The Colorado Index

Movie Night At The Independence Institute

Last night, I attended the Independence Institute’s Free Market Movie Night in Denver. In honor of the late economist Milton Friedman’s 96^th birthday, the Institute showed an episode of “Free to Choose” from 1979 dealing with union matters.

The overarching theme of the episode was free movement of labor without forced membership and special privileges granted to labor unions. The episode delved into immigration, the minimum wage, union violence, and even professional organizations restricting entry into trades (medicine was the example given). Personally, I was surprised how many of the issues and arguments from the 1970’s still were prevalent today.

Jon Caldara, President of the Independence Institute spoke about Amendment 49, Ethical Standards*, which makes it illegal for the government to collect union dues from employee paychecks. This will simplify the process to opt out of public sector union membership. Considering that the unions can bundle union money and donate it to Governor Bill Ritter and his Democrat legislative allies, no wonder Bill Ritter unionized over 20,000 state workers with his executive order. I will blog further on Amendment 49 as Election Day draws closer.

 

Also, Brett Moore of Coloradans for Employee Freedom presented some information on the Employee Free Choice Act. This Orwellian Federal bill would remove secret ballots from the union certification process. Instead, union organizers could use card check method where a union person can stand over your shoulder and intimidate you to sign the card. This is equivalent to a line from The Godfather that states “…either his signature or his brains would be on the release.”

 

During the reception, I had a long conversation with Benjamin Hummel, the official political cartoonist for the Independence Institute. All of Benjamin Hummel’s recent political cartoons are on his blog, and each cartoon post contains a comment about the drawing.

 

At the end of the evening, I briefly met Jon Caldara for the first time. While we had little time to discuss politics as he was leaving for his radio show, it was good to meet the man who takes on fights for the diffused interests in political battles.

 

All in all, it was a great night to celebrate Milton Friedman and the personal and economic liberties he championed. When the next Free Market Movie Night occurs, I will post the information here.

 

by Civil Sense

*Thank you to Ben DeGrow for catching the error in Amendment 49's name.

Revisions to Adverse Possession Laws Effective July 1

The Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project blog points out a Boulder Camera story on big changes coming July 1 in Colorado adverse possession law.

At midnight Tuesday, several changes to Colorado law will go into effect that increase the legal standards for proving “adverse possession,” a legal maneuver that has allowed trespassers who openly use land for at least 18 years to claim it as their own with relatively little legal burden.

The changes also will give judges the power to force adverse possessors to pay for the land they do win in court, and to compensate the original owner for back property taxes, and interest.

Another law going into effect this week will restrict judges from hearing cases involving other judges from the same jurisdiction, in an effort to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of favoritism.

All of the changes are the result of dozens of state lawmakers who signed onto legislation this year aimed at preventing the abuse of adverse possession.

In the earliest days of private property ownership, surveying techniques were crude and legal descriptions of property boundaries did not always follow the actual boundary as physically marked in the field. The original adverse possession laws sprung from the concept of “possession is nine-tenths of the law.” If two adjoining land owners considered a fence as the boundary line for decades, and one party built improvements right up to that fence, an adverse possession case could arise if a surveyor determined the boundary line was five feet from the fence (and through the improvements). The adverse possession, in this instance, could return the boundary to the historic fence line.

As in other land rights cases, justices expanded the definition of the law beyond its spirit, such as the Kirlin case in Boulder. It is sad that a law is necessary to force a judge to recuse himself because of a conflict-of-interest due to working with another judge. The idea of paying back taxes on the land would work well when the disputed land is a large parcel, but the costs would be limited for a small strip of land.

What a concerned property owner should do is inspect his or her land. Have a Professional Land Surveyor survey your land, set pins if necessary, and show you where your boundaries are. If neighbors have buildings, concrete, flowerbeds, paths, or whatever crossing your property line, write a certified letter to them. Even if you have no problem with the flowerbed or the concrete, the mere act of notification could stop the eighteen year adverse possession timeframe. *SEE UPDATE BELOW

Hopefully, the higher bar for adverse possession will limit the number of cases in the future. While a judge will determine the property line in a boundary dispute, that is the riskiest and most costly way to go. Who knows what the location of the common line will be, and what rationale the judge use to make the determination.

In most cases, a boundary line agreement between the disputing property owners can determine a common boundary line in a much more satisfactory manner than forcing litigation and adverse possession will ever do.

by Civil Sense

*UPDATE: The purpose of this post was to provide a layman's overview to the adverse possession issue.  Please note that I am not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.  One should consult an attorney and/or a land surveyor to discuss the specific legal issues involved in any land dispute.

New Edgewater Charter Restricts Eminent Domain Abuses

The present trend towards municipalities extending eminent domain to the limits and beyond the spirit of the law is well documented. Last night, the City of Edgewater bucked the trend and passed a charter update limiting eminent domain use within the municipality.

The citizens of Edgewater adopted an update to their Home Rule Charter. The new charter, a complete re-write of the existing charter, includes a significant protection for personal property rights. The approach is believed to be unprecedented among Colorado municipalities. Councilman Adam Gardner said of the unique provision protecting property rights, “My only hope is that this action serves as a reminder to governments across Colorado that they do not have the last word on eminent domain. The people have the last say, if they will only stand up and be counted.” Councilman [ Adam ] Gardner also thanked noted property rights attorney Bob Hoban and Independence Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Polhill who’s (sic) input helped shape the property rights provisions which Councilman Gardner proposed to the Charter Commission.

The provisions of the new charter essentially double the amounts paid to property owners if their land is taken using eminent domain and later sold to private developers. In effect, the language balances the need for government to use eminent domain power for public infrastructure, but heavily dis-incents misuse of eminent domain for private development. No property in Edgewater is currently being threatened with eminent domain, and Edgewater has not used its eminent domain power in nearly twenty years, but the commission felt that recent court decisions at the federal and state levels warranted reinforcement of property rights in Edgewater.

While the City of Edgewater does not have any planned eminent domain proceedings, it is heartening to see a municipality pass such a strong measure in favor of property rights. While it would not prevent a Telluride-style taking of land for open space, it would at least ensure that property owners get just compensation for public land.

Kudos to Councilman Adam Gardner and the City of Edgewater for limiting their own governmental powers. It shows a humility that is sorely lacking in the Federal, State, and other local governments.

by Civil Sense

Jon Caldara Reminds Bill Ritter Of Constitution

Democrat Governor Bill Ritter is in the process of appealing his illegal tax rate freeze to the State Supreme Court. Independence Institute President Jon Caldara penned an op-ed piece in last Friday’s Denver Post recounting the facts in the case.

Last year, on the west steps of the State Capitol, with children surrounding him as theatrical props, [ Bill ] Ritter signed Senate Bill 199, which included what he euphemistically called the "Children's Amendment." In classic political bait-and-switch, "Children's Amendment" does not guarantee a single penny to education or to children.

SB 199 — the "for the kids" property mill levy freeze, which lets the state legislature spend almost $4 billion more in its first decade alone — has no requirement that any of the money be spent on children. Although a fraction of its first year's haul of nearly $118 million was put toward pre-kindergarten kids, there is no guarantee that future legislatures will give kids even that much.

Again, politicians used children as human shields in the public relations war to increase their tax take. But this time, the court rightly declared their act unconstitutional.

Stating that something is “for the children” is a good way to replace rational policy arguments with emotional ones.

Gov. [ Bill ] Ritter, going against the advice of the state's attorney general, was so confident that this fine-print loophole was solid his spokesman claimed [ the Independence Institute’s ] lawsuit was a "tasteless stunt." SB 199 has been declared unconstitutional, and now the governor is equally confident that the Colorado Supreme Court will reverse that ruling: He said he plans to act and budget as if he already won the appeal.

A friend once defined “chutzpah” as a boy who killed his parents, then begged for mercy from the court since he was an orphan. Bill Ritter’s antics seek to redefine that term.

by Civil Sense

Fight! RTD Chair Versus The Independence Institute

Denver Regional Transit District Chairman Lee Kemp does not like the Independence Institute very much. After Independence Institute Director Randal O’Toole wrote a column in the Denver Daily News, Lee Kemp penned a response letter published yesterday.

While the recent spikes in gas prices have helped propel the most recent push to ride RTD, this is not a new phenomenon as RTD’s ridership has increased over the past couple of decades. 

It is very important to note that the record-high gas prices have negatively impacted virtually every segment of our economy and our population, leaving this nation economically and strategically weaker, and requiring ever-greater dependence on foreign oil with much of it from countries that are less-than-friendly to the U.S.

To continue supporting a highway-only agenda ignores the fact that the U.S. would be putting its proverbial eggs in one basket, a strategic and economic blunder.

Lee Kemp must not understand that the majority of his transit system (busses) runs on the highway infrastructure. In fact, the existing light rail lines parallel major highways outside of downtown, and run along city streets in downtown. From the “eggs in one basket” point, his busses can modify their routes in case of emergency closures. Light rail puts its “eggs in one basket,” as the routes are limited by the railroad track infrastructure.

Our light rail trains are standing room only during many hours of the day, especially during rush hours, special events and inclement weather. Yet the Independence Institute column attempts to make the nonsensical argument that light rail is a failure because it doesn’t run completely full around the clock. This bizarre logic would also apply to highways, which have plenty of capacity at midday  and through the night. Yet you won’t ever hear the pro-highway Independence Institute using that same twisted standard to call highways a failure. That would not sit well with some of the special interests that help fund the Institute.

Lee Kemp’s capacity argument is dishonest, if not a downright fabrication. The Independence Institute is anti-light rail and pro-highway to a point. The Institute favors adding high-occupancy vehicle lanes and bus rapid transit to existing highways. The excess capacity of these HOV/BRT lanes can be sold to the general public using congestion-variable tolls, and priced to keep the lanes moving at a certain level of service. If a private concessionaire were to purchase operational rights to these toll lanes, the extra capacity would come at little cost to the taxpayer, as the roadway toll financing will pay for its own construction. Let Lee Kemp try to sell his extra light rail line capacity; it is worthless.

RTD is receiving bad press right now from its cost overruns and bullying on the light rail line extension to Lakewood and Golden, buying overpriced land in Weld County, and the fact that increased ridership causes the fare revenue to go down due to “Eco Pass” and its exorbitantly low yearly prices. Lee Kemp and the Regional Transportation District mismanage their funds due to their misguided, myopic vision of the holy grail of transit: light rail.

It is time for a new direction at the Regional Transportation District. RTD needs to return to its primary focus of moving people on busses, not expanding rail infrastructure that can be used by nothing except train cars. Bus rapid transit with excess capacity sold as high occupancy and toll lanes is a solution to this transit problem. If the current leadership cannot get its finances and priorities under control, perhaps metro area voters should elect new, fiscally responsible members to the board.

Hopefully, this new board would answer criticism with facts and figures, not deflections and insults as Chairman Lee Kemp uses.

by Civil Sense

Joshua Sharf Reports From Inside the Independence Institute

Colorado House District 6 Candidate and blogger Joshua Sharf attended the Independence Institute’s candidate briefing yesterday (Sharf dubs it “Wonkfest 2008”). He reports about the event on his blog View From a Height:

It's this kind of a day that makes me think it might be more fun to work there than to run for office, a calculation that [ Independence Institute President Jon Caldara ] apparently made years ago. These folks cover the waterfront, and just about every session had some tidbit suitable for candidate consumption.

The briefings were at a variety of different levels, but it'd be fair to say that they assumed a certain familiarity with the principles behind them. For instance, when [ Linda Gorman ] noted that it's philosophically incoherent to refer to health care as a, "right," because it's a product, it assumes an understanding of 1) scare resources, 2) what Rights are in the Constitution, and 3) the qualitative differences between the two.

The Independence Institute is strong in philosophy as well as politics. For an interesting glimpse inside the Institute, visit Joshua Sharf’s blog, and read the whole article.

by Civil Sense

Eminent Domain Case Proves Need for Colorado Property Rights Amendment

Last week’s Colorado Supreme Court decision affirmed lower court decisions allowing Telluride to condemn private land outside of its municipal boundaries. This Denver Post house editorial condemns the ruling (no pun intended). (Hat tip: The Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project)

The Colorado Supreme Court's recent decision in a Telluride eminent domain case is a troubling expansion of the condemnation power of home-rule cities.

The court found that home-rule cities can use their eminent domain powers to reach outside their borders and condemn land for open- space purposes.

We think the court went too far. Open-space preservation isn't among the purposes the state constitution lists as examples of proper eminent domain use. If a city goes beyond its legal borders to take land, it should be restricted to the purposes listed in the constitution.

The property owners relied on limitations on annexation purposes listed in Article XX, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution. From a reading of the text, these limitations appear to apply only to Denver and Broomfield, the two consolidated city-counties. From the Colorado Supreme Court’s actual published decision, the court seems to take an expansive but fair reading of a home-rule municipality’s extraterritorial annexation powers.

Section 6 of article XX gives each home rule municipality all powers “necessary, requisite or proper for the government and administration of its local and municipal matters.” These article XX powers are vested in municipalities through their home rule charters. Telluride’s charter gives it the “full right of self-government on local and municipal matters,” and further provides that the town has “the right of eminent domain to acquire property both within and without the boundaries of the Town for any purpose deemed by the Town council to be in the Town’s best interest.”

While the Denver Post is upset with the outcome, the judicial process appeared to work in this instance. Since the 2005 US Supreme Court eminent domain decision Kelo vs. the City of New London (Connecticut), most judicial decisions tend to take an extensive view on the eminent domain issue. This is just a continuation of that trend. 

The Post closes:

A restrained approach in condemning land outside municipal borders is best. At this point, it may take a change in the state constitution to get there. [emphasis added]

Open-space protection is important to Colorado. But home-rule cities should not have carte blanche to condemn private property outside their borders to accomplish that laudable goal.

The Denver Post is exactly right. A constitutional amendment to preserve private property rights against governmental takings is the only solution to this problem. Such an amendment should prescribe specific, narrow language detailing allowable legal circumstances for an eminent domain taking e.g. public roadways. It should also remove or severely limit the power of municipalities to use eminent domain to take land outside their borders.

Property rights are one of the primary foundations of this country. Under most circumstances, a landowner should be able to do what she or he wants with that land. It is bad enough that municipal and county planners abrogate these rights by utilizing extremely restrictive zoning and land use regulations. “We the People” must amend the constitution to prevent eminent domain abuse by well-meaning, but misguided, government entities.

by Civil Sense

A Necessary Economics Class in a Time of Economic Illiteracy

The Independence Institute has an excellent course offering called Free People, Free Markets: The Foundations of Liberty. People of any age can take it either for college credit or just to bolster their own economic knowledge. Classes begin Saturday, July 12, and will meet for five consecutive Saturdays.

From Jon Caldara’s blog:

Our Free People, Free Markets class! A class that features so much “intellectual diversity,” it has a disclaimer that reads, “if you live, or have lived in Boulder, please be aware. What you hear in the classroom might induce a conniption fit or make your head explode.”

For those thinking of attending, don’t think, just do it. It will change your life. The class will take place for five consecutive Saturdays here at the Institute, from 9am to noon, beginning July 12th and going to August 9th. You can reserve your spot by either calling Kay at 303.279.6536 or emailing rsvp@i2i.org.

I took this class at the Independence Institute last winter and learned more about economics in those five weeks than in high school or four years of college. The pre-course work includes Commanding Heights, a PBS film available to watch online that covers economic history from the collectivist Keynesian economics of the mid-twentieth century to the “Free to Choose” economic theories of Milton Friedman.

John McCain should visit the Independence Institute for this economic refresher course. This could help prevent the potential "Conservative" President problem that A Watcher detailed earlier today.

Barack Obama would benefit even more from this class. However, with Obama’s firm grounding in Marxism and radicalism, it would likely challenge his assumptions too much.

A Watcher opined about Obama:

It is interesting that Barack Obama would like to claim Kennedy as his presidential model when Obama is a on the lunatic fringe of liberalism. Kennedy was never as far left as Obama is.

This is true. Some believe that Obama is more akin to a Jimmy Carter presidency.

I believe that Obama will be more like Clement Attlee, the Labor Prime Minister of the United Kingdom immediately following World War II. His position was that since centralized planning won World War II, then the government should plan the peace. During that time, the UK nationalized utilities, the steel industry, and the health care industry.

It is amazing that after seeing the failure of nationalizing industries for more than sixty years, Barack Obama’s platform is to return to those failing policies. The Free People, Free Markets class will provide intellectual ammunition against the resurgence of Keynesian economic policies.

by Civil Sense

Around And About

There is some mighty interesting stuff in the conservative blogosphere this week, and we didn't even get to all of our usual suspects:

Jon Caldera reports that the Independence Institute has a new education blog, Ed is Watching.  Cute.

Jon Caldera also has a funny introduction to a post about the tax increase litigation that begins "A statue of me?"  More seriously, it ends thusly:

[ Bill ] Ritter signed it on the west steps of the Capitol in a photo-op with little kids. But the governor read it too - not a penny slated for kids. I am tired of our children being used to pimp for tax increases.  They aren’t political props, they’re children.  It is just simple child exploitation, and it is ugly as hell.  Someday, maybe even in my lifetime, pimping kids for tax increases will be a transparent abuse and those guilty of it will have no political futures.

Jon Caldera also writes a wonderful mother's day essay, well worth reading even though Mother's day has come and gone.

Schaffer v Udall has one of the best essays they have done on Mark Udall as a Boulder Liberal in a while.   Every time Taylor West tries to climb out of the name calling slime pit that she has put herself in, SvU might remind her and its readers of the many times (this one included) that she claims that the Mark Udall campaign is above name calling when it is doing plenty of its own.

Schaffer v Udall, with the help of Vince Carroll, does a smack down on plagiarismnowaction.  It is about time that Alan Franklin (did we spell that right, Alan) admitted that he was a plagiarist.  Come clean Alan.

Face the State has two really useful essays on the State Senate races.  The best is on the competitive races.  More mundane are the noncompetitive races.   

Mark Hillman has put up a "Support Mark Hillman for national committeeman" blurb on his site.  We do because the other folks running aren't well suited for the job.

We'd like to say something nice about Ross Kaminsky at Gang of Four, especially after he called us a bitter s.o.b., but his essays are exactly what we expected, too long to be readable or read, and full of self promotion.  It took him only ten days to go after John McCain, and he did it viciously. If he works hard enough at destroying McCain, we can and will have a Senator Mark Udall.  We wonder if some folks are squirming a little.

Case-in-Point: Why TABOR Should Remain in the Constitution

Another day, another Denver Post editorial lamenting the existence of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.

To free-spending legislators, TABOR is the bogeyman under the bed. TABOR prevents the government from raising taxes without a vote of the people. It constitutionally limits the growth of government. It so frightens our legislature and governor that they will not spend political capital in an attempt to modify the TABOR restrictions. This is not a bad thing.

 From the editorial…

 Many political, business and community leaders agree the budget gridlock enshrined in the state constitution needs fixing, but as the continued unraveling of a plan to relax TABOR shows, now may not be the time.

A changed political climate has left Republicans — who are needed to sell the proposal to voters — maneuvering to take back the legislative majority and unlikely to rile their conservative base.

The Democratic governor has been conspicuously hesitant to back the plan as he rolls out his own, top-priority ballot initiative that's likely to suck up available campaign funding.

Plus, the success of 2005's Referendum C, a five-year timeout from constitutional revenue limits, took the economic hammer from over the heads of voters, who no longer face closing junior colleges and other doomsday scenarios. [Emphasis added]

The doomsday scenario is the last refuge of the profligate-spending politician. In order to plead governmental poverty, the politicians allocate the revenue to items of various degrees of importance. Typically, they will choose politically expedient projects (a.k.a. pork). When the budgeted money is gone, the politicians then plead poverty because they cannot fund essential service X. If the taxpayer provides extra money to the government, the taxpayer has just provided extra de facto funding for nonessential projects in order to fund what should have been funded in the first place. This is a classic example of a bait-and-switch.

This method is as old but often used trick. When growing up in Ohio, the local school boards always projected dire straits if the voters would not pass a levy. They never threatened to cut nonessential personnel or try to curtail waste. Instead, they would threaten sports and the arts. The fact that sports and music at these schools were already mostly self-supporting did not matter. Threatening the highest profile expenditures would, in most instances, get public support on their side. (Obligatory note: I am not against funding schools, just the scare tactics used to achieve support for the tax levies.)

Linda Gorman at the Independence Institute (Hat tip to Patient Power by Brian Schwartz) highlights the misallocations of funds away from transportation to extra government regulation. The money quote is where the article speaks to the costs of HB 1389—the health care price control bill.

From FY2008-2009 to FY 2009-2010, HB 1389 will increase state government costs by $620,652. The fiscal note says that it will be funded by reducing “the annual diversion to the Highway Users Tax Fund” by $419,583 in FY 2008-2009.

In other words, roads will not be repaired so that the Department of Insurance can spend $419,583 to increase health insurance premiums for Colorado health insurance buyers.

Read the whole thing, and remember that TABOR, while not perfect, prevents government costs from being even more intrusive in the daily lives of each Coloradan.

by Civil Sense