Showing posts with label institute for justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label institute for justice. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Institute for Justice Makes a Federal Case out of Nashville's Minimum Limo Price Law
Government's incompetence and greed sometimes take creative turns. Recently, in Nashville, Tennessee, the city government turned its corrupt cross-hairs on limousines and other unmarked sedans. The Institute for Justice's Mark Meranta writes via e-mail:
Until last year, limos and sedan cars in Nashville, TN were an affordable alternative to taxicabs. A trip to the airport only cost $25. But in June 2010, the Metropolitan County Council passed a series of regulations requested by the Tennessee Livery Association—a trade group formed by high-end limousine companies. These regulations force limo and sedan companies to increase their fares to $45 minimum. And, in January 2012, companies will have to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine.
Advocates of government regulation have to come to terms with corrupt special interests' consistent capture of the very government whom they religiously believe will reduce abuses. Here, government regulation is serving to institutionalize high prices and institute monopoly at consumers' expense.
Happily, the Institute for Justice, the group that brought Suzette Kelo's law suit against New London, Connecticut's corrupt city government, is bringing a case against Nashville on behalf of the small operators whom the government bosses and high end limo operators aim to grind under their heels.
According to the Institute:
The regulations prohibit limo and sedan companies from using leased vehicles, require them to dispatch only from their place of business, require them to wait a minimum of 15 minutes before picking up a customer and forbid them from parking or waiting for customers at hotels or bars. And, in January 2012, companies will have to take all vehicles off the road if they are more than seven years old for a sedan or SUV or more than ten years old for a limousine...These regulations have nothing to do with public safety.
IJ has teamed up with some limo drivers to bring suit in federal court. Bless them, and may they win in court.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Arizona's Clean Elections Law Is Dirty
Arizona's clean elections law subsidizes corruption, according to Mark Meranta and the Institute for Justice. Meranta writes:
>I hope everything has been going well for you. I wanted to let you know about our brief, but funny new video that exposes the "Clean Elections" system in Arizona (there are similar systems around the country as well) (see below). In a nutshell, this is what it entails:
>Imagine if Nancy Pelosi wanted to run for governor. If she decided to run as a "Clean Elections" candidate, every time her opponent would raise a certain amount of money from private donors, she would receive the same amount from taxpayers. That's right, publicly funded elections.
>This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him or her. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The system curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.
>You can view the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiMKzvJdGY
>If you would like some more background on the case, you can read the press release here: http://www.ij.org/about/3576
>I hope everything has been going well for you. I wanted to let you know about our brief, but funny new video that exposes the "Clean Elections" system in Arizona (there are similar systems around the country as well) (see below). In a nutshell, this is what it entails:
>Imagine if Nancy Pelosi wanted to run for governor. If she decided to run as a "Clean Elections" candidate, every time her opponent would raise a certain amount of money from private donors, she would receive the same amount from taxpayers. That's right, publicly funded elections.
>This allows the government-subsidized candidate to “match” the spending—and thus the speech—of the independent group or privately funded candidate opposing him or her. The harder an independent group or traditionally financed candidate works, the more the government-subsidized candidate benefits. The system curbs speech, discourages participation and limits what voters will hear about politics.
>You can view the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TiMKzvJdGY
>If you would like some more background on the case, you can read the press release here: http://www.ij.org/about/3576
Monday, May 31, 2010
New York State Leads the Nation in Government Land Theft
Whenever New York State's Albany racketeers wish to steal someone's home, business or other property for a politically connected crony, they do a "cost benefit analysis". One would think that with all the cost benefit analyses that have shown that the thievery would result in economic benefits New York might lead the nation in economic growth. But the reverse is true. New York's economy declines more the more that thugs in Albany steal land. One of the chief beneficiaries of the ongoing stealing and ludicrous "cost benefit analyses" is the New York Times. Their new office building across from Port Authority was built on property that the Times, at the behest of Albany's racketeers, stole.
Why doesn't Kevin Cahill, Assemblyman from the 101st Assembly District, fight New York State's criminal land theft?
I just received the following press release from the Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition.
Arlington, Va.—If you own a piece of property in New York, you’d better pay close attention to an oral argument taking place on Tuesday, June 1 at 2 p.m. in Albany before New York’s high court.
This case—Kaur v. Empire State Development Corporation—may well decide if powerful private interests can team up with the government to take away your home, your small business, your farm or your factory through eminent domain for someone else’s private gain.
It is called eminent domain abuse and it is a plague that has wreaked havoc across the Empire State for decades. Tuesday’s court argument will decide whether Columbia University—a private institution—may direct the government’s power of eminent domain to take property away from its neighbors for the university’s private use and profit. Columbia seeks to take the property of neighbors Nick Sprayregen and Amanjit Kaur to expand its campus. If Columbia were a public university, this would be a public use. But Columbia is a private university and, as such, the takings are for private gain.
Immediately following the 2 p.m. oral argument, which is expected to last for about one hour, property owners, their advocates and supporters will hold a press conference outside of the court to answer questions and explain why property rights must be respected in the state. The press conference will take place at Academy Park, 20 Eagle Street in Albany, directly across the street from the front of the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), said, “This is the kind of abuse of government power on behalf of powerful private interests the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent when they drafted the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and required that private property could only be taken for a public use. Taking someone’s land for a private institution like Columbia for its private use and profit is not a public use.” The Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in the infamous eminent domain abuse case Kelo v. City of New London, is the nation’s leading advocate against eminent domain for private gain.
In December 2009, a New York appellate court sided with the property owners, ruling there to be “no credible proof of blight in Manhattanville”—the neighborhood Columbia seeks to take. The court found that “the process employed by ESDC [the Empire State Development Corporation] predetermined the unconstitutional outcome, was bereft of facts which established that the neighborhood in question was blighted, and ultimately precluded the petitioners from presenting a full record before either the ESDC or, ultimately, this Court. In short, it is a skein worth unraveling.” The court also found that eminent domain should only be used for public use—not a private, elite organization’s expansion. The ESDC—unhappy with this sharp rebuke—appealed to the state’s highest court.
Just last year, the Court of Appeals refused to stop the use of eminent domain for an arena for the NBA Nets and private development project in Brooklyn. It now has an opportunity to redeem itself in this decision.
In the wake of Kelo, 43 states have passed laws to limit the ability of government officials to abuse eminent domain, and state court after state court has rejected Kelo-style takings. New York stands alone in its abject failure to provide its citizens with any meaningful protection from eminent domain for private gain, and this case represents an opportunity for enough to, finally, be enough.
Robert McNamara, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “New York is the worst abuser of eminent domain in the country. New York’s courts have been looking to the legislature to fix this problem, while the legislature has been looking to the courts. Meanwhile, New Yorkers have been looking at condemnation notices. It is past time for the New York Court of Appeals to give the state’s citizens the property rights protections promised in their state constitution.”
New York laws are hopelessly stacked against property owners. For years, New York’s courts turned a blind eye to the enormous benefits afforded to private developers, outrageous behavior on the part of government officials, and even blatant evidence that the projects would be miserable flops. IJ released its statewide analysis, Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain Abuse in New York, which shows just how badly New York agencies have been abusing their power. The Associated Press reported that IJ documented how New York is “a hotbed of abuse, with 2,226 properties statewide either condemned or threatened with condemnation through eminent domain in the past decade to allow for private development.”
Christina Walsh, director of activism and coalitions for the Institute for Justice, said, “Your right to own your property shouldn’t depend on what state you live in. New York’s courts must put a stop to these land grabs and tell Columbia—a private institution—that government power will no longer be at their disposal. Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage and the rest of the property owners are heroes who are standing up not only for their rights, but for the property rights of all New Yorkers. Every New Yorker should get behind them and demand that the courts protect their constitutionally enshrined rights. If the Court does not recognize at least some outer limit on government’s eminent domain power, then all property in the state is at risk.”
Among those participating in the post-argument press conference will be: Norman Siegel (attorney for Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen), Nick Sprayregen, Amanjit Kaur (property owner and party to this lawsuit), New York State Senator Bill Perkins, Tom DeMott (Coalition to Preserve Community), Nellie Bailey (Harlem Tenants Association), Luis Tejada (Mirabal Sisters), Walter South (Community Board 9), Daniel Goldstein (Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn), Mike Elmendorf (New York director of the National Federation of Independent Business) and Christina Walsh (director of activism and coalitions, Institute for Justice).
Why doesn't Kevin Cahill, Assemblyman from the 101st Assembly District, fight New York State's criminal land theft?
I just received the following press release from the Institute for Justice and the Castle Coalition.
Do You Own Property in New York State?
You’d Better Pay Attention to Tuesday’s
High Court Argument on Eminent Domain Abuse
Arlington, Va.—If you own a piece of property in New York, you’d better pay close attention to an oral argument taking place on Tuesday, June 1 at 2 p.m. in Albany before New York’s high court.
This case—Kaur v. Empire State Development Corporation—may well decide if powerful private interests can team up with the government to take away your home, your small business, your farm or your factory through eminent domain for someone else’s private gain.
It is called eminent domain abuse and it is a plague that has wreaked havoc across the Empire State for decades. Tuesday’s court argument will decide whether Columbia University—a private institution—may direct the government’s power of eminent domain to take property away from its neighbors for the university’s private use and profit. Columbia seeks to take the property of neighbors Nick Sprayregen and Amanjit Kaur to expand its campus. If Columbia were a public university, this would be a public use. But Columbia is a private university and, as such, the takings are for private gain.
Immediately following the 2 p.m. oral argument, which is expected to last for about one hour, property owners, their advocates and supporters will hold a press conference outside of the court to answer questions and explain why property rights must be respected in the state. The press conference will take place at Academy Park, 20 Eagle Street in Albany, directly across the street from the front of the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court.
Dana Berliner, a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice (IJ), said, “This is the kind of abuse of government power on behalf of powerful private interests the Framers of the Constitution sought to prevent when they drafted the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and required that private property could only be taken for a public use. Taking someone’s land for a private institution like Columbia for its private use and profit is not a public use.” The Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in the infamous eminent domain abuse case Kelo v. City of New London, is the nation’s leading advocate against eminent domain for private gain.
In December 2009, a New York appellate court sided with the property owners, ruling there to be “no credible proof of blight in Manhattanville”—the neighborhood Columbia seeks to take. The court found that “the process employed by ESDC [the Empire State Development Corporation] predetermined the unconstitutional outcome, was bereft of facts which established that the neighborhood in question was blighted, and ultimately precluded the petitioners from presenting a full record before either the ESDC or, ultimately, this Court. In short, it is a skein worth unraveling.” The court also found that eminent domain should only be used for public use—not a private, elite organization’s expansion. The ESDC—unhappy with this sharp rebuke—appealed to the state’s highest court.
Just last year, the Court of Appeals refused to stop the use of eminent domain for an arena for the NBA Nets and private development project in Brooklyn. It now has an opportunity to redeem itself in this decision.
In the wake of Kelo, 43 states have passed laws to limit the ability of government officials to abuse eminent domain, and state court after state court has rejected Kelo-style takings. New York stands alone in its abject failure to provide its citizens with any meaningful protection from eminent domain for private gain, and this case represents an opportunity for enough to, finally, be enough.
Robert McNamara, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said, “New York is the worst abuser of eminent domain in the country. New York’s courts have been looking to the legislature to fix this problem, while the legislature has been looking to the courts. Meanwhile, New Yorkers have been looking at condemnation notices. It is past time for the New York Court of Appeals to give the state’s citizens the property rights protections promised in their state constitution.”
New York laws are hopelessly stacked against property owners. For years, New York’s courts turned a blind eye to the enormous benefits afforded to private developers, outrageous behavior on the part of government officials, and even blatant evidence that the projects would be miserable flops. IJ released its statewide analysis, Building Empires, Destroying Homes: Eminent Domain Abuse in New York, which shows just how badly New York agencies have been abusing their power. The Associated Press reported that IJ documented how New York is “a hotbed of abuse, with 2,226 properties statewide either condemned or threatened with condemnation through eminent domain in the past decade to allow for private development.”
Christina Walsh, director of activism and coalitions for the Institute for Justice, said, “Your right to own your property shouldn’t depend on what state you live in. New York’s courts must put a stop to these land grabs and tell Columbia—a private institution—that government power will no longer be at their disposal. Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage and the rest of the property owners are heroes who are standing up not only for their rights, but for the property rights of all New Yorkers. Every New Yorker should get behind them and demand that the courts protect their constitutionally enshrined rights. If the Court does not recognize at least some outer limit on government’s eminent domain power, then all property in the state is at risk.”
Among those participating in the post-argument press conference will be: Norman Siegel (attorney for Tuck-it-Away Self-Storage owner Nick Sprayregen), Nick Sprayregen, Amanjit Kaur (property owner and party to this lawsuit), New York State Senator Bill Perkins, Tom DeMott (Coalition to Preserve Community), Nellie Bailey (Harlem Tenants Association), Luis Tejada (Mirabal Sisters), Walter South (Community Board 9), Daniel Goldstein (Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn), Mike Elmendorf (New York director of the National Federation of Independent Business) and Christina Walsh (director of activism and coalitions, Institute for Justice).
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Fundraising Message from Susette Kelo (Yes, That Kelo)
My name is Susette Kelo. On Monday, June 23, 2008, I need your help in making a little bit of history.
June 23 is the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo eminent domain case, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed perfectly well-maintained private homes like mine to be taken by the government and handed over for someone else’s private use. Under that ruling, any home could be taken and destroyed to make way for high-end condos. Any small business could be bulldozed to make way for a big box store. And, tragically, that is what is happening in too many parts of our country.
I’d like your help to put an end to that abuse of eminent domain once and for all.
Please go to www.ij.org/keloday today and pledge to give some small contribution to the Institute for Justice (IJ) on June 23. (Pledge today and we will email you on June 23 reminding you to donate on that day.)
IJ helped defend my home and my neighbors’ homes when they were threatened by eminent domain for private gain.
IJ continues to defend other homeowners and small property owners in similar fights.
One hundred percent of the money raised on this site (www.ij.org/keloday) on that day will be used to fight eminent domain abuse--the use of eminent domain for private development projects. We recognize that under the Constitution eminent domain can be used for genuine “public use” projects, such as for a courthouse or to build a highway, but when government power is used to take land from one private property owner only to hand that land over to another private person for their private profit, that is an abuse of government’s power.
Our goal is to earn 10,000 donations for IJ on that one day, Monday, June 23.
Leading up to the Kelo argument, the Institute for Justice documented that 10,000 American property owners had their property threatened or actually taken by eminent domain for private use in just a 5-year period. That 10,000 figure inspired IJ and me to seek 10,000 donations from across the country to send a message to those in power that we care about our homes and that the abuse of eminent domain must be stopped.
We are not seeking large contributions on this day: just $25, $50 or $100. Even a $5 contribution will make a difference and add greatly to the ambitious numbers we’re trying to achieve on that day.
And, if you feel strongly enough about this effort and would be willing to forward this to friends who will join us in the fight to end eminent domain abuse, that too would be greatly appreciated.
Together, we can convince policymakers that eminent domain abuse is un-American and must be stopped.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susette Kelo
June 23 is the third anniversary of the infamous Kelo eminent domain case, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed perfectly well-maintained private homes like mine to be taken by the government and handed over for someone else’s private use. Under that ruling, any home could be taken and destroyed to make way for high-end condos. Any small business could be bulldozed to make way for a big box store. And, tragically, that is what is happening in too many parts of our country.
I’d like your help to put an end to that abuse of eminent domain once and for all.
Please go to www.ij.org/keloday today and pledge to give some small contribution to the Institute for Justice (IJ) on June 23. (Pledge today and we will email you on June 23 reminding you to donate on that day.)
IJ helped defend my home and my neighbors’ homes when they were threatened by eminent domain for private gain.
IJ continues to defend other homeowners and small property owners in similar fights.
One hundred percent of the money raised on this site (www.ij.org/keloday) on that day will be used to fight eminent domain abuse--the use of eminent domain for private development projects. We recognize that under the Constitution eminent domain can be used for genuine “public use” projects, such as for a courthouse or to build a highway, but when government power is used to take land from one private property owner only to hand that land over to another private person for their private profit, that is an abuse of government’s power.
Our goal is to earn 10,000 donations for IJ on that one day, Monday, June 23.
Leading up to the Kelo argument, the Institute for Justice documented that 10,000 American property owners had their property threatened or actually taken by eminent domain for private use in just a 5-year period. That 10,000 figure inspired IJ and me to seek 10,000 donations from across the country to send a message to those in power that we care about our homes and that the abuse of eminent domain must be stopped.
We are not seeking large contributions on this day: just $25, $50 or $100. Even a $5 contribution will make a difference and add greatly to the ambitious numbers we’re trying to achieve on that day.
And, if you feel strongly enough about this effort and would be willing to forward this to friends who will join us in the fight to end eminent domain abuse, that too would be greatly appreciated.
Together, we can convince policymakers that eminent domain abuse is un-American and must be stopped.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susette Kelo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
