Blue Collar Muse

Last week I wrote about the plight of Nashville’s Joy Ford, the country’s latest victim of Eminent Domain abuse by government. Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) has begun legal proceedings under Eminent Domain to condemn and seize Joy’s business. It has prospered at the head of Music Row for almost 30 years. Now it is “blighted” and must be bulldozed to make room for $100 million dollars worth of development by a private firm in Houston, TX. I said last week, this case is every bit as bad as Kelo vs New London in 2005.

Possibly anticipating the nation’s outrage over Kelo, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing in his Kelo opinon, said, “… nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power.” In the aftermath of Kelo, according to Property Fairness, 27 states, including Tennessee, took Justice Stevens’ encouragement and attempted to do exactly that in 2006.

The problem, of course, is not in the attempt but in the accomplishment. The Tennessee Bar Association published an excellent analysis of Tennessee’s new law. The short version is that, in Tennessee, little was accomplished beyond political posturing. It is Tennessee’s 2006 failure to further restrict its takings power which leads directly to MDHA’s 2008 actions against Joy Ford. Speaking of the effectiveness of Tennessee’s legislation, Drew Johnson, President of The Tennessee Center for Policy Research noted,

“Tennessee’s new eminent domain law is a joke—and the joke is on property owners across the state,” … Tennesseans aren’t any more secure from having their property taken than before the law was passed.”

In particular, Johnson says that the law’s failure to more clearly define blight and its outright encouragement of eminent domain use to acquire land for industrial parks makes it particularly threatening to property owners.

Three months earlier, State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57), offered this evaluation of the law,

… after being worked through committee, this bill essentially guarantees very little protection for Tennesseans when it comes to eminent domain. To quote Sandra Day O’Connor in her dissent of the Kelo decision, the “specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

The bill states that ‘public use’ shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities - except in the case where eminent domain is used for; roads, public utilities, private utilities, housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks. Looking at that list, I really can’t think of any exception for private economic development by eminent domain that the bill leaves out.

These 2006 comments by Lynn and Johnson are prescient. Joy Ford’s property is being seized because it is deemed “blighted”. Drew Johnson noted the law’s poor definition of blight. According to Ms. Ford, her property is ruled “blighted” because, among other things, it is surrounded by a chain link, barbed-wire topped security fence and is the only building left on the development property. Yet someone, perhaps the developer, has erected a shabbier looking fence around the development site. It goes unreported that both a hotel and Ford’s building abut the same parking lot. I assume the hotel property is not part of the development and so escapes urban “blight” despite also standing alone. Either that or Ford’s building is not the only one left on the property. Further, the reason Ford’s building is the only one left is the Shoney’s and other buildings standing on the site were demolished in anticipation of the development.

I’m trying to determine if these truly are factors in the classification of the Ford’s property as “blighted”. If so, how unfair. MDHA and LionStone Group want to buy her property but Ford won’t sell. They move ahead with development plans and clear the land. This has, for them, the pleasant side effect of creating the situation needed to force Ford from her property. Had LionStone and MDHA been required to wait until the property was free and clear before proceeding, a major element of the case against Ms. Ford, that of her “blighted” property, would not exist. How does creating “blight” for personal gain become working for the good of the public?

However, it is Rep. Lynn’s comments which make me wonder if government has not stacked the deck against the citizens they are to represent. A quick read of the bill would lead one to believe Tennessee was seeking to protect Tennesseans from the exact abuse Connecticut forced on her citizens. As Rep. Lynn observes, the bill starts well, noting “‘public use’ shall not include either private use or direct public benefits deriving from private economic development or private commercial enterprise, including the benefit of increased tax revenue and increased employment opportunities …” Unfortunately, the Tennessee Legislature left a loophole in the law. While making an acceptable exemption for traditional uses of Eminent Domain such as “… roads, public utilities, private utilities …” the bill then opens the door to all manner of Eminent Domain abuse by also exempting cases “… where eminent domain is used for; … housing authorities, community development agencies for urban renewal or redevelopment plans; or for industrial parks.”

The very issue which enraged the public in the Kelo decision, taking private property for private economic development to increase the city’s tax revenue, is not forbidden to government. In fact, the mechanism for government to do precisely that is written into the law. Government is forbidden from directly taking your property to develop to improve tax revenues. But agencies created by government whose purpose is development can do so. How did such disregard for citizen’s rights become law and an example of preserving the rights of citizens?

I’d like an answer to that from the Legislature. I’m sure Ms. Ford would, too. But for her, time is running out. The Legislature ran out of town at the end of the session. Too bad MDHA is still here and they’ve given Ford until just the middle of September to vacate the premises. After that, the wrecking balls start swinging. That’s long before the politicians responsible for this mess swing back through town. Stay tuned for more on this here …

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

LionStone Blight at Kay Brooks.

Government Takes Over in Nashville at Blue Collar Republican.

Eminent Domain Abuse in Nashville at The Roundtable.

Popularity: 56% [?]

Near the beginning of The Declaration of Independence, these words appear.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It is here, a 30 second read into the birth of our nation, we find the most important right which government is to secure, the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration establishes three foundational rights. The Constitution generally amplifies them, outlining ways government may not prevent us from exercising them. Our Right to Life is partially expressed in our Right to Keep and Bear Arms to defend that Life if threatened. Our Right to Liberty is partially expressed in our Right to Due Process to ensure any restraint on that Liberty is just.

One Right listed in the Declaration is different. It has no amplification in the Bill of Rights. The least discussed, it is the most important - the Pursuit of Happiness.

The Pursuit of Happiness is different in that it guarantees nothing. Other Rights we enjoy enumerate a concrete something. We have Freedom of Speech. Speech is a “something” that is mine. Just so with Life, Liberty, to Bear Arms, the Press - at the end of each we find something tangible. Not so with the Pursuit of Happiness.

Pursuing Happiness is the only Right which does not define an outcome. We are not guaranteed Happiness, just the Pursuit of it. We are not assured the road will not be difficult or poorly maintained, merely that it is there to be traveled. Because of this, the Pursuit of Happiness is our most precious Right. Because phrased another way, it guarantees our Right to Fail.

Happiness is different for every man. Our dreams are as individual as we are. It would have been folly to try to define Happiness; folly to determine the best path to Pursue it. Pursuits may be long or short; easy or difficult; straightforward or complicated. While I am grateful for the straightforward, short and easy ones, it is the value in the complicated, long and difficult ones which the Declaration anticipated. Because the Pursuits teaching us the most, both building and revealing character; producing the most opportunity for us, are the difficult ones or the ones we fail to complete at all.

Thomas Edison tried over 4,000 different prototypes of the light bulb before realizing his goal. He is reported to have said, “I have not failed 4,000 times. I have discovered 4,000 ways not to create an incandescent light bulb!” Undaunted by failing in his Pursuit, Edison learned from each. It was because of, not in spite of, his failures, that he succeeded. Even the simplest Pursuits face obstacles. A man’s response to them determines not just his success in Pursuit of that specific Happiness. It determines his success for all future Pursuits as well.

Do we persist in adversity? Do we work as hard in anonymity as we do in the limelight? Do we collaborate or insist on solo Pursuits? There are a myriad lessons to be learned. Most of them are only learned through failure. As it is said, “Most good judgement comes from experience! Most experience comes from bad judgement!”

It is here where a man’s success or failure in his various Pursuits is determined. Because along with recognizing man’s Rights, the Declaration notes men institute government to secure them and that government does so only with the consent of the governed. It thus becomes vital for the governed to so value the Right to Fail they refuse to consent to any plan by government to take it from them. They must consent to striving in an environment, secured by government, in which failure is a valued result.

If We The People consent to government which takes away our Right to Fail, we consent to government which will take away our other Rights as well. Securing a government with power to eradicate our individual Pursuits, we secure a government with power to define our individual Happiness. When Happiness is defined for the many by government, individuals must surrender the rest of their Rights to facilitate the government’s Pursuit. Those refusing to do so are threats both to government and the governed. We all know how threats are dealt with.

This is the question Americans must answer. Will we be allowed to fail or not? The Left, and far too many on the Right, say, “No! No one must fail!” There remains, however, a minority which understands the value in failure. It understands the pain in little failures along the way are motivation to great Happiness at the end of the Pursuit! It understands failure is not an impediment to Happiness, it is a stepping stone to a successful Pursuit. It knows temporary suffering in a failure while Pursuing does not compare to the eternal suffering in failing to Pursue at all.

Celebrating your Independence today, understand what it means to be Independent! It means your success or failure in the Pursuit of Happiness depends on you, not the government. It means you not only can, but will, fail while in Pursuit. When your Rights are secured by government and not defined by it, you embrace failure as a blessing and not a curse, as a teacher and not a thief. You truly have Life, you are truly at Liberty, you have the best chance for a successful Pursuit!

In college, I hung a poster on my wall which read, “A ship in a harbor is safe. But that is not what ships were made for!” Enjoy your Pursuit! Godspeed!

Blue Collar Muse

Popularity: 30% [?]

A friend sent me a link to an editorial from the Hartford (CT) Courant authored by Robert Satter. Mr. Satter is a judge trial referee in Hartford Superior Court and author of “Under the Gold Dome — An Insider’s Look at the Connecticut Legislature.” He is also, in my opinion, a very dangerous man. He has power and influence and is using them to undermine the foundation on which our country was built.

Connecticut votes in November on whether or not to hold a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise its constitution. Some want to do so to give citizens the right to directly petition their government via the Initiative and Referendum (I&R) process. I&R allows an issue to be voted on by putting it put on the ballot by citizen request as opposed to legislative action.

The I&R process is not well liked by politicians as it usually limits what they can do. It may curtail their ability to raise taxes at will or to take your property if you don’t want to sell. As such, it is not easy for citizens to actually get something on the ballot. I&R may be granted by a state’s constitution but laws governing the process are made by the legislature. Lawmakers determine how many signatures are needed to get an issue on the ballot and the length of time available to collect them. Such power often impedes the process so effectively it’s a wonder initiatives manage to get on the ballot at all. But If Mr. Satter had his way, you wouldn’t even have that right. Mere citizens aren’t qualified to speak to issues.

Satter starts out well enough.

The right of initiative is the right of citizens to propose laws or constitutional amendments that, if approved by a majority vote, have the force of law.

From there, his description of I&R makes it appear those desiring the power to propose a law are selfish, power mad and out to corrupt the process. Well, he’s right about that, too. He just got the subject wrong. Satter thinks voters are like that. In reality it’s a better description of lawmakers. I&R is a powerful tool for citizens to curb the excesses of government, not the other way around.

When Mr. Satter says I&R proposals

… are drafted by private lawyers representing narrow interest groups. Their wording frames the issue and cannot later be changed.

he’s arguing that’s bad for citizens. Has Satter never heard of lobbyists, lawyers and lawmakers? Are outsider Environmentalists OK as a narrow interest group when seeking to impose their view on the state but citizens who actually have to live with the laws passed too narrow an interest group to have an interest in the law?

Mr Satter says,

Those signatures are not spontaneously given by the public, but must be actively solicited. In the initiative states, a cottage industry of signature solicitors has sprung up. In California, it typically costs $1 million to obtain the requisite number of signers.

Does he not understand support for a bill in the legislature does not spontaneously arise? Lawmakers expend huge amounts of time and energy actively soliciting the support of their colleagues. He dismisses the labor by which I&R signatures are gathered and ridicules those doing the work as a “cottage industry”. He misleads readers by irresponsibly using the figure of $1 million with no context. If signature gathering is a cottage industry, what sort of “industry” is lobbying the legislature to get an issue on the ballot? Satter does not say where the money comes from to pay for signature gathering, just that it is spent. But these are not tax dollars, they are privately raised funds. If private money should not be used to influence the legislative process, I’ll have to point again to lobbyists. Satter doesn’t provide the total spent on lobbying the Connecticut legislature when it is in session. Something tells me it’s more than $1 million.

But Robert Satter’s worst insult to the intelligence and character of voters is saved for later.

And how is the campaign over initiative proposals waged? It is waged by slogans, bumper stickers, 10-second sound bites and by TV ads as if selling toothpaste. The vote is yes or no, up or down.

There is not the deliberation and accommodation of the legislative process in which bills are carefully scrutinized by committees of cognizance, subjected to a public hearing, debated in both chambers and ultimately signed by the governor. In that process, all sides of the issue are explored, its relationship to other matters of public policy considered, negotiations between opposing sides conducted, and compromises and changes of wording made.

In lawmaking by plebiscite, people rarely read the exact language of the propositions. They vote their general impression of the issue.

Do only I&R campaigns use slogans and sound bites? Does Satter really believe every bill passed is carefully read, deliberated and analyzed before being voted on? Is Satter actually arguing amendments hung on bills at the last second are completely understood and their ramifications tested and deemed acceptable? Is he seriously arguing citizens are incapable evaluating the impact their proposed I&R will have? It is true citizens don’t debate the possible impact of the law for a couple of weeks before passing it and hoping for the best as the legislature does. Citizens are forced to live with the actual results of those laws. Tens of thousands of hours of debate and analysis then take place in legislative chambers known as kitchen tables, water coolers, carpools and the like. By the time an I&R is proposed, the issue is well known. Usually because citizens have already asked the legislature to fix the problem and they have refused. In such cases, I&R is often the citizens last resort.

But Robert Satter thinks that’s a bad thing. The people of Connecticut, or anywhere else, shouldn’t be able to insist their lawmakers really represent them. Citizens are ignorant peasants without the requisite intelligence, interest, time or ability to understand the workings of government. That lofty pursuit is best left to better men. Satter’s premise is flawed. His conclusions are wrong. His arrogant contempt for citizens he seems to believe should be ruled over as opposed to represented is offensive. I&R is precisely what Connecticut and every other state without it needs, including my state of Tennessee. Without it, we are at the mercy of elitists like Robert Satter. While he may consider that a good thing, I find the prospect terrifying.

Blue Collar Muse.

Popularity: 28% [?]

What Circle? 23 Music Circle East - Nashville, TN to be precise. And broken may be the kindest way to describe what the owner of the business at that address faces. Shattered, decimated, mercilessly hounded into oblivion all come to mind to describe what Joy Ford, owner of Country International Records (CIR), is facing at the hands of Nashville’s Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA).

For almost 30 years, Ford and her late husband Sherman, have operated one of the first studios on what would become Music Row at that address. While much of the rest of the Row has gone corporate with multi-million dollar facilities, CIR remains privately owned. This earns CIR the classification of an Independent label or “Indie” as it’s known in the trade. Usually reserved for recent entries into the field who don’t have the juice to or don’t want to compete with the big boys, in the case of CIR, it’s deceptive. Joy and Sherman Ford were making music, writing songs, developing artists and cutting tracks at Country International Records long before many of the current Music Row elite were born. The walls of Ford’s business are filled with pictures of the legends she’s personally worked with. Stars like George Jones, Merle Haggard, Willie Nelson, Tracy Lawrence, Tim McGraw and more.

If government has anything to say about it, that won’t be true much longer. Chas Sisk at The Tennessean, who has covered the story since March, reports,

The Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency filed papers in a Nashville court Friday to start a process that would take the offices of Country International Records at 23 Music Circle East.

The action, the city’s first test of eminent domain since the state legislature tightened condemnation laws two years ago, was taken after the agency determined that negotiations with building owner Joy Ford would not work, said Joe Cain, the agency’s development director.

“We’re not having any conversation,” Cain said. “We’re hopeful that now she will meet with us.”

The government is filing papers to take Ford’s property. When they asked her to sell she said, “No”. Problem was, Joe Cain and MDHA didn’t like that answer. Having determined “negotiations with the building owner Joy Ford would not work” (read: this woman doesn’t want to sell her property at any price) they are having her property condemned as “blighted”. If she will not sell, they’ll force her out. With the pressure on, they’re “hopeful that now she will meet with” them. Mr. Cain and the MDHA seem to be confusing conversation with coercion.

A casual read of the issue sounds like a business deal moving along, working out small contractual differences as it goes. A “win-win” in the buzzword parlance of business. Except Joy doesn’t want that sort of victory. Her idea of winning is Joe Cain and MDHA leave her alone to continue the dream she and her late husband pursued for years, making music. This being America, she should be able to do exactly that. The property is hers. She owns it free and clear. She pays all her taxes. To most Americans that means that she can do what she wants with her land as long as it’s legal.

Welcome to the real blight in this story. Just a week after Kelo v New London’s 3rd anniversary and in a week celebrating the quintessential remembrance of American freedom from governmental tyranny, the spreading blight of governmental abuse of Eminent Domain has arrived in Nashville. The arrogance and hubris of Joe Cain and MDHA reminds one of the royalty we opposed for our freedom over 230 years ago. If Joe Cain has his way, Joy Ford’s dreams and right to do what she pleases with her own property will be bulldozed to make room for a $100 million dollar development deal with a private company in Texas.

At it’s heart, this is the real issue. True Eminent Domain is about the government requisitioning property for Public Use for the good of all the citizens. This is just a business deal. And it’s the stuff of Hollywood, not Music City. It reads like a boilerplate movie script, not a hot Billboard single. The widow v the conglomerate. MDHA signed a deal with Houston based Lionstone Group, a private developer, to sell them the property they wanted at cost. They inked this Music Row deal in March of this year. At the time, Ford’s property was not theirs to sell yet they sold it anyway! Now, they are using strongarm tactics to keep a promise they had no right to make. In doing so, they are not simply trampling on the rights and dreams of one woman. They are making a mockery of our Constitution and rights and values paid for with the blood of tens of thousands. The question is, will this movie script, as yet unfinished, have a happy ending? How will this sad country song finish after the bridge?

I met Joy Ford just this afternoon. But three weeks ago I wrote ‘Eminent Domain, the other ED’ in which I said,

New ED will be eradicated when Americans choose to reclaim their constitutional rights and responsibilities. We must trust ourselves and our neighbors more than those in government when making decisions about our property. We must reject the idea government is our source and reclaim the notion we are responsible for ourselves and have specific rights, including to own property. And we must be willing to defend our Right to private property ownership by exercising our other Rights as needed. The Right to Free Speech, to Assemble, of the Press and perhaps even to Keep and Bear Arms will be needed to stem the encroachment of government on our Rights.

Joy Ford is going to fight. She’s going to need some help. I’ll stand with her. This is just the first of several posts I have planned. Phil Valentine will stand with her. Metro Councilman Mike Craddock will fight for Joy. There are some country music legends chiming in, too.

I’m inviting you to stand with her as well. I’m asking you to be like Bill R. from Washington, DC. He read Joy’s story in the Tennessean and walked from downtown’s Renaissance Hotel to Joy’s part of Music Circle. Having seen her place and her plight, he wrote her a check and an encouraging note. His actions said he believed this is a fight Joy can win but it will take more than just her. Watch this space, tune in to Phil and other talk radio shows for more information. Call Mayor Dean and your Council member. Put the pressure on and keep it on. The MDHA is saying they are doing this to benefit all the people, not just one developer. Tell them there are limits to how far you want them going in your name.

Blue Collar Muse

SEE ALSO:

Eminent Domain Use Violates Nashville Private Property Rights at Truman’s Take.

Abusing Eminent Domain at An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings.

City Starts to Seize Music Row Property, Chris Cannon at News Channel 5. Video report, pics and video transcript.

Joy Ford Fights for Property, John Dunn at Fox 17 News.

Popularity: 46% [?]

In his first real chance to speak to an issue with seriousness and substance, Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama demonstrated the truth of the charge leveled against him that he is all flash and no bang. The Right has known this from the beginning and the Left has feared it might be true for just as long. Obama can sway a crowd like the worst stereotypical tent revival preacher. He can promise a moon he knows he can’t deliver as well as any politician from any party. And he can stay on message as long as no one is asking too many difficult questions. It’s this last part that may be his undoing for this election. If Obama cannot do a better job of crafting and explaining his vision for America than he is doing on Energy, he will prove to be his own worst enemy. Consider the following.

Obama says we cannot drill our way out of the mess we are in. I’m curious how he has arrived at that conclusion. For starters, how does he know? Have we tried it? His too ready dismissal of Right of Center ideas is more partisan than practical and may give lie to his credentials as a uniter. Basic Economics tells us the more there is of something, the less it costs. Surely Obama doesn’t believe his words alone can change Economic reality.

Perhaps he means drilling will not immediately impact our fuel costs. That statement at least has the possibility of being true. It is also a foolish argument against drilling. In the first place, it means there really is a value to drilling. It’s just not an immediate value. It also means the statement, “We can’t drill our way out of this!” is false. We can drill our way out of this tomorrow or on one of the many tomorrows headed our way. It just remains to be determined how many tomorrows it will take. But we can drill our way out. In the second place, if there is a benefit to drilling to be derived at some future point, then let’s get started! The sooner we begin, the sooner we’ll enjoy the results. We may have to do other things in the meantime but let’s not ignore a benefit just because it doesn’t impact the economy until later. This is tradtional Democratic short sighted thinking at its worst. Do whatever you can to deliver a benefit this afternoon and let the long term chips fall where they may. Operating on the same premise, we would not have built railroads or Interstates because they didn’t fix the transportation problems immediately. What do you mean it will be years before we can go from New York to Los Angeles by train?

So much for the drilling solutions Obama rejects. What about the ideas Obama wants to pursue? His solution to high fuel costs is not to increase Supply, it’s to reduce Demand. That would actually be a legitimate approach to the problem, IF, Obama could actually control Demand. What Demand is it Obama thinks he will be able to reduce? The only one he has a shot at is US Demand. If, however, his plan is to only reduce US Demand he’ll play right into the Right’s hands. He’ll be vulnerable to charges he’s hurting American interests and strengthening foreign interests. Again, that’s a legitimate strategy. It’s just not one usually found emanating from the Oval Office.

The biggest challenge to his plan to reduce Demand is the limited ability he has to implement a reduction in Demand outside the US. The inconvenient truth for Obama is that the Demand driving up the cost of crude and products made from it is a global Demand. While the US uses more oil than any other nation, increases in demand for oil are not coming from the US market. It’s coming from China and India in particular, along with many other nations as they strive to continue and increase their economic expansions with all of its attendant prosperity. Any reduction in Demand from the US market would either not impact global Demand at all or would be quickly swallowed up as global Demand outpaces US reductions. Oil on the world market would continue to cost more and more while we will have given up contracts and agreements that keep crude and fuel flowing our way first. Selfish? Perhaps. It’s the way the game is played by everyone. The sooner Obama realizes this the better.

The bottom line to Obama’s position is it weakens the US instead of strengthening the country. The problem is reduced energy availability, not increased demand. There are very different outcomes depending on the strategy one uses to combat it. Increasing Supply is a solution that depends on a few entities (oil companies) acting in their self interest. Reducing Demand is a solution that depends on the many (every American) acting against their own self interest. More to the point, while it may be in their long term interest to reduce Demand, Americans will behave just as Obama is behaving and choose what benefits them most now and ignore later. Obama personally rejects proven, long term strategies in favor of untested ideas he claims will fix the problem quickly. But when it comes to how you should behave, he wants you to reject the short term strategies and think in terms of years. He’s shilling against drilling and willing to let America pay the price. Just one more reason Obama is wrong on the issues and wrong for America.

Popularity: 27% [?]