Tag Archives: regulation

A Cascade

Posted on by
Reply

…that needs to be encouraged.

Since the DC Circuit’s ruling that the Obama “recess” appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional—the Senate actually being in session at the time—some 87 enterprises, including a few unions, are citing the ruling in their lawsuits to overturn a variety of the NLRB’s actions.  After all, with the board lacking a quorum, it was legally powerless to do anything at all.

The actions these enterprises are seeking include overturning/blocking union elections, undoing penalty payments to fired workers, halting subpoenas, and so on.

Here’s the cascade: 10 or more NLRB regional directors are argued also to be illegally appointed since they were seated by Obama’s unconstitutionally manned NLRB.  Extending from this, those regional boards’ decisions also must be voided, since those rulings were issued by illegally constituted regional boards.

Lafe Solomon, NLRB acting General Counsel, objects.

It’s already having a huge impact.  At every stage…we’re seeing attacks….

Indeed, as the WSJ reports,

The surge of challenges tied to the court ruling is overwhelming the NLRB, a federal agency that referees disputes between companies and employees.  Working through them is delaying resolution of cases alleging unfair labor practices, including whether workers can fairly hold union elections[.]

There’s no doubt the new workload is inconvenient to the Federal government.  That’s just too bad.  The inconvenience of our employee, the government, can never be an excuse for its behaving illegally.  Our employee, through the NLRB, brought the present inconvenience on itself through its patently illegal behavior.

The NLRB—Solomon—is merely blaming the employer for the employee’s own inconvenience.

You Dumb ….

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what New York State Supreme Court Judge Milton Tilling said to New York City’s lame duck mayor, Michael Bloomberg, on the latter’s…ill-advised…”sugary drink” ban.

Tilling opened his opinion by noting, correctly, the irrelevance of Bloomberg’s “obesity epidemic” motive for the ban—the question before him was simply the legitimacy, the legality, of the ban itself.  Motives, say I in expansion of Tilling’s point, are appropriate considerations only in determining sanctions, given a finding of illegality; they never can be justification for the illegality.

[The city does not have authority to] limit or ban a legal item under the guise of ‘controlling chronic disease,’ as the [city’s health department] attempts to do.  One of the fundamental tenets of democratic governance here in New York, as well as throughout the nation, is the separation of powers.  No one person, agency, department or branch is above or beyond this.

[The City Charter does not grant the health department] sweeping and unbridled authority to define, create, authorize, mandate and enforce [health codes governing food establishments and food preparation.  The soda ban] would not only violate the separation of powers doctrine, it would eviscerate it.

The judge’s beef here is that the health department just up and did the ban.  The ban was never approved by the city council.  The city’s elected representatives are the only ones who can create city law.  In fact these representatives had already explicitly rejected similar ban efforts.

Further, the Bloomberg Ban was unconstitutionally vague, capricious, and stupid.  (OK, I added that last part.  There is no Felony Stupid bar in New York’s or our Federal Constitution.)

The plaintiffs in this case pointed out that

…the Rule exempts soy based milk substitutes, but other milk substitutes such as almond, hemp and rice milk are not exempt.  The Rule also does not preclude unlimited free refills or multiple purchases of 16-oz. beverages or providing unlimited sugars after purchase at the regulated businesses….

And so on.  Tilling agreed.

The court finds that the regulation herein is laden with exceptions based on economic and political concerns. … The statement of financial costs related to the chronic epidemic [by the defendants] further evidences a balancing being struck between safeguarding the public’s health and economic considerations.  This is impermissible….

Further (the motive rejection above notwithstanding),

…the stated premise of…the Rule is to address the rising obesity rate in New York City. … The Rule is nevertheless fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences.  The simple reading of the Rule leads to…uneven enforcement even within a particular City block, much less the City as a whole.  Furthermore…the loopholes in this Rule effectively defeat the stated purpose of the Rule.  It is arbitrary and capricious because it applies to some but not all food establishments in the City, it excludes other beverages that have significantly higher concentrations of sugar sweeteners and/or calories on suspect grounds, and the loopholes inherent in the Rule, including but not limited to no limitations on re-fills, defeat and/or serve to gut the purpose of the Rule.

 

Tilling’s ruling can be read here or here.

Regulatory Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The eyes of Texas are upon us….

Competitive Enterprise Institute‘s OpenMarket.org describes regulatory reform, Texas style.  In 1977, Texas enacted legislation that automatically kills state-level agencies after a named duration unless a subsequent legislature explicitly votes to extend that agency.  More, the question of extension isn’t even permitted to come up for a vote unless a Sunset Advisory Commission favorably recommends it first.

OpenMarket notes the results:

Through this process, the commission [10 legislators and 2 members of the public] has abolished 78 state agencies and saved $945.4 million in a 29-year period [through 2006].  Since the Sunset Commission’s expenditures over this time period were just $32.8 million, every dollar spent on this program has yielded about $29 in return.

We don’t have a bloated government here.  And surviving agencies exist because they actually do their jobs, and so they’re capable of justifying their existence to the commission—and to the Texas citizenry through those two public members.

Maybe the Federal government needs a similar Act—not addressing only the agencies, but the Cabinet Departments, as well.

Texas’ law can be read here.

Good Idea, Bad Law

Posted on by
Reply

It’s useful for a jurisdiction to control property use through zoning laws—whether to keep unsavory but legal businesses away from children, to preserve an historical building/neighborhood, and so on—provided those restrictions don’t get too onerous or too intrusive on the property rights of the owner(s).

Sometimes, though, a well-intended law has unintended consequences.

In a precedential decision, Motley v. Borough of Seaside Park, No. A-3214-11, the Appellate Division [of New Jersey] found a house that had been gutted to a shell to accomplish repairs was totally destroyed and so lost its status as a grandfathered nonconforming use under local zoning laws.  The panel strictly construed a statute that says a nonconforming use or structure may be restored or repaired if partially destroyed but total destruction terminates it.

Contaminating this seeming miscarriage of justice, though [emphasis added],

In August 2009, [property owner Daniel] Motley requested and obtained a permit to repair and renovate the house and replace the air-conditioning unit.  The permit carried a notation that siding, shingles and windows could be added, but no bumpouts were allowed and the structure could not be expanded.

Once work began, however, the building, not lived in for some time, was found to be in worse shape than expected and uninhabitable.  Among other problems, the roof and water system leaked, part of the first floor ceiling had collapsed, floor beams were rotted and the main center beam was sagging.

This has implications for homeowners attempting to repair/rebuild their homes and businesses in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy: the storm’s destruction of buildings will cancel any variances granted, even though these buildings will have been continuously occupied and the spirit of the variances honored throughout.

New Jersey’s Appellate Division ruling on essentially destroyed property thus seems counterproductive; however, the court made the correct ruling: being unable to strike the law as unconstitutional, it applied the law as written.  The failure is in the law itself, not in the ruling.

Now it’s on the New Jersey legislature to correct this evident injustice.

Police Surveillance

Posted on by
Reply

Little Rock, AR, is expanding the surveillance capability and power of its police patrols:

A police car with a device that photographs license plates moves through the city and scans the traffic on the streets, relaying the data it collects to a computer for sifting. Police say the surveillance helps identify stolen cars and drivers with outstanding arrest warrants.

It also allows authorities to monitor where average citizens might be at any particular time. That bothers some residents, as well as groups that oppose public intrusions into individual privacy. The groups are becoming more alarmed about license plate tracking as a growing number of police departments acquire the technology.

More (worse?) [emphasis added]:

Little Rock Police Chief Stuart Thomas said the law enforcement benefits outweigh any concerns about possible abuse of the information, which, as a public record, is legally available for anyone to see.  He said the department may get more of the devices.

No irony there at all.  Nosirree.  Thomas went on:

Should that potential of misuse therefore eliminate the capacity of law enforcement to collect data which has a legitimate purpose for the safety of our officers or the appropriateness of enforcement actions?  I don’t think so[.]

But he misses the point.  This isn’t a private citizen, for whom prior restraint constraints are properly illegal—there has to be a crime committed (of which conspiracy is one, but which requires probable cause to interrupt).  This is a government, which is hard enough to control.  Prior restraint of government is a necessary precondition for freedom.  It’s why probable cause and warrants are a for restraining governments.

There are other dangers of the police—the government—creating this particular database, also pointed out in the article.

[City Director Ken] Richardson said he didn’t hear about the device until after it had been collecting data for months.  He said he said he hasn’t heard many complaints.

“It’s hard for you to have a problem with something if you don’t know it’s going on,” he said.

So, Chief, why all the secrecy, if it’s so innocuous?

And as [Catherine, of the New York American Civil Liberties Union] Crump points out,

Given how few rules are currently on the books to protect our privacy, it’s plausible that private investigators and data-mining companies could acquire this location data[.]

And nefarious individuals posing as those.  This is a neat-sounding idea that’s highly dangerous.