In the past week or so I have talked to numerous "deciders" of the fate of Park 6 owner Thomas Holmes and his liquor license. I will concede that the city has a very tricky problem on their hands. Among the problems is that Holmes himself has not been accused of any violations of liquor or other laws. Even so, Holmes may lose his liquor license because of problems that his customers are causing in and around the bar. Almost without fail, the "deciders" note that Holmes is literally inviting trouble to his bar and the area via his marketing efforts, and that this is enough of a reason to revoke his license. Ultimately though, it is not who you market to that matters but who shows up, and it is rather obvious that the "deciders" are not altogether thrilled with Holmes' clientele. For the record, the "deciders" have a point here, as Park 6 customers are a drain on the city's police resources. Here is why I have a problem with some of the "deciders": they don't like Holmes' customers but they won't publicly define and identify the people they consider problematic. The reason is rather obvious because the problematic customers (as well as the benign ones) are virtually all black. If the city were to create an ordinance wherein they attempted to identify and define the type of people that they don't want in or around Racine bars, well, we all know that this would soon be national news and the City of Racine would be slapped with a discrimination lawsuit by the federal government. So instead the city is using liquor license leverage to hand the problem over to the bar owners. Instead of having an official city policy that requires bars to refuse "problematic/often black" customers, the city has a wink wink nudge nudge policy that requires bars to discriminate or lose their license. If I were Holmes, I would argue that the city has created a de facto policy that requires bar owners to discriminate against "problematic" customers, many or all of whom are black. The city is putting bar owners in an impossible position. If they refuse to serve a thuggish looking black person, they risk getting sued. If they serve thuggish looking people and said thugs cause problems, they risk losing their liquor license.
A better approach in my view would be to partner with bars in fighting crime. Don't penalize bars for the crimes committed by customers. Crack down on people who commit crimes, not on those that serve them. And lastly, recognize that there is no utopian solution to this problem. If you close down one bar, the people causing problems will simply move on and cause problems at the next one.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Mystery Solved
Yesterday I heard that Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was having a third hand surgery. Now I know how they (politicians) are able to shake hands, grasp your upper arm, and still reach for your wallet.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Education Talk
Channelling their inner Obama, the Journal Times has declared that the time to talk is over and that we must have action, now, to "fix the state's broken method of paying for public schools."
OK, does anyone really think the public education/media complex just wants the education funding method tweaked? Sorry folks, thats just code for we want to raise taxes even more, and then some. Besides, the "method" for funding schools is just fine. An abundant quantity of cash has been delivered year after year, raising at rates far in excess of the rate of inflation. But enough is never enough.
Rather than focus on the method for paying for schools, which isn't broken, the focus should be on the method of educational delivery, which most definitely is broken. Is a bloated, union dominated government bureaucracy the best method for education delivery? Hell no!
But the Journal Times doesn't want to talk about our broken education delivery system. Forget about action.
OK, does anyone really think the public education/media complex just wants the education funding method tweaked? Sorry folks, thats just code for we want to raise taxes even more, and then some. Besides, the "method" for funding schools is just fine. An abundant quantity of cash has been delivered year after year, raising at rates far in excess of the rate of inflation. But enough is never enough.
Rather than focus on the method for paying for schools, which isn't broken, the focus should be on the method of educational delivery, which most definitely is broken. Is a bloated, union dominated government bureaucracy the best method for education delivery? Hell no!
But the Journal Times doesn't want to talk about our broken education delivery system. Forget about action.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
PC Dangers for Blacks
Racine has a public health problem. In the summer months, large groups of people tend to gather during and or after bar time. Sometimes these gatherings get out of control, shifting from peaceful assemblies to dangerous mobs. And sometimes people get shot and killed. And it will happen again and again unless something is done.
Thus far, the city leaders, such that they are, have responded to this phenomenon by closing down bars that are in the proximity to these gatherings. Experience ought to tell us that this does not solve the problem, it merely foists the problem on another part of town.
Compounding this problem is universal cowardice on the part of our elected leadership and, it seems, our police. None of them are willing to actually identify, much less confront the actual problem. The reason is that these gatherings are, to the best of my knowledge, almost always entirely comprised of black people. My guess is that our leaders and police have succumbed to political correctness and are afraid to arrest people who are clearly disturbing the peace lest they be labelled "racist."
Thus, as I have personally witnessed, rather egregious behaviors are tolerated so long as the miscreants are black and part of a large crowd. Naturally, it is only a matter of time before that bad behavior, unchecked, escalates into behavior that can't be ignored. Of course, by that time, someone might be dead.
Our collective cowardice in confronting unruly crowds will end up with a few dead black people. I guess they can be sacrificed so we won't be considered racist.
Thus far, the city leaders, such that they are, have responded to this phenomenon by closing down bars that are in the proximity to these gatherings. Experience ought to tell us that this does not solve the problem, it merely foists the problem on another part of town.
Compounding this problem is universal cowardice on the part of our elected leadership and, it seems, our police. None of them are willing to actually identify, much less confront the actual problem. The reason is that these gatherings are, to the best of my knowledge, almost always entirely comprised of black people. My guess is that our leaders and police have succumbed to political correctness and are afraid to arrest people who are clearly disturbing the peace lest they be labelled "racist."
Thus, as I have personally witnessed, rather egregious behaviors are tolerated so long as the miscreants are black and part of a large crowd. Naturally, it is only a matter of time before that bad behavior, unchecked, escalates into behavior that can't be ignored. Of course, by that time, someone might be dead.
Our collective cowardice in confronting unruly crowds will end up with a few dead black people. I guess they can be sacrificed so we won't be considered racist.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Shut Down Unified
A business owner could lose his livelihood (see story below) because his customers break the law or otherwise create problems for the community. I don't think this is right, but if we are going to go down that road, let's be consistent and close down Racine Unified.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
City Discrimination
Two recent news stories. Park 6 might lose its liquor license for various problems in and around the club. And the city is considering an ordinance that would allow a local commission the power to investigate and punish perpetrators of housing discrimination. Unrelated stories?
Not in my book. To the best of my knowledge, the owner of Park 6, Thomas Holmes, has not committed or been accused of any crime or misdemeanor. Again, to the best of my knowledge, Holmes has taken many steps to protect his customers and the public. He checks his customers for weapons and he employs security guards. Even so, some of his customers have caused problems repeatedly such that the police are frequently called to the club. His customers are almost all young and black.
Holmes may lose his liquor license. His crime? He serves alcohol to young black people. Again, Holmes has not been accused of any alcohol related offense such as serving after hours, serving minors etc... No, he serves black people. And here is what nobody is willing to say publicly - large numbers of young black people are more likely to cause problems or commit serious crimes than say, the octogenarians bingo convention, or even the club or bar that has mostly white customers.
So Holmes' problems with the city result directly from his decision to serve young black people. By going after Holmes, the city is in effect enforcing a blacks only prohibition policy. Yes, the city essentially has a separate and unequal alcohol policy.
Now to the other story. The city is preparing to hammer anyone who they find guilty of housing discrimination. As a landlord, this is scary stuff. We need to be careful about who resides in our homes. I recently rejected a woman who wanted to rent an apartment from me. We had a bad feeling, confirmed by people who knew her. We rejected her, officially because she had pets. She has since died of a drug overdose. I remember thinking I was glad she was white, insofar as I would not likely be accused of racial discrimination.
Anyway, leave the discrimination business to the city. If you do it like the city does, you might wind up in jail or with a crippling fine.
Not in my book. To the best of my knowledge, the owner of Park 6, Thomas Holmes, has not committed or been accused of any crime or misdemeanor. Again, to the best of my knowledge, Holmes has taken many steps to protect his customers and the public. He checks his customers for weapons and he employs security guards. Even so, some of his customers have caused problems repeatedly such that the police are frequently called to the club. His customers are almost all young and black.
Holmes may lose his liquor license. His crime? He serves alcohol to young black people. Again, Holmes has not been accused of any alcohol related offense such as serving after hours, serving minors etc... No, he serves black people. And here is what nobody is willing to say publicly - large numbers of young black people are more likely to cause problems or commit serious crimes than say, the octogenarians bingo convention, or even the club or bar that has mostly white customers.
So Holmes' problems with the city result directly from his decision to serve young black people. By going after Holmes, the city is in effect enforcing a blacks only prohibition policy. Yes, the city essentially has a separate and unequal alcohol policy.
Now to the other story. The city is preparing to hammer anyone who they find guilty of housing discrimination. As a landlord, this is scary stuff. We need to be careful about who resides in our homes. I recently rejected a woman who wanted to rent an apartment from me. We had a bad feeling, confirmed by people who knew her. We rejected her, officially because she had pets. She has since died of a drug overdose. I remember thinking I was glad she was white, insofar as I would not likely be accused of racial discrimination.
Anyway, leave the discrimination business to the city. If you do it like the city does, you might wind up in jail or with a crippling fine.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
UNIT Review
New Racine Alderman Eric Marcus is taking a look at UNIT (unified neighborhood inspection team) and their fee and appeal process. The Racine Post has an article on the subject, read it and the comments here. My purpose here is to continue the conversation.
For starters, I give Marcus credit for taking a fresh look at UNIT. In a nutshell, it seems that he is looking for compromise, seeking to give property owners one warning per year. My problem with the UNIT fees is that they aren't fees at all but citations pretending to be fees. The city likes this semantic cleverness because they can generate revenue while bypassing the courts which tend to be costly.
Marcus suggests that we still have the right to appeal to the courts, citing a Milwaukee case. I disagree. We have no recourse to the courts concerning our fees. Our appeals go to the executive branch, and if Marcus' proposal becomes law, to the legislative branch, not to the courts. It is true that one could sue the city if you have a spare 50K. I hope that is not what Marcus means by the right to appeal to the courts.
Marcus also suggests the in-house appeal system he is advocating will be more efficient. I have no doubt he is correct. A summary judgement by city officials with a conflict of interest, coupled with a presumption of guilt by citizens denied the right to appeal to the courts, will no doubt be more efficient. But does it protect the rights of citizens?
Of greatest concern to me is Marcus' citing of the Milwaukee case. This case has been used previously by Alderman Greg Helding to justify the city's actions while ignoring the obvious - that these are not fees but fines. Can we replace speeding citations with vehicle speed "inspection fees?" Citing the Milwaukee case gives alderman at least plausible legal cover. Yes, you can probably get away with this legally. But should you?
For starters, I give Marcus credit for taking a fresh look at UNIT. In a nutshell, it seems that he is looking for compromise, seeking to give property owners one warning per year. My problem with the UNIT fees is that they aren't fees at all but citations pretending to be fees. The city likes this semantic cleverness because they can generate revenue while bypassing the courts which tend to be costly.
Marcus suggests that we still have the right to appeal to the courts, citing a Milwaukee case. I disagree. We have no recourse to the courts concerning our fees. Our appeals go to the executive branch, and if Marcus' proposal becomes law, to the legislative branch, not to the courts. It is true that one could sue the city if you have a spare 50K. I hope that is not what Marcus means by the right to appeal to the courts.
Marcus also suggests the in-house appeal system he is advocating will be more efficient. I have no doubt he is correct. A summary judgement by city officials with a conflict of interest, coupled with a presumption of guilt by citizens denied the right to appeal to the courts, will no doubt be more efficient. But does it protect the rights of citizens?
Of greatest concern to me is Marcus' citing of the Milwaukee case. This case has been used previously by Alderman Greg Helding to justify the city's actions while ignoring the obvious - that these are not fees but fines. Can we replace speeding citations with vehicle speed "inspection fees?" Citing the Milwaukee case gives alderman at least plausible legal cover. Yes, you can probably get away with this legally. But should you?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Know Thine Enemy
In the comments section of a Racine Post article on KRM, read it here, author Dustin Block wrote:
"The problem is the people with the loudest voices don't benefit from KRM. They have cars and jobs, don't live off of State Street in Racine, and have little interest in the city's future success. Meanwhile, people with the most to gain can't organize their voice into a cohesive message, or aren't willing to take the risk."
I think Dustin Block is wrong insofar as the loudest voices are calling for KRM, such as the Journal Times, the Johnson Companies, the mayor and most Racine politicians as well as the Racine Post. I also think he is wrong in assuming that the poor in Racine will benefit from KRM.
But what is most striking to me is Block's self proclaimed omniscience about people who have cars and jobs and don't live near State Street. If your one of them, and you oppose KRM, then you obviously - to Block anyway - have little interest in the future success of Racine. You obviously don't care about the people living near State Street, who are, in many cases, black.
It must be wonderful to have the ability to read the thoughts of other people, even massive numbers of people whom you don't even know. I don't have that ability, sadly. But Block does. As a result, he needn't bother confronting their actual concerns and objections to KRM. He knows what is in their hearts; selfishness and racism I can safely infer. Stated concerns about cost overruns, high taxes, inflated ridership and development projections etc... are really just a socially acceptable "code" for "We got ours and we don't care what happens to the poor black people."
I think Dustin Block is well intentioned but mistaken in his KRM advocacy. But Block is not so charitable towards you or I. Not only are we wrong, but we are bad people with sinister motives. You may not know that about yourself, but Block knows you better than you know yourself.
"The problem is the people with the loudest voices don't benefit from KRM. They have cars and jobs, don't live off of State Street in Racine, and have little interest in the city's future success. Meanwhile, people with the most to gain can't organize their voice into a cohesive message, or aren't willing to take the risk."
I think Dustin Block is wrong insofar as the loudest voices are calling for KRM, such as the Journal Times, the Johnson Companies, the mayor and most Racine politicians as well as the Racine Post. I also think he is wrong in assuming that the poor in Racine will benefit from KRM.
But what is most striking to me is Block's self proclaimed omniscience about people who have cars and jobs and don't live near State Street. If your one of them, and you oppose KRM, then you obviously - to Block anyway - have little interest in the future success of Racine. You obviously don't care about the people living near State Street, who are, in many cases, black.
It must be wonderful to have the ability to read the thoughts of other people, even massive numbers of people whom you don't even know. I don't have that ability, sadly. But Block does. As a result, he needn't bother confronting their actual concerns and objections to KRM. He knows what is in their hearts; selfishness and racism I can safely infer. Stated concerns about cost overruns, high taxes, inflated ridership and development projections etc... are really just a socially acceptable "code" for "We got ours and we don't care what happens to the poor black people."
I think Dustin Block is well intentioned but mistaken in his KRM advocacy. But Block is not so charitable towards you or I. Not only are we wrong, but we are bad people with sinister motives. You may not know that about yourself, but Block knows you better than you know yourself.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Q and A on Racine Development Proposal
The JT has an article, read it here, about the city's plans for the Walker Manufacturing site just north of downtown Racine.
From the article; the city plans to spend up to $5.5 million in TIF funding and an additional $10 million in developer incentives to create $74 million in new housing. "Now we're putting the City in the role of general contractor" said City Development Director Brian O'Connell who added "We really believe this is what we have to do to bring this site to market in these economic times."
Is there a housing shortage in Racine? Isn't our population declining? Why isn't the private sector interested in building on prime lakefront property? Could it be that taxes are too high? How has the city performed on other real estate dealings? Why should big real estate developers get 21% of their projects cost paid for by others? Could "these economic times" be trying to tell us something? Would anyone other than the city hire the city to be their general contractor?
These are just a few of the questions that should but won't be asked or answered by city officials. So I will answer them. There isn't a housing shortage in Racine. In fact, there is a housing surplus. This is what happens when people move away and don't take their houses with them. Yes, Racine's population has been declining. The private sector will not foot the entire bill for a huge housing project in Racine for any number of reasons, chief among them that they can't make money because of a housing glut and high taxes in Racine. On taxes, Racine has the highest property taxes in the county, or to put it another way, the greatest building disincentive in the county. The city's dangling of $15 million should be acknowledged as evidence that they are aware that taxes are now so high that nobody will build in Racine without a handout. Regarding past performance on development ventures, the city has failed repeatedly and most of the city's TIF's are losing money. There is no reason to think this project would fair any better. Big developers are no more deserving of tax breaks than is the person that fixes his roof or remodels his kitchen, the difference is developers schmooze with politicians and give them campaign contributions and the regular Joe doesn't. "These economic times" are trying to tell us not to build additional housing and not to build a typewriter repair center either. And lastly, nobody in their right mind would hire the city as a general contractor. But then, I rarely accuse city officials of being in their right minds.
From the article; the city plans to spend up to $5.5 million in TIF funding and an additional $10 million in developer incentives to create $74 million in new housing. "Now we're putting the City in the role of general contractor" said City Development Director Brian O'Connell who added "We really believe this is what we have to do to bring this site to market in these economic times."
Is there a housing shortage in Racine? Isn't our population declining? Why isn't the private sector interested in building on prime lakefront property? Could it be that taxes are too high? How has the city performed on other real estate dealings? Why should big real estate developers get 21% of their projects cost paid for by others? Could "these economic times" be trying to tell us something? Would anyone other than the city hire the city to be their general contractor?
These are just a few of the questions that should but won't be asked or answered by city officials. So I will answer them. There isn't a housing shortage in Racine. In fact, there is a housing surplus. This is what happens when people move away and don't take their houses with them. Yes, Racine's population has been declining. The private sector will not foot the entire bill for a huge housing project in Racine for any number of reasons, chief among them that they can't make money because of a housing glut and high taxes in Racine. On taxes, Racine has the highest property taxes in the county, or to put it another way, the greatest building disincentive in the county. The city's dangling of $15 million should be acknowledged as evidence that they are aware that taxes are now so high that nobody will build in Racine without a handout. Regarding past performance on development ventures, the city has failed repeatedly and most of the city's TIF's are losing money. There is no reason to think this project would fair any better. Big developers are no more deserving of tax breaks than is the person that fixes his roof or remodels his kitchen, the difference is developers schmooze with politicians and give them campaign contributions and the regular Joe doesn't. "These economic times" are trying to tell us not to build additional housing and not to build a typewriter repair center either. And lastly, nobody in their right mind would hire the city as a general contractor. But then, I rarely accuse city officials of being in their right minds.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Trade Secrets Exposed
Free Racine readers may know that I own a retail business in downtown Racine. I tend to separate my business interests from my political interests, but on this occasion the two are somewhat intertwined.
Every so often I hear rumblings that I am engaged in unfair or at least unfriendly business practices. The allegation typically goes something like this: I send spies into other retail businesses, I steal their ideas (lines, prices etc...) then I carry the same line with a lower price. I have reason to believe this silliness is happening again and I will use this as a teaching moment.
For starters, the accusers in these situations have some explaining to do. In order to buy products and or lines and avoid duplication and or undercutting other retailers, I would need to know beforehand every product and line being sold and at what price they are being resold by every nearby retailer. This would be a full time job and a complete waste of my time.
So instead, here is my secret that I will freely share with other retailers. I base my purchasing decisions without any regard to other retailers. Instead, I try to meet the needs of my customers. This is a tried and true retail strategy - give the customers what they want.
More secrets: There are only so many ways to make your offerings attractive to people who may freely choose to spend their money elsewhere. Among them are good prices, quality, quantity, and good service. These tend to be our focus. Whenever possible, we will purchase from the source. This involves traveling to other countries and avoiding wholesale markups. The problem with this strategy is that you have to buy large quantities to make it worth your while. Sometimes it is hard to move enough product to make this worthwhile. So what we do is take our show on the road. We sell at festivals, fairs, we do fund raisers at hospitals throughout the midwest. We can't simply sit in our store and hope for customers.
I realize that not everyone has the resources or knowhow to jet around the world looking for good product. Not everyone has cultivated the relationships that we have over the years to allow us access to markets outside Racine. Not everyone had the foresight, resources and luck to buy a large building that allows us to implement our strategy. Now I am not apologizing here. We have worked hard, we have taken advantage of opportunities, we have made sensible decisions for the most part, we have created a store and an atmosphere that attracts customers who are willing to part with their money for our stuff.
My accusers are making a huge mistake. Instead of focussing on their own business, they are getting worked up and distracted over what I am doing. I can't help but think this will lead to internal neglect of their own businesses and possibly a toxic attitude and atmosphere that will negatively affect customer relations.
Another mistake I will call the static pie fallacy. It goes like this: There is only so much money being spent downtown, so any money spent at my store is money being taken from potential customers in your store. The mistake is the assumption that the pie, or the money being spent downtown is a constant. Not true, the pie can grow. And I am helping it grow by attracting customers to my store. The customers who in some cases drive long distances to come to my store might just notice yours as well. And this works both ways of course. In short, my business threatens no other businesses. Rather, it helps other businesses, and theirs mine. This is why businesses congregate near other businesses. If they were hell bent on avoiding competition they should open a business far away from potential competitors.
I want downtown businesses to thrive. It will help my business in turn. The best way to make that happen is to focus 100% on internal operations, honestly assess strengths and weaknesses, and forget about what your neighbor is doing. In short, we will all be better off if you, quite literally, mind your own business.
Every so often I hear rumblings that I am engaged in unfair or at least unfriendly business practices. The allegation typically goes something like this: I send spies into other retail businesses, I steal their ideas (lines, prices etc...) then I carry the same line with a lower price. I have reason to believe this silliness is happening again and I will use this as a teaching moment.
For starters, the accusers in these situations have some explaining to do. In order to buy products and or lines and avoid duplication and or undercutting other retailers, I would need to know beforehand every product and line being sold and at what price they are being resold by every nearby retailer. This would be a full time job and a complete waste of my time.
So instead, here is my secret that I will freely share with other retailers. I base my purchasing decisions without any regard to other retailers. Instead, I try to meet the needs of my customers. This is a tried and true retail strategy - give the customers what they want.
More secrets: There are only so many ways to make your offerings attractive to people who may freely choose to spend their money elsewhere. Among them are good prices, quality, quantity, and good service. These tend to be our focus. Whenever possible, we will purchase from the source. This involves traveling to other countries and avoiding wholesale markups. The problem with this strategy is that you have to buy large quantities to make it worth your while. Sometimes it is hard to move enough product to make this worthwhile. So what we do is take our show on the road. We sell at festivals, fairs, we do fund raisers at hospitals throughout the midwest. We can't simply sit in our store and hope for customers.
I realize that not everyone has the resources or knowhow to jet around the world looking for good product. Not everyone has cultivated the relationships that we have over the years to allow us access to markets outside Racine. Not everyone had the foresight, resources and luck to buy a large building that allows us to implement our strategy. Now I am not apologizing here. We have worked hard, we have taken advantage of opportunities, we have made sensible decisions for the most part, we have created a store and an atmosphere that attracts customers who are willing to part with their money for our stuff.
My accusers are making a huge mistake. Instead of focussing on their own business, they are getting worked up and distracted over what I am doing. I can't help but think this will lead to internal neglect of their own businesses and possibly a toxic attitude and atmosphere that will negatively affect customer relations.
Another mistake I will call the static pie fallacy. It goes like this: There is only so much money being spent downtown, so any money spent at my store is money being taken from potential customers in your store. The mistake is the assumption that the pie, or the money being spent downtown is a constant. Not true, the pie can grow. And I am helping it grow by attracting customers to my store. The customers who in some cases drive long distances to come to my store might just notice yours as well. And this works both ways of course. In short, my business threatens no other businesses. Rather, it helps other businesses, and theirs mine. This is why businesses congregate near other businesses. If they were hell bent on avoiding competition they should open a business far away from potential competitors.
I want downtown businesses to thrive. It will help my business in turn. The best way to make that happen is to focus 100% on internal operations, honestly assess strengths and weaknesses, and forget about what your neighbor is doing. In short, we will all be better off if you, quite literally, mind your own business.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Enough?
President Obama recently said "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
I hope he feels the same way about accumulated political power.
I hope he feels the same way about accumulated political power.
Lack of Space Between Moving and Stationary Objects Causes Crash
A recent JT article about a helicopter crash cites a National Transportation Safety Board ruling that the crash was a result of pilot error. The pilot, according to the NTSB, "failed to maintain proper altitude in the moments before the crash."
Ya think?
Ya think?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Planning to Fail
I had a nice conversation with a City of Racine alderman yesterday. I expressed my concern about the hassles involved with opening a business in Racine. If I understand the situation correctly, Racine has an ordinance that requires most businesses to get approval from the city council before opening. This approval also involves the Racine County Economic Development Corporation which exercises authority over many of Racine's commercial corridors. Ultimately the council decides the matter. When opening a business, there is considerable effort, thought, and expense required. In Racine, you can undergo this process flawlessly - you can have a great idea, you can find the perfect location to buy or rent, you can complete a business plan, you can successfully arrange financing, and you can see that your business concept accords with zoning laws - only to be stymied and or rejected by bureaucrats and politicians that have other ideas for said property. We now have a top down economic model in Racine.
Anyway, back to my conversation with the alderman. On numerous occasions he said that I made a valid point. Not once did he suggest that I was mistaken or ill informed. The conversation was quite pleasant and there was evidently much that we agreed upon. Even so, I am discouraged. Why? Because, based on years of experience, I have no hope that this alderman or any others will make any attempt whatsoever to repeal the ordinance that makes the top down economic model possible. There are too many entrenched interests from RCEDC to city development personnel to city alderman who depend on maintaining control of economic decisions in Racine. If Racine residents and would-be entrepreneurs were free to make their own decisions, there would be no need for the economic development specialists and planners. They plan on keeping their jobs. The bondage will continue for the rest of us.
Anyway, back to my conversation with the alderman. On numerous occasions he said that I made a valid point. Not once did he suggest that I was mistaken or ill informed. The conversation was quite pleasant and there was evidently much that we agreed upon. Even so, I am discouraged. Why? Because, based on years of experience, I have no hope that this alderman or any others will make any attempt whatsoever to repeal the ordinance that makes the top down economic model possible. There are too many entrenched interests from RCEDC to city development personnel to city alderman who depend on maintaining control of economic decisions in Racine. If Racine residents and would-be entrepreneurs were free to make their own decisions, there would be no need for the economic development specialists and planners. They plan on keeping their jobs. The bondage will continue for the rest of us.
Monday, April 12, 2010
An Honest Referendum Question
There will be a kerfuffle tonight as the Racine County Board considers asking voters the following referendum question:
"Should any new tax to support transit or rail services, such as a sales tax or local vehicle registration fee, be permitted in any part of Racine County?"
KRM proponents are not in favor of this non-binding referendum, which is all you need to know.
Since both sides of this issue know that voters would reject the tax increases that would come with KRM, perhaps a better referendum question would be:
"Should we, as your elected representatives, knowingly reject the wishes of you, a member of the ignorant masses, and build a train that you won't use and can't afford, because we possess a superior vision for Racine County that you can't possibly comprehend?"
"Should any new tax to support transit or rail services, such as a sales tax or local vehicle registration fee, be permitted in any part of Racine County?"
KRM proponents are not in favor of this non-binding referendum, which is all you need to know.
Since both sides of this issue know that voters would reject the tax increases that would come with KRM, perhaps a better referendum question would be:
"Should we, as your elected representatives, knowingly reject the wishes of you, a member of the ignorant masses, and build a train that you won't use and can't afford, because we possess a superior vision for Racine County that you can't possibly comprehend?"
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
A Multicultural Message
Racine's Health Department has an ad in the Journal Times today. They were announcing three goals. Goal #1 caught my attention.
"Decrease infant mortality and improve birth outcomes in a culturally competent manner."
At the risk of exposing my cultural incompetence, I have a few suggestions. To improve birth outcomes, don't abort babies, don't smoke crack or cigarettes, don't drink, don't get knocked up at age 15. Do eat nutritious food, exercise moderately, rest, and listen to the advice of a doctor. To decrease infant mortality, don't sleep with your child, keep them away from violent people, feed them regularly and heed the advice of a pediatrician. And if you can't do that, give them up for adoption. If any of my suggestions hadn't already dawned on you, keep your pants on.
"Decrease infant mortality and improve birth outcomes in a culturally competent manner."
At the risk of exposing my cultural incompetence, I have a few suggestions. To improve birth outcomes, don't abort babies, don't smoke crack or cigarettes, don't drink, don't get knocked up at age 15. Do eat nutritious food, exercise moderately, rest, and listen to the advice of a doctor. To decrease infant mortality, don't sleep with your child, keep them away from violent people, feed them regularly and heed the advice of a pediatrician. And if you can't do that, give them up for adoption. If any of my suggestions hadn't already dawned on you, keep your pants on.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Death by Boyfriend Frustration
"Two 2-year-old boys have died in Racine in the past 18 months, possibly because their mother's boyfriends didn't know how to appropriately deal with the frustration of parenting a toddler." This is the first sentence of a JT article on March 22nd.
For the record, the toddlers didn't die from "boyfriend frustration." They died from suffocation and massive internal injuries, respectively, after being tied up and punched repeatedly, again respectively.
The article's subtitle seemingly is an attempted public service announcement of sorts. It reads: "Remember: when 2-year-olds act out, its normal".
So, apparently, is murdering them.
For the record, the toddlers didn't die from "boyfriend frustration." They died from suffocation and massive internal injuries, respectively, after being tied up and punched repeatedly, again respectively.
The article's subtitle seemingly is an attempted public service announcement of sorts. It reads: "Remember: when 2-year-olds act out, its normal".
So, apparently, is murdering them.
What Freedom?
I have been away for a while, in Hawaii to be exact. I haven't given much thought to politics lately. Anyway, we had a few hours to kill in the Honolulu airport, so we (me, wife, son) decided to have lunch. My wife breaks out a mini game of checkers and begins to set up the game. Suddenly our waitress hurries over and tells us that we can't play the game. I thought she was kidding, then I realized she wasn't. There is a law that forbids cards and other games at establishments where alcohol is served. The law is attempting to prevent gambling.
"Well, it used to be a free country" I said to my son, only half joking. So in an act of defiance, with the number one gambling event of the year (NCAA basketball tournament) on the TV, my son and I played a spirited game of rock, paper, scissors, for cold, hard cash.
I hate to teach my son to disrespect the law, but there is nothing whatsoever to respect about prohibition on checkers or Go Fish. I think it is only going to get worse.
"Well, it used to be a free country" I said to my son, only half joking. So in an act of defiance, with the number one gambling event of the year (NCAA basketball tournament) on the TV, my son and I played a spirited game of rock, paper, scissors, for cold, hard cash.
I hate to teach my son to disrespect the law, but there is nothing whatsoever to respect about prohibition on checkers or Go Fish. I think it is only going to get worse.
Monday, March 15, 2010
It's For the Children
Want some insight into our local teachers union? Read this article from the JT.
Just days after a RUSD teacher was arrested for paying a child for sex, the teachers union sent this message to teachers: "Member reporting to administrators is typically not an appropriate course of action and can result in legal problems for the individuals making such reports" .... and "If teachers make comments to administrators (or to anyone else for that matter) that interfere with another teachers income or their performance evaluation, the teacher making such comments can be held liable. This is true EVEN IF THE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE." Caps were my emphasis.
So there you have it folks. Teachers are being threatened by their own union not to report TRUE information about teachers who are not performing on the job.
The good news here is that at least one teacher was disgusted enough to report this to the Journal Times. Given the evident bullying nature of the union, it is hardly surprising that the teacher did so anonymously.
The article goes on to include excuses by union members such as "we want to make sure when people say things, they fully understand there's implications" and "the newsletter was not supposed to discourage teachers from filing reports" but that the reports include "the facts and nothing but the facts" etc.... Note that these excuses directly contradict the actual words from the teachers union.
Anyway, not to worry. It's for the children.
Just days after a RUSD teacher was arrested for paying a child for sex, the teachers union sent this message to teachers: "Member reporting to administrators is typically not an appropriate course of action and can result in legal problems for the individuals making such reports" .... and "If teachers make comments to administrators (or to anyone else for that matter) that interfere with another teachers income or their performance evaluation, the teacher making such comments can be held liable. This is true EVEN IF THE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE." Caps were my emphasis.
So there you have it folks. Teachers are being threatened by their own union not to report TRUE information about teachers who are not performing on the job.
The good news here is that at least one teacher was disgusted enough to report this to the Journal Times. Given the evident bullying nature of the union, it is hardly surprising that the teacher did so anonymously.
The article goes on to include excuses by union members such as "we want to make sure when people say things, they fully understand there's implications" and "the newsletter was not supposed to discourage teachers from filing reports" but that the reports include "the facts and nothing but the facts" etc.... Note that these excuses directly contradict the actual words from the teachers union.
Anyway, not to worry. It's for the children.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Quote of the Day
"If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn."
I love this quote from Walter Williams in a recent article entitled "Is health care a right?" You can read the article here.
I love this quote from Walter Williams in a recent article entitled "Is health care a right?" You can read the article here.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Musings on Property Taxes
Property taxes are quite a popular revenue source for politicians. The main reason is that it is rather unlikely that anyone will remove their property from a high tax area. The property and the taxpayer are quite literally stuck. As property tax rates increase, (Racine's property tax rate is 50% higher in Racine than in Wind Point-full disclosure- I own property in both locations) property owners calibrate their investments accordingly. The higher the taxes go relative to other communities, and if all other factors remain equal, the greater the likelihood that people will want to sell their homes and move to lower tax areas. With more people wanting to sell than wanting to buy, naturally there will be downward pressure on the price of property. High taxes actually steal value from homeowners. Another way to react to high property taxes is to gradually allow a property to deteriorate, lowering its value and the tax obligation. For some homes in some areas, years of deterioration renders a home more trouble than it is worth and the owner just walks away. In these situations, government policy has contributed to the end result of a home having zero value. So now the city ends up with the property and has a decision to make, raze or build. Lately the city has been getting more and more involved in the real estate business. The city plans to rebuild these homes with taxpayer money. Then they want to use more taxpayer money to get low income folks to "buy" the homes. I put "buy" in quotes because they are not really buying the home. Rather, they are minority investors in the highly risky sub prime real estate investment. The other investors are you the taxpayer who will be holding the bag when the new owners inevitably default on their obligations. Sorry, you don't get to default on your obligation to subsidize their home "purchase." Racine has been doing this kind of nonsense for years such that now much of the wealth has left Racine. There are fewer and fewer Racine folks to milk for these programs so now we go to the feds for help. Is it any wonder so many of our cities are such a mess?
Monday, March 08, 2010
An Artful Dodge
I went to Russ Feingold's listening session on Friday and was chosen to ask the first question. I stumbled a bit but I think got my point across. I noted that in order to sell the health care bill, the Obama administration had used 10 years of tax revenue but only 6 years of benefits payouts. I noted that, as a business owner, if I were to seek investors using 10 years of sales projections but only 6 years of expenses, I would be defrauding investors and would likely go to jail. You can go to Fred Dooley's site, Real Debate Wisconsin to see Feingold's non answer.
So criminal activity for you and I is business as usual in Washington. Hope and change.
So criminal activity for you and I is business as usual in Washington. Hope and change.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Flipping Crazy
Does Mayor Dickert really think the city will succeed in flipping houses, in dicey neighborhoods, with union labor, in a crummy housing market, while selling to first time homeowners? On what basis? Certainly not past performance by the city.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Question for Liberals
Many folks, myself included, are concerned about big political spenders and their influence on our representatives. Bribery of the legal and illegal variety abounds. The problem exists on either side of the political divide though the clients may differ.
I suspect that just about everyone will agree with the sentiment expressed in the preceding paragraph. Now for some partisanship.
I can't fathom having a political philosophy that espouses bigger government given the rampant problem of legislation for sale to the highest bidder. If legal and illegal bribery is a huge problem, and none of our representatives out the criminals or aggressive influence purchasers, (when was the last time a pol contacted the FBI, set up a sting etc.... ) then don't we have a symbiotic relationship between big interests and our elected representatives? On what basis then should we hand over more power and authority to folks that we suspect are corrupt?
I suspect that just about everyone will agree with the sentiment expressed in the preceding paragraph. Now for some partisanship.
I can't fathom having a political philosophy that espouses bigger government given the rampant problem of legislation for sale to the highest bidder. If legal and illegal bribery is a huge problem, and none of our representatives out the criminals or aggressive influence purchasers, (when was the last time a pol contacted the FBI, set up a sting etc.... ) then don't we have a symbiotic relationship between big interests and our elected representatives? On what basis then should we hand over more power and authority to folks that we suspect are corrupt?
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Inconvenient News Wished Away
Al Gore is back unflinchingly addressing recent inconvenient news about global warming.
"In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law."
Yes folks, this is all that Al had to say about the e-mails from East Anglia. Some scientists harassed by skeptics just might have inadequately "followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law."
Al's entire essay is called "We can't Wish Away Climate Change" and can be found at the New York Times.
We can't wish away climate change but we CAN wish away substantive challenges to climate change orthodoxy.
"In addition, e-mail messages stolen from the University of East Anglia in Britain showed that scientists besieged by an onslaught of hostile, make-work demands from climate skeptics may not have adequately followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law."
Yes folks, this is all that Al had to say about the e-mails from East Anglia. Some scientists harassed by skeptics just might have inadequately "followed the requirements of the British freedom of information law."
Al's entire essay is called "We can't Wish Away Climate Change" and can be found at the New York Times.
We can't wish away climate change but we CAN wish away substantive challenges to climate change orthodoxy.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Have a Cow
Mayor Dickert is just the latest of folks who mistakenly elevate the importance of home ownership. Home ownership is definitely correlated with good stuff like reduced crime. Study after study is cited to prove the correlation. The mistake is to conclude that government should try to see to it that people should own homes. I think I can best make this argument via example.
I have an idea that is way better than home ownership. Cow ownership. Cows are cheaper than homes so government subsidy or outright purchase of cows for Racine residents will save lots of money.
Let us consider cow owners. I have no study to cite, but I suspect that cow owners break the law (with the possible exception of bestiality) at a lower rate than your average homeowner, not to mention renters. Cow owners have jobs and work longer hours than the public at large. Compared to non-cow owners, cow owners tend to stay in the same home for several generations in a row, adding stability to cow owning neighborhoods. Cow owners do well in school, have jobs, don't commit crimes, all while owning homes. I am sure there are other societal benefits to cow ownership that I haven't even considered, oh like milk. Can a house feed a family?
Let's face it. Cow ownership is much better for society than home ownership. But even if you are skeptical, realize that cow owners also own homes. So if your goal is home ownership for Racine residents, it will be far wiser and cheaper to buy a cow for every Racine resident. Then sit back and watch the unemployment and crime rates drop to zero, while the graduation and home ownership rates climb towards 100%.
I have an idea that is way better than home ownership. Cow ownership. Cows are cheaper than homes so government subsidy or outright purchase of cows for Racine residents will save lots of money.
Let us consider cow owners. I have no study to cite, but I suspect that cow owners break the law (with the possible exception of bestiality) at a lower rate than your average homeowner, not to mention renters. Cow owners have jobs and work longer hours than the public at large. Compared to non-cow owners, cow owners tend to stay in the same home for several generations in a row, adding stability to cow owning neighborhoods. Cow owners do well in school, have jobs, don't commit crimes, all while owning homes. I am sure there are other societal benefits to cow ownership that I haven't even considered, oh like milk. Can a house feed a family?
Let's face it. Cow ownership is much better for society than home ownership. But even if you are skeptical, realize that cow owners also own homes. So if your goal is home ownership for Racine residents, it will be far wiser and cheaper to buy a cow for every Racine resident. Then sit back and watch the unemployment and crime rates drop to zero, while the graduation and home ownership rates climb towards 100%.
Levie's Revenge?
There is an interesting article at the Racine Post concerning a policy proposal dealing with police/student interaction.
A Horlick social studies teacher named Al Levie was arrested a few years back for obstructing a police officer who wanted to question one of Levie's students. Levie fought the charges, won, then lost on appeal.
A previous Racine Post article quoted Levie on the incident. "This is an incident between the union and the administration" and "I'll have input into that issue" and "We as a district have to decide how we'll use police in the schools." The Racine Post also notes that Levie indicated that he "would start a discussion within Unified about the role of police in schools."
Now the recent Racine Post doesn't indicate whether this policy proposal was initiated by Levie, but Levie's own words suggest that he would initiate a Racine Unified policy response. As the president of Racine Horlicks teachers union, he would have every opportunity to do so.
The question before Racine Unified is whether to allow a radical teacher with a conflict of interest to determine RUSD policy. Al Levie is known to actively support in state tuition for people who illegally reside in the State of Wisconsin, a policy change that would favor lawbreakers over legal citizens from other states.. Additionally, he organizes his students to support this and other political objectives.
One response by Unified to this incident is the one possibly authored by Al Levie. Another would be to issue a set of guidelines for firing teachers who break the law at our public schools.
A Horlick social studies teacher named Al Levie was arrested a few years back for obstructing a police officer who wanted to question one of Levie's students. Levie fought the charges, won, then lost on appeal.
A previous Racine Post article quoted Levie on the incident. "This is an incident between the union and the administration" and "I'll have input into that issue" and "We as a district have to decide how we'll use police in the schools." The Racine Post also notes that Levie indicated that he "would start a discussion within Unified about the role of police in schools."
Now the recent Racine Post doesn't indicate whether this policy proposal was initiated by Levie, but Levie's own words suggest that he would initiate a Racine Unified policy response. As the president of Racine Horlicks teachers union, he would have every opportunity to do so.
The question before Racine Unified is whether to allow a radical teacher with a conflict of interest to determine RUSD policy. Al Levie is known to actively support in state tuition for people who illegally reside in the State of Wisconsin, a policy change that would favor lawbreakers over legal citizens from other states.. Additionally, he organizes his students to support this and other political objectives.
One response by Unified to this incident is the one possibly authored by Al Levie. Another would be to issue a set of guidelines for firing teachers who break the law at our public schools.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Shotgun Bipartisanship
A man approached me in the street and said he wanted my wallet.
Go %$#@! yourself, I said.
"Look, this negotiation will be more pleasant and productive if you don't force me to use my gun" said the man.
If you haven't already guessed, the preceding incident never happened. As it happens, I was thinking about President Obama's supposed bipartisan health care summit with Republicans. The president is bringing a gun to the negotiations. That gun is reconciliation, a procedural maneuver never before used to enact major legislation. To be sure, it is a concealed gun, the cameras won't see it and the newsies won't mention it, but everyone in the room will know it's there. If the Republicans don't act in good faith, ie handing over their wallets, and yours, then Obama et al will pull out the rec. This is not a negotiation. It is a political mugging.
Go %$#@! yourself, I said.
"Look, this negotiation will be more pleasant and productive if you don't force me to use my gun" said the man.
If you haven't already guessed, the preceding incident never happened. As it happens, I was thinking about President Obama's supposed bipartisan health care summit with Republicans. The president is bringing a gun to the negotiations. That gun is reconciliation, a procedural maneuver never before used to enact major legislation. To be sure, it is a concealed gun, the cameras won't see it and the newsies won't mention it, but everyone in the room will know it's there. If the Republicans don't act in good faith, ie handing over their wallets, and yours, then Obama et al will pull out the rec. This is not a negotiation. It is a political mugging.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Discriminating Thoughts
Some Carthage students attempted to prevent a speech on campus because, in their view, the speaker opposes homosexuality. The Carthage administration has, wisely IMHO, decided to allow the speech. Some Carthage students are protesting, claiming discrimination.
I am not weighing in here on the morality of homosexuality. Rather, I find it disturbing that large numbers of college students are unable to recognize the difference between disagreement and discrimination.
Free Racine readers who disagree with may assessment will be banned as I will not be discriminated against by the likes of you.
I am not weighing in here on the morality of homosexuality. Rather, I find it disturbing that large numbers of college students are unable to recognize the difference between disagreement and discrimination.
Free Racine readers who disagree with may assessment will be banned as I will not be discriminated against by the likes of you.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Joke of the Day
A debate on stem cell research at Kay's Blue Racine included the following exchange:
Sean: Is a brain dead 80 year old's life as valuable as that of a vibrant 25 year old mother?
Nemo: Your 80 year old person example is strange. Is a brain dead person less of a person? Well, yes. A Brain dead person is dead. Dead people are not human...unless you count the President's "corpse-men" helping in Haiti...
Sean: Is a brain dead 80 year old's life as valuable as that of a vibrant 25 year old mother?
Nemo: Your 80 year old person example is strange. Is a brain dead person less of a person? Well, yes. A Brain dead person is dead. Dead people are not human...unless you count the President's "corpse-men" helping in Haiti...
Economic Effrontery
I watched President Obama's press conference today, the one year anniversary of TARP/The Recovery Act. TARP has created or saved some millions of jobs he said, and if you don't believe him, ask Will the windowmaker who had to start a second shift at his factory. Or ask Rob the roadbuilder who had to hire two new engineers. Or Sally the schoolteacher. You get the idea.
I don't know whether to be embarrassed for the president or insulted by him. Does the president really think these are persuasive arguments or does he just think we are stupid?
No mention was made about where the money came from to enrich Will, Rob and Sally. The money of course comes from borrowing and thus has to be paid off some day by Holly the hypothetical hygienist and Elsa the eventual electrician.
Now it may be that TARP was a huge success. But to make that claim, you need to acknowledge that the money borrowed from some to enrich others has been or will be worth the tradeoff. And supportive evidence would be nice. But instead the president just pretends that anything that has helped Will, Rob and Sally must be self evidently good.
I don't think President Obama is economically illiterate. I think he is just trying to pull one over on Americans.
I don't know whether to be embarrassed for the president or insulted by him. Does the president really think these are persuasive arguments or does he just think we are stupid?
No mention was made about where the money came from to enrich Will, Rob and Sally. The money of course comes from borrowing and thus has to be paid off some day by Holly the hypothetical hygienist and Elsa the eventual electrician.
Now it may be that TARP was a huge success. But to make that claim, you need to acknowledge that the money borrowed from some to enrich others has been or will be worth the tradeoff. And supportive evidence would be nice. But instead the president just pretends that anything that has helped Will, Rob and Sally must be self evidently good.
I don't think President Obama is economically illiterate. I think he is just trying to pull one over on Americans.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
On Group Speech
The recent Supreme Court decision concerning corporate speech has liberals up in arms. "Corporations are not people" is the bumper sticker phrase that is used as a substitute for a substantive argument on the issue.
True enough, corporations are not people. But then again, lots of things are not people. Newspapers are not people. Unions are not people. The Chamber of Commerce is not a person. Neither is the PTA, the Republican Party, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Planned Parenthood.... you get the idea.
Do liberals really think that only individuals should have the right to affect elections and or policy decisions via advertisements or campaign contributions? Or is it OK that some groupings of people, such as those who own newspapers, have the right to try to sway public opinion, but that other groupings of people, such as those who own a technology company, have no such right? If so, which groupings of people have rights and which ones don't, and who decides?
True enough, corporations are not people. But then again, lots of things are not people. Newspapers are not people. Unions are not people. The Chamber of Commerce is not a person. Neither is the PTA, the Republican Party, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Planned Parenthood.... you get the idea.
Do liberals really think that only individuals should have the right to affect elections and or policy decisions via advertisements or campaign contributions? Or is it OK that some groupings of people, such as those who own newspapers, have the right to try to sway public opinion, but that other groupings of people, such as those who own a technology company, have no such right? If so, which groupings of people have rights and which ones don't, and who decides?
Monday, February 08, 2010
Council Vote Theory
I have been away for a while and was unable to comment on the church/conditional use permit vote in the city council. For starters, they voted correctly in my view, and the vote was nearly unanimous. Of most interest to me was the vote of Alderman Greg Helding who just a day earlier was the spokesman for the city's position - throw the church to the curb, we've got better ideas. But when it came time to vote, Helding voted against his own stated position and the position of the economic development committee.
So what happened? Were Helding et al persuaded by the speakers during the public comment period? Are we witnessing a shift in principles away from government edicts and towards greater economic freedom? Was the council feeling pressure from media sources outside the area?
My own theory is that there is no shift in principles. The council responded to pressure and pressure only, as they always do. Nothing has changed. If they can get away with it the next time, they will.
Of course Greg Helding and the other aldermen may use this forum to offer an alternative explanation for the about face.
So what happened? Were Helding et al persuaded by the speakers during the public comment period? Are we witnessing a shift in principles away from government edicts and towards greater economic freedom? Was the council feeling pressure from media sources outside the area?
My own theory is that there is no shift in principles. The council responded to pressure and pressure only, as they always do. Nothing has changed. If they can get away with it the next time, they will.
Of course Greg Helding and the other aldermen may use this forum to offer an alternative explanation for the about face.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Church Gets Conditionally Screwed
Racine's City Plan Commission has voted to deny the New Life Christian Fellowship Church a conditional use permit; a move that, if approved by the full city council, would force the church to relocate from their present location.
As readers are certainly aware, cities accross the country have zoning laws. These laws are intended to allow cities the ability to designate certain areas for certain purposes. Racine has such laws on the books. However, a few years ago, under the leadership of former Mayor Becker, Racine passed a law requiring that businesses, churches, etc... get a conditional use permit. The full city council ultimately decides the issue.
The problem with the conditional use permit requirement is that in effect nullifies existing zoning law, at least that is how I see it, though I am not a lawyer. Alderman Helding more or less acknowledges as much. How so? Well, the City Plan Comission also recommends a "120 day moratorium on any new occupancy permits requested by noncommercial uses in commercially zoned areas," a move that would allow the city to "tune up" city zoning laws, according to Alderman Helding. Tuning up a law is just another way of saying that they intend to change the zoning law that presently exists so that the New Life Christian Church may be legally denied the use of their property.
I placed a call to the city attorneys office, hoping to learn whether the location in question is presently zoned for churches. No answer and I left no message but I will keep trying.
If anyone wishes to weigh in on this subject, you may do so tommorrow at city hall at 7 pm.
UPDATE: I talked to Matt Sadowski at the City Development Office today. If I understood him correctly, the city passed an ordinance pertaining to many of Racine's business districts, including the one in question. Under the ordinance, any change of use of a property could trigger the requirement of a conditional use permit. From the sounds of it, the ordinance transfers considerable power to the city development director Brian O'Connell, who may also waive the requirement.
My opinion is that this ordinance allows the city to repeal or enforce zoning laws arbitrarily. One reason to have laws is so that people can reasonably expect consistent treatment. So now, in addition to business plans, rental agreements and so on, add political favor to the list of requirements to opening a business. This ordinance needs to be repealed.
As readers are certainly aware, cities accross the country have zoning laws. These laws are intended to allow cities the ability to designate certain areas for certain purposes. Racine has such laws on the books. However, a few years ago, under the leadership of former Mayor Becker, Racine passed a law requiring that businesses, churches, etc... get a conditional use permit. The full city council ultimately decides the issue.
The problem with the conditional use permit requirement is that in effect nullifies existing zoning law, at least that is how I see it, though I am not a lawyer. Alderman Helding more or less acknowledges as much. How so? Well, the City Plan Comission also recommends a "120 day moratorium on any new occupancy permits requested by noncommercial uses in commercially zoned areas," a move that would allow the city to "tune up" city zoning laws, according to Alderman Helding. Tuning up a law is just another way of saying that they intend to change the zoning law that presently exists so that the New Life Christian Church may be legally denied the use of their property.
I placed a call to the city attorneys office, hoping to learn whether the location in question is presently zoned for churches. No answer and I left no message but I will keep trying.
If anyone wishes to weigh in on this subject, you may do so tommorrow at city hall at 7 pm.
UPDATE: I talked to Matt Sadowski at the City Development Office today. If I understood him correctly, the city passed an ordinance pertaining to many of Racine's business districts, including the one in question. Under the ordinance, any change of use of a property could trigger the requirement of a conditional use permit. From the sounds of it, the ordinance transfers considerable power to the city development director Brian O'Connell, who may also waive the requirement.
My opinion is that this ordinance allows the city to repeal or enforce zoning laws arbitrarily. One reason to have laws is so that people can reasonably expect consistent treatment. So now, in addition to business plans, rental agreements and so on, add political favor to the list of requirements to opening a business. This ordinance needs to be repealed.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Joke of the Day
Question: Why does President Obama favor high speed rail?
Answer: Because the road to serfdom is too slow.
Answer: Because the road to serfdom is too slow.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Obama Forgives
I was listening to President Obama propose things other than a takeover of the health care industry today. If I heard him correctly, he was proposing student loan debt forgiveness for some college graduates who choose to work in public service.
The first thing to realize is that nobody in their right mind would lend money under these circumstances. So, if it hasn't happened already, the student loan business will be taken over by the government. Or, to put it another way, taxpayers will be forced to provide forgiveable loans, or grants, to the art history majors who can't cut it in the real world.
I am also bothered by the bias in favor of public service employees, by which I suppose he means government employees. Does President Obama think that government employees are the only ones that serve the public?
The first thing to realize is that nobody in their right mind would lend money under these circumstances. So, if it hasn't happened already, the student loan business will be taken over by the government. Or, to put it another way, taxpayers will be forced to provide forgiveable loans, or grants, to the art history majors who can't cut it in the real world.
I am also bothered by the bias in favor of public service employees, by which I suppose he means government employees. Does President Obama think that government employees are the only ones that serve the public?
Friday, January 22, 2010
Lesson for Sean
I have been reading Kays Blue Racine lately, mostly to enjoy the hilarious explanations for the defeat in Massachusetts. One of her regulars, Sean Cranley, is especially unglued. He asked me, in a most childish manner, to offer my solution to the health care problems that we face. I gave a wise ass answer that you can read yourself if you like. I have link to her site on the right of this blog.
Anyway, I did begin to wonder how to explain my position to someone with such limited mental faculties. It is a real dilemma. Imagine trying to teach Calculus to someone who can't add and who thinks math and math teachers are evil. Not an easy task.
Step one needs to be a discussion about zero sum and positive sum transactions. A zero sum transaction is where one party benefits at the expense of another. A positive sum transaction is where both parties benefit.
Example of a positive sum transaction: Sean has two bicycles and I have two computers. We trade freely, I get one of his bicycles and he gets one of my computers. We are both better off, ie wealthier. Wealth has been created.
Example of a zero sum transaction: Sean steals my computer. Sean is wealthier by the amount of the value of the computer, while I am poorer by the same amount. This is a zero sum transaction. The total value of the transaction is zero. No wealth is created.
The problem with Sean is that he mistakenly thinks that mutually agreeable transactions (ie free trade/capitalism etc...) is an example of a zero sum game. The greedy business, stealing or exploiting etc..., gains at the expense of the consumer. He is wrong. The transactions are not forced on anyone, they are freely made by both parties for the purpose of mutual gain.
Another problem Sean has is an inexplicable faith that government, so long as it is run by liberals, is engaged in positive sum activity. Tax the productive, give to the needy and all will be well. To most thinking people, this more closely resembles a zero sum transaction. When you take from one person and give to another, one gains at the expense of the other, ie a zero sum.
So Sean has it exactly backwards. Until he gets lesson one, it will be impossible to proceed further. You can't teach Calculus to a person who can't add, hates math, and hates the teacher. Good luck Sean!
Anyway, I did begin to wonder how to explain my position to someone with such limited mental faculties. It is a real dilemma. Imagine trying to teach Calculus to someone who can't add and who thinks math and math teachers are evil. Not an easy task.
Step one needs to be a discussion about zero sum and positive sum transactions. A zero sum transaction is where one party benefits at the expense of another. A positive sum transaction is where both parties benefit.
Example of a positive sum transaction: Sean has two bicycles and I have two computers. We trade freely, I get one of his bicycles and he gets one of my computers. We are both better off, ie wealthier. Wealth has been created.
Example of a zero sum transaction: Sean steals my computer. Sean is wealthier by the amount of the value of the computer, while I am poorer by the same amount. This is a zero sum transaction. The total value of the transaction is zero. No wealth is created.
The problem with Sean is that he mistakenly thinks that mutually agreeable transactions (ie free trade/capitalism etc...) is an example of a zero sum game. The greedy business, stealing or exploiting etc..., gains at the expense of the consumer. He is wrong. The transactions are not forced on anyone, they are freely made by both parties for the purpose of mutual gain.
Another problem Sean has is an inexplicable faith that government, so long as it is run by liberals, is engaged in positive sum activity. Tax the productive, give to the needy and all will be well. To most thinking people, this more closely resembles a zero sum transaction. When you take from one person and give to another, one gains at the expense of the other, ie a zero sum.
So Sean has it exactly backwards. Until he gets lesson one, it will be impossible to proceed further. You can't teach Calculus to a person who can't add, hates math, and hates the teacher. Good luck Sean!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
On Cancer and Islam
I attend a philosophy club meeting on Wednesdays. During the past two weeks I heard the same argument from two different people. We were discussing the treatment of women in Islamic countries and the argument went something like this: There is a much lower incidence of cancer among these women, this can be attributed to the reduced amount of stress because they are not working/competing in the labor market, so we should not presume that women are treated badly in Islamic countries.
I have a few problems with this argument. It assumes that stress is the primary cause of cancer. As an aside, I am a bit horrified to learn that this argument came from a person working at a cancer treatment center. Take some radiation, quit your job, call me in the morning. Another problem I have is the willingness to overlook mistreatment, so long as the mistreated don't get cancer. Suppose the incidence of cancer were found to be lower among the slave population in the south. Would we then have to conclude that slavery is OK and who are we to question another culture?
I have a few problems with this argument. It assumes that stress is the primary cause of cancer. As an aside, I am a bit horrified to learn that this argument came from a person working at a cancer treatment center. Take some radiation, quit your job, call me in the morning. Another problem I have is the willingness to overlook mistreatment, so long as the mistreated don't get cancer. Suppose the incidence of cancer were found to be lower among the slave population in the south. Would we then have to conclude that slavery is OK and who are we to question another culture?
On Correlation and Crime
Alderman Wisneski thinks there is a correlation between alcohol sold at restaurants and crime. Maybe so, but I suspect the correlation is rather weak. On the other hand, I think there is a much stronger correlation between the following, and crime:
1. Being a male.
2. Being young, say between the ages of 15 and 35.
3. Being black.
Perhaps Alderman Wisneski, if he wants to be consistent, will propose punitive measures on the young, males, and black people who want to move into Racine.
I guess it is somehow OK to profile restaurant patrons but not OK to profile those people more strongly correlated with crime. A better idea in my view would be to get tough on the people with a 1 to 1 correlation with crime, ie criminals.
1. Being a male.
2. Being young, say between the ages of 15 and 35.
3. Being black.
Perhaps Alderman Wisneski, if he wants to be consistent, will propose punitive measures on the young, males, and black people who want to move into Racine.
I guess it is somehow OK to profile restaurant patrons but not OK to profile those people more strongly correlated with crime. A better idea in my view would be to get tough on the people with a 1 to 1 correlation with crime, ie criminals.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
On Correlation, unemployment
Want to open a restaurant in Racine? Before doing so, understand that our elected officials think you will be contributing to Racine's crime problem in doing so. So to dampen your entreprenurial ambitions, and to counteract the harm you will bring to our community, they will tax you $10,000.
The issue here is liquor licenses. The city voted last night to reintroduce the $10,000 tax, or more accurately, to discontinue the $9,500 rebate that they had been issuing for the licenses.
According to a brief JT article, Alderman Aron Wisneski said it will help the city in that "people say the crime rate is too high and there is a direct correlation between alcohol and crime."
There may well be a correlation between alcohol and crime and if so, then there is also a correlation between criminals and alcohol consumption. Since alcohol will still be sold in Racine, criminals who wish to drink before their crime binges will still have every opportunity to do so. Reducing criminal activity will be accomplished by locking up criminals, not by discouraging business start ups with oppressive taxes.
On a positive note, it is good that Alderman Wisneski is interested in correlation. My suggestion would be to look into any correlation between policies that discourage entrepreneurship and unemployment rates.
The issue here is liquor licenses. The city voted last night to reintroduce the $10,000 tax, or more accurately, to discontinue the $9,500 rebate that they had been issuing for the licenses.
According to a brief JT article, Alderman Aron Wisneski said it will help the city in that "people say the crime rate is too high and there is a direct correlation between alcohol and crime."
There may well be a correlation between alcohol and crime and if so, then there is also a correlation between criminals and alcohol consumption. Since alcohol will still be sold in Racine, criminals who wish to drink before their crime binges will still have every opportunity to do so. Reducing criminal activity will be accomplished by locking up criminals, not by discouraging business start ups with oppressive taxes.
On a positive note, it is good that Alderman Wisneski is interested in correlation. My suggestion would be to look into any correlation between policies that discourage entrepreneurship and unemployment rates.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Walden Outreach
Yesterday I met an impressive young lady from Walden High School. We had a conversation about Walden, my blog, my interactions with Walden students, political activism, etc... Our conversation was a bit disjointed because I was simultaneously trying to help other customers. But I realize that I need to clarify my thoughts on all things Walden, so here goes.
Walden students who read this should know that generalizations about Walden students are just that, generalizations, and therefore may or may not apply to a particular individual. Additionally, my opinions about Walden students have been influenced primarily by those most active in environmental politics. As such, I realize that my opinions have been influenced by a skewed sampling. Indeed, perhaps it is only a handful of Walden students who have influenced my views.
Moving on, I recognize that Walden students have the highest test scores among Racine's public schools. Given the dismal state of RUSD, this should be, and is, accomplished year after year.
Frequent readers of this blog have probably picked up on a general attitude towards elites. Generally I am not impressed. I find young elites to be among the most insufferable people on earth. By elites I mean people who behave as though they are so smart or accomplished and that because of their superiority they ought to have control over society's riff raff. I don't think that the most accomplished adult in the world should hold such an attitude, so naturally, children or young adults, with even fewer accomplishments, ought not to think they are bright enough to rule over others. Sadly, it seems Walden is something of a breeding ground for this type of elitism.
The only reason Walden students have come to my attention is because they have entered into the political fray. And they have entered it in such a way that I am concerned about the education that they are receiving. Invariably, young activists will claim that their activism has in no way been influenced by adults. I find this claim highly implausible. Inevitably, when weighing in on issues that divide us politically, our local youth activists always advocate for the leftist causes. If there was no influence by adults, the activism would more likely reflect the actual divide in our country, ie a more even split along liberal/conservative lines. My conclusion is that these students are unwitting victims of indoctrination. I don't blame them for this sad state of affairs, I blame the adults who are indoctrinating them.
So my mission is to help these students. I do so by challenging them concerning their activism. I understand that this does not always sit well with students, and that my approach or style might be a bit too combative at times. I have no interest in coddling students, nor do I want to provide an unwarrated boost to their self esteem. I will leave that to others. Rather, I think I can provide a service by challenging some of their beliefs. This is what good teachers should do.
The young lady I spoke to yesterday mentioned that the Walden student activists considered inviting me to one of their meetings. I would most definitely accept such an invitation if offered. I don't consider Walden students enemies in any way, shape, or form. I would thoroughly enjoy an opportunity to discuss differences of opinion on environmentalism, global warming, education, activism etc... with Walden students.
Walden students who read this should know that generalizations about Walden students are just that, generalizations, and therefore may or may not apply to a particular individual. Additionally, my opinions about Walden students have been influenced primarily by those most active in environmental politics. As such, I realize that my opinions have been influenced by a skewed sampling. Indeed, perhaps it is only a handful of Walden students who have influenced my views.
Moving on, I recognize that Walden students have the highest test scores among Racine's public schools. Given the dismal state of RUSD, this should be, and is, accomplished year after year.
Frequent readers of this blog have probably picked up on a general attitude towards elites. Generally I am not impressed. I find young elites to be among the most insufferable people on earth. By elites I mean people who behave as though they are so smart or accomplished and that because of their superiority they ought to have control over society's riff raff. I don't think that the most accomplished adult in the world should hold such an attitude, so naturally, children or young adults, with even fewer accomplishments, ought not to think they are bright enough to rule over others. Sadly, it seems Walden is something of a breeding ground for this type of elitism.
The only reason Walden students have come to my attention is because they have entered into the political fray. And they have entered it in such a way that I am concerned about the education that they are receiving. Invariably, young activists will claim that their activism has in no way been influenced by adults. I find this claim highly implausible. Inevitably, when weighing in on issues that divide us politically, our local youth activists always advocate for the leftist causes. If there was no influence by adults, the activism would more likely reflect the actual divide in our country, ie a more even split along liberal/conservative lines. My conclusion is that these students are unwitting victims of indoctrination. I don't blame them for this sad state of affairs, I blame the adults who are indoctrinating them.
So my mission is to help these students. I do so by challenging them concerning their activism. I understand that this does not always sit well with students, and that my approach or style might be a bit too combative at times. I have no interest in coddling students, nor do I want to provide an unwarrated boost to their self esteem. I will leave that to others. Rather, I think I can provide a service by challenging some of their beliefs. This is what good teachers should do.
The young lady I spoke to yesterday mentioned that the Walden student activists considered inviting me to one of their meetings. I would most definitely accept such an invitation if offered. I don't consider Walden students enemies in any way, shape, or form. I would thoroughly enjoy an opportunity to discuss differences of opinion on environmentalism, global warming, education, activism etc... with Walden students.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Make Sense of Census
Yesterday a woman came into my store with a flyer about the importance of the upcoming census. There will be a big push to make sure that Racine's population is fully counted so that we can grovel for more money. But, despite the all out effort to boost our numbers, my guess is that Racine's population decline has not been reversed. My hope is that this will prompt our "leaders" to ask some difficult questions. Such as:
Why is Racine's population declining?
Is it a lack of jobs?
If so, is there something about Racine that deters entrepreneurs?
Does RUSD attract or repel potential inhabitants of Racine?
If the latter is correct, what should we do about RUSD?
Does Racine's property tax rate encourage or discourage a move to Racine?
If the latter is correct, what should we do about it?
There are of course many questions a communtiy should be asking in the face of a declining population. But in my ten plus years here in the Racine area, I have yet to see the issue seriously discussed.
But we have time to pass ordinances concerning the proper number of garage sales a person may have. Could it be that our elected officials are cowards, too afraid to address the real issues that face our community?
Why is Racine's population declining?
Is it a lack of jobs?
If so, is there something about Racine that deters entrepreneurs?
Does RUSD attract or repel potential inhabitants of Racine?
If the latter is correct, what should we do about RUSD?
Does Racine's property tax rate encourage or discourage a move to Racine?
If the latter is correct, what should we do about it?
There are of course many questions a communtiy should be asking in the face of a declining population. But in my ten plus years here in the Racine area, I have yet to see the issue seriously discussed.
But we have time to pass ordinances concerning the proper number of garage sales a person may have. Could it be that our elected officials are cowards, too afraid to address the real issues that face our community?
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Priorities
I haven't been blogging much lately. I commented lately to a friend that there haven't been many goofy ideas emanating from city hall, hence, less to get worked up about. Well, they are now back to work.
I see on the Racine Post that Alderman Helding is weighing in on/causing a signage issue in Uptown. Apparently an exception to the signage rules would have to be made for a sign proposed by a used car dealer.
I don't know all the details there but it does make me wonder about Helding's priorities in particular and our elected officials priorities in general. As a concerned resident of Racine, I don't worry too much about business signs. I worry about crime, education, taxes and regulations and their effects on economic growth, and the fiscal health of the city.
Perhaps the issues are too big and or too sticky to address. Perhaps it is safer to tackle small problems so as to appear active and concerned. I can't know what is going on in the minds of our elected officials.
Just once I would like to see Greg Helding or any other alderman express concern about the looming financial obligations facing the city and taxpayers. Just what are the projected costs for retiree pensions and other obligations? Are they increasing? At what point will we either raise taxes through the roof (as though that hasn't already happened) or default on our obligations?
I suspect that even the mention of looming fiscal disaster would not sit well with city employees and retirees. So let us look away and distract ourselves.
Look! Over there! Mrs. Jones hasn't cut her grass for weeks. We must do something!
I see on the Racine Post that Alderman Helding is weighing in on/causing a signage issue in Uptown. Apparently an exception to the signage rules would have to be made for a sign proposed by a used car dealer.
I don't know all the details there but it does make me wonder about Helding's priorities in particular and our elected officials priorities in general. As a concerned resident of Racine, I don't worry too much about business signs. I worry about crime, education, taxes and regulations and their effects on economic growth, and the fiscal health of the city.
Perhaps the issues are too big and or too sticky to address. Perhaps it is safer to tackle small problems so as to appear active and concerned. I can't know what is going on in the minds of our elected officials.
Just once I would like to see Greg Helding or any other alderman express concern about the looming financial obligations facing the city and taxpayers. Just what are the projected costs for retiree pensions and other obligations? Are they increasing? At what point will we either raise taxes through the roof (as though that hasn't already happened) or default on our obligations?
I suspect that even the mention of looming fiscal disaster would not sit well with city employees and retirees. So let us look away and distract ourselves.
Look! Over there! Mrs. Jones hasn't cut her grass for weeks. We must do something!
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
For the Children?
Suppose children were wise enough to advocate on their own behalf regarding their education. What would they want?
Good teachers - not limited to those with education degrees? Check.
A range of educational options not limited to public schooling? Check.
An efficient means of getting rid of underperforming teachers and administrators? Check.
Conversely, what would these children consider detrimental and or irrelvant to their education?
Tenure? Check.
Protecting any school or school system from competition? Check.
Efforts to limit educational options? Check.
Is there a greater threat to children and their education than the agenda of our nation's teachers unions and their servants in government?
Good teachers - not limited to those with education degrees? Check.
A range of educational options not limited to public schooling? Check.
An efficient means of getting rid of underperforming teachers and administrators? Check.
Conversely, what would these children consider detrimental and or irrelvant to their education?
Tenure? Check.
Protecting any school or school system from competition? Check.
Efforts to limit educational options? Check.
Is there a greater threat to children and their education than the agenda of our nation's teachers unions and their servants in government?
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Student Pawns
A common argument against school vouchers is the notion that private schools will skim the best and brightest from the public schools, and that this will contribute to further deterioration of the public schools.
Implicit in this argument is the notion that bright and or well motivated students have an obligation to the school system itself and to poorly motivated or even disruptive students. The idea I suppose is that some type of transfer is supposed to occur wherein good students elevate the performance of lousy students.
I have no doubt that people influence those around them. But what tends to be ommitted from the anti-voucher argument is that influences work both ways. Yes, the A student might positively impact the class clown or the chronic truant. But if that is true, it is also be true that the clowns, truants, and gang bangers may negatively impact the A students. This negative impact I suspect is the reason many parents of means send their children to private schools.
So good students really are pawns. There job is to suffer academically at the hands of kids who disrupt the education process. It is easy to see why public schools need to hang on to these kids. What is not so easy to see is what is in it for the bright and motivated students.
Implicit in this argument is the notion that bright and or well motivated students have an obligation to the school system itself and to poorly motivated or even disruptive students. The idea I suppose is that some type of transfer is supposed to occur wherein good students elevate the performance of lousy students.
I have no doubt that people influence those around them. But what tends to be ommitted from the anti-voucher argument is that influences work both ways. Yes, the A student might positively impact the class clown or the chronic truant. But if that is true, it is also be true that the clowns, truants, and gang bangers may negatively impact the A students. This negative impact I suspect is the reason many parents of means send their children to private schools.
So good students really are pawns. There job is to suffer academically at the hands of kids who disrupt the education process. It is easy to see why public schools need to hang on to these kids. What is not so easy to see is what is in it for the bright and motivated students.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Reinvest or Divest?
The Journal Times reported, here, on Racine Unified's "reinvestment" plan. In a nutshell, the idea is that by building a few new schools, Unified could then reduce class sizes to their optimal levels, and improved achievement would follow. Of course the public will have to pay for this plan - the amount has not been detirmined - but it won't be cheap.
According to the JT article, if RUSD classes were now optimally sized, 826 elementary and 961 high school students would be displaced.
Supposing RUSD is correct about optimal class sizes, there are still options not yet explored by RUSD to solve the problem. Building more school is one option. Having fewer students is another.
I have no doubt that there is excess capacity in some of our private schools. Instead of building new public schools, perhaps we should explore the possibility of allowing current RUSD students vouchers to attend underutilized and high performing private schools. This would eliminate the overcrowding at our public schools, thus improving public school achievement - according to RUSD's own argument. Taxpayers would not be burdened with the huge expense of building new schools. Rather, since tuition at private schools is typically far less that RUSD's per student cost, txpayers could actually save money while improving RUSD student achievement.
According to the JT article, if RUSD classes were now optimally sized, 826 elementary and 961 high school students would be displaced.
Supposing RUSD is correct about optimal class sizes, there are still options not yet explored by RUSD to solve the problem. Building more school is one option. Having fewer students is another.
I have no doubt that there is excess capacity in some of our private schools. Instead of building new public schools, perhaps we should explore the possibility of allowing current RUSD students vouchers to attend underutilized and high performing private schools. This would eliminate the overcrowding at our public schools, thus improving public school achievement - according to RUSD's own argument. Taxpayers would not be burdened with the huge expense of building new schools. Rather, since tuition at private schools is typically far less that RUSD's per student cost, txpayers could actually save money while improving RUSD student achievement.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Worst Case Utopia
"Worse cases scenario if climate models are incorrect... energy efficient lifestyles, clean air, clean water... win win ."
This gem was provided to me from an anonymous poster but I have heard it all before from the left. It is bunk as I shall do my best to explain.
OK, so there is no global warming, the models are incorrect etc... what liberals want to do will result in good stuff, improved energy efficiency, clean air, clean water, less reliance on energy from rogue nations etc... and that is the liberal worst case scenario.
My worst case scenario is, warming or not aside, the likelyhood that government will control our lives to an unacceptable extent, even more so than they do already. And this government will be an international one, not one that can be unelected by us. We all use energy to survive and all energy use will be subject to government control. So the worst case scenario for me is that an unaccountable international government comprised of the worlds tyrants will greatly control our lives.
Of course the possibility of governments run amuck does not frighten the left, because, of course, never in the course of history has any government ever failed to fairly and justly meet the needs of its citizens. So we have nothing to worry about on that score. Everything will be OK once we put the United Nations in charge of our lives.
This gem was provided to me from an anonymous poster but I have heard it all before from the left. It is bunk as I shall do my best to explain.
OK, so there is no global warming, the models are incorrect etc... what liberals want to do will result in good stuff, improved energy efficiency, clean air, clean water, less reliance on energy from rogue nations etc... and that is the liberal worst case scenario.
My worst case scenario is, warming or not aside, the likelyhood that government will control our lives to an unacceptable extent, even more so than they do already. And this government will be an international one, not one that can be unelected by us. We all use energy to survive and all energy use will be subject to government control. So the worst case scenario for me is that an unaccountable international government comprised of the worlds tyrants will greatly control our lives.
Of course the possibility of governments run amuck does not frighten the left, because, of course, never in the course of history has any government ever failed to fairly and justly meet the needs of its citizens. So we have nothing to worry about on that score. Everything will be OK once we put the United Nations in charge of our lives.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Dancing Walden Students Protected From Truth
Walden students are participating in a "global flash mob" - whatever that is - for, or against, global warming. You can read all about it here but you can't comment on the story. Perhaps the Racine Post is hoping to shield sensitive students from some, er, inconvenient news.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Health Slaves?
Senator Reid has compared opponents of the health care overhall to those who opposed ending slavery.
So which brings us closer to slavery, the freedom to buy health insurance or not, or laws that force us to buy insurance whether we want it or not?
So which brings us closer to slavery, the freedom to buy health insurance or not, or laws that force us to buy insurance whether we want it or not?
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Catastrophic Loss of Crisis
The elites of the world had many people convinced that man made global warming threatened our very existence. Now we know that these claims were (are?) based on manipulated raw data that has been destroyed, and that the earth hasn't been warming for the last decade, we should all be really happy, right? Why aren't there huge celebrations? Why is the media so disinterested, as though a WORLD NOT ENDING AFTER ALL headline wouldn't sell?
Perhaps I am just a cynic, but I get the feeling many people are going to miss the global warming crisis. Indeed, the loss of this crisis will be catastrophic for some.
Perhaps I am just a cynic, but I get the feeling many people are going to miss the global warming crisis. Indeed, the loss of this crisis will be catastrophic for some.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
On Liquor License Rebates, Protectionism
There he goes again. Greg Helding is initiating another plan to discourage business start ups. Previous efforts have targeted convenience stores, landlords, and short term loan businesses. This one targets restaurants and taverns seeking a Class B liquor license. The JT has the story here.
According to the JT article, some time ago the state passed a law limiting the number of liquor licenses that could be issued in a given community. The law also allowed cities to exceed the limit by selling reserve licenses for $10,000. In 1998 under former Mayor Jim Smith the city started to issue rebates of $9,500 to help businesses that were restricted by state law. Greg Helding wants to end the rebates.
"To me, it doesn't make sense to (offer the rebate), because the whole point was to limit the number of licenses available and make the existing licenses a little bit more valuable" Greg Helding said. Helding added that the license quota exists to limit liquor licenses and reduce its negative impact on a community. Also it would be an additional revenue source for the city.
Heldings measure appears to meet with the approval of the liquor union, ie tavern owners, who enthusiastically support efforts to limit competition for themselves. Multiple tavern owner Joey LeGath doubtfully would support measures limiting his number of taverns, but he doesn't mind sticking would-be competitors with a $10,000 disadvantage. And if he or others in the tavern union are concerned about the "negative impact" that their businesses have on the community, there is nothing preventing them from closing their bars.
Just the other day I complemented Greg Helding for being a stand-up guy who often takes the time to articulate his positions on the various Racine blogs. So I hope he answers the following questions. Why should the government be in the business of making "existing licenses a little bit more valuable?" Is the additional value derived exclusively via a state induced reduction in competition? If so, why should government reward current license holders while punishing prospective license holders? Does the $10,000 in any way have a mitigating effect on the "negative effect" of Class B license establishments? And finally, do you really think that restaurants negatively impact our community?
And for readers, this issue is up for discussion on December 7th, 5 pm, City Hall, Room 205 if you want to add your two cents.
According to the JT article, some time ago the state passed a law limiting the number of liquor licenses that could be issued in a given community. The law also allowed cities to exceed the limit by selling reserve licenses for $10,000. In 1998 under former Mayor Jim Smith the city started to issue rebates of $9,500 to help businesses that were restricted by state law. Greg Helding wants to end the rebates.
"To me, it doesn't make sense to (offer the rebate), because the whole point was to limit the number of licenses available and make the existing licenses a little bit more valuable" Greg Helding said. Helding added that the license quota exists to limit liquor licenses and reduce its negative impact on a community. Also it would be an additional revenue source for the city.
Heldings measure appears to meet with the approval of the liquor union, ie tavern owners, who enthusiastically support efforts to limit competition for themselves. Multiple tavern owner Joey LeGath doubtfully would support measures limiting his number of taverns, but he doesn't mind sticking would-be competitors with a $10,000 disadvantage. And if he or others in the tavern union are concerned about the "negative impact" that their businesses have on the community, there is nothing preventing them from closing their bars.
Just the other day I complemented Greg Helding for being a stand-up guy who often takes the time to articulate his positions on the various Racine blogs. So I hope he answers the following questions. Why should the government be in the business of making "existing licenses a little bit more valuable?" Is the additional value derived exclusively via a state induced reduction in competition? If so, why should government reward current license holders while punishing prospective license holders? Does the $10,000 in any way have a mitigating effect on the "negative effect" of Class B license establishments? And finally, do you really think that restaurants negatively impact our community?
And for readers, this issue is up for discussion on December 7th, 5 pm, City Hall, Room 205 if you want to add your two cents.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Politicians Welcome on Free Racine
Yesterday I had a chance encounter with a Racine alderman who took the opportunity to criticize my blog and my failure to call him prior to writing my blog entries. When pressed repeatedly to clarify his concerns, he could not, but he did repeat that I should have called him.
Needless to say, I spent the rest of the day trying to process this bizarre conversation. I still don't know what to make of it, but the encounter does provide me the opportunity to clarify the purpose of this blog.
Aside from amusing myself, the purpose of this blog is to stimulate public discussion on public issues. I try to be very clear on my positions and I realize that my positions are quite regularly in opposition to those presently in power. Furthermore, I spend little or no time writing about that which I find agreeable, as I find that boring. Ideally, my blog entries would be considered the start of a conversation. The best conversations do not shy away from differences but rather explore them seriously and respectfully. The end result would hopefully leave participants and readers alike with an elevated understanding of the issue at hand.
Needless to say, I am especially interested in the positions held by officials who are elected to represent our interests in public matters. In the past I have encouraged elected officials to get involved and clarify their thinking on matters of importance. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alderman Greg Helding, few have done so.
Hopefully the alderamn in question now understands why I haven't called him. I am not especially interested in private conversations concerning public issues, nor am I able to anticipate the needs of local politicians that I don't even know. Of course any polician is free to call me if they wish to do so on the record. But it would be far preferable in my view if our elected officials would take the time to engage the public on public issues. And it is my hope that they will do so on Free Racine.
Needless to say, I spent the rest of the day trying to process this bizarre conversation. I still don't know what to make of it, but the encounter does provide me the opportunity to clarify the purpose of this blog.
Aside from amusing myself, the purpose of this blog is to stimulate public discussion on public issues. I try to be very clear on my positions and I realize that my positions are quite regularly in opposition to those presently in power. Furthermore, I spend little or no time writing about that which I find agreeable, as I find that boring. Ideally, my blog entries would be considered the start of a conversation. The best conversations do not shy away from differences but rather explore them seriously and respectfully. The end result would hopefully leave participants and readers alike with an elevated understanding of the issue at hand.
Needless to say, I am especially interested in the positions held by officials who are elected to represent our interests in public matters. In the past I have encouraged elected officials to get involved and clarify their thinking on matters of importance. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alderman Greg Helding, few have done so.
Hopefully the alderamn in question now understands why I haven't called him. I am not especially interested in private conversations concerning public issues, nor am I able to anticipate the needs of local politicians that I don't even know. Of course any polician is free to call me if they wish to do so on the record. But it would be far preferable in my view if our elected officials would take the time to engage the public on public issues. And it is my hope that they will do so on Free Racine.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Random Thoughts
Now that Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan is both alive and permanently paralyzed, what becomes of the 64 frustrated virgins?
I spent the better part of the weekend paying tolls in Illinios and wishing I had signed up for I-PASS which would have made driving both faster and cheaper. Now I am not advocating a tax increase here in Wisconsin, but if we ever went that route, I like the name WIPASS.
Language in the 2000 page spread-the-wealth-around-bill, er, health insurance overhall, may well result in the end of health savings accounts. HSA's enable me to properly insure myself and my family via a pre-tax high deductible health care plan. But if I like my insurance, I have been reassured by President Obama, I can keep it. I don't believe him.
I spent the better part of the weekend paying tolls in Illinios and wishing I had signed up for I-PASS which would have made driving both faster and cheaper. Now I am not advocating a tax increase here in Wisconsin, but if we ever went that route, I like the name WIPASS.
Language in the 2000 page spread-the-wealth-around-bill, er, health insurance overhall, may well result in the end of health savings accounts. HSA's enable me to properly insure myself and my family via a pre-tax high deductible health care plan. But if I like my insurance, I have been reassured by President Obama, I can keep it. I don't believe him.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Triple Dip Recession Avoided
President Obama has for the first time acknowledged the possibility of a double dip recession. But at least it won't be a triple dip recession that we would have had without him.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Kay's Blue House of Unwanted Children
Sometimes I like to go to Kay's Blue Racine to stir things up. She has a rant going that I didn't bother to read but I was struck by one of her comments thereafter when she wrote "Its the idea that abortion is still in the mix that kills me." I responded with "Kills you?" just to see what kind of firestorm would ensue. There were a few standard liberal responses followed by this gem from Kay: "Denis, if you don't have a house full of unwanted children you really do need to shut up."
Hmmm. Since Kay has children and since Kay is eligible to weigh in on abortion, we can conclude that Kay has a house full of unwanted children.
Hmmm. Since Kay has children and since Kay is eligible to weigh in on abortion, we can conclude that Kay has a house full of unwanted children.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Green Idea #1
Racine has a couple of meter maids/parking enforcement personnel that drive around all day in a van. Now perhaps there is some reason to have a van but it is not apparent to me. What is apparent is that they really do not need a performance vehicle of any sort so perhaps it could save money, and perhaps the world, if they switched over to a smaller car or one of those modified golf carts that are starting to crop up around the country. But only if it saves taxpayer money, of course.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Navratil Volunteers for Environmental Advisory Board
Recently appointed Racine alderman Kelli Stein has suggested the creation of a new Environmental Advisory Board. The Racine Post has the story, read it here.
From the Post: "Stein's idea, modeled on several other cities around the country, is to create a strictly advisory board that would develop ideas to protect and promote the environment in Racine. Interestingly, Stein didn't recommend the board because she's a staunch environmentalist trying to save the world one solar panel at a time. She's doing it because it's an opportunity to lure new businesses to the city."
And, "Stein already had two people express interest in serve on the board, and she hopes others will apply. She even encouraged people who are skeptical of the board to get involved and bring" NOTE, the incomplete sentence is quoted directly from the Racine Post and as such is not my fault.
So they want a skeptic, do they? I am in. I think I have established myself as a leading local enviroskeptic, isn't that right Walden students? I am also a businessman so I know a thing or two about what does and doesn't attract businesses. The only potential problem is that I don't live in Racine. However, since the board has yet to be created, it can be created to include interested parties from outside Racine. Certainly people from outside Racine have ideas about the environment/business development, so it would serve Racine's interests to broaden the potential pool of candidates willing to help. I will call the mayor's office this morning to volunteer to serve the board as the non-resident skeptic.
My concern is that they may not really want a skeptic on the board. But then, as a skeptic, of course I would think that. Perhaps I am overqualified.
From the Post: "Stein's idea, modeled on several other cities around the country, is to create a strictly advisory board that would develop ideas to protect and promote the environment in Racine. Interestingly, Stein didn't recommend the board because she's a staunch environmentalist trying to save the world one solar panel at a time. She's doing it because it's an opportunity to lure new businesses to the city."
And, "Stein already had two people express interest in serve on the board, and she hopes others will apply. She even encouraged people who are skeptical of the board to get involved and bring" NOTE, the incomplete sentence is quoted directly from the Racine Post and as such is not my fault.
So they want a skeptic, do they? I am in. I think I have established myself as a leading local enviroskeptic, isn't that right Walden students? I am also a businessman so I know a thing or two about what does and doesn't attract businesses. The only potential problem is that I don't live in Racine. However, since the board has yet to be created, it can be created to include interested parties from outside Racine. Certainly people from outside Racine have ideas about the environment/business development, so it would serve Racine's interests to broaden the potential pool of candidates willing to help. I will call the mayor's office this morning to volunteer to serve the board as the non-resident skeptic.
My concern is that they may not really want a skeptic on the board. But then, as a skeptic, of course I would think that. Perhaps I am overqualified.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Walden Students Trying to Destroy World's Forests
There is a great commentary in the Wall Street Journal today that should be of interest to Walden students but probably won't ever be brought to their attention by their teachers. It is entitled Sins of Emission and I will paraphrase the commentary.
A new peer reviewed study published in Science takes a look at the way that "carbon emmissions from biofuels are measured in climate-change programs world-wide" and has found a "critical accounting error."
"The cap-and-trade programs run by the United Nations and European Union - and maybe soon the U.S. - treat biofuels as carbon neutral" ... because, "Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years."
The "critical accounting error" occurs because these programs do not account for changes in land use. So, for example, if mature forests are cleared to make way for biofuel farms, the carbon that otherwise would have accumulated in the forests ought to be counted on the balance sheet. It isn't. So if Malaysia burns down a rainforest to produce biodiesel to be used in Germany, "Malaysia doesn't count the land use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions."
The politically created accounting errors create incentives that might, according to the study, "displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover" by the year 2050. "The reason: When bioenergy from any biomass is counted as carbon neutral, economics favor large-scale land conversion for bioenergy regardless of the actual net emissions." ... "In other words, not only is cap and trade self-defeating on its own terms but it also risks creating a genuine ecological disaster."
Be careful what you wish for kids!
You can read the Wall Street Journal commentary here.
A new peer reviewed study published in Science takes a look at the way that "carbon emmissions from biofuels are measured in climate-change programs world-wide" and has found a "critical accounting error."
"The cap-and-trade programs run by the United Nations and European Union - and maybe soon the U.S. - treat biofuels as carbon neutral" ... because, "Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years."
The "critical accounting error" occurs because these programs do not account for changes in land use. So, for example, if mature forests are cleared to make way for biofuel farms, the carbon that otherwise would have accumulated in the forests ought to be counted on the balance sheet. It isn't. So if Malaysia burns down a rainforest to produce biodiesel to be used in Germany, "Malaysia doesn't count the land use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions."
The politically created accounting errors create incentives that might, according to the study, "displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover" by the year 2050. "The reason: When bioenergy from any biomass is counted as carbon neutral, economics favor large-scale land conversion for bioenergy regardless of the actual net emissions." ... "In other words, not only is cap and trade self-defeating on its own terms but it also risks creating a genuine ecological disaster."
Be careful what you wish for kids!
You can read the Wall Street Journal commentary here.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
On Drug Addiction and Causes
I kind of like the response I gave to Randy, former Journal Times editor, over at the Racine Post. I thought I would share.
Denis Navratil said...
Randolph writes:
"So, why do people do drugs?
That’s easy. They’re self-medicating because their lives are crap.
When depression’s so great, you’ll reach out to anything to make it better – a gun, a needle …
The answer? Make people’s lives better. Give them hope instead of despair, relief instead of pain, opportunity instead of uselessness, a job instead of a dead-end."
And my response to Randy:
Or, perhaps people become drug addicts because they have become impatient waiting for other people to make their lives better, and that they are entitled to this help from others, and that they can and should wallow in self pity because nobody has come forward to make their lives better. The common denominator here is helplessness, entitlement, and irresponsibility for their own lives.
And when you keep feeding them that destructive world view filled with excuses, you contribute to their problems. You might as well insert the needle yourself into their collapsing veins.
Read the whole thing and any future responses here.
Denis Navratil said...
Randolph writes:
"So, why do people do drugs?
That’s easy. They’re self-medicating because their lives are crap.
When depression’s so great, you’ll reach out to anything to make it better – a gun, a needle …
The answer? Make people’s lives better. Give them hope instead of despair, relief instead of pain, opportunity instead of uselessness, a job instead of a dead-end."
And my response to Randy:
Or, perhaps people become drug addicts because they have become impatient waiting for other people to make their lives better, and that they are entitled to this help from others, and that they can and should wallow in self pity because nobody has come forward to make their lives better. The common denominator here is helplessness, entitlement, and irresponsibility for their own lives.
And when you keep feeding them that destructive world view filled with excuses, you contribute to their problems. You might as well insert the needle yourself into their collapsing veins.
Read the whole thing and any future responses here.
Indoctrination 101
On Saturday at Monument Square, some local high school kids rallied in support of United Nations climate change legislation. The Racine Post wrote an article which then generated over 100 comments, many of them critical of the kids.
Several commenters defended the kids by suggesting that we should applaud the kids for fighting for what they believe in instead of committing crimes, using drugs, having sex, playing video games etc...
The notion that kids should be applauded for political activism without considering the merits of their cause is just plain silly. And the "at least they aren't robbing liquor stores" argument shows just how far some have lowered standards for todays youth.
Of course we should consider and if necessary criticize the political objectives being pushed by children.
My biggest concern though is that children are being led to leftist political activism by the people we entrust to educate them. The children will all insist that their teachers always carefully present both sides of the issue, yet somehow all the children seem to decide "independently" to rally for far left causes. How can this be? Why are there never school sponsored clubs and protests to protect babies from abortion?
Every time you see school kids advocating for liberal causes, and never conservative causes, it is fair to suspect that thay are being manipulated and indoctrinated in school.
And to me, that is a far more dangerous problem than miniscule global temperature fluctuations.
Several commenters defended the kids by suggesting that we should applaud the kids for fighting for what they believe in instead of committing crimes, using drugs, having sex, playing video games etc...
The notion that kids should be applauded for political activism without considering the merits of their cause is just plain silly. And the "at least they aren't robbing liquor stores" argument shows just how far some have lowered standards for todays youth.
Of course we should consider and if necessary criticize the political objectives being pushed by children.
My biggest concern though is that children are being led to leftist political activism by the people we entrust to educate them. The children will all insist that their teachers always carefully present both sides of the issue, yet somehow all the children seem to decide "independently" to rally for far left causes. How can this be? Why are there never school sponsored clubs and protests to protect babies from abortion?
Every time you see school kids advocating for liberal causes, and never conservative causes, it is fair to suspect that thay are being manipulated and indoctrinated in school.
And to me, that is a far more dangerous problem than miniscule global temperature fluctuations.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Flu Politics
I heard on the radio today that the Obama children got a flu shot today but that the president and the first lady will wait and take the shot in accordance with prioritizing guidelines concerning risk etc... Of course this news, if true, would have originated from the White House. Correct me if I am wrong please, but is the president saying the presidents health is not a high priority?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Parental Involvement
Lately there has been lots of talk about parental involvement as the solution to our local public education problems. But does Racine Unified really want parental involvement or do they just want a ready excuse for their collective failings?
One of the most important decisions an involved parent can make is to decide which school, if any, will be entrusted to educate their child. This decision ought to say something about what a parent values. Is it high test scores and graduation rates and college acceptance success? Is it the importance of religious instruction along with the the three R's? Is safety an overwhelming consideration?
I don't think this is what Unified means by parental involvement. Unified wants your children educated at Unified regardless of the other educational options that exist outside of Unified, and regardless of what you as a parent value.
So Unified wants a parent to be completely uninvolved in the most important education decision - who should educate the child - but to then become hyperinvolved in education once the child is enrolled in a Unified school. I am not buying it.
Presently Unified employees and their national counterparts are the only obstacles to meaningful parental involvement in education decisions. If tommorrow the National Education Association issued a statement declaring that parents should be empowered with education vouchers to choose the school, whether public or private, for their child, it would be only a matter of days before such legislation would pass nearly unanimously.
This will not happen as this type of parental involvement would seriously erode the power of public school employees.
So when you hear public school apologists lament the lack of parental involvement in schools, know that they don't mean it. What they really mean is that the lack of parental involvement, that they alone perpetuate, provides a handy excuse for the ongoing demise of our public education system.
One of the most important decisions an involved parent can make is to decide which school, if any, will be entrusted to educate their child. This decision ought to say something about what a parent values. Is it high test scores and graduation rates and college acceptance success? Is it the importance of religious instruction along with the the three R's? Is safety an overwhelming consideration?
I don't think this is what Unified means by parental involvement. Unified wants your children educated at Unified regardless of the other educational options that exist outside of Unified, and regardless of what you as a parent value.
So Unified wants a parent to be completely uninvolved in the most important education decision - who should educate the child - but to then become hyperinvolved in education once the child is enrolled in a Unified school. I am not buying it.
Presently Unified employees and their national counterparts are the only obstacles to meaningful parental involvement in education decisions. If tommorrow the National Education Association issued a statement declaring that parents should be empowered with education vouchers to choose the school, whether public or private, for their child, it would be only a matter of days before such legislation would pass nearly unanimously.
This will not happen as this type of parental involvement would seriously erode the power of public school employees.
So when you hear public school apologists lament the lack of parental involvement in schools, know that they don't mean it. What they really mean is that the lack of parental involvement, that they alone perpetuate, provides a handy excuse for the ongoing demise of our public education system.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Question of the Day
Why don't those who want both "power to the people" and big government see the contradiction?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Mayor Dickert and the Money Cycle
I went to the Racine Taxpayers Association meeting today to listen to Mayor Dickert. It was a nice speech that didn't really cover much new territory, except it shed some light on how Mayor Dickert thinks about economics. Mayor Dickert spent a fair amount of time discussing the money cycle. It was a term that he didn't define but did describe in some detail. Faced with rising costs and a decrease in state shared revenue, Dickert asked aloud whether he should let some city employees go to shrink the deficit. No was the answer because of the high unemployment and the money cycle. If the city employee keeps his job, he will spend the money in local businesses, eat at local restaurants etc... which in turn allows the local business the keep their employees on board who will then in turn spend money in local businesses etc... and so on and so on. If the city employee is laid off, he will not be spending in local businesses that will in turn have less revenue and will perhaps have to lay off an employee who will then not spend in local businesses etc... and so on and so on.
It is certainly true that money is spent again and again and that people who don't have jobs will probably spend less money as they have less to spend. The problem I have with Dickert's money cycle theory is the implied importance of government jobs. Without the government job, the laid off city worker starts a downward spiral that affects local businesses and individuals. But you can think of the same phenomenon in an entirely different way. It takes money to employ a city worker. That money is taken from the profits resulting from private sector economic activity. The taxes required to pay for the salary, insurance and pension of city employees results in less money circulating in the private sector. With less money, individuals and businesses will spend less, hire less, eat less at local restaurants etc... with the same downward spiral described by Mayor Dickert.
So which is better, public sector spending or private sector spending? Generally speaking, money is better spent in the sector that creates wealth rather than the one that takes wealth. That would be the private sector. Private sector activity creates additional wealth which in turn will cycle in much the same way that Mayor Dickert described. The public sector squeezes money out of the private sector, thereby posing a threat to private sector wealth creation.
Now this is not an argument for anarchy. There is a need for a very limited government. Unneccessary government spending slows the spending cycle and wealth creation. I hope Mayor Dickert reads this post.
It is certainly true that money is spent again and again and that people who don't have jobs will probably spend less money as they have less to spend. The problem I have with Dickert's money cycle theory is the implied importance of government jobs. Without the government job, the laid off city worker starts a downward spiral that affects local businesses and individuals. But you can think of the same phenomenon in an entirely different way. It takes money to employ a city worker. That money is taken from the profits resulting from private sector economic activity. The taxes required to pay for the salary, insurance and pension of city employees results in less money circulating in the private sector. With less money, individuals and businesses will spend less, hire less, eat less at local restaurants etc... with the same downward spiral described by Mayor Dickert.
So which is better, public sector spending or private sector spending? Generally speaking, money is better spent in the sector that creates wealth rather than the one that takes wealth. That would be the private sector. Private sector activity creates additional wealth which in turn will cycle in much the same way that Mayor Dickert described. The public sector squeezes money out of the private sector, thereby posing a threat to private sector wealth creation.
Now this is not an argument for anarchy. There is a need for a very limited government. Unneccessary government spending slows the spending cycle and wealth creation. I hope Mayor Dickert reads this post.
Health Insurance Incentives
As I write this, the Senate Finance Committee is considering a health care bill that would mandate insurance companies to offer health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions. Additionally, the bill would fine/tax those without health insurance by some amount less than $1,000.
Presently I am paying in the neighborhood of $4,000 per year for a high deductible health care plan that covers my family.
If the health care bill passes, government would be creating a $3,000 incentive for me to drop my health insurance, knowing I could get insurance later if I or someone in my family were to get seriously ill.
If I like my plan I can keep it. But if I prefer to stick others with the bill for my health care, I can drop my plan.
Presently I am paying in the neighborhood of $4,000 per year for a high deductible health care plan that covers my family.
If the health care bill passes, government would be creating a $3,000 incentive for me to drop my health insurance, knowing I could get insurance later if I or someone in my family were to get seriously ill.
If I like my plan I can keep it. But if I prefer to stick others with the bill for my health care, I can drop my plan.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Inexplicable City Development Policy
OK, I'll admit it. I can't make heads or tails of Racine's approach to development. Some folks (Tom Toussis, Brent Oglesby etc...) have to go through an often contentious process that requires approval by the Racine Development Authority and, I think, approval by the full city council. Others get land and tax breaks after behind the scene decisions, then pose for photo shoots with the mayor. Is there a coherent city policy that can explain this seemingly haphazard approach to development? Greg Helding, I know you are out there, can you explain? Thanks.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Nobel Joke
President Obama has won the Nobel Peace prize this morning, leaving many to wonder what he has done to merit winning the award. Perhaps putting a stop to Chicago's aggressive campaign for the Olympics?
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Racial Politics Revealed
There is an interesting battle brewing over a piece of property near a proposed KRM train station. One Brent Oglesby has been seeking a "hold" on the property, arguing that it takes time to secure financing etc... for his proposed project. Meanwhile, Mayor Dickert has announced that the city has put development of this property on hold. Enter our local racial grievancemongers. You see, Oglesby is black. Therefore the denial must be racially motivated, the thinking goes, such that it is.
I have an alternate explanation. The property in question may well increase in value quite dramatically if the KRM train project moves forward. Thus, offering Oglesby a hold on the property would allow Oglesby to reap the profits if KRM moves forward. And of course he could walk if KRM doesn't move forward. The potential property value increase should go to the current owners of this property, and those current owners are the taxpayer. Giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property value increase to any one individual, whether black, white or whatever, would be wrong.
I give Mayor Dickert credit here, even though I think the best decision would be to sell all excess property to the highest bidder. In any case, I am sure it is difficult to withstand the "racist" smears that are being hurled at Mayor Dickert. But withstand them you must for the sake of our city.
I should also mention that, to the best of my knowledge and to his credit, Brent Oglesby has not made this a racial issue. I would be even more comforted if he publicly distanced himself from the racial hucksters that are seemingly trying to work on his behalf.
The Racine Post has the story here.
I have an alternate explanation. The property in question may well increase in value quite dramatically if the KRM train project moves forward. Thus, offering Oglesby a hold on the property would allow Oglesby to reap the profits if KRM moves forward. And of course he could walk if KRM doesn't move forward. The potential property value increase should go to the current owners of this property, and those current owners are the taxpayer. Giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property value increase to any one individual, whether black, white or whatever, would be wrong.
I give Mayor Dickert credit here, even though I think the best decision would be to sell all excess property to the highest bidder. In any case, I am sure it is difficult to withstand the "racist" smears that are being hurled at Mayor Dickert. But withstand them you must for the sake of our city.
I should also mention that, to the best of my knowledge and to his credit, Brent Oglesby has not made this a racial issue. I would be even more comforted if he publicly distanced himself from the racial hucksters that are seemingly trying to work on his behalf.
The Racine Post has the story here.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Lifestyle Guru or Representative?
"I think you have to lead by example," said Racine Mayor John Dickert as he urges citizens to recycle, to exercise and to use their cars less.
I quote Mayor Dickert above not to criticize but to pose a more general question about who we elect and for what purpose. Do we elect representatives to guide us towards the proper way to live our lives, as the above quote in part suggests? Or do we elect representatives to fulfill a far narrower, and less sexy, function of eficiently delivering government services? Or some combination of both?
I quote Mayor Dickert above not to criticize but to pose a more general question about who we elect and for what purpose. Do we elect representatives to guide us towards the proper way to live our lives, as the above quote in part suggests? Or do we elect representatives to fulfill a far narrower, and less sexy, function of eficiently delivering government services? Or some combination of both?
Monday, October 05, 2009
City Hall Out of Touch
So the powers-that-be at city hall have recommended that the Toussis plan for West Racine be received and filed. In other words, killed. The Racine Post has the story.
So what does the Racine Development Authority want in West Racine? Not too long ago, the city was about to pull the trigger on a low income housing project for the same location. If it weren't for the former mayor's transgressions and the ensuing mayoral election, that project may well have gone through.
So city government has demonstrated a preference for low income subsidized housing over the private sector development of a restaurant/grocery store/gas station complex. This makes no sense whatsoever.
So what does the Racine Development Authority want in West Racine? Not too long ago, the city was about to pull the trigger on a low income housing project for the same location. If it weren't for the former mayor's transgressions and the ensuing mayoral election, that project may well have gone through.
So city government has demonstrated a preference for low income subsidized housing over the private sector development of a restaurant/grocery store/gas station complex. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thought of the Day
Pacifism is a workable philosophy provided you surround yourself with a sufficient number of people who disagree with you.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Parental Involvement, Words vs Actions
The next time you hear a Unified apologist lament the lack of parental involvement among RUSD parents, know at least that the majority of teachers and the RUSD administation don't really care about parent involvement. RUSD has cancelled the tradition fall open houses in a negotiated agreement between the teachers union and RUSD.
The lack of parent involvement is among the top excuses for Unified's poor results. Additionally, it is a great way to place the blame on others.
But now we know the truth. Parent involvement is a hassle. It creates work for teachers. Involved parents will try to hold teachers accountable. This might make some teachers uncomfortable.
RUSD has shown their true colors. There is lots of talk about the need for parental involvement. But when it comes to action, RUSD is discouraging parental involvement. Actions speak louder than words.
Oh, the factual info above came from today's JT. No link as of this morning.
The lack of parent involvement is among the top excuses for Unified's poor results. Additionally, it is a great way to place the blame on others.
But now we know the truth. Parent involvement is a hassle. It creates work for teachers. Involved parents will try to hold teachers accountable. This might make some teachers uncomfortable.
RUSD has shown their true colors. There is lots of talk about the need for parental involvement. But when it comes to action, RUSD is discouraging parental involvement. Actions speak louder than words.
Oh, the factual info above came from today's JT. No link as of this morning.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
RUSD and Alternative Reality
The JT has an article today detailing Racine Unified's efforts to promote inclusion, into regular ed classrooms, for special education students. You can read the article here.
From the article:
"At a district data retreat and leadership summit held in August, some educators also heard a presentation about ways to achieve inclusion and to help special education students succeed in the regular classroom. Information passed out gave teachers advice on adapting lessons, grading alternatively, supplying needed materials and equipment in the classroom and sample worksheets to reward students for remembering hearing aids or glasses."
Any guesses as to what "grading alternatively" means?
From the article:
"At a district data retreat and leadership summit held in August, some educators also heard a presentation about ways to achieve inclusion and to help special education students succeed in the regular classroom. Information passed out gave teachers advice on adapting lessons, grading alternatively, supplying needed materials and equipment in the classroom and sample worksheets to reward students for remembering hearing aids or glasses."
Any guesses as to what "grading alternatively" means?
Friday, September 25, 2009
On Goverment in Art and Education
Every Wednesday evening I co-host a philosophy discussion group in the apartment above my store. If anyone wants to partake, feel free to contact me if you want more info. Anyway, the topic yesterday was whether artist have a responsibility to create morally uplifing art. The politically mixed group was largely in agreement that, while it might be nice to produce morally uplifting art, it should in no way be promoted by government. Examples of Nazi propaganda art were enough to convince us all that government should not play this role.
Anyway, being the provocateur that I am, I noted that many of us happily send our children to government schools and that we accept that one role of schools is to produce good citizens. Why do we recoil at a government role in art for the purpose of producing morally uplifting art but we accept or even embrace the role of government schools to "morally uplift" our children to become good citizens? If anything, a government role in the arts is less dangerous insofar as the audience includes grown adults less susceptible to propaganda while young children are largely defenseless against propoganda.
Anyway, being the provocateur that I am, I noted that many of us happily send our children to government schools and that we accept that one role of schools is to produce good citizens. Why do we recoil at a government role in art for the purpose of producing morally uplifting art but we accept or even embrace the role of government schools to "morally uplift" our children to become good citizens? If anything, a government role in the arts is less dangerous insofar as the audience includes grown adults less susceptible to propaganda while young children are largely defenseless against propoganda.
Environmental Car Care
Some folks came in to my store the other day with some coupons for "green" car washing. I was delighted to hear of their concern for the environment, and I got to thinking that perhaps I should perhaps be more conscious about my environmental footprint. So I decided then and there that I would continue my practice of not washing my car at all, thereby saving water and the gasoline required to drive to the car wash. Please feel free to praise and emulate my environmental leadership!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Union Power
A month or so ago, would-be developer Tom Toussis announced that he would hire union workers to build his proposed West Racine grocery store/restaurant/gas station complex.
Hmmmm. Is he buying something more than skilled craftsmanship? There is speculation that unions are behind the oh so controversial mailings sent out to West racine residents. See post below and Racine Post link.
Tom Toussis knew, I suspect, that there would be opposition to his plan. So now he has the unions on his side, willing to fight for his plan and their work. Smart move.
So it has come to this folks. If you want to start a business, create jobs etc... in Racine, you better start thinking about how you can influence politicians increasingly hostile to development ideas other than their own. The rules have been set up by the politicians for the politicians. You can play nice like the Chun family on 6th Street and see where that gets you. Or you can try to muscle your idea through with the help of unions. This should be interesting.
The only way out of this mess is to elect new alderman that welcome and assist entrepreneurial activity.
Hmmmm. Is he buying something more than skilled craftsmanship? There is speculation that unions are behind the oh so controversial mailings sent out to West racine residents. See post below and Racine Post link.
Tom Toussis knew, I suspect, that there would be opposition to his plan. So now he has the unions on his side, willing to fight for his plan and their work. Smart move.
So it has come to this folks. If you want to start a business, create jobs etc... in Racine, you better start thinking about how you can influence politicians increasingly hostile to development ideas other than their own. The rules have been set up by the politicians for the politicians. You can play nice like the Chun family on 6th Street and see where that gets you. Or you can try to muscle your idea through with the help of unions. This should be interesting.
The only way out of this mess is to elect new alderman that welcome and assist entrepreneurial activity.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Zoning, Out
There is an ugly battle brewing over a proposed grocery store, bank, restaurant and gas station development proposal in West Racine. Racine Post broke the story. Read it here.
Battles such as these are avoidable. Remember zoning? Zoning laws should prevent these problems. Areas are zoned for particular uses. There are zones for businesses, residential, industrial etc... and so long as the proposed property use is consistent with the zoning rules, well, then we should have nothing to fight about.
But our politicians can't leave well enough alone. They want an ever increasing role in our lives. It seems as if more and more business decisions are now in the hands of politicians and fewer and fewer in the hands of entrepreneurs. This may be all well and good for power hungry politicians, but it serves no purpose for the community. Expect more and uglier fights over property uses. And expect less entrepreneurial actity and fewer jobs in Racine.
Battles such as these are avoidable. Remember zoning? Zoning laws should prevent these problems. Areas are zoned for particular uses. There are zones for businesses, residential, industrial etc... and so long as the proposed property use is consistent with the zoning rules, well, then we should have nothing to fight about.
But our politicians can't leave well enough alone. They want an ever increasing role in our lives. It seems as if more and more business decisions are now in the hands of politicians and fewer and fewer in the hands of entrepreneurs. This may be all well and good for power hungry politicians, but it serves no purpose for the community. Expect more and uglier fights over property uses. And expect less entrepreneurial actity and fewer jobs in Racine.
Monday, September 21, 2009
What News?
I have a friend who insists he is better informed on the events of the day because he listens to NPR. Even so, he was completely unaware of the ACORN/Nicaraguan sex trafficking story. Suppose that instead of ACORN it was the National Rifle Association or a Catholic bishop offering advice on the trafficking of Nicaraguan children for the sex trade. Do you suppose this news would have come to the attention of my friend?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Health Tax
Forcing an insurance company to provide coverage for those with pre-existing health conditions is like forcing a poker player to bet when his opponent turns over a straight flush.
At that point, insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business. They are in the income redistribution business. They will raise the rates on the healthy to pay the health expenses of the sick. How long before the healthy realize that they are being stolen from? Hence the need for the mandate. It's just another tax that will be called mandatory health insurance.
At that point, insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business. They are in the income redistribution business. They will raise the rates on the healthy to pay the health expenses of the sick. How long before the healthy realize that they are being stolen from? Hence the need for the mandate. It's just another tax that will be called mandatory health insurance.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
RUSD Indoctrination
In a rambling letter to the Journal Times,Sister Brenda Walsh quoted RUSD superintendent Dr. Shaw who said "in addition to academic achievement, students need a spiritual and moral grounding" in order to be prepared for life and work. She then paraphrased Dr. Shaw as follows: "He emphasized that teachers must have a vision of social justice and a moral purpose to help students develop values for responsible living."
Wow. Students should be taught a spiritual and moral grounding with the help of teachers and their social justice visions and moral purpose. Sounds very religious to me and coming from a Catholic nun nonetheless. A but don't worry parents. Your little ones are safe from the sexist, homophobic, classist teachings of those obsolete religions like Christianity. Besides, teaching that stuff would probably be illegal.
No, RUSD students will be bombarded daily with the not so new secular religion. Your children will be taught to tolerate everything, well, everything except what is taught by traditional religions. Your children will learn to worship green space, skin color diversity, the freedom to terminate (not kill, that would be wrong) unwanted fetuses while being warned of the evils of rampant unfettered capitalism etc...
Wow. Students should be taught a spiritual and moral grounding with the help of teachers and their social justice visions and moral purpose. Sounds very religious to me and coming from a Catholic nun nonetheless. A but don't worry parents. Your little ones are safe from the sexist, homophobic, classist teachings of those obsolete religions like Christianity. Besides, teaching that stuff would probably be illegal.
No, RUSD students will be bombarded daily with the not so new secular religion. Your children will be taught to tolerate everything, well, everything except what is taught by traditional religions. Your children will learn to worship green space, skin color diversity, the freedom to terminate (not kill, that would be wrong) unwanted fetuses while being warned of the evils of rampant unfettered capitalism etc...
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Random Thoughts
State Rep Corey Mason has proposed taxing the rich and using the money for job training. Bad idea. The rich don't leave their money in shoe boxes. They either spend it or invest it. In either case, they create jobs by doing so. The government will just waste the money and there will be fewer jobs as a result.
Dustin at the Racine Post thinks KRM will be a game changer for Racine. Not so. It is more of the same big government liberalism that has dominated Racine for the last 50 to 70 years. Same game, expect the same results.
CNN apparently has a poll wherein they ask whether civility is dead. This is an example, IMHO, of subtle liberal bias that almost nobody will notice. They ask the question only after a Republican misbehaves. Was there a "is monogamy dead" poll taken during the Clinton/Lewinsky affair?
Don Rosen of WRJN said today that conservatives don't want change. This is nonsense. Example, liberals want to maintain the union dominated status quo of the public school system while many conservatives would like to dramatically change the system with vouchers. I could give thousands of examples of things I would like to change.
Dustin at the Racine Post thinks KRM will be a game changer for Racine. Not so. It is more of the same big government liberalism that has dominated Racine for the last 50 to 70 years. Same game, expect the same results.
CNN apparently has a poll wherein they ask whether civility is dead. This is an example, IMHO, of subtle liberal bias that almost nobody will notice. They ask the question only after a Republican misbehaves. Was there a "is monogamy dead" poll taken during the Clinton/Lewinsky affair?
Don Rosen of WRJN said today that conservatives don't want change. This is nonsense. Example, liberals want to maintain the union dominated status quo of the public school system while many conservatives would like to dramatically change the system with vouchers. I could give thousands of examples of things I would like to change.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Helding/Navratil Debate
Alderman Greg Helding has agreed to a debate. Here goes:
Denis:
To the best of my knowledge, within the last few years, the city council approved a change involving UNIT. Previously, UNIT had sent out notices of violations regarding the upkeep of property. If violators fixed the problem, the issue went away. If not, violators were assessed a fine that they could contest in court. The recent council approved changes did away with fines and relabeled them "inspection fees." This change deprives citizens of the constitutional right to defend themselves in court and with a different branch of government and is therefore unconstitutional.
Greg responds:
Denis, When this system was instituted, our attorneys told us this was legal. I ask more questions than most, but in the end, I am not a lawyer and I have to trust that our legal counsel is giving sound advice. When the recent complaints about constitutionality arose, I asked about this and was told that Milwaukee has a similar "fee vs. fine" system in place and it withstood a court challenge in 2007. That was good enough for me. Since you posed this challenge, I took the time to find and read the case for myself.
In a published opinion (Case # 2005AP2630), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling that "held that the City has the legal authority to enact the ordinance and that the unpaid re-inspection fees could be assessed against the inspected properties as special charges under WIS. STAT. § 66.0627” and "that because the primary purpose of the ordinance was regulatory, the re-inspection fees do not constitute an unlawful tax".
The appellate court also said "The ordinance creates an economic incentive to induce compliance with the law, which is a proper ordinance creates an economic incentive to induce compliance with the law, which is a proper exercise of police power. The escalating fees bear a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the ordinance, which is encouraging compliance."
You claim that it is unconstitutional because it “deprives citizens of the constitutional right to defend themselves in court”. The fact that the Milwaukee ordinance was challenged is proof enough that this is not true. No ordinance could ever relieve you of our access to the courts. Citizens have the right to take the city to court and challenge the fee – either on the basis that it should not have been charge or on the larger issue that the ordinance is illegal or unconstitutional.
Regardless, the nature of this ordinance is regulatory and not punitive. The court held that these fees are legal and that “There is ample evidence to find that there is a reasonable relationship between the re-inspection fee and the service provided”. Since these are fees, not fines, one does not have the option to either pay or go to trial. This is similar to any other fee charged by the City.
Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the City of Milwaukee inspection and re-inspection fee system is lawful and a proper exercise of a city’s police powers. Until a court tells us otherwise, I believe that, in instituting a similar system here, the City of Racine is operating within the bounds of the US and Wisconsin Constitutions as well as Wisconsin Law. I am confident that our ordinance is similar enough to the Milwaukee ordinance that it would withstand a similar court challenge.
Denis responds:
You make a strong argument Greg. But of course I have to quibble about a few things. On meeting the technichal requirements of the law, we have to assume a few things, that Racine's law is identical to Milwaukee's on the relevant question before us, that the Milwaukee case was correctly decided and that the US Supreme Court would concur. I am certain that those requirements have not all been met. In any case, I am not a lawyer so I am probably not the one to offer specific arguments about the differences between Milwaukee's ordinance and ours as they relate to Supreme Court precedent etc... instead I invite you to consider the issue not so much from a technically legalistic point of view but rather while considering the spirit of our constitution. I will make a few assumptions that I think we non-lawyers can agree on:
1) When our government accuses us of something, we have a right to defend ourselves in court.
2) We are presumed innocent and the government bears the burden of proving our guilt.
If you agree with points one and two, we can move on. So, in Racine, we had an ordinance that fined people who violated Racine's ordinance concerning the upkeep of their property. Those whom were fined, I believe, were issued the fine as well as an invitation to contest the charges in court. Then, a year or so ago, there was a new ordinance, replacing the old, wherein the same violations were addressed in a different manner. Gone were the fines and the court date, replaced by an inspection fee.
My issue Greg is that the city (you and your fellow lawmakers) is simply tampering with the English language such that it can dispense with costly court expenses. The question really rests on whether the city is fining violators or charging a fee for its services. Now, in practice, we know very well what the city is up to. The "fee" (hereafter in quotes because I don't think it is really a fee) only applies to those people who have not complied with the ordinance. I have been "feed" at least three times. In each instance I was able to prove my innocence and was not required to pay the "fee." Yet my property has been inspected now at least six times and I have not had to pay the "fee." Only those who don't comply ultimately have to pay the "fee." This raises the issue of equal protection insofar as some have to pay the "fee" while others don't. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a fine.
The same behavior that a few years ago resulted in a fine now generates a "fee." What has changed other than the city's relabelling a fine as a "fee?" Why not just keep calling it fine?
Denis:
To the best of my knowledge, within the last few years, the city council approved a change involving UNIT. Previously, UNIT had sent out notices of violations regarding the upkeep of property. If violators fixed the problem, the issue went away. If not, violators were assessed a fine that they could contest in court. The recent council approved changes did away with fines and relabeled them "inspection fees." This change deprives citizens of the constitutional right to defend themselves in court and with a different branch of government and is therefore unconstitutional.
Greg responds:
Denis, When this system was instituted, our attorneys told us this was legal. I ask more questions than most, but in the end, I am not a lawyer and I have to trust that our legal counsel is giving sound advice. When the recent complaints about constitutionality arose, I asked about this and was told that Milwaukee has a similar "fee vs. fine" system in place and it withstood a court challenge in 2007. That was good enough for me. Since you posed this challenge, I took the time to find and read the case for myself.
In a published opinion (Case # 2005AP2630), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling that "held that the City has the legal authority to enact the ordinance and that the unpaid re-inspection fees could be assessed against the inspected properties as special charges under WIS. STAT. § 66.0627” and "that because the primary purpose of the ordinance was regulatory, the re-inspection fees do not constitute an unlawful tax".
The appellate court also said "The ordinance creates an economic incentive to induce compliance with the law, which is a proper ordinance creates an economic incentive to induce compliance with the law, which is a proper exercise of police power. The escalating fees bear a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the ordinance, which is encouraging compliance."
You claim that it is unconstitutional because it “deprives citizens of the constitutional right to defend themselves in court”. The fact that the Milwaukee ordinance was challenged is proof enough that this is not true. No ordinance could ever relieve you of our access to the courts. Citizens have the right to take the city to court and challenge the fee – either on the basis that it should not have been charge or on the larger issue that the ordinance is illegal or unconstitutional.
Regardless, the nature of this ordinance is regulatory and not punitive. The court held that these fees are legal and that “There is ample evidence to find that there is a reasonable relationship between the re-inspection fee and the service provided”. Since these are fees, not fines, one does not have the option to either pay or go to trial. This is similar to any other fee charged by the City.
Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the City of Milwaukee inspection and re-inspection fee system is lawful and a proper exercise of a city’s police powers. Until a court tells us otherwise, I believe that, in instituting a similar system here, the City of Racine is operating within the bounds of the US and Wisconsin Constitutions as well as Wisconsin Law. I am confident that our ordinance is similar enough to the Milwaukee ordinance that it would withstand a similar court challenge.
Denis responds:
You make a strong argument Greg. But of course I have to quibble about a few things. On meeting the technichal requirements of the law, we have to assume a few things, that Racine's law is identical to Milwaukee's on the relevant question before us, that the Milwaukee case was correctly decided and that the US Supreme Court would concur. I am certain that those requirements have not all been met. In any case, I am not a lawyer so I am probably not the one to offer specific arguments about the differences between Milwaukee's ordinance and ours as they relate to Supreme Court precedent etc... instead I invite you to consider the issue not so much from a technically legalistic point of view but rather while considering the spirit of our constitution. I will make a few assumptions that I think we non-lawyers can agree on:
1) When our government accuses us of something, we have a right to defend ourselves in court.
2) We are presumed innocent and the government bears the burden of proving our guilt.
If you agree with points one and two, we can move on. So, in Racine, we had an ordinance that fined people who violated Racine's ordinance concerning the upkeep of their property. Those whom were fined, I believe, were issued the fine as well as an invitation to contest the charges in court. Then, a year or so ago, there was a new ordinance, replacing the old, wherein the same violations were addressed in a different manner. Gone were the fines and the court date, replaced by an inspection fee.
My issue Greg is that the city (you and your fellow lawmakers) is simply tampering with the English language such that it can dispense with costly court expenses. The question really rests on whether the city is fining violators or charging a fee for its services. Now, in practice, we know very well what the city is up to. The "fee" (hereafter in quotes because I don't think it is really a fee) only applies to those people who have not complied with the ordinance. I have been "feed" at least three times. In each instance I was able to prove my innocence and was not required to pay the "fee." Yet my property has been inspected now at least six times and I have not had to pay the "fee." Only those who don't comply ultimately have to pay the "fee." This raises the issue of equal protection insofar as some have to pay the "fee" while others don't. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then its a fine.
The same behavior that a few years ago resulted in a fine now generates a "fee." What has changed other than the city's relabelling a fine as a "fee?" Why not just keep calling it fine?
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Just Say No
The Racine Redevelopment Authority delayed a decision on an 18 month option request by Brent Oglesby concerning city owned property at State and Silver Streets, very near to the proposed KRM stop. This decision should be very easy folks - deny this request outright. Read JT article Here
The property in question may soon increase in value if KRM becomes a reality. Brent Oglesby will then be allowed to buy the property at the pre-KRM price and essentially pocket the difference. I see no benefit to taxpayers here. What's more, Brent Oglesby is a member of the Racine City Plan Commission, ie, he is an insider and this gift to him would certainly not look good. And lastly, on what basis would the city think that Oglesby would be able to pull off a major development project? He has no financing and no experience in property development. Additionally, what the article fails to mention is that Oglesby does have business experience. He has had two business failures in Racine, a restaurant (I liked his food) and a newspaper .
I suspect that Oglesby would probably walk if KRM doeasn't materialize. And if KRM does happen, he would be in a great position to cut a deal or be bought out by an actual developer. This would be a sweet deal for Oglesby and a raw deal for Racine taxpayers.
I can't blame Oglseby for trying. Perhaps I will put in a similar request. I have a property company already and I have some development experience.
The property in question may soon increase in value if KRM becomes a reality. Brent Oglesby will then be allowed to buy the property at the pre-KRM price and essentially pocket the difference. I see no benefit to taxpayers here. What's more, Brent Oglesby is a member of the Racine City Plan Commission, ie, he is an insider and this gift to him would certainly not look good. And lastly, on what basis would the city think that Oglesby would be able to pull off a major development project? He has no financing and no experience in property development. Additionally, what the article fails to mention is that Oglesby does have business experience. He has had two business failures in Racine, a restaurant (I liked his food) and a newspaper .
I suspect that Oglesby would probably walk if KRM doeasn't materialize. And if KRM does happen, he would be in a great position to cut a deal or be bought out by an actual developer. This would be a sweet deal for Oglesby and a raw deal for Racine taxpayers.
I can't blame Oglseby for trying. Perhaps I will put in a similar request. I have a property company already and I have some development experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)