Sustainable Policies

I was pretty astounded to read recently that the Wake County Board of Commissioners by a vote of 4-3 rejected a study they themselves had commissioned to balance growth, environment and economics. The Republican majority (one of whom is seeking election as Lieutenant Governor and another of whom is running for the 13th Congressional District) rejected the report. It made no difference that the head of the commission was Republican. Apparently the very idea of wise management of our resources is some kind of Democratic plot. You can read about it here.

This sort of foolishness grabs my attention. It is of a piece with the successful effort to prevent the Science Panel of North Carolina's Coastal Resources Commission from considering sea level rise above 22 inches.

It fits right in with those who deny climate change.

I grew up in tornado country. I don't remember anything quite like last night's tornado blitz across fifteen states. The polar ice cap is plainly melting. Some glaciers I witnessed in my youth in Alaska have disappeared.

Something is plainly happening. We need to foresee and prepare for the consequences.

We cannot dismiss the threat as one of Oriental's commissioners did to me last week by claiming that global warming was "made up" by Al Gore.

One of the things that is happening is population. In my life time, the population of the United States has more than doubled. It is now about 2.4 times what it was when I was born.

The world population is growing even faster. It was about 2.3 billion when I was born and is about 7 billion now.

A decade ago, the best estimate was that the world's population was about three times the number that could sustain a European level consumption. By now, it is probably four times as much.

We are killing the planet, and will eventually kill ourselves.

Can we keep this future from happening? I don't know. But we won't improve our chances by refusing to study and plan. It's what rational humans do. As presidential candidate Ross Perot once observed, "The difference between human beings and rabbits is that we can think and reason." Let's prove him right.

The Billy Goats Gruff

Yesterday I asked in passing whether ferries have trolls. I now realize some readers may not recognize the reference.

It has been about seventy years since I first read the story about the Billy Goats Gruff. Since then, I have always associated trolls with bridges. So, since our ferries play the role of bridges, I naturally wondered if they could have trolls.

Since, in the story of the Billy Goats Gruff, the troll was attempting to exact a particularly high toll (the life of a goat), I thought there might be a connection.

The story ends with the troll's demise, done in by his excessive greed.

Governor Perdue Takes On The Toll Trolls

This just in:

Perdue orders 1-year moratorium on new ferry tolls

Read the entire article on News and Observer site here.

Read more here: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/perdue-orders-1-year-moratorium-on-new-ferry-tolls#storylink=cpy

Toll Tale Told

Some illustrations just can't be improved upon. Here is artist Laura Turgeon's take on the ferry toll issue. What more is there to say?

Do ferries have Trolls?

House Bill 200

Last week, the County Commissioners not only failed to adopt a measure to hire a lobbyist, they also failed to pass a measure authorizing the County Attorney to research issues surrounding a possible law suit by the county seeking injunctive or other relief from the tolls. The attorney explained that he would have to research a number of issues, including whether the county government has standing to bring a suit or whether only a citizen or taxpayer has standing. He would have to research court precedents for case law on point, including a review of North Carolina constitutional law.

This morning's session did not reexamine the issue of going to court.

Is a suit worth pursuing? Would there be a chance of success in a court, especially since a suit would have to be filed in Wake County Superior Court rather than in Pamlico County? I don't have a clue.  But in addition to the provision of North Carolina General Statutes that appear to prevent turning a previously toll-free highway into a toll road, there are some constitutional provisions that seem at odds with H200:

I won't post the entire bill of 343 pages. But it is interesting to look at the pertinent provisions. 


First, what was the bill about? Here is the stated purpose:

"GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 2011

SESSION LAW 2011-145

HOUSE BILL 200

AN ACT to Spur the creation of private sector jobs; reorganize and reform state government; make base budget appropriations for current operations of state departments and institutions; and to enact budget related amendments.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

PART I. Introduction and Title of Act

TITLE

SECTION 1.1.  This act shall be known as the "Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2011."

INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1.2.  The appropriations made in this act are for maximum amounts necessary to provide the services and accomplish the purposes described in the budget.  Savings shall be effected where the total amounts appropriated are not required to perform these services and accomplish these purposes and, except as allowed by the State Budget Act, or this act, the savings shall revert to the appropriate fund at the end of each fiscal year."

In other words, it was presented as an appropriations bill. But here are the ferry provisions:

"Transportation/Ferry Division Tolling

SECTION 31.30.(a)  Effective April 1, 2012, G.S. 136‑82 reads as rewritten:

"§ 136‑82.  Department of Transportation to establish and maintain ferries.

The Department of Transportation is vested with authority to provide for the establishment and maintenance of ferries connecting the parts of the State highway system, whenever in its discretion the public good may so require, and to prescribe and collect such tolls therefor as may, in the discretion of the Department of Transportation, be expedient. The Board of Transportation shall establish tolls for all ferry routes, except for the Ocracoke/Hatteras Ferry and the Knotts Island Ferry.

To accomplish the purpose of this section said Department of Transportation is authorized to acquire, own, lease, charter or otherwise control all necessary vessels, boats, terminals or other facilities required for the proper operation of such ferries or to enter into contracts with persons, firms or corporations for the operation thereof and to pay therefor such reasonable sums as may in the opinion of said Department of Transportation represent the fair value of the public service rendered.

The Department of Transportation, notwithstanding any other provision of law, may operate, or contract for the operation of, concessions on the ferries and at ferry facilities to provide to passengers on the ferries food, drink, and other refreshments, personal comfort items, and souvenirs publicizing the ferry system."

SECTION 31.30.(b)  The Board of Transportation shall toll all ferry routes no later than the effective date of subsection (a) of this section but is encouraged to begin tolling on all routes before that date. In establishing tolls for ferry routes under G.S. 136‑82, as amended by this section, the Board of Transportation shall consider the needs of commuters and other frequent passengers."

The establishment of tolls for previously toll-free segments of the state highway system  is arguably not an appropriations measure, but a revenue bill.

Because the effect of the measure on citizens affects Craven, Pamlico, and Beaufort Counties, it is also arguably a local bill.

Here is what the NC Constitution has to say about revenue bills and local bills:

"ARTICLE II

LEGISLATIVE

"Sec. 23.  Revenue bills.

No law shall be enacted to raise money on the credit of the State, or to pledge the faith of the State directly or indirectly for the payment of any debt, or to impose any tax upon the people of the State, or to allow the counties, cities, or towns to do so, unless the bill for the purpose shall have been read three several times in each house of the General Assembly and passed three several readings, which readings shall have been on three different days, and shall have been agreed to by each house respectively, and unless the yeas and nays on the second and third readings of the bill shall have been entered on the journal.

"Sec. 24.  Limitations on local, private, and special legislation.

(1)        Prohibited subjects.  The General Assembly shall not enact any local, private, or special act or resolution:

(a)        Relating to health, sanitation, and the abatement of nuisances;

(b)        Changing the names of cities, towns, and townships;

(c)        Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, or discontinuing of highways, streets, or alleys;

(d)       Relating to ferries or bridges;

(e)        Relating to non-navigable streams;

(f)        Relating to cemeteries;

(g)        Relating to the pay of jurors;

(h)        Erecting new townships, or changing township lines, or establishing or changing the lines of school districts;

(i)         Remitting fines, penalties, and forfeitures, or refunding moneys legally paid into the public treasury;

(j)         Regulating labor, trade, mining, or manufacturing;

(k)        Extending the time for the levy or collection of taxes or otherwise relieving any collector of taxes from the due performance of his official duties or his sureties from liability;

(l)         Giving effect to informal wills and deeds;

(m)       Granting a divorce or securing alimony in any individual case;

(n)        Altering the name of any person, or legitimating any person not born in lawful wedlock, or restoring to the rights of citizenship any person convicted of a felony.

(2)        Repeals.  Nor shall the General Assembly enact any such local, private, or special act by the partial repeal of a general law; but the General Assembly may at any time repeal local, private, or special laws enacted by it.

(3)        Prohibited acts void.  Any local, private, or special act or resolution enacted in violation of the provisions of this Section shall be void.

(4)        General laws.  The General Assembly may enact general laws regulating the matters set out in this Section."

 As to form, it may be argued that H200 is a general law. As to the substantive effect of the ferry provisions, though, it is arguably a local bill.

The provision requiring tolls for segments of the state highway is certainly a revenue provision, not an appropriation provision, and therefore improperly included in H200.

Fodder for attorneys?

Pamlico County Ferry Lobbyist

This morning at a brief 9 o'clock meeting, Pamlico County commissioners voted 4-3 to hire an experienced local lobbyist to undo the Republican legislature's measure establishing tolls on our two commuter ferries. Both ferries are shown in DOT transportation system maps as segments of state highway 306. The tolls, possibly as high as $7 per one-way trip across the Neuse, will be a heavy burden on workers who commute to and from Havelock.

The three commissioners who voted against hiring a lobbyist expressed doubt that the measure will succeed, and frustration that it wasn't attempted by our elected legislators. Commissioner Ollison expressed the view that the tolls are "a done deal."

My view: there is a risk of failure, but the consequences of the tolls on the county's economy are substantial.

In a democracy, there are no permanent "done deals."

Ferry Terminal

Here is a scan from this week's County Compass of the ferry terminal planned for Cherry Point. Cost: who knows? But it's pretty certain to exceed a million dollars. Let's say a million and a half.

Cost of collecting the tolls? About a million dollars.

Annual additional revenue ordered to be collected: three million.

Amount gained by ditching the tolls and leaving the terminal as it is? two and a half million.

Shortfall? Half a million, much of which will be recovered from reducing the ferry schedule.

Anyone still think the toll is about the budget?

Are Corporations People?

Two years ago in its decision in the case of Citizens United, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protects the speech of corporations as thoroughly as it does the speech of individuals. Or as one of this year's presidential candidate explained, "corporations are people."

Now the Court is faced with a slightly different issue: can corporations be sued for actions that violate the civil rights of individuals overseas, including taking part in repression, torture, executions and other civil rights abuses. Corporations argue that only individuals can be so charged. The issues are addressed in today's New York Times.

So, do corporations have the rights of individuals in one case, but are not responsible for corporate acts in another? Here is a more detailed look.

The world wonders.