Eminent Domain Use Run Amok
Yet, that is exactly what is happening in Stillwater, Oklahoma, the home of Oklahoma State University.
Recently, the Oklahoma A&M Board of Regents gave the university permission to use eminent domain to acquire a piece of property that the university wants to use as part of a large sports complex called an athletic village.
According to an AP story (Link), the athletic village is to feature "a new baseball stadium, upgraded facilities for track, tennis and soccer and an indoor practice facility for football, baseball and other sports."
As it turns out, promoting athletics over academics isn't new to the university.
Back when I was a student there, the university's library was rated as being one of the worst university libraries in the nation.
So, what was at the top of the university's priority list?
Was it improving the university's library?
No.
What had priority over library improvement was the installation of lights at the university's football stadium so that the university's football team could play games at night.
I am so glad that I left that university before graduating.
Meanwhile, the mayor of Jenks, Oklahoma still believes that his city can use eminent domain to seize land owned by the city of Tulsa that is within the Tulsa city limit.
The mayor wants that land for a proposed toll bridge that is to be used to connect Jenks with Tulsa.
The problem with the proposed toll bridge is that the people who want the bridge also want the bridge to connect to a particular residential street owned by the city of Tulsa.
Well, the Tulsans living on that particular street are opposed to their street being used by Jenks motorists, because the street cannot handle the proposed additional traffic.
Members of Tulsa's City Council are also opposed to the use that particular street for the same reason.
It would be better for Tulsa for the proposed bridge to connect to another Tulsa street that is capable of handling more traffic.
Does the mayor of Jenks care?
No.
It would cost more money to connect to the more-suitable Tulsa street.
So, Jenks' mayor would rather do the less-expensive thing than do the right thing.
What a typical politician!
Of course, he would fit in well with members of Congress.
Cross-posted at Dodo World.
Posted by Dodo David at 08:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Whistleblower B.S.
So, it was an NSA official (now a former official) who told New York Times reporters about the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping program.
According to an AP story (Link), former NSA officer Russell Tice is the person who blabbed to the media.
Now, Tice has received a subpoena to testify before a federal grand jury - the one that is trying to figure out if Tice committed a crime by blabbing about classified information.
Tice's allies in the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition aren't happy about the subpoena. In a press release (Link), the organization is claiming that the federal government is conducting a witch hunt against whistleblowers.
Such a claim is nothing but bull[Censored] . . .
[Let me try that again.]
The claim being made by the Whistleblowers Coalition is nothing but bull-created fertilizer.
If, while working for the NSA, Russell Tice had believed that the NSA was engaging in an illegal activity, then Tice could have blown the whistle by following an established procedure which wouldn't have revealed classified information to terrorists.
Instead, Tice ignored the proper whistleblowing procedure and went to the media.
Oh, the irony of it all! In an attempt to expose an alleged crime, Tice himself may have committed a crime.
Now, Tice and his allies his allies are crying, "Witch hunt!"
An appropriate rebuttal cry is Balderdash!
Cross-posted at Dodo World.
Posted by Dodo David at 07:27 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Eminent Domain Really Gone Awry
In the state of Oklahoma, the Arkansas River separates the city of Jenks from most of the city of Tulsa. So, the city of Jenks wants to build a toll bridge across the river so that Jenks will be better connected to Tulsa.
There’s nothing wrong with that idea, right?
Wrong.
In order to build the bridge, Jenks needs to possess land on the Tulsa-side of the river. Alas, Jenks doesn’t possess such land.
So what does the city of Jenks propose to do?
Answer: Use eminent domain to seize land that Jenks will need for the toll bridge.
There is just one problem.
The land that Jenks wants to seize isn’t within Jenks. Instead, the land is within the city of Tulsa and is owned by . . . the city of Tulsa.
So these facts should put an end to any attempt by Jenks to use eminent domain to seize the land, right?
Wrong.
In a story for the Tulsa World newspaper, reporter Susan Hylton describes the conflicting arguments made by Tulsa’s legal department and by Jenks’ legal department:
According to the [Tulsa] opinion, both Tulsa and Jenks can use the powers of eminent domain to condemn property, but not against each other because neither city is superior. In addition, eminent domain cannot be used to take property that is already devoted to a public use.
The land in question was donated to Tulsa in 1998 with the stipulation that it be used as a public park or conveyed to another governmental entity for a park or other charitable use. It remains undeveloped.
Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland said his city's legal department has the opposite opinion on the authority and condemnation issues.
"It looks like we're probably going to have to decide this in court," he said.
Quote Source: Susan Hylton. Jenks has no authority to build toll bridge Tulsa argues. Tulsa World, 3/11/2006.
Posted by Dodo David at 12:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Story Update: Eminent Domain Hoax
In my post Blogosphere Spreads Eminent Domain Hoax, I relay a story about church property being taken through the use of eminent domain. Then I claim that the story is a hoax.
As it turns out, the Oklahoma Constitution supports my claim.
Here is what the constitution says about the taking of private property for private use.
Article II: BILL OF RIGHTS
Section II-23: Private property - Taking or damaging for private use.
No private property shall be taken or damaged for private use,
with or without compensation, unless by consent of the owner,
except for private ways of necessity, or for drains and ditches
across lands of others for agricultural, mining, or sanitary
purposes, in such manner as may be prescribed by law.
According to the story published by National Review Online, the city of Sand Springs, Oklahoma wants to replace three churches and other private property with a new super center. The last time that I checked, super centers are commercial property, not public property.
It would be a violation of the state constitution to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial use. Thus, if the city of Sand Springs wishes to acquire private property for commercial use, then the city will have to acquire the property without using eminent domain – which is what the city of Sand Springs is trying to do.
The city isn’t using eminent domain because it would be illegal for the city to do so.
Heather Wilhelm, the author of the NRO story, has taken an attempted government purchase of church property, which is a fact, and turned it into an attempted use of eminent domain, which is fiction.
In a related matter, I was correct when I said that eminent domain would be a hot topic during the 2006 session of the Oklahoma Legislature. The Tulsa World reports that two members of the legislature have introduced bills aimed at limiting the use of eminent domain. The bills would define the term “public use” in a way that excludes private development for economic benefits.
Posted by Dodo David at 09:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Federal Court Supports Presidential Authority to Make Warrantless Searches
Former-senator Tom Daschle claims that Congress didn’t give President Bush the authority to conduct warrantless searches of people with links to foreign terrorists. Senator Ted Kennedy claims that President Bush has violated the law.
Well, here is a newsflash for both men and anyone who agrees with them:
Congress didn’t have to give President Bush authority to conduct the aforementioned searches because the President already had that authority.
In his op-ed piece, Sen. Kennedy wrote, “The president, the vice president, the secretary of state, and the attorney general tell us that the president can order domestic spying inside this country -- without judicial oversight -- under his power as commander in chief. Really? Where do they find that in the Constitution?”
Well, Sen. Kennedy will discover the answer to his question in a case decided on by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. The case is In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001. The court made its decision on the case on November 18, 2002. [Hat Tip: bulldogpundit of Ankle Biting Pundits]
Here is what the court says on page 48 of its decision:
“The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent on the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
According to the court’s decision, as long as the President is using warrantless phone tapping in order to obtain foreign intelligence information, the President is acting within the boundary of his constitutional authority.
On a related note, Michelle Malkin has an update on the controversy surrounding the NSA's activities.
Posted by Dodo David at 12:00 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Conservative vs. Liberal Management
New Orleans:
The reason New Orleans slid so quickly from civilization into Third World conditions was that it was pretty much a Third World city already, and didn't have too far to go. In its violence, in its corruption, in its reliance on ambience and tourism as its critical industry, in its one-party rule, in its model of graftocracy built on a depressed and crime-ridden underclass that was largely kept out of the sight and the mind of vacationing revelers, it was much more like a Caribbean resort than a normal American city. Its crime and murder rates were way above national averages, its corruption level astounding. The latter was written off as being picturesque and perversely adorable, until it suddenly wasn't, as it paid off in hundreds of buses--that could have borne thousands of stranded people to safety--sitting submerged in water, and police either looting or AWOL.
Houston:
Let us look now at Houston, for it is the second city in this cosmic drama, and one in which Tocqueville would feel right at home. Like so many cities in the Sunbelt, it is expanding, entrepreneurial, based on the future, and the place where the "much celebrated American can-do machine that promises to bring freedom and prosperity to less fortunate people" comes roaring to life. "In l920, New Orleans's population was nearly three times that of Houston," says Kotkin. "During the '90s, the Miami and Houston areas grew almost six times as fast as greater New Orleans, and flourished as major destinations for immigrants . . . These newcomers have helped transform Miami and Houston into primary centers for trade, investment and services, from finance and accounting to medical care for the entire Caribbean basin. They have started businesses, staffed factories, and become players in civic life."
Posted by Aaron at 04:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Nanny State Connecticut Bans School Junk Food
It seems my home state of Connecticut is poised to pass a bill banning the sale of junk food in schools:
Last week, lawmakers in the House voted 88-55 after an eight-hour debate to pass a law banning soda and junk food in cafeterias, vending machines and school stores. It also requires 20 minutes of physical activity outside of gym for children in kindergarten through fifth grade.
The bill heads to the Senate this week where leaders expect it to pass.
"By no stretch of the imagination does it solve all the problems, but it's very important that we provide the right models in our schools," said Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr.
You bet it doesn't solve all of your problems. What about kids who bring in junk food provided by Mom and Dad? Will their lunch bags be searched at the door of the cafeteria, their pudding Snack Packs and Twinkies being confiscated? Will Lunchables (those horrid little boxed "lunches" that are full of processed food and packaged in tons of cardboard and plastic) be taken away?
Opponents use the following as part of their argument:
Rep. Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said the legislation wouldn't affect the obesity crisis when school menus offer selections such as cheeseburgers, pizza, chicken nuggets and nachos.
"How many of you will stand there and say, 'If you have your share of sloppy joes and quesadillas, you're not going to put on a few pounds?'" Cafero said.
Very true.
Listen, I am all for nutritional and physical education. I feel there is a problem that needs to be addressed as far as obesity goes in this country, both in children and in adults. But a ban on these products in schools will do nothing other than to add another area the government feels it needs to stick its nose into. And as Rep. Cafero is quoted above, why the concern about snacks when schools regularly serve crap like nachos and French toast sticks for lunch? (I kid you not on the French toast sticks; it's served at my daughter's elementary school at least twice a month.)
Again, what it comes down to is personal responsibility. It's up to parents to instill healthy eating habits into their offspring. Perhaps school districts could provide nutrition workshops for parents and kids. But trying to strongarm them into better behavior is pretty much a guaranteed failure.
Posted by at 01:58 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Minutemen Too Effective?
An article in today's Washington Times claims that border patrol agents have been instructed to avoid the 23-mile stretch covered by the Minutemen volunteers in Arizona last month:
More than a dozen agents, all of whom asked not to be identified for fear of retribution, said orders relayed by Border Patrol supervisors at the Naco, Ariz., station made it clear that arrests were "not to go up" along the 23-mile section of border that the volunteers monitored to protest illegal immigration...
Another agent said the Naco supervisors "were clear in their intention" to keep new arrests to an "absolute minimum" to offset the effect of the Minuteman vigil, adding that patrols along the border have been severely limited.
Border patrol officials, of course, deny the charge.
Whether or not this claim is true, the fact that the Minutemen made a huge difference in how many illegals made it across the border in that area:
Several field agents credited the volunteers with cutting the flow of illegal aliens in the targeted Naco area, saying the number of apprehended illegals dropped from an average of 500 a day to less than 15 a day.
It makes me wonder if bureaucrats in our border patrol system...the ones who sit at a desk all day instead of being on patrol on the front line...are worried about being made to look bad. If that's the case, it's a sad commentary that they are more worried about appearances than security.
Kind of like the Democrats.
And why is President Bush dragging his feet on the illegal immigrant/border issues? He needs to take action now.
Posted by at 09:18 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Jumping Through Hoops for Drivers' Licenses
Congress is moving quickly toward setting strict rules on how states issue driver's licenses, requiring them to verify whether each applicant for a new license or a renewal is in this country legally.
This means that all 50 states would have to follow the same procedure for granting drivers' licenses: proof of citizenship or legal residence, proof of a Social Security number, checking the status of legal non-citizens in a national database, and saving not only documents given for proof, but a photo of that person in the database. Another nice feature is that the licenses of legal long-term residents would expire at the same time as their visas.
Of course, the whiners out there are screaming about "invasion of privacy" and "national ID card" and "database vulnerable to identity theft." Don't we already have that with Social Security? Fake Social Security numbers have been a huge problem for years, and as for a national ID card, don't most businesses ask for your SS number when applying for credit, buying a house, etcetera? None of these things were "supposed" to happen with everyone's favorite social program, but they did.
If national security will be tightened as a result of this upcoming legislation, I am all for it. And, if hampering illegal immigration is a side effect, all the better. (Notice I said illegal immigration. I don't want to discourage people from coming here, but I do expect them to follow our laws when doing so. Other countries have immigration laws that they uphold...why should we be the exception?)
After all, if stricter rules had been in place, perhaps the 9/11 hijackers would not have had the ability to get as far as they did. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20...we'll never know for sure. We can't change what happened, but we can do our best to ensure that nothing like that happens again.
Posted by at 12:53 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Government Subsidizing of Rich Socialists
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin
Billionaire George Soros needs your cash! According to Jeff Johnson at CNSNews.com,
The Open Society Institute, a private foundation controlled by liberal billionaire and political activist George Soros, received more than $30 million from U.S. government agencies between 1998 and 2003. Last year, Soros donated at least $20 million of his own money to such liberal groups as Moveon.org, in a failed attempt to block the re-election of President George W. Bush.
Tax records the Open Society Institute (OSI) is required to file with the Internal Revenue Service list "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES" as "Contributors" of amounts between $4.6 million and $8.9 million over a six year period:
1998 - $4,611,617
2000 - $4,934,678
2001 - $5,869,809
2002 - $6,138,125
2003 - $8,889,802
So Soros could throw $20 million away on last year's election, but can't fund his own group, depending instead on government handouts? But that's the socialist mindset for you. Don't people like Soros believe in taking the money from the rich to give to the poor? So why is his group receiving millions of dollars when he could fund the whole thing himself? I'm sure the answer will be an interesting one.
That's your tax money and mine going toward a man with more money than some countries so he can spread his ideology around, whether we agree with it or not. Make sense? No, I didn't think so.
Oh, did I mention the aforementioned OSI also funded the defense for convicted terrorist-aide (and sweet granny lady) Lynne Stewart?
If you want to register your displeasure, contact the State Department here and/or USAID here.
Sheesh.
Posted by at 12:58 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack