doing here is claiming a boundary that moves. You would not and could not do that with real estate, and you cannot here either.

    It is exactly like saying your boundary is wherever I say it is today, no matter what I told you yesterday.

    Such an argument is a license to lie and steal.

    RH

  151. Larry G Avatar

    " You got more and he got less. He did not get paid. there is no other way to describe that transaaction other than theft."

    No.

    your "right" to pollute was provisional and not permanent all along and it was based on the fact that – as long as we knew that it did not cause harm – you could do it.

    but it also said that anytime we found it that it did harm – you would have to stop.

    that's why you have a permit with an expiration date on it and the new one can have the values of the pollutants reduced.

    You NEVER HAD a permanent right to pollute to start with.

  152. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    ….you never had some of the rights you think you had to start with.

    ==================================

    Here you are agian claiming an superior, pre-existing right that you never bothered to tell me about. Or anyone else. so before you claimed this right I (and everyone else) thought my property was wroth X, but now it is worth X/2.

    You (and everyone else) now has property worth Y + .0001Y, because of this new and previously unknown right you claim. you have moved the boundaries of our property without compenating me out of your gains.

    It is stealing, or indistinguishable from stealing.

    I had the stick. Every week I labored to get my sticks. For weeks and years and decades and even generations, I picked up the sticks from my own land. I only picked up fallen sticks so as not to damage the trees. itook my sticks and turned them into bentwood rockers which I sold, and the sticks that were unsuitable I used to keep warm or sold to others.

    Suddenly one day you come along and say I don't have the rights I thought I had. We have learned that picking up the sticks damages the soil, you claim, and this harms the endangered earthworm.

    My property is worth less because I can no longer collect sticks from it. I have no livliehood. But I can die happy knowing that you and I and everyone else are richer because we all own more earthworms.

    Bottom line we all got moreearthworms but only i paid the price.

    It is stealing.

    RH

  153. Larry G Avatar

    " Here you are agian claiming an superior, pre-existing right that you never bothered to tell me about. "

    no.

    No ONE had any different right to start with.

    EVERYONE had the PROVISIONAL RIGHT with the explicit provision that for all of us – everyone of us – that any activity was okay as long as it did not harm others.

    there was NO SUPERIOR RIGHT – Ray.

    it was EQUAL RIGHTS.

    We all had the SAME RIGHTs.

    and we all had the SAME restrictions.

    you and I and others ONLY had the right as long as we did not harm others when we exercised that right.

    why do yo not get this?

  154. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "your "right" to pollute was provisional and not permanent all along and it was based on the fact that – as long as we knew that it did not cause harm – you could do it.

    but it also said that anytime we found it that it did harm – you would have to stop."

    ==================================

    As long as that is what it said in the contract and we both agreed to it, you are correct. If I have a permit to pollute for a hundred tons of pollution but I know it can be reduced to zero at any time, then I will invest a lot less in my plant, knowing that investment might be zeroed out.

    In this case the property owner willingly signed away some of his bundle of sticks in exchange for others, even if the others were only rented.

    ———————————–

    What we are talking about is the case in which no previous terms were ever asserted, no "license" ever issued.

    Then you come along, AFTER the investment is made and say "well, we always had the right to issue licences, even though we never did, and you should have known that".

    Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

    The supreme court has alreadysaid there is such a thing as regulatory taking. You are denying that by saying we can make any regulation.

    Yes, I agree, you can make any regulation, but you owe compensation when those reguations cause damage.

    If you take one of my sticks, is that stealing or not?

    If you take one of my sticks by suddenly claiming that it was NEVER mine to begin with, it is just another method of stealing.

    You got the stick and I didn't and I did not get paid. This is elementary. It is the most basic right we have, to keep what is ours in order to make a living.

    There is no ex post facto justification for you getting what I have that covers up the fact that you stole from me.

    WE make some other agreement UP FRONT, and WE BOTH sigh up to it, then that is different.

    RH

  155. Larry G Avatar

    " As long as that is what it said in the contract and we both agreed to it, you are correct."

    no one came along after the fact Ray…

    Some folks are "slower" than others to understand that this wa the way it was all along – from the point when we realized as a society that pollution was harmful to all of us no matter who might benefit from it as individuals.

    why you do not see this is beyond me.

    You NEVER had the unfettered right to pollute in the first place.

    Your right to pollute WAS ALWAYS provisional based on the harm it would do and what we found out about the harm as time went by.

    the rule ALWAYS said "you can do this until and unless we find out that what you are doing harms others".

  156. Larry G Avatar

    " You got the stick and I didn't and I did not get paid. This is elementary. It is the most basic right we have, to keep what is ours in order to make a living.

    There is no ex post facto justification for you getting what I have that covers up the fact that you stole from me.

    WE make some other agreement UP FRONT, and WE BOTH sigh up to it, then that is different."

    Ray – go back 50, 100 years and tell me how you know about the future.

    How would you deal with the future if you knew that you did not know all the facts about potential harm back during that time but you did know that more information would be developed in the future?

    At that point in the past – what would you tell EVERYONE about their bundle of sticks back then?

    What they were told is that SOME of their bundle of sticks was PROVISIONAL based on things found out later on in the future.

    No one started out intending to do a post-facto decision.

    It was designed to work that way from the get go.

    It's okay until we find out that it is not – and it applies to all of us now and it applied to all of us 50-100 years ago.

  157. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    EVERYONE had the PROVISIONAL RIGHT with the explicit provision that for all of us – everyone of us – that any activity was okay as long as it did not harm others.

    =================================

    You are moving the boundaries again.

    I buy property from you and the county records the maps and the deeds.

    Then you turn around and claim the county can do anything they like, including redrawing my maps.

    But that agreement was never previously made and is not recorded on my map.

    You wind up with your property back, which you already got paid for, and property I paid for has vanished.

    It does not matter what ratinale the county used for changing the lines.

    ==============================

    Consider a manufacturor with a license to pollute. Based on that license he is able to sell his product for a cheap price, and you buy his product, so you benefit from his pollution. (Or, you pay part in cash and part with externality. Either way, you trade your proerty for his.)

    Suddenly one day you discover that your externality is costing you twice more than you thought. You demand that he reduce his pollution by 3x, which reduces the value of his property (production capability.)

    You have moved the property boundaries. You have the right to move those boundaries, because you claim that right always existed.

    He is going to have to charge more for his product because of increasded investment in pollution control, going forward, meaning he will sell less, which also reduces his property value.

    As long as the total cost you pay for his new higher price and your new (hopefully lower) externailty costs, you come out ahead.

    You have more property and he has less. Both of you have anew reality going forward (higher costs and less product available).

    But in order to have the EQUAL protection changing the boundaries also means apying compensation for regualtory taking as the Supreme Court has already orderd.

    RH

  158. Larry G Avatar

    " You are moving the boundaries again."

    I have not moved them Ray.

    They were movable from the get go.

    You apparently were out back taking a crap when this info announced.

    ".. Suddenly one day.."

    this is no "Suddenly". The rule said IF we find out different from what we originally thought.. THEN we take action.

    " He is going to have to charge more for his product because of increasded investment in pollution control, going forward, meaning he will sell less, which also reduces his property value."

    We ALL will have to pay to NOT POLLUTE beyond what is acceptable.

    The polluter never had the right to pollute if it was found out to be more harmful than originally thought.

    When he got his permits -they were issued to him on that basis – and he knew that when he decided to invest. In other words, that "risk" was disclosed to him.

    we did not "suddenly" change.

    we said all along that if we found out something was more harmful than we originally thought that we would change.
    That's not "sudden".

  159. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – go back 50, 100 years and tell me how you know about the future.

    How would you deal with the future if you knew that you did not know all the facts

    ==================================

    Precisely.

    WE made a deal based on the known facts. We assumed certain property rights by long custom: I have the right to grow things on my property and harvest it. I buy property for a price knowing that the current rule is that I can grow stuff and harvest it. The price I pay for the land is equal to twenty years worth of profit from the land, and i have to pay that much for it because it is competitive, everyone else is paying the same price under the same assumptions.

    Then you come along and tell us we can only harvest 15% of our land because you claim (new)ownership over the reamining 85% of wildlife habitat.

    Suddenly, my property is worth 85% less, because everyone else recognizes the NEW reality. Everyone I "beat out" by offering a little more for the land is suddenly the winner and only I and a few neighbors are the losers.

    Time, isn't the issue. Time is just money, same as any other property. In this case ins tead of paying for my proerty with twenty year labor, it will take much longer, effectively ruinging my entire life whic is my most basic property.

    Your governemtn has failed to protect me, my proeperty, my life, and my livliehood, just because you wanted more wildlife habitat.

    It does not matter WHEN that happens: you (and most everybody else) win and I lose.

    It is stealing, no matter whenit happens.

    RH

  160. Larry G Avatar

    " WE made a deal based on the known facts. We assumed certain property rights by long custom:"

    we made a deal that said that rights are based on known facts and if the known facts change then rights change for EVERYONE.

    That's the Equal Rights clause.

    the "deal" made says that rights change as the facts change and we are all subject to it from the get go.

  161. Larry G Avatar

    " Then you come along and tell us we can only harvest 15% of our land because you claim (new)ownership over the reamining 85% of wildlife habitat."

    never heard that claim.

    I've heard that steep slopes, cleared for development, cause much more harm than originally thought.

    density/intensity of uses of land have larger, more expensive impacts than originally thought.

  162. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have not moved them Ray.

    They were movable from the get go.

    ==================================

    They ARE moveable. nobody said they are not. But there is a price to pay.

    But if you move them you owe me compensation. If we agree to move them between ourselves, then one of us would pay.

    If the county takes over my land it would pay.

    But if you have the county take over 85% of the value of my land without consent, and give that value to you and everyone else, then no one is responsible, no one pays but me?

    Even you admit that vested interest comes into play. Suppose I already paid to plant that land: I still cannot harvest it?

    All you are doing here is again claiming a preexisting, superior right, where there is no right superior to the right to life.

    You are claiming you had property that you let me use without my knowledge. Property I thought I had paid for, and the sale of which you never previously prevented.

    RH

  163. Larry G Avatar

    " They ARE moveable. nobody said they are not. But there is a price to pay."

    Nope.

    The rules from the get-go said that they are movable AND they don't pay because the rules will apply to everyone.

    The only time they pay is when you as an individual are specifically affected by an action and not everyone else.

    Vested means that you have been specifically given a right to do something.

    You have a piece of paper that says so.

    It's an approval that usually lays out exactly what rights you have – and for how long.

    You can own land.

    What you can do or no do with that land is not decided by you but by those who might be affected by what you do with your land.

    Everyone starts out with these rules.

    Everyone is told from the get go that what you can do and not to – can and and will change and you won't be paid for those changes.

    we were all told – from the get go – you would not be paid for land-use re-designations unless you had an approval in hand.

  164. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We've been through the "prior right" argument before.

    If you go back to Day One with Guy A and Guy B, it falls apart.

    Guy A pees: he has to pee or he will die. he has a right to live. He pees on the ground or anywhere he likes: His cost is equal to his own externality:

    TC = PC(0) + EC(1) + GC(0)

    There is no production cost and no gevernment cost.

    As soon as Guy B shows up, A says Guy B has to build a septic system so as not to foul (His) water.

    But water is a public environmental good that we all have equal rights and equal obligation for.

    Guy A cannot order Guy B to build a septic tank to protect (His) water unless he is willing to build one for himself to protect the water of B.

    Guy A and Guy B are both better off if they BOTH pay an equal amount to build the septic tank and they both use it.

    Even if the septic tank isn't perfect they both have the same costs and the same protection.

    TC = PC(1) + EC(.01) + GC(.25)

    (Government cost is 25% of GNP and so far the GNP is 1 septic tank. We assume the septic tank is 99% effective so the external cost is 01.)

    ===============================

    But by your reasoning Guy A has prior rights: he can make Guy B build a septic tank for his protection. Guy B pays all the costs and Guy A pays nothing.

    For Guy B

    TC = PC(1) + EC(.01 +1)/2 +GC(.25)/2

    For Guy A

    TC = PC(0) + EC(.01 +1)/2 + GC(.25)/2

    The external costs are higher because Guy A doesn't have a septic tank and he is still peeing on the ground.

    But Guy A is happy because he gets a bargain at the expense of Guy B, but he has violated the rule of equal costs and equal protection.

    Furthermore, if he argued that septic tanks were a net public benefit, he loses that argument because:

    True total costs for all =

    TC =PC(1) + EC(1+.01) + GC(.25)

    Which is HIGHER than if they had shared the costs, and it is just as high as if they had both built their own septic tank to protect each other.

    There can be no prior rights if the rights are equal.

    Any claim of prior rights leads to higher cost: it is more expensive than cooperaton and it is counterproductive, not to mention unethical.

    RH

  165. Larry G Avatar

    " If you go back to Day One with Guy A and Guy B, it falls apart.

    Guy A pees: he has to pee or he will die. he has a right to live."

    what a load Ray!

    Guy A, B, C, D get together and say " all of this peeing is not good".

    It's running off of my property on to your property and your pee is running onto my property"

    Why don't we all agree that this is a bad idea and we'll all take steps to not let our pee leave our property and cause you problems on your property – and vice versa.

    So they agree to restrict and they all benefit from the restriction.

    Guy F shows up and doesn't want to play.

    The rest of them say " these are the rules in you want to live here and if you don't like the rules, move on to a place where they don't care about you peeing on other people."

    Got that equation Ray?

    A + B + C + D + E = we agree

    then F shows up and also agrees or moves on.

    A + B + C + D + E + F = equity

  166. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    we were all told – from the get go – you would not be paid for land-use re-designations unless you had an approval in hand.

    ============================

    That is not true.

    My wife's property was owned and paid for long before zoning evfer existed existed, before building permits existed, and before land use was ever thought of or worried about. Every one of those rules was imposed upon the owner after the fact.

    Besides that, it does not matter what any owner was told or when they were told. The fact remains that property had one value before, and the relative value of all properties was re-arranged by virtue of those rules, just as if the property lines themselves had been re-arranged.

    You are not claiming that the county has the right to re-arrange property lines without compensation, are you? But what youare supporting amounts to exactly the same thing.

    we are not arguing about whether you have a building approval in hand. That is another event entirely. The fact remains that with or without that approval, the value of the proerty has been reduced. that was done in order to provide benefits to people who do not own the proep[rty.

    It is stealing.

    We have seen examples here where the building permit was issued and THEN the zoning was changed.

    This is stealing twice. Once because the value of the proerty is reduced and once because the value of the building permit is reduced.

    Once upon a time, murder was not against the law. Whenwe got smart enough we made laws and we made laws against murder. But we did not go back and punish someone for murder comitted before we made the law. But that is what you think is OK when it comes to land use.

    There is no logical or moral valid claim for prior or superior rights if all property rights are equal.

    Listento what you are saying "[It is all right to steal] because
    we were all told – from the get go – you would not be paid [if and when the county decides to steal for us for any reason at any time.]

    I'm sorry, telling me that you are going to steal from me at your whim does not mean that you are not stealing.

    RH

  167. Larry G Avatar

    " You are not claiming that the county has the right to re-arrange property lines without compensation, are you? "

    not me Ray – The Supreme Court, the Congress and our State Legislators

    this has been argued before and you lost.

    the vast majority of people – also property owners – many of them owners of undeveloped property support this.

    if they did not support it, we would elect people who would change the law.

  168. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why not just come out and admit that what you propose is a communist state in which property ownership is a meaningless and valueless pretense? One where the state can relieve you of your property at any time for any reason.

    RH

  169. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    not me Ray – The Supreme Court, the Congress and our State Legislators

    ================================

    You are wrong.

    1) The Supreme court has already upheld cases of regulatory taking and demanded that government make restitution.

    2) Even after the Supreme Court upheld KELO, (where compensation was paid) the situation was so egregious that many state legislatures enacted new laws to make sure it did not happen again.

    The only thing you have left to argue about is how big a taking constitutes a taking. So far, the Supreme court set a high bar, and many (but not all) jurisdictions have elected to skate under the bar, as if the concept doesn't exist if you don;t look for it.

    But some jurisdictions have the moral turpitude to do what is right, in spite of what the rules might let them get away with.

    It is right in the preamble to the constitution: you have a right to live and make a living – equal to anybody else.

    If our state and county representatives have managed to circumvent that, so far,, then they misunderstand what their pricipal duties are: to protect people and their property, equally, without malice or pejudice.

    RH

  170. Larry G Avatar

    " Why not just come out and admit that what you propose is a communist state"

    because that's not what we have.

    We have tremendous and unparalleled opportunities in this country but they are not without some restrictions.

  171. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the vast majority of people

    ================================

    It is not OK to steal just because the majority want it done.

    It still violates the spirit of the constitution and what it says about property, and the spirit of the rulings on regulatory taking.

    Regulatory stealing does exist an governemtns have been punished for it. That much you cannot deny.

    The only thing you have left to argue about is how small an amount will we allow to be stolen before we agree it isn't worth the trouble to worry about.

    While we are at it, we can agree on how small an amount of pollution we will allow, before it is too small to worry about.

    If yuu think about it, those are both the same problem, because if I pollute, no matter how small an amount, someday we migh conclude that it is stealing, damaging others proerty, increasing an unpaid for externality.

    Whatever the value of that small amount is, it is equal to the smallest value of proerty you should be willing to protect.

    RH

  172. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    because that's not what we have.

    We have tremendous and unparalleled opportunities in this country but they are not without some restrictions.

    ================================

    But according to you, any opportunity that I legally buy or earn can be taken away from me at any time without compensation. All it takes is somebody else to decide.

    What we have is not communism, yet. The supreme court at least recognizes some level of regulatory taking.

    What you advocate is pretty much equal to full blown communism in which the people have prior claim to anything they want to take.

    RH

  173. Larry G Avatar

    " If yuu think about it, those are both the same problem, because if I pollute, no matter how small an amount, someday we migh conclude that it is stealing, damaging others proerty, increasing an unpaid for externality."

    Ray – you can pee until the cows come home (and they can also) as long as it does not pollute the creeks running onto others properties.

    You keep saying "no pollution" and that's not true.

    You can do one heck of a lot of "polluting" of your own property than will naturally convert back to harmless byproducts before it leaves your property.

    but at which point, pollution does start to leave your property then others get to become involved in restrictions.

    Because Ray.. you never had the right to pollute THEIR properties to start with.

    You were only allowed to pollute YOUR property and you can .. unless and until that pollution leaves your property and harms other properties.

    There is no late changing rule here nor a "regulatory "taking"".

    No one is taking anything from you when they tell you to stop polluting other people's properties because you never had the right to pollute them to start with.

    Anytime pollution leaves your property – you do not decide what is okay or what is not, what you must pollute, what you cannot help, what you must "live to do".. NADA

    once the effluent leaves your property – others decide – and you listen.

  174. Larry G Avatar

    " But according to you, any opportunity that I legally buy or earn can be taken away from me at any time without compensation. All it takes is somebody else to decide."

    You cannot buy what is not for sale and no one is going to sell you the absolute right to pollute no matter what.

    do you think just because you can afford to buy a tank that you can drive it on the streets?

    Money won't buy you the right to drive a tank on the streets.

    You think that if you have the money for the tank – then you can of course drive it – …
    anywhere you want or you are being "denied" your "rights".

  175. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    because that's not what we have.

    We have tremendous and unparalleled opportunities in this country but they are not without some restrictions.

    ==================================

    Now youa re just making stuff up at random.

    If I was allowe to drive my tank onthe streets, and that right was subsequently taken away, my tank might be worth less money, and I should be compensated.

    Presumably, everyone else on the road is safer and faster without that lumbering tank in the way, so even after a few million of them chip in a penny or so to compensate for my loss, they are still better off.

    What exactly is the problem?

    Why would you NOT want to compensate?

    Unless you just like to steal.

    RH

  176. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, now Peter is right: Boys, lets got back on the topic or do your own blog.

    This property rights debate is based on a failure to embrace a shared meaning for words and, as Farmer John F. pointed out, a dangerous phobia grounded in a simplistic answer to complex questions that support a preconceived conclusion.

    Of note on the original topic:

    The right wingnuts were so anxious to paint the Donkey Clan as a bunch of bullies that they got into a Mess over Messa.

    Then the Atty Gen hisself gets in trouble with the Governor and the Lt. Governor over his college letter.

    Did someone say get religion the hell out of politics? As Groveton would say, it is a clown show.

    Anyone want to bet there will not be a balanced budget by Saturday?

    Observer

  177. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "….you can pee until the cows come home (and they can also) as long as it does not pollute the creeks running onto others properties."

    =================================

    Nonsense, you would not say that about radioactive materials. Can I keep all the radioisotopes on my proerty I want, as long as it does not leave the property?

    That is patently crazy.

    If have the right to live, I have the right to pee. No one can prevent it unless they put me to death.

    Pollution is going to happen and it is going to go somewhere, for a while, then it is going someplace else, and so on.

    Eventually it is going to leave the property.

    Everyone has the same right to not be damaged and the same obligation not to damage.

    But the right not to be damaged is not unlimited. It is not unlimited because, hard as you try, you must release some pollution in order to live. Anything you do has some effect on others. You can no more prevent it than you can prevent breathing or peeing.

    Therefore your right not to be damaged is equal to your right to do damage. You cannot demand that someone else limit their damage more than you limit yours.

    At the most basic, face to face level that is the limiting factor.

    Imagine everyone on the planet lived on one square yard. Each of us would be shoveling pollution off on our neighbors as vast as we could, and they would be shoveling it on their neighbors. No one could say no, because they all have equal rights, both to give and to get.

    According to you, the masses cold gang up on one guy, saying that they have new knowledge that his pollution is worse than anyone elses, so they can make him stop without any compensation.

    He is no longer allowed to shovel as fast as everyone else, so everyone else is better off, and he alone is worse off.

    Eventually he either dies or goes someplace else. all of his immediate neighbors are mcuh better off, because they have a place to shovel to that isn't shoveling back. In turn, that maked THEIR next nearest nighbors a little better off.

    Why, because they have effectively stolen this guys property.

    It is just as if your county supervisor said to you that his plan for your property is to have someone wealthy buy it. In his opinion that will make everyone better off, because rich people can better afford conservation.

    He is telling you that he is going to choke your opportunities to death. He is going to run you off so that your nearest neighbors can benefit, and by extension their neighbors as well.

    At the same time, he is going to give other people more opportunities, in order to keep the economic engine from stalling out, to make up for the opportunities you lost. He has no choice in the matter because those people have to live – and they will pollute while doing it.

    He is moving the boundaries, and the value of property just as sure as he was re-drawing a map. he is not doing his jo of protecting your property – equally with all others.

    He is taking money out of your pocket and putting it in someone elses, and it is stealing.

    But, if he simply agrees to compensate you, then he can still achieve his goals without stealing from you.

    RH

  178. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Well, the topic is back to the dark ages.

    Without defensible property rights, that is where we will be.

    Gays, and Evangelicals, and Wing Nuts have the right to believe anything they want, and they have the right to be left alone with their thoughts and deeds.

    They do not have the right to enforce their views or rub their activities in other peoples faces, unless they expect and allow the same treatment in return.

    I doubt anyone wants to be treated the way the sign suggests, but when I read Larry's crazy communistic ideas about property rights, I feel pretty much like he is holding that sign, hateful as it is. his vies ar just as radical, just as dangerous, and just as wrong.

    I think we are probably a lot closer to having a dealth penalty for people who steal than we are for people who sleep different from us.

    Imagine tht we get new evidence tomorrow that gays really are a danger to all of the rest of us, and suppose that evidence is as strong as the evidence against tobacco.

    Would we be justified in taking property away form them so that they cannot pollute us with their cohabitation?

    Larry would say yes and I would say no. I believe that property rights are fundamental to all other rights, including who we choose to sleep with.

    RH

  179. Larry G Avatar

    I would not treat the gays any different than we'd treat others.

    The laws would apply equally to all.

    Gays would be entitled to the same benefits that non-Gays get, health insurance, retirement benefits, living wills, etc for their partners.

    The same would go for all other property rights.

    and no one would be allowed to pee on other folks properties – without permission of course.

    Some day, we'll be past this phobia about folks with different sexual preferences I hope and move on to the real problems that we need to address.

    Lucky for us – the Va Constitution requires a balanced budget no matter how many legislators we have grabbing each other's butts – male or female or indeterminate.

    I'm glad Mr. Cuccinelli did what he did… I won't have a problem at all deciding how to vote if/when he runs for Gov in the future. Problem solved on that deal.

  180. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You were only allowed to pollute YOUR property and you can .. unless and until that pollution leaves your property and harms other properties.

    =================================
    That is what you think now. What happens when we discover new evidence? You would hold them responsible retroactively for damage no one new about.

    EVERYONE HAS POLLUTION THAT LEAVES THEIR PROPERTY. EVEN THE COUNTY DUMP. THEY CAN NO MORE PREVENT IT THAN PREVENT THE SUN FROM SHINING.

    Then of course, there is a slight problem with people who own no property.

    Get real.

    RH

  181. Larry G Avatar

    " EVERYONE HAS POLLUTION THAT LEAVES THEIR PROPERTY. EVEN THE COUNTY DUMP. THEY CAN NO MORE PREVENT IT THAN PREVENT THE SUN FROM SHINING."

    Let's say you own 1000 acres and you only poop right smack in the middle of it a couple times a week.

    Now, let's suppose you invite 1000 of your friends to come live on that property and each one of them does their thing twice a week.

    Do you see the difference Ray?

    In the first example, chances are that you could put the most sophisticated monitoring system known to man and probably not be able to detect even one billionth of a part of pollution running off from that property.

    But the 1000 would create literally a festering open sewer

    so what's the difference?

    Well, the difference is the impact.

    If what you do on your 1000 acres does not impact others, then they leave you alone.

    but if what you do on your 1000 acres causes your neighbors to come visiting for your scalp then they'll figure out how to fix your wagon pronto.

    Yet in both cases.. we know that pollution is a "necessary" – …. "right"….

    so both guys have the "right" to pollute?

    now… let's suppose one of them is a little light in the loafers…. oh no.. forget that.

    just concentrate on the first example.

  182. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The right to private property is one of the founding principles of our nation. More importantly, it's crucial to the generation of wealth. The poor are able to build wealth through ownership of access and property. The average person develops more wealth through homeownership than through the stock market. The principle of private property does not simply mean a home or land. It means every man owns the fruit of his labor, owns his ideas, his conscience. He owns himself. At the heart of the master-slave relationship is the notion that some have the right to confiscate the property of others and give it to whomever they choose. And once government begins to infringe on our private property rights, you can be sure the rights to free speech and liberty are next.

    Gordon Phillips

    Editorial on NPR.

    RH

  183. Larry G Avatar

    " The right to private property is one of the founding principles of our nation. "

    I totally agree. However, you cannot cause harm to others by your activities on your property.

    Your "rights" end at your property boundary and that's also what our founding fathers intended.

  184. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Should the California Constitution be amended to require government to pay property owners for substantial economic losses resulting from some new laws and rules, and limit government authority to take ownership of private property?"

    Proposition 90, California initiative, conctitutional Amendment.

    Failed to pass 47.7 to 53.3

    Larry says my ideas are bizarre, but 47% of those who voted on this issue agree with me.

    Sooner or later, this will pass, and then we will see what larry has to say about majority rule.

    RH

  185. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your "rights" end at your property boundary and that's also what our founding fathers intended.

    ==================================

    That is not what they said.
    You are maing up things the founding fathers never said; indeed had Jefferson had his way therw would be no eminent domain.

    What they said was that when proerty is taken for public use, it must be compensated.
    That is what it actually says without you paraphrasing for them. It is the ONLY think they have to say about public proerty. Except that inventors and authors may have exclusive use of their ideas and writings (property) for a limited time.

    In addition the Supreme Court in several cases has increasingly interpreted public use to mean public benefit, culminating in the Kelo case.

    Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly forbids bill of attainder and expost facto laws. It is illegal to make a law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

    By not compensating persons who were innocent at the time the law was passed, we are effectively punishing them for an innocent activity.

    It is also illegal to create a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group.

    The inexorable direction this is going is that government will someday have to compensate property loss caused in order to create a public benefit for others.

    You have never responded as to why you would NOT want to pay compensation when one person loses much and many people gain a little.

    What possible reason does the public have to bill public benefit to an individual or small group?

    RH

  186. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    However, you cannot cause harm to others by your activities on your property.

    ==================================

    But you think it is OK to stand on your property and cause damage to others in defense of you rproperty.

    Even if the damage to others far exceeds the damage defended against on your own property.

    That is an activity on your proerty that damages others. The damage is every bit as real as whatever imagined damage you are defending against.

    If you cannot cause harm to others by an activity on your proerty,then this is an activity that should be included in that proscription.

    RH

  187. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The power of repelling invasions, and making laws necessary for carrying that power into execution seems to include that of occupying those sites which are necessary to repel an enemy, observing only the amendment to the Constitution which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation… "

    Thomas Jefferson.

    Now consider that we are engaged in repelling an invasion of pollution or any other evil. We may take such proerty asnecessary to repel that invasion, provided it is paid for according to the constitution.

    RH

  188. Larry G Avatar

    re: prop 90

    so .. you're in FAVOR of MOB RULE when they agree with you

    but you are opposed to mob rule when they don't?

    ha ha ha

    I stick with Ray – no matter what.

    If a majority of folks want to increase their taxes to pay for compensation then fine.

    Such a thing would mean that ALL property owners would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund compensations and if all property owners felt that was in their best interests – then that would be fine.

    If, on the other hand, those same property owners did not like the idea – that would be fine also.

    and that's because

    I support the precepts – the premise of our Democracy and the will of all property owners in matters of property rights.

  189. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    so .. you're in FAVOR of MOB RULE when they agree with you

    =================================

    I didn't say anything about mob rule one way or another.

    My only point was, in case you missed it, that I am not alone in my way of thinking about compensation.

    In my opinion the argument about mob rule would not apply here. In fact, if the majority voted in vfavor of proposition 90 it would be an example of government protecting th minority, because in almost every case where compensation is deserved, it is because many people obtained a (relatively small per person) benefit, and a few people, or even an individual, gets absolutely hammered financially.

    The interesting thing about Prop 90 was the state budget office issued a statement pointing out that the costs (to the state budget) were unknown, but possibly large. That could be true, but there is a countermitigating factor: if compensation is required, then only the best projects will go forward: the ones with the highest cost and benefit ratios. Therefore the total cost to the people might actually be quite low, and you would get better projects, or at least better analysis.

    RH

  190. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If a majority of folks want to increase their taxes to pay for compensation then fine."

    ==================================

    As usual you miss the point. You are only considering government costs. Compensation will not raise overall costs. it only makes sure the costs and benefits are equalized. Total cost is still

    TC = PC + EC + GC.

    Without compensation PC goes up and GC goes down. We assume you elminate the same amount of EC either way. You have not changed the total cost by moving some of the private sector cost to the government side, but now you have a fair transaction in which the government is buying extra protection and lower costs by lowering external costs.

    The government maximizes its return by ensuring that no one goes bust on the deal: it has a positive net social value AND it is pareto efficient.

    Your statement belies the truth of what I hae been saying all along. The only reason NOT to opmpensate is so that you can shift a legitimate government cost to the private sector. It then APPEARS that those benefiting from lower eternalities get them for nothing when in fact they are being paid for by those who lost their shirt on the deal.

    It is stealing.

    RH

  191. Larry G Avatar

    so you'd pass a law without knowing the financial impacts?

    and mob rule..

    you blathered on about things without saying whether or not at the end of the day – how we decide these issues.

    Do we decide with a vote or not?

    yes or no – no blathering

  192. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    so you'd pass a law without knowing the financial impacts?

    =================================

    In most realistic regulatory takings caes it is pretty easy to calculate and address the financial impats to those who are negatively affected.

    It is not so easy to calculate the benefits to the thousands of others who ostensibly gain financially through lowered externalities.

    And then there is the financial impact to the government that has to actually do the compensating.

    It is the SUM of those three that counts when figuring out net public benefit. A positive net public benefit is (or ought to be) a requirement before we pass any legislation.

    Government is established after all to ensure Justice, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, among other things.

    There is no Justice in creating a net social benefit that is paid for only by a few, whose activities were previously legal.

    I submit that requiring compensation as a baseline condition will SAVE money and result in better environmental regulations, precisely because people willhave to think more about the financial consequences.

    And, we can still refuse compensation on a case by case basis when people make ridiculous claims. we just need better arguments for refusal than the ones you put up.

    RH

  193. Larry G Avatar

    I don't think you pass any law unless you conduct a financial impact.

    In fact, you'll find that as a line item on most Fed/State/Local legislative proposals and most elected will not vote until they see the numbers.

    If you are a person that advocates compensation then you have an interest in helping to generate the numbers I would think because at the end of the day, the folks who don't like the idea to start with are not going to do that homework.

  194. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "In the first example, chances are that you could put the most sophisticated monitoring system known to man and probably not be able to detect even one billionth of a part of pollution running off from that property."

    ==================================

    You don't get it.

    That probably isn't even that hard of a job, given enough moeny and time. parts per billion isn;t that hard to analyze, witness what we do with DNA, or the tiny, tiny amounts of hormones and pharmaceuticals we can detect.

    Back in the day, I routinely developed methods to determne contamination in samples that were at the part per billion level 40 years ago. I had three gas chromatograph/mass spectrometers working around the clock, and those things were crude contraptions compared to what is available today.

    Back in those days I was using a sextant and a stopwatch for navigation: I was lucky if I could get a fix within four miles. Today we have GPS good to a few feet. Scientific instruments have made the same order of advance.

    In any case, you are making my argument. 1000 acres is a pretty high price to pay for the freedom to stay alive and not die of constipation.

    But the price is only that high because you are putting an absurd limit onthe issue. By your reckoning no pollution, zero is permitted to leave your proerty, and I'm telling you that is an impossibility.

    But let's accept your argument. What it means is that you are willing to defend your property against an insult that is infinitesimally small, with a correspondingly small cost to you.

    And you claim it does not matter waht it costs someone else, your neighbor maybe, to protect your proerty. Even if what they were doing was legal yesterday and of no concern to you at all.

    Today, you have a new instrument and now you know how much the damage is. it is the same as it was yesterday, but now you have knowledge.

    Because of that knowledge you think it is OK if your neighbor takes a $500,000 hit if it saves your property a half a cent.

    In other words, your half cent is worth more than his half million, but you think that amounts to equal protection under the law.

    In order to make that work, from a net social benefit angle, whatever your neighbor was doing would have to be so bad that it causes a ten million people to lose the equivalent of a half cent each.

    This is what I meant when I pointed out the bundle of sticks problem. What is the smalest amount of property you are willing to protect? The Supreme court didn't say anything about the dollar value when they made a ruling against regulatory taking, they just said that the taking had to represent virtually all of the property, which is currently interpreted to mean 95%.

    If you are going to use a GC/Mass Spec to determine damage, then you are claiming a bundle of sticks that is made of mighty small sticks, and you think any one of those sticks, no matter how small is worth protecting.

    You would unleash the full might of the EPA against your neighbor and strip him of a half million, to protect your teeny tiney stick.

    He has no rights and you have them all, but yet you claim to be in favor of equal rights and equal protection.

    Your one little teeny tiny stick out of a whole bundle deserves the entire might of the law for protection, but his property deserves no protection unless he loses 95% of it, and not even then if what he was doing legally is suddenly proven to be harm to others. Regardless of previous agreements and promises, written, or customary.

    So the problem is that with today’s tools we can prove an infinitesimally small harm. Combine that with "no right" to pollute and we can pretty much shut anyone down. For doing anything, in fact, we are about to make CO2 a pollutant.

    RH

  195. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I don't think you pass any law unless you conduct a financial impact."

    =================================
    Precisely.

    And if you have a positive NET impact, what is the harm in redistributing it a little such that no one has to take a hit that amounts to a substantial portion of his life savings?

    When the town change the setback rules where my brother lives it cost him $250,000. He had to buy more proerty and literally redraw the proerty lines to get back into compliance.

    When that rule was written it was EXACTLY the same as taking property from him and giving it to his neighbors. He was "lucky" beause he was able to buy it back from them.

    But you willhave a hard time explaining to me how it is that you can look at that sistuation and NOT say that the town was an accomplice to theft by changing that law.

    Presumably, as you point out, someone calculated that there would be a positive net impact. so what is the harm in redistributing it such that no one has to get hurt?

    Some jurisdiction doo that, and some don't, and we do it in varying degrees. Let's just fix it and be done with it, instead of worrrying about what fags do.

    RH

  196. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "In the first example, chances are that you could put the most sophisticated monitoring system known to man and probably not be able to detect even one billionth of a part of pollution running off from that property."

    ==================================

    You don't get it.

    That probably isn't even that hard of a job, given enough moeny and time. parts per billion isn;t that hard to analyze, witness what we do with DNA, or the tiny, tiny amounts of hormones and pharmaceuticals we can detect.

    Back in the day, I routinely developed methods to determne contamination in samples that were at the part per billion level 40 years ago. I had three gas chromatograph/mass spectrometers working around the clock, and those things were crude contraptions compared to what is available today.

    Back in those days I was using a sextant and a stopwatch for navigation: I was lucky if I could get a fix within four miles. Today we have GPS good to a few feet. Scientific instruments have made the same order of advance.

    In any case, you are making my argument. 1000 acres is a pretty high price to pay for the freedom to stay alive and not die of constipation.

    But the price is only that high because you are putting an absurd limit onthe issue. By your reckoning no pollution, zero is permitted to leave your proerty, and I'm telling you that is an impossibility.

    But let's accept your argument. What it means is that you are willing to defend your property against an insult that is infinitesimally small, with a correspondingly small cost to you.

    And you claim it does not matter waht it costs someone else, your neighbor maybe, to protect your proerty. Even if what they were doing was legal yesterday and of no concern to you at all.

    Today, you have a new instrument and now you know how much the damage is. it is the same as it was yesterday, but now you have knowledge.

    Because of that knowledge you think it is OK if your neighbor takes a $500,000 hit if it saves your property a half a cent.

    In other words, your half cent is worth more than his half million, but you think that amounts to equal protection under the law.

    In order to make that work, from a net social benefit angle, whatever your neighbor was doing would have to be so bad that it causes a ten million people to lose the equivalent of a half cent each.

    This is what I meant when I pointed out the bundle of sticks problem. What is the smalest amount of property you are willing to protect? The Supreme court didn't say anything about the dollar value when they made a ruling against regulatory taking, they just said that the taking had to represent virtually all of the property, which is currently interpreted to mean 95%.

    If you are going to use a GC/Mass Spec to determine damage, then you are claiming a bundle of sticks that is made of mighty small sticks, and you think any one of those sticks, no matter how small is worth protecting.

    You would unleash the full might of the EPA against your neighbor and strip him of a half million, to protect your teeny tiney stick.

    He has no rights and you have them all, but yet you claim to be in favor of equal rights and equal protection.

    Your one little teeny tiny stick out of a whole bundle deserves the entire might of the law for protection, but his property deserves no protection unless he loses 95% of it, and not even then if what he was doing legally is suddenly proven to be harm to others. Regardless of previous agreements and promises, written, or customary.

    So the problem is that with today’s tools we can prove an infinitesimally small harm. Combine that with "no right" to pollute and we can pretty much shut anyone down. For doing anything, in fact, we are about to make CO2 a pollutant.

    RH

  197. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Some environmentalists actually think we should attempt to get to zero pollution. However, as you point out, the environment does have some capacity for absorbng, dispersing, decomposing, and otherwise using subtances which are pollutants in high concentration.

    If we go to zero pollution we give up the value that the environment provides to us as, call it what it is, an active garbage dump, and a fine one at that.

    Our rivers are sewers at one concentration or another. We will never see a river that contains only H20. So the idea is to figure out the level of pollution that gives us the highest combined value for its use as a sewer and the lowest value as a health risk.

    We can take the health risk to zero, somehow, but it basically means we cannot use the rivers to take pollutants away from us. We have to catch them, at the sub part per billion level and put them in trucks. Trucks pollute, too. When the cost of truck pollution plus all that cleanup is higherthan the cost of river pollution, then we are kidding ourselves.

    EVERY scenarion turns out the same way: there is a tradeoff to be made and we can make it well or make it badly. But we WILL make that tradeoff.

    If the ability of a river to carry sewage away from us has value, then it represents property that someone can own. At present, the government “owns” that property and it rents it out through the use of discharge permits.

    If you are renting property or have some other kind of contract, you cannot terminate it without some kind of penalty or termination clause, unless you have really stupid customers.

    But you think it is OK for the government to operate under different rules: to terminate a previous agreement at will and with prejudice. We don’t do or allow that anyplace else under the law, and we should not do it here, either.

    Suppose you have a manufacturer who is operating legally today, but tomorrow he is not, so we shut him down, without compensation. He built that facility, legally, some time in the past, with our consent, and he built it with an expected lifetime. By cutting him off today, we are cutting off his planned lifetime. We are taking away from him the benefit of an action that was legal at the time he performed it, so he is being punished ex post facto, and we direccly benefit. It is unconstitutional and immoral, but we have figured a way to weasel around the facts.

    We are changing the boundaries exactly like what happened to my brother. And then we wonder why we have turned industry into the mortal enemy of environmentalists. It is because we treat them as enemies instead of as equals. It is a stupid way to act and it is costing us a fortune.

    RH

  198. Larry G Avatar

    I dunno how you got things so screwed up Ray.

    " At present, the government “owns” that property and it rents it out through the use of discharge permits."

    NOPE. They do not charge rent guy.

    they're permits. you don't buy them nor do you rent them and nor does the govt sell or rent them.

    "If you are renting property or have some other kind of contract, you cannot terminate it without some kind of penalty or termination clause, unless you have really stupid customers."

    Have you ever signed a contract that said they could raise the prices on you or refuse to rent to you if conditions changed ?

    Sure you have. Everyone has.

    Your name is very likely on several of these contracts right now.

    "But you think it is OK for the government to operate under different rules: to terminate a previous agreement at will and with prejudice. We don’t do or allow that anyplace else under the law, and we should not do it here, either."

    First they're not renting. Second contracts can and are written such that if conditions change – the contract changes.

    you make this stuff up guy without giving much thought to it and it shows sometimes.

  199. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they're permits. you don't buy them nor do you rent them and nor does the govt sell or rent them.

    ==================================

    Wrong as usual.

    "holders of wastewater discharge permits to pay annual fees for discharging into waters of the state. When the program began in 1988, Ecology recovered approximately $3.6 million dollars a biennium from approximately 900 fee payers. For the 2008-2009 biennium (July 1, 2007 – June 30, 2009), Ecology recovered $35.7 million in revenue from approximately 6,167 fee payers."

    That is just for the State of Washington. You pay an annual fee based partly on usage, and I'd say that is a pretty close approximation of rent.

    I'd be willing to bet you cannot get a discharge prmit for free. Call it whatever you want. I call it rent because, as you point out, the permiteee does not own the right to pollute, and it can be terminated.

    As far as the government side goes, principle factors that define owner ship are that you have something you can buy and sell, and you can exclude others from using the property.

    That pretty much describes the governments situation, according to you. They can exclude anyone from using the property that consists of "the temporary right to pollute", "the temprory use of environmental carrying capacity" or however else you ewant to describe it.

    So, here is the deal, if the government owns and controls the rights to pollute, and we are the government, then we all own equal rights to pollute.

    It is not that I have things screwed up: there is nothing wierd or unusual about my presentation of things as they are, it is only that you refuce to face facts because they disagree with your position and your view of right and wrong.

    I used to have yur view, too, but I eventually conculded it was unsupportable, indefensible, illogical, but most of all, counterproductive.

    It causes a lot of waste and inequality, and I hate both of them.

    RH

  200. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Have you ever signed a contract that said they could raise the prices on you or refuse to rent to you if conditions changed ?

    =================================

    I never have signed something like that. Not one that says they can raise the price during the term of the contract.

    What would be the point of having a contract? You would have to be dumb as toast to sign that.

    OK, so the electric company and the phone company can raise prices over time, but they are providing a service, not selling property.

    And they are regulated, in what prices they can charge.

    RH

  201. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    First they're not renting. Second contracts can and are written such that if conditions change – the contract changes.
    ================================

    Look, if I was putting up millions for a plant that emplys dozens of people, and the government asked me to signa contract that says they can shut me down at any time without compensation for my investement under pevioualy agreed conditions, then I would not put up that plant, and I'd go look for a different government.

    That is exactly waht has happened.

    RH

  202. Larry G Avatar

    " and I'd say that is a pretty close approximation of rent."

    the money pays for compliance guy – the people who monitor the companies for compliance to the permit.

    and yes.. you have signed contingency contracts – where the other party explicitly states that if something changes that changes in the contract kick in.

    If you have a credit card – you're signed up or a host of things that can change in your contract.

    you cannot buy a discharge permit.

    you apply for it and if they approve you – there is a charge for processing and monitoring much like you pay when you get a building permit.

    According to you, the county owes you something because you paid for a building or septic field permit.

    When are you going to join the real world here?

    you're as bad as the conspiracy nuts and twice as stubborn.

  203. Larry G Avatar

    you can go look for all the governments you want.

    In some countries they not only shut you down – they take your assets.

    When a company signs up for a permit – they are told that it expires. They are also told that changes may be in the making – just as right now, the Feds and the State are warning folks that future waste-water discharge permits are going to be stricter than they are now.

    so.. do you want to compensate the municipal wastewater authorities for restricting their "rights"?

    who would pay the compensation?

  204. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you have a credit card – you're signed up or a host of things that can change in your contract.
    =================================

    Not in my credit card.

    I'm signed up for certain benefits at a certzin cost.

    Credit card company can propose to change those costs but they have to notify me, at which point I can cancel the credit card.

    In other words,I have to opt in, to the new contract.

    Also this is different from what we are discussing because I have no up front investment in this contract. I am essentially buying a service from them in which they pay bills for me and I repay them later.

    RH

  205. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the money pays for compliance guy – the people who monitor the companies for compliance to the permit.

    ================================

    You are out of your mind, you hav elost touch with reality… Look at the money paid to the state of washington for discharges.

    You can characterize it any way you like but those permits are partly a permit fee and partly a discharge fee because it is based on the amount of discharge.

    And the amount paid is FAR MORE than it costs the state for monitoring, so you cannot claim that the money pays for "compliance". Compliance is expected as part of the permit an In fact, there are additional fees for noncompliance.

    =================================

    You cannot buy an apartment either, you make an application, and the owner permits womever he pleases to live there. But the owner still may not violate other laws.

    He cannot rent the place for a year and throw the renter out after a week, without especting to pay the renters expenses.

    A permit is something that only an owner can grant, as I permit some people to hunt on my property. In fact, there is a concept known as adverse ossession. If you walk your dog on my property for a long period of time and I do nothing about it, you may eventually gain "rights" to walk your dog. But all I hve to do to prevent that is to periodically send you a letter pranitng you permission (a permit) to walk you r dog. that way, I (the owner) retain control).

    You can call this whatever you want, but what is going gon here is that government is claiming it owns the right to pollute, and it is renting them out to its preferred companies at whatever rate it chooses and can get.

    you want to see some other reality, go ahead.

    Cap and trade would move that last part in to the hands of the companies. government would set a limit on pollution, but the pollution rights and the prices for them would be up to the polluters to negotiate in a (partially) open market.

    RH

  206. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When a company signs up for a permit – they are told that it expires.

    =================================

    Then they have no complaint. They have the ability to take that into account when they sign up. They may even expect their costs to increase over time.

    But that is different from what you are claiming. Which is that goernment can change the rules at any time. If the compnay signs up for a permit that expires in five years and the government terminates it after a month, then the company ought to get compensated.

    =================================

    Who pays the compensation?

    We all pay the compensation in such a way that we all get equala protection of our proerties at equal cost.

    The (new) regulation depends no a net social benefit which means we (collectively) make more money than we (collectively) lose.

    After compensation, collectively, the net benefit IS STILL THE SAME. There is no net cost for compensation, but there is a net gain in justice so that compensation lwers your overall cost.

    The only difference is that we all pay for it instead of a few unfortunate individuals.

    RH

  207. Larry G Avatar

    how much money did you say DEQ puts into the general fund in Virginia as "profits" (over and above their compliance costs) from selling permits?

    I can answer that for you.

    ZIP!

    NADA. NONE! because those fees are not rent but the costs of administering the NDPES progam.

    " Section 62.1-44.15:6 of the Code of Virginia requires the promulgation of regulations establishing a fee assessment and collection system to recover a portion of the State Water Control Board's, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries', and the Department of Conservation and Recreation's direct and indirect costs associated with the processing of an application to issue, reissue, or modify any permit, permit authorization or certificate which the board has the authority to issue from the applicant for such permit, permit authorization or certificate."

    http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/vpdes/pdf/9VAC25-20-WaterFeeRegulation.pdf

  208. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "A revenue-starved Congress seized the opportunity by imposing a tax to soak up the rents created by the regulation-induced carcity. The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1989 includes an excise tax imposed on all ozone-depleting chemicals sold or used by manufacturers, producers or importers of these chemicals. The tax is imposed at the time the importer sells or uses the affected chemicals. It is computed by multiplying the chemical's weight by the base tax rate and the chemical's ozone depletion factor. In addition to soaking up some of the regulation-induced scarcity rent, this tax provides incentives to switch to less harmful (and therefore untaxed)
    substances.

    This application was unique in two senses. It not only allowed international trading of
    allowances, but it involved the simultaneous application of permit and tax systems."

    RH

  209. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "A revenue-starved Congress seized the opportunity by imposing a tax to soak up the rents created by the regulation-induced carcity. The Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1989 includes an excise tax imposed on all ozone-depleting chemicals sold or used by manufacturers, producers or importers of these chemicals. The tax is imposed at the time the importer sells or uses the affected chemicals. It is computed by multiplying the chemical's weight by the base tax rate and the chemical's ozone depletion factor. In addition to soaking up some of the regulation-induced scarcity rent, this tax provides incentives to switch to less harmful (and therefore untaxed)
    substances.

    This application was unique in two senses. It not only allowed international trading of
    allowances, but it involved the simultaneous application of permit and tax systems."

    RH

  210. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The state is taking in money in exchange for permits to discharge, but the state retains ownership over the right to disharge and may terminate, transfer, or increase the price of cischarges.

    The state is therfore claiming ownership of the righ to disharge and renting dishcharge rights out to industrial and municipal sources.

    What they do with the money after they get it has nothing to do with the rental activity that is occuring.

    Many landlords rent to their tenants in a cash negative situation as well, but that does not change the nature of the transaction.

    Also note that the truly ADMINISTRATIVE costs of the DEQ amount to a small portion of its budget which comes from discharge permits.

    In other words they are doing a lot more than just monitoring and issuing permits. Programs that they could not do without that income. The state is not allowed to be a profit making enterprise so they always find a way to spend the money that comes in.

    The money that comw in is far mor than what is ncessary to simply issue and monitor the permits.

    RH

  211. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    This blog post seems of interest on this topic. Candidates for Hampton City Council, Chris Stuart, looks to be a supporter of gay marriage:
    http://michael-in-norfolk.blogspot.com/2010/03/chris-stuart-for-hampton-city-council.html

Leave a Reply