The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws, but not to delegate that power to the Executive Branch. Doing so allows unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make rules in violation of the Non-Delegation doctrine. In Gundy, the U.S. Supreme Court will review whether Congress violated the Non-Delegation doctrine by empowering the Attorney General to unilaterally make law. PLF’s supporting brief urges the Court to revive the Non-Delegation doctrine, so Congress can no longer dodge accountability by sloughing off its lawmaking responsibilities. Continue reading
The liberals have come up with a “new” solution to save the orcas and salmon. Rather than identifying the problem and solving it (See attached). They have launched another fund raising campaign.
To save salmon, orcas: Make landowners pay
Too few property owners are choosing to improve habitat. Their alternative should be annual payments.
Mitigation for continuing impacts could be accomplished in the form of periodic compensatory habitat enhancements on site or off site, or annual payment of a fee in lieu of physical mitigation. Calculating required mitigation for the continuing impacts of each land parcel would be a big job, but it’s feasible if done in increments.
For example, the first phase could evaluate the impacts on salmon from bulkheads and buffer clearing identifiable via remote sensing. We could then assess annual mitigation for this harm to salmon while work proceeded to evaluate other impacts. Bank hardening missed by remote sensing but identified by inspection from boats could be the second phase. The third could be evaluation of the degree to which each land parcel controls stormwater runoff as well as the presence of mature forest that controls stormwater. (That is, we would check that the runoff rate does not hurt salmon.) Additional impacts could be added to the records of parcels as the evaluation phases continue. Landowners could request site inspections and corrections of the records if they disagree with the assessments calculated from remote sensing or local property records.
This overall effort could quantify the harm to salmon being caused by each land parcel relative to other land parcels in the Puget Sound watershed, allowing equitable assessment of the annual mitigation needed from each parcel. Fees collected in lieu of physical mitigation could be used to pay for the program’s administration, fund habitat projects, and lower property taxes of land that is achieving adequate biological functions.
Read the full article
Our dinner speaker for October is Marty McClendon, Candidate for Washington State’s 26th Legislative District. Marty has been a licensed Real Estate Broker in Gig Harbor for the last ten years. As such he is fully conversant with the property ownership issues facing us. He previously worked in the health care field, pastored a church and hosted a radio program. Please join us for dinner on Thursday Oct 25, 2018 at 5:00PM at McClouds Grillhouse (2901 Perry Avenue, Bremerton WA 98393).
I got word yesterday that our speaker Louisa Garbo (DCD Director) was cancelling for tomorrow night, I contacted Doug Simpson, the individual I had asked to be our speaker for October.
Doug Simpson is a political and campaign consultant. Prior to retiring, he facilitated and directed 121 election campaigns spanning more than 25 years. He has a win / loss ratio of 88 percent. Doug has prided himself in working only for those candidates who possess a fundamental historical understanding of the basis and authority of civil government.
Unlike most other consultants, Doug lobbied during the legislative sessions for conservative causes; staying close to those legislators he’s helped get into office. As a staunch conservative, Doug believes that true political conservatism has its basis in the Bible, our US Constitution and subsequent rule of law.
Please come out and hear his view of current politics. We meet on September 27 at 5PM at McClouds Grill House, 2901 Perry Ave East, Bremerton WA 98310.
Owning real estate carries with it a traditional “bundle of legal rights” transferred with the property from the seller to buyer. These are the recognized rights of the holder of title to the property. Continue reading
Urban planners predicted that Millennials would prefer renting apartments in dense cities over owning homes in low-density suburbs. So they told regional governments to restrict low-density development and promote high-density housing instead. Now, Millennials are 18 percent less likely to own homes than their parents did when their parents were young: in 1990, 45 percent of 25-34-year-olds owned their own homes; by 2015, it was just 37 percent.
Were urban planners correct? No, says a report from the Urban Institute. Instead, Millennials just prefer to live in expensive cities, and that has depressed their homeownership rates.
I don’t think the report is quite right. According to the American Community Survey’s table S0101, which breaks down population by age groups, Millennials a little more attracted to large urban areas than others, but the difference isn’t enough to account for an 18 percent decline in homeownership rates. The data show that 13.7 percent of Americans are Millennials (which the Urban Institute defined as ages 25 to 34 in 2015), while Millennials make up 15.1 percent of urban areas of 1 million people or more. That’s a significant difference, but certainly not enough to reduce homeownership by 18 percent by itself.
The real problem is that urban planners convinced cities to apply their prescription to nearly half the housing in America. Combining American Community Survey tables B19113 (median family income), B25007 (median home prices), and B25003 (occupied homes) on a county level, the median value of about 45 percent of American housing is more than three times median family incomes. With few exceptions, prices rise above three times incomes only when government policies make it difficult for homebuilders to meet demand. Continue reading
The evidence suggests the main factor constraining housing supply in today’s star cities is increasingly burdensome land-use regulation. Critics point to a variety of rules, including minimum lot sizes (as in Boston’s suburbs), urban boundaries (as in Portland), stringent environment rules (especially in California), long building permit times, and caps on the number of permits.
Last year the New York Times ran a story on Ms. Sheila James, a 62-year-old woman who commutes two hours and 50 minutes each way between her home in Stockton, California, and her $81,000-a-year government job in San Francisco.
The number of Americans like Ms. James with extreme commutes is growing, but their stories represent unusual exceptions that illustrate a larger pattern. More and more Americans are moving to less expensive regions of the country, or, more commonly, settling for the limited opportunities available in struggling communities like Stockton. These changes in the economic geography of American cities have far-reaching implications for upward mobility and economic growth. Continue reading