Sheep in the City

Economic Blight My Arse

2005-07-10T19:26:00.000-05:00

The city of Daytona Beach, Florida is trying to seize three parcels of beachfront property under Eminent Domain in order to allow the construction of a hotel project. This action is proceeding under Florida law, which states that seizure of property for economic development can only occur to prevent or eliminate blight.

I had the chance to drive by these properties last night, and I can only say ... blight my arse!

My first question when I discovered the Florida law was, what the heck is "blight"? Apparently, it includes such definitions as:

Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, parking facilities, roadways, bridges or public transportation facilities.

Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or
usefulness.

Inadequate and outdated building density patterns.

Incidence of crime in the area higher than in the remainder of the county or municipality.

Deterioration of site or other improvements.

In Florida, there are 14 criteria, only two of which must be met for a designation of blight. Further, once an area is designated as blighted, that designation never goes away.

The Boardwalk area of Daytona Beach was declared blighted in 1981, at which time the Boardwalk was a pretty scary place - runaways, pedophiles, druggies ... it was the congregating place for every fringe element of society.

Twenty-four years later, the same can hardly be said. As I drove along the three blocks encompassing the Boardwalk area, I started to realize the businesses that were open ... a 7-11, Papa John's pizza, Baskin-Robbins ... a bunch of well-maintained beach stores with their Budweiser towels and I heart Daytona t-shirts (tacky, but not what I'd consider an example of blight) ... and just north of the Boardwalk, the Hilton Ocean's Walk resort, directly across the street from the Daytona Beach Convention Center.

The Boardwalk was lit up (at least those businesses who haven't already caved and sold to the developer of this new project) ... the various rides were running and I saw tourists everywhere. There were fireworks going off at the Main Street Pier. Not a prostitute or drug bust in sight.

Just out of curiosity, I went and looked up the taxable value of the Hilton resort (interestingly, I wasn't able to find any tax information on the Volusia County website about the boardwalk itself, even on those three parcels still in contention).

This is how blighted the area is. Records only go back to 1983 online, at which time the Hilton parcel had a taxable value of $132,695. There was something else on the property at that time, which was apparently torn down around 1987 as there is no value for buildings in 87, 88, or 89. The Hilton building was finished in 1989 and in 1990 the taxable value was $24,140,203.

Last year the property had a taxable value of $47,626,352. The property was sold in 2003 (from Adam's Mark to Hilton I guess) for $54,147,800 (even though the taxable value was only around $23mil).

The Daytona Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau website has this statement on it:

Recently, more than $250 million was invested into Daytona Beach's core convention district. This landmark project has not only added more sophisticated accommodations and state-of-the-industry convention facilities to the area, but it has also spurred the refurbishment and expansion of hotels located throughout the resort area. In total, the area now offers well more than 350,000 square feet of meeting space.

How can this be a blighted area? I'm sure some if not much of the redevelopment that has occurred in the past 24 years happened due to Eminent Domain seizures, but that doesn't mean it should be used for every project that comes along.

I finally came up with a sensible solution ... before the city can use Eminent Domain to seize property for economic redevelopment, a new and current study showing blight must be completed (paid for by whatever developer plans to make their gazillions from the cheap land and approved by a panel outside the influence of both developer and city). And then the property owners should be paid what their land would be worth AFTER completion of the new project. That ought to slow down the abuse of the system.

Spin Cycle?

2005-07-10T16:00:00.000-05:00

Has the investigation into the London bombings entered the spin cycle? I was very surprised today to click on MSNBC.com and discover that the basic facts about the incident seem to have changed overnight. The train blasts all occurred within a minute of each other, not over a space of 26 minutes as initially reported. The bombs contained high explosives, not crude homemade devices. A correction of possibly confused initial information or an intentional rewriting of history to fit some predetermined criteria?

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories (if I were, I'd propose that the CIA or some other nebulous US agency detonated the bombs to ensure that terrorism was the main topic at the G-8 summit). But the revision of facts in the latest news out of London has me wondering what the heck is going on.

Here is the timeline as initially reported by the online site of The Daily Telegraph out of London.

9.17am: Five people killed in an explosion at Edgware Road Underground station. Police said later a blast ripped through a carriage, a wall and into two other trains.

9.15am: First reports of emergency services called to Liverpool Street Station.

8.56am: At least 21 people are killed following a blast on the Underground close to Russell Square and King's Cross stations.

8.51am, Thursday, July 7, 2005: Seven people are killed in an explosion on a Circle or Central line train 100 yards from Liverpool Street Underground station.

URL - The Daily Telegraph, London

And here is a quote from washingtonpost.com about the strength of the bombs in an article dated July 9.

washingtonpost.com
London Bombs Likely Simple and Homemade

By BETH GARDINERThe Associated PressSaturday, July 9, 2005; 2:21 AM

LONDON -- The bombs that destroyed three London Underground cars and a double-decker bus each weighed less than 10 pounds and could be carried in a backpack, police said Friday. Police said the bodies of 49 people had been recovered, but warned that the number of deaths would rise.

An explosives expert said they were likely crude homemade devices set off with a simple timer.

URL - Washington Post

The current article at MSNBC.com contains the following section.

Revised blast timeline

Police have concluded that the blasts happened within a minute of each other around 8:50 a.m. Thursday, suggesting the explosives were detonated by timers rather than suicide bombers. The bus was hit nearly an hour later.

Initial investigations showed the bombs contained high explosives, suggesting the material was not homemade. It was possible the explosives were industrial or military materials bought on the black market, police said, although investigators said it was too early to pinpoint the explosives' origins.

URL - MSNBC.com

If initial investigations showed the bombs contained high explosives, why wasn't the damage greater? I can't find the article now, but I did read that the low casualty rate was attributable to crude explosives, not high-grade military type bombs (an interesting aside, I discovered while googling that MSNBC.com doesn't keep old versions of their stories ... the link when searching for 'london blast homemade device' brings up a link to a story on MSNBC.com dated July 8 and includes the description "Thursday's deadly blasts in London's transit system were likely caused by ...The bombs were likely crude homemade devices, probably made from simple, ..." but clicking on the link takes you to today's updated version).

I suppose that initial confusion could account for the difference, but what really makes me wonder is how they could possibly have misjudged the timing of the explosions? The first was initially reported to have been at 8:51 and the third at 9:17. Are they trying to say that everyone on the third train waited 26 minutes after nearly being blown to bits to call in an emergency? If the reports had been scattered over five or six minutes, I could accept a lag in reporting, but not 26. That's ridiculous, especially with the uber-surveillance the London subway system apparently has.

So why is the information changing? It seems quite possible that a home-grown terror cell operating with crude devices and without obvious support from Al-Quaida doesn't fit Emperor Bush I's frame for terrorism and therefore must be adjusted. Home-grown and crude ... could just as easily be a group of Welsh (or Irish, or insert-name-of-group-here seperatists) who downloaded some instructions off the web and decided to stir things up in protest of the G-8. Could be the IRA, could even be the French annoyed at losing their bid for the Olympics. But most likely NOT Al-Quaida, who tends to do things with a little more sophistication.

Here's my (slightly tongue-in-cheek) prediction ... by tomorrow the news will be reporting that this was an extremely well organized operation using military explosives (probably smuggled out of Iraq) and only sheer luck prevented a much greater loss of life. Only by stepping up our offensive against insurgents in Iraq will we be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, and Emperor Bush or one of his mouthpieces will be quoted as saying something to the effect that 'this is a desperate act by Al-Quaida to show that it can still be effective despite their being crippled by US operations in Iraq and the Middle East'.

I can't wait to see if the spin cycle kicks into high gear.

Oh, and if it was an Islamic terror cell, I'm sure that Londoners are so glad to hear that since we're doing such a bang up job in Iraq they don't have to worry about being attacked at home. Just on the subway and the bus.

(also posted on http://www.mydd.com - a great website)

Big Brother & Property Rights

2005-06-26T13:43:00.000-05:00

This may shock a lot of you all who know how left-leaning I am, but the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London has me more infuriated than anything that has happened in the last two years. It seems that the liberal judges on that 'esteemed' panel are willing to sell out the individual in favor of big business. It makes me almost ashamed to be a liberal.

The idea that government can interpret the Fifth Amendment protections on the seizure of private property for public use to include increasing jobs or the tax base is outrageous. Public use should mean just that; roadways, parks, schools, fire stations and the like. Public use should require public ownership.

I live near Daytona Beach, Florida, where this very use of eminent domain has been used over the past several years to force the sale of older beachfront hotels and homes to corporations wishing to build new condominiums and resorts. Florida law specifically forbids (apparently, from what I've read) the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Now, I'm not sure what the textbook definition of 'blight' is in an economic sense, but it seems far too easy to declare an older hotel blighted in light of a corporation looking to build a fifteen story condominium on the same property.

The current debate here is over our boardwalk area, which admittedly has seen better days. However, this city block of arcades and go kart tracks along the World's Most Famous Beach is one of the main reasons I moved here in the first place. Where else can you go and play skeeball within view of the ocean? The area was declared blighted in 1981, however since that time land values have increased as much as 60% per year, hardly a sign to me that things are all that bad. The city wants to force three landowners to sell so that a California developer can put up a $120 million hotel tower, retail and restaurant complex. The developer has said that if the landowners don't sell he can design the project around them. So why the fight?

In one case, I'm not sure if it's this one, the city claimed that the project in question met the burden of public use because a 20' wide accessway to the ocean would be left. In another case they forced the sale of a small oceanfront hotel that had been in the same family for sixty years so that the adjacent super-resort could expand ... I believe the expansion involved a parking garage.

This is morally wrong. Cities should not have that kind of power, because almost exclusively, city councilmembers are idiots with visions of ultimate power. They do not have the backgrounds to make those kinds of decisions and shouldn't be allowed to. They are too easily swayed by promises of huge tax revenues (while all too often giving away huge tax breaks to get the projects in the first place). They are too easily impressed by the attention they receive from these huge corporations and developers. They don't stop to consider the increased infrastructure costs associated with supporting these high density redevelopments. In short, they can too easily be bought.

There are other ways to increase tax revenues and jobs than to take away people's homes and small businesses. Neither of those benefits outweighs the intrinsic right of individual property ownership. If this sort of thing is allowed to continue, I forsee a new beachside in Daytona Beach ... one where neighborhoods of fine but slightly run down older homes have been razed to make room for golf courses, condominium towers, and exclusive resort hotels. A beachside where a drive along A1A, which parallels the ocean and once provided a nice sea breeze and views of the water, instead provides views of gridlock and towering buildings (portions already resemble a drive through a canyon more than a drive along the beach).

Once all the oceanfront property is gone, I forsee developers moving their attention to the riverfront property, forcing out individual homes in favor of even more condominiums with their attendant marinas. After all, all of these things will provide jobs and increased tax revenues. Never mind that people who have lived near the ocean and river all their lives will have been forced out of homes they may have had for decades. Never mind that the quiet residential nature of our barrier island will have been replaced with traffic and noise.

The only solution at this point seems to be legislative. Take the power of eminent domain for economic development out of the hands of the cities. Force true public use to be the guiding principle for the taking of private property. Let developers and corporations know that the rights the individual, when taken in sum, are utterly and completely paramount to their rights to make money on the cheap.

Big Brother & Family Rights

2005-06-09T19:32:00.000-05:00

Before I start, let me say that my opinions are based on the information I have seen to date. Obviously, I don't know how sick the girl really is, how competent her doctors are, and whether her parents are being truthful in what they say. Given that all is as it appears to be (something I realize is rarely the case - but how else does one blog on breaking issues if one doesn't go on the info at hand?)

I return after several weeks off with yet another rant about Big Brother interfering in family matters. This time it is the State of Texas, which has seen fit to take custody of a 12-year old cancer patient because her parents do not wish her to have radiation treatment.

Not only did they do this, they issued an Amber Alert in order to find the girl and arrested her mother on charges of interfering with child custody. She was only released after posting a $50,000 bond. The parents' three sons were placed in foster care.

It is the parents' contention that their daughter's cancer is in remission and that she should not have to have radiation treatment following chemotherapy. The doctor and the state's Child Protective Services say her life is in danger if she doesn't receive it.

Here's the irony ... the girl herself does not want to have the treatment.

The main reason this makes me so angry is that at 12 years old, a girl has the right to choose an abortion or, at least in my state, to keep a baby regardless of her parents' wishes. That's a pretty major life changing decision, one I put put on a par with having at least some say in her own medical treatment.

The second reason is that to take such draconian steps against a mother who is supporting her child's decision shatters all concept of family privacy and parental rights. Mrs. Wernecke won't even be allowed to visit her daughter in the hospital for her 13th birthday, which is Saturday, although her husband and their sons will be allowed a visit the day before.

The Wernecke's aren't saying they oppose the treatment on religious grounds, but rather that they don't feel the doctors have been upfront about Katie Wernecke's care and the possible side effects of the radiation.

It is a very delicate line regarding parents' rights to deny treatment to their children. I don't think a parent should be able to keep their child from receiving emergency treatment that is absolutely required to keep them alive. But in this case, with a child of a reasonable age who says she doesn't want treatment, I think the parents should have every right to say no.

It isn't as though not having radiation treatment will result in this child being dead within the week. And having already gone through chemotherapy shows me that should Katie start to get sicker her parents will most probably support the radiation. What's wrong with a wait and see attitude?

I watched my mother suffer through chemo and radiation over several years and two bouts with cancer. If radiation isn't truly an immediate life or death necessity, why would anyone try to force it on someone else? To do so simply because the patient is a minor and the technology exists is cruel and should be unethical. An adult would be able to refuse treatment. A teenager supported by her parents should have the same right.

All Hail the Theocracy!

2005-05-06T08:29:00.000-05:00

During my morning scan of news items and blogs I followed a twisting line and found the following item (read the original article in the ABA Journal):

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled a Virginia county can refuse to let a witch give the invocation at its meetings by limiting the privilege to clergy representing Judeo-Christian monotheism.

The actual wording of the ruling (Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, No. 04-1045 (April 14), which can be found here) starts with:

In this case we consider the effect of the Establishment Clause on a local government’s policy concerning legislative invocations. Because that policy does not "proselytize or advance any one, or [ ] disparage any other, faith or belief," Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 794-95 (1983), we believe it fits within the Supreme Court’s requirements for legislative prayer. We therefore remand the case with directions that the district court dismiss the complaint.

I scanned through the entire ruling and what stood out in my mind is that the court has done an end around on the First Amendment by saying that the invocation in question was done for a legislative body (in this case the Board of Supervisors) and not for the people, therefore "the religious liberties secured to the people by the First Amendment are not directly implicated." (The italics are theirs).

The whole ruling read like a justification for Judeo-Christian prayer. At first they tried to say that they weren't only allowing Judeo-Christians to be on the list to say the invocation by saying that the Islamic Center of Virginia was on the list, and then proceeded down the road of silliness by graciously allowing that there was not only a Spanish-speaking church (as though speaking Spanish during a prayer to the Christian god makes it more inclusive somehow), but Mormon and Jehovah's Witness congregations included, as if this were proof!

The county revised its invitation letter to clergy to tell them avoid including the name Jesus Christ in their invocation at some point whether during or following the case I'm not sure. This certainly doesn't remove the pall of singular religious ideology from the proceeding, but the court seems to think it does.

Further, the County tried to say that Cynthia Simpson, the witch in question, did not have standing to file a complaint because "her proposed invocation would not, as she acknowledges, 'invoke' a deity’s guidance, but would be more akin to inspirational, welcoming remarks." The court found that Simpson's exclusion from the list did in fact give her standing and the case proceeded. However, the fact that she wasn't planning on standing there invoking Hecate or Hera just shows that the County doesn't actually want 'non-sectarian' invocations, only non-denominational ones.

The remainder of the ruling is basically a lot of legal citations justifying denying Simpson the right to be on the list because the majority of people are Judeo-Christians and the legislative tradition of prayer has been based on the idea of a Supreme Being (a Judeo-Christian one). Thus, because it's always been done that way, it should always be that way in the future.

This is a prime example of Theocracy in action. To limit invocations to those following the Judeo-Christian ethos (and you can lump Islam with that group since all three follow the same basic God) on the grounds that it is not a single faith but an "umbrella covering many faiths" (as Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III did in his opinion), is as patently theocratic as you can get.

The case has been appealed and I hope more will come of it, but in the current political climate I somehow doubt the Supreme Court will come down on the side of allowing a witch to lead prayers. If it had been a Buddhist, perhaps things would have proceeded differently. But as it stands, the First Amendment is being shredded further and the theocracy lives.