Eminent Domain Abuse In The Garden State

One of my favorite computer pastimes is playing Sim City, an addictive city-building simulation game which has scenarios that can strive to react to nuclear plant meltdowns to spur economic development.  As a cyber dictator, a Sim City mayor need not fret about eminent domain or the circumstances of displacing the sim citizens.

Mount Holly, New Jersey is a modest bedroom community of 11,700 residents on the outskirts of Philadelphia.  There has been an eight year effort by the Township to facilitate the replacement of 350 1950s row-homes on 25 acres in Mount Holly Gardens in favor of a plan for the “Villages of Parker’s Mill” development by the Keating Urban Partners with 292 new town homes, 228 apartments and 54,000 sf of commercial space.

There are only 84 row-home owners left in Mount Holly Gardens, who are mostly long time Black and Latino residents who are retired and on fixed incomes.  The Township has tried to strong arm the remaining residents of the closely knit Mount Holly Gardens community by threatening Eminent Domain on their properties, offering them settlements of between $35,000 to $49,000, which is about half of the cost of similar housing nearby.

Americans used to revel in the notion that a man’s home was his castle, until 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court redefined the employment of Eminent Domain.  In Kelo v. City of New London (CT), the High Court held in 5 to 4 ruling that the government can use economic growth as a permissible public use rationale for invoking the 5th Amendment Takings clause.  Previously, public use involved takings that benefited the whole public like bridges, roads and maybe sports stadia, not crony capitalists or governmental coffers. Susette Kelo was a homeowner who was evicted from her property by eminent domain as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan spearheaded by Pfizer which promised  3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. Ironically, after Kelo was ousted from beloved property, the redeveloper was unable to secure financing and the “blighted” area became vacant.

In the wake of the public backlash against the Supreme Court’s holding, many states amended their eminent domain laws. Apparently not the case under the blue blooded regime under ex-Gov. John Corzine (D-NJ), but maybe there were not sufficient union interests to cover.

It is sad to see poor elderly minority property owners get taken advantage of by the strong hand of the government in favor of crony capitalism.  But the economic cost benefit basis of this redevelopment is questionable.

• Mt. Holly Township has already spent $8.1 million in debt service since 2000 for the proposed “Villages at Parker’s Mill” project 
• The Township has spent $17 Million for purchasing, demolishing, redeveloping and associated legal costs. 
• The redevelopment project may increase schoolchildren by three fold, thereby increasing education costs by $1.4 million per annum.
• The Reading Associates estimates that the development will cost Mt. Holly over $341,000 a year.

Those are hair curling sunken costs and anticipated ancillary expenses for a modest community to carry in support of a long stalled redevelopment project.

The national economic downturn also have impacted the Mt. Holly redevelopment project.  Townhomes are estimated to be worth 30% less than originally predicted (during the housing bubble) and rentals are thought to bring in 50% less an expected.  Instead of being a windfall, the redevelopment project may cost Mt. Holly $1 Million a year.  But at least it brings some shiny new buildings and scatters a pocket of vulnerable long time property owners.

As Mt. Holly soon will be filing eminent domain proceedings against hold out home owners.  But the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is still considering the case.  While the Kelo holding bristles against a homeowner’s proprieties, it allows local governments to pick winners and losers when issuing eminent domain.  But those decisions must be based on economic growth.  May justice consider the real economic facts and not just based on developers’ dreams of hope and change.

The True Costs of Gerrymandering

Representative Corrine Brown (D-FL 3rd) is a Jacksonville based Congresswoman who has represented parts of Alachua, Clay, Duval, Lake, Marion, Orange, Putnam, Seminole, and Volusia counties since 1993.  This gerrymandered district was drawn to ensure minority representation in Florida by linking demographic pockets in Jacksonville, Gainesville, the outskirts of Orlando down to Sanford.  The district has one instance where the boundaries look as wide as a highway.

Aside from being a ten term incumbent, Rep. Corrine Brown is in a safe D+18 district.  Yet her campaign coffers are virtually barren with a balance of $417.  According to Brown's  2010 expenditure report, she spent $35,977 in hotel bills,  $34,192 for catering, $32,242 for paid media, $24,266 for media consulting, $35,549 for fund raising consultants and $54,730 of direct mail publicity. The fund raising, media consulting and direct mail costs seem like payola and expenses for the insider campaign machinery.  Some might interpret the catering and hospitality costs as living large while on the campaign hustings.  But spending so much on “incidental” expenses on the campaign trail points to the perils of having an extremely gerrymandered district.

While it is unlikely to need to travel from stem to stern in the 3rd Congressional district in a day, it spans over 142 miles by surface roads.  The district is in the major media markets of Orlando and Jacksonville along with Gainesville. This safe seat can be quite a costly district to defend.  More importantly, it serves as a significant structural barrier for campaign challengers.  The latter consequence of gerrymandering explains why Rep. Corrine Brown is fighting to challenge Amendment 6.

Florida voters decided during the 2010 general elections to enact a couple of measures to try to remove politics from the redistricting process.  The newly drawn districts required legislative districts be compact, reasonable, and follow city, county, and geographic boundaries. The initiatives were designed to  prevent the district's shapes from being drawn to favor a particular race, language, incumbent politician, or party affiliation.  Amendment 5 applied to state legislative boundaries and Amendment 6 applied to Florida’s federal congressional redistricting.

Critics of the redistricting amendments observed that organizations tied to George Soros had contributed $7 Million to support passage of the amendments.   Amendment opponents opined that the initiatives will result in court cases that will eventually result in judges drawing the districts.  If it helps orient a novice to which way the wind blows, former Florida Gov. “Good Time” Charlie Crist favored passage of the ballot initiatives.  In the end, an electorate which was weary of partisan politics and grotesque gerrymandering passed both propositions by a resounding  63% to 37% margin.

Rep. Corrine Brown is challenging Amendment 6 in court, joined in spirit by former Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL 25th) who had represented a geographically large district that seemed carved out to be R +5.  Rep. Brown is going against her party and unions in arguing that Amendment 6's impetus to draw compact districts that do not favor political parties would not protect the “minority access” districts, of which she derives great benefit.

Other states are trying to implement non-partisan redistricting with questionable results.  Virginia’s Independent Commission on Redistricting presented a couple of purely partisan proposals drawn by ivory tower academics which palpably punished Republicans in a Commonwealth that has been strongly trending red in the last few elections.   California also just passed a ballot initiative to steer redistricting to consider a “community of interests” to ensure effective and fair representation.

Fortunately, the so called “bipartisan” Redistricting Commission’s report was only advisory.  Ballot initiatives will lead to extended lawfare.  It seems likely that unelected “Men In Black” will eventually draw the districts.

If one thinks that the Judicial branch can create legislative districts in an innocuous and efficient manner should consider the case of Texas.  After the 1990 census, Texas gained three seats in Congress.  But litigation prevented the permanent application of the Census results when redistricting.  The eventual answer was to draw the districts using the old 1980 census data, in which Democrats had signficantly more proportional strength than they had in the 1990s. So the Democrats gained more power through lawfare and such incumbents had substantial advantages against challengers for the next few election cycles.

Republicans had been chastened by judicial interference in implementing the Voting Rights Act when redistricting, so the Grand Old Party embraced cynically embraced minority access districts by applying a packing strategy.  Effectively, the GOP endorsed creating minority districts that had solid minority majorities creating safe districts to create more competitive districts elsewhere, thereby improving their lot elsewhere.  Packing is nothing new, but it was taken to a whole new level of precision through the power of computers in applied statistical demographics.  That can lead to districts that are co-joined by narrow Interstate highways.

Ever since the enactment of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the body politic has been minimizing the role of state legislators in our application of Federalism.  The Judicial Branch stepped in to enforce Voting Rights Act and prevent any potential disenfranchisement.  The solution to has been to get pre-clearance of any changes through the federal government, which can be as banal as switching polling place locations to approval of redistricting.  

The advent of the Tea Party has awakened the great silent majority who want good governance and ideally less partisanship when spending our tax dollars.  Such non-political types tend to recoil at the messiness of politics and governing.

 Even though politics is my favorite contact sport, it is understandable that most people do not want to dwell on the minutia and recoil from adversarial debate.  It calls to mind the quote attributed to Otto von Bismark “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.”  But buying your meat prepackaged in a grocery store does not mean that it is not butchered.

 As messy as it is, it is preferable to have elected officials accountable for their actions than to have political solutions imposed by the Judiciary or supposed non-partisan Commissions who apply their skewed predilections covertly or without consequence.

Making a Mockery of Non-Partisan Redistricting

In compliance with the US Constitution, there is a decennial census to determine apportionment of Congressional representatives.   The re-apportionment process often becomes partisan and victors receive the spoils, even if the gerrymandered districts look like surreal ink spots. Computers have allowed psephologists to create precise yet grotesquely drawn districts that protect most incumbents and favors a dominant majority party in a state.  Lawfare can thwart Republican efforts to assert their strength in redistricting, as was evidence during the 1990 apportionment.

There has been a trend lately to establish non-partisan commissions to recommend redistricting plans.  This appeals to many independents who seek good governance through a supposed non-partisan process.  In fact, California voters approved Proposition 20--a Fair Districting initiative, and the California peoples' will may even be respected by the Judicial Branch.

In the abstract, a non-partisan redistricting process sounds wonderful.  But the devil is in the details.  And academic insiders are betting that the public will not pay attention to the details this far out from November 2012. Witness what went on in Virginia.

National Review  reports that a draft plan by George Mason University Professor Michael McDonald on behalf of the supposedly “Bipartisan” Advisory Commission on Redistricting recommended carving out Republican Majority Leader Representative Eric Cantor’s (R-VA 7th) district.  That is strange, as Virginia will not be losing any members due to redistricting. Amongst the thousands of plans to choose from, the Commission’s backup plan drew out long time Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th), Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA 4th) and newcomer Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA 9th) who defeated long time incumbent Rick Boucher (D-VA 9th).  These suggestions are coming in the wake of an 18% landslide victory of Gov. Bob McDonnell in 2009 and the defeat of 3 Virginia Democrat during the 2010 cycle.

Even mere mortals do not need the Professor Larry Sabato’s crystal ball to know how skewed are those suggestions.  But in case there was any doubt about the partisan hack trick, Professor McDonald’s first Powerpoint side thanked the über left wing Brennan Center for Justice for its assistance.  The Brennen Center pushed the propaganda that voter fraud is a myth and that the major motivation of Voter ID checks is to suppress the minority vote.

Because the Virginia Assembly majorities are split between the two chambers so neither party is likely to get exactly what they want.  Analysis from the Washington Post expects that due to population shifts to Northern Virginia, Rep. Gerry Connelly (D-VA 11th) who won by less than 1000 votes in 2010 and Rep. Wolf will be drawn into safer districts.

Since this independent Redistricting Commission is only advisory, it would be wise for Gov. McDonnell to put the skewed Commission’s plans into the circular file and let the General Assembly duke it out while in Special Session to decide redistricting.

May this escapade be a lesson to those who yearn for less partisanship in politics that faceless functionaries and bureaucrats do not necessarily act for good governance reasons act as partisan without electoral consequences. We live in a democratic Republic where we hold our representatives responsible for their actions not a bureaucracy manipulated by partisan jackasses.

H/T: National Review
H/T: Washington Post

Not Yet Raising Kaine

Ever since freshman Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) announced that he was not seeking a second term, there has been fevered speculation that former Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) would run to keep the seat blue.

Considering the razor thin margin that Webb won his 2006 election and Gov. Bob McDonnell’s impressive 18% victory in 2009, holding the seat will be difficult and costly for Democrats in a likely rematch against former Senator George Allen (R-VA).   Other rumored Democrat candidates would be defeated freshman Congressman Tom Periello (D-VA 5th) and long time Representative Boucher (D-VA 9th) who lost in the 2010 Tea Party Tsunami.

Kaine is well position as the head of the Democrat National Committee so he has probably built up enough political chits to conduct a tough fought campaign.  But Kaine is a young politician who was reportedly on a short list to be Vice President in the 2008 cycle, so it does not burnish your national credentials if you lost your Congressional race and then run for higher office.

About a month ago, President Obama called Kaine to encourage him to run for the Senate seat.  Kaine was said to be reconsidering his initial reluctance to run but insisted that he needed more time to decide. Today, Kaine spoke before some University of Richmond Law students and indicated that he was “likely” to run for Senate, but Kaine stopped short of declaring his candidacy.

Kaine’s favorable remarks towards running for Senate sent the Twitter-verse ablaze.  DNC spokesman tried to walk back misinterpretations of Kaine’s statements to deny that he was running but merely confirming that he was likely to run.  Sure that is plausible but it was a probably deference with a nod and a wink.   The DNC will need to find another leader, there are legal consequences to becoming a candidate.  Moreover, most candidates want a flasher declaration of candidacy than a Law School Q & A session.

Kaine’s spokesman insisted that he will not announce anything this week, including at a dinner honoring his friend ex-Rep. Boucher.   But it looks increasingly like 2012 will have a race between former Gov. Kaine and former Gov. Allen, which Roll Call deems a toss up.

Slow Walking WI Collective Bargaining Changes

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R-WI) achieved his objective of saving state worker jobs by changing collective bargaining over non-salary issues. This legislative victory was achieved only after several weeks of fleebagging by Democrat State Senators, a prolonged union mob occupation of the State Capitol and after union supporters physically threatening Republican State Senators.

Gov. Walker promised to sign the legislation “as quickly as he can legally” after it passed the Wisconsin State Assembly on a 52-42 vote.   In fact, Gov. Walker accelerated his approval before the official signing ceremony as there were reports that local governments were rushing to approve agreements under the old collective bargaining regime.  But Gov. Walker’s Executive expeditiousness is still not quick enough.

Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug La Follette (D-WI) is deliberately progressing slowly on publishing the bill, thereby making it law.  Even though La Follette has possession of the legislation, he is not going to publish it until March 25th. Although one lawsuit to block implementation of these changes in state collective bargaining rules with state employees has failed, this should give the union opposition a few more kicks at the cat to find a sympathetic judge and succeed in lawfare Moreover, it gives municipalities even more time to finalize new contracts that circumnavigate the pension changes.

 Presumably, La Follette will claim that he is living up to his motto on website which maintains "I believe my most important job is being there when you need help. As a third generation scion of Progressive gadfly “Fighting Bob” La Follette Sr. (R-WI), Doug La Follette has managed to virtually be Secretary of State for life.  Doug LaFollette has held the job consecutively since 1982, although he had a close 4% margin in the November 2010 election.

It’s funny how many Democrat Secretaries of State will rush to certify election results when one of their confreres win, but will drag their feet with the opposition is victorious, most recently demonstrated with the Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) special election certification, who were eventually shamed into certifying speedily.  Partisans were offended when then Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris did not bend the rules and followed the letter of the law when certifying the 2000 Florida election results.

The governing process is ordinarily exasperating enough.  The fleebagging tactic that Wisconsin Democrats followed only compounded the difficult choices.  While I feel that La Follette is playing politics, at least the time frame is within his legal discretion.  I just hope that Doug La Follette’s tortoise pace of certification is not just another opposition tactic to never surrender.

Another Obama Environmental Mulligan

I was amazed to hear the details of President Obama’s schedule this weekend.  America’s friend and Asian ally Japan is in a cascade of catastrophes that started with a powerful earthquake that generated a killer tsunami and is culminating in multiple nuclear reactor meltdowns.  As this nightmare news is happening in real time, what is on President Obama’s schedule: a day of golf followed by a light-hearted appearance at the annual Press Gridiron Club dinner.

It is easy to conjure up the facile excuses that the White House will have for Obama’s casual schedule.  Obama had already offered a statement of consolation for the people of Japan during his Friday press appearance. There was nothing that he could do in the Oval Office  that he could not do on the links.  A President needs some recreation to work off the pressure of being the leader of the free world. And this was the first time that President Obama had deigned to grace the Gridiron Club with his presence.

Be that as it may, it is horrible optics when there is an unfurling environmental catastrophe for the President to be spotted on the links. When President George W. Bush accepted his obligation of being a wartime President, he gave up golfing.   During his first year in office, President Obama golfed 32 times, which was more than his predecessor did two four year terms.

ABC News noted this weekend that President Obama could not wait for spring as he golfed for the second weekend in a row.  The reporter noted that these trips were not “work on your swing” trips–this is 18 hole expeditions.  No wonder why TOTUS joked at the Gridiron Club “I’m not spending time on the golf course. I’m investing time in the golf course”.  Funny but also an element of truth.

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Obama was obsessed about optics.  So much so, that Obama’s Acceptance Speech at Denver’s Mile High Stadium had a background of Styrofoam Greek pillars to appear Olympian.  This attention to optics is lacking while governing in Washington.  While we think of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, it is easy to think of Obama golfing while there are environmental crises.

When hearing President Obama’s leisurely links visit as Japan was on the brink, I thought of Politizoid’s parody “Same As It Ever Was”:




The reoccurring kaleidoscope image of President Obama dressed in traditional golf wear as the world is collapsing around him really resonates.  President Obama went golfing at least nine times while the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill was uncontained.  If that was not bad enough, President Obama declared that the Gulf Oil Spill was the equivalent of 9/11 and then he went out golfing for four hours.

Less than a year later, there is another grave environmental crisis.  Even though it was halfway around the globe, the United States has significant assets and interests in Japan.  This was an opportunity for President Obama to have a mulligan for his muddied response to Deepwater Horizon.

The Leader of the Free World should take a more active role than offer perfunctory sympathetic pap at a press conference and then have a weekend of leisure.  Maybe more things are being done behind the scenes, but images of meeting with National Security advisors are squeezed out by reports of the Presidential fun calendar.  It did not help that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claimed that US assets had delivered “some really important coolant” to a Japanese nuclear power plant, but that it did not actually happen.

It seems as Japanese nuclear reactors risk are melting down, President Obama is taking another mulligan on environmental crisis leadership.

Same as it ever was.

Bridge Over Trading Water

Being a news junkie who is not reliant on National Peoples’ Radio (sic) for information, it is crucial to develop selective listening to tune out commercials and Charlie Sheen’s shenanigans. But the other evening, I heard an advocacy ad which made me prick up my ears.  There was a campaign style ad run during Greta Van Susteren’s FNC show opposing the proposed Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC). The version of the ad which I saw urged viewers to call Gov. Rick Snyder (R-MI) to oppose the project.

Strange to see a regional advocacy ad on a national cable channel.  Since I was watching on satellite television, it was not an ad just intended to coruscate Between-the-Beltways.  It piqued my interest to learn about the public policy polemic and appreciate how and why politics needs to be played in this day and age.

The trading relationship between American and Canadian is the closest and most extensive in the world.  In 2009, US-Canadian trade was about $593 Billion. In Michigan alone, that bi-lateral trading relationship is valued at over $43 Billion, with at least $6 Billion within the penumbra of the Blue Oval.  Bilateral trade may have increased since NAFTA in 1989.  But there was 1965 Auto Pact fostered close Canadian-American bilateral trade.

A combination of geography and economics makes the Detroit area a lynchpin for this trade relationship.  Michigan and southern Ontario are industrially oriented, based in the automotive industry.  The Ambassador Bridge, a four lane Art Deco and Streamline Moderne styled suspension bridge, was privately erecting in 1929.  Its perfect placement on the Detroit River manages to capture 25% of the bi-lateral trade and 40% of the bi-lateral trucking That’s big money.

In 1979, Matty Moroun parlayed his interest in a small trucking line to buy out Warren Buffett’s 25% share in the troubled Detroit International Bridge Company.  In total, Moroun spent $30 million to fully acquire the Ambassador Bridge. Ironically, the $30 million price was 30% less than the inflation-adjusted cost of building it 50 years earlier, The Ambassador Bridge is the only major border crossing that is privately owned and is estimated to be worth half a billion dollars.

The Ambassador Bridge generates an estimated $60 Million a year which translates to hefty profits. But Moroun owns seven trucking companies that have established close relationships with automotive manufacturers. Moroun also owns logistics firm; several customs brokerages; and a monopoly on duty-free retail, including a gasoline station at the Detroit end of the bridge and a currency-exchange service. All told, total revenue exceeds $1 billion a year.

The Ambassador Bridge has some chaffing security issues. After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, Moroun wanted to ensure that GM, Ford and Chrysler (all Moroun’s clients) were not stranded.  So Moroun ordered that the trucks be pulled aside and escorted across the bridge if that was necessary. To alleviate backups at customs in the aftermath of 9/11, customs personnel doubled yet they had to work with the six existing inspection booths.  The US Federal Government had to haggle with Moroun as he owned the surrounding land.  On his own, Moroun  built three more customs stations, but was sued by the city of Detroit as he failed to receive zoning and building permits.  Moroun insisted that he did not need any stinking permits as he was a “federal instrumentality”.  After 3 ½ years of litigation, Moroun prevailed.  But Morous forced the GSA to pay for this $2 Million “gift” for better security.  How convenient.

Moroun opts to operate with impunity over transporting federal contraband.  Federal law prohibits transporting corrosives, explosives, radioactive waste, and other toxic material across the border, but Moroun insists this does not apply on the Ambassador Bridge.  Moroun issues “Letters of Authorization” to certain truckers to haul banned contents across the bridge.  Might those letters be directed to Moroun owned trucking companies?  Nevertheless, state troopers can not ticket truckers on the bridge–they must do so upon leaving.

Structurally, the bridge is 81 years old and it only has four lanes.  There are issues that the ascent to the bridge is too tough for trucks.  To answer some of these concerns and maintain his monopoly, Moroun proposed erecting a six lane twin span of the Ambassador Bridge and keep the older span for excess capacity.  In furtherance of this effort, Moroun worked with Detroit and Michigan state officials to garner a $230 million Gateway Project that improved roadways on the Detroit side of the Ambassador Bridge.  Cynics see the construction augments Moroun other land assets and intuit that the infrastructure are the footings for the proposed twin bridge.  Yet the Canadian government is intransigent about allowing the twin span.

In Windsor, traffic leading to the Ambassador Bridge snakes through residential neighborhoods. A new alternative New International Trade Crossing located about two miles south of the Ambassador Bridge would more directly connect Canada Highway 401 (going to Toronto) with a crossing  near Detroit’s Fort Wayne (away from downtown Detroit and also near I-96 and I-75).  Of course, bad blood stemming from the Canadian government losing their 1970s lawsuit for 50% share in the Ambassador bridge and settling only for bridge and Canadian customs plaza improvements should not be discounted.

The Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) has the Canadian Federal, Ontario Provincial and US Government on board for the US $2.1 Billion project.  The only holdout has been the Michigan State government.  To sweeten the long delayed deal, the Canadian government offered to front $550 Million, which represented Michigan’s contribution to the DRIC as an interest free loan to be repaid by collected tolls. With the deep deficits state budgets have, Moroun was banking on the hope that the newly elected Republican governor would favor keeping the border crossing in private hands and not risking state expenditures. But Gov. Snyder came out in favor of the DRIC, as Michigan could leverage the Canadian money to get 160% matching funding from the US DOT.  Gov. Snyder also indicated that he agreed with the Canadian suggestion of dubbing the new crossing as the Gordie Howe bridge, honoring the connection between the Canadian born hockey great and Hockeytown where he made his mark in the NHL.

In response to the tides turning towards another Detroit River international crossing, Moroun has launched a $400,000 ad campaign to disparage the DRIC and hired Dick Morris to do public relations, hence the media appearances and FNC advocacy ad. Hiring Morris, who is the High Priest of Triangulation and going national gives the impression that Moroun is taking desperate measures for desperate times. Contributions to Michigan State Legislators is not enough to turn the tide, so it is an attempt to gin up some grass-tops pressure from Tea Party types who generally look askance at governmental projects and boondoggle "bridges to no-where"

 It’s quite understandable why Moroun, the 321st richest American, would fight so hard. Not only would a nearby alternative deprive the Ambassador Bridge of its monopoly, Moroun would lose out on the profits from the adjacent properties that he owns. But major manufacturers would no longer feel obliged to transport their freight with Moroun owned truck lines, unless they still needed the sui-generis “Letters of Authorization” to carry excluded freight to customs. In fact, all of the major auto manufacturers are backing the DRIC.

Many in the midst of Mo-town know that Matty Moroun has vested interests in the Ambassador Bridge.  They know that Moroun is fighting an alternative crossing. But they have no idea about the byzantine business dealings that enrich Moroun and only a slight inkling of his belligerence towards dealing with the various governmental entities.  They just wonder why additional crossings, either through a new bridge or an expansion of the Ambassador Bridge, is taking so long.

Ordinary, one would assume that conservatives would want to privatize as many government functions as possible.  We echo President Kennedy’s quip that Washington is a city that has Southern efficiency and Northern charm.  We liken the effectiveness of governmental bureaucrats to the performance of Patty and Selma Bouvier in the Simpson’s Springfield DMV.

A strict construction view of the Constitution mandates that the government do certain discrete functions, amongst them are protecting the border and providing for common defense (policing power).  The cacotopia science fiction film “Robocop” (1987) illustrates the tensions and competing corporate interests when essential governmental functions are ceded to private interests.

Matty Moroun has illustrated these aberrant interests with his management of the Ambassador Bridge.  Allowing his trucking clients to cut to the front of customs after 9/11 shows that he looks out for his own interests in lieu of national security.  The special “Letters of Authorization” flout federal law and Moroun shows no signs of co-operating with state enforcement.  The Bridge Company has erected fencing along riverfront property that mimics the Department of Homeland Security handiwork but lacks its authority.

Moroun may campaign that the twin span is half built and will cost taxpayers nothing, but his track record with customs stations shows that he will eventually still stick it to taxpayers.  Maroun gave an unconditional offer to privately build the twin span of the Ambassador Bridge for $600 million.  But when governmental officials did not drop the alternative to the Ambassador Bridge, Moroun reneged on his contribution to the $240 Million Gateway project that exclusively benefits Moroun’s own asset.   So much so that the Bridge Company President was jailed for contempt for not rebuilding the approaches to the Ambassador Bridge. I guess that Smithers was not available to take the rap.

 Moroun does not seem like he is a friend to the public. In the 30 years that Moroun has owned the Ambassador Bridge, tolls for passenger cars have quadrupled and trucking tolls have doubled, whereas in the prior 50 years tolls were only raised once for passenger cars and never for trucks.  Moroun’s trucking ownership interests and doubling the trucking tolls implicitly represents a kickback.  And critic claim that the proposed twinning of the Ambassador Bridge would wipe out Mexican Town, the desirable tourist district that the Gateway Project was hoping to augment.

While crossing on the Ambassador Bridge have improved since its nadir on 9/11, it is estimated that delays into Canada  cost $800 million a month.  It is unwise to have one crossing take 40% of all bilateral truck shipments. Thus, it seems like the DRIC is a good deal, but it needs a better name. The Canadian acronym for the project NITC is not any better. The Gordie Howe Bridge is an apt moniker.

On an ancillary note, to discourage governments ceding essential functions to private interests, Detroit should not allow a Robocop statue to be erected on city property.  Assuredly, it does not capture the Spirit of Detroit like the Rocky statue does for the City of Brotherly Love. It would be a pity if the grim premise of the Robocop was honored by the city, even for the sake of publicity and tourism. As Fr. Gabriel Richard proclaimed in the Detroit city motto: “Speramus meliora; resurget cineribus”   ("We hope for better things; it will arise from the ashes”).

H/T: Forbes
H/T: (Detroit) Metro Times
H/T: Detroit News

Striking Image At House Homeland Security Hearing

The House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the radicalization of Islam in America.  House Homeland Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-NY 3rd) has come under considerable scrutiny for holding these hearings which explore the linkage between the long war on terror and radicalized jihadist Muslims.

In the back of the Homeland Security Committee room now hangs a photograph of the Twin Towers on fire.  While the Democrats were in charge of the House, there were pictures of debris from the Twin Towers and the firefighters at the Pentagon.  Consistent with Bush Derangement Syndrome, then Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS 2nd) also displayed pictures from Hurricane Katrina. The change of power in the lower chamber sparked a change in artwork.

The framed burning Twin Towers image was clearly visible as many of the witnesses spoke.

Elected Democrats like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX 18th) dismissed the hearings by Chairman King as being a waste of time, of which Rep. Jackson Lee would would be an expert. Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin mouthed the même that the hearings were racist, which seemed somewhat confused since Islam is a religion not a race and focused on real world behavior not metaphysical beliefs.  But Homeland Security Member Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI 7th) thanked Chairman King for bringing the Committee back to its original purposes.  Regarding the burning Twin Towers photo, Walberg said “I thank you as well for hanging the pictures in the back of the room again, to remind us of the purpose of this committee, that we would understand that liberty and its price is eternal vigilance”

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were very personal to Rep. King, as scores of his constituents were amongst the 2,752 innocent office workers, fireman and policeman who were savagely killed at the World Trade Center. By conveniently forgetting the past for the sake of political correctness or using stilted labels like “man caused disasters”, we  put ourselves in peril as well as minimize the magnitude of their deaths.  The burning Twin Tower photo puts the Homeland Security Committee’s mission in proper perspective and honors those who gave their lives in an egregious asymetrical terroristic attack by radicalized jihadists.

H/T: Roll Call

Movie Review: Bag It--Plastic Philippic

As a warm up for the DC Environmental Film Festival, there was a showing on Capitol Hill of “Bag It” a self described documentary featuring Jed Berrier, an ordinary guy who decides to give up using disposable plastic bags but this simple decision completely changes his life.

Originally, the film was going to concentrate on plastic bags but director Suzan Beraza capitalizes on the serendipity of the pregnancy of Berrier’s girlfriend to humanize the effects of plastic on “the children”.

Naturally, any film associated with an environmental film festival is going to have a green point of view. But to add to entertainment value and demonize the opposition, Bag It followed a technique popularlized by Michael Moore in Roger and Me to intersperse guerilla film making with uncooperative enemies with cultural snippets and pontificating talking heads.

Unfortunately, the evolved mission of how plastics effects will scare first time parents does not fuse comfortably with the snarky guerilla film maker persona. Both of the subplots struck me as being a plastic veneer for the underlying screed against the American Chemistry Council. The ACC’s non-participation in a film philippic about plastic casts them as evil corporate types who care only about profits and not people.

Bag It showed some compelling images which could sway people to their cause. The demonstration of pouring the amount of oil used to produce and distribute a typical water bottle was a cause for pause. The scenes of the Albatross feeding their hatchlings plastic on the Midway Atoll Wildlife Refuge could tug at the heartstrings of nature lovers. The segment showing a demonstration dredging of the North Pacific Gyre (sunken island of garbage) is evocative. And the testing for the amount of absorbed plastics in the body was disturbing.

Unfortunately, the thesis was simple. Consume less. Their mantra: “Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”. Our grandparents did not use plastics and lived a similar life and they were happy so why can’t we mold ourselves (sic) to do the same. That left me thinking that this was a political watermelon, green on the outside, red on the inside.

While the Jed Berrier embraces the ordinary guy who is not a tree-hugger label, the truth is that he is an actor from the wealthy ski resort community of Telluride, Colorado. Fair enough. Perhaps he is an ordinary guy amongst the Birkenstock crowd or compared to the Goode Family, but it is misleading to present him as an ordinary American. Alas,  Berrier’s hair-do made him an incarnation of the mercurial yet mindless manager in Dilbert.

The film did include segments from some truly convicted environmental advocates which was supposed to drive home a point, but which also showed their eco-fixation. It was reminiscent of people acting out Andie McDowell’s fears from the film “Sex, Lies and Videotape”. The marine activist who crafted his junk vessel to set sail across the Pacific Ocean out of 13,000 plastic bottles and other discarded refuse was memorable. But the guy who saved all of his disposable plastic for a year in his basement was a special education. And the scenes when Berrier ambushes drive thrus with his request not to have plastic derived products surely was intended to be cute, but shared the supercilious snarl of Michael Moore mocking the little people when driving home his sharp policy points.

Although it is difficult to do in a polemic film but some balance would have augmented their arguments. The film makers proudly showed statistics of ten score of government sponsored studies alleging health concerns from plastics while there was a score of independent studies (sponsored by plastic friendly entities) hat dissented. Of course, the evil corporate types paid to get their results. But the same analysis can discount the government studies too. Big Science gets more money when they find problems, not when their research is inconclusive or that all is copacetic. So there is an incentive to sound the alarms. And as was mentioned during a colloquy with the film maker, the hockey stick data in global warming shows that Garbage In Garbage Out and you can make data say anything that you want.

Bag It was obsessed on getting a gotcha quote from surreptitiously filming communications with the ACC to cast them as evil corporate types that they ignored the benefits of plastics. The drive through hit pieces condemned all types of containers as they can have a plastic lining. So we are supposed to forgo fast food. Oh, that’s right, we should bring our own containers. Funny stuff. And these businesses will welcome lawsuits stemming from cross contamination from their customers and their overseeing bureaucracies? The film condemned the evils of disposable diapers. So a household can save $1,200 a year buy using cloth diapers. Perhaps, but who is going to wash them in most dual income households? A cloth diaper service dissipates the supposed savings. Bag It encourages bagging water bottles for reusable ones. Unfortunately, the Capitol Grounds does not allow external food or drink, so there was five abandoned metal water bottles at the entrance to the Capitol Visitor Center.

The showing on Capitol Hill was meant to rally more governmental involvement for recycling programs, sin taxes and strict testing of plastics. Being a passionate recycler, it is dismaying to witness what actually happens to our separated recyclables. DC law for years mandates separating disposed paper from trash. Not that the “undocumented” cleaning crews pay any mind protecting the blue containers from the rest of the “basura”. But the unionized refuse engineers do the same thing with their collected recyclables at the dump. This gives me the impression that while I am acting locally, it is just a self congratulatory exercise.

The 5 cent a bag tax that DC imposed on one time disposable plastic bags reduced usage from 22 million to 3 million a month. That’s great. But the dirty little secret is that DC officials are upset that they were so successful as they only raised $1.7 million from the sin tax instead of the $3.1 million that was projected. Despite this revenue shortfall, former DC Mayor Adrien Fenty proposed an intergovernmental transfer of bag tax revenue to non-environmental spending. There are competing governmental interests. The environmental goal of reducing plastic pollution, the revenue enhancing motive to bring in more governmental revenue and stanching the estimated $23 million in sales tax losses attributable to the bag tax. Tough to tell which side will win.

It sounds noble to have better testing of the effects of plastics to human health, changing the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty stands our legal process on its head. Additionally, I think of the consequences of the do something disease that infected Congress after the Chinese Lead scare from 2008. The Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act required testing of everything for lead involved in childrens’ products. Observers have alleged that it has devastated the toy industry. But the CPSI also raises costs on everything. The testing might make sense for some products, but it includes testing for lead ingestion of spark plugs on childrens’ All Terrain Vehicles. I doubt that kids who are capable of riding an ATV will be stupid enough to regularly lick spark plugs. The testing requirement also threatened the childrens’ second hand clothes market. So much for the reuse mantra of environmental obsessionists.

Bag it alludes to the multiple use soft drink bottles used in Germany. It is impressive that a tough plastic bottle can be used up to 25 times. What the film did not mention is that this was driven by private corporations, not governmental involvement. True, the German Einwegpfand imposes an expensive €0.25 deposit on one time use containers. But corporations set their own rates for beer and water, so there is an incentive to develop durable vessels. The film does not explore the trials and tribulations of th 35 year old bottle tax in Michigan, where the 10 cent a bottle deposit inspires a 96% redemption rate. But it is estimated that the costs associated with redemption and cleaning costs the businesses 3 cents a bottle. Social justice types might want to consider the disparate impact that deposits have on the poor and vulnerable.

Bag It does raise some interesting environmental challenges. Pointing to an ever expanded and imposing role for government rather than developing private sector incentives is unfortunate but not unexpected. The insistence that we need to embrace an environment where we willingly have less is not really the American Dream and is fraught with unintended consequences, which are blithe-fully ignored.

If you want to watch Bag It for yourself, it will air on P.B.S. on April 22nd. It is exactly the sort of show which makes one question why the American Taxpayer needs to pay for a socialist screed.