We see on SourceWatch, an imaginative "wiki" style website sponsored by the leftish Center for Media & Democracy, that Americans for the Preservation of Liberty is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a network of organizations organized by the non-profit group Consumer Alert in 1997 to examine the impact of proposed global warming regulations on consumers.
Without any disrepect intended toward the fine work of the Cooler Heads Coalition, we were surprised to see that SourceWatch reports APL as a member of Cooler Heads, as, as far as we know, Consumer Alert closed about the time Americans for the Preservation of Liberty was founded.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
60 Groups Demand Statesmanship from Senate
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined 59 other groups in demanding that the U.S. Senate take more seriously its responsibility to evaluate and confirm judges to the federal judiciary:
July 25, 2007
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
The Honorable Arlen Specter
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
The Honorable Sam Brownback
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin
The Honorable Tom Coburn
The Honorable John Cornyn
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
The Honorable Herb Kohl
The Honorable Jon Kyl
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse
United States Senate
U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC
Dear Senators,
We and the organizations we represent are deeply concerned about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s lack of progress in reporting judicial nominees out of committee. This is particularly pronounced for U.S. Courts of Appeal nominees, and has made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent in good faith. The broken promises and personal attacks on nominees that have accompanied this inaction – as well as the unfairness of denying qualified nominees a fair up-or-down vote by the full Senate – only add to the public perception that your committee is not living up to its responsibilities.
That approval ratings for the 110th Congress are among the lowest in history is a testament to the American people’s concern that their elected representatives are more interested in partisan politics and politically driven investigations than in making progress on the issues citizens really care about. The American people want you to do your job, and among the most important responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee are processing and voting on the President’s judicial nominees. We respectfully request that you take this responsibility seriously, including putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.
More than six months into this Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held hearings for only four appeals court nominees, and has voted on only three such nominees. At that pace, the Senate will fall far short of the historical average of 17 circuit court confirmations during a president’s last two years in office. That average was maintained during the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton presidencies, despite the fact that the opposition party controlled the Senate. The American people expect no less from this Senate and do not want the Judiciary Committee to stand in the way. Fortunately, the historical average can be achieved if you and your colleagues are willing to eschew partisan politics in favor of fairness and fulfilling your constitutional duty.
Instead, five appeals court nominees – three of them waiting to fill vacancies declared “judicial emergencies” – and 14 district court nominees are languishing in the Judiciary Committee. Four additional appeals court nominations have just been announced. Several nominees have been waiting for more than a year for the committee to do its job. In some cases, the nominees are being subjected to obstruction borne of partisan politics. In other cases, the Judiciary Committee has fallen behind because it insists on holding hearings for judicial nominees just once a month.
Among those appeals court nominees being blocked in the Judiciary Committee is Judge Leslie Southwick, an Iraq War veteran rated “unanimously well-qualified” by the American Bar Association. Unfortunately, Judge Southwick has been the target of an ugly campaign of character assassination by liberal special interest groups. It is very telling that, despite sifting through nearly 7000 cases Southwick voted on during 12 years on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, his critics are basing their opposition on two opinions he didn’t write.
If the nomination of Leslie Southwick is allowed to die in committee, it will be a loss to both the federal bench and the reputation of the Judiciary Committee. The American people will ask why you put the demands of special interest groups above the fair treatment of a man who interrupted a highly successful career to serve his country in Iraq.
The impact of the judges issue on Senate campaigns in 2002 and 2004 demonstrated that the public is watching. Americans want to see progress rather than hear explanations for why you were unable to rise above politics. They do not want to hear that inaction in the Judiciary Committee is the White House’s fault for failing to name nominees for some of the vacancies. In fact, calls for the White House to speed up the pace of nominations are undercut when you allow those already nominated to languish in the Judiciary Committee.
The American people are equally unsympathetic to the claim that certain nominees cannot get a hearing because of the Judiciary Committee’s arcane “blue slip” policy. That policy is rightfully perceived as serving senators rather than the public. Because the policy exists entirely at the discretion of the committee chairman, blame for the resulting delays cannot credibly be laid outside the committee.
President Bush fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating the outstanding men and women who await action in the Judiciary Committee. We respectfully request that you allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent, by ensuring that each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner. If you cannot support a particular nominee, vote him or her out of committee without a positive recommendation, or vote against confirmation. But please do not deny the nominee a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.
Respectfully,
Curt Levey
Executive Director
Committee for Justice
Jim Martin
President
60 Plus Association
Diane Gramley
President
American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Jim Backlin
Vice President for Legislative Affairs
Christian Coalition of America
Paul M. Weyrich
National Chairman
Coalitions for America
Kay R. Daly
President
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Wendy Wright
President
Concerned Women for America
Richard A. Viguerie
Chairman
ConservativeHQ.com
Phyllis Schlafly
President and Founder
Eagle Forum
Tony Perkins
President
Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council
Brian Burch
President
Fidelis
Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy
Focus on the Family
Mary E. Bliss
Director of Special Projects
Illinois Citizens for Life
James Bopp Jr.
General Counsel
James Madison Center for Free Speech
Wendy E. Long
General Counsel
Gary Marx
Executive Director
Judicial Confirmation Network
Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch
Kristian M. Mineau
President
Massachusetts Family Institute
Douglas Reaume
Owner and Director
Michigan Catholic Radio
Father Frank Pavone
National Director
Priests for Life
Mychal Massie
Chairman
Project 21
Randy Brinson
Chairman
Redeem the Vote
Cathy Herron
South Carolina
Andrea Lafferty
Executive Director
Traditional Values Coalition
Dr. Carl Herbster
President
AdvanceUSA
Gary J. Palmer
President
Alabama Policy Institute
Susan A. Carleson
Chairman & CEO
American Civil Rights Union
Dr. Don Wildmon
Founder & Chairman
American Family Association
Micah Clark
Executive Director
American Family Association of Indiana
Gary Glenn
President
American Family Association of Michigan
Mark Chmura
Executive Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom
Michael S. Heath
Executive Director
Christian Civic League of Maine
Samuel B. Casey
Executive Director & CEO
Christian Legal Society
Phil Burress
President
Citizens for Community Values
Robert R. Galbreath
Founder
Citizens for a Constitutional Republic
Tom Shields
Chairman
Coalition for Marriage and Family
Karen Testerman
Executive Director
Cornerstone Policy Research
Alan Chambers
President
Exodus International
Kent Ostrander
Executive Director
Family Foundation of Kentucky
Maurine Proctor
President
Family Leader Network
John Stemberger
President and General Counsel
Florida Family Policy Council
Kelly Shackelford
President
Free Market Foundation
Christine Carmouche
President
GrassTopsUSA
Bryan Fischer
Executive Director
Idaho Values Alliance
Ron Shuping
Executive Vice President of Programming
Inspiration Networks
Anita Staver
President
Liberty Counsel
Hiram Sasser
Director of Litigation
Liberty Legal Institute
Mathew D. Staver
Dean and Professor of Law
Liberty University School of Law
Dr. Patricia McEwen
Director
Life Coalition International
Forest Thigpen
President
Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Deal W. Hudson
Director
Morley Institute
Amy Ridenour
President
National Center for Public Policy Research
Steven W. Fitschen
President
National Legal Foundation
Richard J. Howell
President
Natural Rights and Laws Compact
Pastor Russell Johnson
Chairman
Ohio Restoration Project
Carmen Pate
Co-Host
Point of View radio talk show
Dr. William Greene
President
RightMarch.com
Dr. Rick Scarborough
President
Vision America Action
Victor Williams
Assistant Professor of Law (Catholic University of America)
Washington, DC
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Nanny State v. the Poor
Gerald Prante of the Tax Foundation takes a look at the way the federal nanny state seems to be going out of its way to put taxes on the poor.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Open Letter on Competitiveness
As noted in this article in Tax and Budget News, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined other organizations in opposing two Senate proposals we believe would hurt American competitiveness:
The Honorable Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Secretary Paulson:
We are writing to express our concern about two Senate proposals that would undermine American competitiveness, discriminate against developing nations, and compromise the U.S. commitment to free trade in financial services.
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has proposed S. 396, a bill which targets American companies operating in selected low-tax jurisdictions and strips away their ability to postpone the imposition of a second layer of tax on their foreign-source income. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has proposed S. 681, a bill which imposes a wide range of taxes, regulations, and penalties on American taxpayers operating in selected low-tax jurisdictions.
Both of these pieces of legislation are deeply flawed. They share a common premise that the U.S. government should adopt an adversarial position against jurisdictions with pro-growth tax policy. Specific flaws include:
Both bills will undermine American competitiveness. Only U.S. taxpayers seeking to operate in low-tax jurisdictions will be penalized by these proposals. Foreign taxpayers will be able to benefit from good tax policy in these jurisdictions, while American taxpayers will suffer a competitive disadvantage. The United States will lose market share, causing a drop in jobs and exports.
Both bills create discriminatory blacklists. Senator Dorgan's legislation singles out 40 jurisdictions for discriminatory treatment, while Senator Levin's bill targets 34 nations and territories. Exactly 75 percent of the jurisdictions blacklisted in S. 396 and more than 75 percent of the jurisdictions blacklisted in S. 681 are in the developing world. Neither bill targets wealthy nations such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and the United Kingdom, even though they all have "tax haven" policies, and Senator Dorgan's bill omits Luxembourg and Switzerland.
Both bills violate America's trade obligations. The United States wisely supports free trade in services, a policy which unambiguously promotes the national interest. Unfortunately, S. 396 and S. 681 both would impose protectionist barriers and almost surely put America in violation of its World Trade Organization obligations. Equally worrisome, the proposals would invite other nations to target the United States, particularly since America's own "tax haven" policies for foreign investors have helped attract more than $10 trillion to the U.S. economy.
We urge you to protect America's self-interest and oppose proposals that seek to thwart tax competition and penalize good tax policy in other jurisdictions. The United States is not a decrepit, high-tax European welfare state, yet this legislation is akin to the noxious tax harmonization schemes concocted in various European nations.
If some lawmakers are concerned that American taxpayers are shifting economic activity to low-tax jurisdictions because of better tax law, they should respond by fixing some of the laws in the Internal Revenue Code, many of which were identified by the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform.
We look forward to working with you and hope that you will resist anti-competitive, discriminatory, and protectionist proposals that are contrary to good economic policy.
Sincerely,
Andrew F. Quinlan ~ President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation
Veronique de Rugy ~ Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Grover Norquist ~ President, Americans for Tax Reform
John Berthoud ~ President, National Taxpayers Union
Ashley Miller ~ Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Matt Kibbe ~ President, FreedomWorks
Pat Toomey ~ President, Club for Growth
Fred L. Smith Jr. ~ President, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Karen Kerrigan ~ President and CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Thomas Schatz ~ President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Tim Kane ~ Director, Center for International Trade and Economics, The Heritage Foundation
David A. Keene ~ Chairman, American Conservative Union
James L. Martin ~ President, 60 Plus Association
Gary Palmer ~ President, Alabama Policy Institute
Ryan Ellis ~ Executive Director, Alliance for Worker Freedom
Lori Roman ~ Executive Director, American Legislative Exchange Council
Daniel Clifton ~ Executive Director, American Shareholders Association
Tim Phillips ~ President, Americans for Prosperity
Mark Chmura ~ Executive Director, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Steve Voeller ~ President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Terrence Scanlon ~ President, Capital Research Center
Jeffrey Mazzella ~ President, Center for Individual Freedom
Chuck Muth ~ President, Citizen Outreach Project
Chip Faulkner ~ Associate Director, Citizens for Limited Taxation (MA)
Stephen Manfredi ~ Communications Director, Coalition to Protect Free Markets
Mallory Factor ~ Chairman, The Free Enterprise Fund
Michelle D. Bernard ~ President and CEO, Independent Women's Forum
Kerri Houston ~ Senior Fellow, Institute for Liberty
Tom Giovanetti ~ President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Stephen J. Entin ~ President, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Dr. Don Racheter ~ Moderator, Iowa Wednesday Group
J. Robert McClure, III ~ President and CEO, James Madison Institute
Colin A. Hanna ~ President, Let Freedom Ring
Richard Falknor ~ Executive Vice-President, Maryland Taxpayers Association
Amy Ridenour ~ President, National Center for Public Policy Research
Lewis K. Uhler ~ President, National Tax Limitation Committee
Sharon J. Rossie ~ President, Nevada Policy Research Institute
Fred Lane ~ Chairman, New York Tax Reform Organization
Bill Sizemore ~ Executive Director, Oregon Taxpayers United
Sally C. Pipes ~ President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute
Bob Bauman ~ Legal Counsel, Sovereign Society
David M Strom ~ President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota
Roland Boucher ~ Chairman, United Californians for Tax Reform
Charles W. Jarvis ~ Chairman, United Seniors Association
John Taylor ~ President, Virginia Institute for Public Policy
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands
As conditions for granting a building permit, the Washington County, Oregon government demanded that Grimm's Fuel Company pay it $1,200 up front, build concrete sidewalks and make various other public works improvements.
Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands
Grimm's Fuel Company specializes in landscaping, heating and yard debris recycling services in and around Washington County, Oregon. In May of 2000, owner Jeff Grimm applied to the City of Tualatin for a building permit to add a 7,200 square-foot extension to house an additional three employees and store extra office supplies. The permit was readily approved by city officials, but officials from Washington County intervened before Grimm received the permit. The County made additional demands for an extraordinary number of conditions they said had to be met before Grimm could begin construction.
County demands included the payment of a $1,200 administrative deposit, installing concrete sidewalks along the business' property, eliminating one of three accesses to the county-owned Cipole Road (accesses Grimm had maintained for decades) and dedicating an additional right-of-way for "adequate corner radius" at the intersection of Cipole Road and Highway 99.
Grimm contended that all of the demands were expenses the county should pay for, and that he should not be required to incur the costs of the changes just to receive a building permit.
Tualatin officials reviewed the county demands, but refused to impose them. City officials argued that the addition to Grimm's property in no way required such radical changes.
The architectural review of Grimm's proposed addition, prepared by Tualatin officials, said: "The county has also required that right-of-way be dedicated along SW Cipole Road and that a sidewalk be installed along the property's frontage... The county has not submitted any findings supporting their requirements. Therefore, [Tualatin officials] are not recommending that these requirements be included as conditions of approval for this development." The city government, however, did not aggressively challenge county officials' continued assertion that the permit fell under their jurisdiction due to Grimm's county road access. This left Grimm at the mercy of county government and hostage to their demands.
After two years of negotiations with Washington County officials failed to reach an agreement, Grimm decided to officially apply for a county building permit. Since the problems revolved around the county's demands regarding the city permit, Grimm thought that applying directly to the county might force a resolution. But county officials refused to let him apply for a permit, creating legal standing for Grimm to file a lawsuit to force the county to take action. This led to a settlement before the case went to trial. The settlement allowed Tualatin officials to grant Grimm his building permit by waiving the condition for him to obtain an access permit from the County. Grimm's addition was finally completed as initially approved - without the county's conditions.
Sources: Oregonians in Action Legal Center, Dave Hunnicutt, Jeff Grimm, City of Tualatin Planning Department
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands
Grimm's Fuel Company specializes in landscaping, heating and yard debris recycling services in and around Washington County, Oregon. In May of 2000, owner Jeff Grimm applied to the City of Tualatin for a building permit to add a 7,200 square-foot extension to house an additional three employees and store extra office supplies. The permit was readily approved by city officials, but officials from Washington County intervened before Grimm received the permit. The County made additional demands for an extraordinary number of conditions they said had to be met before Grimm could begin construction.
County demands included the payment of a $1,200 administrative deposit, installing concrete sidewalks along the business' property, eliminating one of three accesses to the county-owned Cipole Road (accesses Grimm had maintained for decades) and dedicating an additional right-of-way for "adequate corner radius" at the intersection of Cipole Road and Highway 99.
Grimm contended that all of the demands were expenses the county should pay for, and that he should not be required to incur the costs of the changes just to receive a building permit.
Tualatin officials reviewed the county demands, but refused to impose them. City officials argued that the addition to Grimm's property in no way required such radical changes.
The architectural review of Grimm's proposed addition, prepared by Tualatin officials, said: "The county has also required that right-of-way be dedicated along SW Cipole Road and that a sidewalk be installed along the property's frontage... The county has not submitted any findings supporting their requirements. Therefore, [Tualatin officials] are not recommending that these requirements be included as conditions of approval for this development." The city government, however, did not aggressively challenge county officials' continued assertion that the permit fell under their jurisdiction due to Grimm's county road access. This left Grimm at the mercy of county government and hostage to their demands.
After two years of negotiations with Washington County officials failed to reach an agreement, Grimm decided to officially apply for a county building permit. Since the problems revolved around the county's demands regarding the city permit, Grimm thought that applying directly to the county might force a resolution. But county officials refused to let him apply for a permit, creating legal standing for Grimm to file a lawsuit to force the county to take action. This led to a settlement before the case went to trial. The settlement allowed Tualatin officials to grant Grimm his building permit by waiving the condition for him to obtain an access permit from the County. Grimm's addition was finally completed as initially approved - without the county's conditions.
Sources: Oregonians in Action Legal Center, Dave Hunnicutt, Jeff Grimm, City of Tualatin Planning Department
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Tiny Shack Prevents Development of Valuable Land
photo credit: Ryan BalisFor over two decades, a developer battled Washington, D.C. officials for permission to replace a so-called "historic" run-down shack - which the developer owned - with commercial and residential units for the Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Tiny "Historic" Shack Prevents Development of Valuable Land
Capitol Hill is home to some of the most valuable real estate in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Since the 1970s, however, militant preservationists have prevented the development of a number of very valuable plots under the guise of protecting a form of run-down shack they call a "shotgun house."
Larry Quillian purchased ten adjacent, mostly-vacant lots on the 1200 block of Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast more than 25 years ago. He planned to remove the remaining structures and construct two-story buildings for retail tenants and residents. Quillian found his dreams for the land destroyed by a 1978 law - passed after he bought the land but before construction had started - that declared the entire Capitol Hill neighborhood a historic district.
Historic district rules dictate that new projects involving demolition of existing buildings must be beneficial to the neighborhood. To meet this requirement, Quillian planned a mixed-use development that would consist of ground-floor retail and second-floor residential units - exactly the type of structures city planning officials have urged developers to build for the last 30 years.
But the Capitol Hill Restoration Society (CHRS) took issue with Quillian's plan because it necessitated the demolition of a so-called "shotgun house," a tiny one-story residence so-named because a single shotgun blast through the front door would easily exit through the back window. Insisting that the ramshackle structure was an important piece of the "historic fabric of the community," the CHRS brought Quillian's project to the attention of the city's Historic Preservation Review Board in 1987, which shot down his proposal to build the commercial and residential units.
Quillian then offered to give the shotgun house to the CHRS for free two years later. He proposed a deal in which the CHRS would be able to restore and use the house as it saw fit while Quillian retained control of the lot. CHRS officials rejected Quillian's offer on the grounds that the deal was bad for the CHRS from an investment standpoint, but they continued to insist that Quillian restore and maintain the shotgun house, doing so with his own money.
Quillian refused to pay the estimated $300,000 that would be needed to preserve the run-down shotgun house. Since he was unable to remove it and develop the property, its condition gradually worsened. Quillian hoped the city would demolish the shack due to sanitation concerns. The Washington, D.C. City Council, however, passed a law in 2001 specifically aimed at preventing "demolition by neglect." Under the new law, the city is given the ability to use taxpayer dollars to restore and refurbish broken-down properties and then bill the properties' owners. The Historic Preservation Review Board decided to use Quillian's property as a test case for the previously unenforced law.
Quillian, who had no intention of paying for the restoration of the shotgun house, did not plan on giving in to the demands of the CHRS or the Review Board. "I don't really care anymore," he explained. "I don't have to develop the site. I can always give it to my grandchildren and let them battle the Restoration Society for the next 30 years."
Although Quillian had been waiting to see if the District of Columbia would try to restore the shack and bill him for the repairs, it appears this will not be necessary. A Texas development company decided to purchase the house from him. It plans to include the old structure among new apartments it is constructing in the area.
Sources: Washington City Paper (November 1, 2002), The Hill (September 11, 2002; November 13, 2002; May 18, 2005), JPI Development Co.
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____
$58,000 Spent Fighting Over a Treehouse
The government of Clinton, Mississippi goes after a family's treehouse, after granting a permit to build. Case ends up before the Mississippi Supreme Court.
$58,000 Spent Fighting Over a Treehouse
Two anonymous complaints about a treehouse have cost a Clinton, Mississippi homeowner at least $28,000 in legal fees and local taxpayers about $30,000 in a fight to have a playhouse torn down.
In early 1997, Mary Welch sought and received permission from the city's permit department to build a treehouse - a structure that is not defined by city ordinances - in her front yard. After receiving the two anonymous complaints in 2002, however, Clinton Mayor Rosemary G. Aultman ordered the Welch family to tear the treehouse down. The family appealed the demand to the city's planning and zoning board. Despite not being able to find any ordinance banning such structures, and the fact that 51 out of 54 neighborhood homeowners signed a petition in support of the treehouse, the board still ruled that the treehouse should be restricted from the Welchs' front or side yard. City officials also denied the Welchs' request for a conditional use permit that would have granted a special exemption and allowed the treehouse to remain in place.
The Welch family challenged the planning board's claim in Hinds County Circuit
Court, where Judge Tomie Green ruled in favor of the Welch family. In her ruling, Green pointed out that no city ordinance defines a treehouse. The city board voted to appeal the ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court in August of 2003. However, the court sided with the Welches and will allow the treehouse to stay.
Despite the Supreme Court's finding that the city's use of the ordinance was "unconstitutionally vague," the city has not offered an apology to the Welch family nor amended the zoning ordnance. The Welch family has accumulated at least $28,000 in legal bills since the controversy began, while the city has spent roughly $30,000 on a case that most Clinton residents did not want pursued. A poll conducted by the Southern Research Group found 76 percent of registered voters in Clinton preferred that city officials resolve the issue by granting the special exemption to the Welch family. Instead, the city remained on a crusade against a treehouse, adding frustration and mounting legal bills to the Welch family while wasting taxpayer dollars.
Sources: Mary Welch, Saveourtreehouse.com, The Clarion-Ledger (July 24, 2003; August 5, 2004)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
City Tells Church It Must Spend $262,000
photo credit: Peyton KnightA church in downtown Warrenton, Virginia must use local government-mandated wood instead of fiberglass to fully restore its deteriorating steeple - at a cost of $262,000 more for the church.
City Tells Church It Must Spend $262,000
For over 130 years, the Warrenton Baptist Church in Virginia has been recognized by its intricately-carved 65-foot steeple. While the structure has remained strong over the years, time and weather have taken a toll on the shingles, siding and molding. Church members proposed replacing the current wood steeple with a fiberglass replica, but city officials rejected the plan, instead demanding the church pay an estimated $262,000 more than they have budgeted to have the existing steeple fully restored with wood.
The Warrenton Architectural Review Board rejected the fiberglass steeple replacement on the grounds that the material would "clash" with the vintage appearance of the historic district in which the church was located. Church officials appealed the decision to the Warrenton Town Council, but the Council unanimously rejected their appeal. Members of the church then filed suit in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County, arguing that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."
The church had preferred to spend the funds on charitable works, and even considered relocating. Ultimately, however, it decided to acquiesce to the city's demands.
Sources: Washington Post (February 22, 2004), Fauquier Citizen, Fauquier Times-Democrat
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Regulations Give Neighbors Power Over Owner's Home
In the name preserving "open space" and the "historic fabric" of Old Town Alexandria, Virginia, a group of preservationist elitists stop a homeowner - for three years - from adding modest additions to her historic home to meet her family's needs.
Arbitrary Regulations Give Neighbors More Power than Homeowner Over Home
Amy Bayer adores her stately home in the Old Town Historic District of Alexandria, Virginia. Built around 1815, its red brick walls and historic architectural design compliment the neighborhood. The only drawback is that the house isn't big enough for her family's needs. Yet when Bayer sought to add onto her home, she discovered that her neighbors believed they should have the final word on her plans. Worse, they possessed the means to create a bureaucratic nightmare for Bayer if she didn't bow to their wishes.
Bayer purchased her home in 1994. In 2001, she decided to build a guest room and a family room to accommodate her children. After consulting the city's design guidelines on home additions, she submitted plans to Alexandria's Board of Architectural Review (BAR), which must grant approval to changes on historic properties. Bayer and her architect were careful to harmonize their plans with the historic fabric of Old Town Alexandria. They kept the plans within the architectural style of the rest of the home and met all regular zoning requirements. While most of her neighbors supported her plans, the neighbors on the side of the property where the addition would be built - Lawrence and Ashley O'Connor - believed the addition would hurt the historic district by "shrink[ing] the limited open space in the neighborhood." While this concern may be true for most Old Town properties, the Bayer property is uncommon because the house sits on a spacious, multi-lot parcel of land. Nonetheless, the BAR rejected Bayer's plans after the O'Connors and local preservationists voiced their opposition at hearings and public forums.
Bayer appealed the BAR decision to Alexandria's City Council, arguing that her home was no different from hundreds of others in Old Town approved for similar improvements in the past. The City Council agreed with Bayer and approved her plans. The O'Connors and the preservationists appealed the decision in state court, contending that the Alexandria City Council failed to use proper standards when it decided the case. In May of 2003, Alexandria Circuit Court Judge Donald Haddock ruled against Bayer and ordered the City Council to rehear the case. At that point, Bayer sought a compromise by seeking BAR permission to build a free-standing addition connected to the house by a covered walkway. This idea was based on the notion that the BAR justified its original denial not with concern for open space, but on the grounds that any "demolition or encapsulation" (the tearing down of walls or closing in of original architecture) of the house - no matter how minor - threatens the goals of the historic district. Bayer offered this compromise despite the fact that the BAR routinely approves "demolition and encapsulation" plans similar to her original plans.
The O'Connors and preservationists again threatened to block Bayer's plans. Not wanting to delay her addition any longer, Bayer capitulated. She submitted yet another new plan to the BAR in January of 2004 that proposed an addition on the opposite side of the house but with the same square footage as the plan submitted three years earlier. The BAR approved this new plan after her opponents dropped their legal challenge.
Three years and tens of thousands of dollars in architectural and legal fees later, Bayer was relieved that construction has finally started on the addition, but she was bitter about how cumbersome and costly Alexandria's arbitrary historic district regulations are for property owners. To help cover the cost of her fight - and highlight the inconsistency of Alexandria's laws - she is considering selling the lot on the northern side of the house (her first choice for the addition) where a brand new house could then be built by a new owner in accordance with historic district regulations. A new structure would completely obstruct the O'Connors' view and leave no remaining open space. The addition to the Bayer home that was denied by the BAR would have left 65 percent of the lot open and green.
Sources: Amy Bayer, The Washington Post (July 3, 2003; September 9, 2003)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Arbitrary Regulations Give Neighbors More Power than Homeowner Over Home
Amy Bayer adores her stately home in the Old Town Historic District of Alexandria, Virginia. Built around 1815, its red brick walls and historic architectural design compliment the neighborhood. The only drawback is that the house isn't big enough for her family's needs. Yet when Bayer sought to add onto her home, she discovered that her neighbors believed they should have the final word on her plans. Worse, they possessed the means to create a bureaucratic nightmare for Bayer if she didn't bow to their wishes.
Bayer purchased her home in 1994. In 2001, she decided to build a guest room and a family room to accommodate her children. After consulting the city's design guidelines on home additions, she submitted plans to Alexandria's Board of Architectural Review (BAR), which must grant approval to changes on historic properties. Bayer and her architect were careful to harmonize their plans with the historic fabric of Old Town Alexandria. They kept the plans within the architectural style of the rest of the home and met all regular zoning requirements. While most of her neighbors supported her plans, the neighbors on the side of the property where the addition would be built - Lawrence and Ashley O'Connor - believed the addition would hurt the historic district by "shrink[ing] the limited open space in the neighborhood." While this concern may be true for most Old Town properties, the Bayer property is uncommon because the house sits on a spacious, multi-lot parcel of land. Nonetheless, the BAR rejected Bayer's plans after the O'Connors and local preservationists voiced their opposition at hearings and public forums.
Bayer appealed the BAR decision to Alexandria's City Council, arguing that her home was no different from hundreds of others in Old Town approved for similar improvements in the past. The City Council agreed with Bayer and approved her plans. The O'Connors and the preservationists appealed the decision in state court, contending that the Alexandria City Council failed to use proper standards when it decided the case. In May of 2003, Alexandria Circuit Court Judge Donald Haddock ruled against Bayer and ordered the City Council to rehear the case. At that point, Bayer sought a compromise by seeking BAR permission to build a free-standing addition connected to the house by a covered walkway. This idea was based on the notion that the BAR justified its original denial not with concern for open space, but on the grounds that any "demolition or encapsulation" (the tearing down of walls or closing in of original architecture) of the house - no matter how minor - threatens the goals of the historic district. Bayer offered this compromise despite the fact that the BAR routinely approves "demolition and encapsulation" plans similar to her original plans.
The O'Connors and preservationists again threatened to block Bayer's plans. Not wanting to delay her addition any longer, Bayer capitulated. She submitted yet another new plan to the BAR in January of 2004 that proposed an addition on the opposite side of the house but with the same square footage as the plan submitted three years earlier. The BAR approved this new plan after her opponents dropped their legal challenge.
Three years and tens of thousands of dollars in architectural and legal fees later, Bayer was relieved that construction has finally started on the addition, but she was bitter about how cumbersome and costly Alexandria's arbitrary historic district regulations are for property owners. To help cover the cost of her fight - and highlight the inconsistency of Alexandria's laws - she is considering selling the lot on the northern side of the house (her first choice for the addition) where a brand new house could then be built by a new owner in accordance with historic district regulations. A new structure would completely obstruct the O'Connors' view and leave no remaining open space. The addition to the Bayer home that was denied by the BAR would have left 65 percent of the lot open and green.
Sources: Amy Bayer, The Washington Post (July 3, 2003; September 9, 2003)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
_____**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Building Permits Mean Nothing in District of Columbia
The District of Columbia government halts the building of a new cellular phone tower seven months into its construction, despite having issued permits permitting construction, thereby costing its builder $250 million in various expenses and leaving area residents without adequate cellular service.
Government Approves Building Permit, Then Outlaws Construction
Residents of the Tenleytown neighborhood of northwest Washington, D.C. aren't happy with the quality of cellular phone service in their area. But when construction was started on a new tower that would improve both cellular service and television broadcasts, those same, politically-powerful residents complained to the District of Columbia City Council that the tower would be too tall. The council then halted the construction, at an estimated cost of $250 million to the tower's owner, American Towers Corporation (AT).
In March 2000, 13 city agencies approved a permit for AT to build a 756-foot tower in Tenleytown to improve cellular phone service and serve as a new broadcast tower for several local television stations. The new tower was to be constructed in an area that already contained several broadcast towers.
Seven months after issuing the permits and after the building of the tower was well underway, then-Mayor Anthony Williams ordered a halt to construction. In conjunction with that order, the City Council invalidated AT's permits by passing the "Moratorium on the Construction of Certain Telecommunications Towers Emergency Act of 2001."
The D.C. government did not condemn the AT property or offer to buy the land from AT - officials merely outlawed the completion of the tower. It remains unfinished; standing at nearly 300 feet.
AT sued the District of Columbia and Mayor Williams in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. AT argued that it was victimized by the Tenleytown residents who had the ear of local politicians and who wanted to stop the tower for aesthetic reasons. Although city officials had approved the permit to build the tower, lawyers for the city argued that AT's tower would have been too tall. AT asked for $250 million in damages to permit it to recover money the company had already invested, delayed construction costs, the cost of litigation and projected profits the company would lose by not finishing the tower.
AT did not win its case in Superior Court, and the lawsuit was subsequently rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Seeing dim prospects and mounting legal bills in their federal case, AT decided not to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company's appeals to the D.C. Office of Zoning have been equally unsuccessful.
The District of Columbia then ordered AT to remove the unfinished tower. However, the D.C. Superior Court stayed enforcement of the District's order, while a separate lawsuit brought by AT seeking damages for the unfinished tower is before the court.
Bob Morgan, vice president and general manager of AT, expressed the company's dismay in an op-ed published in the Washington Times. "What seems clear to anyone who gives some serious thought to the situation is that the administration's decision is plainly a matter of favoritism. A few members of a small, politically-important neighborhood start pumping their fists in the air and the administration springs into action."
Not only is AT out millions of dollars, but many Tenleytown residents' cellular phones still don't work well.
Sources: Washington Post (November 1, 2002), Northwest Current (March 19, 2003), Washington Times (October 23, 2000; November 30, 2003)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Government Approves Building Permit, Then Outlaws Construction
Residents of the Tenleytown neighborhood of northwest Washington, D.C. aren't happy with the quality of cellular phone service in their area. But when construction was started on a new tower that would improve both cellular service and television broadcasts, those same, politically-powerful residents complained to the District of Columbia City Council that the tower would be too tall. The council then halted the construction, at an estimated cost of $250 million to the tower's owner, American Towers Corporation (AT).
In March 2000, 13 city agencies approved a permit for AT to build a 756-foot tower in Tenleytown to improve cellular phone service and serve as a new broadcast tower for several local television stations. The new tower was to be constructed in an area that already contained several broadcast towers.
Seven months after issuing the permits and after the building of the tower was well underway, then-Mayor Anthony Williams ordered a halt to construction. In conjunction with that order, the City Council invalidated AT's permits by passing the "Moratorium on the Construction of Certain Telecommunications Towers Emergency Act of 2001."
The D.C. government did not condemn the AT property or offer to buy the land from AT - officials merely outlawed the completion of the tower. It remains unfinished; standing at nearly 300 feet.
AT sued the District of Columbia and Mayor Williams in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. AT argued that it was victimized by the Tenleytown residents who had the ear of local politicians and who wanted to stop the tower for aesthetic reasons. Although city officials had approved the permit to build the tower, lawyers for the city argued that AT's tower would have been too tall. AT asked for $250 million in damages to permit it to recover money the company had already invested, delayed construction costs, the cost of litigation and projected profits the company would lose by not finishing the tower.
AT did not win its case in Superior Court, and the lawsuit was subsequently rejected by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Seeing dim prospects and mounting legal bills in their federal case, AT decided not to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The company's appeals to the D.C. Office of Zoning have been equally unsuccessful.
The District of Columbia then ordered AT to remove the unfinished tower. However, the D.C. Superior Court stayed enforcement of the District's order, while a separate lawsuit brought by AT seeking damages for the unfinished tower is before the court.
Bob Morgan, vice president and general manager of AT, expressed the company's dismay in an op-ed published in the Washington Times. "What seems clear to anyone who gives some serious thought to the situation is that the administration's decision is plainly a matter of favoritism. A few members of a small, politically-important neighborhood start pumping their fists in the air and the administration springs into action."
Not only is AT out millions of dollars, but many Tenleytown residents' cellular phones still don't work well.
Sources: Washington Post (November 1, 2002), Northwest Current (March 19, 2003), Washington Times (October 23, 2000; November 30, 2003)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Is the ADA About Money or Accessibility?
A quadriplegic man sues a Florida strip club for failing to provide a handicapped-accessible "lap dance" area.
Lap Dancing Location Leads to Lawsuit
Edward Law, who has been a quadriplegic since a diving accident in 1987, visited the Wildside Adult Sports Cabaret, a strip club in West Palm Beach, Florida, in May and June of 2002. A month later, he sued the club in U.S. District Court. He claimed it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the room reserved for "lap dances" was inaccessible to the disabled. Law claims that the stage where dancers perform is too high and blocks the view from his wheelchair.
In order to get a lap dance, Law did not have to sue the club. Bret Rudowsky, Wildside's general manager, said that because of Law's disability, he would have allowed Law to receive erotic private time with a dancer in other areas of the bar. Before the lawsuit was filed, Rudowsky had never received a complaint from a disabled customer.
Steve Howells of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities believes that lawsuits should be one of the last resorts used to resolve ADA-related complaints. If a disabled person is unsatisfied with a business' accommodations, Howells says, individuals should complain to the management. Had Law done this, the club would have complied with his request. Instead, Law hired Anthony Brady, Jr., a lawyer who has sued more than 100 companies for ADA violations, to represent him in court. They filed a lawsuit requesting compliance with the law as well as an unspecified amount of money in attorney's fees. Since the only difference between what could be done in and out of court is money, suspicion was raised that the lawsuit was more about personal gain than protecting the rights of the disabled. Law also filed a lawsuit against another West Palm Beach strip club, the Landing Strip. Both of Law's suits were voluntarily dismissed in 2002.
In response to these and other ADA-related lawsuits, including a high-profile suit filed against a hotel owned by actor/director Clint Eastwood, the ADA Notification Act was introduced in February 2003 and reintroduced in June 2005. The bill would require a person to contact a business and explain how it violated the ADA's accessibility provisions before filing a lawsuit. The business would then have 90 days to correct the violation before a lawsuit can be filed.
Sources: Adult Industry News (July 15, 2002), Ragged Edge Online (July 22, 2002), Thethoughtpolice.com, The Washington Times (February 13, 2002)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Lap Dancing Location Leads to Lawsuit
Edward Law, who has been a quadriplegic since a diving accident in 1987, visited the Wildside Adult Sports Cabaret, a strip club in West Palm Beach, Florida, in May and June of 2002. A month later, he sued the club in U.S. District Court. He claimed it had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act because the room reserved for "lap dances" was inaccessible to the disabled. Law claims that the stage where dancers perform is too high and blocks the view from his wheelchair.
In order to get a lap dance, Law did not have to sue the club. Bret Rudowsky, Wildside's general manager, said that because of Law's disability, he would have allowed Law to receive erotic private time with a dancer in other areas of the bar. Before the lawsuit was filed, Rudowsky had never received a complaint from a disabled customer.
Steve Howells of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities believes that lawsuits should be one of the last resorts used to resolve ADA-related complaints. If a disabled person is unsatisfied with a business' accommodations, Howells says, individuals should complain to the management. Had Law done this, the club would have complied with his request. Instead, Law hired Anthony Brady, Jr., a lawyer who has sued more than 100 companies for ADA violations, to represent him in court. They filed a lawsuit requesting compliance with the law as well as an unspecified amount of money in attorney's fees. Since the only difference between what could be done in and out of court is money, suspicion was raised that the lawsuit was more about personal gain than protecting the rights of the disabled. Law also filed a lawsuit against another West Palm Beach strip club, the Landing Strip. Both of Law's suits were voluntarily dismissed in 2002.
In response to these and other ADA-related lawsuits, including a high-profile suit filed against a hotel owned by actor/director Clint Eastwood, the ADA Notification Act was introduced in February 2003 and reintroduced in June 2005. The bill would require a person to contact a business and explain how it violated the ADA's accessibility provisions before filing a lawsuit. The business would then have 90 days to correct the violation before a lawsuit can be filed.
Sources: Adult Industry News (July 15, 2002), Ragged Edge Online (July 22, 2002), Thethoughtpolice.com, The Washington Times (February 13, 2002)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Candy Store Owner Takes a Licking
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the owner of a historic California candy store is forced to build a $14,000 handicapped-accessible entrance ramp.
Candy Store Owner Takes a Licking
Lanny Rose has owned the Cottage of Sweets, a candy store in Carmel, California, for more than 24 years. He says he values every customer who visits his store, noting, "My specialty store is small enough that I make it a point to take care of each of my customers."
Constructed in 1922, the building measures just 325 square feet and is designated as historic. Due to its historical classification, Rose has always been extremely careful not to remodel or alter any structural aspect of the building without the appropriate approvals.
In March of 2003, Rose received a demand that physical changes to his building were necessary. He was being sued over his business' failure to comply with Title III provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enacted by the federal government in 1990, the ADA - and specifically Title III - prohibits discrimination against the disabled, and requires public places and commercial facilities to meet various "accessibility standards." For Rose, the step leading into his store was the cause of the complaint.
To Rose's surprise, he and several other local business owners were being sued by Joseph Tacl, a 52-year-old handicapped man who had visited Carmel in 2002. Along with the Cottage of Sweets, Tacl - who became disabled in a car accident in 1993 - sued seven other downtown Carmel shops, claiming "numerous architectural barriers" prevented him from "fully and safely" visiting them. Gene Zweben, Tacl's attorney, called Carmel one of California's "least accessible towns." Zweben said the defendants in the cases were "businesses that my client had attempted to go to but was discriminated against because he wasn't able to go inside the way everybody else can."
Rose does not recall Tacl's visit, but says he and his employees have always tried to cater to the needs of handicapped customers seeking to patronize the store. He said, "We have our own store policy where we will go outside to assist our handicapped patrons into the store. We try to be helpful and give all the assistance that we can."
Those efforts apparently were unknown or not enough for Tacl. In his complaint to the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose, Tacl claimed he received "unlawful discrimination and unfair treatment." As part of the settlement eventually reached by the parties, Rose was forced to undertake a $14,000 construction project to transform the store's circular step into a slightly ramped walkway that complies with ADA's Title III provisions. Rose's insurance company, The Hartford, also paid Tacl monetary damages. Neither side will disclose the exact amount paid in damages.
It turns out Tacl is no novice when it comes to filing ADA complaints. As of April of 2003, Tacl had filed nearly 100 lawsuits against businesses in Northern California. This identifies the potential for abuse of the law. "The ADA is supposed to provide protection for the disabled, not provide an incentive or an excuse for people to sue a small business owner," says Representative Sam Graves (R-MO). "Every time this law is abused and a frivolous lawsuit is filed, small businesses and their employees are left to pay the bill." Representative Graves' office says that during the ADA's first eight years, businesses prevailed in 92 percent of ADA cases, for a total cost to them of $309.1 million, or approximately $25,000 per lawsuit.
Sources: Statement of Representative Sam Graves (R-MO) (April 28, 2003), Carmel Pine Cone (April 4-10, 2003; July 23, 2004), The Cottage of Sweets, Gene Zweben, Lanny Rose, MonterreyHerald.com (April 4, 2003), U.S. Department of Justice
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Candy Store Owner Takes a Licking
Lanny Rose has owned the Cottage of Sweets, a candy store in Carmel, California, for more than 24 years. He says he values every customer who visits his store, noting, "My specialty store is small enough that I make it a point to take care of each of my customers."
Constructed in 1922, the building measures just 325 square feet and is designated as historic. Due to its historical classification, Rose has always been extremely careful not to remodel or alter any structural aspect of the building without the appropriate approvals.
In March of 2003, Rose received a demand that physical changes to his building were necessary. He was being sued over his business' failure to comply with Title III provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Enacted by the federal government in 1990, the ADA - and specifically Title III - prohibits discrimination against the disabled, and requires public places and commercial facilities to meet various "accessibility standards." For Rose, the step leading into his store was the cause of the complaint.
To Rose's surprise, he and several other local business owners were being sued by Joseph Tacl, a 52-year-old handicapped man who had visited Carmel in 2002. Along with the Cottage of Sweets, Tacl - who became disabled in a car accident in 1993 - sued seven other downtown Carmel shops, claiming "numerous architectural barriers" prevented him from "fully and safely" visiting them. Gene Zweben, Tacl's attorney, called Carmel one of California's "least accessible towns." Zweben said the defendants in the cases were "businesses that my client had attempted to go to but was discriminated against because he wasn't able to go inside the way everybody else can."
Rose does not recall Tacl's visit, but says he and his employees have always tried to cater to the needs of handicapped customers seeking to patronize the store. He said, "We have our own store policy where we will go outside to assist our handicapped patrons into the store. We try to be helpful and give all the assistance that we can."
Those efforts apparently were unknown or not enough for Tacl. In his complaint to the U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose, Tacl claimed he received "unlawful discrimination and unfair treatment." As part of the settlement eventually reached by the parties, Rose was forced to undertake a $14,000 construction project to transform the store's circular step into a slightly ramped walkway that complies with ADA's Title III provisions. Rose's insurance company, The Hartford, also paid Tacl monetary damages. Neither side will disclose the exact amount paid in damages.
It turns out Tacl is no novice when it comes to filing ADA complaints. As of April of 2003, Tacl had filed nearly 100 lawsuits against businesses in Northern California. This identifies the potential for abuse of the law. "The ADA is supposed to provide protection for the disabled, not provide an incentive or an excuse for people to sue a small business owner," says Representative Sam Graves (R-MO). "Every time this law is abused and a frivolous lawsuit is filed, small businesses and their employees are left to pay the bill." Representative Graves' office says that during the ADA's first eight years, businesses prevailed in 92 percent of ADA cases, for a total cost to them of $309.1 million, or approximately $25,000 per lawsuit.
Sources: Statement of Representative Sam Graves (R-MO) (April 28, 2003), Carmel Pine Cone (April 4-10, 2003; July 23, 2004), The Cottage of Sweets, Gene Zweben, Lanny Rose, MonterreyHerald.com (April 4, 2003), U.S. Department of Justice
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Will Congress Impose Taxes on Goods Sold on the Internet?
This is bad enough from a tax-raising perspective, but even worse is the effect it would have on small businesses.
The bookkeeping involved in collecting, reporting and paying sales taxes to 50+ jurisdictions will deter many Mom and Pop Internet sales operations from operating.
The bookkeeping involved in collecting, reporting and paying sales taxes to 50+ jurisdictions will deter many Mom and Pop Internet sales operations from operating.
Coffee Company Fined for Roasting Coffee
Coffee company spends over $30,000 fighting New York City's air pollution citation for smell of roasted coffee.
In New York City, Smelling Delicious Can Get You Fined
New York City's Gillies Coffee Co., founded in 1840 and one of the oldest coffee merchants in the United States, has built its reputation on its own delicious, fragrant brand of coffee. But not everyone likes the aroma of freshly-brewed coffee: New York City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has cited Gillies for "polluting" the air - in an industrial area - with the smell of roasting coffee.
Incredibly, the DEP ruled that the "fugitive odors" coming from the Brooklyn business - namely, the smell of roasting coffee - is an illegal air pollutant that violates the New York City Air Pollution Control Code. Hy Chabbott, the co-owner of Gillies, has agreed to pay the $400 fine but says it will be impossible for the company to meet the DEP's demand that they completely eliminate the coffee smell in the future.
"Research has shown that coffee smells like coffee. There is nothing that can reasonably be done to separate the natural smell of already roasted coffee from a coffee business," explained Donald Schoenholt, president of Gillies. "Under the current interpretation [of the NYC Air Pollution Control Code]," Schoenholt asserted, "shoe stores, barber shops, doctor's offices and flower shops are all in violation of the law."
Gillies was convicted of the violation on April 2, 2003 by the city's Environmental Control Board, the municipal administrative court run by the DEP. The matter cost the company over $30,000 on legal bills. Schoenholt is constantly aware that his company could be fined again, because the law has not been taken off the books.
"Once it has been established that you are a polluter either through conviction or because you admit guilt by paying a fine," Schoenholt told the Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, "you are on the slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before you're forced to move your business from New York City."
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York City's DEP has also fined pickle companies, bagel bakeries, and doughnut shops for aroma violations.
Schoenholt says: "It's really hard to live like this as a business owner. I don't know if I'm going to be in business in one year, in five years. I can't really put a dollar amount on the harm that's been done."
Sources: Reuters (April 22, 2003), Donald Schoenholt, Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer (April 26, 2003)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
_____
In New York City, Smelling Delicious Can Get You Fined
New York City's Gillies Coffee Co., founded in 1840 and one of the oldest coffee merchants in the United States, has built its reputation on its own delicious, fragrant brand of coffee. But not everyone likes the aroma of freshly-brewed coffee: New York City's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has cited Gillies for "polluting" the air - in an industrial area - with the smell of roasting coffee.
Incredibly, the DEP ruled that the "fugitive odors" coming from the Brooklyn business - namely, the smell of roasting coffee - is an illegal air pollutant that violates the New York City Air Pollution Control Code. Hy Chabbott, the co-owner of Gillies, has agreed to pay the $400 fine but says it will be impossible for the company to meet the DEP's demand that they completely eliminate the coffee smell in the future.
"Research has shown that coffee smells like coffee. There is nothing that can reasonably be done to separate the natural smell of already roasted coffee from a coffee business," explained Donald Schoenholt, president of Gillies. "Under the current interpretation [of the NYC Air Pollution Control Code]," Schoenholt asserted, "shoe stores, barber shops, doctor's offices and flower shops are all in violation of the law."
Gillies was convicted of the violation on April 2, 2003 by the city's Environmental Control Board, the municipal administrative court run by the DEP. The matter cost the company over $30,000 on legal bills. Schoenholt is constantly aware that his company could be fined again, because the law has not been taken off the books.
"Once it has been established that you are a polluter either through conviction or because you admit guilt by paying a fine," Schoenholt told the Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, "you are on the slippery slope. It's only a matter of time before you're forced to move your business from New York City."
According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, New York City's DEP has also fined pickle companies, bagel bakeries, and doughnut shops for aroma violations.
Schoenholt says: "It's really hard to live like this as a business owner. I don't know if I'm going to be in business in one year, in five years. I can't really put a dollar amount on the harm that's been done."
Sources: Reuters (April 22, 2003), Donald Schoenholt, Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer (April 26, 2003)
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
_____
Monday, April 16, 2007
Smoking Bans Hurt Small Neighborhood Restaurants and Bars Most
New York's smoking ban closes popular Buffalo bar and restaurant, leaving nearly 20 employees without work.
Small Neighborhood Restaurants and Bars Hurt Most by Smoking Bans
The Royal Pheasant, a popular bar and restaurant in Buffalo, New York since 1944, has permanently closed its doors.
Owner Jacqueline O'Brien says her establishment was forced out of business by a drastic decline in customers attributed to a statewide smoking ban. Like many other New York restaurant and bar owners, O'Brien contends that such establishments have the right to decide its own smoking policies.
The closing of the Royal Pheasant forced nearly 20 people out of work. While the smoking ban contains a provision allowing businesses to apply for a waiver, very few establishments have actually been able to acquire one.
Besides the Royal Pheasant, nine other Erie County bars and restaurants closed soon after the ban went into place. Small neighborhood restaurants have been the most adversely affected by the ban. Patrick H. Hoak of the Innkeepers Association of Western New York has reported that some of the smaller bars and restaurants that have not closed have experienced drops in sales of 50 percent.
Sources: The Buffalo News (December 9, 2003; January 25, 2004; October 2, 2004), Innkeepers Association of Western New York, New York State Department of Health
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Small Neighborhood Restaurants and Bars Hurt Most by Smoking Bans
The Royal Pheasant, a popular bar and restaurant in Buffalo, New York since 1944, has permanently closed its doors.
Owner Jacqueline O'Brien says her establishment was forced out of business by a drastic decline in customers attributed to a statewide smoking ban. Like many other New York restaurant and bar owners, O'Brien contends that such establishments have the right to decide its own smoking policies.
The closing of the Royal Pheasant forced nearly 20 people out of work. While the smoking ban contains a provision allowing businesses to apply for a waiver, very few establishments have actually been able to acquire one.
Besides the Royal Pheasant, nine other Erie County bars and restaurants closed soon after the ban went into place. Small neighborhood restaurants have been the most adversely affected by the ban. Patrick H. Hoak of the Innkeepers Association of Western New York has reported that some of the smaller bars and restaurants that have not closed have experienced drops in sales of 50 percent.
Sources: The Buffalo News (December 9, 2003; January 25, 2004; October 2, 2004), Innkeepers Association of Western New York, New York State Department of Health
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Smoking Bans Hurt Small Business
Delaware's indoor public smoking ban cost one establishment 70 percent of its business and a $350 fine from the state's health department.
Small Business in Financial Trouble After Delaware Smoking Law Forces Patrons Across State Lines
The Delaware legislature has outlawed smoking in all public enclosed indoor areas. This ban extends to bars, restaurants, nursing homes, prisons and all other publicly owned buildings.
The ban economically endangers many local establishments, such as Desiree Mulford's Breakers Bar and Billiards in Newark. Many of Mulford's customers have taken their business to neighboring states, where they can still enjoy smoking indoors. "I'm ten minutes from the Maryland line," said Mulford. "Not only do smokers go, but the nonsmokers go, too. They want to go where the crowds are."
While 25 percent of Delaware's population smokes, Delaware bar owners estimate that about 80 percent of their patrons do.
After a 70 percent decrease in business, Mulford decided to allow smoking at Breakers despite the new law. "For every one person I lost because there was smoking here, I gained ten," she said. But things changed after these practices were published in a newspaper article, and Breakers received a $350 fine from the Delaware Division of Public Health. Mulford began to receive registered letters from the state that described complaints it had received and unannounced visits state officials had made. The bar's previously-approved permits to construct a kitchen were revoked as a result of the decision not to enforce the ban. This compelled Mulford and her business partner to enforce it once more. After reinstating the ban, they lost more than 50 percent of their business and had to stop paying themselves just to keep the bar open.
The Delaware House of Representatives passed an amendment to their Clean Indoor Air Act in March of 2003. In an effort to help small businesses, this legislation would have allowed smoking in some bars. But strong campaigning by anti-smoking activists led to the bill's defeat in the state senate by a two-to-one margin. Delaware's Governor Ruth Ann Minner was also strongly opposed to the amendment despite the crippling effect the bill has had on some local businesses.
Dwindling crowds are making it difficult for Desiree Mulford's business to survive. She considered closing Breakers and opening a restaurant and nightclub in New Jersey, but New Jersey adopted a ban on smoking in public buildings, except gambling areas in casinos, in January 2006.
Sources: Desiree Mulford, Washington Post (July 7, 2003), Baltimore Sun (June 22, 2003), Associated Press (January 27, 2003), News Journal (April 9, 2003; June 1, 2003), The Record, Smokefreeworld.com
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Small Business in Financial Trouble After Delaware Smoking Law Forces Patrons Across State Lines
The Delaware legislature has outlawed smoking in all public enclosed indoor areas. This ban extends to bars, restaurants, nursing homes, prisons and all other publicly owned buildings.
The ban economically endangers many local establishments, such as Desiree Mulford's Breakers Bar and Billiards in Newark. Many of Mulford's customers have taken their business to neighboring states, where they can still enjoy smoking indoors. "I'm ten minutes from the Maryland line," said Mulford. "Not only do smokers go, but the nonsmokers go, too. They want to go where the crowds are."
While 25 percent of Delaware's population smokes, Delaware bar owners estimate that about 80 percent of their patrons do.
After a 70 percent decrease in business, Mulford decided to allow smoking at Breakers despite the new law. "For every one person I lost because there was smoking here, I gained ten," she said. But things changed after these practices were published in a newspaper article, and Breakers received a $350 fine from the Delaware Division of Public Health. Mulford began to receive registered letters from the state that described complaints it had received and unannounced visits state officials had made. The bar's previously-approved permits to construct a kitchen were revoked as a result of the decision not to enforce the ban. This compelled Mulford and her business partner to enforce it once more. After reinstating the ban, they lost more than 50 percent of their business and had to stop paying themselves just to keep the bar open.
The Delaware House of Representatives passed an amendment to their Clean Indoor Air Act in March of 2003. In an effort to help small businesses, this legislation would have allowed smoking in some bars. But strong campaigning by anti-smoking activists led to the bill's defeat in the state senate by a two-to-one margin. Delaware's Governor Ruth Ann Minner was also strongly opposed to the amendment despite the crippling effect the bill has had on some local businesses.
Dwindling crowds are making it difficult for Desiree Mulford's business to survive. She considered closing Breakers and opening a restaurant and nightclub in New Jersey, but New Jersey adopted a ban on smoking in public buildings, except gambling areas in casinos, in January 2006.
Sources: Desiree Mulford, Washington Post (July 7, 2003), Baltimore Sun (June 22, 2003), Associated Press (January 27, 2003), News Journal (April 9, 2003; June 1, 2003), The Record, Smokefreeworld.com
**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.
Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**
Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox on Proposed Shareholder Access Rule
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty joined 28 other national public policy organizations in sending a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox regarding a proposed new shareholder access rule.
The letter explains the issue pretty well. If you agree, please consider sending a letter of your own to Chairman Cox to the address listed on the letter.
The letter explains the issue pretty well. If you agree, please consider sending a letter of your own to Chairman Cox to the address listed on the letter.
Coalition Letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox on Proposed Shareholder Access Rule
February 7, 2007
The Honorable Christopher Cox
Chairman, Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20549
Dear Chairman Cox,
In American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Pension Plan v. AIG, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to clarify its rules for the exclusion of shareholder proposals related to an election. In the process of clarifying the commission’s rules, we urge you to reject any measure that would allow shareholders to nominate their own directors in company proxy materials.
Forcing companies to let certain investors nominate directors on company proxies would let special interests gain seats on corporate boards and/or use the threat of director nomination to push through agendas that advance their own political interests but destroy shareholder value.
Through pension funds, labor unions and other anti-market interest groups have significant stakes in major corporations as well as entrepreneurial new firms. A shareholder access rule would allow them and other activists to achieve through the board nomination process what they have been unable to accomplish through the political process.
Unions would use this leverage to win card check and neutrality agreements, allowing them to unionize companies without secret ballot elections. They could also put pressure not only on the companies they have stakes in but also their partners and suppliers.
The implications go far beyond unions. Everything on the anti-market political wish list from Kyoto-like carbon restrictions, to auto emissions standards, to prescription drug price controls, to animal rights activism, to interfering with defense contractors to advance foreign policy objectives would be possible.
These initiatives, whatever their merits, belong in the political arena, not in corporate boardrooms where the focus should be on maximizing shareholder value.
Dissident shareholders can and do mount proxy fights to challenge company-nominated slates of directors, but they do so by distributing their own proxy materials at their own expense. This helps to encourage nominations of directors dedicated to improving the bottom line for all shareholders, rather than promoting the interests of a specific group.
The listing standards for both NASDAQ and the NYSE already require that boards be composed of a majority of independent directors, who themselves comprise the search committee for new directors.
For these reasons we urge you to stand up to the special interest pressure pushing for shareholder access and allow existing state laws to govern director nomination and election.
Sincerely,
Gary Palmer
President
Alabama Policy Institute
Patricia Callahan
President
American Association of Small Property Owners
Lori Roman
Executive Director
American Legislative Exchange Council
Ryan Ellis
Executive Director
Alliance for Worker Freedom
Daniel Clifton
Executive Director
American Shareholders Association
David Keene
Chairman
American Conservative Union
Mark Chmura
Executive Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty
Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity
Grover Norquist
President
Americans for Tax Reform
Andrew F. Quinlan
President
Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Jim Backlin
Vice President for Legislative Affairs
Christian Coalition of America
Terrence Scanlon
President
Capital Research Center
Chuck Muth
President
Citizen Outreach Project
Tom Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
John Berlau
Director, Center for Entrepreneurship
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Fred Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Jim Boulet
Executive Director
English First
Paul Weyrich
Chairman and CEO
Free Congress Foundation
Steve Milloy
Investment Adviser
Free Enterprise Action Fund
Walt Harvey
Director, Property Rights Coalition
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Richard Rowland
President
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Tom Giovanetti
President
Institute for Policy Innovation
Don Racheter
Moderator
Iowa Wednesday Group
William Fine
Executive Director
National Alliance for Worker and Employer Rights
Amy Ridenour
President
National Center for Public Policy Research
Lewis Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee
Stephen Mosher
President
Population Research Institute
William Greene
President
RightMarch.com
Charles Baird
Director
The Smith Center at California State University
cc: Commissioner Paul Atkins
Commissioner Roel Campos
Commissioner Kathleen Casey
Commissioner Annette Nazareth
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Headscratcher
A Virginia environmentalist apparently believes that the fact she pays taxes entitles her to take away the property rights of her neighbors.
Or something like that.
Or something like that.
On Illegal Aliens and Credit Cards
Here's the real reason Bank of America wants to give credit cards to illegal aliens.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Students for Saving Social Security Petition
Count Us In!, a project of Students for Saving Social Security, is collecting signatures online for a petition to keep Social Security personal accounts in the 2008 budget.
The group says:
Hat tip: Social Security Choice blog.
The group says:
Join us in signing the petition to keep Social Security choice in the budget. The President’s budget for the 2008 year include crucial funding that will empower millions of Americans to save for their own retirement. Sadly, many Washington politicians would rather raise your taxes than trust you with your own money. So join us...Go here for more information, or to sign the petition.
Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, [has said] personal accounts are off the table. We need to let him know that our generation deserves a chance to save for our own retirement!
Hat tip: Social Security Choice blog.
Guard the Freedoms We Have
In America, the freedom of parents to educate their own children is recognized under the law.
In Germany, parents aren't so lucky.
In Germany, parents aren't so lucky.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
"Shareholder Access": Holy Grail of the Left
John Berlau asks: Will the left overrun U.S. companies?
The issue is "shareholder access." John explains:
The issue is "shareholder access." John explains:
While most of the right is closely scrutinizing the concoction of liberal legislation of the new Congress, a more immediate threat to conservative policies may be brewing at a regulatory agency about a mile away from Capitol Hill.Read it all here.
Through letters, e-mails and personal visits, activists of the left are swarming the Securities and Exchange Commission, the powerful agency that supervises the U.S. stock market. A court ruling that requires the SEC to clarify its rules on company proxies is being used to push the agency to enact policies that would give unions and other liberal pressure groups an enormous lever of power over U.S. companies.
These groups are pushing for what they call “shareholder access” in the elections of publicly-held companies’ boards of directors. They want the SEC to force companies to include directors nominated by specific groups of shareholders on the company voting proxies that are mailed out to all shareholders. Advocates of “shareholder access”—and their champions in the press -- say this would empower U.S. shareholders against corporate management. The entity that filed the lawsuit that forced the SEC to reconsider this issue, a large government employees’ union called the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), has called shareholder access rules the “holy grail of corporate governance.”
But who this type of rule would mostly empower would be unions such as AFSCME, the AFL-CIO and other pressure groups. Through the pension funds that unions directly run as well as the state and local government employee pensions that unions and other liberal activists have influence over, the left has control over a large number of shares in America’s public companies.
Many activists are planning to use this new “shareholder” power as a lever to force U.S. companies to bow to their various wish lists—on everything from union demands to animal rights to boycotts of Israel. As Larry Ribstein, professor of law at University of Illinois and widely read business blogger has put it, “This isn’t about shareholder ‘democracy,’ but about shifting power from powerful managers to powerful shareholders (i.e. unions) who are even less likely to champion the interest of shareholders generally.”
Observers say SEC Chairman Chris Cox, a former GOP House member from California, is under tremendous pressure from the media and new congressional committee heads, such as House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D.-Mass.), to give in to the demands of activists such as the AFL-CIO. And while Cox was justly praised for fighting for important conservative principles in Congress, conservative experts are troubled by the fact that he is reportedly searching for consensus with the two Democrats on the five-member SEC, and that he has not publicly taken “shareholder access” proposals of liberal groups off the table.
That’s why conservatives say Cox needs to be reminded what is really behind the push of some of these groups. The danger is not just that left-wing groups will get their own candidates on the boards of directors. It’s that board members will strike deals with the left in return for activists’ informal agreements not to nominate opposing candidates. Jay Falk, president of SRI World Group, which advises pension funds on “socially responsible” investing, admitted gleefully that enhanced “shareholder democracy” would be used to enact the agenda of the left. He recently told the website Social Funds, “The strengthening of shareholder democracy this year promises to further empower investors to address governance issues such as out-of-control executive pay as well as environmental and social issues such as climate change.”
Even now—without “shareholder access”—the public pension managers and union bosses haven’t been shy about asserting union and other social priorities that would reduce returns for their own pensioners as well as other shareholders...
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
ERA Dead for 28 Years; Liberals Fail to Notice
An effort is being made to revive the Equal Rights Amendment, approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification in 1972.
For readers to young to remember the ERA, "1972" is not a typo.
Say what you will about lefties, they never give up. Most people recall the ERA as an amendment famously killed after a grassroots effort, in large part organized by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, successfully explained to lawmakers that the ERA was far more radical than mainstream Americans realized.
Those who now ask states to ratify the dead amendment proposal are ignoring the fact that the 1972 amendment had to be ratified by 38 states within seven years to be ratified and become part of the Constitution.
That means the proposed ERA amendment expired 28 years ago, but backers are 1) pretending the expiration date did not exist, 2) are pretending five states that rescinded their ratifications did not do so, 3) are ignoring the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the amendment dead, dead, dead, and 4) ignoring the repeatedly-expressed will of their fellow citizens.
National Right to Life has the details on current efforts to revive the ERA; Eagle Forum (naturally) explains the history of the whole thing. The latter document is a particularly interesting read for those who (erroneously) think grassroots Americans are powerless to affect the future of our nation. They sure did in this case, even if the left still won't admit it.
For readers to young to remember the ERA, "1972" is not a typo.
Say what you will about lefties, they never give up. Most people recall the ERA as an amendment famously killed after a grassroots effort, in large part organized by Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, successfully explained to lawmakers that the ERA was far more radical than mainstream Americans realized.
Those who now ask states to ratify the dead amendment proposal are ignoring the fact that the 1972 amendment had to be ratified by 38 states within seven years to be ratified and become part of the Constitution.
That means the proposed ERA amendment expired 28 years ago, but backers are 1) pretending the expiration date did not exist, 2) are pretending five states that rescinded their ratifications did not do so, 3) are ignoring the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the amendment dead, dead, dead, and 4) ignoring the repeatedly-expressed will of their fellow citizens.
National Right to Life has the details on current efforts to revive the ERA; Eagle Forum (naturally) explains the history of the whole thing. The latter document is a particularly interesting read for those who (erroneously) think grassroots Americans are powerless to affect the future of our nation. They sure did in this case, even if the left still won't admit it.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
End Earmarks Now
It's time to stop hiding the truth about earmarks from the public, says an editorial in the Washington Examiner:
Official Washington is playing three-card monte with taxpayers on earmark reform. Among those shuffling the cards are Republicans and Democrats, elected and appointed officials and career bureaucrats. The aim of this con game is to keep taxpayers from seeing what is really happening on earmarks - those spending measures anonymously inserted into bills and legislative reports by members of Congress to benefit friends, families and special interests without a public vote on the merits.We agree. Earmark reform -- preferably in the form of banning them entirely -- would be a victory for accountable and transparent government as well as fiscal prudence.
President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and assorted others are all shuffling the earmark reform cards and making it difficult for taxpayers to keep track of the situation...
Monday, February 5, 2007
Refuting Megatruths
UnCorrelated looks at what it calls "the Climate Goebbels." Worth a read.
Sample sentence: "The megatruth is a concept so clearly true, that it shouldn't be obfuscated with inconvenient facts and contradictions that might prevent someone from embracing it."
Sample sentence: "The megatruth is a concept so clearly true, that it shouldn't be obfuscated with inconvenient facts and contradictions that might prevent someone from embracing it."
The Dictatorship in South America
The Encyclopedia Britannica blog doesn't mince words when it comes to Hugo Chavez:
It’s happening again. Another human has succeeded in combining a personal vision of the truly good and just society with the authority to attempt to create it, in the process telling several million other humans precisely how they should live. This time it’s in South America - Hugo Chávez, president of Venezuela, was granted the power to set aside the country’s constitution and rule by decree for a period of 18 months. The news reports I saw did not comment on whether his powers would include the power to extend his term, but few dictators in history have stepped aside willingly at any time, much less on a date set by mere statute.Read it all here.
The enabling law was passed by the National Assembly, which met in an open plaza in downtown Caracas for the purpose, turning the exercise into a piece of public theater with far too many historical echoes. The president of the Assembly was quoted as declaring “Fatherland, socialism or death!” More echoes. The punctuation and therefore the meaning of her call to arms are open to question. Are there three options or only two? That is, is it Fatherland OR socialism OR death, or is it Fatherland: Socialism OR death? And what is left for those citizens, if any, who find all three distasteful?
Her sloganeering was topped, however, by an explanation from the vice president, who said “Of course, we want to install a dictatorship, the dictatorship of a true democracy.” Anyone who can say that with a straight face belongs in the DSM IV Hall of Fame.
So Venezuela joins North Korea and Zimbabwe as nations where currently the law and the conduct of daily life are shaped by the ignorance and bigotry of a single person. And it takes its place in the long, sad train of Paradises on Earth that so disfigured the 20th century. Exact numbers, even rough numbers, are impossible to obtain, but authoritative guesses put the cost of that century’s experiments in Utopia at upward of a hundred million deaths...
Friday, January 19, 2007
Victory! Grassroots Prevails on Free Speech Issue
The grassroots has won on free speech.
The U.S. Senate adopted S. 1, the ethics bill, WITHOUT the provision that would have required grassroots organizations to register with the government if they urge others to contact their federal elected representatives on public policy issues, or face stiff fines.
The U.S. Senate adopted S. 1, the ethics bill, WITHOUT the provision that would have required grassroots organizations to register with the government if they urge others to contact their federal elected representatives on public policy issues, or face stiff fines.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Grassroots Lobbying Bill Update
S.A. Miller at the Washington Times has the latest on Senate action on the grassroots lobbying bill.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Constitutionality of Limiting Grassroots Lobbying
The Free Speech Coalition has posted a review (pdf) of the constitutionality of the anti-grassroots lobbying proposal (Section 220) Congress is considering as part of U.S. Senate Bill 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007.
The Free Speech Coalition urges support for an amendment proposed by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to strike Section 220 from the legislation entirely. We concur.
The Free Speech Coalition urges support for an amendment proposed by Senator Robert Bennett (R-UT) to strike Section 220 from the legislation entirely. We concur.
Monday, January 15, 2007
More on Efforts to Quash Grassroots Lobbying
LeavWorld has more on efforts by the new Congressional leadership to limit "grassroots lobbying":
It doesn't matter if your issue is Gay Rights or Global Warming, CONGRESS WANTS TO SHUT US OUT OF THE PROCESS. How? By making the reporting requirements for Grassroots Lobbying Groups so onerous that many will go out of business. Similar restraints are not being placed on the high-priced DC lobbying firms - JUST THE ONES THAT GET THE INFORMATION TO US AND ENCOURAGE US TO PARTICIPATE.
Saturday, January 6, 2007
Mark Tapscott: Protecting Free Speech
A column by Mark Tapscott in the Washington Examiner is a good guide to behind-the-scenes efforts to hush the input ordinary citizens and grassroots organizations have on Congress:
...Nancy Pelosi has cooked up with Public Citizen’s Joan Claybrook a “lobbying reform” that actually protects rich special interests and activist millionaires while clamping new shackles on citizens’ First Amendment rights to petition Congress and speak their minds.We've posted only a brief excerpt. Please rad it all here.
...The proposal [Joan Claybrook of Public Citizen] is helping craft for introduction early in 2007 is expected to be essentially the same bill Pelosi put forth [in 2006].
That is bad news for the First Amendment and for preserving the kind of healthy, open debate that is essential to holding politicians, bureaucrats and special interests to account for their conduct of the public business.
The key provision of the 2006 bill was its redefinition of grassroots lobbying to include small citizens groups whose messages about Congress and public policy issues are directed toward the general public, according to attorneys for the Free Speech Coalition.
All informational and educational materials produced by such groups would have to be registered and reported on a quarterly basis. Failure to report would result in severe civil penalties (likely followed soon by criminal penalties as well).
In addition, the 2006 bill created a new statutory category of First Amendment activity to be regulated by Congress. Known as “grassroots lobbying firms,” these groups would be required to register with Congress and be subject to penalties whenever they are paid $50,000 or more to communicate with the general public during any three-month period.
In other words, for the first time in American history, potentially millions of concerned citizens involved in grassroots lobbying and representing viewpoints from across the entire political spectrum would have to register with Congress in order to exercise their First Amendment rights.
...the Pelosi-Claybrook proposal includes loopholes big enough to protect Big Labor, Big Corporations and Big Nonprofits, as well as guys with Big Wallets like George Soros...
Thursday, January 4, 2007
Preserving Liberty, One Letter at a Time
APL is one of 47 national organizations signing a December 14 letter (pdf) to Public Citizen's Joan Claybrook asking her organization to cease efforts that would trample the free speech rights of ordinary citizens who seek to communicate their views to Congress.
We urge as many Americans as possible to read the letter (pdf), which explains the issue in some detail.
We urge as many Americans as possible to read the letter (pdf), which explains the issue in some detail.
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
The Preserving Liberty Blog Debuts
This blog will chronicle the activities of Americans for the Preservation of Liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)