Let me tell you, in a nutshell, what the "hoo ha" is. Essentially, your whiz-bang supreme court justices have concluded that our founding fathers didn't really mean it when they guaranteed us our right to hold private property. Their decision last week announced that your property rights are limited at the point where they begin to infringe upon the desires of others who would like to take your property... As long as the tax revenues from these land-suitors is higher than your own property taxes. After all, for the collective good, those almighty tax revenues are the trump card in the question of property taxes, according to five of the justices.
Eminent Domain is a tool used by local jurisdictions (usually cities and towns) to, in its best application, clear away blighted conditions and ensure safety for the residents of the area. Unfortunately, it has sometimes been the favorite tool of over-jealous city folks who have visions of grandeur that simply do not include privately held property as currently in use. In the past, when the private property owner is threatened with exercise of the eminent domain power play, they have had some amount of success in the court system. With this new ruling, it could be very sticky for future cases, indeed.
We here in Arizona need to jump on this issue and shore up support for changes to our own state constitution. This would protect us beyond what the court has now decided about the U.S. Constitution that we all previously naively thought meant just what it said. I, for one, look forward to some spirited debate on this issue in the next session. I only hope that the proper pundits will step up to the plate and bring us a home run on this property rights issue.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
ADOT announces plans for traffic signals
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will begin design work this month to add traffic signals and make minor roadway improvements at the Interstate 17/Carefree Highway interchange in north Phoenix.
The project will add a temporary traffic signal system at the I-17/Carefree Highway interchange. The westbound lanes of Carefree Highway will be widened to add a dual left turn lane for drivers to enter southbound I-17. The northbound I-17 exit ramp at Carefree Highway also will be widened to better accommodate traffic turning east on Carefree Highway.
The design of the intersection improvement is expected to continue until the end of summer. Construction is scheduled to begin this fall.
Future permanent improvements at the I-17/Carefree Highway interchange are being examined as part of an engineering and environmental study that is now under way. Public meetings regarding the study are planned to occur later this summer. The study and design process for the ultimate improvements at I-17/Carefree Highway is expected to take about two years to complete. Additional funding for the permanent improvements will need to be identified in the region’s transportation program.
The project will add a temporary traffic signal system at the I-17/Carefree Highway interchange. The westbound lanes of Carefree Highway will be widened to add a dual left turn lane for drivers to enter southbound I-17. The northbound I-17 exit ramp at Carefree Highway also will be widened to better accommodate traffic turning east on Carefree Highway.
The design of the intersection improvement is expected to continue until the end of summer. Construction is scheduled to begin this fall.
Future permanent improvements at the I-17/Carefree Highway interchange are being examined as part of an engineering and environmental study that is now under way. Public meetings regarding the study are planned to occur later this summer. The study and design process for the ultimate improvements at I-17/Carefree Highway is expected to take about two years to complete. Additional funding for the permanent improvements will need to be identified in the region’s transportation program.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
What is so "special" about special session?
It is funny to me that everyone seems to assume that there will be a call by the Governor to come back for a special session. I don't see the point, honestly. We put in our prescribed time (and then some) sending up a lot of good bills that the Gov gave her veto stamp. At least one of those good bills was vetoed without so much as a reading by her. How do I know this? Well, her veto explanation letter cited the Arizona Republic as her source for reason, along with the feelings of a special interest group who, by the way, also never read my bill...
Why on earth would we want to come back, upheaving work schedules and family commitments, only to create more good bills that she will then veto?
Seems to me that she should have "taken the pie when it was passing" as my grandpa used to say. There is no reason to go to special session if she is going to veto any good legislation we send up anyway.
Why on earth would we want to come back, upheaving work schedules and family commitments, only to create more good bills that she will then veto?
Seems to me that she should have "taken the pie when it was passing" as my grandpa used to say. There is no reason to go to special session if she is going to veto any good legislation we send up anyway.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Portable Power
There are generally two competing ideas on how centralized or localized our government should be. The "left" likes things centralized and the "right" prefers things are handled locally. If you have spent any time reading here, you may have surmised that I am to the right on most (if not all) issues. This one is no different.
When you move towards centralizing government, it means you are essentially placing more and more of the decision making power in the hands of a small group of folks at the top. When you localize government, you are diversifying and delegating that decision-making to the smaller local jurisdictions (i.e. city councils, county governments, school districts, etc.).
When the decision making is local, the average citizen has a great amount of input and the potential for impact on those decisions. Also, there are a whole lot more minds working on the problems and the solutions are locally based and specific for a community. When the decision making is centralized, there are only a handful of people making decisions who can't possibly spread themselves around to all of the citizens whose lives are affected by their decisions at the top. The biggest problem I see with this, though, is the idea that only a few folks hold the reigns for the whole population. That leaves an awful lot of power in those hands and creates a real risk for abuse and/or simply stupid ideas being thrust upon the common man.
It may seem like a good idea to let one or two key people who are known to be moral, honorable, intelligent, and magnanimous to come up with solutions to all of society's ills. After all, their decision making would be quality and therefore good. The problem is, that if you do centralize to these good folks, the power you have given them is huge and they can easily be replaced by folks who are not as good either personally or professionally. This is what I like to call "portable power." Once all of the decision-making power is bundled up to the central authority, and none of the messy local decision-making any longer encumbers the process, it becomes a real danger for the population that sits under that central authority. There could come a time when people of ill repute manage to seize that power and then all of the decisions for all of our lives will be made by these ill-equipped or ill-mannered new leaders.
So, when you hear people say that the state should be in charge of something through some new state office, be wary. One size does not fit all in Arizona's varied communities. But, more importantly, you will be at the mercy of the quality and the agenda of the person appointed to that state office. Today's appointment might be brilliant and good. The next replacement, however, could be a disaster. If the power is made portable through centralization, we would be at the mercy of the new power keepers in one swift shift of personnel. Portable power is dangerous. A bad local decision affects a few people. A bad statewide decision affects us all.
When you move towards centralizing government, it means you are essentially placing more and more of the decision making power in the hands of a small group of folks at the top. When you localize government, you are diversifying and delegating that decision-making to the smaller local jurisdictions (i.e. city councils, county governments, school districts, etc.).
When the decision making is local, the average citizen has a great amount of input and the potential for impact on those decisions. Also, there are a whole lot more minds working on the problems and the solutions are locally based and specific for a community. When the decision making is centralized, there are only a handful of people making decisions who can't possibly spread themselves around to all of the citizens whose lives are affected by their decisions at the top. The biggest problem I see with this, though, is the idea that only a few folks hold the reigns for the whole population. That leaves an awful lot of power in those hands and creates a real risk for abuse and/or simply stupid ideas being thrust upon the common man.
It may seem like a good idea to let one or two key people who are known to be moral, honorable, intelligent, and magnanimous to come up with solutions to all of society's ills. After all, their decision making would be quality and therefore good. The problem is, that if you do centralize to these good folks, the power you have given them is huge and they can easily be replaced by folks who are not as good either personally or professionally. This is what I like to call "portable power." Once all of the decision-making power is bundled up to the central authority, and none of the messy local decision-making any longer encumbers the process, it becomes a real danger for the population that sits under that central authority. There could come a time when people of ill repute manage to seize that power and then all of the decisions for all of our lives will be made by these ill-equipped or ill-mannered new leaders.
So, when you hear people say that the state should be in charge of something through some new state office, be wary. One size does not fit all in Arizona's varied communities. But, more importantly, you will be at the mercy of the quality and the agenda of the person appointed to that state office. Today's appointment might be brilliant and good. The next replacement, however, could be a disaster. If the power is made portable through centralization, we would be at the mercy of the new power keepers in one swift shift of personnel. Portable power is dangerous. A bad local decision affects a few people. A bad statewide decision affects us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
