Ground Zero Mosque – Will Political Correctness Trump Private Property Rights?

by Elliot Fladen | 7:49 am, August 7, 2010

As far as I can tell (and if I am mistaken, please let me know), here are the facts about the Ground Zero mosque: (1) It is being built on private, not public, land; (2) It is being built using private, not public, money; (3) Its planned use is not one of an illegal purpose; [...]

American Lung Association Earns “F” in Liberty

by Ari Armstrong | 11:43 am, January 13, 2010

Dear American Lung Association,

I am sorry to learn that your organization deserves an “F” in its understanding of liberty.

I was shocked to read in today’s Denver Post that the ALA has endorsed the violation of property rights (via the smoking ban), higher taxes, and more state spending in Colorado.

While I approve of your organization’s work to persuade people to quit smoking, in this case you are substituting the force of the state for rational argument. The ends do not justify the means, and you are promoting unjust policies that violate people’s rights.

As harmful as smoking is, it is not nearly as harmful as a government that systematically violates property rights and economic liberty. By seeking to forcibly limit people’s choices, you are preventing them from acting on their own judgment. The freedom to act on one’s judgment, consistent with rights of property and person, is the bedrock of liberty and prosperity. If you take away people’s ability to make mistakes, you necessarily undercut their ability to take responsibility for their lives and reach the heights of human potential.

The ALA should mind its proper business of persuading people to improve their health, not promote state policies that violate rights. It should go without saying that I do not donate to organizations that promote the violation of property rights and economic liberty.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

Scott McInnis on Eminent Domain

by Ari Armstrong | 12:21 am, December 14, 2009

In the comments to my recent post about Dan Maes, “Mike” reminded me about a proposal to expand military lands around Piñon Canyon.

Lynn Bartels writes for the December 10 Denver Post, “Republicans opposed to the military’s Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren’t addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis.”

Here is how the Post’s article summarizes the issue: “The Army wants to [expand] its 235,000-acre Piñon Canyon training maneuver area by almost 100,000 acres. The Army has promised to acquire the land only from a willing seller or through a long-term lease, but landowners in the impacted areas in southeastern Colorado fear their property will be seized, adversely-affected or the military will eventually want even more land.”

It is important, then, to distinguish between expansion of the military lands and the use of eminent domain. Property rights do not always protect the owner from being “adversely affected.” For instance, unless you live in an HOA that controls for such things, your neighbor might paint his house an ugly color, park ugly cars in front, and otherwise do things that incidentally reduce the value of your property. So we must limit the discussion to actual violations of property rights, such as the use of eminent domain to forcibly seize property from those unwilling to voluntarily sell it.

According to State Representative Steve King, McInnis said the government “is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Piñon Canyon expansion.” Apparently, then, McInnis’s support of the project assumed that eminent domain would not be used.

However, the Fifth Amendment states that private property may be taken for public use for just compensation. Do McInnis’s critics wish to claim that government ought never use eminent domain, even though the Constitution explicitly authorizes it? That’s my position, but I think McInnis’s critics need to detail their views. If Republicans are going to beat up their candidates for considering eminent domain for an obviously public use, that’s a high bar, and one that should be set intentionally rather than as a pretext for partisan attacks.

Another comment by McInnis on the matter is more troubling. According to the Post, McInnis said, “Balancing the deep need that Colorado has for quality jobs with the rights of Piñon Canyon property owners requires leadership and dialogue.”

I believe that property rights should be consistently protected, not “balanced” against some alleged need to forcibly seize property for somebody else to use. I would be interested to learn if McInnis’s Republican critics believe that eminent domain should be abolished across the board, or if they merely want to restrict the practice to somebody else’s property.

In the meantime, it would be helpful if McInnis would further clarify his views on eminent domain and property rights.

Rob McNealy Kicks Off Campaign for Colorado Congressional District 6

by Live Free | 7:12 pm, December 4, 2009

Rob McNealy kicked off his campaign for United State Congress to represent Colorado Congressional District 6 this week a the South Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce.  Rob McNealy will be challenging Republican incumbent Mike Coffman for the 2010 election.
Here’s the interesting part: Rob McNealy is running as a Libertarian candidate for Congress.
Yes, a Libertarian.
I attended [...]

America’s First Thanksgiving almost didn’t happen – “thanks” to “spreading the wealth”

by The Peripatetic Pundit | 9:12 am, November 26, 2009

As we gather together with our families and friends on this long holiday weekend, it’s worth remembering not only that we, as Americans, have much for which to be thankful – but also why. It is no accident that prosperity and freedom blossomed in this country like no other – before or since. Even before [...]

Hugh Hewitt Visits Denver, Stumps for Lucero, Broadcasts Live

by T.L. James | 11:15 pm, September 19, 2009

Lawyer, radio host, and author Hugh Hewitt was in town this weekend. Among other things, he attended a fundraiser at the University Club in Denver for GOP Congressional candidate Tom Lucero (CD-4) and held an open-to-the-public live broadcast of his show from the campus of CCU in Lakewood. PPC contributor and Clear the Bench Colorado head [...]

Ed Perlmutter Says Our Health Care System is Unconstitutional

by Live Free | 9:38 pm, August 28, 2009

Yep, I heard a new line in the health care debate today while out at the Obama care rally that passed through Denver today at North High School.
It’s little wonder we’ve lost touch with the Constitutionality of taking property and liberty away from citizens using the force of government to subsidize other individuals.
Representative Ed Perlmutter [...]

Social Liberals into Libertarians

by Derec | 8:55 am, August 3, 2009

I had the opportunity to visit with some new friends in Frisco, CO over the weekend and the conversation turned to politics, possibly dangerous territory in a new friendship.
Adam had mentioned something about gays and gay rights and that he was a far left liberal because he believed gays should be given similar status as [...]

Colorado Oil and Gas Permits Drop 38%

by Derec | 1:36 pm, August 1, 2009

New regulations on the Colorado oil and gas industry took effect April 1 of this year raising costs to producers in the state of Colorado.  The Denver Business Journal reports that permit request for new wells are down 38% this year as a result.  Applications for new drilling and wells have grounded to a trickle [...]

Property Rights Redacted

by Constructively Reasonable | 12:46 am, February 6, 2009

The Rocky Mountain News (soon to be a memory) reported what is a quite affront to property rights.

It seems that Denver’s 16th Street Mall is “at-risk.” Apparently, the Mall will start smoking weed and dropping out of high school– to hang out at the mall.

The self-appointed Historic Denver, Inc., and it’s kissing cousin Colorado Preservation, Inc., fret that the 16th Street Mall is in danger of destruction. For those who have lived or worked near the mall, we know that the RTD bus shuttles, while they may be eco-friendly, will damage the Mall’s granite tiles. Now Historic Denver, Inc. wants to stop any attempts by RTD to change the Mall’s pavement.

What is more disturbing in the file are these lines:

“Historic preservation is moving away from a lone iconic structure,” [Jonas Landes, coordinator of the Endangered Places program for Colorado Preservation, Inc.] said. “Our list is an example of where it is going, including a design landscape that is not even 30 years old but an important part of our recent history.”

So, instead of taking single buildings by regulation (i.e. putting such onerous restrictions that make a property unusable and therefore greatly devalued), now the “historic preservation” societies are taking entire neighborhoods? Remember, the Mall isn’t even 30 years old.

Note too that the restrictions would not only be on RTD but also the properties that line the 16th Street Mall. The “historic” status would make any renovation to the properties very expensive. Imagine if/when they turn their attention to “historic” neighborhoods like Highlands, Globeville, or even Highlands Ranch (hey, if a 30 year old mall, why not a suburb?).

Later in the story, the Rocky notes:

Meanwhile, far from this urban landmark…

* The Fourth Street Commercial District of the town of Saguache is really “main street,” but like other rural towns in the West, it is seeing stores shutter as population drops. Mayor Milton Jones, a fourth-generation resident of Saguache, says he wants his hometown to “become a place where people want to live again.”

How exactly will a designation which severely limits what an owner can do to a building “become a place where people want to live again”? If the problem for Saguache, Colorado is a troubled economic situation, then the last thing “main street” needs is for the historic preservation districts to make life difficult for any incoming entrepreneurs to bring business and jobs to the city though burdensome historic preservation codes.

We need to stand up and say, “No!” to the nannyists who worry more about a modern mall or decrepit old building than they do about bus carrier safety and business revitalization.

« go back

Featured Posts

• ProgressNow Colorado and ALEC

  Oooh, looky what our friends at ProgressNow have been up to lately – ALEC And The Left’s War On Free Speech: If you want an insight into today’s left, look at its multifront war against the American Legislative Exchange Council for committing the grave sin of pushing free-market bills in state legislatures. At a recent [...]

• Hostess to Unions: No More Sugar for You
• Buffett Rule Foolishness
• Romney Expected to “Reassure” NRA on Second Amendment
• Tea Party Accepts IRS Tax Exemption, Then Complains of IRS Intrusion
• The Budget Battle: Entitlements Staying, Taxes Going Up
• $5 Trillion Tax Hike Coming