October 2008

It’s widely understood as a matter of principle, and written into law as part of the Fair Campaign Practices Act, that public funds shouldn’t be used for lobbying on legislative or ballot measures that impact government revenues or expenditures. Public money shouldn’t be used to chase more public money, in other words; there’s an inherent conflict of interest involved.

So it’s troubling to learn, as readers of The Gazette did Tuesday, that Memorial Health System, a city-owned enterprise, has given thousands of dollars to an organization that's spearheading the push for a 1 percent sales tax hike in the county – a donation that could be a violation of the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, according to the story.

“Memorial Health System's $4,000 donation to a group promoting El Paso County's 1 percent sales tax increase on the Nov. 4 ballot has prompted a complaint to the Secretary of State's Office.

State Rep. Douglas Bruce filed the complaint Wednesday, alleging the contribution violated the Fair Campaign Practices Act, which bars public agencies from giving to candidates and from contributing public money to ballot issue campaigns.

Colorado Springs Mayor Lionel Rivera on Tuesday called the donation "a dumb idea" by Dick Eitel, former CEO of the city-owned hospital, and said Memorial's board wasn't told of the gift.

"I think the campaign should give it back," he said. "I have no idea whether it was legal, but it was something that shouldn't have happened. Another bad move."

A spokesman for Memorial told The Gazette the donation was meant to support research about "community needs and priorities.” It was made last December, the spokesman says -- long before the tax issue was on the ballot. But the county’s interest in putting a tax hike on the ballot has been widely known, and talked about by insiders, since well before last December. It’s been in the planning stages at least as far back as December 2006, when Commissioner Sallie Clark let the cat out of the bag at a Chamber of Commerce event. That Mike Kazmierski of the Economic Development Corp. would be leading the effort, traveling under the umbrella group Citizens for Effective Government, has also long been known.

The notion that this tax hike came as a surprise, and just jumped on the ballot out of the clear blue in August, is ridiculous. The folks who approved the donation at Memorial must have known what it would be used for. That members of City Council weren't aware of the donation is symptomatic of larger management problems within the enterprise, as The Gazette's editorial page points out today.

Luis Toro, an attorney for Ethics Watch, which the Gazette describes as a “nonprofit watchdog agency,” also isn’t buying Memorial’s explanation. “By definition, issue committees exist to promote or work against ballot initiatives,” he told The Gazette. “When you give money to an issue committee, you do it knowing it will be spent in support of or opposing a ballot issue."

Whether that’s a technical violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act will have to be determined by the proper authorities. But I think the gut reaction of most Springs residents, whether they support or oppose the tax hike, is that they don’t want public money used for such purposes.

The story notes that the EDC, which also receives public funds, is one of the biggest donors to the effort, having given $14,000. Perhaps the EDC so carefully manages its funds that no public money has passed through to the tax hike effort. But how can one ne sure? Maybe it’s time that the city began periodic audits of how EDC uses the public funds it gets. Only that way can citizens be sure that they aren't bankrolling advocacy work with which they disagree.

Hawaii did it “for the children,” succumbing to the siren song that's used to sell many a government program. But it took the adults in the situation to reverse course, once they recognized it as an expensive and ill-considered mistake.

I’m writing about Hawaii’s abrupt decision to abandon a child health care coverage program only months after launch – a story that should have generated more national buzz, but didn’t, due in part, no doubt, to the blinding media glare put off by the presidential race.

Reported the AP on Oct. 17:

Hawaii is dropping the only state universal child health care program in the country just seven months after it launched.

Gov. Linda Lingle's administration cited budget shortfalls and other available health care options for eliminating funding for the program. A state official said families were dropping private coverage so their children would be eligible for the subsidized plan.

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

Such problems might have been predicted in advance – and undoubtedly were predicted. But as so often happens, the good intentions of program proponents overrode common sense and caution. State leaders deserve credit, however, for recognizing a mistake and reversing course now, rather than plunging deeper into a quagmire.

The Galen Institute’s Grace-Marie Turner did a nice good of analyzing the program’s flaws in a recent piece in The New York Post, arguing that the case should offer sobering lessons for Barack Obama or anyone else promising that they can deliver universal coverage easily and cheaply. Here’s Turner's piece:

Hawaii just had a vivid lesson in health-care economics, learning that if you offer people insurance for free - surprise, surprise - they'll quickly drop other coverage to enroll.

As a result, Hawaii is ending the only state universal child health-care program in the country after just seven months.

The program, called the Keiki (Child) Care Plan, was designed to provide coverage to children whose parents can't afford private insurance but who make too much to qualify for other public programs (such as Medicaid and Hawaii's State Children's Health Insurance Program). Keiki Care was free for these gap kids, except for a $7 office-visit fee.

But then state officials found that families were dropping private coverage to enroll their children in the plan. "People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink of Hawaii's Department of Human Services.

In fact, 85 percent of the children in Keiki Care previously had been covered under a private, nonprofit plan that costs $55 a month.

When Gov. Linda Lingle saw the data, she pulled the plug on funding. With Hawaii facing budget shortfalls, she realized it was unwise to spend public money to replace private coverage that children already had.

Yet Lingle is facing a political firestorm in the state from critics who say that she's denying children health insurance - notwithstanding the fact that children in Hawaiian families earning up to $73,000 a year are eligible for Medicaid.

All this is a lesson for political leaders in Washington who are drafting plans now to expand SCHIP to children in families earning up to $82,000 a year or more. That expansion would wind up doing what Keiki Care did: mainly crowd out the private coverage that millions of middle-income kids already have.

During last year's Washington debate over expanding SCHIP, many politicians took a principled stand against expansion of the program into these middle-income families. They supported President Bush's veto because they feared that expanding coverage to children in higher-income families would largely just crowd out existing private insurance.

Plus, two-thirds of kids who lack health insurance are already eligible for government help through either SCHIP or Medicaid. The opponents of expansion said Congress' first priority should be to make sure these poorer, uninsured children are taken care of.

States have struggled to get these children enrolled. If there is a stampede to cover higher-income kids, the poorer kids will likely continue to get left behind.

The Hawaiian debacle should also be a caution to Barack Obama, who wants to mandate that all children have health insurance. This would plainly not only require penalties for those who didn't comply but also new programs to help parents get their children covered. The risk of crowd-out will be great.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber says his studies "clearly show that crowd-out is significant" - on the order of 60 percent. In other words, SCHIP coverage replaces private health insurance 60 percent of the time, and the rate will be greater if we extend eligibility to higher-income families.

Universal coverage in any form is an increasingly elusive goal. Several states (including California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin) have attempted major efforts to advance toward health coverage for all citizens. All have had to turn back because the costs were prohibitive.

Massachusetts enacted a universal-coverage law in 2006 - but state officials no longer claim that achieving that goal is even possible. The law's backers had insisted that universal coverage was imperative to get costs under control - yet the state faces serious budget shortfalls even after imposing new fees and taxes and getting an extra $21 billion from the federal government to try to balance the program's books.

Health reform is a tricky business; any change can bring unintended consequences - especially if lawmakers don't get the incentives right.

That's why Hawaii had to say, "Aloha," to its Keiki Care program twice in just seven months.

Grace-Marie Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a research nonprofit focusing on free-market health reform.

"Spreading the wealth around" doesn't just occur at the federal level, despite the focus redistribution has received in the presidential contest. It takes place at the local level too, as a story in today's Aspen Times makes clear.

Pitkin County commissioners are mulling a six-fold increase in their "affordable housing mitigation fee," according to the paper, which is actually a tax levied on builders -- and the buyers of what they build -- that's used to fund affordable housing projects in the area. It's redistribution of wealth, plain and simple: Some people pay more for a home or building than they need to, so the county can provide other people with subsidized shelter. This creates the illusion that "affordable housing" is increasing, when the net effect is to make building and housing county-wide much more expensive, deepening a "crisis" county leaders are trying to solve.

But this is what can happen when economic illiterates are in charge, and when dogma supplants reason in policy-making circles.

As the cost of building these "affordable housing" units has risen -- a consultant hired by the county estimates that “a subsidy of $394,200 is necessary to make a 1,000-square-foot residential affordable housing unit in 2008” -- the tax extracted from builders (and passed on to their customers) doesn't go as far. So, now the county may raise the tax, possibly six fold, which will have the perverse effect of driving up the overall cost of housing on most people in the county, while benefiting the minority of folks who win the affordable housing lottery.

If it really wanted to promote affordable housing, Pitkin County would be reducing barriers and costs for builders and developers, which would increase housing stocks and reduce the sticker shock. But Pitkin County wants contradictory things: It wants to control "growth" and effectively punish developers, while offering ample affordable housing for its non-wealthy residents.

Until it recognizes the error of its ways -- and realizes that "spreading the wealth around" isn't just unfair, but also counterproductive -- the situation will only get worse.

Clark Myers looked out at the shortage of dog parks in Longmont, Colorado, and asked himself a question: Why not let people create private dog parks, on private land, to meet the growing demand? Of such inspirations are civic innovations born.

One snag, though. A little research revealed that only the city has the right to establish dog parks in Longmont, meaning that a new ordinance would have to be written to make Myers’ idea possible. And the city, fearing a loss of control, might try to attach a lot of strings to such approvals, raising costs and increasing the hassle factor for individuals or organizations interested in giving it a go. Indeed, the Longmont Times Call, in its first report on the situation, indicated that city officials, while interested, were asking “whether to require private dog parks to be built and maintained to city standards, including fencing, signs, waste receptacles and rules.”

But last Wednesday, city officials -- to their credit -- gave Myers’ idea a tentative green light, conditioning their approval of future parks on a requirement that public hearings be held in advance. Whether or not the city will attempt to impose “standards,” and what those might look like, the newspaper neglected to mention. But the fact that these will be private parks increases the chance they’ll be property cared for, without the need for the city to micromanage things.

It was a point made by Myers in his presentation to council. “We are all in favor of the proper signage, the proper maintenance, the proper upkeep of these dog parks because it adds to our community,” Myers said, speaking of his neighborhood. “It’s not a city park; it’s part of our own living room.”

And that makes a big difference.

Myers isn’t an economist, as far as I know, but his “living room” analogy made an economic point.

A city park is liable to be less well tended than a private park because of what economists call “the tragedy of the commons.” When everyone owns something, no one owns it – meaning that no one has a personal stake in ensuring it is properly cared for. This creates an incentive to exploit the resource rather than husband it. And that, according to theory, should mean that the private parks of Myers' inspiration will not need much government oversight.

Whether this will work out as Myers imagined, and whether his bright idea will catch on elsewhere, remains to be seen. In this highly contentious age, even the creation of a private dog park can run into obstacles. But credit is due Longmont city officials for approaching the proposal with a green-light attitude – for looking for reasons to say “go,” in other words, rather than “stop” – and to Myers for not reflexively looking to government for the answers.

The city of Colorado Springs has suspended its cleanup sweeps of homeless camps in order to “study the law” about their legality, according to a report in this morning’s Gazette. But do city officials really need to study the law, searching for technicalities, on an issue that’s really about “right” and “wrong”?

Colorado Springs will suspend publicly financed cleanups of homeless camps until the city can clarify legal and ethical issues surrounding the monthly sweeps, Mayor Lionel Rivera and other city leaders said Thursday.

Part of what's at issue: whether the city has the right to remove blankets, sleeping bags and other belongings the homeless keep on public lands - and whether it's appropriate to exercise that right.

Even if the city is technically within its rights to confiscate and dispose of the property of homeless people, in its drive to beautify Colorado Springs, we all know that stealing from people, that confiscating their property, is wrong, even if they happen to be unattached to a mailing address and living in the streets.

People don’t surrender their property rights or other civil rights when they take to the streets. And it’s doubly inhumane to take the few possessions they lug around with them, when they have so little else to cling to. That the injustice of this situation didn’t dawn on city officials until the media began reporting on it, sparked by a Barry Noreen column in The Gazette -- kudos to Barry on that one -- and before they were threatened with a civil rights lawsuit, shows a glaring blind spot on someone’s part.

That these injustices were done in the name of doing “good,” by a group that tasks itself with beautifying and cleaning up Colorado Springs, shouldn’t be a surprise. Do-gooders frequently can also do ill, because they're so convinced that they’re doing the right thing that they don’t stop to question whether someone's being wronged in the process.

"If anything we do violates any laws, we welcome a court test to determine what should be done instead," Deborah Cunningham, executive director of Keep Colorado Springs Beautiful, told the Gazette. But do we really need a “court test” to come up with a better course of action – one that maintains public safety while also protecting the rights of the homeless? Do we really need a court order or judge to tell us how to proceed, or can we figure it out for ourselves?

Colorado Springs doesn’t need to study the law on this one. It needs to consult its conscience. And it appears that that process is underway, even if belatedly.

We routinely post stories on LLO about this or that city, usually far away, misusing its eminent domain powers to take property from one private party for the benefit and enrichment of another party, induced by promises that the alternative use will fatten city coffers. But the issue hit closer to home this morning, when we read in The Pueblo Chieftain that the developer of the next phase of the downtown River Walk project is conditioning his continued involvement on the willingness of the city's Urban Renewal Authority to clear away obstacles by using eminent domain.

Among those "obstacles" are at least 4 pieces of private property along Santa Fe Avenue, including Patti's Restaurant.

Project developer Mark DeRose on Monday told the Pueblo City Council that he plans on offering the property owners a fair price, but he wants a commitment to take the properties by force if the owners balk. "We're going to need the vision that says: ‘We're going to get criticized. We're going to have problems. But if we can't work out our arms-length deals, we're going to use condemnation,’” DeRose said. "This deal can be blown up very quickly by individual landowners who don't share the vision."

That's always the problem, isn't it? -- private property owners who have plans for their land that don't conform with the grand "visions" of developers and city officials. Those that don't share the "vision," and won't give in to the city's threats or inducements, must be removed by force. And it's just this sort of legal theft that was sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, when it redefined the traditional meaning of "public good" to include downtown redevelopment projects that promise to boost a city's tax revenues.

It's been open season on property owners ever since, despite the efforts of some states to tighten up eminent domain laws.

The Kelo ruling will certainly go down as one of the most unjust and wrong-headed of the modern era. But until a wiser and better U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself, and rights this obvious wrong, we'll have to rely on the indignation and anger of average citizens to prevent such abuses from occurring in the towns and cities where we live.

We at LLO will be watching to see if the people of Pueblo will stand by and permit such abuses of power to occur, if it comes to that, or whether they'll decide that protecting their property from such predations is more important than the grand "visions" of city elites.

Like many a politician, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter is prone to exaggerating the blessings his policies have bestowed on constituents. His over-selling of the state’s “new energy economy” – a windy catch-phrase Barack Obama has appropriated, without attribution – offers the best case in point. But thankfully there's at least one skeptic in the Colorado media who will bring the governor back down to earth when he embarks on these flights of fancy.

Ritter last week told energy conference attendees that his push for renewable energy and energy efficiency had directly or indirectly created 90,000 jobs in Colorado -- 90,000 -- citing an un-published report by the American Solar Energy Society. “We're quickly becoming a national and international hub for renewable energy," Ritter said of Colorado (though I've read or heard a lot of other governors make similar claims).

I’ve written before about this phantasm called “the new energy economy,” so I’m alert to Ritter's hucksterism on the issue. But apparently I wasn’t the only one taken back by the audacity of Ritter’s claim. Vincent Carroll, editorial page editor of the Rocky Mountain News, on Friday called Ritter out on the issue, in one of his always-incisive columns.

Here’s Carroll’s column, for readers who may have missed it.

"Gov. Bill Ritter made the startling claim this week that "the renewable energy industry is creating directly or indirectly 90,000 jobs" in Colorado - in other words, 20,000 more than the estimated employment associated with the booming oil and gas industry.

Is that possible?

Probably not, even if the figure does eventually appear in a study scheduled for release in a few weeks by the American Solar Energy Society in Boulder. Ritter got a sneak preview of the results - little wonder, as his office co-commissioned the research - which reinforced his New Energy Economy theme. So he started trumpeting the findings.

Let's put the figure of 90,000 jobs in perspective. It's nearly twice the number of cops, firefighters, security guards and prison guards in Colorado - combined. It's more than the combined total of every teacher in K-12 schools together with every lawyer and paralegal.

Ninety thousand is twice the waiters and waitresses in this state, twice the number of fast-food workers, and only 10,000 or so less than the total for all major health-care occupations (see the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the occupational employment totals).

Here's another reality check: After the legislature increased the renewable energy standard for utilities last year from 10 percent to 20 percent for 2020, the League of Conservation Voters - not known for soft-pedaling the impact of green energy - told its members that the measure would create a grand total of 4,100 jobs.

So what's up with the 90,000 claim?

For a clue, go to the American Solar Energy Society Web site and review a report called Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency: Economic Drivers for the 21st Century. The first thing you'll realize is that Ritter defined the industry more narrowly than the study apparently will. It will measure jobs not only in renewable energy but in the "energy efficiency" industry, too - which casts a very wide net.

The report admits that the energy efficiency business is "much more nebulous and difficult to define" than renewables, but that doesn't stop it from trying. For openers, its definition includes "partial segments of large industries such as vehicles [those considered energy efficient], buildings, lighting, appliances, etc." And don't sneer at that "etc." because it covers a lot of ground, too, including "insulation sales" and the recycling industry.

Never mind that people have been blowing insulation into walls for decades: That activity has now been drafted into the New Energy Economy, where it can be displayed by politicians as a trophy of their economic leadership.

According to the solar energy society, "one in four jobs in 2030" could be in the renewable-energy and energy-efficiency industries. One in four! You could be an autoworker, plumber, architect, welder, bureaucrat, furnace salesperson - you name it - and apparently be counted.
"Do you have a green job?" the society asks. "You will."

Now, there is always a certain amount of stretching and reaching in a study whose purpose is to magnify the importance of a particular activity. If the authors become too greedy, though, the exercise begins to take on the features of a farce. Maybe there are 500 renewable-energy companies in Jefferson County, as the governor also said - three times the number of public schools - but it's going to be interesting to see just what that list includes.

Who knows, maybe you're in charge of one and didn't even know it."

Carroll is at something of a disadvantage, trying to critique a report that isn't out yet. But it's not hard to anticipate that the conclusions will be skewed to advance Ritter's agenda, given that it's a state-funded "study" conducted by what's obviously an advocacy group.

A guess the next question should be: Is this an appropriate use of taxpayer money?

That other newspaper in the nation's capital,The Washington Times, has been running a series of articles asking whether limited government is dead in the United States, which should make for interesting (and perhaps sobering) reading for those who care about the issue. This blog post has links to the three primary articles and some related news items.

I'd say "enjoy," but these pieces don't always make for very enjoyable reading, from a conservatarian point of view.

A delegation from Indianapolis is visiting Denver this week, reports one Indiana television station, to learn more about the Mile High City's experiment with light rail. And let's hope that the guests don't just settle for the boosterish dog-and-pony show, but take a closer, more critical look. One lesson they might take home is that such projects, whatever their alleged benefits, almost always cost way, way more than predicted by proponents, requiring higher fares and/or taxes than anticipated to be self-sustaining.

In that sense, Denver might serve as a model to reject, rather than follow.

I was relieved to see the letter below in this morning's Gazette, which suggests that Springs officials are aware of, and responding to, the Chieftain-led campaign to derail the DOC headquarters decision. I hope this letter was also sent for publication in The Pueblo Chieftain -- though that newspaper is not known for its willingness to play fair, and to publish letters contradicting its editorial line.

It will take more than a stern letter in The Gazette to protect this city's interests against predatory "neighbors." But this at least shows that Springs officials aren't asleep at the switch.

DOC HEADQUARTERS
Pueblo shouldn't cry ‘foul' over DOC decision to stay in Springs

There are times when it makes sense as policy makers and politicians to disagree and throw metaphorical stones at one another. Sometimes it's Democrats against Republicans, sometimes it is urban versus rural, sometimes it's region vs. region. House Speaker Andrew Romanoff is fond of saying "the enemy is not the Republicans, it's the Senate." He gets laughs every time, even from some of us. But there are times when we have to band together and do what is right for Colorado.

The Department of Corrections (DOC) recently decided to keep its headquarters here in Colorado Springs. You can argue that this decision benefits Colorado Springs. Pueblo is trying to make that argument and in the process is calling foul.

DOC should keep its headquarters in Colorado Springs for several reasons. First, DOC has twenty-two prison facilities located throughout the state. Many of them are in southern Colorado; however we have prisons as far north as Sterling. Parole, a part of DOC, is located in Denver as is the Legislature. DOC employees working at Headquarters are required to make many trips to different locations throughout Colorado, and Colorado Springs is more centrally located than is Pueblo.

Second, this is already home to the DOC Headquarters. Roughly 240 state employees work here in Colorado Springs at the Headquarters facility. Making them move is possible, but should be contemplated only if there are significant and valid operational or financial reasons to do so. Otherwise, the DOC Headquarters should stay here. Finally, and most important, DOC should stay in Colorado Springs because it is cheaper!

On October 8, 2008, the Pueblo Chieftain ran an article suggesting that the Pueblo bid to host DOC's Headquarters was $5.4 million cheaper than the selected Colorado Springs option. Nonsense. That $5.4 million figure included only the lease payment portion of the analysis. It is true that the lease payments are about $180,000 per year less costly in Pueblo, but as the Chieftain itself reported, DOC included an analysis of the difference in travel expenses in their decision-making process. Moving to Pueblo means more miles driven, and more time spent on the road to the tune of about $212,000 a year. As reported in the Chieftain, that means that selecting Pueblo would actually cost the taxpayers $32,469 more than staying in Colorado Springs. Why would we spend $32,469 a year more to move the DOC Headquarters to Pueblo while decreasing operational efficiency by having employees spend more time on the road and forcing many of the 240 employees to either move or spend more of our nation's gasoline getting to work?

Keeping the Headquarters in Colorado Springs was the right decision for all Colorado taxpayers.

It is true that Colorado Springs is benefiting from having these jobs and public servants in our community, but that does not mean we are not entitled to advance this decision for the benefit of all Colorado taxpayers. Pueblo may have some fights to pick with us, but surely this isn't one of them.

Sen. John Morse,

Rep. Amy Stephens,

Rep. Bob Gardner,

Rep. Larry Liston,

Sen. Andy McElhany,

Rep. Michael Merrifield

Sen. Dave Schultheis

Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs had better think twice if it believes a decision by the Colorado Department of Corrections to stay headquartered in this city is a done deal, because a guerrilla war is being waged to overturn that decision.

Since DOC announced that it would remain in the Springs, The Pueblo Chieftain has been waging a bitter and relentless campaign, on its news and editorial pages, to build political support for reversing the decision. Now officials in Canon City, which also bid for the headquarters, are chiming in: story link. And there’s a good chance that this issue will become a political football when state legislators reconvene, given the controversy and anger being ginned-up by The Chieftain. Gov. Ritter and majority Democrats owe much more to Pueblo than to Colorado Springs, so there’s a real danger they could intervene on Pueblo's behalf.

Colorado Springs needs to muster all its forces — including city officials, business leaders, state legislators and local media – and launch a counter-offensive, or it could see DOC headquarters yanked away.

The Chieftain, which never needs a lot of goading to bash Colorado Springs, has been devoting barrels of ink to the alleged injustice of the decision: article, article, article. Officials in Pueblo seem stunned that the bribes they dangled before DOC didn’t work their magic. This piece makes clear that Pueblo hopes to overturn DOC’s decision, and get the agency headquartered there, with the help of state legislators. The newspaper’s editorial page called DOC's decision a “kick in the teeth” to Pueblo, in a piece designed to get the war drums beating. And the Chieftain, in a tactic I’ve never before seen, even used its news department to go after The Gazette’s editorial page, by trying to use snippets of a Gazette editorial to suggest that Colorado Springs is hostile to the DOC.

This all might be dismissed as a case of sour grapes, which will die down in a few weeks. But I wouldn’t be so sure. The Chieftain is nothing if not relentless once it begins one of its crusades – as anyone who’s watched the SDS saga knows. And I have no doubt that Chieftain Publisher Bob Rawlings and Democrats in Pueblo will try and use the considerable clout they have in the statehouse and governor’s office to try and monkey-wrench DOC’s decision.

That means the Springs needs to put together a battle plan and begin fighting back. Complacency now could cost us the DOC headquarters.

Communities across the country are selling their souls, and selling the taxpayers out, in order to win bidding wars with other communities over the retention or relocation of jobs and companies. The panhandlers in pinstripes shrewdly play one city or state off against another, to secure the biggest "incentive" packages, usually involving huge tax abatements or cash on the barrel-head. But this is the first time, as far as I know, that City Hall has been auctioned off as part of the "deal."

Reports the Daytona Beach News-Journal:

"And to sweeten the deal on their end, the city in September offered up City Hall as the company's new headquarters at $240,000 annually, with the option to buy it for $3 million within three years. Meneough said, although the company will be breaking ground soon on a 200,000-square-foot facility, the City Hall offer was instrumental in Palm Coast being selected. "Without it, it would have been a very difficult decision to make to stay here and move jobs here," Meneough said."

It's outrageous. It's unbelievable. But the auctioning off of City Hall is also a fitting symbol of how mercenary, and how out of hand, the corporate shakedowns have become. It's time for communities to band together and draw a line against such bidding wars. Maybe Colorado Springs can lead the way, since we haven't yet strayed too far down this path. .

I've argued at length on this blog that any and all restrictions on the right to bear arms should be lifted on federal lands, including in national parks, where carrying loaded weapons is prohibited, so I won't repeat those arguments today. What I will do is link to a wire story, carried in The New York Times, about one of many potential threats facing Americans who visit these remote corners of the country -- which makes it imperative that they have the right, and the means, to defend themselves if necessary.

Mexican drug cartels are turning federal lands into pot plantations. And it's doubtful that they recognize any difference between BLM lands, a national forest or a national park, in terms of where they choose to operate. Until federal authorities get a handle on the situation, and bring more law and order to these places -- and even if they manage to oust the cartels -- Americans who want to carry arms as a safety precaution should be allowed to do so -- including in national parks.

P.S. A story appearing in a Seattle paper today underscores the fact that the drug cartels that are using federal lands as pot plantations don't differentiate between national parks and national forests. The former may even be more attractive to them than the ladder, due to the gun control rules.

P.S.S: Another story, appearing in an Oregon paper Oct. 17, provides further evidence of the dangers the public faces on federal lands. Here's a quote: "According to police information, Francisco Aparisio Chavez, 21, of Michoacán, Mexico, was arrested by agents with the U.S. Forest Service. When he was found, Chavez was allegedly within arm's reach of a loaded pistol-grip pump-action shotgun."

Secretary of State Mike Coffman yesterday challenged the facts and conclusions of a New York Times story -- the subject of my blog post yesterday -- that claimed Colorado and 5 other states were illegally purging voters from the rolls. Coffman pointed to at least two major factual errors in the story; something he blamed on miscommunication between his office and the paper, rather than biased or sloppy journalism. And, just to make the critique bipartisan, State Democratic Party chair Pat Waak chimed in, confirming the inaccuracies.

The Rocky has a more thorough treatment of the story here.

Will the Times correct the record? Perhaps. But don't look for that in bold black on page 1-A. The correction will be tucked away, in the smallest print possible, where you'll have to hunt for it. And in the meantime, the perception has been created, just a few weeks before election day, that states are "illegally" purging people from the voter rolls, in what might sound, to a casual or sloppy news readers, like some sort of dark plot.

These problems originate not with the states, as I pointed out yesterday, but with Washington's 2002 effort to "fix" a state-based elections system that wasn't, by and large, broken. That's the real story -- which the Times brushed past in its search for something more sensational.

A recent LLO "Special Report" profiled some of the private groups that provide medical care for the uninsured and under-insured in the Pikes Peak region, underscoring the point that a big part of the solution for dealing with this complicated problem may already exist in the communities where we live.

We can look reflexively to government for the answers, and get a "solution" that's exorbitantly expensive and ill-tailored to the real problem, or we can look to ourselves; we at LLO believe that the most effective, affordable and humane course of action is the latter, rather than the former. But that requires that the community rallies around, and strengthens, the non-governmental entities that are quietly working these issues on the front lines, relying mostly on private funds and voluntary efforts -- what we call the "do-it-ourselves sector." It's a return to the way Americans dealt with community challenges before government became the fixer of first resort.

Today's Pueblo Chieftain profiles a group of medical professionals from the steel city who provide surgical services to the uninsured, using voluntary efforts and private funds. And such organizations, though largely unheralded, are out there in most American communities today, addressing these issues in a hands-on fashion. Can they do it all themselves? The reflexive answer of some people is, "no, they can't." But we'll never know the answer to the question, or see the do-it-ourselves sector reach its full potential, until we can turn the nay-saying into yay-saying -- until people who really care about the uninsured, instead of waiting around for government to address the problem, start lending higher levels of support to this and similar organizations.

Keep those buckets within easy reach, readers. The ink isn't yet dry on the bailout bill. The Treasury Department, with $700 billion to spread around, is still sorting out who will get the Band-aids. And, as this story indicates, pressure is already building for more action from Washington. All of which seems ominous confirmation of what a savvy market watcher told me just yesterday -- that the bailout bill, "sweeteners" and all, is just a down payment.

This person reluctantly supports the intervention. He believes that the makings are there for another Depression if something isn't done to restore confidence and thaw the credit freeze. And he's not the sort of person who's prone to irrational thoughts or alarmist rhetoric. But I was somewhat relieved this morning to see respected economist Gary Becker putting Depression fears to rest in The Wall Street Journal.

The threat of predatory lending lawsuits from a number of states has forced Bank of America, the new owner of Countrywide Financial, to renegotiate tens of thousands of mortgages, according to The Associated Press. And if all 50 states jump on this bandwagon, and join in the shakedown, the bank could eventually have to provide $8.7 billion in debt relief to 400,000 borrowers. The activist attorney generals who have led this charge are quick to stress that it will cost taxpayers nothing. But I wouldn't be so sure.

It will cost the taxpayers plenty if the terms of this decidedly one-sided "settlement" force Bank of America and other targets out of business, which could further broaden the bailout or, if the bank isn't rescued through federal intervention, leave the taxpayers, through the FDIC, to cover lost deposits. And since Congress, as part of the bailout bill, just recklessly increased federal deposit insurance coverage 150 percent, from $100,000 to $250,00 per account, the risk to taxpayers is much, much greater than it was just a week ago.

Banks and other financial institutions that engaged in fraudulent lending practices should be held accountable -- but on a case-by-case basis, based on tangible evidence. This sort of scatter-shot approach by crusading AGs could do the country much more harm than good, and cost the rest of us dearly, if these coerced settlements push already shaky banks over the edge. Or doesn't anyone else see that?

“Countrywide’s greed turned the American dream into a nightmare for thousands of Californians who now face foreclosure,” said California Attorney General Jerry Brown. But the greedy limelight-seeking of grandstanding AGs like Brown could create a second nightmare, if it sends more banks tumbling over the brink.

If one regularly reads the news and editorial pages of The Pueblo Chieftain -- which is leading the opposition to Colorado Springs’ plan to build a water pipeline to Pueblo Reservoir -- one gets the strong impression that Colorado Springs is greedily sucking up more than its fair share of water and "drying up” farming communities in the Arkansas Valley in a quest to grow as big as Detroit. The Chieftain’s publisher, Bob Rawlings, once actually drew such a comparison, evidently unaware that Detroit (my home town) is emptying out so fast that it hardly counts as a big city any more.

But Detroit is beside today’s point.

This story in today’s Chieftain suggests that there’s a good deal of hypocrisy in the newspaper’s relentless railing against this city's supposedly unquenchable thirst for more water. Pueblo, too, will need to acquire more water in the future, if it intends to grow and prosper. And it will need to store that water in an enlarged Pueblo Reservoir, which is something else The Chieftain opposes. From where will this water come? It will have to be purchased or leased, most likely from agricultural interests in the Arkansas Valley, or acquired from water holders on the Western Slope, which will require the sort of out-of-basin water transfers The Chieftain’s editorial page routinely rails against.

In this respect, Pueblo is no different from Colorado Springs or any other city along the Front Range. The difference, though, is that Pueblo can draw Arkansas River water directly from the source, and doesn’t have to build a pipeline across hostile territory to access its water. That means it isn’t as susceptible as Colorado Springs is to the obstructionist tactics of other counties, which can use regulatory levers to try to shut off another city's spigot.

It’s unclear what Pueblo hopes to gain by blocking our pipeline project. It’s already won some significant concessions, including the use of Colorado Springs water to keep a kayak course in its riverfront district from going dry. Sometimes, it seems to be acting out of sheer maliciousness and envy.

But perhaps the two old neighbors can find common ground in the fact that every city along the Front Range is (as the story’s title suggests) on a “quest for water,” including Pueblo. I believe that there’s plenty of water to go around for everyone, if Coloradans can clear away some of the legal, political and psychological barriers that contribute to the balkanization of water issues in Colorado. Some Coloradans are trying to think constructively about such a future, as this story in today’s Vail Daily explains. But old habits die hard.

Old style water wars will have to end, in short. But that will require that the few old water buffaloes in Pueblo who are encouraging the anti-Springs attitudes recognize that we are all in this together, and that we can all work things out, and find win-wins for all involved, if we choose cooperation over conflict. The Pueblo Chieftain, more than any single entity in the Arkansas Valley, can help bring that change about, by calling a halt to its rhetorical war against Colorado Springs.

One of the must-read features in The Gazette, in my opinion, is Bill Vogrin’s “Side Streets” column, which continually churns out the sorts of stories – always human in scale -- that should strongly resonate with those who care about preserving and expanding local liberty.

He’s already produced a gold mine of posts for our news aggregators. His column frequently spotlights the petty tyrannies that can plague residents, whether they come from City Hall, county government, overzealous rules and regulations, homeowners’ associations – or just busy-body “neighbors” who want to impose their will on another property owner, or block some new development.

Today’s piece, about a man living in the heart of the city who just wants to do his own thing, living “off the grid,” but finds himself the target of code enforcers, offers a fine example of Vogrin’s work. Here, too, is a link to his story archive. Check it out when you get the chance. Chapter by chapter, Vogrin is writing the city’s story, warts and all. And his work frequently reinforces the point of this website – that the fight for freedom begins in America's backyard.