December 2008

Two news items in Tuesday’s Gazette suggest that 2009 could be an unhappy new year for Colorado Springs residents who want to hold the line on higher taxes and the unrestrained growth of city government. The first story dealt with the scramble by City Council and a majority on the Sustainable Funding Committee to place a de-TABORing measure on the April ballot. The second seemed to suggest that opposition to such a measure might be muted or ineffectual, given the sinking political fortunes of irascible TABOR author Douglas Bruce.

Clearly, Bruce’s adversaries in City Hall and the business community hope to seize the moment and free themselves from the taxing and spending discipline imposed by TABOR. But I think they’re misreading the public’s attitude toward Bruce. There still seems to be a deep reservoir of support for the basic tenets of TABOR – controls on government spending and voter approval of tax increases -- even if Bruce’s personal style turns some people off. The unnecessary complexity of Bruce’s latest ballot offerings were their undoing, in my opinion. No one will vote for what they can’t understand. But most Coloradans readily grasp the importance of spending controls and voter consent on tax increases, even if they haven’t read all TABOR’s fine print.

City officials, frustrated by the TABOR straight jacket, are dying to break free. But the taxpayers seem to prefer them constrained, especially during an economic downturn. There’s nothing in the latest election results to suggest that TABOR has lost its appeal, or that citizens are ready to hand government more money. And if City Council thinks Bruce is the lone remaining defender of TABOR, it ought to think again.

TABOR remains popular, even if its author has shortcomings as a convention politician. Coloradans now think of it as their baby, not just Bruce’s – as an insurance policy against unchecked government spending and growth. And placing an anti-TABOR measure on the ballot presents certain risks for City Council incumbents, since that could become a defining issue challengers use against them.

Corporate welfare account?

Brushed over in The Gazette’s otherwise solid ballot story was a second proposal, also a possibility for the April ballot, that would set aside millions of dollars in a corporate welfare fund, controlled by City Council and/or a new entity called the Economic Development Authority (or Jobs Development Authority). And this proposal could be as troubling to taxpayers as the effort to de-Bruce.

The Gazette described this idea, cryptically, as “letting the city maintain a property tax that's scheduled to expire at the end of 2009, which would raise about $3 million a year.” But the story failed to mention what the $3 million, or a good chunk of it, might be used for.

According to minutes from the Dec. 16 meeting of the Sustainable Funding Committee, some if not all the money would be split (perhaps 80/20) between the Greater Colorado Springs Economic Development Corporation, an entity that uses private and public funds to work on retaining and attracting jobs, and the new Economic Development Authority. City Council members would serve on the authority (as if they didn’t have enough on their plates), and almost certainly would control it, according to the latest proposal being floated. The money could be used, based on my reading of the memo, to pay “incentives” to companies that dangle the promise of new jobs in front of the city.

This practice goes by another name, of course – corporate welfare. And it strikes me as highly doubtful that this is something the citizens of Colorado Springs will embrace, particularly when local governments are cutting services and crying poor. Here’s the relevant passage from the minutes, so readers can judge for themselves what’s afoot:

"Mill levy: Mill levy recommendation by Revenue Generation Subcommittee submitted for approval by SFC:

“Without raising additional taxes, shall the existing .665 mills City general property tax be extended from its current expiration of December 31, 2009 [through ____(if sunset)] to be used for the purpose of creating jobs and aiding economic development with such revenue to be remitted annually to the Jobs Development Authority (JDA), a five-person committee appointed by City Council, with staggered three-year terms and no more than 2 such appointees at any time being current City Council Members, to be expended by the JOA on economic development activities in support of the attraction and retention of primary jobs, marketing and promotion of Colorado Springs, with all revenues and expenditures constituting a voter-approved revenue change pursuant to the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Colorado Constitution, Article X, section 20, and City Charter, Article VII, section 7-90?”

The SFC discussed this proposal. Questions were raised about giving public tax dollars to private corporations were discussed with the mill levy monies divided 80/20 between Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and a new oversight committee “Economic Development Authority”. The City needs to be competitive, but is this the best way to be competitive? We offer low cost utilities, natural elements with Pikes Peak Mountain, and an educated work force. EDC move to college and reduce overhead. PFM was asked about best practices for local government for EDC. PFM will provide this information. It was proposed that the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) should be able to request funds from an Economic Development Authority (EDA) oversight committee, with the City providing administrative support for the committee. It was further proposed to label such an oversight committee as a job development group, such as “Job Development Authority”. The Mayor expressed concern that Council should be the decision-makers regarding these funds.

MOTION: Christopher Juniper moved that the committee recommend to Council to put forth ballot measures in April of $1M to new jobs development. Kevin Walker seconded the motion. Andy McElhany amended the motion to leave out the dollar figure of $1M. Christopher Juniper amended his original motion to the mill levy retained through ballot in April that 100% go to job retention and creation. Doug Stimple seconded this motion. The motion passed with two dissenting votes.

MOTION: Doug Stimple moved to table further discussion and commit to get something out from City Attorney for a more specific wording for recommendation. Terry Storm seconded the motion. Discussion determined that retention of all mill levy monies for Economic Development with citizen oversight committee be on the agenda for January 6, 2009. The recommendation should include language for an advisory committee, de-TABOR this levy, add a sunset clause, and include maintenance of effort and percentage of allocation."

The SFC has not yet completed work on these proposals. It may have nothing ballot-ready in time to meet the filing deadline later this month. And some of the nuance of what’s being discussed, and exactly who is advocating what, is hard to get from these meeting minutes. It's good to see, based on the minutes, that at least some committee members may have doubts about the wisdom of this approach.

But a city that until now has only dabbled in the corporate welfare game seems poised to take a much deeper plunge, if this idea makes it to the ballot and is approved. And while that might be a dream come true for EDC president Mike Kazmierski, and for others who for years have been trying to get more taxpayer support for their economic development activities, it puts the city on a slippery slope that could become a nightmare for taxpayers.

Supporters of this idea claim Colorado Springs can’t compete if it doesn’t play the “incentives” game. And if this proposal advances, I’ll be using this space to challenge such arguments in the weeks and months ahead. But if one wants a quick snapshot of just how out-of-hand this has become, scroll through the stories tagged “corporate welfare” in our LLO news archive. I few minutes spent there will show how cutthroat and expensive these bidding wars have become.

Such company-pouching activities create the illusion of "job creation," but in fact they're only moving jobs around the map, based on who is willing to pay more in tribute. This does nothing to grow the economy as a whole. Instead of baking new pies, we’re stealing slices from other cities or towns. It’s fostering a mercenary culture inside corporate boardrooms, state legislatures and city halls all across the country. And it's exploitative of taxpayers, who ultimately foot the bill for these payouts.

The committee is due to meet again, and take up this topic, on January 6. Please stay tuned for further developments, because LLO certainly will.

Many Coloradans who voted to engrave automatic minimum wage hikes into the state constitution meant well. They thought they were looking out for the "little guy." What's the big deal, they thought, if a fat-cat business owner has to pay a few quarters more per hour to the poor guy flipping the burgers or working the cash register? And who could have predicted way back then, when the voting took place, that the economy would before long be fighting for its life -- and that those few quarters might make the difference between whether a business survives or fails, whether it is hiring or firing?

That was the attitude of the majority of voters back then, when the state's minimum wage rates were subjected to the whims of direct democracy. And these, dear voters, are some of the consequences now, for those who are still keeping track.

Colorado’s minimum wage rises 26 cents

December 30, 2008 - 8:33 PM

Debbie Kelley

THE GAZETTE

Colorado's minimum-wage workers will get an automatic 26-cent raise Thursday, when the hourly pay rate increases from $7.02 to $7.28 as mandated by the state's constitution.

The minimum wage for tipped employees, such as restaurant waitstaff and hotel doormen, will rise to $4.26 an hour, from $4.

The change may signal a good start to the New Year for entry-level employees, but business owners say it's another blow to them as they struggle to gain revenue in a slow economy.

"It's an incremental loss for restaurants. Many are afraid to raise their prices when the economy gets tight because we're the expendable income," said Steve Kanatzar, president of the Pikes Peak Chapter of the Colorado Restaurant Association and owner of The Airplane Restaurant, formerly Solos, on Fountain Boulevard.

For the past three years, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has adjusted the minimum wage annually for inflation, based on Consumer Price Index statistics for the Denver, Boulder and Greeley metropolitan areas.

The index increased 3.7 percent from the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2008, resulting in the wage change. Colorado's minimum wage has jumped 41 percent since 2006, when the constitutional amendment tying the minimum wage to inflation went into effect.

Colorado voters approved the ballot issue by a narrow margin, but El Paso County voters rejected the measure, and many continue to maintain that it is flawed.

Steve Bartolin, president of The Broadmoor hotel, said the law's inclusion of tipped employees - who often earn more than nontipped employees - and the stipulation that the rate is adjusted yearly make it "more than just a typical minimum-wage bill."

Thursday's increase will add $150,000 to The Broadmoor's annual payroll, he said, because the five-star and five-diamond resort has about 400 tipped employees.

The practice of ushering in the New Year with a new, inflation-based minimum wage is misguided, said Tim Miller, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit organization that studies entry-level employment.

"It might have made sense in 2006 when the economy was better. But to mandate it regardless of what's happening with the economy doesn't make sense," he said Tuesday.

Colorado is one of 10 states with its own inflation-based law, which Miller said creates "unintended consequences." According to research by his organization, Colorado's unemployment rate has grown 25 percent since last year's pay increase, almost 6 percent higher than states that don't index their minimum wage.

"Twenty-six cents an hour seems like a small amount, but when you put it in context, a business in Colorado Springs with 20 entry-level employees has a yearly increase in the cost of doing business" of thousands of dollars, he said. "With the economy as bad as it is, that's a substantial increase and why you see the lost jobs and cut hours."

But for minimum-wage workers, the extra $40 or so a month will boost their spending power, said Jim Kynor, vice president of operations for the Pikes Peak Workforce Center.

"It certainly will be welcome by those earning the minimum-wage level and seeing an increase in prices at the grocery store and elsewhere," he said.

Businesses should have prepared their budgets in advance for the additional payroll expense, said staff attorney Barbara Wyngarden of Mountain States Employers Council, a Denver-based nonprofit human resources organization with an office in Colorado Springs.

"We hope everyone is aware of this, but some may have overlooked it because they're overwhelmed with day-to-day operations of running their business and have had to deal with layoffs and how to move forward," she said.

With the pay change, companies need to update labor posters that are required to be displayed in public view, Wyngarden added.

COLORADO'S MINIMUM WAGE

2006 $5.15 an hour
2007 $6.85 an hour
2008 $7.02 an hour
2009 $7.28 an hour

The federal minimum wage is $6.55 an hour and will increase to $7.25 an hour in July.

It's rare that an elected official or public employee can stop wearing the hat of government insider, take a few steps back, and see the world as an average citizen might. But that's one of the virtues of El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Bob Balink.

Like any elected official -- and his is a particularly sensitive position -- Balink has his critics and has taken his lumps. But on the occasions I've spoken or corresponded with him, he's been refreshingly candid and objective about how his office and other local government institutions function. He takes pride in the performance of his office, but you don't get the reflexive defensiveness with Balink that you do with so many people in local government, whether they're elected or professional staff. And that refreshing candor was on full display in Tuesday's Gazette, when Balink published the following letter, griping -- as an average citizen might -- about this city's fondness for imposing fees:

FEE HAPPY
Homeowners shouldn't have to pay city for having alarm system

A few years ago we installed a home security system and we pay a monthly fee to the security company to monitor our alarm system.

We recently received a notice from the security company stating that the city of Colorado Springs will now charge citizens a $24 annual fee ($12 for seniors) for allowing us to continue to have a private security company monitor our home security system. The only involvement of city is to charge us the annual fee.

We have never set off the alarm inadvertently, nor have we had a breach of the security system requiring a visit from the Police Department. Don't we pay taxes to the city for public safety already? I don't get it. If I call the CSPD to my home during a home intrusion there is no fee. If my security service calls for me while I am away from home there is a fee. To many, a charge by the city to homeowners owning a security system does not seem reasonable.

I'm wondering if I should tell them I'm considering the purchase of a recently advertised Amish home heater because it will save money on my energy bill. Oh wait, maybe not, because the city recently complained that the good citizens of Colorado Springs have cut energy consumption, so now the city needs to raise rates to maintain revenues.

El Paso County provides extensive services for all its citizens (city and county residents alike) through various offices. These essential services are provided by the county yet its revenues are declining annually. When asked about charging fees to respond to alarms recently, Sheriff Terry Maketa said, "We view it as our job to respond to alarms. That's one reason why we exist."

Is city government getting out of control or is the city just "fee happy?" While I'm thinking that over, I suggest citizens write to the City Council and tell them what you think.

Robert C. Balink, Colorado Springs

A few hard-core information junkies may have spent Christmas day parked in front of the television set, watching Fox News. Hopefully, most of the rest of you had better things to do. But those who weren't watching Thursday missed the chance to catch the editor of this site, and writer of this blog, wearing the hat of Limited Government Forum executive director, quoted in a news segment about Gov. Bill Ritter's efforts to cut waste from Colorado state government.

The gist of what I told the correspondent was that publishing a report and identifying efficiencies was a worthwhile exercise, if there is follow-up and perseverance, but that times of fiscal crisis also present an opportunity to ask more fundamental questions about what functions government should, and should not, be performing. The economic downturn and difficult fiscal situation facing the state, along with the evident reluctance of Coloradans to approve higher taxes, present us with just such an opportunity. That was edited down to produce the sound-bite found near the end of this news report.

I'm not complaining about the segment, mind you. On the contrary, I appreciate Fox's interest in the topic, and its willingness to send a camera crew down from Denver for the interview. And as a former news person, I know all too well that editing is an inexact art, which rarely pleases those being edited. As one colleague pointed out, I in this case got a little taste of my own medicine.

The federal government imposes un-funded mandates on states. And states hand down un-funded mandates on cities, counties and school districts. And this sort of trickle-down regulating is part of why governments at all levels are straining to make ends meet. But now comes an innovative proposal, from Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, to reduce some of these burdens by giving local governments and school districts an extended holiday from the mandates.

Reports Minnesota Public Radio:

"With the state facing a projected $4.8 billion deficit in the next two-year budget cycle, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said the time is right to reform and streamline government.

Pawlenty said one of the changes he's looking at is relief from state mandates for cities, counties and school districts.

"We have repeatedly asked the counties and others if there are certain mandates that you think are cumbersome or inefficient or unfair or burdensome or dramatically underfunded, and you want to be relieved of those. Give us a list. We haven't received it yet, this year or last year or anytime we've asked for it. So, it's pretty clear to us they don't want to say which ones they want to eliminate. So we will give them the option," Pawlenty said.

During a recent news conference, Pawlenty provided a brief glimpse at his proposal. The Republican governor said he wants to give city councils, county boards and school boards a chance to opt out of burdensome state mandates, as long as the move doesn't result in a cost to the state."

Here's the complete story for those who want more details.

Why not take Pawlenty’s idea a step further, however. State legislators could help extend the holiday indefinitely by simply refusing to approve new un-funded mandates, and by reviewing every bill proposed, in light of the costs and complications it will impose on local governments (including school districts). Those mandates that can be suspended without any ill effect, or without anyone noticing, could be permanently rescinded. And just think of how much further the states could stretch their budgets if Washington would jump aboard the mandate-reduction bandwagon and place a moratorium on the trickle-down regulation of the states.

This is the time of year when Colorado legislators are looking for a worthy cause to champion next session. Perhaps someone should grab onto this one.

Two Christmas eve news items serve as a welcome reminder that, while many Americans are willing to surrender their basic liberties for promises of safety or security or economic stability, the spirit of rebellion that spawned the American Revolution still burns bright and hot in many of us -- even if we express it in funny or odd or technically illegal ways.

Although it was banned as a "nuisance" and public safety hazard by authorities in Anchorage, Alaska, after complaints were heard from Scrooges in the neighborhood, "Snowzilla" has returned, bigger and bolder than ever, miraculously reappearing in a front yard this morning. The owner of the home, who started the tradition a few years ago, but this year was served with a cease-and-desist order, disavows any involvement in the illegal snowman-building caper. Maybe it should just be chalked-up as a Christmas miracle -- assuming there isn't some ordinance against those.

And from Phoenix comes this story, sure to warm the heart of every freedom-loving American, about a group of jolly old elfs who gift-wrapped a few of the automated traffic cameras that have been proliferating in the city, as a gift to motorists. The perpetrators videotaped their act of civil disobedience and posted it on YouTube, accompanied by the message, "lumps of coal to all of those who make it their business to watch and control.'' And while I'm certainly not in any way condoning illegal activity, I do appreciate the holiday message, and holiday cheer, they were attempting to share.

Merry Christmas, everyone. And remember that the most precious gift you can give or receive as an American is your freedom. And it's a gift that will keep on giving, as long as you're deligent in defending it.

Cracks are forming -- actually, they're more like chasms -- in the claim that most of the world's experts have reached a "consensus" position on the ultimate origins of climate change. Al Gore and other alarmists have convinced millions of people, and many working in the media, that temperature trends are caused by industrialization and over-consumption by human beings, requiring a dramatic regulatory response that could (further) cripple our economy. Most news outlets, having jumped aboard the bandwagon, now report this as fact rather than theory, lending weight to popular perceptions that all the scientific questions have been settled and that any regulatory response is justified.

But a new report compiled by the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has an updated list of 650 highly-credentialed, highly-credible experts who dissent from the alarmist "consensus." Here's a link to the press release announcing the report. The complete, 233-page document can be downloaded here.

Its Dec. 15 release was met with a big fat yawn from the "mainstream" media, which is now heavily vested in the apocalyptic story angle -- the suicide of the planet, now that's a story. And left-wing blogs started nit-picking it apart, questioning the credentials of some of the experts on the list -- although all of them have more standing to talk intelligently on the topic than Gore does. But a lot is riding on how the debate plays out in the public arena. If climate change can convincingly be laid at man's feet, and Americans accept the idea that a complete overhaul of the economy is required to avert calamity, imagine the regulatory power that lands in government hands.

It will be the fulfillment of Al Gore's dream, as described in his book Earth in the Balance -- that environmentalism will become the central organizing principle of this society (with economic and political liberty becoming secondary or tertiary concerns).And that, I believe, could usher in a Green tyranny that will compare favorably with the Red tyranny the world knew in the 20th Century.

An extreme prediction? Perhaps. But the mainstreaming of extremism is what the environmental movement is all about. And climate change is their ticket to power.

If you don't mind killing a few trees, print the report out. Give the gift of sanity this holiday season by sending it out to open-minded family members and friends, wrapped up nicely in ribbons and bows. And keep a personal copy nearby, at the ready, as a rebuttal, when next you hear someone say that the scientific debate has been settled. If this person refuses to read it, hit him over the head with it (but not too forcefully). Either way, it will serve as a wake-up call.

House Minority Leader Mike May has the best idea yet for saving this cash-strapped state some money: Stop lawmakers from "making" more laws than they absolutely must.

May wants to shorten the 2009 legislative session from 120 to 90 days, believing that this will focus legislators on the basics, like balancing the budget, and discourage the sort of make-work legislating that almost invariably grows government, adds overhead costs and imposes unnecessary new burdens on the rest of us.

This will come as a blow, I know, to all those legislators -- I won't name names -- who get bored with their more mundane responsibilities and spend the off-season scouring the newspapers for "problems" to fix. For every tragedy or misfortune that occurs, these people want a regulatory response. But a shortened session will come as a relief to those of us who have to live with the consequences of these ill-considered, hastily approved "solutions." Colorado's legislature has proved that it can pass a lot of strange and frivolous laws in the 120 days at its disposal; here's a perfect example. Paring the session back might help eliminate the worst of them.

I've seen no studies to confirm this, but I would bet that there's a direct correlation between the length of time a state legislature stays in session and the severity of the fiscal and regulatory straits that state finds itself in. States that have part-time legislatures almost invariably are better off than states with full-time legislatures. In this case, less really is more. And how much better off might we be with even less make-work lawmaking?

In fact, it would be interesting, just as an experiment, to cancel the session altogether in 2010, which would be possible if we adopted biannual budgeting in 2009. I'm guessing that most Coloradans wouldn't even notice -- and that many would breathe a sign of relief.

The proposed creation of a black-footed ferret colony on Fort Carson has school kids, zoo personnel, blinkered biologists and animal lovers all aglow, as The Gazette continues to report. But what a successful program will mean for property owners, public lands users, agriculture interests and local governments along the Front Range isn’t really being addressed, as far as I can tell.

This colony may not thrive, so such discussions may to some folks seem premature. But when they succeed, such reintroductions can bring severe complications and regulatory controls, as anyone who’s followed the story of the Canada lynx and gray and Mexican wolf should recognize.

Here, just to help readers peer into the future -- and so no one can someday invoke the "law of unintended consequences" -- are three recent stories about how Colorado’s voluntary reintroduction of lynx is coming back to haunt it (and New Mexico): story, story, story. And here are a few recent stories about the latest consequences of wolf reintroduction -- story, story, story -- for those who care to think such matters through.

Just yesterday I raised the possibility of privatizing Colorado's state-run universities, in response to a story in the Detroit News about a proposal to do something similar in Michigan. And today, just like magic, the story below appeared in the Denver Post, indicating that similar ideas are being considered closer to home. Both proposals will be met with knee-jerk emotional responses by those who just can't see how the taxpayers and the schools might benefit from giving these campuses partial or complete autonomy. But cooler heads might see some merit in the idea, if they can tune out the shouting that will naturally ensue.

Here's the story:

Could higher ed go solo?

Colorado's four public research universities have been asked by a member of the state legislature's budget writing committee how they would survive if they received no dollars from the state legislature.

The specter of privatization has presidents at the University of Colorado, Colorado State University, the Colorado School of Mines and the University of Northern Colorado hustling to prepare worst-case scenarios to present to lawmakers today.

Tuition would inevitably jump dramatically. Programs would be slashed. And, as CU president Bruce Benson put it, "We'd have to figure out another way to turn on the lights."

It all started when state Rep. Don Marostica of the Joint Budget Committee posed the question this week in a lengthy questionnaire to the state's public colleges and universities.

"I wake up at 2 a.m., and I think about it. This higher education is not working; it's costing us too much money," said Marostica, a Republican who represents Larimer County. "I simply felt like they could be run as enterprises, true enterprises. I want them all to be private schools."

Some of the state's money now devoted to the institutions could instead go to private scholarships, he said.

"It could be, by 2020, here's how we get them off the state dole," he said.

State Sen. Moe Keller, chairwoman of the JBC, said she would oppose any push to privatize the state's universities and called the question "academic."

"I think it was an informational question," said Keller, a Democrat from Jefferson County.

The state gives about $813 million a year to higher education, which includes student financial aid.

State officials are anticipating a $100 million budget shortfall and have asked the state Department of Higher Education to come up with ideas on where to cut, if they have to cut, next year. State higher education officials wouldn't share those recommendations Wednesday.

State dollars only make up between 10 and 25 percent of the budgets at the four research schools, which have a little more than 100,000 students combined.

The schools, particularly CU, are heavily fortified by research and private foundation dollars, but presidents say state money goes to salaries, financial aid, electricity and capital-construction projects.

"If the world comes to an end, and I need to run CU, I'd do it," Benson said. CU's state allocation of $228 million composes just less than 10 percent of its $2.4 billion budget. "But I would just as soon not be on life support in a coma."

With no general-fund money, CU would double in-state tuition from the current $7,000 a year, according to a spokesman. Harvard charges just more than $32,000 a year.

At CSU, interim president Tony Frank announced Wednesday $1 million in administration budget cuts and layoffs. He said without state support, the school would increase tuition and probably pare course offerings.

Threats to privatize Colorado's state colleges and universities have been floated before. In 2004, then- state Sen. Ron Teck pitched the idea of a constitutional amendment to turn higher education into a private enterprise in Colorado.

Sometimes presidents themselves come up with the idea to squirm around restrictions on tuition increases. In California, talk of privatizing part or all of the Berkeley campus has been common among some deans frustrated by state support of the school.

"There are two questions: Is this good for Colorado, and is this good for the university? In some cases, the answer isn't the same," said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center of Public Policy and Higher Education, which recently gave Colorado an "F" for college affordability and access. "It seems to me you should talk about what the impact would be on opportunity."

CSU student president Taylor Smoot called privatizing higher education "a travesty."

"Everyone at the state Capitol should be ashamed of themselves if that takes place," he said. "How does the state think we're going to maintain a competitive workforce if they aren't supporting us?"

Desperate times call for desperate measures. But not all desperate measures are terrible ideas -- so desperate times can also be an invitation to boldness, innovation, out-of-the-box thinking. That's a potential silver lining to the dark fiscal clouds that are looming over all levels of government.

Though it probably won't go anywhere, a proposal to privatize the University of Michigan, as a response to that state's budget crunch, at least has some people thinking about options they wouldn't have thought of otherwise. And, as this story in The Detroit News makes clear, not everyone is a naysayer.

"The Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a Midland-based conservative think tank, published a paper in 2004 supporting the privatization of U-M. Doing so could boost the university's reputation, save taxpayers money and liberate U-M from political hassles with Lansing, the center said.

"Tuition hikes could actually help those students who truly need the help, by enabling the school to offer greater outright gift aid and tuition reductions to students from low-income families," the authors said.

The idea didn't gain much traction. But as the state faces a $1.1 billion projected budget shortfall by 2012, the Legislative Commission on Government Efficiency is charged with searching everywhere to make cuts. The commission will make its final recommendations to the Legislature and the governor next year."

Colorado's fiscal situation isn't as dire as Michigan's, fortunately, so we might not have to think this creatively about ways to cut costs and streamline government. But why wait for the crisis to become acute, if steps we can take now might put a crisis off, or avert it?

Severing the financial and bureaucratic ties between the state and its university system is something that ought to be debated when it's an option, not a necessity. How about it, Colorado?

Robert Samuelson, an eminently sensible man, succinctly explains in yesterday's Washington Post why little will change in Washington with the coming of the Obama administration, in terms of curbing K Street lobbyists -- and why their numbers and influence might actually increase in the years ahead, as Obama increases the size and scope of the federal government.

What self-styled political reformers rarely concede, or apparently refuse to understand, is that the real corrupting element in Washington isn't lobbyists or campaign contributions, but the power, control and money concentrated in the capitol city -- meaning that nothing will change there until we de-fund, de-power and downsize Washington. The more influence Washington exerts over our everyday lives, the more influence peddlers it will breed and attract. It's that simple. Samuelson also does a public service in this column by putting the much-vilified lobbying business in context, pointing out that lobbying, in its broadest sense, is democracy in action.

The entire column is worth reading, but here are the key paragraphs (the first sentences of which should be committed to memory by would-be reformers):

"The only way to eliminate lobbying and special interests is to eliminate government. The more powerful government becomes, the more lobbying there will be. So, paradoxically, Obama's ambitions for more expansive government will promote special pleading. You need only watch the response to the expected "economic stimulus" plan -- totaling perhaps $700 billion -- to verify this eternal truth. "A Lobbying Frenzy for Federal Funds," read the headline of one Post story.

There's more to come. Obama envisions refashioning a third of the economy: the health-care sector, representing about 16 percent of gross domestic product; the energy sector, nearly 10 percent of GDP; and the financial sector (banks, securities brokers, insurance companies), about 8 percent of GDP. There will be a vast mobilization of interests: from radiologists to renewable energy producers; from mutual funds to hospitals. Says Bara Vaida, the respected lobbying reporter for National Journal: "This will be a bonanza for K Street" -- the symbolic hub of Washington lobbyists."

The Gazette's Bill Vogrin has another outstanding "Side Streets" column today, which describes how nonsensical this city's zoning and code laws can be. The story also demonstrates how all these silly rules and regulations are exploited by unreasonable people to increase the hassle factor for supposed "neighbors." Also very interesting and informative was a response posted by "Dafydd," which explains critical differences in the way West-enders do historic preservation -- which relies on the carrot -- and the way North-enders do it -- which ruthlessly uses the stick. A truly free society should always opt for the carrot, and eschew the stick.

I'll paste Vogrin's column below, followed by "Dafydd"'s response.

SIDE STREETS: Common sense missing in code and zoning laws

BILL VOGRIN

THE GAZETTE

How is this for logic: A day care center can have a lighted sign advertising its business on North Nevada Avenue. But when a bed-and-breakfast a few doors down puts up a simple wooden sign, it is ordered removed and the owner threatened with a fine.

In fact, the B&B is a block away from a home furnishings store, which also has a sign, and an apartment house. (It's not exactly a pristine historic residential neighborhood.)

Yet when Mike Beck erected a simple wooden sign in front of the Lennox House Bed & Breakfast in April, he learned that common sense doesn't always prevail when it comes to codes and zoning regulations.

Especially in Colorado Springs' Old North End, where residents have worked hard to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood against those who would build apartment buildings or modern houses or garish walls that don't fit amid the Victorian mansions and 100-year-old homes.

"They said we are violating rules preserving the historic aspect of the neighborhood," Beck said. "They told us our sign is not allowed."

This is not some obnoxious neon or lighted sign for a tattoo parlor or tavern. Beck put a 3-by-5-foot sign in his yard so guests unfamiliar with the area won't miss the Lennox House while driving busy Nevada Avenue.

Despite the bright yellow paint on the Victorian inn, folks seemed to have trouble finding it, especially through the canopy of trees and amid the heavy traffic that plagues the avenue. As a result, they have to turn and circle until they spot it, adding to the congestion of the area two blocks north of Colorado College.

So Beck commissioned a painted wooden sign, dug a couple of post holes and erected it in the front yard, inside its curved iron fence. (See photos, maps and more on my blog).

Big mistake. Soon Beck received a warning. The sign was illegal and had to come down.

"Our house is extremely historic and we designed the sign in that fashion," Beck said. "It matched the house, white and yellow with green trim."

Neighbors disagreed.

"I got a letter saying I'm going to be fined," he said. "Someone at the Old North End Neighborhood complained."

The warning irked Beck. For the past three years, Beck, his wife and three children have devoted their lives to restoring Lennox House and sponsoring events that preserve and highlight the history of the house and area.

And then there's the issue of the other business signs nearby.

"The day care has a sign that is lit up," Beck said. "Why can't we have our sign?"

Historic use of their properties as commerical lets the day care and home furnishings store have signs.

Beck will have to convince city planners and historians that his sign is necessary and would not damage the historic nature of the neighborhood.

It's especially complicated because Lennox House sits in the North End Historic District and is subject to City Council-imposed design guidelines enforced by the preservation board.

Convincing the neighbors will be the hard part. The Old North End fiercely opposed the B&B when it was proposed a decade ago. To appease them, the city attached a "condition of use" to the property's 1997 development plan prohibiting a free-standing sign.

Beck is considering if it's worth the expense, time and stomach acid he'd likely endure to get his sign.

Guess neighbors prefer having cars circling around, looking for the place.

Response from "Dafydd":

Ah, North Enders are not just elitists, some are downright dumb. Let me point out the huge difference between the way they, on the North End have dealt with how to preserve the historical character of the North End, and the way we on the Westside of Colorado Springs are doing it.

When I first undertook the revitalization of the run down (residential and commercial) westside in 1975, I saw that you could do more historic preservation with a carrot (affordable loans) than with a stick (harshly enforced building codes). And so put together the way small would-be businesses could borrow both block grant funds coupled with SBA loan guarantees - with the condition that, in order to get the loan to buy the building and get financing in for the entire business (renovation and capital equipment such as cost ovens for a restaurant) you had to agree to present an elevation drawing of the front of the building that would show the work would enhance the original historic look of the building, and fit in with our 'Historic Commerical District' plans.

That worked. From 50% of all 92 of the commercial buildings being vacant between 24th and 27th street, after 35 business/buildings were financed with NO eminent domain forced sales that downtown did in the 70s, everybody else saw it would not only be nice, but profitable if they follwoed suit.

THEN with the 4,000 westside homes, many in disrepair, the neighbors, with the Organization of Westside Neighbors (OWN) - which I helped form in 1978 in the lead - a somewhat similar program was launched across the residential westside. And without any 'code enforcement, except the health and safety needed, not only were some homes financed for middle income families, but lots more people saw how 'nice' 1890's homes would be to live in, so they bought them and fixed them up on their own.

Meanwhile the North Enders went after a National Historic District designation from the Federal Government. And through a bitter fight it got rammed through. Then went after a North End City Historic Overlay Zone, to be enforced by a local Historical Preservation Commission.

So, under Federal AND State Law, IF there is a municipal Historic Overlay, then EVERY MODIFICATION OF THE EXTERIOR OF A HOME INSIDE THE ZONE IS SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THAT COMMISSION. Including signage. Since Northenders including even some Colorado College Republicans were stupid enough to tie their own hands by those laws, NOBODY can change anything without permission.

While I studied the local Ordnance that created the local rules, and saw that ONLY if a National Historic District were created over westside homes, AND an Historic Overlay Zone is lobbied for and enacted by pretty much a vote by westsiders, THEN every external modification of a house under the Zone would be subject to the Historic Commission second-guessers.

So the Westsiders are NOW pursuing an Historic Overlay Zone over all 4,000 homes BUT the City, under its own ordnance CANNOT order the homeowners to change anything because the Historical Commission thinks they should. The commission can LOBBY the owner to do the right historical thing, but unlike the Northend, now locked into their own government straightjacket, the Westsider's historical preservation efforts will be VOLUNTARY,and ONLY if a single homeowner wants a 20% State Tax Incentive over their cost for 'historic' improvements, do they, singularly, have to subject themselves to Historic Commission review.

So you have NOT heard the big objections on the Westside 4,000 home owners that you heard from a lot of the 750 Northenders who did NOT want government telling them what to do with their own home. Because Westsiders, as long as their improvements meet the general building codes everybody has to observe, can do what THEY want. And ONLY if they also want a big tax rebate for their costs do they have to be willing to let the Historic Commission approve their improvements. But all Westsiders will will be helped in their ideas by a Handbook being written that shows them HOW they can improve or preserve the historical look and feel of their humble little homes.

So could the lesser affluent - than Northenders - and less educated - than the Colorado College Professors who are in the middle of the Northend Zone, be smarter than they are?

If there's going to be an frenzy of federal "infrastructure spending," as a means of stimulating the economy, let's at least spend the money smartly, argues Joel Kotkin in this sensible piece in yesterday's Washington Post. "Don't just stand there, spend something" seems to have become the consensus economic recovery strategy in Washington, all too conveniently. "Subsidy-side economics" might best describe Obama's approach to recovery. But Kotkin argues that we should forego flashiness and fads, opting for practicality over pie-in-the-sky, if we want to get the most bang for our bucks.

I hope some of president-elect Obama's advisors were reading The Post Sunday.

Make Sure All That Spending Is Well Supported
By Joel Kotkin

It's the new buzzword: infrastructure.

President-elect Barack Obama has promised billions in infrastructure spending as part of a public works program bigger than any since the interstate highway system was built in the 1950s. Though it was greeted with hosannas, his proposal is only tapping into a clamor for such spending that's been rising ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 and a major bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last year. With the economy now officially in recession, the rage for new brick and mortar is reaching a fever pitch.

But before we commit hundreds of billions to new construction projects, we should focus on just what kind of infrastructure investment we should -- and shouldn't -- be making. More important, we should think beyond temporary stimulus and make-work jobs and about investments that will propel the economy well into this century.

After all, it's not that we stopped spending on infrastructure over the past decade. It's that mostly, we haven't spent on the right things.

New York City, for example, has wasted billions on its bloated bureaucracy and on constructing new sports stadiums and other ephemera deemed necessary to maintain Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "luxury city." Meanwhile, many of its subway and rail lines have deteriorated. Over the decades, brownouts and blackouts, caused in part by underinvestment in energy infrastructure, have become common during periods of high energy use in the summer.

Similarly, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has extolled the Golden State as "the cutting-edge state . . . a model not just for 21st-century American society but the world." Yet California's once envied water-delivery systems, roadways, airports and schools are in serious disrepair.

Many even more hard-pressed communities -- Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore
and New Orleans -- have similarly wasted limited treasure on spectacular new convention centers, sports arenas, arts and entertainment facilities and hotels while allowing schools, roads, ports and other critical sinews of economic life to fray.

Convention centers and other tourist attractions create reasonably high-paying construction jobs in the short term, but over time, they create an economy dominated by lower-wage service jobs. Take New Orleans. It was once one of the nation's great industrial and commercial centers. But then the city turned its back for decades on its diverse economic base and invested not in levees, port development and basic infrastructure but in the arts, culture and tourism. The tourism and convention business surged, but the result was a low-wage economy. Nearly 40 percent of New Orleans households, or twice the national average, earned less than $20,000 a year in 2000.

Other places have followed a similar trajectory of folly, heavily subsidizing luxury condominiums, restaurants and other amenities to help lure the so-called creative class. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's 2003 plan to turn her state around focused on creating "cool cities" aimed at attracting hip, educated workers to Detroit and other failing urban centers. Instead of sparking an economic revival, Granholm has presided over a mass exodus of younger workers who can't find jobs in her state.

Perhaps no place epitomizes misplaced priorities better than Pittsburgh. Widely hailed in the media as a poster child for the urban "renaissance," Pittsburgh has suffered a precipitous decline in population: Its 310,000 residents are less than half its 1950 peak. It now shares with parts of the former East Germany the gloomy demographic of having more residents die each year than are born.

Like other cities, Pittsburgh has sought to revive itself with billions in new stadiums, arenas and cultural facilities. Meanwhile, its roads and bridges are in a constant state of disrepair. Most recently, the city embarked on a scheme to create a 1.2-mile, $435 million transit tunnel under the Allegheny River to connect downtown's heavily subsidized towers with taxpayer-funded pro sports stadiums and a new casino. This "tunnel to nowhere," derided by a local columnist as the nation's "premier transit boondoggle," will no doubt be the sort of thing many states and localities will seek federal infrastructure funds for, justifying them on the basis of both short-term economic stimulus and some kind of "green" agenda.

Although some new spending on efforts such as developing alternative fuels could improve efficiencies, many "green" projects seem destined to devolve into little more than expensive boondoggles. A recent program passed by the Los Angeles City Council, for example, calls on the city-owned utility's ratepayers to subsidize installing solar panels on office buildings. This plan, heavily promoted by labor lobbyists, mandates that the project be carried out by the

Department of Water and Power, whose employees are among the most well-paid public workers in the nation. By some estimates, it would raise the price of electricity by as much as 8 percent. But it will do nothing to slow the continued flight of industrial and other employment from Los Angeles or its suburbs.

A "red-green" tilt to infrastructure programs -- essentially marrying the labor and environmental lobbies -- also seems sure to raise spending on public mass-transit projects. Some transit or rail spending can, of course, promote efficiency and productivity. A significant incentive to increase rail freight, for example, could boost productivity in the critical manufacturing, agriculture and energy industries because rail can generally carry far more goods on less fuel than long-haul trucking.

Spending on upkeep of transit systems in older centralized cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago also seems logical. But with few exceptions -- the heavily traveled corridor between downtown Houston and the Texas Medical Center, for instance -- ridership on most new rail systems outside the traditional cities has remained paltry, accounting for barely 1 or 2 percent of all commuters. Such projects are almost absurdly expensive on a per-capita basis; the Allegheny Institute, a Pennsylvania think tank that pursues free-market solutions to local questions, estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of each trip through the new Pittsburgh tunnel could be as much as $15.

Infrastructure investment requires a strong litmus test. Where the cash goes should be determined chiefly on the basis of how the spending will enhance the nation's productive capacity and raise incomes across the board. This also means looking beyond traditional brick and mortar investments to critical skills shortages. Businesspeople nationwide complain repeatedly of a chronic shortage of skilled blue-collar workers and technicians. More than 80 percent of 800 U.S. manufacturing firms surveyed in 2005 reported "a shortage of qualified workers overall." Nine in 10 firms said that they faced a "moderate-to-severe shortfall" in qualified technicians.

In sharp contrast to sports stadiums and convention centers, programs in skills training for U.S.-based industries such as aerospace, energy, machine tools and agricultural equipment tend to create high-wage jobs, which have expanded over the past decade even as the overall number of industrial positions has declined. Many industrial companies are increasingly desperate for skilled workers and often consider locating wherever they can be found. These companies also produce many jobs that, though not located on the factory floor, are critical to the nation's competitive edge. For example, the Manufacturing Institute estimates that manufacturers employ one-fourth of all scientists and 40 percent of engineers.

A forward-looking infrastructure program would also target places that would most benefit from new roads, bridges, ports and other critical facilities, including underperforming regions such as the Great Plains, Appalachia and rural Pennsylvania, as well as the depressed Great Lakes area.

These areas offer cheaper labor and housing, prime locations and access to natural resources. Making them more accessible to markets and more energy efficient could replicate the great New Deal success in modernizing much of the South and West.

Perhaps most critical, we need to look at how to combine new physical investments with new initiatives in skills training, incubating small companies and promoting better ties with local universities and research facilities. This "infrasystems" approach has been implemented successfully in places as diverse as North Dakota's Red River Valley, the area around Wenatchee, Wash., and in various Southern locales such as Charleston and Savannah.

The call for more spending on infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to rebuild our productive economy and create long-term middle-class jobs. But if the effects are going to last, the trick is to concentrate on the basics and forget the flashy, feel-good kinds of projects that have characterized many "infrastructure" investments in recent years.

Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of newgeography.com. He is finishing a book on the American future.

On the one hand, one has to wish the black-footed ferrets well that are being released into the wild on Fort Carson, in an innovative collaboration between the base, the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They're such cute little buggers. No one wants to see them go extinct.

But the success of the reintroduction program could become a nightmare for property owners, ranchers, local governments and the state of Colorado as a whole, if these ferret populations flourish and migrate beyond the base, given the regulatory controls and property rights violations that follow endangered species wherever they go. If the test colony survives on Fort Carson, the plan is to replicate the experiment elsewhere. "If successful, the release could be a blueprint for other locations on the Front Range and eastern plains," reports The Gazette. And once those populations are established, they'll need to be protected by a "critical habitat" designation and a host of land control regulations that come with it.

Such is the nature of the Endangered Species Act. And this will have profound implications for everyone living, and working the land, along the Front Range.

Colorado got sucked into a similar situation in the case of the Canada lynx. The state agreed years ago to host a reintroduction effort, which is ongoing, with the condition that the feds wouldn't bring the full weight of the ESA down on our heads if it worked. But once the cats, which had been erased from the state, were back, the rules of the game changed. The fact that Canada lynx are back in the state now becomes a factor in almost every U.S. Forest Service decision. Those wanting to block expansion of the ski area at Wolf Creek, for instance, or to dictate a host of other public lands decisions, can and will use the lynx as a pawn in that effort. Check out this story in today's Vail Daily. And one can predict a similar scenario unfolding in the case of the ferrets.

How might a growing population impact training at Fort Carson? What will it do to ranching on the eastern plains? How will it impact local land use rules along the fast-growing Front Range? All these issues need to be thought out and debated in advance, but they aren't. I follow these issues closely and this is the first I've heard of the black-footed ferret recolonization plan. It seems to have been hatched quietly, by a handful of government insiders. But the potential wider implications haven't been debated, and can't be well understood, by Coloradans as a whole.
Perhaps Fort Carson officials and folks at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have penned a memorandum of understanding -- at least I would hope they have -- ensuring that training can continue as usual, even if the base is crawling with ferrets. But what assurances do the rest of us have that doing the right thing now won't come back to haunt us in the future? None whatsoever.

And even if someone gave us such assurances, what faith could we have that they would be fulfilled, given that any such agreement could be taken to court and overturned by a judge, at the behest of the unreasonable people who use the ESA as a tool to curtail development, block water and energy projects, bludgeon property owners, etc.? Such guarantees aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

So while we should wish this experimental little colony of black-footed ferrets well, we should also monitor this effort closely, and with concern, given that no good deed goes unpunished under the ESA.

We post a lot of interesting and outrageous stories on this website, as part of our mission to raise awareness that not all the threats to our freedom, independence, opportunity and pocketbooks come from Washington, D.C., or the statehouse in Denver. But some stories stand out in terms of their ability to illustrate the abuses of power -- in this case, the trampling of property rights and mindless rigidity of zoning law -- that routinely take place at the grassroots level, right under the noses of supposedly freedom-loving Americans.

Today's notable news story comes from Tacoma, Washington, where the owner of a longtime local store finds herself facing closure, and possible ruin, simply because she wasn't grandfathered in after a zoning change. Rather than simply correct things, in recognition that the situation is absurd, local bureaucrats, like mindless automatons, insist on standing by the rules, no matter how unreasonable they are.

These are the sorts of stories we tag, for archiving purposes, as "Twilight Zoned."

Midland lot rezoned: Store’s fans fight closure order

Michelle Robinson sells nostalgia at her Old Time Five & Dime store in Midland.

“People come in here in a bad mood,” she said recently, “and they leave happy. They always see something that reminds them of their childhood.”

Robinson markets her store as the last old-time five-and-dime in the state. Her customers have other names for it – the candy store, the tool store, the party store. It depends on what they are looking for.

The store, however, has never been called illegal – until now.

Pierce County planners have ordered the business at 9310 Portland Ave. shut down by Jan. 16 because it doesn’t meet 2002 zoning codes for Midland. The property is zoned residential now; no retail businesses allowed.

Even though there’s been a business on the site for 20 years, the store can’t be “grandfathered” – exempted from the new regulations because it existed when they took effect – because there’s no record of a business being there after the late 1980s, said Rob Jenkins, a senior planner with the county’s Planning and Building Service Division.

Planners can’t even find an old building permit for the store, which Robinson has owned for 11 years.

Robinson argues she nevertheless has been paying taxes to the state and county as a business. Regardless of Midland’s current regulations, the county in the past has coded her building as commercial, she said.

It indeed might be a clash over old and new zoning and building regulations, but Robinson’s customers are up in arms. Nearly 300 of them have signed a petition pleading with the county to keep the store open. One petitioner called it a “community legend.” Another wrote: “We need the 5 & 10, leave the little guys alone.”

Robinson also has the backing of the relatively new Business Association of Midland and the Midland Residents Association.

Lisa Zander of Puyallup said she and her kids like shopping at the Five & Dime. “It’s like an icon, like a landmark,” she said. “I don’t think it’s right to mess with her because without it how is she going to make her mortgage?”

Cindy Quinn of Midland stopped by last week to buy one of Robinson’s homemade Christmas wreaths.

“This is one of the most pleasant things to see when you drive through Midland,” she said.

A TRIP BACK IN TIME

The nostalgia of the Old Time Five & Dime starts outside with a false front roof line that has the look of an old Western storefront. Robinson salvaged cedar planks from a 150-year-old barn for the facade. A shed roof covers the porch, and rustic signs complete the look.

The trip down memory lane picks up inside. Remember Fizzies, jumbo Sugar Daddies, tiny Nik-L-Nips wax bottles full of flavored water? How about fake fingers, aluminum rings, rubber chickens or short wave radios?

She has them and much more, including tools and household items, some 348,000 different items at last count, she said. Her stock fills every square inch of space. It hangs off shelves and walls and nearly obscures the sales counter.

(Not everything is old fashioned: Robinson also operates an online party supply and novelty business -- stores.ebay.com/OLD-TIME-FIVE-AND-DIME -- where customers can order any of those items and more.)

Robinson is a 38-year-old single mother with a 16-year-old son, Justin, and a 14-year-old daughter, Amanda. Her divorce earlier this year hurt her financially, she said, adding that the county’s action is just another kick in the side.

Jenkins said county planners are sympathetic to her problems and have given her two options.

Because Robinson lives in a house on the same property as the store, she can apply to operate a home-occupancy business. She could keep the door open for walk-in customers and for people picking up items they bought from her online.

She could store items, too, and have one 2-foot-square sign.

There are fees for that option: $252 for a home-occupancy permit and $376.29 for a building permit. She also would need a report from a structural engineer confirming that the 22-year-old building is sound.

Besides operating as a home business, Jenkins said, Robinson could apply to have her property rezoned back to commercial. The Midland community is beginning a review of its community plan and can seek amendments as needed.

“If the community in Midland desires to make a commercial corridor on Portland Avenue and makes that clear to the County Council, that can happen by 2010,” Jenkins said.

In the meantime, the county has ordered Robinson to remove the store’s signs and the neon “Open” sign in the window. “They flat out told me not to look like a store anymore,” she said. “I guess I’ll have to operate by word of mouth.”

ZONING’S UNINTENDED EFFECT

Cindy Beckett is a Midland activist and board member of the Midland Residents Association. She was involved in the community plan and zoning for Midland and said they never meant to change the zoning for any business in the community.

She said the community knows there has been a business on Robinson’s property – the Five & Dime or before that her parents’ video and gift store – long enough to be considered a grandfathered use.

She is suspicious of why the county is acting against Robinson when any number of illegal cottage industries are operating in the county.

“How stupid is this?” she said.

Jenkins said the county became aware of the Five & Dime last summer when the fire marshal noticed it and found no record of it as a business. He contacted the planning office and Robinson was told to shut down.

Beckett said Midland officers are willing to help rezone Robinson’s property.

Robinson hopes she can hold out until then.

‘I GREW UP ON THIS PROPERTY’

Robinson says her store offers an alternative to families who don’t have much money, especially at Christmas. She offers to help little kids shop for Christmas presents – even if they only have a dollar to spend.

“I have a ball with it,” she said.

She also helps a handful of disabled adults who can’t come into the store to shop. They tell her what they want and she brings it to their cars.

Though the store is open seven days a week, Robinson said she has thought about a taking a part-time night job or selling a couple of classic cars she owns to keep going.

“I’m going to have to have faith it will all work out,” she said. “I didn’t spend all these years building up a business to have it gone. I grew up on this property. It was my dream to buy this place (from my parents).

“But it’s going to be rough.”

They say it’s rude to look a gift horse in the mouth. But Trojans might take a different view.

When that “gift” comes from the federal government, it’s always prudent to do a close and skeptical inspection, with a careful eye out for the strings that could come attached or the adverse consequences that could follow. That’s why I read this story, published in Tuesday’s Gazette, with some trepidation.

The feds are gifting Colorado Springs at least 3.9 million through HUD “to help snap up foreclosed properties and turn them into housing for low- and moderate-income residents,” according to the report. But how directly the city should be involved in this is questionable, in my view, since becoming a landlord and homeowner can become a major headache, and a drain on resources, even if you do it for a worthy cause.

The story isn’t clear on how directly the city will be involved. But arm’s length is close enough, in my view. The Gazette at one point reports that “the state would administer and operate the local plan, and the city would work with nonprofit organizations that focus on housing to accomplish the goals within HUD's 18-month deadline,” but at another point says that the plan “calls for the city and local nonprofits to buy foreclosed single and multifamily properties, primarily in the southeastern and eastern areas of town, where foreclosures have been particularly high.”

My advice, if anyone’s interested, is that all these home-buying and land-lording activities be handled exclusively by private entities and non-profits, rather than the city, since the risk is significant that the people getting helped into these homes either can’t afford them or might become nightmare tenants, creating a headache for the city and exposing the taxpayers to risk. CNN reports that more than half the people who already benefited from mortgage rescue efforts defaulted anyway, making it clear that tossing people a life preserver won’t prevent them from drowning and isn’t a substitute for teaching them to swim.

Snapping-up foreclosed homes and plugging needy people into them seems simple enough. And they might all live happily ever after. But when the federal money is spent and no more is coming, and if the city ends up sitting on a lot of homes with tenants that can’t pay enough to make the venture break even, what then? It’s important to think these matters through, and consider all the dangers, before taking the first step – because it’s easier getting into such situations as it is getting out.

The city is understandably tempted to grab at what seems like “easy” money and plunge into the noble work of helping people. But maybe this is one gift horse it should look in the mouth.

Americans no longer will be asked to surrender their Second Amendment rights -- or their most potent means of self defense -- when they enter a national park, now that the Bush administration has lifted a gun ban that made no constitutional or public safety sense. The anti-gun crowd naturally will claim that this will lead to a bloodbath in the parks; it will be a scene out of the O.K. Corral at park visitor centers and campgrounds. But such predictions routinely are made when gun rights are restored or expanded, and they routinely prove unfounded.

National parks are not crime free zones, as this blog has repeatedly pointed out. And in fact, their remoteness from civilization can even be an invitation to lawlessness and criminal activity, as we've seen with recent efforts by Mexican drug cartels to turn federal parks and forests into pot plantations. There's absolutely no rational reason to disarm Americans simply because they cross an arbitrary line like a park boundary, unless one wants to argue, rather absurdly, that the Second Amendment and other parts of the Bill of Rights apply in some parts of America, but not others.

This is one Bush executive action that Barack Obama may have a tough time reversing, politically speaking, since there is already a lot of fear out in fly-over country about the next president's position on gun rights, and he and his surrogates spent a lot of time and effort during the campaign reassuring folks that he isn’t a gun-grabber. The upsurge in gun sales since election day suggests that a lot of Americans aren't convinced. Reinstating the national park gun ban would confirm those fears, and be an early demonstration that Obama isn't the moderate he claims to be.

The write-up below portrays this as a “parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association” (and shot at whom the reporter doesn’t explain), but most Americans, and not just NRA members, would agree that there should be no double standard in the protections of our constitutional rights. This was the correct -- and the constitutional -- thing to do. It's just a shame that the administration waited until the last minute to do it.

But better late than never, I suppose.

Here's the write-up by The San Francisco Chronicle:

Guns will be allowed in national parks

Campers may now pack heat along with their sleeping bags when they travel to national parks.

The Bush administration on Friday struck down federal regulations banning loaded guns in most national forests, a move that was widely seen as a parting shot on behalf of the National Rifle Association.

The ruling overturned a 25-year-old federal regulation severely restricting concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The new rule, which would take effect in January, would apparently allow anyone who already has a concealed weapons permit in his or her state to also tote a gun in federal parks within state boundaries.

Conservation groups, park officials and many politicians blasted the decision as a politically motivated slap against public opinion in favor of the gun lobby.

"This is something the park service does not want that is being driven by the political appointees in the Department of the Interior," said Bryan Faehner, associate director for park uses for the National Parks Conservation Association, a nonprofit group established in 1919 to look out for the interests of the national parks. "This is pretty outrageous. We're concerned that there is going to be an increase in gun-related accidents in parks and opportunistic poaching."

The decision shoots down a 1981 wildlife refuge and a 1983 national park regulation signed by President Ronald Reagan requiring firearms to be unloaded and placed somewhere not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk, when visiting federal parks. Faehner said folks will now be able to lock and load in 388 of 391 parks, refuges and sites in 48 states, including California.

Only the three national park units in Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not issue concealed carry permits, are excluded.

The idea behind the ruling, according to Lyle Laverty, the assistant interior secretary, was to foster the long-held tradition of having states and the federal government work together on natural resource issues. He said similar rules were recently adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris Cox, the National Rifle Association's chief lobbyist.

The NRA lobbied hard for the change to the gun regulations, which Cox said were inconsistent and unclear. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had also supported the change, organizing a letter-writing campaign to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate - 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.

As of 2007, there were 40,296 people with concealed weapons permits in California, according to Scott Gerber, spokesman for the state attorney general. Such permits are issued by police and sheriff's departments, usually to people in high-profile positions or to those who show a legitimate need for their protection.

The attorney general's office checks the fingerprints of all applicants and excludes people with felonies and violent misdemeanors on their records or who have been committed to mental hospitals.

Faehner said the new regulations go even further to loosen gun regulations than what was proposed earlier this year by the Bush administration. The earlier proposal, he said, would have allowed people to carry concealed weapons in federal parks only if the state parks allowed it.

California state parks do not allow loaded concealed weapons, but the newest ruling ignores the state parks and says that if state law permits concealed weapons, it is OK in a national park within that state's boundary.

"It appears that people who have been issued concealed carry permits will be able to travel into Yosemite with their guns, but they would be prohibited from entering the state parks in California," Faehner said. "So the bar has been lowered."

The change came despite more than 140,000 comments that were sent to the Department of the Interior after the earlier proposal was made. The overwhelming majority of those who commented opposed changing the regulations to allow concealed firearms in national parks, according to representatives of park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., joined numerous organizations, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in denouncing the move.

"This unprecedented rule change wipes out common-sense regulations originally enacted by the Reagan administration," Feinstein said in a statement. "There is simply no good reason why this administration would change a rule that has helped make our national parks among the most popular and safest places in the country."

The regulation, which will be published in the Federal Register Wednesday and go into effect 30 days later, was timed so it would be in the books by the time President-elect Barack Obama takes office on Jan. 20. Changing it would require a long bureaucratic rule-changing process possibly lasting years. Several groups, including the conservation association, are considering a lawsuit.

I hope Seattle's David Schraer has an unlisted phone number.

Anyone with so much common sense, living in the midst of such a loony bin, is bound to get hate calls.

In a guest column appearing in Tuesday's Seattle Post Intelligencer -- which makes so much sense I'm surprised it wasn't spiked -- Schraer explains something that seems to have eluded most of the city's leaders: that you can't wage regulatory war on developers, and relentlessly drive up the cost of building and the cost of land, and still have affordable housing and a reasonable cost of living.

If you take steps that restrict supply, un-met demand will drive prices higher. If you impose regulatory burdens on builders, that's reflected in higher costs that get passed on to buyers. It's elementary economics, yet most elected officials can't grasp it.

A recent study showed that local government regulations added about $200,000 to the cost of a house in Seattle, according to this report in the Seattle Times. Here's an excerpt:

"Backed by studies showing that middle-class Seattle residents can no longer afford the city's middle-class homes, consensus is growing that prices are too darned high. But why are they so high?

An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.

"In a nationwide study, it can be shown that Seattle is one of the most regulated cities and a city whose housing prices are profoundly influenced by regulations," he says."

Then people wonder why all the lower- and middle-income people have left town.

The Seattle Times article and Schraer's guest column (pasted below) should be required reading for elected officials in Colorado cities -- in all cities -- that still can't connect the dots between regulator causes and market effects, and who will do everything in their power to drive up the cost of building, and create a scarcity of affordable and buildable land, all while decrying the lack of affordable housing.

Their misguided response to the affordable housing problem -- an approach Durango just embraced, unfortunately -- is to force private developers to build affordable units, as a condition of zoning or permit approval, which they do by raising the price tag on un-subsidized units. This unjust form of coercion travels under the euphemism "inclusionary zoning." A lucky few get subsidized living space, while everyone else pays more and the overall cost of housing creeps skyward.

What Steamboat Springs is learning the hard way is that you can require that a developer build affordable units, which come with appreciation caps, deed restrictions and other strings attached, but you can't make the public buy them. Market incentives almost always work better than mandates do -- but that presumes that the people making the rules understand market dynamics and basic economics. A surprising number of elected officials seem to be economic illiterates. Maybe we should make the passing of a pop quiz on basic economics a prerequisite to running for office.

But I digress. Here's Schraer's Seattle Times op-ed:

Housing at risk in Seattle

By DAVID SCHRAER

When housing is in short supply, why are we making it more complex and expensive to build?

For more than a decade, Seattle has experienced an unprecedented building boom during which prices were always up, money was cheap and wealth was inflated by rapid appreciation.

The boom followed the anti-tax, anti-immigrant movements that slashed government revenue and led to policies requiring new developments to pay for every imaginable impact. Planning and building departments were ordered to cover their costs through fees, creating many new hurdles and passing the costs on to developers. Fees, professional services and interest now add thousands of dollars to the cost of every new house, apartment or condominium.

Cities once understood that development generates community wealth through sales and property taxes, construction wages and new economic activity. Permit fees were low, impact fees unknown and cities funded their planning and building departments from general revenues. Municipalities considered streets, sidewalks, utilities and public services as investments that would generate community wealth over time.

Today, Seattle penalizes new development rather than waiting patiently for taxes that flow in their wake, generating three problems.

First, additional fees and processes increase the initial project risk and costs. These costs are marked up and passed on to the buyer or renter. Second, the higher risk and costs inhibit development and reduce market supply, further increasing prices. Third, the city's enthusiasm to offload costs to the private sector results in policy gimmicks, such as incentive zoning.

The elephant in the room is the private sector provision of affordable older housing. Almost all work force housing has been and will be provided by older homes and apartments in the private sector. We need to remove barriers to housing development and build the large numbers of new housing units required to moderate rents and housing prices.

Public and philanthropic investment should focus on providing permanent affordable housing that maximizes the return on our investment, such as land trusts and mission-driven, nonprofit-owned housing. Housing levies, the primary traditional mechanism for local funding of affordable housing, are a good example. Seattle residents overwhelmingly have supported housing levies, leaving no justification for an end-run around voters.

During an economic downturn, pay-to-play barriers cobbled together during the boom will reduce our housing supply and rapidly inflate prices. With political will, Seattle can dramatically increase the supply of housing through policy changes. Significant increases in zoning capacity, new clarity and stability in codes and a return to funding infrastructure through broad-based taxes are all measures that will increase housing supply, moderate prices and lower the cost of mission-driven affordable housing, too.

Our primary strategy for affordable housing must be to build as much quality housing as possible to increase supply. Our secondary strategy should be to directly fund as much affordable housing as possible, all in permanent ownership by public and not-for-profit housing agencies.

Public policy that increases the cost of developing dense, green, quality housing equals more expensive housing overall and less affordable housing. There are times for cities to be pro-development. When the world, country, state and city are in recession, or worse, and housing is in short supply, that time is now.

David Schraer is a Seattle architect with in-plain-air architects and was the first executive
director of the White Center Community Development Association.

The grand opening of Congress's new visitor center generated a few oohs and aahs, no doubt, as any $621 million edifice should. But it received less-than-glowing reviews from a few observers, including from my former employer, the fiscal watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, which argues that the new structure epitomizes all that's wrong in Washington.

Here's CAGW's release:

U.S. Capitol Rolling Out Over-Priced Welcome Mat
Tuesday December 2, 8:00 am ET

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The nation’s premier taxpayer watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today expressed dismay over the exorbitant final price tag for the Capitol Visitors Center (CVC).

Initially conceived in the early 1990s and projected to cost $71 million, the CVC has become an example of out-of-control government contracting and mismanagement. After costs ballooned and construction schedules spiraled out of control, the three-level, underground monument to congressional excess finally came in at a whopping $621 million and three years behind schedule.

“The mismanagement and bloat associated with the construction of the Capitol Visitors Center is emblematic of the rampant waste in the nation’s capitol,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz. “This boondoggle should give pause to anyone contemplating the expenditure of hundreds of billions more taxpayer dollars for any federal infrastructure projects as part of any new stimulus package. Like the federal budget itself, Congress used the CVC as a warehouse for tens of millions of dollars in extravagant bells and whistles for itself. Even more reprehensible, members of Congress seeking to add special features for themselves used security concerns surrounding the September 11 attacks to justify their extravagant add-ons and constant change orders.”

Original plans called for more than half of the CVC space to be left as unfinished “shell space”, available to be outfitted for future needs. Instead, in 2001 Congress began implementing its wish list for the unfinished spaces. The House side got a two-story hearing room and the Senate grafted on a collection of small hearing rooms and a television and radio studio with adjoining makeup facilities so that senators could cut spots for their constituents back home. Those two efforts alone added $85 million to the cost of the CVC. The CVC will also have a 450-seat dining area, two orientation theaters (one for each chamber), a large auditorium, and an exhibition hall.

The Government Accountability Office wrote dozens of reports detailing the financial woes of the project. At one point, after numerous delays and cost overruns, exasperated members of Congress called the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) on the carpet. In March, 2007, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga) publicly excoriated the AOC, saying that the CVC had become “a monument to government inefficiency, ineptitude and excessiveness.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) said, “I've never seen a bigger boondoggle in my life. It's like they’re playing with Monopoly money.”

“Looks like Congress made doormats out of taxpayers in order to roll out this extravagant welcome mat for tourists on Capitol Hill,” concluded Schatz.