Sigh of relief in some quarters. Greek voters support New Democracy Party that supports staying in the Euro Zone.
But ND didn't win a majority of seats and will have to form a coalition. How will they do that? Germany remains unbending, insisting on austerity rather than economic expansion.
My headline: "Germany remains bent on destroying Euro."
Monday, June 18, 2012
Party Matters
Liz and I spent last Saturday representing the Pamlico County Democratic Party at the 2012 State Convention of the North Carolina Democratic Party.
My fellow Oklahoman, Will Rogers, once observed, "I am not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Nothing I heard or saw on Saturday contradicted Will's observation. Thank goodness. No marching in lock step.
But we always enjoy going to state party conventions. It is such a pleasure to meet other democrats from elsewhere in the state, share observations and concerns, and to learn once again that we are not alone in our concerns.
Then, of course, there are the speeches. The best speech we heard was by Ohio State Senator Nina Turner. Nina Turner, in case you missed it, is the Ohio legislator who introduced a bill to protect men's sexual health, modeled on legislation purporting to protect the sexual health of women. The bill, before men could receive a prescription for Viagra, would require that physicians take specific actions before prescribing such drugs, including giving a cardiac stress test and making a referral to a sex therapist for confirmation that “the patient’s symptoms are not solely attributable to one or more psychological conditions.”
In her speech Saturday, Senator Turner observed that some elected officials "have lost their ever-lovin' minds." Had she grown up in our part of the country, she might have added: "bless their hearts."
Were there partisan activities going on?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Good time had by all.
My fellow Oklahoman, Will Rogers, once observed, "I am not a member of an organized political party - I'm a Democrat." Nothing I heard or saw on Saturday contradicted Will's observation. Thank goodness. No marching in lock step.
But we always enjoy going to state party conventions. It is such a pleasure to meet other democrats from elsewhere in the state, share observations and concerns, and to learn once again that we are not alone in our concerns.
Then, of course, there are the speeches. The best speech we heard was by Ohio State Senator Nina Turner. Nina Turner, in case you missed it, is the Ohio legislator who introduced a bill to protect men's sexual health, modeled on legislation purporting to protect the sexual health of women. The bill, before men could receive a prescription for Viagra, would require that physicians take specific actions before prescribing such drugs, including giving a cardiac stress test and making a referral to a sex therapist for confirmation that “the patient’s symptoms are not solely attributable to one or more psychological conditions.”
In her speech Saturday, Senator Turner observed that some elected officials "have lost their ever-lovin' minds." Had she grown up in our part of the country, she might have added: "bless their hearts."
Were there partisan activities going on?
Is the Pope Catholic?
Good time had by all.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Ferry Tax
Once again, republicans in the state legislature have thrown Eastern North Carolina under the bus.
I find it interesting that real estate interests, who banded together to rule against sea level rise, have remained silent about the serious economic damage to the region from the senate's proposed tolls. Who, for example, will want to live in Ocracoke when he learns that it will cost at least $54 to take a ferry round trip every time he needs to go to the court house?
The tolls will reduce the real estate value of every property in Eastern North Carolina.
This wouldn't be happening if Marc Basnight were still in the legislature to defend our interests. Does it appear that the present leadership in the state legislature cares nothing for Eastern North Carolina and those who live and work here? Seems clear to me.
I find it interesting that real estate interests, who banded together to rule against sea level rise, have remained silent about the serious economic damage to the region from the senate's proposed tolls. Who, for example, will want to live in Ocracoke when he learns that it will cost at least $54 to take a ferry round trip every time he needs to go to the court house?
The tolls will reduce the real estate value of every property in Eastern North Carolina.
This wouldn't be happening if Marc Basnight were still in the legislature to defend our interests. Does it appear that the present leadership in the state legislature cares nothing for Eastern North Carolina and those who live and work here? Seems clear to me.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
South Avenue: What Do I Really Think?
I have offered suggestions from time to time both on my blog and in private. My goal was to be helpful. I see little evidence that my suggestions have had any influence. So I spent some time this evening reviewing my past posts.
As early as last January 28, I addressed the puzzle of the announcement that the town was "exploring the possibilities of sale or exchange of property in the vicinity of the west end terminus of South Avenue and Avenue A..."
I pointed out that the town owns no property in that vicinity. And that the town can't sell public rights of way. That hasn't changed.
Since January 28th, I have encountered on the internet many legal references reinforcing the principle that a town may not sell or barter a public right of way:
"A City has no power to sell or barter the streets and alleys which it holds in trust for the benefit of the public and cannot vacate a street for the benefit of a purely private interest." - Roney Inv. Co. v. City of Miami Beach (a Florida case).
See also AT&T v. Village of Arlington Heights, 620 N.E.2d 1040, 1044 (Ill. 1993)(“Municipalities do not possess proprietary powers over the public streets [which are] ... held in trust for the use of the public.”).
The same principle is spelled out by Eugene McQuillin in Law of Municipal Corporations, (3d rev. ed. 1990) at § 30.40 (“[T]he estate of the city in its streets … is essentially public and not private property, and the city in holding it is considered the agent and trustee of the public and not a private owner for profit or emolument. The power to maintain and regulate the use of the streets is a trust for the benefit of the general public, of which the city cannot divest itself…”);
The contract which the town board approved on May 17 by a 4-1 vote sets forth a barter transaction, in violation of fundamental principles of the law of public streets.
This is not an obscure principle or an arcane technicality. It is fundamental. "...Whatever rights the city may have over its streets, its powers are those of a trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust (the public), liberally construed for its benefit, strictly construed to its detriment." McQuillen.
One of the most powerful protections of the public interest in rights of way is precisely the prohibition against selling or bartering them. That removes the temptation for the governing body to exchange rights of way held in the public trust for short term fiscal benefit.
To barter our town's most irreplaceable long-term asset, namely public access to the public trust waters of our harbor, for waterfront real estate held in fee simple, will inevitably tempt future town boards to sell the property to meet short term fiscal needs.
Indeed, one of the present commissioners has expressed the view at a public meeting that the town SHOULD sell some of its rights of way. In response to the concern I have expressed about the current transaction, that there should be some restrictions, preferably a dedication to the public with restrictions that would preclude such a conversion to revenue by a future governing body, this same commissioner asked, "why would we want to tie our hands that way?"
Why? Because our rights of way are held in trust.
Future town boards may not always keep the town's future in mind. We need to help them do so.
There may have been a way to structure an acceptance of Mr. Fulcher's donation of property so that it was not a sale or barter and so that the public's interests were protected by conditions of the gift. There may still be a way.
The contract approved by the town board on May 17 isn't it.
As early as last January 28, I addressed the puzzle of the announcement that the town was "exploring the possibilities of sale or exchange of property in the vicinity of the west end terminus of South Avenue and Avenue A..."
I pointed out that the town owns no property in that vicinity. And that the town can't sell public rights of way. That hasn't changed.
Since January 28th, I have encountered on the internet many legal references reinforcing the principle that a town may not sell or barter a public right of way:
"A City has no power to sell or barter the streets and alleys which it holds in trust for the benefit of the public and cannot vacate a street for the benefit of a purely private interest." - Roney Inv. Co. v. City of Miami Beach (a Florida case).
See also AT&T v. Village of Arlington Heights, 620 N.E.2d 1040, 1044 (Ill. 1993)(“Municipalities do not possess proprietary powers over the public streets [which are] ... held in trust for the use of the public.”).
The same principle is spelled out by Eugene McQuillin in Law of Municipal Corporations, (3d rev. ed. 1990) at § 30.40 (“[T]he estate of the city in its streets … is essentially public and not private property, and the city in holding it is considered the agent and trustee of the public and not a private owner for profit or emolument. The power to maintain and regulate the use of the streets is a trust for the benefit of the general public, of which the city cannot divest itself…”);
The contract which the town board approved on May 17 by a 4-1 vote sets forth a barter transaction, in violation of fundamental principles of the law of public streets.
This is not an obscure principle or an arcane technicality. It is fundamental. "...Whatever rights the city may have over its streets, its powers are those of a trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust (the public), liberally construed for its benefit, strictly construed to its detriment." McQuillen.
One of the most powerful protections of the public interest in rights of way is precisely the prohibition against selling or bartering them. That removes the temptation for the governing body to exchange rights of way held in the public trust for short term fiscal benefit.
To barter our town's most irreplaceable long-term asset, namely public access to the public trust waters of our harbor, for waterfront real estate held in fee simple, will inevitably tempt future town boards to sell the property to meet short term fiscal needs.
Indeed, one of the present commissioners has expressed the view at a public meeting that the town SHOULD sell some of its rights of way. In response to the concern I have expressed about the current transaction, that there should be some restrictions, preferably a dedication to the public with restrictions that would preclude such a conversion to revenue by a future governing body, this same commissioner asked, "why would we want to tie our hands that way?"
Why? Because our rights of way are held in trust.
Future town boards may not always keep the town's future in mind. We need to help them do so.
There may have been a way to structure an acceptance of Mr. Fulcher's donation of property so that it was not a sale or barter and so that the public's interests were protected by conditions of the gift. There may still be a way.
The contract approved by the town board on May 17 isn't it.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
George Bernard Shaw, Oriental and South Avenue
George Bernard Shaw, the Irish playwright and author, was seated next to an elegant lady at a dinner party. Engaging the lady in conversation, he asked her: "would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" A little taken aback, the lady thought for a moment and replied: "I might do." Shaw continued the conversation, asking: "would you sleep with me for five pounds?" Huffing in indignation, the lady replied: "certainly not! What do you think I am?" The playwright responded: "madame, we have already established what you are - now we are haggling over the price."
The story came to mind as I reflected on the proposed exchange of two dedicated and accepted rights of way, including South Avenue, for a waterfront parcel of real estate 55 feet in width. Would I find the exchange more acceptable if the parcel were, say, 78 feet wide, which is the width of the riparian area of Raccoon Creek subtended by our present right of way. Or even 60 feet, which is the width on land of the existing right of way.
We should not haggle over the price, because there is a fundamental principal involved here. The Town of Oriental holds its streets in trust for the benefit of the public. The town is not the proprietor of the rights of way. It is well established that the town has no power to sell or barter its streets. While the town may vacate, close or abandon a street by formal action after a public hearing governed by statute, it nevertheless cannot vacate a street for the benefit of a purely private interest.
I have no problem with Mr. Fulcher's offer. Mr. Fulcher is not an elected official and is under no special obligation to defend or protect the public interest. From his point of view, the proposed contract appears logical.
The town's elected officials, on the other hand, do have an obligation to protect the interest of the public. Public rights of way are in a different category from any normal lots that the town may own, and which the Town Board is empowered by statute to buy, sell, lease, or deal with like any other person with a proprietary interest.
Rights of way are quite different.
The story came to mind as I reflected on the proposed exchange of two dedicated and accepted rights of way, including South Avenue, for a waterfront parcel of real estate 55 feet in width. Would I find the exchange more acceptable if the parcel were, say, 78 feet wide, which is the width of the riparian area of Raccoon Creek subtended by our present right of way. Or even 60 feet, which is the width on land of the existing right of way.
We should not haggle over the price, because there is a fundamental principal involved here. The Town of Oriental holds its streets in trust for the benefit of the public. The town is not the proprietor of the rights of way. It is well established that the town has no power to sell or barter its streets. While the town may vacate, close or abandon a street by formal action after a public hearing governed by statute, it nevertheless cannot vacate a street for the benefit of a purely private interest.
I have no problem with Mr. Fulcher's offer. Mr. Fulcher is not an elected official and is under no special obligation to defend or protect the public interest. From his point of view, the proposed contract appears logical.
The town's elected officials, on the other hand, do have an obligation to protect the interest of the public. Public rights of way are in a different category from any normal lots that the town may own, and which the Town Board is empowered by statute to buy, sell, lease, or deal with like any other person with a proprietary interest.
Rights of way are quite different.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Government: Historical Engine Of Economic Development
Today's Washington Post prints a piece by columnist E. J. Dionne shedding light on the positive role the federal government has always played in fostering economic development in this country. In fact, he says, the federal government "is the solution," not the problem in our present economic situation.
"The case for government’s role in our country’s growth and financial success goes back to the very beginning," Dionne explains. "One of the reasons I wrote my book “Our Divided Political Heart” was to show that, from Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay forward, farsighted American leaders understood that action by the federal government was essential to ensuring the country’s prosperity, developing our economy, promoting the arts and sciences and building large projects: the roads and canals, and later, under Abraham Lincoln, the institutions of higher learning, that bound a growing nation together."
I have previously pointed out that, during the great depression, forward thinking leaders pressed on with grand undertakings. We just observed the 75th anniversary of one of those undertakings, the Golden Gate Bridge. The 1930's, our most challenging economic period ever, became the period of our most lasting structural achievements.
Today, we keep hearing, "oh, we're broke;" "we can't afford to (fill in the blank)." And who keeps chanting the mantra of American inability? Republicans!
Republicans offer us leadership by fraidy-cats and wimps. Republican dominance of federal and state budgets has taken our median wealth back to what it was before Bill Clinton's policies led to the greatest sustained period of growth since the 1960's. Not a single republican voted for the Clinton budget.
Their predictions were wrong. When they got control over the budget, they drove the economy into the ditch and for the past two years have intentionally sabotaged every effort to call in a tow truck.
If you want to bring about a future of American economic decline, by all means vote for Republicans. Otherwise, let your elected representatives know you want to see positive economic efforts.
Don't just stand there, do something! If that doesn't work, do something else! Inaction is not an option - the problem is jobs, not debt. Make white water!
"The case for government’s role in our country’s growth and financial success goes back to the very beginning," Dionne explains. "One of the reasons I wrote my book “Our Divided Political Heart” was to show that, from Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay forward, farsighted American leaders understood that action by the federal government was essential to ensuring the country’s prosperity, developing our economy, promoting the arts and sciences and building large projects: the roads and canals, and later, under Abraham Lincoln, the institutions of higher learning, that bound a growing nation together."
I have previously pointed out that, during the great depression, forward thinking leaders pressed on with grand undertakings. We just observed the 75th anniversary of one of those undertakings, the Golden Gate Bridge. The 1930's, our most challenging economic period ever, became the period of our most lasting structural achievements.
Today, we keep hearing, "oh, we're broke;" "we can't afford to (fill in the blank)." And who keeps chanting the mantra of American inability? Republicans!
Republicans offer us leadership by fraidy-cats and wimps. Republican dominance of federal and state budgets has taken our median wealth back to what it was before Bill Clinton's policies led to the greatest sustained period of growth since the 1960's. Not a single republican voted for the Clinton budget.
Their predictions were wrong. When they got control over the budget, they drove the economy into the ditch and for the past two years have intentionally sabotaged every effort to call in a tow truck.
If you want to bring about a future of American economic decline, by all means vote for Republicans. Otherwise, let your elected representatives know you want to see positive economic efforts.
Don't just stand there, do something! If that doesn't work, do something else! Inaction is not an option - the problem is jobs, not debt. Make white water!
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Another Lovely Weekend
We have suffered through another lovely weekend here in Oriental, NC at the water's edge. It's a tough life, but someone has to do it.
That's why we have to be particularly vigilant to protect the streets which provide public access to public trust waters and remind town government that it has no power to sell or barter the streets it holds in trust for the benefit of the public.
That's why we have to be particularly vigilant to protect the streets which provide public access to public trust waters and remind town government that it has no power to sell or barter the streets it holds in trust for the benefit of the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
