Posts Tagged ‘Property Rights’

Election Results: Three Propositions Go Down In Defeat

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

The results of yesterday’s election are up, and three of the ten propositions on the ballot went down in defeat. Since all statewide propositions usually pass, that’s an interesting (and welcome) result.

  • Proposition 4, which Texans for Fiscal Responsibility said “gives counties new authority for “Kelo”-style redevelopment takings” went down by the heftiest margin, 59.7% to 40.3%.
  • Proposition 7, which would have allowed El Paso County to use property taxes to build parks, went down 51.7% to 48.3%.
  • Proposition 8, a technical amendment which allow agricultural/ranching/ etc. land to be developed for water conservation without changing its tax status, lost 53% to 47%.
  • Propositions 2 and 6 each passed narrowly with less than 52% of the vote. Proposition 1, the only one I voted for and which provided homestead exemptions for the spouses of disabled veterans, passed by the largest margin, 82.9% to 17.1%.

    Taken together, the results seem to show that Texans are actually becoming more conservative, and more willing to oppose government spending and Kelo-style eminent domain abuses.

    About 675,000 voter participated in yesterdays election.

    As a side not, notice how information on the statewide election appears nowhere on the Houston Chronicle‘s main page, though it does provide a link to how Nancy Grace did on Dancing With the Stars. Just another sign of that once great (and conservative) newspaper’s decline into being just another irrelevant liberal MSM mouthpiece.

    Follow-Up: Eugene Volokh and Glenn Reynolds on Issues Surrounding the Portland Assault Video

    Sunday, September 26th, 2010

    Several commentators on yesterday’s post and video about a man being assaulted by liberal thugs for the crime of videotaping Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Kitzhaber at an event open to the public at Emmanuel Temple Church in Portland, Oregon, opined that no crime had been committed, since the videographer was on private property, and thus should have complied with a request demand to stop filming.

    I’m not a lawyer, so I am not clear on the issue, namely: Does a political event open to the public, but set in a private space, count, for the sake of the law, as occurring in a public space or a private space? I can see how both might apply, depending on the circumstances and on individual state law.

    To clarify the issue, I asked two of the leading legal lights of the blogosphere, Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy and Instapundit Glenn Reynolds for their opinion on the issue.

    Volokh’s response:

    Neither the press nor other speakers have a right to stay in a church when the owners or the agents tell them to leave. The same is true for other private property, except in a few states as to large shopping malls. Moreover, the owner of property has the right to use reasonable, nondeadly force to eject trespassers. But if the event is billed as open to the public, then trespassers wouldn’t be trespassers until they’re told to leave and refuse. I haven’t seen the video, so I can’t speak to the facts in this case.

    Reynolds’ response:

    I agree with Eugene. As a practical matter, if I were the filmer in question I would probably sue for assault, etc. on general principles. Fear of lawsuits causes people to do all sorts of things; it might as well make them more reluctant to hassle photographers. But that’s just me following the “punch back twice has hard” philosophy propounded by a great man.

    Thanks for both gentlemen for clarifying some of the legal issues involved.

    A few points:

    1. It is unclear from the video whether the people asking ordering the videographer to stop taping are representatives of the church or not. Indeed, the only name badge visible is not “Emmanuel Temple Church” but “African-American Alliance.”
    2. A lot of people have stated that videotaping is not free speech. true, but irrelevant, since the First Amendment right in question here is not freedom of speech, but freedom of the press.
    3. If they had wanted to eject the videographer, they could have attempted to do that. They did not. Instead they punched him.
    4. Why was John Kitzhaber (or his lackeys) so adamant that no one was allowed to film him at a public event that they were willing to assault people to prevent it? Given all the previous incidents, you have to wonder if someone has sent out a memo from the Democratic National Committee telling candidates to prevent themselves from being filmed at all costs.
    5. If so, a fat lot of good that will due them in an age of small, cheap, ubiquitous cameras.

    City of Austin: How dare you do what you want with your own land?

    Friday, June 11th, 2010

    Once again the City of Austin is living up to its reputation as a Nanny State busybody who can’t keep its nose out of other people’s business. In this case it’s decided that Joe Del Rio can’t dig under his own house.

    Joe Del Rio, the retiree who excavated a huge pit underneath his East Austin home that prompted a raid by SWAT and bomb squad officers last month, is suing the city for taking his private property by filling in the hole, his lawyer said Thursday.

    Earlier this week, Austin city officials had ordered the collection of tunnels and rooms, which they have characterized as a 35-foot-deep multilevel underground structure, filled with concrete to prevent Del Rio’s house from collapsing. Work crews for a private contractor were scheduled to begin filling in the underground space this morning, which officials said would take about 33 truckloads of concrete.

    A spokeswoman for the Public Works Department said the estimated cost of filling Del Rio’s pit is about $61,500. The city will pay for the work and then bill Del Rio, Sara Hartley said.

    In a mid-May report, city engineers, citing deep excavation under load-bearing walls and scant reinforcement of walls in the pit, declared that Del Rio’s home was “in imminent danger of collapse.”

    Demolishing the home, they said in the report, would almost certainly cause a cave-in, so filling in the pit was the only option.

    Here’s a Google Street View of the House.

    There are also pictures, but they offer a considerably less-than-comprehensive view. (Notice how the photos from the City of Austin Code Compliance Department are carefully chosen not to give you a good idea of the layout of the space, but to make it look as ugly and haphazard as possible.)

    Note that nowhere in the article does it say that Mr. Del Rio’s house is a danger to anyone but Mr. Del Rio himself. So the City of Austin comes in with guns drawn, seizes the man’s house, and is about to spend $61,000 and bill Del Rio to perform work he doesn’t want to save him from himself.

    I’m not saying that Del Rio’s excavations were necessarily the smartest move in the world, and I’m not advocating people go out of their way to flaunt building codes. But government exists to protect citizens from being victimized by others, not to protect people from themselves. Unless Mr. Del Rio’s actions are a danger to others (say, if he was undermining a city street), the City of Austin should leave him the hell alone.

    (Hat tip: Fark.)

    Kelo Followup

    Wednesday, November 11th, 2009

    Remember how the Kelo vs. New London decision let the government take land for the benefit of private government? Well, Pfizer is closing down the facility on the site they seized the land for.

    (Hat tip to Fark.)