Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

UNDERWATER HOUSING

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Wrong Size House in the Wrong Location

There is a lot of loose talk by 12.5 Percenters about how the ‘housing crisis’ is all about California and Nevada.

Today’s numbers: Virginia underwater mortgage rate is 19.6 percent. That is about one in five.

As luck would have it, Virginians are Over-housed. There is plenty of room for second and third dwellings in well located structures.

And there is plenty of room for chickens and goats in the walk-out basements of McMansions on one, two, five and ten acre lots that the 12.5 Percenters love.

The data shows a pattern: the more dysfunctional the settlement pattern, the higher the rate of underwater mortgages.

Good locations are still holding their own because even if the borrower is “subprime,” the dwelling is not and ‘someone’ always needs a dwelling in a good location.

If Agencies and Enterprises had started to allocate the fair, equitable cost of location-variable expenses when the problem was first articulated and the data was first available (BEFORE the 2000’s bubble) then the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis would not have become the ‘housing crisis’ that led to the Global Financial Meltdown.

You could have read all about it on the Original Bacon’s Rebellion.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

66 responses to “UNDERWATER HOUSING”

  1. Jim Duncan Avatar
    Jim Duncan

    Interesting comment. Do you have a source for the 19.6% number?

    Thanks,

    Jim

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim D:

    Today’s WaPo.

    They cite First American CoreLogic in the graphic on page A-6.

    This is consistant with what we see and hear elsewhere.

    Calif, Fla, Texas and Mich have the highest number of underwater mortgages but then Cal and Texas are the biggest states.

    EMR

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/search/House+Price+Index/1

    This site has data where you can track the house price index by state. If you plot them you cansee that California, nevada, Florida, and arizona all had large house price bubbles followed by large corrections and many foreclosures.
    SD,TX,OK,MO,AL, and AR had no such housing bubble and far fewer foreclosures, in spite of (or because of) being modest income states.

    Compared to AR, VA has had a substantial housing bubble, though not as great as CA.

    There might be room for second and third dwellings ins some large homes, but that is generally forbidden by zoning, hence the scarcity and the housing bubble.

    My Alexandria home is in a good location with several transit options nearby. It isn’t unerwater, although it has declined in assessment almost 25%. That’s a pretty heavy hit so I’d guess there is more to the issue than location and transit access.

    Anyway, there goes my retirement boat. (What’s a dysfunctional location for a boat or motor home?) I guess a boat is functional anyplace as long as it is on the surface and right side up.

    EMR is right about the chickens and goats, but where does that leave the apartment and other multiunit dwellers?

    He is also (obviously) right about upside down and dysfunctional being somewhat related: it just isn’t the only factor. In any case, he would have to agree that the DATA show that California is the most dysfuntional location.

    Sounds like a good place to NOT emulate, in every respect.

    Now EMR brings up a good question: if we are talking about 19.6% underwater then what difference does it make how large CA and Texas are? It’s a percentage right?

    And while you are at it, consider that most of the newer homes are the ones farthest out, so they have had the least amount of time to build up equity, and they are more likely (higher %) to be underwater. So while this is RELATED to location, that may have very little to do with the CAUSE of being upside down. The cause may be more (inversely) related to time in residence.

    Sorry, as a scientist I can’t help it.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Underwater is not as closely tied to age of dwelling as it is to quality of location.

    Reason? A lot of the underwater mortgages are due to refinance not recent purchace.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I might be able to agree with that, in some cases, but overall it doesn;t make sense.

    If you bought a house in the bubble you would be more likely to have to stretch to meet the price: your loan to value would be very high, and you have nothing in it, o YOUR risk is low.

    But, if you are refinancing a house you have been paying on for a couple of decades, now you have more of your own money at risk. While you might refinance to add on or get a car or something you woul not as likely go to the limit of what your house is worth.

    Such a house would not likely be in the same kind of noew, outer location as the ones that are underwater.

    But, if you did refinance it to the hilt, what would be to prevent it from being underwater? You are suggesting that the location would mean it would not drop in value as much. That might be a little bit true, but if you have a 95% loan to value refi (you’d have to be nuts) and values drop only as much as they have in Arlington (17%, I think) you would still be in a world of hurt.

    And here is another thing. If you are in an older neighborhood, you probably have more seniority in your job. if you are in a more valuable neighborhood, you are in a more expensive neighborhod, and you can probably afford it, or you wouldn’t be there.

    I agree there is a trend that seems to be related to location, but relation and cause are two different things. I think we don’t have all the variables.

    RH

  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    there are a whole boatload of variables involved here – not the least of which is whether an individual considers their house – their primary residence first and an investment vehicle second… or vice-versa.

    Most folks with a stable mortgage than they can afford can look forward to using additional money for other things that they’d want – a car, a boat, a pool, etc…

    Why would someone refinance their house – as a vehicle for getting cash for the increased value of it?

    Even a mortgage that is “underwater” has major benefits if you can afford the mortgage and it is your primary residence.

    Having said that – anyone who bought a house – at the height of the bubble – as opposed to prior to the bubble at a much lower price – is going to be underwater.

    I think that would be true just about anyway with the only variable being how much the value fell.

    You know.. if you go out in the rural hinterlands – the foreclosure rate is virtually zero.

    Of course.. many of those houses never sold for more than 200K to start with either.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “whether an individual considers their house – their primary residence first”

    Larry is right. If you like your home and youhave the cash flow and job to keep it, then it doesn;t matter very much if the loan is temporarily underwater.

    It does matter, though, if you can save more by walking away than it will cost you to move and get a similar home for much less.

    RH

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Why would someone refinance their house – as a vehicle for getting cash for the increased value of it?”

    To get the cash out before the value collapses.

    For large expenditures like college expenses, another house, or an upgrade to this one.

    Some people even took the money out and put it in the stock market. Oops.

    But, if someone refinanced, then they already got their money out of the house. It’s hard to feel sorry for them if they lose the house and keep the money: they haven’t really “lost” anything, except a place to live, and there are plenty of those right now.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “if you go out in the rural hinterlands – the foreclosure rate is virtually zero.”

    That was the point of my post above: no bubble, no bust.

    I’ve made that point before when EMR tries to make the point that high floor space prices in urban areas “prove” that is what the market wants. The downside risk on a high price place is a lot more than the downside of a low price home.

    Never buy the most expensive home onthe block.

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I suspect if you “walk away” that in the end, it will cost you more….

    for one thing.. credit.. if you can get it with a bankruptcy on your record will surely cost more…..

    I said some time ago (at the point where the housing meltdown was just starting) that people are not entitled to to make a profit on owning a home.

    I didn’t say that people shouldn’t do it – per se – but I pointed out that “investing” – no matter what one chooses to “invest” in – is – inherently risky and people who choose to do this are themselves “under water” if they are not very well educated in the world of investing…

    .. and as we know now – even the so-called “experts” got reamed….

    .. so ..yes.. right now.. is opportunity time – for the folks who know what they are doing – who are ALSO aware that there is still risk…

    .. so my point.. after much blather…

    … if you want to buy a house to live in – be very clear about what your purpose and goal is and do not confuse it with other things…. like treating it as an “investment”.

  11. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    oh yeah.. Obama is proposing to make “investing” in a home – more on the same page as “investing” in general by taking away the mortgage deduction beyond a certain price/income level …to include 2nd and 3rd, non-primary residence homes…

    .. which in my mind.. is the way it should have been all along….

    and because it was not – it basically encouraged people to “game” the system…

    .. and because of that.. they ruined it for everyone – including those who only wanted a home to live in… but bought at the top of the bubble…

    My question:

    If we limit the deduction for a home – what effect will this have on settlement patterns – and will it promote more functional settlement patterns?

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Two people move to Fredericksburg and buy identical houses next to each other. One person works in Falmouth; the other works at Tysons Corner. What are the location variable costs and how should the two neighbors be charged? Would the answer change if the Tysons Corner worker telecommuted two days each week and the Falmouth worker drove to Baltimore one day each and Richmond one day each week?

    TMT

  13. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I’d like to add another word to the list of core confusing words:McMansion. It is a term devoid of meaning and used by people to describe any home they don’t like for any reason. I would bet that various people would accuse LarryG, Jim B and EMR of living in McMansions. I’ll exempt RH from this diatribe since he lives on a working farm and even the nattering nabobs of (human settlement) negativism would have to exempt working farms from their ill-conceived McMansion moniker. At least I think they would make that exemption.

    As for Obama’s proposal – I believe LarryG is giving him too much credit. He is not addressing humand settlement patterns, he is not making investing in a home the same as investing in stocks – he is raising taxes.

    Obama is a socialist in the western European sense of the word. He believes that governemnt needs to be much bigger and much more involved in the day to day lives of the people. He is implementing this Euro-socialist vision by buying out private enterprise with money from the US Mint’s printing presses (it’s not really taxpayer money in any meaningful sense of the word). If he could buy out private enterprise without raising taxes – that’s what he’d do. But he can’t. Even Barry the Budget Buster and Turbo Tax Timmy know that printing money leads to runaway inflation. On a simplified level he needs to take some money out of circulation as he uses newly printed money to buy up private enterprise. So he plans on increasing the taxes on everyone and everything.

    This has nothing to do with environmentalism, it has to do with taxes and increasing government’s role. This has nothing to do with restoring America’s manufacturing base, it has to do with governemnt ownership of productive assets. This has nothing to do with human settlement patterns, it has to do with taking money from people to fund government expansion.

    I am neither supporting nor opposing Obama’s overall plan. I am merely putting it into plain words.

    Now, let’s have some fun with numbers….

    During the campaign, in 2008, Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Pretty much everybody thought that sounded OK since people making $250,000 per year seemed pretty rich.

    Then Obama submitted a budget that added more to the national debt than all of the former presidents combined – from George Washington to Geoege Bush. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html

    The inevitable outcome of this action will be very significant inflation. Maybe there will be good real economic growth too (as Obama’s very, very rosy models forecast) or maybe not (who can forget Obama, Sr … er, I mean Jimmy Carter’s “stagflation”). But – regardless – there will be inflation.

    So, what income would you have to earn in 2008 to be among the rich (making over $250,000 per year) by the end of Obama’s second term. The answer, of course, depends on the rate of inflation. So, let’s run a historical model. Let’s say that the inflation rate from 2008 when Obama made his promise to 2016 when his second term would end will be the same as 1973 – 1981. A person making $113,000 per year today will have to make $250,000 per year in 2016 just to keep his or her real income steady. Obama gets to keep his campaign promise while taxing a whole lot more people than thought they’d get taxed when the promise was being made.

    You have to admire quality work – even when that work is manifested in the actions of an extraordinary con job.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I suspect if you “walk away” that in the end, it will cost you more…. “

    Depends entirely on individual circumstances. suppose your only problem is that the house is now overpriced. You can go down the street and buy a simislar house for $250,000 less money, and get a favorable rate, so you do that.

    Then you stop making payments on the old house. The bank can do whatever it wants. Foreclosure does not imply bankruptcy, because it is a no recourse loan: the bank signed up to the bubble, same as you.

    Unethical, but legal.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “to make “investing” in a home – more on the same page as “investing” in general”—- you would ALLOW the interest exemption the same as it is allowed on all other investments.

    RH

  16. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    nope. no deductions for “investing” in general in my book.

    If you want to risk your money – then no one should be “insuring” your choices which is what the government is doing when they incentivize some kinds of “investing” over other kinds.

    That’s exactly what caused the meltdown.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “nope. no deductions for “investing” in general in my book.”

    It has been long standing practice to allow business expenses as deductions. Otherwise you would be taxing the income AND the investment, which was already taxed as income when it was earned.

    Interest expense is a legitimate business deduction. We allow it on housing, otherwise the landords would be the only ones who could buy a home.

    No business deductions, no investment, no business.

    A recession/dep[ression is a pretty expensive way to cut down on consumption.

    RH

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The deductions distort the economy and invite abuses and gaming of the system.

    They spawn a huge industry associated with..essentially..evading taxes.

    the idea about business going away is total bunk.

    as long as there are people who need food, shelter, clothing and transportation – there will be businesses to supply those tings.

    I’d compromise for a complete switch to a total consumption tax – no exemptions, no deductions except for basic needs for people with minimal incomes.

    everyone else – pays – no scams to evade the tax…

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I'd compromise for a complete switch to a total consumption tax – no exemptions, no deductions except for basic needs for people with minimal incomes."

    So, you are in favor of regressive taxes, is that it?

    It goes a long way to explain yur support of HOT lanes.

    How do you define consumption? If I buy stock in Proctor and Gamble is that consuption? If I buy Palmolive soap, manufactured by P&G, is that consumption?

    RH

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The deductions distort the economy and invite abuses and gaming of the system.

    They spawn a huge industry associated with..essentially..evading taxes.”

    J_____F_______C______.

    On the one hand we want to create taxes that modify people’s behavior, (if you tax soething you get less of it) and then we turn around and complain that they are gaming the system.

    What exactly is it that will make you happy? That they will only game the system according to your rules and ethics?

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the idea about business going away is total bunk.”

    Show me any business or any private activity that can operate without producing some pollution.

    The idea that we can have “no pollution” or that there is no “right” to pollute is EXACTLY equal to having all business and all activity come to a halt.

    I submit that that has a cost.

    RH

  22. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: TMT and Groveton’s observations.

    Yes.. I generally agree though in no way, shape or form do I live in anything that anyone could possible consider a McMansion….

    But TMT got it right IMHO when he was asking if two houses exactly the same or occupied – one by a local worker and one by a commuter to Tysons.

    This is the mega-fly in EMR’s basic thesis.

    You cannot look at the house and say it’s in a wrong location unless you want to be wrong if it houses a guy who walks to his job.

  23. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: taxes, businesses and consumption.

    this is pretty simple – you don’t tax consumption until it exceeds a set amount – that essentially negates it’s regressiveness.

    that’s straight forward and implementable.

    I don’t like deductions because we end up with what is “legitimate” and what is not and it spawns a huge industry that essentially advocates for the exemptions that enrich that industry – and it’s done at the expense of other things – that really are just as legitimate but not allowed.

    So.. we basically encourage scamming of the system .. which becomes a system that is skewed in weird and wrong ways.. instead of straight up business and competition.

    Either tax ALL activity no matter what kind it is – equally or ..remove the tax altogether and tax consumption.

    we need structural reform to do away with the scamming environment that we currently have.

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “we need structural reform to do away with the scamming environment that we currently have.”

    The market has distortions and externalities, and we ask the government to referee these. Sometimes we add a tax, 9like on pollution) which is a negative subsidy and sometimes we offer a tax deduction which is a positive subsidy.

    As soon as you do either one (or neither) someone is going to try to game the system. We started this system because people were gaming the market, and now we are upset because they are gaming the system.

    That is why you need more and better property rights which are well defended and tradeable. If I know that when someone has a lot that it cannot be taken away and that he WILL be allowed to build on it, then I will be less likely to try to game the system by getting my neighbors to gang up on him and steal those rights.

    The system essentially gives people property rights in the form of tax breaks for themselves or increased taxes on others (which amounts to the same thing). But we keep changing it because we think we can gain some new advantage or some new property right.

    That is why when the system is changed we need to compensate the losers: then we will only change the system if there is some true advantage to doing so.

    If I don’t want my neighbor to build, I can get my neighbors to go buy those rights. If I want a polluter to pollute less, then I can expect to pay more for his product. What I cannot expect is to get either of those things for nothing.

    RH

  25. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    there will ALWAYS be folks who game the system – no matter how fair it is just like there will always be folks who steal – and always have some excuse as to why they did it.

    We cannot and should not structure our policies on the premise that if we do them “fairly” less folks will scam them.

    Just make it harder and harder to scam in the first place.

    Get rid of the reasons for deductions – period.

    Let folks decide how they want to reduce their own costs rather than have the government get into the business of deciding what are legitimate costs and which are not.

    If you have a consumption tax put it on everything and then protect the folks on the margins by refunding all of it within their income range.

    In effect, means test it.

    Those over a certain income level – pay every penny with no recourse other than not buying more than they want or need – in their opinion – not the Governments.

    We don’t compensate “losers”.

    We let “losers” contemplate why they lost and then learn to change their behavior such that they change from being a “loser” to a “winner”.

    We do not pay polluters not to pollute.

    We pay the costs of what it takes to reduce pollution but that money does not go to the polluter.

    It goes to pay for equipment to reduce the pollution.

    Using your theory.. the guy who polluted the most – would be compensated – the most – and we all know that is not the way the works.

    The guy who pollutes the most – usually get’s his pollution permit pulled/revoked and/or gets a heavy fine or has his property taken away from him.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Get rid of the reasons for deductions – period.”

    So you don’t think that business expenses should be deductible?

    This would mean that a low margin – high volume business like a grocery store would pay taxes on its revenue stream instead of it progfits.

    There might not be enough profit to pay the taxes under that scheme.

    If you elimminate the subsideies and the negative subsides you are right back to having an unadultgerated free market, with no way to adjust for externalites, like pollution.

    ———————————–

    “We do not pay polluters not to pollute.”

    What planet do you live on? Of course we do. The costs of reducing pollution are a business expense, that we pay for.

    And since no polluter can reach zero pollution, we also pay the costs of whatever poolution escapes their clean up plan and operations. It happens every day.

    And if they have a pollution permit with fees and fines to the gov’t, that is a business expense that we pay also.

    ———————————

    “We pay the costs of what it takes to reduce pollution but that money does not go to the polluter.”

    That depends on whether he hires a contractor to run his pollution reduction efforts. If he does it himself, then the money absolutely goes to the polluter: he cannot afford to run the pollution control equipment otherwise.

    ——————————-

    “the guy who polluted the most – would be compensated – the most “

    The guy who pollutes the most has a permit to do so.

    The guy who produces the most pollution has the highest pollution reduction costs. Provided he stays in business those cost will transfer to his customers, and he will collect the most money for his pollution reduction efforts. He gets compensated the most for those efforts.

    This assumes that he is meeting the terms of his permit.

    If he does a bad job of pollution control, then he will be fined. In that case his permit is a contract that he entered into freely and his property is not being “taken” just because he got a fine.

    But, if his contract is arbitrarily AND UNILATERALLY changed by the government in such a way that his investment in pollution control equipment suddenly becomes obsolete; if the terms of his contract are suddenly made impossible (no pollution allowed), THEN HIS PROPERTY IS BEING TAKEN.

    In both cases his permit is violated, but in one case the result is fair and in the other case it is not fair, regardless of the fact that he (like all of us) is a polluter. The result is that we get cleaner air, but we don’t pay the costs, and that makes us thieves.

    I like clean air as much as the next guy, but I don’t much like the next guy if he promotes stealing as a way to get clean air.

    When we issued that business his pollution permit, we entered into a bargain with him. He may not have had any choice (get a permit or go out of business, A____), and we may have strongarmed him into the bargain, but bargain it is and we have an obligation to stick up to our side.

    Implicitly, the deal is that he buys pollution equipment (and so does everyone else in his business: no one has to take an undue burden), and this means he (and the rest of his industry) can pass the burden on to us. That should be explicit in the contract.

    If we then pull the permit, he goes out of business, just as if he had refused to play in the first place. But now he has an additional loss (pollution equipment) that we induced him to buy. That should ALSO be explicit in the contract.

    The flip side is that now he has more processes to run, and maybe he finds a proprietary way to reduce his pollution at substantially lower cost. He can continue to charge the industry standard amount withoout damaging his competitive position.

    He puts more money in his pocket and continues to relaase the same amount of pollution as he is permittede to. He makes more profit than his competitors and attracts more investment. He may even license the technology and make money by saving his competitors (some) money, yet all of them continue to pollute the same amount.

    That is because, although he found a way to save money on the process, the process itself is no better: you still have physical limits as to how clean you can get.

    If you believe we don’t pay people to pollute, you really do have rocks in your head. The environmental business is a big business.

    WE pay for the cost of running imperfect pollution control equipment and processes.

    WE pay the cost for whatever pollution escapes those imperfect systems.

    WE pay the costs for the fines we impose, because they are business expenses.

    WE pay the costs for driving pollution underground if we charge too much: When the dump charges for takiing tires, expect to see more tires along the road, and expect to pay to pick them up.

    WE pay the costs of eliminating competition when the little guys cannot afford the equipment or fees.

    WE pay the costs of driving business overseas, shopping for better environmental regulations.

    That is why it is in OUR best interests to keep environmental costs as low as possible without increasing the costs of environmental damage.

    Anyone who suggests otherwise is unfair, not green and promoting theivery, either from the hapless business man who is a polluter on our behalf, or from all the people who now pay too much for protecting too little.

    And anyone who suggests we pay less that that amount for environmental protgection is also not green and also promoting thievery, for the opposite reasons.

    There is only one lowest cost and anyone who suggests that is not what we should be working for either doesnt understand how it works, or he is tryng to take undue advantage, and that is against the law.

    You may believe you are “entitled” to clean air, but you cannot be entitled to it and not expect to pay the costs of it.

    RH

  27. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “There might not be enough profit to pay the taxes under that scheme.”

    there will – for certain -because people need food – and you charge what it costs plus profit.

    that argument might work for some type of goods that are more discretionary in nature.

  28. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “with no way to adjust for externalites, like pollution.”

    there certainly is.

    the law regulates how much pollution is or is not allowed – as it is right now.

    if pollution-reduction equipment is required – then those costs are passed on also.

  29. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “What planet do you live on? Of course we do. The costs of reducing pollution are a business expense, that we pay for. “

    the polluter does not make an additional profit from polluting.

    The costs of not polluting are passed on to the customers but the money they pay does not add to the polluters bottom line.

  30. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The guy who pollutes the most has a permit to do so.”

    not if he cannot get a permit.

  31. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “In that case his permit is a contract that he entered into freely and his property is not being “taken” just because he got a fine.”

    Haven’t you been arguing that he has the “right” to pollute and he must pollute if he is to survive?

    Now you’re saying that he “freely agreed” to the restrictions so it’s not a taking?

    which is it?

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “But, if his contract is arbitrarily AND UNILATERALLY changed by the government in such a way that his investment in pollution control equipment suddenly becomes obsolete; if the terms of his contract are suddenly made impossible (no pollution allowed), THEN HIS PROPERTY IS BEING TAKEN.”

    you need some serious time in a dictionary – a permit is NOT a contract and the permit states that it is only for a certain period of time and may not be renewed and/or may be significantly changed in order for it to be renewed.

    Again – a permit guy is NOT a contract.

  33. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “The result is that we get cleaner air, but we don’t pay the costs, and that makes us thieves”

    RH – he does not have the right to pollute in the first place and the permit is exactly that – a permission to pollute – and it is a limited, permission only for a certain period of time and after that the permit expires and must be renewed – and the permit system is specifically designed so that restrictions can and are changed when new permits are issued.

    YOu need to understand how the system actually works and to acknowledge that – before you pretend that it works otherwise according to the way you believe it should work.

    In other words – acknowledge the reality as it is right now – and THEN disagree with that reality ..advocate a different approach..etc.

    but when you don’t even get it right with respect to how the system actually works – right now – all of your words about “stealing” amount to blather.

    your basic concept is that people have the inherent right to pollute and that permits are, in effect, legalized stealing.

    correct?

    so you don’t even agree with the permit system.

    right?

  34. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “I like clean air as much as the next guy, but I don’t much like the next guy if he promotes stealing as a way to get clean air.”

    Here is the reality guy.

    You are entitled to clean air – and the guy who wants to pollute cannot do so without a permit.

    and that permit is designed explicitly with the concurrence of those who will suffer from the pollution of their clean air.

    In other words – those affected by the pollution – through their government – decide whether or not the polluter can have a permit or not – and if he can have one – what the restrictions are.

    So.. the folks who own the clean air decide – not the other way around.

  35. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “When we issued that business his pollution permit, we entered into a bargain with him. He may not have had any choice (get a permit or go out of business, A____), and we may have strongarmed him into the bargain, but bargain it is and we have an obligation to stick up to our side.”

    there is no bargain. There is no contract.

    There is a permit with an expiration date on it.

    That is all that the polluter is entitled to.

    Many permits also state that the terms of it can be changed if new data indicates a problem that necessitates changes.

    Many permits also say that if you violate even one restriction – that the whole permit can be revoked.

    There is no bargain, no contract, just a limited, revokeable permit with an expiration date on it.

  36. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “If you believe we don’t pay people to pollute, you really do have rocks in your head. The environmental business is a big business.”

    we allow pollution per our laws and regulations – as a limited, revokeable right.

    The polluter does not have the right to pollute.

    He does not have the right to decide how much to pollute.

    He does not have the right to pollute because he has to make a living or he has to survive.

    All of these things are decided by all property owners – not him per his own ideas of what is right or wrong.

    All of his neighbors decide whether or not he can pollute (or not) and in what concentrations and for how long.

  37. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “You may believe you are “entitled” to clean air, but you cannot be entitled to it and not expect to pay the costs of it.”

    I and my fellow property owners get to define what is ‘clean’ and what is not and deny a permit to anyone who will not agree to the terms of a permit.

    We can refuse to offer any permit at all if we choose.

    And this happens. And then the polluter has to decide if he can use a process that captures all of the pollutant.

    Ask the folks who created products with a kepone by-product if they had the “right” to dump the kepone and that no one could take that right away from them.

    Here’s the bottom line RH.

    You cannot discharge anything from your property that your neighbors have classified as a pollutant – no matter what your stated reasons are for doing so.

    You cannot do it because that is how you make a living.

    You cannot do it because you must ‘survive’.

    You cannot do it because you claim that your pollutant is no different than farting or breathing.

    You can do NONE of this without the permission of other property owners.

    Fess up.

    Isn’t the above the way the system currently works?

    You essentially believe that people have an inherent right to pollute and in reality – they do not – and you call this stealing…

  38. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    all I’m trying to accomplish here is to get RH to agree with the way the system currently works even if he vociferously disagrees with the system as currently in place.

    and to admit – that the inherent right to pollute as – a “property right” that cannot be “taken” is … not the way the system works….today.

    Long ago – before the enactment of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts – the system did essentially work the way that RH advocates.

    And it resulted in millions of people who were killed or injured and thousands of acres of land that had to be fenced off because it was no longer safely usable for any purpose – productive or not.

    But those days are long gone and what was proven was that at the end of the day – the law was passed by a majority of property owners who agreed that none of them would have an inherent right to pollute and that each of them would have to obtain permission from the others.

    The basis for the laws of the Clean Air and Clean Water laws essentially codify the concept that those who are affected by the pollution – get to decide who can pollute and what they can pollute.

    That’s the reality.

    that’s why we call it a “pollution permit” –

    and I can guarantee RH that when one requests a pollution permit that when you tell them that you have “no choice” and that you must pollute to make a living or to “survive” that absolutely no one is going to say “well.. in THAT case.. here’s your permit – dude”.

    fess up RH.. at least admit the way things work – right now – even if you don’t agree with that reality.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “because people need food – and you charge what it costs plus profit.”

    I rest my case. We pay to reduce pollution and we also pay the costs to the extent it is not reduced enough.

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the polluter does not make an additional profit from polluting.”

    Of course he does. That is why we call it an externality. He makes more profit polluting than he does if he has to clean up after himself. Of course he does not do that, but passes the cost on to the customer.

    “The costs of not polluting are passed on to the customers but the money they pay does not add to the polluters bottom line.”

    Of course it does. I guarantee you that wnhen an excavator puts up silt fence he add the cost of that to his job cost and takes profit for doing so, just like any other work.

    If you believe that is not how it works,you really are in Never Land.

    With utilities it is a little different. Their profits may be regulated, but even then it is regulated based on their investments and operating costs.

  41. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “”The guy who pollutes the most has a permit to do so.”

    not if he cannot get a permit.”

    Don’t be silly.

    The guy who pollutes most has

    a) a permit to do so

    b) a government that doesn’t care and therefore doesn’t issue permits

    or

    c) is operating illegally.

    If he does not have a permit and is shut down, then he is not the guy who pollutes the most. The guy whoe does pollute the most has a permit to do so.

    Jeez.

  42. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    re: “In that case his permit is a contract that he entered into freely and his property is not being “taken” just because he got a fine.”

    Haven’t you been arguing that he has the “right” to pollute and he must pollute if he is to survive?

    You have certain rights that you may give up by joining a homeowners association. But once you sign that agreement you may be subject to fines for doing things that would otherwise be legal. Since you signed up to that agreement this is not a taking.

    Suppose you invest in a screened gazebo because you are hyper allergic to bee stings. Subsequently the homeowners association outlaws gazebos because they don’t like yours. If they make you take it down, then that is a taking.

    (This actually happened and it is in the case law.)

    There are many cases where government has unilaterally changed the terms of an agreement or facts on the ground which had the effect of invalidating an agreement, with the result that government lost in court and had to pay remuneration.

    In the case of Lee vs N, Dakota park service, the park service initiated a policy of limited access to the Fort Stevenson State Park and in furtherance thereof, on or about 1 October 1974, eliminated approximately 700 feet of roadway.

    This caused a hardhip to Lee who had a permit or license to operate a resort on part of the park, and who had invested heavily in it.

    The court held against the Park service.

    The terms of permits and licenses are often litigated in court under the same law as contracts. Regardless of what is written or not wriiten into the permit the government has a moral obligation not to disrupt a persons livliehood and property after having given, tacitly or otherwise, a permit to operate.

    RH

  43. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Haven’t you been arguing that he has the “right” to pollute and he must pollute if he is to survive?”

    No one can make a livliehood without causing some pollution. Claiming that there is no right to pollute is the same as claining that there is no right to livliehood, and therefore to life.

    Assume that the government decided that Bernie Madoff had no right to pollute, so they just sealed up his multimillion dollar apartment from the outside world. He would not pollute outside of his own property, but he would be dead in days. Probably far too good for him, but I seriously doubt the government would get away with it, even for Bernie Madoff.

    And that is the problem, you are claiming that you and your cronies have absolute rights to prevent others from polluting, using government as a proxy. In fact, neither you nor the government could ever exercise those powers absolutely, so what is the point of the claim of absolute control over pollution, absent the concurrent claim of absolute control over life??

    What actually happens is that we negotiate some kind of agreement. We agree to ignore the propblem or we agree to the terms of a permit to limit the problem, but we NEVER EVER make it go away.

    You think I don’t know how it works in the real world, but this is how it is actually, regardless of impotent claims to the contrary.

    We couldn’t even stamp out beer and liquor, imagine what would happen with pollution?

    RH

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “a permit is NOT a contract and the permit states that it is only for a certain period of time and may not be renewed and/or may be significantly changed in order for it to be renewed.”

    It still amounts to a contract. Just because it is for a limited period of time makes it no different from anyother contract.

    The government is in a position of power and it can try to write in any terms it likes, yet those terms sometimes get overturned in court.

    The ususal practice is for the government to give ample time to adjust to new regulations or acquire new technology. It is also the usual practice for envirnmental groups to holler bloody murder when this happens.

    Like you, they sometimes seem not to care about waht is moral, ethical, legal, or even practical. I’d like a nice environment, but I know it is not much good to me if I have not the right to live in it.

    RH

    “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. “

    Abraham Lincoln.

    I believe that people like you are opposed to supporting the force of law that protects private property: that you hold the environment as sacred even above the lives of those that have to live in it.

    This is evident in your claim that there is NO RIGHT TO POLLUTE, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that there is no other way to live.

    I believe that some amount of dirt in my environment is preferable to trying to live with people who think I have no right to live and no right to property.

    There is a right way and a wrong way to clean up.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “the permit is exactly that – a permission to pollute – and it is a limited, permission only for a certain period of time and after that the permit expires and must be renewed – and the permit system is specifically designed so that restrictions can and are changed when new permits are issued”

    All true, but none of that means there is no right to pollute, nor does it mean that the government could ever stop issuing permits or only issue permits for zero pollution.

    How it really works is that the government has no choice but to issue some permits. Everyone has an equal right to get those permits, so everyone has an equal ritght to pollute, even if the level of pollution is limited.

    Just because the government tries to control and distribute pollution does not mean that anyone should be subjected to more, or that anyone is entitled to less: either to use or to avoid.

    That is written in the law, although you can’t seem to understand the significance of it.

    ——————————-

    your basic concept is that people have the inherent right to pollute and that permits are, in effect, legalized stealing.

    No, I never said that. Yes, I believe that EITHER people do have the inherent right to pollute or else we give up our inherent light ot make a livliehood, and therefore to life itself. since we do have the right to live we must have some right to pollute. I do not see how those can be separated.

    But I never said that permits are legalized stealing. WHEN WE MAKE LEGITIMATE AGREEMENTS WE SHOULD EXPECT TO LIVE BY THEM.

    But, sudden unilateral changes in permits are damaging to previous investments. If we as a group (mob rule) think that we can profit from agitating for such changes then THAT is legalized stealing.

    Bu t democracy has an obligation to minorities. If there really is a group benefit to be had from getting those changes, then there is no reason in the world that we should not be willing to make up for the damage to previous investments.

    Can you explain to me why we should NOT be willing to do that, if there is a public benefit to be had after the compensation? Or is it just that we can have MORE public benefit if we don’t include the public we steal from?

    There is no reason not to make up for the damage we cause to previous investments,
    unless we are actually just thieves in green clothing. The environmental movement is not (OR SHOULD NOT BE) about Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “You are entitled to clean air “

    I am not entitled to unlimited clean air. I’m not entitled to use the air any more than the next person. I am not entitled to demand that someone else spend an unlimited amount to make sure that I have unlimited air that is perfectly clean. I’m not entitled to tell someone else what they can and cannot do with their portion of “my” air.

    If it is OUR air we all have equal rights to it which means you cannot make unreasonable or absolute claims to it.

    If it is MY air and we have deeds then all those deeds start out equal, and they can be bought and sold at will. You cannot tell me what to do with my air deed. You are the free market pusher, right?

    Either way your position is untenable.

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I can guarantee RH that when one requests a pollution permit that when you tell them that you have “no choice” and that you must pollute to make a living or to “survive” that absolutely no one is going to say “well.. in THAT case.. here’s your permit – dude”.

    So what they will say then, if it ever comes down to that, is “well lie down and die, dude”

    Even I know better than to back a rat into a corner.

    What you are arguing here is precisely the point hat I started with: pollution and living are inseparable.

  48. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…codify the concept that those who are affected by the pollution – get to decide who can pollute and what they can pollute.”

    Precisely.

    Exactly, but nowhere does it say that they can have NO POllution.

    Nowhere does it say that some have more right to pollute than others, and nowhere does it say that some have more right to clean air than others.

    Nowhere does it say that those who are affected by pollution does not include the polluters themselves.

    Nowhere dos it say that unreasonable demands will lead to unreasonable costs with little or no gain for anyone.

    The way it works right now is that we grant pollution permits because we have no choice.

    The way it works now is that we try to spread around the filth, the cleanliness, and the costs, and the wealth as evenly as possible, given the local carrying capacity of the environment we have to live in.

    The way it doesn’t work now is that someone says someone else has no right to pollute, at all. The first time you hear of that happening outside of death row, you tell me about it.

    RH

  49. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The inherent right to pollute is a “property right” that cannot be entirely “taken” away. It can be managed and it can be shared by various means, but it cannot be taken away, without taking away the right to life. That is a physical fact on the ground, not legal fact. It is the law of entropy and no one has ever broken it.

    That means we all have a right to clean air but none of us has a right to perfectly clean air. None ahas a right to more air or cleaner air than the next person.

    Likewise we all benefit from the moneys expended in preventing pollution, and none of us has more right to have more money spent on our behalf, than we are willing to spend on others.

    I’m not agitiating for dirty air or no pollution permits. I’m agitating for fairness, equality, and good ethical behavior in how we manage these things and the costs associated with them.

    Larry just want so grab them for free from anyone who is defenseless to protect their property and what they have worked for. I hate to see anyone who calls themselves an environmentalist take that approach, because I think it is a lousy sales pitch. But worse than that it results in really lousy environmental policy: wasteful, expensive, and dirty.

    RH

  50. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I and my fellow property owners get to define what is ‘clean’ and what is not”

    No you don’t. Not even close. You are allowed to make comments and provie input. The decision is made by someone else, and that decision is required by law not to benefit you and your fellow property owner unduly.

    RH

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We can refuse to offer any permit at all if we choose.

    No. Someone else makes tht decison, and they are prohibited from making it unduly benefit you.

    They can refuse to offere any permit in any location at any time, but they cannot refuse every permit in every location for all times.

    That means someone is going to get the right to pollute, and we all have equal opportunity in that. We all get eaqual benefit from it, and we all are responsible for equal costs.

    It is the law.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Ask the folks who created products with a kepone by-product if they had the “right” to dump the kepone and that no one could take that right away from them.”

    The folks who dumped kepone no longer have the right to pollute with that product.

    But if they are still alive, they are still polluting somewhere. That right has not been taken away.

    Or if someone thinks they have a higher right, it has never been enforced.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Opponents of burning chicken droppings as a renewable energy resource are lobbying state lawmakers in a bid to derail three proposed power plants that would use manure for fuel.

    The opposition has grown to include the state NAACP, which says that building the proposed power plants in rural areas would expose blacks and poor people to arsenic and other pollutants.

    …

    North Carolina ranks as one of the nation’s biggest poultry-processing states. A 2007 state law provided a way to dispose of the waste by requiring Progress, Duke and other power companies to use poultry droppings as a fuel to generate electricity. North Carolina is the only state that requires burning poultry waste to produce electricity.

    North Carolina is the only state to require higher electricity costs in such a way. Hint: any time government requires something then costs rise more than necessary”

    Another example of fair allocation of costs and benefits in action. Here is a case whre the government is REQUIRING one form of pollution rather than another.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Simultaneous with the passage of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which established the path-breaking SO2 allowance trading program, Congress passed a job training and compensation initiative for Appalachian coal miners, at a one-time cost of $250 million. Acid rain was cut by 50%, $1 billion per year was saved for the economy, and sensible and meaningful aid was provided to the displaced miners. “

    That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Clinton’s Executive Order 12866 dictates when federal agencies must conduct a cost-benefit analysis and submit it to the Office of Management and Budget for review before a regulation can be issued.

    President Obama issued a memo to agency heads on January 30, 2009 directing the OMB Director, in consultation with federal agencies, to produce a set of recommendations within 100 days for a new E.O. on Federal Regulatory Review.

    A Federal Register notice published on February 26, 2009 opens the process to comments from the general public.

    If you have ever wished you could weigh in on the analysis and review process, here is your opportunity. The comment period closes on March 16, 2006. “

    from Environmental Economics.

    RH

  56. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The large birds are known to feed on scraps of meat left behind by hunters. Those scraps sometimes contain pieces of lead bullets, and lead poisoning is thought to be a contributor to condor deaths.

    Hunters are benefiting from their enjoyment of hunting, but imposing a cost on others (those with existence values for Condors) through the use of lead ammunition. In simple cases of externalities, policy makers have a choice: Make the hunters pay the external cost of using lead ammunition–TAX the hunters’ purchase of lead ammo–or make society pay for their enjoyment of the existence of the Condors–SUBSIDIZE the hunters’ purchase of green ammo. From an economic perspective, either work.

    Looks like Arizona is going with the latter.

    Arizona, another condor state, gives out coupons so hunters can buy green ammunition. Utah may soon follow suit.”

    You see, a tax is just a negative subsidy, and it “distorts” the market just the same. If you hate subsidies, then you should hate taxes.

    You could have some of each, so that some of the taxes are offset by subsidies: it is most likely unfair that EITHER side ear the full burden, but you will most lkely get a cheaper solution using subsidies – if you get a solution.

    It is too easy to simply argue that the polluter should pay, even when it is obvious that a) he doesn’t pay it anyway, b) the real motive is somethig else like make wind power competitive, and c) he is polluting as a proxy for us.

    It is hard to make that argument about hunters, since they hae no “product” that we buy, yet Arizona seems to have come to that conclusion.

    RH

  57. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “WHEN WE MAKE LEGITIMATE AGREEMENTS WE SHOULD EXPECT TO LIVE BY THEM.”

    you don’t have any agreement without a permit and if you have no permit -you have no permission and no right what-so-ever.

    The only “right” that you have as a property owner is to seek a permit – on the same basis as your fellow property owners.

    And that is it.

    The Government IS MORAL because it is protecting ALL property owners from the rogue actions of those who would do whatever they saw fit to do – without the law.

    “But, sudden unilateral changes in permits are damaging to previous investments. If we as a group (mob rule) think that we can profit from agitating for such changes then THAT is legalized stealing.”

    If a majority of property owners believe that a substance previously thought safe and acceptable is no longer – changes are made.

    Case in point – plastic bottles made from BPA – previously thought perfectly safe – no longer.

    If you were a property owner with a manufacturing plant that made BPA bottles – guess what?

    “But democracy has an obligation to minorities. If there really is a group benefit to be had from getting those changes, then there is no reason in the world that we should not be willing to make up for the damage to previous investments.”

    Democracy has an obligation also to protect the majority from the actions of minorities who do not care if their actions hurt others – if they are making a profit.

    Your idea is that Democracy should “protect” the minority of property owners that would discharge Kepone.

    You see the discharge of Kepone as a “right” that cannot be taken away.. and that if it is taken away – it would be “stealing”.

    What I’m pointing out to you is that this is not the way it works and we both know this because we both know how the Kepone episode played out – as well as the FMC plant on the Shenandoah.. and dozens of other examples… where the “minority” was the property owner who was polluting a resource that affected a majority – and that majority took action to stop them – and it was indeed a MORAL action also.

    It is, in fact, IMMORAL to allow an individual “minority” property owner to pollute if it adversely affects others.

    And we do have a process for making this determination.

    And that process does not let the polluter decide.

    Pollution is by temporary, revokeable permit.

    If you don’t have a permit – you are violating the law.

    You cannot get a permit unless you meet the terms of the permit -that are set by others not by you.

  58. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “And that process does not let the polluter decide.”

    Wrong.

    In fact, the process does allow the polluters equal right to present comments and data.

    The problem is that the process is skewed by those who don’t care what the costs are, or even what is physically possible, becuase they think, like you, that the polluter pays.

    In fact, all of us pay for bad decisions, whichever way they fall. We should be looking only for good decisions, but we mistake good decisions for those that (we think) give us an undue benefit or advantage.

    It is a truly lousy train of thought that is probably costing us billions, and untold lives that could have been saved with the money we wasted.

    RH

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The only “right” that you have as a property owner is to seek a permit – on the same basis as your fellow property owners.”

    I’d maintain that is exacty equivalent to saying that, whatever level of pollution is allowed, anyone ahs equal rights to it. And since we have agreed to allow that level of pollution we have no right to complain about adverse affects. All of us have tacitly or explicitly agreed (through government action) to bear these effects (supposedly equally). We do that in order to get goods and jobs.

    Having made that agreement and having induced peole to spend money under the terms of that agreement we have no right to suddenly abrogate it without compensation. See the coal miner example above.

    At least we are getting somewhere. This statement is a lot different from the claim there is NO right to pollute.

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    When did this discussion become one about rogue or illegal operators?

    We started off by arguing over whether the biggest polluters got paid the most for preventing pollution. Those are legal operators with permits to pollute.

    But let’s not confuse rogue operators with unregulated ones. They have no permits, and yet they are permitted to operate without permits. They are not illegal. A truck in Fairfax needs an emissions inspection which acts as his permit to pollute (below a certain level). In Fauquier he needs no permit.

  61. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The Government IS MORAL because it is protecting ALL property owners from the rogue actions of those who would do whatever they saw fit to do…..”

    With or without the law. Government has an obligation to protect minorities – even from actions that are legal under the law.

    As it stands now, people like yourself believe that the majority can make ANY wild claim about adverse affects, and enforce the results on the minority. If that is allowed to happen then the government is not equally protecting all owners, and THAT is a property rights issue.

    As long as that doesn’t happen, then the government is moral. In order to protect ALL property owners you must have some kind of pareto or Kaldor Hicks optimality, from a practical standpoint.

    Those that expect a benefit cannot get it unfairly at the expense of others. Calling the others names like “polluter” or claiming superior rights does not give them the moral ground. NEITHER does providing goods and jobs while poisoning your customers and workers. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS EQUALLY.

    RH

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If a majority of property owners believe that a substance previously thought safe and acceptable is no longer – changes are made.”

    Any time things go wrong in any endeavor changes are made. In environmental law this has NOTHING to do with what a majority thinks.

    A majority of people who live under power lines may think they are a cancer hazard. A majority of parents of autistic children may think the condition is caused by inoculations. These people are faced with adverse affects and they want to blame someone. It is entirely understandable, but we don’t make law that way.

    ————————-

    “Case in point – plastic bottles made from BPA – previously thought perfectly safe – no longer.

    If you were a property owner with a manufacturing plant that made BPA bottles – guess what?”

    The FDA is studying bisphenol A, but hasn’t issued any warnings about BPA in baby bottles or other consumer products.

    As of today, no BPA user has been forced out of business. Even if a ban develops the usual practice is to allow time for transition and to ensure all players are still on a level field.

    Just because a mistake was made is no reason to be vindictive.

    I could have told them about biphenyl ethers decades ago. There are dozens of them in use as various kinds of plasticizers. They are among the most widely detectable of all “pollutants”.

    Bisphenol A is still in use but has been voluntarily withdrwan from amnufacture of baby bottles. Probably it has been replaced with something else.

    But its (former) use should not make the manufacturers to suddenly become criminals, nor their property subject to seizure.

    Kepone and DDT once had legitimate uses, and so did foam on the external tank of the shuttle. But that does not make the people who manufactured the things criminals, any more than hunters who left behind lead bullets suddenly become criminals.

    As I recall, the Kepone case was extreme and probably involved criminal actions from the get go. But there have also been many cases in which accepted practices led ultimately to bad results, and changes.

    Like any change, if there is a real benefit, we should have no problem in compensating those that take a disbenefit on our behalf. Labeling them as uncaring profiteers or worse is just a way we use to get what we want for nothing.

    We tend to look for the deep pockets and seek retribution and liability in such cases, even when this is not the most cost effective solution. We don’t care how small a cost we avoid or how lare a cost we pile onto others.

    Then there are cases like the fibre plant in Front Royal. It was a known problem, bleeding to death but no effective action was taken because it was the sole producer of certain military grade fibres. When it finally failed, special dispensation was made for “techology transfer” to another plant in LA. All of this was allowed to happen because the cost of doing without the product was too high. There was plenty of blame to go around on that one.

    —————————

    What has happend is that we have allowed some real disasters to set the tone for every action. No one claims that the examples you cite were not situations that needed change or more government intervention.

    (But they might have cost a lot less than the recent lack of government oversight on Wall street and the financials – where esome people STILL say we don’t need oveer sight. Bernie Madoff alone may eventually be tangentially responsible for hundreds of premature deaths, just as if we was a one man cancer.)

    We have gone from the situation where the “minority” was the property owner who was seriously polluting a resource that seriously affected a majority, to the claim that ANY pollution is automatically bad and disallowed, no matter that the proportion of damage to benefit is now reversed.

    We have moved from making needed changes and needed criminal prosecutions to claims of permanent moral superiority and permanent superior property rights (at the same time denigrating property rights “activists”).

    We are chasing the wrong butterfly.

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Environmental injustice is not
    only a question of who suffers from the bad environmental decisions—but also who
    benefits.

    RH

  64. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Environmental Justice
    Creating Equality, Reclaiming Democracy Kristin Shrader-Frechette

    “Description
    Shrader-Frechette offers a rigorous philosophical discussion of environmental justice. Explaining fundamental ethical concepts such as equality, property rights, procedural justice, free informed consent, intergenerational equity, and just compensation–and then bringing them to bear on real-world social issues–she shows how many of these core concepts have been compromised for a large segment of the global population, including Appalachians, African-Americans, workers in hazardous jobs, and indigenous people in developing nations. “

    Imagine that, someone else thinks that fundamental ethical concepts such as equality, property rights, procedural justice, and just compensation– are CORE CONCEPTS in environmental justice.

    RH

  65. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The same politicians [and planners] who have been talking about a need for “affordable housing” for years are now suddenly alarmed that home prices are falling. How can housing become more affordable unless prices fall?”

    Thomas Sowell

    RH

    Thomas Sowell

  66. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Contract – A binding agreement between two or more parties for performing, or refraining from performing, some specified act(s) in exchange for lawful consideration.”

    A permit is one kind of contract, and it is enforceable by law.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More