IN THE NEWS — CHINA

Mar 24, 2009

—

At 3/23/09 6:21 PM On IN THE NEWS: VOLUME ONE, Groveton said…

“…….. there is a slightly more important story in play:

“http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html

“From the article:

“This is a clear sign that China, as the largest holder of US dollar financial assets, is concerned about the potential inflationary risk of the US Federal Reserve printing money,” said Qu Hongbin, chief China economist for HSBC.

“I never thought I’d live in a world where the only people making economic sense are the Communist Chinese.”

…………….

Groveton is right to be concerned.

The Chinese have been using their trade surplus to buy up US Treasury Bonds. Now they are threatening to sell them and / or not buy any more unless they have “assurances”…. In effect controlling the US of A economy.

There are, however, other problems:

China is using the excess profits from burning through its own Natural (and social) Capital and the Mass OverConsumption of its trading ‘partners’ to buy up resources on the cheap.

“China Gains Key Assets In Spate of Purchases: Oil, Mineral Are Among Acquisitions Worldwide” 17 May 2009 WaPo

China is also suggesting that nation-states importing its manufactures provide China with carbon off-sets so they can continue Business-As-Usual.

“China Seeks Export Carbon Relief: China has proposed the importers of Chinese-made good should be responsible for the carbon dioxide emitted during their manufacture.” 17 March 2009 BBC

EMR would amplify Grovetons observation (“I never thought I’d live in a world where the only people making economic sense are the Communist Chinese.”) with this:

“China governance structure is far more effective than the nation-states that purport to have democracies with market economies when it comes to managing what might be called “Libertarian Capitalism” or “Top of the Ziggurat Capital Selfishness” that characterizes Supercapitalism and widens the Wealth Gap.

As EMR spelled out in The Shape of the Future:

In the quest to find a sustainable trajectory for civilization, THERE ARE NO VILLAINS.

However:

The vast majority of humans on the planet do not yet have governance structures or the information that would allow them to seek their individual and collective best interest.

Much worse, the vast majority of citizens in US of A and other quasi-democracies with quasi-market economies are badly informed and thus do not understand the cumulative impact of their actions and do not take actions to further their individual / Household enlightened self-interest.

Will China give other trading blocks, nation-states and Regions the incentive to undertake Fundamental Transformations?

Or will China control because others fail to make Fundamental Transformations?

The answer may be in the hands of the 20,000,000 who have lost their jobs recently in China. Will they understand the need for Fundamental Transformation in China?

As Louise Omundson of Great Falls (Montana) said some time back:

“Want Change (Fundamental Transformation)?
“Keep it in your pocket.
“Your dollar is your vote.
“Oppose the empire: Buy Local (Regional, “local” is a Core Confusing Word)”

NB: This issue is key to the future of the Commonwealth and thus a candidate for discussion on this Blog. For those interested in the settlement pattern issue, the prior post has generated several useful perspectives.

EMR

Share this article

(comments below)

Comments

119 responses to “IN THE NEWS — CHINA”

Larry G

March 25, 2009

in the entire world over – including a wide range of difference governance … each with exceptionally diverse development rules…

…. we don’t seem to have.. even a rudimentary ranked list of the “Worlds best Settlement Patterns Governance Structures”.

.. and while I do buy the fundamental concept that EMR espouses – that we essentially reward inefficient and consumptive settlement patterns … it’s very hard to understand blanket condemnations of governance structures as a cause if we do not identify the things that we should be changing.

I keep telling ya’ll that Virginia actually did some very significant things that will have a profound impact on settlement patterns in the 3202 legislation, and the HOT Lanes decision.

UDAs and USTDs and road impact fees (now defunct) have the potential to change how we do settlement patterns.

take a look:

http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/urbandevelopment.shtml

http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/roadimpactfees.shtml

I’m particularly distraught that not a single locality that was offered road impact fees – took the offer.

Worse – none of them sought legislative changes to deal with the parts they felt made them unpalatable.

and the average citizen is clueless and the settlement pattern folks in BR – voiceless on the merit of this provision.

I was quite sure that EMR would have some specific critiques of the major provisions of 3202.

For instance, – is this a law that citizens who are seeking changes in governance should pursue…???

and that law..not that it exists – is fair game for amendments … and, in fact.. some localities are attempting to get it changed – albeit most of them “quietly” and without the attention of most citizens.

But.. I would find it helpful to hear some specifics from EMR along the lines of:

” this part is excellent and it could be even better …if you did this”

or

” this part won’t work.. and needs to be thrown out and replaced with something like this: “

Now EMR will probably grump that it’s not his job.. pay scale.. to do this..

but my view is that 3202 and UDAs is the closest thing to a prime opportunity to come along…literally in decades..

and.. 3202 very likely will be gutted and rolled back if left to the special interests…

where would there be a better place in Virginia than to focus more on 3202 and UDAs affect on governance than BR?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 25, 2009

this is a much better synopsis of 3202:

http://www.hb3202.virginia.gov/pdf/07-24-07%20VACo-VML%20land%20use%20sympoisium.pdf

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 25, 2009

““China Gains Key Assets In Spate of Purchases: Oil, Mineral Are Among Acquisitions Worldwide” 17 May 2009 WaPo”

That’s progress: A communist country actually buyin property rights.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 25, 2009

more changes in Virginia's land use – on the way:

HJ 178 Athey Study Committee (2008):

Establishes a joint subcommittee to study development and land use tools in Virginia's localities. The two-year study will examine and monitor the transition to channeling development into Urban Development Areas, and determine if additional legislation is needed to help localities as they transition to Urban Development Areas. The joint subcommittee shall also make a comprehensive evaluation of all existing land use planning tools and infrastructure financing options.

translation: the is an open and continuing dialog that presents opportunities for those who would like to see better governance with respect to settlement patterns.

Of course – in a Dillon-rule state – there is major peril also of a command & control – "one size fits all" approach.

What I'd like to see:

A uniform state-wide approach to specify how to determine LOS standards and infrastructure standards and how to pay for it when growth occurs.

The interesting thing about the mandatory UDAs is that it apparently requires the provisioning of 10 years worth of "by-right" growth – i.e. 10 years worth of non-proffer, non-impact fee growth …. or does it?

does the mere designation of an area for growth mean that it is by definition by-right or does it merely mean that rezones that meet the requirements will be approved?

the "requirements" meaning codes, FARs, and other existing rules and regs .. including proffers?

Not unexpectantly – localities are not exactly rushing to designate UDAs.. not without some significant explaining of the "small print".

Many localities – right now – are talking to their elected officials… lobbying for changes.. changes that may not be supported by those who would like to see us do a better job especially with regard to planning land-use and transportation more intelligently.

I've yet to see a single citizens group make any comment much less recommendations.

They have, as usual, left the arena to the folks who make campaign donations…

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 25, 2009

I have always been fascinated by the Chinese. I still am. I can’t say I understand the Chinese but I am still fascinated.

The Chinese practice communist economics only in theory (kind of like Obama practices capitalism only in theory). I was last in Beijing about a year ago. Lots of fancy car dealers in Beijing – Masarati, Porshe, Ferrari. It’s somewhat hard to understand how a country full of people who eschew private ownership of capital can find themselves with enough capital to buy a $200,000 car. Meanwhile, back in the home of capitalism and cars, nobody is buying automobiles at virtually any price.

One thing I do know is that the Chinese save. The live below their means and save their money. This results in them being a lender. And, given their interest in lending money safely, they lend to us. Only now they’re wondering just how safe America is as a borrower. Every other night our president goes on TV (everything from press conferences to comedy shows). And his message is always the same – this recession will take a long time to solve. Meanwhile, we need to print money until the presses break. We need to print money until we run out of paper and ink. And the Chinese wonder whether all this printing will be inflationary. Obama says “no” – America is on the road to recovery, it will have real GDP growth of 4% and we’ll tax those rich cats who have not been pulling their weight – but only the fat cats who make more than $250,000 per year. And the Chinese look at American economic history and wonder how anybody could estimate 4% real GDP growth. And they look at the age of those making $250,000 and they wonder why they wouldn’t just retire instead of getting taxed to death. And the more they look and the more they think the more they see a fraud being perpetrated on the American people. They see a demi-God who honestly believes that society will be better when government owns more and more of the private assets. And they think back on their own history and they pick up the phone and they tell their traders to “sell dollars”.

And Obama goes on Leno and he reads from his teleprompter in the oval office and keeps telling lies, sweet little lies. Because, unfortunately, he believes those lies himself. And none of his Droogs will tell the emperor that he has no clothes. Not Turbo Tax Timmy, not Joey “foot in mouth” Biden, not Hillary “in 2012” Clinton. Nope. None of them. Only the Chinese are trying to tell Obama the truth. Why? Because it’s their money that’s at risk. Hopefully, President Dilettante will start to listen. For example:

Obama: “Another Trillion”
Chinese: Bu shi
Obama: “We’ll tax our way back to fiscal competence”
Chinese: Bu shi

Bu shi means “no” Mr. President.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 25, 2009

The question at hand is… would you rather have Obama lie about his economic plans or Bush lie about torture and wiretapping?

or for that matter our Chinese friends…..and human rights..

I’ll take Obama – thank you.

and the beauty of our system is that Obama gets to lead but he won’t get to dictate.. unless of course he starts going to school at the Dick Cheney school of politics..

Will Obama screw up?

It’s virtually certain he will.

When you’re trying to catch new balls while juggling existing ones.. you are going to drop some for sure…

Bonus Question:

Would you like GWB/Cheney and his buddies still in charge?

Geeze … people.. you can’t please em…

we’ve turned into 24/7 complainers…

we don’t like what we have and we don’t like whose in charge.

no matter who is in charge…

they get 50 days .. and if they don’t fix it – they’re toast

boo hoo

Log in to Reply
E M Risse

March 25, 2009

Groveton:

If you have not read it Gladwell has some interesting things to say about the Chinese in Chapter 8 of Outliers.

EMR

Log in to Reply
E M Risse

March 25, 2009

Larry:

How soon you forget!

From EMRs 21 Sept post:

FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION IN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE

The key to understanding the need for Fundamental Transformation in governance structure is to recognize that:

A contemporary democracy with a market economy relies on educated citizens. A contemporary democracy cannot function long with quasi-citizens who are “Running As Hard As They Can” and are “represented” by a few who occupy positions of power in political Institutions.

These governance practitioners have worked themselves up in the political party duopoly and in practitioner elites to the point that they claim – and really believe – that they know what is best for their constituents, in spite of that citizens may believe. These governance practitioners have also perfected strategies to line their own pockets, cover their own tails / trails and – most importantly – how to blame someone from the other party if something goes wrong – which it always does.

Three key principles for the evolution of functional governance are:

• The level of authority / control / action must be at the level of impact. That is true for land use and land management, and it is also for education, public health, public safety, infrastructure – including transport, communications – and everything else that Agencies do to insure the health, safety and welfare of citizens.

• There must be a functional level of governance for each of the organic components of human settlement. If there are impacts of Agency actions at multiple levels – and there almost always is multi-scale impact – then there must be shared responsibility. Functional governance does not occur in a system where the “highest” – and the most remote – level of governance always controls. Currently, there is no governance structure at most of the levels – or scales – of impact with whom to share responsibility. For example, there is not yet a single New Urban Region-scale governance structure in the US of A.

• The basic building block of contemporary civilization is the New Urban Region. For this reason, Regions – New Urban Regions (NUR) and Urban Support Regions (USR) – are the most important components in the evolution of functional governance structures. At the same time the evolution of the primary components of Regions – Alpha Communities – are also critical. In most cases, the existing municipalities (and counties) are not coterminous with any organic component of human settlement – especially Alpha Communities. In addition, the organic components of Alpha Communities are very important. This is true not just because of the need for functional governance at those scales of human activity. It is critical because citizens will not allow / tolerate functional Regional Agencies to evolve until they are very comfortable with the role and function of Cluster-, Neighborhood- and Village-scale governance structures.

The current structure of governance was created before contemporary economic, social and physical structures were even imagined. From the perspective of human settlement pattern the most important components of the existing governance structure are the Declaration of Independence (1775), The Northwest Ordinance (1787) and the Constitution (1789). The 1775 / 1787 / 1789 structure of governance was crafted for an emerging nation-state where five percent of the population was urban and ninety-five percent of the population was agrarian. It was also a society with slaves, no women’s suffrage and the vast majority of the citizens were illiterate. Add to this the fact that the Industrial Revolution was in its infancy and the importance of trade, technology and communication taken for granted today would have been incomprehensible to citizens and their leaders in 1790.

The 1775 / 1787 / 1789 governance structure, as amended to date, is in many ways irrelevant to a society where:

• Nine-five percent of the population is urban and only five percent is agrarian
• Communication is instantaneous
• Universal education and universal suffrage are overarching goals

The federal constitution provides for protection of critical, overarching rights and responsibilities. However, the powers reserved to the states allows state governance structures to play an ever more damaging dog-in-the-manger role in governance structure.

Even though the state as a level of governance grows less relevant with each passing day, states continue to avoid the absolute necessity of Fundamental Transformation of governance structure. This is especially true for those states that straddle one or more Regional (NUR or USR) boundaries. Almost all of the ‘Lower 48″ states straddle Regional boundaries. Seven states include parts of Regions that fall in more than one nation-state.

Caught between:

• Municipal (including county) governance practitioners who believe it is in their best interest to thwart the evolution of functional governance at and below the Alpha Community scale; and

• State governance practitioners who believe it is in their best interest to thwart the evolution of functional governance at and above the Alpha Community scale – especially at the New Urban Region scale; and

• Federal governance practitioners who believe it is in their best interest to thwart the evolution of functional governance at all scales;

Citizens have no current voice or leverage to secure Fundamental Transformation of governance structure.

Inspired by the impact of two World Wars fought over resources and territory, the citizens of the EU are SLOWLY evolving a more functional governance structure both “UP” from the nation-state level and “DOWN” from the nation-state level. They have a long way to go, but at least they have started.

………

You may want to read the whole post it suggests the $700 Billion Bush Stim would not do the trick.

As to 3202, we have said it before too:

Deck chairs. Just shuffleing deck chairs until there there is broad agreement on the necessity of Fundamental Transformaiton. When there is broad agreement THEN every little bit will help.

EMR

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 25, 2009

EMR – been my experience that all or nothing approaches to change… don’t work.

the “half-loaf” folks actually make inroads…to change… while those yammering for all or nothing approaches continue their shuffling on the sidelines.

“all or nothing” is the lazy man approach …

it basically allow one to say that NONE.. not a single part of something like 3202 has any merit what-so-ever…

right?

so.. we go right back to turning that “all or nothing” crank.. because..

… well because that’s what we do… we turn the crank…

Gawd-forbid… we ask ourselves what we accomplish by just turning that crank…

well.. if it squeaks – we get to annoy others….

😉

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 25, 2009

EMR:

I’m with Larry on this.

You basically have one answer. And you insist it is right.

We need first to agree on the question, and then the methodolgy to find the answer.

The ansser may be a complete surprise,or one we don’t like, but if we first agree on the methodology we can avoid wasting a lot of time arguing over what the answer will be.

When it comes to settlement patterns the right answer (or the most important one, anyway) is likely to be whatever happens.

We can holler that there is only one right answer until we are blue in the face, but we are still going to have to live with (and in) the one that we have got.

If we can find one teensy incremental change that everyone agrees with, aren’t we better off?

Then if we wash rinse repeat, enough times, we’ll eventually be perfect, no?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 25, 2009

“Geeze … people.. you can’t please em…”

Yep. Ask a staunch conservative how much the market would have to go up and how long it would have to stay there before he would concede ANYTHING to the Obama plan.

His answer will be if we left it alone it would hae fixed itself.

Then ask a liberal if he will concede ANY Republican points if Obama fails to revive the economy. His answer wil be that the cards wer stacked against him by previous Republican failures.

I showed someone some mildly promising leading economic indicators and long term technical analyses. She looked at them and said “Well, you are so liberal.”

It wasn’t even my data. I made no comment of my own as to what it meant.

She has her answer and no facts will ever change it. Not only that, she hates the messenger: you can’t trust that liberal mainstream financial data.

Whew

RH

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

Larry, Larry, Larry …

If I get to choose former presidents I’ll take Reagan. Given that he’s “unavailable” I’ll take Bill Clinton.

You’ve got to stop talking about Bush. It’s over. Obama won. Now he needs to stop running for president and start being one.

He’s making big mistakes. These mistakes are going to hurt and hurt a lot. The Chinese know it. So does the EU:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d3fa8fa-1975-11de-9d34-0000779fd2ac.html

How many people have to tell him that the stimulus is too big before he listens?

Since you like to remember Dubya so much – remember the invasion of Iraq? They had weapons of mass destruction. They were part of the 9/11 plot. We invaded. We won quickly and relatively easily. Mission Accomplished. Only he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction and we didn’t win quickly and easily and the mission is yet to be accomplished. Bush made those decisions early in his first term and Americans are still dying in Iraq. Does he get a “pass” in your mind because he made the decisions as a new and inexperienced president? I didn’t think so. And Obama doesn’t get “a pass” from me either.

Do you know these people Larry:

Gary L. Moore
Patrick A. Malone
Daniel B. Hyde
Jessica Y. Sarandrea
Jeffrey A. Reed

They all died in Iraq this month (March, 2009). Sgt. Jeffrey A. Reed was from Chesterfield, VA. CNN doesn’t highlight the names of the fallen heroes anymore. They get better ratings talking about AIG. But the heroes are still falling.

Presidents make big decisions from Day 1. Bush decided to invade Iraq early in his first term. Good young Americans are still dying there today.

Obama decided on a ridiculously over-sized, pork laden stimulus package during his first 50 days. We’ll all be paying the price for that piece of hubris and conceit long after he’s cashing in on his memoirs.

Lots of people told Bush that invading Iraq was a bad idea. But he did it anyway. Lots of people are telling Obama that being a multi-trillion dollar spendthrift is a bad idea. But he’s doing it anyway.

And RH – when you see those first stirrings of good economic results – remember back to the Mission Accomplished banner.

Repeat after me:

Printing endless money leads to hyper inflation.

Printing endless money leads to hyper inflation.

Printing endless money leads to hyper inflation.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

Printing endless money leads to hyper inflation.

I agree completely. Go borrow as much asyoucan and pay it back later with inflated dollars.

RH

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

Take a good look fellas:

http://www.wisetrader1.com/?p=319

See that first pseudo-recovery. I’ll bet the people feeling that recovery were sure that the problems were over. Then whooops. Then a comeback. Then whoops. Then another comeback. The Great Depressions included 8 large drops and 8 large rallies. However, when it was all said and done – the market lost 89% of its value.

So, keep watching the market. Look back over the last 2 weeks and find hope. I imagine that’s what people did between 11/29 and 4/30. The “Hoover Recovery” was in full swing. The DJIA had fallen from 386 to 195. Oh my goodness! But then it cam back from 195 to 297. Maybe Hoover would get re-elected. But then it fell to 75 by election day and Hoover was a one term wonder.

Repeat after me:

Dead cat bounce.

Dead cat bounce.

Dead cat bounce.

Obama can still do the right thing. Go back and revise the stinulus amounts downward. Or, at least, delay the spending until better economic readings (especially of inflation) are available.

LarryG – The Chinese are begging him, the EU is begging him, many Americans are begging him, I am begging him – cut back the stimulus.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

re: begging Obama

let’s see… there must be some connection here to Driving Miss Daisy….

you know the black chauffeur graduating to running the economy with Miss Daisy egging him on…

Groveton…Reagan? you gotta be kidding… that guy was incompetent as all get out…

he tried to bankrupt the country with tax cuts..then realized it and had to backtrack big time…

but boy could he swing a sweet tune to the heathens who were starved for soothing words…

I dunno…

judging from the bush apologist type.. you know the nattering nabobs … Obama can do no right and GWB will be judged kindly by “history”…

remember Groveton.. these are the same guys that thought Reagan was an economic genius…

the bushies are just beside themselves….

and Cheney.. probably the on pol in the entire country who has an approval rating lower than congress… managed to wipe the drool off his chin.. and get in a couple more ankle-biting yaps … before sliding back to suck on his chin…

these are exciting times…

we got ourselves one of them thar unknown quantities… but he showed his mettle when asked on 60 minutes about Cheney’s er…”remarks”…

I’ll give GWB some credit.. in retirement…he’s smarter than Cheney…

think of this Groveton.. Cheney.. Steele .. Newt and Limbaugh are in a food fight for the heart and sole of the Republican Party…(or was that supposed to be “soul”?)

a spectacle to behold…breathtaking actually

and that fellow that represents my district…whazzhisname? oh yeah.. Cantor… boy is he going to give Reagan a run for his money…you bet… Obama is quaking in his loafers…

let’s enjoy the ride while we can.. because Obama buries the upper half of his vanguard into the ooze..

Let’s let Obama drive Miss Daisy.. until they take his drivers license away…

Log in to Reply
Darrell — Chesapeake

March 26, 2009

Gee Groveton, you are starting to sound like me. Can’t trust the numbers, they are being gamed. Can’t trust the TARP cuz the street is gaming it as well. Bonds are fixing to be gamed, and the dollar? Oh my, China’s worried they are in a game too. Three Card Money. In fact, the only thing that isn’t being gamed are my famous words. You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet!

BTW Groveton, let’s graph out your words.

http://dshort.com/charts/bears/four-bears-large.gif

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

My perspective is that the “experts” say that we are in uncharted territory.. and that the last time we were in this place – the great depression – we did exactly the wrong thing and made it much worse.

So we think we know what we did wrong.. at least folks like Bernake whose PHD thesis was on the GD.. I believe.

Okay.. so no one is happy where we are … and a lot of folks are more than skeptical about the “cure”….

… but I have to say this – it appears to me that there’s not a dimes worth of difference between what Bush’s team was saying we needed to be doing verses Obama’s team… despite the nattering nabobs whining to the contrary.

..but here’s a question for ya’ll who are “concerned” with Obama’s approach.

actually a couple of questions…

1. – do you think the private sector knows what to do to fix this?

2. – if you don’t like what Obama is doing.. what different plan would you favor – and why?

What I’m hearing here is that.. we don’t like what we’re doing.. and besides it’s way too much stimulus…

where do we get this from?

where is the alternative game plan coming from and what is it?

Do ya’ll really want the Government to back out of this and let the “market” fix itself – which if not mistaken is the approach we took when Hoover was in control…

Government.. can’t live with it …can’t live without it…

yeah.. ya’ll don’t have to convince me.. let’s get those AIG and Citicorp folks back in charge of the financial markets…

that’s the ticket -right?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

I do have a tax question for Groveton.

If I raise taxes on someone and in the process I take away the money that they would have spent on a big screen TV or a $1000 set of alloy wheels and I spend it on health care that they’ll need some day.. health care that I will have to pay for if they don’t save up money for that day when they will need it.

tell me why this is bad Government policy?

We essentially do this very same thing to buy Humvees and body armor.. and nuke reactors for warships…

so the question is…

this for all the Ann Rand..”don’t tax me Bro” affectionadoes…

if we can justify taxing people to pay for “force protection” how is that different from taxing people to protect them from self-induced bankruptcy?

Bonus Question:

Should the Government protect citizens from businesses that get so big.. that they’ll bring down the national economy unless taxpayers bail them out?

Is it a proper role of Government to tell any business – “no.. you cannot acquire this company because you’ll not only have a monopoly but if you fail.. we’ll inherit the debt”?

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

LarryG:

The problem with your idea is that the governement is corrupt, dishonest and incompetent. And, unlike you, I feel that way about both parties. There are some good politicians. My US Representative Frank Wolf being one (give or take his silly support for A Journey Through A Hollowed Out Economy). State Senator Chap Petersen is another. One is Republican, the other a Democrat. The problem is two fold:

a) There are too few Wolfs and Petersens

b) The politicians who misbehave create disproportionate harm.

Here’s one example – Chris Dodd and his inclusion of the loophole that allowed the AIG bonuses in the first place:

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Dodd-Gives-Back-AIG-Cash-Claims-Innocence-in-Bonus-Fallout.html

He and Obama were only too happy to take campaign contrinutions from AIG. Then, recently, Dodd sponsored the loophole that allowed the AIG bonuses. First, he lied about that. Then, he admitted it. And he’s one of the guys who is going to protect my health care money (taken in taxes) until I need it? Really?

Here’s another – Rahm Emanuael made a small fortune almot overnight at Freddie Mac – he was on the board. $320,000 for 14 months of board service? He’s one of the guys who will protect my health care money? How well did he do protecting the shareholders of Freddie Mac while he was on the board?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story

As I’ve said over and over – the present political structure does not work. The governance is wrong. Too many elected officials are corrupt and/or incompetent. Until that changes, I’ll find a way to provide for my own health care.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

"So, keep watching the market. Look back over the last 2 weeks and find hope. "

Never look at the market with less than a five year perpective.

Open up a graph of the Dow, or S&P back to 1980. Draw in a least squares curve. It will cut the top off the tech bubble and the housing bubble and exit the right side of the graph around 9000 to 9000 – 9500.

That is a reasonable expectation of where we might have been with steady long term growth.

The economy is going to do something, and whether it is up or down the smart money will make money. Stop whining and figure out a way to get smart.

Besides, the market isn't all the economy, it is just one signal out of many.

As for the market, Either Darrell, Groveton, or Obama might be right, so pick one and place your bets. Or you can sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

I figure going short is more risky: good upside but you can lose your entire investment. It is a pure speculatory move.

Or you can buy Coke and Coors and P&G and GE (now the world's largest manufacturor of wind turbines). Is anybody here so pessimistic that they think those companies will have zero earnings and zero dividends five years from now? If we have massive inflation will you be able to buy the stocks then for less than now?

Or, if you don't like that you can always invest in the Pacific rim, where IBM is outsourcing its work. China has a couple of nice wind energy companies, and there is always Hyundai.

Cmon guys, put your money where your mouth is.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

"the dire state of the economy and the need for sensible energy policy take precedence over stronger action targeting greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, these elected representatives are attuned to the views reflected in a new national Gallup poll. For the first time since at least the mid-1980s, a majority of Americans place a higher priority on the economy than on protecting the environment. As much as that shift might disappoint environmentalists, a sound economy is the logical precondition for building a sustainable national policy to address climate change."

……

"the concerns expressed by [both] Democrats suggest that the President cannot count on a party line vote to deliver cap & trade, if it is seen as threatening vital industries and the health of the economy as a whole."
………..

"At the same time, it appears that the original estimate of $646 billion in revenue from cap & trade was highly conservative, with likely proceeds in the range of $1.3-1.9 trillion. Those figures are certainly more in line with the level of carbon prices necessary to stimulate large emissions reduction. $12/ton of CO2 wouldn't cover even the lowest-cost estimate for carbon capture and sequestration, let alone make solar power competitive with natural gas. The roughly $35/ton consistent with $1.9 trillion in permit revenue from 2012-2019 comes much closer to the mark. However, unless the Congress goes along with the President's plan to refund most of the proceeds to taxpayers, that more realistic outcome would result in a much bigger net tax on a weaker economy than the President's staff assumed."

……………

"it is also apparent from both the Gallup poll and long experience in observing developing countries that unless the economy returns to healthy growth, the wherewithal to pay such a price–and perhaps more importantly the political will to impose it–won't be sufficient."

http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/

————————–

The economy, in the end, is all about energy.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

re: “Until that changes, I’ll find a way to provide for my own health care.”

uhhh.. no .. remember what they did when AIG went bankrupt?

they came to YOU.. and no.. they did not ask your permission either…

I’m no defender of the Dems …either.. and as you I see plenty of miscreants on both sides…

but I … AM….surprised that you accept the bailout itself.. the basis for it.. and then you grumble about how a few crumbs were done “wrong”.

isn’t this a lot like arguing over whether you owe $1000.00 or $1000.01?

You’re right.. plenty of corruption to go around.. in both parties… that’s part of the frustration for everyone…

but you can’t change that – at least right now…

and what’s on the table…

is.. with all things equal –

is what Obama and his team doing ..substantially different and demonstrably worse than any competing plans that have surfaced?

or.. are we repeating a modern-day version of Hoover’s response… of “hell no… we ain’t paying”….???

I don’t know… but what I do see is folks mixing and matching a whole bunch of things that are separate and distinct issues.

and one of them is –

what is the competitive alternative to what the Obama folks are advocating?

I don’t see one.. other than “don’t do it”… which is the way that Hoover went about it.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

what we have …is a bunch of unwilling riders on a trolley that they don’t know where it is heading…

fear and loathing…

Is this trolley going to hell itself.. or purgatory.. or ..a beautiful Obama Sunrise?

okay.. we got carried away…

😉

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

“Total California real estate sales volume increased by 8.45% from $1.42 billion in February 2008 to $1.54 billion in February 2009, at an annualized rate. “

See, things are looking up. They sold a lot more homes and more dollar value of homes at lower prices.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

I’m not ready to dismiss the dead cat bounce ..just yet…

but basically people are royally “_issed” off and they have every right to be.. most everyone has lost thousands and thousands of dollars that they were counting on …for college for their kids, retirement, illness…etc” and it’s gone and now we got these wild men up in Washington who certainly appear to be flying by the seat of their pants…

and they’re advocating spending money on a scale.. that is so shocking that it’s making all of us pretty nervous…

but for myself.. the nattering nabobs.. other than vigorous whining and hand-wringing don’t seem to have much to offer on their own other than “don’t do it”.

Which .. I understand.. I even agree with it.. I have a sense of dread that when the other shoe drops.. it’s gonna hurt like heck….

but I have zip faith in the nattering nabobs who have been around 8 years.. yammering about tax cuts and fiscal conservatism and they’re clearly impostors…even crooked, unprincipled ones… with a pattern of saying one thing and doing something else..

they did government their way – for 8 years.. cozing up to Wall Street and it’s corrupt approach to the bottom line..

so now.. we’re supposed to be fearful of Obama and his hacks… and do what?

run back to the nattering naboobs….for advise and rescue?

ha ha ha ha .. baaaaahaaaahaaa

Groveton – you’re a stitch…

I can understand your defense of the nobility and necessity of private enterprise … but at some point.. you gotta admit that your guys… are dolts…

they no more no how to stay out of traffic than a blind moose…

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

“what is the competitive alternative to what the Obama folks are advocating?”

Several:

a) A stimulus package approximately 30 – 50% of the size of what’s been passed.

b) A larger stimulus package with automatic “inflation brakes” that would cut or stop spending if inflation reached a pre-determined rate.

c) A stimulus package that is developed in parallel with European and Asian governemnts. In other words, the G20 agrees conceptually with what we plan to do (and teh agree to follow roughly the same path) before we undertake unilateral action with global consequences (You know Larry – kind of like what the Dems insisted on and whined about vis-a-vis Iraq).

d) A budget with honest estimates of real GDP growth instead of the Obama fairy tale of 4% growth.

e) All politicians to recuse themselves from voting on stimulus funds if they received more than $100,000 in campaign contributions (directly or through PACs) from any company receiving more than $1B in funds.

This isn’t all that hard.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

RH –

As for putting my money where my mouth is – I’ll post a column on my own blog about how I think people should invest with the belief that the expectation that the overkill of the Obama stimulus package will cause runaway inflation. I’d post here but I can’t find my old comments in any reasonable way. For example, I posted a comment about the impending recession about around 12 – 18 months ago. I’d love to fish it up and let you guys decide if I called that one right. But I can’t see a way to seach back through old comments. So, I’ll post it as a column and then we can all look back in a year or two and see whether what I said made any sense.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

“Groveton – you’re a stitch…

I can understand your defense of the nobility and necessity of private enterprise … but at some point.. you gotta admit that your guys… are dolts…

they no more no how to stay out of traffic than a blind moose…”.

Who are “my guys”?

Republicans like Frank Wolf (who I voted for)?

Democrats like Jim Webb (who I voted for)?

This whole “my guys” / “your guys” attitude is the whole problem. This is not an NFL game. You don’t root for the home team. You get to pick individuals who have good ideas and vote for them regardless of which team they are on.

I don’t have any “guys”.

I think Obama is doing better than McCain would have done. But he’s making some big mistakes early in his tenure. Just like Bush did. And I won’t blindly follow him (or anybody else) just because I need to have a “guy”. And I won’t blindly criticize him because he isn’t “my guy”.

I don’t have any “guys”.

Neither party is my home team.

When I root for one and only one team it’s the Washington Redskins. No other team.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

How do you abide this crap, Larry?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9759GG00&show_article=1

You heroes – the governemnt- have decided to take time out of a financial crisis to debate how college football decides which team is rated #1.

These are the people you want to give more and more (all?) the power?

These are the people who you think will safeguard your healthcare money? Idiots who are holding hearings on the BCS system?

And yes – I know the ring leader of this absurdity is a Republican. That's my point – neither party can be trusted.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

” neither party can be trusted.”

Both parties are working for their own advantage, their own aggrandizement, and to promote their own rhetoric, regardless of what is best for the rest of us.

If they are not legitimately looking for the best deal for everyone then they must be stealing from someone, and they are not to be trusted.

We can still argue about what the best deal is and how to find it, without the constant background chant of “We’re number one.”

Show me something that you did for me lately, that you didn’t have to steal from my neighbor to get.

If you can’t do that then you must be a charlatan and a crook. Go away.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

oh I could not agree more.

It’s bad enough that the country is going to hell in a handbasket but these guys..you know the ones who could not find their rear end from a whole in the ground when it comes to what to do about wall street barracudas and what to do to keep capitalism from luring to socialism…

what are they doing when they’re not out in the boys room checking out their nose hairs?

well of course.. they’re going to “look into” the NCAA… that’s is when they not out in front of the Capitol doing their nattering nabob photo ops…for FOX News.

If you want me to agree with you that I have lost virtually every ounce of respect for our lawmakers.. no problem.

when I say “your guys” I mean the ones that can be loosely alluded to as the “business community” – which you have to admit.. tend to vote for the pachyderms no matter what BOOB he is…

there are some good ones… but take a look at the so-called “leadership” of the pachyderms these days.. and especially to what they have to say about how to run a country … ESPECIALLY when they’re nattering on about the NCAA….

what can I say.. ?

You made some really good points….

did you make them up or is there one or more of our esteemed elected who are advocating them?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

“This whole “my guys” / “your guys” attitude is the whole problem.”

Agreed. You know it is out of control when you give someoen raw data, and they say “that data is no good, you are a liberal”.

Geez. My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts.

It’s like EMR roundly denouncing the “winner take all” attitude and then claiming his way is the only way: everybody else is a loser.

RH

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

All the macro-economic points are my own. From what I see the Democrats will support anything and everything Obama does. The Republicans will oppose anything and everything Obama does.

I try to read Real Time Economics every day. It’s available free online but I also pay (a buck or two per month) to have it automatically downloaded to my Kindle. Lots of economists have roughly the same sense that I have – the stimulus was the right idea but it was too big. Kind of like hitting a five iron into the green from 110 yards if you are a golfer. You need to hit an iron but a five is just too much club.

As for the “business community” usually voting Republican – you are right. However, I am a member of the technology business community which is a lot more balanced between Republicans and Democrats (maybe the heavy influence of Northern Californians in this industry).

I think America needs a “voter revolt” in Congress. Throw the incumbents out. I don’t care if people vote for new Democratic Party candidates, new Republican Party candidates, or new independent candidates. But let’s get some new people on Capitol Hill.

Enough is enough.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

Maybe this is the answer:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0327/p02s01-usgn.html

28 states have considered / are considering this legislation. Four have passed it. Two have rejected it.

Most people don’t realize that the US Constitution can be changed in two ways. An amendment can be introduced in Congress. Or, 2/3 of the state legislatures can convene a Constitutional Convention with or without the agreement of Congress, the President or anybody else.

This may seem innocous but 28 states is mighty close to the 34 needed to convene a convention.

You want to see the special interests and lifetime national politicians wet their pants? Put the possibility of a state sponsored constitutional convention on the table.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

“From what I see the Democrats will support anything and everything Obama does. The Republicans will oppose anything and everything Obama does.”

Boring AND stupid. What a combination.

I’ve been a member of the TIO party for decades. Just automatically keep throwing them out until things improve. don;t give them anything to hang their hat on,or they will try to make it an issue.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

“…environmental group Friends of the Earth warned today. If correctly valuing McMansions was tough, how hard will it be to properly price the environmental benefits of a Mongolian wind farm, or other measures meant to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases? Carbon permits are still derivatives, after all.”

Environmental Capital

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 26, 2009

I’m going to go out on a limb here and ask if Groveton is happy with all of his local, state and Federal elected?

Warner / Webb are okay guys even though we have some real dumbasses from other states padding around the Senate?

how about the rest?

I’d have absolutely no problem giving up Mr. Cantor and replacing him with a kumquat… just on a pure intelligence criteria.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 26, 2009

There are business people and there are business people. The vast majority of businesses struggle and strive to satisfy customers and find new ones.

Many of the bigger businesses live to eat at the public trough, use federal regulations or legislation to rid themselves or, at least, hobble their competition; and manipulate the political process to get business revenue from taxpayers.

I'd guess that more, but certainly not all, of the former tend to vote Republican. The latter probably would vote anyone who subverts the public interest in favor of their looting plans.

"Big business is lining up to support President-elect Obama’s plan to stimulate the economy with the biggest spending spree on roads, bridges and other infrastructure projects since the Eisenhower administration."
—THE HILL, DEC. 8, 2008

"The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner."
—GENERAL ELECTRIC CEO JEFFREY IMMELT,IN A LETTER TO STOCKHOLDERS

"This is a great start. There are things we don’t like about it. But there’s time to discuss all that."
—BILLY TAUZIN, CEO OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
ANDMANUFACTURERS OFAMERICA (PHRMA),
ON BARACK OBAMA’S HEALTH-CARE PLAN (Former Democrat and former Republican Congressman).

"Or take his [Obama's]energy plan, which is meant to liberate the American people from the stranglehold of something or other. Timothy Carney, author of the indispensable book The Big Ripoff, recently recounted the ways in which Obama’s cap-and-trade plan will enrich General Electric. 'Reviewing their lobbying filings, you
might think you were looking at Al Gore’s agenda,' Carney writes
in the DC Examiner. GE spent nearly $20 billion on lobbying in
2008 on such action items as the 'Climate Stewardship Act,'
'Electric Utility Cap and Trade Act,' and the 'Global Warming
Reduction Act.' Why? Because GE has set up a business to sell
carbon credits." National Review 4/6/09 at p. 33. One can agree or disagree with the merits of these regulations, but it's hard to believe that GE is doing anything more than trying to manipulate the system to place itself well into an artificial business. Where would GE be if the legislation did not permit GE to sell its carbon credits at a profit?

Warren Buffett is similar. He opposes repeal of death taxes as he has acquired many businesses on the cheap when the heirs needed money to pay estate tax bills.

"As the historian Gabriel Kolko and others have shown, the railroad magnates of the 1870s and 1880s petitioned the government
to protect them from the headaches of 'cutthroat competition'
and relentless rate wars. Were it not for the railroad lobby,
there never would have been the Interstate Commerce Commission,
which liberal reformers conceived of as the bane of those evil railroad monopolists but was actually their citadel. In 1907
AT&T was having a dickens of a time dealing with the fact that
other phone companies had the effrontery to compete against it.
To solve this vexing problem, AT&T president Theodore Vail cajoled state governments and the feds to let AT&T become a nationwide monopoly. In 1909 Andrew Carnegie was so plagued by competition that he floated the idea of 'government control' of the steel industry in the pages of the New York Times. In 1911 the chairman of U.S. Steel, Judge Elbert Gary, told Congress: 'I believe we must come to enforced publicity [socialization] and government control . . . even as to prices.” As Adam Smith said, 'people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.'" Ibid., at 32.

Look no further than Bechtel and the Tysons landowners who got Mark Warner's administration to sign a no-bid contract for an elevated Dulles Rail, his CTB to put most of the costs on Dulles Toll Road drivers and John Warner to fleece federal taxpayers for $900 million.

These are not business people. They don't compete or offer value to customers. They exist to abuse the system and their guys are any Republican or Democrat that will sell out the public interest.
TMT

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 26, 2009

My report card:

Obama – Too early for grade

Webb – B-

Warner – Too early for grade

Wolf – A-

Howell – F

Vanderhye – D

Foust – A

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

“Many of the bigger businesses live to eat at the public trough,…”

Oooh. Well said.

I just call bending policy to your own advantage stealing, though.

Some people think I’m a little nutty or dogmatic on this point. I just think it is accurate and descriptive.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

“One can agree or disagree with the merits of these regulations, but it’s hard to believe that GE is doing anything more than trying to manipulate the system to place itself well into an artificial business. Where would GE be if the legislation did not permit GE to sell its carbon credits at a profit?”

Hear that Larry? Is there an echo in here?

TMT: excellent post, through and through.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

“They exist to abuse the system and their guys are any Republican or Democrat that will sell out the public interest.”

Too bad the public doesn’t actually own the public interest. At least thenif it gets sold out, we get the money.

We need more kinds of property rights.

RH

Log in to Reply
Darrell — Chesapeake

March 27, 2009

“Carbon permits are still derivatives, after all.”

Gee, imagine that. The idiots are already figuring out how to put gas in a sack.

More interesting is a link from the original article.

“Bank for International Settlements estimates to be $1 quadrillion worth of new derivatives (mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and credit default swaps)”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123793811398132049.html

The richest country in the world has thrown 9 trillion dollars into the sewer, not counting the trillion dollar deficits that will amass every budget cycle. Trillions more are being eaten from other countries, all in an effort to reign in a current real number so huge most people can’t even imagine. Put it this way, if every man, woman, and child on this planet made 140k a year, they would still come up short.

But it’s only a few problem loans right? The richest country in the world has a total debt, counting everything except future SS and Medicare payments, of 60 Trillion. If the situation were only a few deadbeats, say 10%, we could pay 6 Trillion and be home free. If that’s the case then why have we blown 9 Trillion and counting? Because the whole concept of derivatives was based on the idea of buying a pig in a poke, only to find out later that there was nothing there but toxic gas.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 27, 2009

I think this is a good and balanced article about the present state of the economy. You have to read past the headline to get the full story. However, one thing bothers me. As I understand it, the mutual fund managers really want to see a stock market rally. That will encourage peoeple to buy their mutual funds which, in turn, will increase their management fee – which is calculated as a percentage of money under management. So, when they say we're at the start of a new bull market I have to wonder how much is steely eyed economic analysis, how much is wishful thinking and how much is advertising for their product category.

As I've said before – I'd love to see 4% GDP growth (as Obama predicts), I'd love to see a 30 – 50% rise in the S&P as part of the recent rise in stocks (as the mutual fund managers in the attached article predict). I just don't think these things will happen.

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 27, 2009

OK LarryG –

You’ve been “chirping” about the need to regulate the greed of finanical institutions for some time now. You’ve claimed that the Bush Administration failed to regulate the greedy ones and that led to our current misery. You’ve said that the Obama Administration will do what Bush failed to do.

All fine.

But now I hear (from Darrell) of $1 quadrillion of new derivatives. Where will these be regulated in the Obama Administration? How does our new president propose to avoid making the mistakes of the past. Ditto for carbon derivatives.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

Long-time Democratic Delegate Ken Plum has written a letter as Chairman of the Dulles Corridor Rail Association to Fairfax County BoS Chairman Sharon Bulova saying that, despite a growing opposition by many affected landowners to imposition of additional taxes to fund Phase II of the Dulles Rail project, the BoS needs to approve this tax district expeditiously. Plum says that this push is being made because of DCRA’s support for transit oriented development.

It’s sooo good to see elected officials only worrying about the best interests of their constituents or is Bechtel?

TMT

Log in to Reply
Groveton

March 27, 2009

TMT – I understand your concerns regarding the Tyson’s development plan. It adds too much density without the requisite infrastructure. But why would it bother you to build Rail To Dulles? Doesn’t this add infrastructure? Or, do you see the two as linked? In other words, RTD provides an excuse for over-development in TYson’s (and elsewhere)?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 27, 2009

I’d like to hear TMT’s answer also.

With regard to new, stricter regulations and the thought that the Govt doesn’t know what the hell it is doing and is totally incompetent…

consider this:

FDIC

now how about a “grade” for the FDIC…. as a government “regulator”.

Does the FDIC confirm and rebut the “feckless.. incompetent government” label?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

Groveton – I do not oppose rail to Dulles at this point in time. My point is that there must be a local (Fairfax County) share for the funding. That would come from a special transportation district that, under state law, requires the consent of affected landowners according to a formula. The law contemplates that a landowner gets to make a decision — pro or con.

For whatever reasons, the proponents of the Phase II tax district cannot obtain the necessary approvals from enough landowners to create a district. So good Ken Plum seems to be trying to urge the BoS to use creative approaches to overrun the wishes of the balking landowners. I don’t know how else to read his letter. Plum also seeks to have the BoS commit in advance to approve significant densities at the rail stops. Just toss your statutory duties aside, as they would interfere with our success.

I would think the appropriate response would be for Plum and the DCRA to make arguments to landowners that joining the tax district is in their long-term best interests. But maybe, he cannot do that successfully. Maybe there are landowners that simply would not benefit from paying extra to build a rail stop in their general area. Hence the apparent appeal for “magic.”

If the landowners refuse to form the tax district, rail to Dulles will still be constructed. It would simply go non-stop from Wiehle Avenue to the Airport.

What about democracy?

Ditto for pre-promising density. The law contemplates the Planning Commission and the BoS studying any and all proposed land use changes. It would make sense in theory to permit added density right at the additional stations, but not necessarily for every landowner needed to OK a tax district. This is an appeal to landowners beyond the boundaries of the county’s TOD policy to OK joining the tax district in exchange for the BoS to ignore the rules of the game.

Moreover, each location must be considered on its own. One station may be able to hold more density than another. After study, the facts may show that, even with rail, the county cannot reasonably approve sufficient added density to warrant landowners agreeing to pay higher taxes to fund the Phase II tax district. But that doesn’t worry the DCRA. I hope it worries Sharon Bulova.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 27, 2009

“….requires the consent of affected landowners according to a formula. The law contemplates that a landowner gets to make a decision — pro or con.

For whatever reasons, the proponents of the Phase II tax district cannot obtain the necessary approvals from enough landowners to create a district.”

well.. according to Ray.. using a majority of landowners for the decision is “oppressing” the minority from exercising their property rights.

Just FYI TMT – down here.. we have a miniature version of this same tempest in a teapot…

a local developer proffered that he’s build a new connecting road if he got a rezone approved.

The deal was struck .. and then he attempted to form a transportation district consisting of a majority of unwilling owners even though there was a qud pro quo for their residential property to become commercial…

so.. the developer said that the law said that that the “majority” was based on who owned a “majority” of the land – as opposed to the majority of the number of land owners of the land.

The Va Attorney General gave an opinion that undercut the developers’s assertion…

but the developer and the county dispute it…

there are legal guys in “suits” circling in ever greater numbers….

not sure where things are at because every time the BOS discusses it – it is in “closed session”….

I think.. if what your folks are trying to do .. and what these guys down here are trying to do… if the word gets out to the rest of the state.. it’s going to stink like the Kelo deal did.. and with the “right” encouragement.. the GA is going to squash the idea that landowners can be “forced” into a transportation district without their approval.

this would put Ray in between a rock and a hard place… becasue here on one hand you have the “property rights” of the developer and the on the other hand..you have the “property rights” of those who do not want to pay higher taxes for infrastructure – which is what a transportation district does.

so far.. Ray has said that developers are entitled to infrastructure paid for by existing residents…

i.e. force them into a transportation district and raise their taxes…

I realize putting this down…risks all of us to see a couple dozen follow-on tomes by Ray.. but so be it.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

Nah, I give up. You are hopeless.

If I take something from you and I don’t pay for it is stealing. if the government takes something from you it does not pay for, that is stealing too.

Unless

Government can show you that it is actually giving you back more than it took. Government can defend you with your $100 dollars better than you can defend yourself because government incorporates economy of scale in defense.

Taking money from you and providing something equally or more valuable in return is not stealing. The question is whther waht you get in return is actually more valuable and not beads and trinkets for Manhattan.

So we take $100 from everyone for defense, and that is all fair equal and good, everybody gets defended more or less equally. And we agree the national defense is better than my individual defense, so it is more valuable.

Except, one guy owns the land where the only uranium mine is and we need his property to produce nukes for defense. Now everybody pays $100 and this guy also pays with his land, which we take for uranium.

He now has an undue burden, which is against the law.

It doesn’t matter it is for a good cause. It doesn’t matter if he is the worst person in the world. It doesn’t matter what we call him. We still don’t have the right to steal from him just because it is for a good cause.

We have an OBLIGATION to see to it that he pays no more than the rest of us. That he pays the same price for security as the rest of us, and that he gets the same security as the rest of us, that he depends on us as much as we depend on him.

Everyone of us has the right to (some level of) defense, and everyone of us has a concomitant and equal obligation not to steal from others to get it: to protect their property rights while defending our defense rights.

——————————-

Some people might desire a higher level of defense. They might even feel they are entitled to it or they have a right to it. But as soon as they talk about entitlements or rights they are necessarily trying or lobbying to take an addititional bite out of someone else’s property rights, and this is stealing.

This still leaves you with the problem of deciding what the right level of defense spending, or pollution costs to endure. Whether what you spend is worth what you get.

It does not matter what that level is or how it is chosen, whether by a majority or an emperor. It isn’t a public benefit if it costs more than it is worth, like $300 hammers and $900 toilet seats.

If it IS a public benefit then the winners should be willing to pay off the losers in this policy such that everyone breaks even or comes out ahead.

If they DON’T pay, then they are stealing, public benefit or not.

If they WON’T pay then they are not only stealing, but most likely they are lying about the public benefit as well.

——————————–

That is HOW YOU DECIDE what is the right level of defense spending, or pollution costs to endure. It is called trading. If you are not willing to make the trade then it means you think what you have got is worth more than what you are trading for.

But, as long as what you want is “free” (you can steal it) then you will probably use too much and certainly not the optimal amount.
(Remember that highway argument?)

When your navy has five times as many ships as the next five largest navies, and they are your ALLIES, eventually someone will question your sanity on defense spending.

If you spend enough money on defense eventually the poorest members of the defense society will be charged (equally, still) so much that they run out of money.

They now have have nothing left to lose (They are free, according to Janis Joplin) and nothing to defend, but you still have money left, and therefore you get a disproportionate amount of the defense benefit. If you raise defense spending still more, you then also start gettig a disproportionate part of the cost.

From now on, every dollar you spend gets you less defense benefit (less left to protect) at a higher and higher cost.

When it is your money you are spending, this is obvious, and you tend to spend less of it.

———————————

But this has already been true for the poor folk for a long time (nothing left to protect for too much spent), and true for the ecommunity, the public or society, from the the time we passed the optimum expenditure.

So it turns out that the only rational, legal, and ethical way to determine the optimal expenditure is to trade for it.

That means you must have the right things to trade: things that we have not historically traded because at that time they could be had for free without stealing.

So government has the job of assigning and defending all those new property rights so they can be traded on a fair basis.

————————–

Every right has a responsibility that goes with it:the obligation to not step on the other guys right.

Practically speaking, every act has some externalities, pollution and otherwise: every one will necesssarily step on everyone else’ rights.

It is impossible for anybody to do anything otherwise. In the end the only way this works is if we each allow each other the same stepping rights: I don’t step on your rights any more than you step on mine.

Call them pollution rights or whatever you want, but we cannot ever avoid every interaction and every externality. There is no point in have the right to own things if you have not the rights to use them or sell them.

Even if other people don’t like it, they MUST grant you thaose rights or that latitude or else THEIR property is soon forfeit: we have anarchy just as Lincoln said.

We MUST agree that we each have the same rights to infringe on other peoples rights, or else it is impossible to have any rights ourselves. The only question is how much infringement, and this is exactly the same problem as calculating the proper amount to spend for any other social benefit.

All of this is logically and economically consistent. It is even written into law.

————————–

Your philosophy starts off with “You have no right…” By itself it is inconsistent because it means someone has a right with no obligation attached: a superior right. It necesarily implies an abuse of rights and excess infringement on other peoples property.

Your philosophy or view of things is a system that cannot work, and, to the extent it does muddle through it miserable existence, is guaranteed to produce suboptimal results and udnue burdens for some people compared to others.

Stealing in other words, and you even go so far to claim that stealing is OK and legal if it is doen by the majority.

Clearly it is not.

For starters there ar more than one “majority” and some majorities have decided that we MUST compensate when property is taken for public use and someother majorities have decided that no one gets an undue burden or benefit.

We are still trying to figure out how to actually DO that, but it will likely involve trading property.

——————————

I’m done. As far as I’m concerned you can go sit in the corner and diddle with your false dichotomies, red herrings, and false quotations / ad hominems.

You go right ahead and give money to EDF which is just as rabid and just as crazy as the folks over at Heritage foundation. I used to think that they both meant well, that loyal opposition was how we negotiated our way to the optimum prices for the best goods.

Now I just think they are liars and thieves because they both want more than they are entitled to,and whoever of them “wins”, we all wind up paying more than we should.

That is the whole point of trying to win, isn’t it? It isn’t about
the game, it is about the extra money that floods in. You think there would be any sponsors if every game was fought to a tie?

I’ve come to the point that I cannot suffer the fools that donate money to their team, thinking it is a noble cause, when ir is really, at its heart and at its core, nothing more than attempted theft, packaged in a green box or Miltary drab, or Republican red or Democratic blue, depending on what it s they are trying to sell.

What they are trying to steal is always the same.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 27, 2009

“using a majority of landowners for the decision is “oppressing” the minority from exercising their property rights.”

They are oppressed if they are prohibited from development no matter what they are willing to pay. thsare is no trade and no negotiation going on.

————————–

“so.. the developer said that the law said that that the “majority” was based on who owned a “majority” of the land – as opposed to the majority of the number of land owners of the land.”

Sounds like a property rights dispute to me. What are my property here? Is it myself and all my other associated rights, or are they ONLY or MAJORITY associated with the boundaries of my property as the developer asserted?

—————————-

The Va Attorney General gave an opinion that undercut the developers’s assertion…

Which means that your rights do NOT stop at your property line.

That has got to mean either the end of property or the beginning of a whole bunch of new kinds of propoerty.

The answer is going to depend on whether the property can be freely sold and traded or not.

This has nothing to do with the majority or minority, it has to do with whether someone is being cheated.

Arlington is worth more per square ft and per person than Fairfax, Fairfax worth more than Loudoun and Loudoun worth more than Fauquier, and yet some people hate development, and fight it tooth and nail – even if it means cheating someone else.

Why is that?

Because they don’t think they are getting a fair trade. And no amount of Proffers is going to fix that – they want money in their pocket.

And if the Tysons developers really think this is a good deal, then they should be willing to go along.

The problem is that there is no real way to trade: all we get its non-tradeable quid pro quos, and we cannot even trust the government to stand behind those.

There is no trust, and no liquidity, so the market has broken down.

Only the government can fix this, and it means guaranteeing property rights, contract rights, trading rights, trnsparency and predictability.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 27, 2009

“Only the government can fix this, and it means guaranteeing property rights, contract rights, trading rights, trnsparency and predictability.”

what kind of government?

the current representative kind where a majority determine these issues?

Bonus question:

“And if the Tysons developers really think this is a good deal, then they should be willing to go along.”

with regard to the Tysons debate – development vs infrastructure needs and who pays …

are you saying that the Tysons Developers should be willing to pay?

I thought that your attitude about this was that the folks who oppose Tysons should be willing to pay because they are going to get something in return.

If the folks opposed to Tysons don’t agree it is a good bargain and refuse.. are they taking away the property rights of the Tysons Developers?

short, concise, cogent answers preferred…

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“…the current representative kind where a majority determine these issues?”

Which majority? The one that has dettermined property must be paid for, and then rented from the government?

I got Smithonian today, and the cover story is “Who owns our Dinosaurs”

Just another example of property rights that have not been well defined.

I don’t care what kind of government. Its primary job is to protect people and property. Th US does a much better job of this than many countries, but we have a lot of improvements we could make.

WE can start by jumping up and soen and ridiculing those that ask rhetorical self pandering questions which are designed to stake out a new claim, such as “Who Owns Our Dinosaurs”.

If they are ours, then we won them and we have an obligation to take care of them. Otherwise, they are just minerals and they belong to whoever owns the mineral rights.

My guess is that that simple ruling would preserve far more dinosaur fossils, and the best ones would make their way to the best collections.

What we would lose a lot of is the painstaking scientific documentation that goes with a good excavation, but we don’t have enough scientists to do it all anyway. Meanwhile, unrecovered specimens return to dust in the desert.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“are you saying that the Tysons Developers should be willing to pay?”

Jeez Larry, listen up instead of telling me what you thought I said.

The Tysons developers are selling a plan that they claim is a public benefit. TMT doesn’t see how that benefit benefits him, He thinks he is a loser in this.

If it really is a public benefit THEN the Tysons Developers should be willing to pay TMT and the other losers enough so they don’t feel they have lost.

If they are not willing to pay, then their claim of public benefit is probably bogus.

Same argument Ihave made over and over, regardless of which “side” you seem to think I’m on.

On the other hand, they should not have to pay bogus claims. TMT and the others will need to be able to document their losses so Tysons developers will know what they have to pay.

That means TMT has to own something with value to lose, but our government has not developed a fully functional property rights system that would allow them to do that.

Instead, they are haggling over amenities like parks, last I heard.

Nor does government have the transparent public accounting, that might allow TMT to do that retrospectively through public records. (I suspect the same public accounting system would shoe that EMR is dead flat wrong on many subjects.)

The natural tendency would be for both the developers claims and TMT’s claims to be correct in general, but overblown or overstated, and leaving out any negative costs or hidden benefits received.

Instead of negotiating as if a marriage was going on, they are negotiating as for a divorce: inflate the bills and the damage and hide the assets.

You either need to have a truly disinterested and skilled third party determine the true costs and benefits (preferably from another state or even country), or else you need to have virtually every conceivable kind of property owned, deeded, and protected diligently by the state.

Then the parties that own the property TMT thinks he is losing and those that think they are providing new property of another kind, can bargain until they either reach a deal, or don’t.

In which case, both parties must be happier with the property they have than the prospective propeerty they might swap for.

The problem is that TMT can’t prove what he is losing, and Tysons can’t prove what they are providing him. The kind of properties that would allow this does not yet exist.

Consequently there will be no deal, and whatever progress is made will undoubtedly be made preferentially in favor of one party or the other. The other one will have been stolen from.

This will be based on God knows what, but it won’t be representative or fair government.

My guess is tha TMT loses in the short term, but comes out ahead in 20 or 30 years.

Too bad he is mortal.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

“I don’t care what kind of government. Its primary job is to protect people and property. Th US does a much better job of this than many countries, but we have a lot of improvements we could make.”

In a representative government, it’s job is to represent the people through a one man – one vote process.

The enumeration of it’s duties such as “protection” is a process where people vote for what they want protected and they vote for how they want it protected.

so .. it DOES matter what kind of government if you’re expecting a government that does not process disputes about things like property rights – as one man – one vote.

Can’t have it both ways.

if you want property rights determined by the minority – you’re not in favor of representative government..

instead.. you want someone who rules by what they think the rights of the minority should be no matter how the majority feels.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

“If it really is a public benefit THEN the Tysons Developers should be willing to pay TMT and the other losers enough so they don’t feel they have lost.

If they are not willing to pay, then their claim of public benefit is probably bogus.”

who decides if it is a public benefit Ray?

do the Tysons developers determine this or do the folks like TMT decide?

Who determines if the Tysons proposal is …bogus?

I’m asking you to use the Tysons example to illustrate your views of property rights – and to do it in a way consistent with your previous statements about property rights.

I’m not defining it.. I’m asking you to.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

“You either need to have a truly disinterested and skilled third party determine the true costs and benefits (preferably from another state or even country), or else you need to have virtually every conceivable kind of property owned, deeded, and protected diligently by the state.”

who decides who that 3rd party is?

and who is the “state” that is supposed to “diligently decide”?

If the truth here is that you either have a one man – one vote system or you have one man decide for everyone.. then you tell me what the other options are.

you’ve wiggled every which way from Sunday to not admit that you want a King.

If you don’t want a King and you don’t want one man – one vote.. tell me what you do want.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

“The problem is that TMT can’t prove what he is losing, and Tysons can’t prove what they are providing him. The kind of properties that would allow this does not yet exist.”

TMT is not making a proposal.

and he’s following the rules that have been provided – to both parties – no?

The Tysons folks are asking for permission to change the current rules that go with their land – are they not?

Who are they asking permission from to change those rules?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

“Consequently there will be no deal, and whatever progress is made will undoubtedly be made preferentially in favor of one party or the other. The other one will have been stolen from.”

not true.

The Tysons folks are asking permission to do something.

The answer might well be that something more than what they have now and something less than want they asked for will be approved.

That’s not “no deal”.

that’s called a compromise.

and that does result in a change to the current rules and a change that is more favorable than a flat denial.

The law allows the Tysons folks to make requests for changes.

But the law clearly does not grant the Tysons folks unfettered property rights to do with what they wish with their property regardless of how the other landowners feel.

and the law does not allow them to do so either just because in the opinion of the Tysons folks..the folks that are being affected will “come out ahead”.

What the law says is that the determination of what the property rights for Tysons are or are not.. and whether or not .. a proposal is “a good deal”.. is not decided by the Tysons folks.

So the property owner does not decide.

you call this – a failure to properly define property rights.

the law allows the folks like Tysons to go to the lawmaking bodies and to ask them to further…better define property rights.. especially with regard to what they propose for Tysons.

In fact, the law already has some pretty clear statements on projects like Tysons – the Kelo decision.

The Kelo Decision said in essence that a developer does not have the right to take other peoples property EVEN IF – they come out ahead financially…..

right?

so.. the Courts ..and the Legislators have had quite a bit to say about “property rights” and I’ve yet to see one that says that developers like Tysons are entitled to a rezone.. or to any additional property rights that are claimed…

which is essentially what you are saying Ray.

It’s not like folks like the Tysons developers are tangling with an area of property rights not argued about before…

they’re not stumbling onto new ground.. never discussed previously.. and as a result.. dealing with “undefined” property rights.

You say.. that property owners have a right to develop.

and so I’m asking you…

do the Tysons folks have a “right to develop”?

yes or no…

don’t need 12 1/2 separate thread-responses each of them a rambling discourse about everything except the question that was asked.

Do the Tysons Developers have a right to develop their property?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

The Tysons landowners are definitely seeking changes in the Comp Plan. They want to build beyond the densities permitted under the current Plan. My understanding is that they have no right to do what they want to do, but must persuade the Planning Commission and the BoS, and indirectly the public that their proposal is in the public interest.

They cannot do that. Their plans are as good as those who sold sub-prime mortgages as AAA investments because housing prices had only one way to go — up.

The developers cannot support their projections. A traffic study shows that, even with four stations and more road improvements than we can afford, along with more severe traffic demand management measures than any reasonable landowner could accept, Tysons Corner traffic would become solid and unmovable at 83 million square feet. Tysons is at 45 million today.

They tout their vision as a place without car traffic, where people can live, work and play without the need to jump in their cars all of the time. Yet, they are also arguing that Fairfax County and VDOT must accept and grant density for a decline in LOS from E to F. The walkable community means even worse traffic.

And, of course, being able to recreate without driving elsewhere doesn’t really mean that. They don’t want any playing fields there. “Not on my land.” What lying clowns!

Many are enraged that Fairfax County staff has insisted in preparing a 527 study with assumptions and conclusions that are supportable.

None of this crap (and I’m being very polite today) is sufficient to justify any increase in density. In fact, the facts would support conditioning growth to 73 million square feet, which is permitted by the current Plan, to major infrastructure improvements. Their facts justify less density than is permitted today.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“The Kelo Decision said in essence that a developer does not have the right to take other peoples property EVEN IF – they come out ahead financially…..

right?”

No, whee have you been? Kelo was just the opposite. The law says that land taken under eminent domain for public use must be paid for.

What Kelo did was redefine “public use” to mean an increase in the tax base, created by redevelopment, which then justified taking peoples homes. This was upheld by the supreme court, but one dissenting justice said tht it meant no ones home was safe anymore. Any developer could obtain land simply by convincing local officials that he would create a public use by improving the tax base.

Curiously, the project slated for KELO was never finished: it got hung up in the financing mess.

The Kelo decision resulted in a wave of legislation in many states and municipalities to prevent that sort of behavior, and to limit public use to its traditional meaning: schoold and roads and jails, that sort of public use.

Under Kelo, the Tysons developers could just take over TMT’s house and redevelop that area – eliminate one voice, maybe.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“My understanding is that they have no right to do what they want to do, but must persuade the Planning Commission and the BoS, and indirectly the public that their proposal is in the public interest.”

This seems correct to me. The purpose of the comp plan is to remove rights owners would otherwise have. The flip side is tht it provides stability: it prevents change and protects existing owners.

That might be a good or bad thing, and that is what the Kelo flap was about. Even if the Kelo homeowners got paid for thier homes they still felt like losers because there was no way that wht theygot paid would et them an equivalent home in a waterfront community.

This is pretty much what I described: the Tysons developers are putting forth an argument of public benefit.

TMT and others are saying, no way. The developers are selling a bogus benefit. It is like trying to sell the benefit of reducing a pollutant from 10^-9 to 10^-10: how good is it really?

TMT is sayin that his value for the traffic plan is less than the developers value. He is basically saying that he thinks the Tysons develoeprs will make his streets unusable.

What we are really talking about is the value of travel time to all the TMT’s in Tyons Vienna. If the developers really beileve they offer a public benefit, they should figure a wy to put itin dollars. The developers could agree to measure a colledtion of travel times now, and measurte them periodically over the next few years. Then pay a cash dividend based on the increase in travel times, if any.

If it is really about traffic, then a high enough dividend should quiet the issue.

If TMT is right, there is no way the developers could pay such a dividend and this suggests there is no real public benefit.

We don’t have a way to deed ownership of travel rights, which is not to say it could not be done. Same as we do pollutin rights.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“people vote for what they want protected and they vote for how they want it protected.”

And in our government we have already decided (at the national level) that government must protect minorities. One man one vote no longer means what you think it does when it comes to setting standards. At the local level we still allow mob rule to steal from the minorites or weaker units.

Which is what TMT is complaining about.

You keep insisting that one man one vote can do anything they like. They cannot, not unless they first get enough votes to overturn the rules in place for protecting minorities.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

“What Kelo did was redefine “public use” to mean an increase in the tax base, created by redevelopment, which then justified taking peoples homes.”

…
“
The Kelo decision resulted in a wave of legislation in many states and municipalities to prevent that sort of behavior, and to limit public use to its traditional meaning: schoold and roads and jails, that sort of public use.”

then you say:

“Under Kelo, the Tysons developers could just take over TMT’s house and redevelop that area – eliminate one voice, maybe.”

which has been outlawed – correct?

so if Tysons cannot take TMT’s property even if they offer him more than it’s worth – TMT can still refuse then …

does that mean that the Tysons Developers are entitled to develop anyhow and TMT has to pay them not to?

because.. isn’t that what you’ve maintained all along – that a property owner has a right to develop and if you prevent him from developing – you owe him compensation?

Does TMT owe the Tysons’ developers compensation if he stops them from developing?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

Larry – the Tysons landowners cannot yet prove that developing as proposed would provide a net benefit to the County. The Supervisors voted last September to require a fiscal study of implementing the Vision — up to 220 million square feet. No study has been performed or even commissioned. The landowners are not complaining.

Some landowners, most especially West Group, actually want to develop and build attractive buildings. But most of them just want a piece of paper that says “FAR of 3.0 or 4.5 or 5.5 or 6.0.” More investing minimally without producing or taking on substantive risks and costs.

They want to profit by manipulating rules, loopholes and pieces of paper. If we want to get America back on track, we need to take away the ability to profit by doing nothing productive. People should be rewarded when they offer desirable products and services and not because they make campaign contributions.

TMT

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“”Under Kelo, the Tysons developers could just take over TMT’s house and redevelop that area – eliminate one voice, maybe.”

which has been outlawed – correct?”

Nut under Kelo it hasn’t. Many states and localities moved to enact legislation to prevent this. I’mnot sure what happened in Virginia. That was about the time that the power company wanted to use eminent domain for its development.

I think Virinia enacted some legislation, but it was pretty watered down. In Republican Viginia busininess and corporations have a lot of power.

Undue advantage, one might say. As TMT is finding out.

Here is the thing. Under a full property rights regime Tysons developers would have the right to deelop, but they would have to buy all the property they needed to do it, including property owned by TMT and Co.

If they are unwilling to sell at any price then Tysons developers have the right to develop, but no the ability to do it profitably.

EMR thinks this kind of “holdout” should be illegal, and he thinks Kelo was a good finding.

The question is, once you pay for something, is it yours or not? If it isn’t then who owns it? Everybody? The government? Whatever the case, you would then have to go to a pure rental or user fee situation for everything you did. The government would own everything, and collect all the rents.

And the government would decide where to build and where not. If TMT doesn’t likeit, they just cancel his rental agreement and move hime elsewhere.

And of course all those decisions would be made “one man, one vote”.
No individual would have any protection.

And not much incentive, either.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 28, 2009

“so if Tysons cannot take TMT’s property even if they offer him more than it’s worth – TMT can still refuse then …”

Aha. You are catching on. now do yousee why property rights are GOOD for conservation?

——————————

“does that mean that the Tysons Developers are entitled to develop anyhow and TMT has to pay them not to?”

They are entitled to develop. The question is whether they can do it profitably. TMT has not prevented them from developing, he just continues to own his own property, which they happen to need.

In Japan, farmers have strong property rights. One small farmer prevented expansion of an airport for decades.

If TMT thinks his property (and we are talking his Hypothetical street rights here, not his real estate.) is worth more then they do, more than they can make a profit at, well too bad. They don’t have the right to succeed, necessarily, they just have the right to try.

If they had enough money, they could just buy up all the real estate and eliminate the competition. This would also eliminate much of the traffic problem. After that, anyone who moved back in, would do so with their eyes open, seeing all the problems TMT has described.

If conservationists want to preserve land, they can do the same thing as the Tysons developers: buy it up. In the case of Tyson’s TMT and Co ARE the conservationists, and they have already bought up the land. Now they are complaining because they don’t think their property rights are fully protected.

Funny how that works, especially when it works against you.

If it was really bad, the new Tysons immigrants would pay a lot less to live there, and Tysons developers would take the loss. But if it turns out to be a super deal as the developers claim, TMT will have taken the loss.

So TMT has the right to keep his property, but he has to absorb the opportunity cost of not taking the developers money or the opportunity cost if they were right and he was wrong.

——————————-

“Does TMT owe the Tysons’ developers compensation if he stops them from developing?”

No. He has the right to own his property. But he’s probably not going to stop them alone. If Tysons developers start offering anything like a fair price, then TMT will discover that the rats are abandoning his ship, and he may not be able to stop the developers.

He’s not going to be able to stop them anyway, but at least this way he would get paid.

————————–

You see the difference? As it stands now, a bunch of property owners can say no and there is no real cost to them. Even if the devloper has acknowledged building rights. And especially if he is asking for an upzoning.

But under a full property rights system, they would have to turn down money in order to say no. Now, “just saying no” has a clear cost.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 28, 2009

I think we got some confusion over Kelo.

The Kelo decision said that a developer, in effect, with the help of government, can “take” land via ED if in the opinion of the government, it serves a public purpose.

The “wave” of subsequent lawss passed in response to Kelo proves an important point.

That property rights can be changed – and they can be changed via a majority vote.

So ..even in business-friendly Va, I’m willing to bet that Tysons will not have government-sanctioned ED power.

Beyond that – because we ever talk about whether they want land they do not currently own..

we’re talking about land that they do own

and we talking about whether or not – on the land they own right now – whether or not they have the “right to develop” it.

And I think they do – but at far, far less “by-right” density.

My question has been – can the landowner develop his land – as he sees fit and without others preventing him from developing as he sees fit.

Because.. you’ve maintained that

1. – he does

2. – if he is not permitted to, that those who prevented him – owe him compensation.

and I’ve maintained:

1. – that he does not have the inherent right to develop as he sees fit.

2. – that the criteria that would allow him to develop – requires that he provide adequate infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of his proposed development.

3. – that if he does not agree to build the required infrastructure (called a proffer), that he can be turned down – not because he did not pay the proffer but because, in the opinion of the government, his development would have impacts too high.

this is a valid reason for turning down a development proposal.

All the local government has to do is to provide the reason.

about the only recourse the developer has is to sue on the basis that the decision was arbitrary and capricious – legal speak that says that they cannot refuse something that is consistent with their Comp Plan and conforms to their ordinances.

This is why the Tysons folks, as pointed out by TMT are trying to have the Comp Plan changed and to obtain waivers for the LOS standards.

This tells me 2 things:

1. – they don’t have the right to develop their property as they see fit.

i.e. they do not have an unfettered right to develop.

2. – They cannot force TMT and others to compensate them for denying them from developing what they want to develop.

I’m not much concerned on the commentary on whether or not one side or the other or both can agree to what a “good deal” is or is not.

Only that – in terms of “property rights” that the Tysons folks do not have the right to do what they wish with their property.

further.. TMT does not owe them compensation for refusing to grant them the right to develop their property as they see fit.

and it appears that you agree that this is the case.

correct?

can we now put this concept to bed also?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“That property rights can be changed – and they can be changed via a majority vote.”

Those places that changed in response to Kelo acted to strengthen their property rights. They acted to make sure that the “government” (supposedly acting for the majority) cannot take property from a minority EVEN if they pay for it.

As you say, property rights were changed and the majority acted to limit government property rights, not their own property rights.

Government can still claim (and pay for) property that it intends to use for a government purpose, but not simply to hand it over to someone else.

If that “someone else” wants property, they can buy it on the open market, just like anyone else, otherwise they are stealing.

That is what the majority said.

And that is what TMT is complaining about. From his perspective, Tysons developers are mounting a plan that amounts to stealing.

In this case, they seem to be doing it in spite of the comp plan and everything else. They have politcal power and money to help them steal.

—————————-

“can we now put this concept to bed also?”

Absolutely not.

I have never claimed that thee are ANY unfettered rights. For anyone.

You still don’tave an argument that is internally consistent. It still amounts to a plan to allow stealing, which is what your premise says you cannot allow: anyone to cause you damage, of any kind.

It is a claim for superior property rights. Rights that are unfettered.

I have never claimed that there is an unlimited right to develop, or to pollute: despite what you seem to think, and despite what you claim I have said.

The Tysons developers do not have an unfettered right to develop, and the TMTs do not have an unfetterd right to prevent development, and the majority do not have an unfettered right to steal from the minority.

EVRY RIGHT COMES WITH OBLIGATIONS.

The majority has an obligation to protect the minority. The
Tysons Developers have an obligation not to make unsubstantiated claims, and so do the TMT’s of the world.

So, how do we negotiate the fetters?

You think we negotiate them by majority rule. And I think that is a claim for unfettered rights for the majority, which is a license to steal.

Even Suze Orman says there is no difference between your money and you.

She is right. When I was mugged I felt outraged and violated that a majority of three took it on themslves to beat me and relieve me of my wallet. I felt exactly the same way when the majority of county relieved me of a building right, they had previously promised.

They made the same argument you made about mother inlaw suites: too many people were “taking advantage” of the aeements previously made and agreed to. By both sides of the table.

But now a new majority took control and they claimed new, unfettered rights fo rthemselves: there is no right to develop (unless you already did).

So what happens is that those that claim there is no right to develop, pretty soon extend that to mean they can remove rights to develop that previosuly existed, and Kelo suggests they can even remove rights to develop that have already been exercised!

They think they have unfettered rights. Enforced by the mythical “majority” when no real vote has ever been taken. And even if they took the vote and won, all they would have is – legalized stealing. Which violates the main reason we have government.

Taht is why your argument is circular and unworkable.

Suze Orman (among many others) says an assault on your money is an assault on yourself.

The Declaration says you have an inalienable right to life, and an assult on that (yourself) is justification to overthrow the government. Or as Abe said, if property is not sacrosanct, you have anarchy. Then we live no better than the animals, who fight over territory and food, because they have no property rights.

That is where your argument goes. Unless you believe in communism, where the majority (theoretically) rules all propperty and doles it out as needed to best meet the needs of society, according to the politburo of disposition.

————————-

My argument just says, look, there is no way to tell if the Tysons developers are providing more than the TMT’s say they are stealing. There is no way to tell if the TMT’s are making excess claims for damages to things they can’t prove they own, and haven’t paid for anyway.

Both sides have or should have fetters on the rights they claim and the promises they make.

The enerally accepted way to make a deal is that I put something on the table and you put something on the taable and vice versa. When we both think we have a swap that is good for both of us we swap.

In essence, we agree that we are both better off.

That doesn’t mean you get to come to the table with a gun, or the building inspector, or four of your friends to enforce your side of the deal.

All of those things have been tried and they are generally recognized as some form of stealing.

I won’t countenance stealing or a governement tht does, and you will. We are never going to agree, no matter a how manytimes you twist a circualr argument or no matter where youstart on your circle it always comes round to stealing.

I won’t even countenance it when it is ostensibly for a good cause like “our” public good or “our” environment. Adam Sith didn’t have muchto say about that gambit either. If it is fo rth epublic good, why does anyone come off worse, without agreeing to?

Where is the DEAL, CONTRACT, or DEED that both parties willingly signed?

This isn’t about the majority, or the ones with the most power. It is about putting your real stuff on the table until both sides think thay have a winner.

The problem, as I see it. is that we have not yet figured out how to define,and assign all the stuff that we are now arguing about. Stuff that was so plentiful until recently that it was free.

There wasn’t any point in trying to sell a free resource: no profit margin, but now there is, so people and groups are making unsubstantiated claims left and right.

Which is why we now need more and better property rights.

————————-

The groups tht want status quo, no change, comfort, or conservation naturally want to stake out the claim that there are no development rights, because that way they “win”.

Even if it is at the expense of someone else, who is otherwise exactly the same as them, but even more conservative and thus later to make a change.

It is nothing but stealing, no matter how you dress it.

So if you come to me with the claim there is no right to develop, or anyother similar claptrap, you had better be prepared to explain to me what the fetters are on your right to enforce that idea.

(I don’t believe for a minute this is the case in Tysons, the developers there are nothing like the conservationists (TMT and Co.). There are real problems there. But when you make the mistake of looking at one collosal failure and saying this is why we need unfettered control over development rights, well, that is hou you legislate yourself into totalitarianism.)

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“That property rights can be changed – and they can be changed via a majority vote.”

In other word ther are no property rights, and the majority is free to steal.

Except for those pesky laws the majority passed that say you can’t.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

Look, I wan’t a green and clean environment, and I want my property and neighborhood secure from overcrowding, predation, graffiti, and stealing.

But I’m not willing to steal to do it.

There are a lot of charlatans out there selling snake oil called Public Benefit, Free – No Cost, The Other Guy Pays, Free Market, Conservative Principles, and True Green, but it is all a sideshow aimed at lightening or lifting your wallet.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“They cannot force TMT and others to compensate them for denying them from developing what they want to develop.”

And I never sugested tht in this case.

Here the Developers are making the public benefit claim, and TMT is making the “too much cost” claim.

TMT has an obligation to back up his argument with a an unabiguous, verifiable statement of how much is too much.

Then, if the developers can afford it, and agree to his price, he should accept the put up or shut up.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

Geitner’s recent proposed planis a case in point. The government and “private investors” buy up toxic assets withthe government taking the risk and the investors taking the profit, if any.

Sceptics are asking (rightfully, I think) if this is anyway to conduct price discovery. How do you divorce price or value from risk (loss of YOUR property).

Inthe Tysons situation, both sides are negotiating with stuff they don’t own, and don’t have at risk.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

This must be prustrating to you because you can;t seem to et your head around being a fiscally conservative populist in a green environment.

It must seem like chaos and blather to you, but it is perfecly sensible to me.

Like steering a smll boat in a storm ther is only one best option at each interval, and you probably wont get to take it.

You can’t throw your hands up and say its impossible, so you do the best you can without breaking anything.

Or hitting someone else’s boat.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

In sailboat racing, youae not alowed to hit the other guy,but yuare allowed to take advantage of him by fouling his air.

He, of course, has the same right.

Rights are adjudicated by the protet committee, which is chosen by lottery, not majority elected.

You may be judging the race one week and in it the next – with your last “victim” on the protest committee.

This tends to keep things honest.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Both sides are negotiating with what they don’t own.” That’s true only for the landowners.

Ray, they can build to the current Plan today. The current Plan, with the arrival of rail and certain road improvements, permits Tysons to grow to 73 million square feet. It’s at 45 million today.

No skeptic is arguing that the owners cannot build at all. Build as permitted.

But the landowners do not want to build to what is permitted. They want something different — something that they are not entitled to by law. So why shouldn’t they be required to prove what they want will not strain public facilities and pay for the cost of easing the strain?

TMT

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“No skeptic is arguing that the owners cannot build at all. Build as permitted.”

TMT got it right.

The question is – who decides using what process to decide what can be built “by-right” and what is not.

this what Ray says:

“The Tysons developers do not have an unfettered right to develop, and the TMTs do not have an unfetterd right to prevent development,”

so I ask – who decides what Tysons is allowed to develop?

If enough folks like TMT are opposed to Tysons from building any more than what is allowed as “by-right” – it’s not likely that they are going to be allowed more without some major repercussions at the next election.

Ray says this is “oppressing the miniority” and “stealing” for the local citizens to have such a role in determining – how much development will be allowed and using measures like LOS to require the developer to mitigate the impact of their development.

What I speaking of is – the way the system actually works.

When Ray speaks about this – he drifts back and forth between how the system actually works – and his own views about how property rights SHOULD work in his view…

so it’s virtually impossible to get him to admit how the system actually works right now – because – he strongly opposes it.

but he gets caught on his own petard when specific real-life situations are brought up to discuss relative to his actual philosophy about “property rights”.

That’s why I asked Ray specifically if the Tysons folks had the “right” to develop their property as they see fit – and if folks like TMT oppose them – whether they have to compensate the Tysons developers because they were prevented from building what they wanted to build.

Why is this important?

Because.. in virtually every situation in Va when a developers wants to build something – the property rights folks say that they should have the right to do it and that proffers to require LOS mitigation is wrong and should be illegal.

and right now, there is an ongoing effort in the GA to outlaw proffers and impact fees and require localities to allow development without proffer and LOS standards.

so this is not an inconsequential issue..

.. and Tysons is an excellent example of how big a development proposal could be .. that could easily overwhelm the current existing infrastructure – and whose responsibility it is to pay to build the required infrastructure to maintain an acceptable LOS.

the question again – ” Do the Tysons Developers have the right to build what they propose without providing the infrastructure needed to maintain an acceptable level LOS?”

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

The KELO decision and the resulting legislative actions also relate directly to the property rights issue.

What the KELO proposition was – can a private owner of land build a development by forcing the current owners of the land to sell their land.

The issue centered around what the value of the land was to the existing owners who did not want to sell verses what the developers wanted to pay for it and what the developers did was convince the local government to allow them to using the laws of Eminent Domain to determine the value of the properties and then to force the current landowners to sell at that price by taking their land if they did not agree.

Now ask yourselves if you applied this concept to the Tysons Developers what the reaction would be.

do you think that property rights advocates would spring to the defense of the Tysons property owners or the current existing property owners like TMT?

In a way.. what the current Tysons proposal is – is about what is in the public interest.

There are more than a few folks, including the Smart Growth folks who believe that a Tysons proposal “done right” would be a better outcome for the Tysons area than what it is right now or what it would be if it continues to develop in the same ways as it has.

So.. a developer comes along and submits a proposal that fits the model for “better” development – a mega mixed-use, transit and pedestrian integrated development pattern that will allow the ultimate in Smart Growth – a place where people can ..live, work, shop, and play… totally consistent with EMR’s Balanced Community concept.

EXCEPT:

TMT has pointed out that the proposal does not meet the goals for car traffic, pedestrian facilities and … they want folks to DRIVE somewhere else for “Play”.

Beyond the claimed merits of the proposal – do the existing folks in the Tysons area – have the effective right to say “no” to the proposal – by overtly responding at election time to vote for or oppose leaders that will represent their point of view?

In other words, can the majority of people – effectively vote on the Tysons proposal?

What I think I hear Ray
saying is that such a thing is “illegal” and “steals” from the developers.

That having a majority decide the issue …oppresses minorities…

and what I’m saying is that .. I don’t know any other way to decide this issue ….

and .. if there is another way – then let’s hear it…

but so far.. what the KELO decision resulted in – was an overwhelming majority of property owners saying in essence.. NO.. one property owner is not allowed develop as they see fit… and that if a majority of existing property owners are opposed – that – that decides the issue.

and no.. they don’t owe a penny to the “minority” property owner who made the proposal that was rejected.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“..they don’t owe a penny to the “minority” property owner who made the proposal that was rejected.”

They didn’t pay it, certainly, whther they owe it is open to discussion.

What did they get out of the rejection? Was this done for some public benefit? If not, why the rejection? What is their real cost of approval, and what is his real cost of rejection? How much would he have had to pay to change their minds, or is that even possible?

If I have the answers to those question then maybe I agree they don’t owe him anything and maybe I don’t agree.

But I certainly don’tagree with the blanket statement that they NEVER owe him anything, that they can put whatever restrictions they like on his property.

That is anarchy.

RH

——————

I’ll say it again, it is a different matter if the applicant is asking for new or additional rights than it is if he had rights which are removed without compensation.

Especially, if he had rights that were removed without compensation, and then later, when conditions change, he asks for additional rights (his old ones back) and the county expects to be paid for “grantiing” permission.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“But I certainly don’tagree with the blanket statement that they NEVER owe him anything, that they can put whatever restrictions they like on his property.

That is anarchy.”

no Ray. Anarchy is when you DON’T Have one man – one vote.

“I’ll say it again, it is a different matter if the applicant is asking for new or additional rights than it is if he had rights which are removed without compensation.”

Ray – do you think the existing rights on the land at Tysons came from?

Didn’t someone define what the “by-right” rights were at some point in the past?

Don’t you agree that at some point in the past – that Fairfax did not require traffic LOS standards on development on by-right land…

.. and that subsequently .. rules were passed that applied to ALL property than they had to do a traffic study and mitigate traffic impacts associated with EVEN existing “by-right” development?

so.. when that rule was passed.. it affect all property.. and it removed the right to develop without regard to traffic impacts and replaced it with a rule that required mitigation as a condition of approval.

All I’m asking you to do here is to agree that the system does indeed work this way… even if you strongly disagree with it.

the reality is.. that new rules get passed – and no landowner is compensated … as a result – on properties … this is the key part – not yet developed.

You cannot retroactively force existing, already-built development to go back and build mitigation infrastructure (usually but not always)… but a locality CAN and they do this all the time – set new restrictions on land not yet developed.

This is why I say that your right to develop is a restricted right and a right than can and is further restricted – and done so …by a representative government where the majority essentially agrees to the rules.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Anarchy is when you DON’T Have one man – one vote.”

Anarchy is when ten men can vote to steal from one man.

Fortunately in our society the majority essentially agrees to the rules: and one of them is that you have an obligation toprotect the minority.

No one has an unrestricted right to restrict other people’s rights.

They may have the power, but they don’t have the right.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Quote of the Day – 3.17.09

— By Kevin Drum | Tue March 17, 2009 9:50 PM PST

From Sen. Judd Gregg (R–NH), on the possibility of using the budget reconciliation process to pass healthcare and cap-and-trade bills in the Senate:

“That would be the Chicago approach to governing: Strong-arm it through. You’re talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You’re talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

Hell yes. This is supposed to be a democracy. Why, allowing legislation to pass based on nothing more than a simple majority vote would be just this side of mob rule.”

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/03/quote-day-31709

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Downloading may be illegal. But 60 million people used Napster and only 50 million voted for Bush or Gore. We live in a democracy. If the people want to share files then the law should be changed to let them.”

Larry: I assume you agree with this blogger.

He, of course left something out: the files belong to someone else. Just because they are available everywhere, like air, it doewsnlt mean you own or control it all: just your share.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

oh.. majority rule does indeed have some major flaws but what is better?

you say this:

“No one has an unrestricted right to restrict other people’s rights.

They may have the power, but they don’t have the right.”

is that true?

it’s not one person restricting other’s rights..

It’s a majority who agrees to restrict EVERYONE’s rights INCLUDING their own.

the majority AGREES that it is not in the best interests of anyone to allow an individual to build a Tysons that adversely affects everyone else…

so a majority of folks vote to not let anyone including themselves do a Tysons that will adverse everyone else –

the legal concept on minorities is that you cannot pass a law that only applies to SOME people but you can pass a law that applies to everyone

and we do this – with a representative one man – one vote process.

and we call this Representative Government.

and so far.. it’s way ahead of what comes next in second place.

agreed?

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“He, of course left something out: the files belong to someone else. Just because they are available everywhere, like air, it doewsnlt mean you own or control it all: just your share”

oh I agree with this.. just as you do not have the right to scoop up milk that is on the shelf for sale.

but this is way different from owning a piece of land….

and what rights you have to do things with that land…

you are free to enjoy and use your land as long as in doing so ..you don’t adversely affect other land owners.

that’s where your “rights” stop – at the border of your land.

beyond that – everything you do is with permission of the other land owners who could be affected by your activities.

otherwise – the folks who own Tysons could do whatever they wanted and would not be restricted by rules and restrictions created by a majority of all landowners ….

when one landowner does something that causes too much traffic…

the rest of the landowners get together and put a new rule in force that says that – as a landowner – you cannot develop your property if it is going to generate too much traffic.

true?

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“…can a private owner of land build a development by forcing the current owners of the land to sell their land.”

WHAT???

Private owner of what land? The whole point is that he does not own it and wants help from the government (the majority) to help steal it.

And tht is why so many laws were passed to help restrict it. So that the (current) majority could not steal without first changing or breaking someother law passed by some other majority.

If he is a private owner of land, he can go develop that.

Notice tht this is the same strategy as comp plans. We had zoning but it didn;t work because the majority could change zoning. So then we made zoning contingent onthe Comp plan and made that so it can only be changed every 20 years. This puts a buffer on what the (current)majority can do, even if the previous majority is mostly dead at the end of 20 years.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“when one landowner does something that causes too much traffic…”

Well thats a real belly laugh.

Which one landowner is able to create traffic? Doesn’t he have jsut as much right to ban other traffic that causes congestion for him as they have his?

Or do they et more rights by virtue of being there first?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“the property rights folks say that they should have the right to do it “

And the other propeerty rights folks (the status qou side or conservationist sid) say they got here first and they have the right to stop it.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Didn’t someone define what the “by-right” rights were at some point in the past?”

Yes they did, and then they still think they are free to tkae those away, because of people like you.

In Tyosns the developers have used their rights, and now they want more. That is a different thing.

You are unwilling to give in on the first case, which is clearly wrong, because it might damage your strngth on the second case.

Or any case where we have agreed on a conditions and now wish to change them. In contract law, the person who wants to break the agreement is the one that owes compensation, usually.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“The current Plan, with the arrival of rail and certain road improvements, permits Tysons to grow to 73 million square feet. It’s at 45 million today.

No skeptic is arguing that the owners cannot build at all. Build as permitted.”

Thank you. I did not understand that.

My arguemtns are based on the condition wher ethey have built as permitted and want more, or the opposite where they have not and someone else wants to make sure they don’t.

Here they apparently want to build as allowed and also want more.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“You cannot retroactively force existing, already-built development to go back and build mitigation infrastructure “

But you can go back and require an existing alredy built and permitted polluter to retrofit new mitigation infrastructure, is that it?

Sonds like it depends which sid of the stret you are on: if youalready own your home that’s one thing, but if you alreadyown your manufacturing plnat it is something else.

And if you just haven’t arrived yet, well, good luck getting in.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

the restrictions that apply to the current owners of Tysons are more restrictive than those that applied to prior owners.. an one can go back 20, 30, 50 years and find out that over time… more and more restrictions were put on the land.

50 years ago, the owners of Tysons then .. could have built what the current owners cannot and must get permission to do.

My point here is that – over time – more and more restrictions are put on what an owner can do with his land and there are three things that are true:

1. – that we actually do put more and more restrictions on development

2. – that we do it.. in essence with a majority vote

3. – that when we put new restrictions on land – that the owners are not compensated by the majority that agreed to the new restrictions.

My point is .. that this is the reality.. this is the way the process works….

and that folks like Ray do not agree…

and that when he sallies forth with the way “it works”.. what he is saying is .. a advocacy for it to work DIFFERENTLY than it does now…

he is opposed to the current process and wants it changed to what he is advocating…

and if we actually changed it to what he is advocating – the Tysons folks would not be restricted in the way that they are…

because.. they would be entitled to ALL the bundle of sticks that were originally on that land…

… because.. according to Ray… it is “illegal” to “take” one or more of those bundle of sticks – without compensation.

And all I am saying here is that we do.

and we have voted – to do so.

and it’s the way our system works…

and it you want to change it – you have to convince a majority of people to agree with you…

Now.. will a majority of people agree to let Tysons build what they want to build and according to Ray are operating under restrictions put on their land by prior actions that were “illegal” when they were done.

By the way – the Comp Plan does not REQUIRE ANYTHING.. it’s a guidance document…and .. it can be changed at any time… which is exactly what the Tysons Folks are asking for.

And Ray.. for those changes, it WILL REQUIRE – a majority vote.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“But you can go back and require an existing alredy built and permitted polluter to retrofit new mitigation infrastructure, is that it?”

because permits expire because they don’t issue “forever” permits.

so the answer is YES because you are NEVER granted a permanent right to start with…

and that implies that you never had the right to start with…

OR you had the right and it got “taken”…

either way… in reality – you never had a permanent right

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“…what the KELO decision resulted in – was an overwhelming majority of property owners saying in essence.. NO.. one property owner is not allowed develop as they see fit…”

Larry, this is beyd twisting what happened: this is an entire reconstruction, a refabrication of history.

The Kelo decision itself said tha the majority (in the form of government) had the right to use eminent domain to take property for any purpose deemed in the public benefit, including giving the proeprty to another owner.

What the subsequent (and incomplete) wave of subesequent legislation said was, oh no you don’t have the right to tke our property, just because your are the majority and you have a better use.

The subsequent wave of legislation increased individual property rights and diminised the rights of majority government.

Which is just the opposite of what you claim.

It is true that the new rules were passed because the majority favored them, just as the rules on environmental justice were favored by a majority.

In both cased the majority favored REDUCING their own power.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“the Comp Plan does not REQUIRE ANYTHING.. it’s a guidance document…and .. it can be changed at any time… which is exactly what the Tysons Folks are asking for.”

I think it depends on where you live: comp plans only come up for review at infrequent intervals.

If the comp plan does not require anything it has no force: a zoning change can be made that ignores the comp plan, and this is the complaint frequently heard at the zoning meetings.

—————————

“so the answer is YES because you are NEVER granted a permanent right to start with…”

So,if infrastructure is a problem for new residents it could be for existing residents as well.

The government COULD come in and revoke your occupancy permit at any time and require that new infrastructure be retrofitted.

But yet you just said that:

“You cannot retroactively force existing, already-built development to go back and build mitigation infrastructure “

More circular logic, Larry. And as long as you insist on the outcomes you want, you will laways have to base it on circular logic.

————————–

1. that we actually do put more and more restrictions on development

Which we have neither the right nor the reason to do unless we can show that it is for a public benefit. This is not my idea and it is written government policy, not ot mention law, and common sense. There is no reason to put restrictions on unless we get something out of it.

2. – that we do it.. in essence with a majority vote

And we do a lot of other things with majority votes, too, like limiting the rights of majority to lynch minorities or steal from them. Like requiring pament for property taken for public use or benefit.

3. – that when we put new restrictions on land – that the owners are not compensated by the majority that agreed to the new restrictions.

You are right. This is what happens. But it happens against the spirit and the letter of the law. It is unethical and unlawful, but the law is not yet fully enforced. What this really says is that the previous owners are not compensated by the majority that agreed to hide the factt hat they are stealing by just calling the process new restricitons.

It is like not stealing rom me, but just ordering me never to use my wallet or checkbook. Net result is pretty much the same.

If you want something new, yu should expect to pay for it, but you are telling me it is OK not to pay for it if you are a majority.

That way the community gets what it wants for free, right? It saves everybody money.

Except for one guy. In crime stories he is referred to as the victim.

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

what the laws passed in Kelo did – was to tell a developer – like the developers of Tysons that Government will not force unwilling landowners to sell to the Tysons landowners.

It took AWAY from developers – like Tysons – the ability to use ED to develop their land.

I think this clearly demonstrates that individual property owners are governed by a MAJORITY of all property owners

AND further it shows that what used to be allowed – the ability of an individual developer/landowner to use ED to acquire adjacent properties was taken away….

in other words – the “right to develop” using ED – was taken away.. after the original court ruling upheld it.

A majority of property owners decide to take away the right from an individual property owner to use ED to develop his property.

the reaction to KELO RESTRICTED the right to develop.. it took away a right that they previously had….

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“I think it depends on where you live: comp plans only come up for review at infrequent intervals.”

no it doesn’t. It can be changed at any time the locality decides to change it and not infrequently it is changed in response to a development proposal.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“So,if infrastructure is a problem for new residents it could be for existing residents as well.

The government COULD come in and revoke your occupancy permit at any time and require that new infrastructure be retrofitted.

But yet you just said that:

“You cannot retroactively force existing, already-built development to go back and build mitigation infrastructure “

but I don’t believe that I said this:

“The government COULD come in and revoke your occupancy permit at any time and require that new infrastructure be retrofitted.”

they can make you bring your structure up to code but that is not the same as making you build new infrastructure like accel/deccel lanes or a new storm pond… by making you tear down some of your building to put in a new storm pond.

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“1. that we actually do put more and more restrictions on development

Which we have neither the right nor the reason to do unless we can show that it is for a public benefit. “

but we do it Ray.

there is a process for doing it.

” 2. – that we do it.. in essence with a majority vote

And we do a lot of other things with majority votes, too, like limiting the rights of majority to lynch minorities or steal from them.”

Our process is that a new law or new restriction must apply to EVERYONE and not to only certain people (called minorities).

New laws that apply to EVERYONE are passed ALL THE TIME.

“You are right. This is what happens. But it happens against the spirit and the letter of the law. It is unethical and unlawful, but the law is not yet fully enforced.”

Ray – you have a serious lack of understanding of the law.

Laws are passed ALL THE TIME with NEW RESTRICTIONS that apply to EVERYONE… and it is fully within the letter and the spirit of our laws because that’s the way our system is designed to work.

You are essentially arguing that new laws that take away previous rights are “illegal” when .. it’s a fact.

You’re basically arguing against the way our system actually works ..

and what you’re suggest to prevent this is a “king” type person to prevent it rather than a majority vote.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“what the laws passed in Kelo did – was to tell a developer – like the developers of Tysons that Government will not force unwilling landowners to sell to the Tysons landowners.”

It is a different deal, because Tysons developers are not taking real land and homes with existing deeds, but I won’t quibble with the idea: Government (the majority) cannot force a sale on unwiling landowners.

We agree. Finally.

Now, how about PART of a sale? One stick out of the bundle?

—————————

In the Tysons case you think that unwlling landowners are being forced into a sale of some kind.

That is a lot more like it and a more accurate description of what happened.

Unlike Kelo, real deeds and real property and homes are not involved. So what property is it that you think they are being forced into selling?

How was it paid for and where are the deeds, or proof? And why is the government (the majority) suddenly interested in givng new protection to these property rights that never existed before?

————————–

I think you have finally come aroud to the essence of my argument: we need more protection for more kinds of property rights.

You have to understand that this gives individual landowners more protection, but also more power. If I’m TMTs neighbor I might not have the same utility value for this new property as he does, and I might be more willing to sell.

If the majority are willing to sell then we come back around to an argument similar to, but not the same as yours.

How does a corporation decide to sell itself? By a vote of the stockholders, based on how much they own.

And how do the shareholders decide? By how much they will get in their hot little hands.

This is fundamentally different from adjoining landowners refusing to “sell” when they get nothing in return. And it is also fundamentally different from demanding some exhobitant sum based on a market value that is undefined.

So we have the same problem as Geitner, how do we conduct price discovery? Well, somebody has to take the risk of owning something, and be allowed to sell it.

In the present situation we re trying to take all the risk out of home ownership and hand it all to prospective or undeveloped owners.

But under a property rights regime, TMT would have to accept the risk that other owners might not feel the same as him. And with real money on the table, you can expect the “voters” or stockholders, or property owners to actually show up for the referendum. Then you find out waht the real majority thinks, instead of what some spokesman claims it is.

————————–

Some people often claim that government should operate more like a business. Maybe that day is coming.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

A majority of property owners decide to take away the right from an individual property owner to use ED to develop his property.

NO THEY DIDN’T.

Yhat “property owner” never owned the proerty.

They took away from THEMSELVES the right for the majority to force an individual to sell, through ED, for certain purposes. Mainly to prevent governemnt from acting as an intermediary to take land from one private owner and give it to another.

You are still trying to twist this into the opposite of what it was,

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Which we have neither the right nor the reason to do unless we can show that it is for a public benefit. “

but we do it Ray.”

But WHY would we (government) do it if it isn’t for the public benefit?

The answer to that is easy.

Because we have allowed a few people to use the government as a means to steal from still fewer people.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Because we have allowed a few people to use the government as a means to steal from still fewer people.”

Most people (the majority) realize this is wrong and that is why the backlash against KELO.

Why do we still do it?
Why do we allow it?
And why do people like you still think it is OK?

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 29, 2009

“Why do we still do it?
Why do we allow it?
And why do people like you still think it is OK?”

I think it is okay if a majority of people agree to restrict rights on everyone including themselves as a way to protect themselves from being harmed by the adverse activities of a few.

I don’t know of another way to handle these kinds of issues other than replacing one man – on vote with a system that gives fewer people a bigger vote than others – a “king” type process.

In the end – all landowners agree to pass new restrictions to deal with previously unrestricted rights that was determined to be not in the best interests of a majority.

so.. whether it is a uranium mine or a 100 story trump tower – in both cases – a majority of people will decide if that mine or that tower is allowed.

Your view that if the mine or the tower used to be allowed that you cannot take that right away

is wrong…

we take away rights all the time… when a majority of folks decide that the harm of it outweighs the benefit of it – to everyone – even if an individual will benefit from it.

A government that has an elected legislature is saying in effect – that no activity is a forever right.

A government that has an elected legislature has already made a decision about how to handle “property rights” and the laws that say that you cannot develop without a permit are the way we have agreed to deal with property rights.

Representative government reserves the right – granted by a majority that elects that government to change/restrict individual property rights – as long as that change applies to everyone and in the opinion of those elected – benefit the public interest.

that’s our system…

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

"If you read the constitution, the word democracy was never used. The founding fathers were against a democracy becuase majority rule means that you cannot protect the rights of everyone. If we all voted to steal your house, we could. Majority rule = mob rule and so they tried to keep away from that type of government. Today, schools teach our kids that we are a democracy. The media refers to us as a democracy. The president and former presidents, congress and even the supreme court at one time or another has referred to us as a democracy. This is wrong, we are a republic. The founding fathers even wrote about this after the bill of rights and the constitution were approved. The only correct answer would be a republic. And to the REPUBLIC (not demopcracy), for which it stands… Ask everyone you know this question and see how many say democracy."

http://forums.cheaperthandirt.com/viewtopic.php?p=12202&sid=4d744cafeb0c94bfc3c5074e73cc7d91

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Your view that if the mine or the tower used to be allowed that you cannot take that right away “

I never ever said that. don’t put words in my mouth to try to further your argument. It can be taken away, but it has to be paid for.

An investment was made pursuant to a prior agreement. If you breach your side of the agreement, then you owe compensation for the loss in investment.

The government can do what it wants, but it must be held liable for damage caused in the process, otherwise there is no control.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“I think it is okay if a majority of people agree to restrict rights on everyone including themselves “

You are getting closer. the ke words here are “including themselves”

How does that apply to someone sitting in theri home who prevents someone else form building theirs, under essentiall identical circumstances?

Are they going to move out of their house?

No, of course not. So if the rule is to apply to themselves then they must be responsible and pay for the damage caused to others.

That way the rule does appply equally.

Otherwise, it is steling.

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

Are you really trying to tell me that the Constitution does not require property that is taken by the government to be paid for?

Are you really trying to tell me that the civil rights movement and the environmental justice movement are not enshrined in law?

Are you really trying to tel me that dozens of jurisdictions have not acted to limit how their representatives are allowed to use eminent domain against them?

Are you relly trying to tell me tha tall of these are not part of our “system”, and that the majority can do as they damn please?

Or is it only, as you said, as long as it applies to them equally?
That is a significant distinction, and it is essentially what is requitred by the environmental justice statutes.

RH

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

Democracy is a rule by majority over a minority. This means that the majority must threaten or initiate violence against the minority in order to rule. Aggression, invasion, and hegemony are at the very root of democracy.

That is why we have courts, constitutions, separation of powers, restrictions on power, and all the other trappings of a republic.

We call it Substantive Due Process and it goes like this:

It is recognized that the will of the majority will clash with individuals’ interests, and so there is formula for achieving a balance, which goes like this: (loosely quoted)

“First, we determine what interest is at issue and whether it is a “fundamental right”. If what is at issue is a fundamental right, then the government (i.e., the majority) can abridge it only by “narrowly-tailored means” and only in order to achieve a “compelling” governmental objective. Thus, a law that abridges an individual’s fundamental right is presumed unconstitutional, though the presumption is rebuttable. In other words, it’s not like the majority can never trump individual rights — but almost never. This is called “strict scrutiny”.

If, on the other hand, what is at issue is not a fundamental right, then the majority can frustrate that interest as long as the means are rationally related to a legitimate government objective.”

If it is alegitimate government objective (provides a positive net social value) then there is no reason NOT to reimburse those whose interests are “frustrated”.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“we take away rights all the time…”

And you don’t see that as a problem?

Wouldn’t you agree that we would probably be a lot less cavalier about removing rights if we had to pay the damages?

If you don’t have to pay, why not take rights? (uh, because it is stealing rights?)

Yu can even engineer the taking so that it improves your rights and your property. You can make money taking rights, and just as you say, we do it all the time.

It is called stealing.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 29, 2009

“Positive freedom is an entitlement, like a “right” to healthcare, education, housing, etc. But where do these things come from? They do not fall down from the sky. Someone is obligated to give them to you.

Negative freedom is freedom from coercion, freedom from violence, freedom from duties, freedom from arbitrary power, etc. In other words, negative freedom is the right to be left alone.

…….

Now, this notion of negative freedom is the definition of freedom that has generally been used throughout most of western civilization. When you study western civilization from the Greeks and Romans on – the overwhelming concept of freedom meant negative freedom, to live your life as those who have autonomy. Positive freedom, a notion of entitlements to other people’s goods, etc. is something completely different and a creation of the modern era. “

Dr. Thomas Rustici

RH

Log in to Reply
Larry G

March 30, 2009

we’re way past 100 so this is my last entry on this thread.

“Constitution does not require property that is taken by the government to be paid for?”

it all depends on what one considers to be “property” in the first place.

land with boundaries is property.

what you can do with or on that property – as a right – is subject to interpretation – by the majority.

and it don’t matter if you call it a Democracy or a Republic if it is governed by one man – on vote elections.

Because.. over time.. elections change laws… change “rights”.

what the Constitution protects you from is laws that do not apply to everyone.

that’s the fundamental unchangeable part of it.

it never says that property rights can’t be changed.

and let’s be honest.. if the government is allowed to take your land and they are also the one who is allowed to decide it’s value – aren’t you splitting hairs as to what the government is allowed to do?

they can take your land – against your will and for a price you do not agree with.

and anything below physically taking your land is a subset of that..

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 30, 2009

“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

James Madison.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 30, 2009

“and they are also the one who is allowed to decide it’s value -“

Where did that come from? I never said that.

Why is Geitner off on a discovery process to learnthe value of toxic assests?

Because the government cannot set the price for anything. How many times do we have to learn that?

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 30, 2009

“The concept of freedom rests on a government limited to the protection of individual rights, while the concept of democracy rests on a government run by unlimited majority rule; we need to stop confusing these two opposite ideas.

…….

Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the context of liberty — in which individual rights may not be voted out of existence — that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the particular means of safeguarding individual rights. There is no moral “right” to vote to destroy rights.”

Ask a typical American if there should be limits on what government may do, and he would answer: yes. He understands that each of us has rights which no law — regardless of how much public support it happens to attract — is entitled to breach. An advocate of democracy, however, would answer: no.

……………….

America’s defining characteristic is freedom. Freedom exists when there are limitations on government, limitations imposed by the principle of individual rights. America was established as a republic, under which government is restricted to protecting our inalienable rights; this should not be called “democracy.” Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government — no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. But if “popular will” is the standard, then the individual has no rights — only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass sentiment of the moment. The Founders understood that the tyranny of the majority could be just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarch.”

Peter Schwatz

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 30, 2009

“2009 EPA SO2 auction results
Some highlights from the spot auction:

892,343 allowances were bid for
125,000 were purchased
59 unsuccessful bids (11 bidders)
18 successful bids (11 bidders)
Highest bid price = $500
Lowest bid price = $0.06
Clearing bid price = $69.74
The Ohio Valley Electric Cooperative was the largest bidder with 75,000 allowances purchased. Smaller bidders include the Acid Rain Retirement Fund (10) and Bates College Environmental Econ (2). From my count, at least 16,000 tons of SO2 will be retired as private bidders put their money where their mouths is [sic]. Imagine if this could be done in a CO2 auction?”

John Whitehead
Environmental Economics.

At least some people ae willing to pay for what they want to get.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 30, 2009

“A fourth and final myth is that economic analyses are concerned only with efficiency rather than distribution. Many economists do give more attention to aggregate social welfare than to the distribution of the benefits and costs of policies among members of society. The reason is that an improvement in economic efficiency can be determined by a simple and unambiguous criterion, an increase in total net benefits. What constitutes an improvement in distributional equity, on the other hand, is inevitably the subject of much dispute. Nevertheless, many economists do analyze distributional issues thoroughly. … Indeed, within the realm of global climate change policy, much of the economic analysis is dedicated to assessing the distributional implications of alternative policy measures. …”

Emphasis mine.

This is the part of economics that deals with paying back the minorities for losse incurred. it is no wonder Larry either doesn’t get it, or refuses to get it: it is a hard topic.

What constitutes an improvement in distributional equity, on the other hand, is inevitably the subject of much dispute. As this string has proven conclusively.

RH

Log in to Reply
Anonymous

March 30, 2009

Here is an idea Larry will hate: we don’t own the natural asssets and have no right to them! If we do use them we need to pay those we stole them from……”

————————

“Natural assets such as biodiversity, and natural liabilities, such as carbon, are not owned by the current generation, because we did not create them. We have them because previous generations passed them on to us, and we are obliged to do the same. If we deplete natural assets, or run up natural liabilities, we have an obligation to compensate future generations… “

(In environmental economics we DO assess future implications: everyperson borne or unborn is treated the same.)

RH

Log in to Reply

Bacon's Rebellion

IN THE NEWS — CHINA

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

119 responses to “IN THE NEWS — CHINA”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

IN THE NEWS — CHINA

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Comments

119 responses to “IN THE NEWS — CHINA”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Read More