Lowball Watch — Virginia

WAVY.com (which we presume is a radio or TV broadcast station) reports the Virginia Department of Transportation settled a condemnation lawsuit in Portsmouth for over seven times its original offer. VaDOT took a part of the owner’s land for a new bridge, and offered $125,607 for the required strip of land, but the offer did not include any severance damages to the remainder of the land which was severely impacted by the taking that bisected the property. But after two years of hanging tough VaDOT came around and settled for a total of $925,000.

The story does not indicate why VaDOT failed to offer anything for severance damages at the beginning of the matter. See http://wavy.com/2014/08/14/vdot-settles-in-eminent-domain-lawsuit/

Lowball Watch — North Dakota

A dispatch from the North informs us that the town of Devils Lake acquired a parcel of land by settling an eminent domain case for $1.7 million. It originally deposited only $700,000 for the owner but the final settlement was almost two-and-a-half times that amount. http://www.inforum.com/content/devils-lake-pay-17-million-eminent-domain-case-0

Unfortunately this dispatch gives no details as to the issues that at first divided the parties.

Why California Housing Is So Expensive

Here we go again, folks. Today’s Los Angeles Times brings us what we like to call “sad but dependable news for the bald.” California housing is overly expensive, and the reason why that is so is that the supply of new homes is held down by local land use regulations. The Times illustrates the story with a prominently placed article, Andrew Khouri, New Home Shrinkage, LA Times, August 7, 2014, at p. B1.

“About 19,000 new homes will be sold this year in the six-county region — 53% less than the 25-year average average,. . .according to a spokesman for John Burns Real Estate Consultants in Irvine.

“The difficulty in winning construction approvals, . . . is a trend that long predates the housing meltdown and will probably continue long after. California has failed to build enough homes, relative to population growth, every year since 1989, according to a November 2003 report from a state senate committee.”

So what else is new? Reports like that, including two by Presidential Commissions on Housing, go back at least to the 1990s. So it boils down to what you were taught in Econ 101: When the supply is reduced while demand goes on, prices go up.

The handwriting on the wall was there for all to see as far back as August 30, 1998. That’s when the L.A. Times ran three — count ‘em, three — articles that painted a grim picture of the housing calamity that was overtaking the California housing market.

Truth Teller?

There is a fellow in California, who identifies himself as Dean (“Dino”) Cortopassi, and who has been running full-page ads in California newspapers, under the heading of “LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!” In them, he purports to expose government misrepresentations concerning California’s fiscal irresponsibility and the government’s concealment of the true financial picture.

We don’t know whether and to what extent Mr. Cortopassi’s allegations are true, but he sure lays it on the line. Our attention was attracted by his full-page ad in today’s LA Times (Aug.7, 2014, at p. A13). Like other Times ads, it’s not available electronically on line; you have to buy a hard copy of today’s LA Times to see it. The ad is devoted to allegations of overspending by the California Departments of Corrections and good ol’ Caltrans, particularly the latter’s overspending on the Bay Bridge. Interesting stuff, if true.

So we intend to keep an eye on his output and see if we can learn stuff from it.

But a word of caution: When we first posted this, we had trouble opening Mr. Cortopassi’s web page. But by this time of day (4:35 PM in California) all is well and you can open that web page containing his past articles by clicking on www.liar-liar.us . So please disregard the earlier (deleted) version of this post that appeared earlier today.

Which New York Times Expressions of Indignation Do You Believe?

(Every now and then something happens that inspires us to depart from our usual, preferred topics of eminent domain and land use, and comment on something else. This is such a post.)


Unless you have been vacationing on the Moon lately, you must know that there is another war going on in the Middle East. After years of absorbing rocket strikes from Gaza, the Israelis finally got pissed off and struck back big time. But it turns out that the vaunted Arab rockets are crap and, as real wars go, have been overwhelmingly unable to strike their intended targets. Add to that Israel’s amazing Iron Dome missile defense system and the Arab rockets haven’t achieved anything  to speak off. Still, the Arabs have managed to kill some three dozen Israeli soldiers, and conduct a propaganda campaign.

But in spite of the Arab “fighters’” lack of military prowess, they have been real good at hiding behind women and children, so that when the Israelis fire back, they perforce inflict what has become known as ”collateral damage” on civilians. Add to that the fact that the Arab “fighters” like to hide in schools and hospitals, and the latter casualties are higher than they should be. What to do?

If you want to be honest, there is nothing that can be done; no rational person can ask that the Israelis cease defending themselves effectively; that they cease firing back at people who fire at them. But that  process of self-defense produces those “collateral damage” casualties when the Arab “fighters” hide in schools and hospitals. Thus the Arabs effectively say: “When we kill Israelis, it’s hunky dory and we are proud of it, but when they fire back, that’s an “outrage.” So reports the NY Times, on the front page above the fold. Missile Strike Near U.N. School in Gaza Kills 10, Aug. 4, 2014, at p. A1.

That’s moral bullshit, of course, but that’s they way it is. Thus, the Times is throwing a conniption fit over the death of ten — count them, ten — Arabs who got hit when Israeli shells fired in response to Arab rocket fire, and hit an area near a school. Please understand, your faithful servant was a target in WW II, and so we are not unsympathetic to the plight of civilian populations on both sides of a shooting war, even though civilian Arab casualties are “collateral,” i.e., unintended, and deemed regrettable but unavoidable, whereas Arabs do what they can to maximize Israeli civilian casualties, and are proud of it.

At the same time — that’s today’s NY Times — we learn that over in Libya there is an internecine war among Arab factions in that country and — guess what? — 25 Libyans have been killed (British Citizens Flee Tripoli on Ship as 25 Libyans Are Reportedly Killed in Fighting, Aug.4, 2014, at p. A4). But what’s remarkable about that Times dispatch is that it utters not a peep of indignation over the deaths of 2.5 times as may Libyan as Gazans. So what happened? How come no displays of indignation? No accusations of “outrageousness.” No demands for UN action? No nothin’ even though things in Libya must be pretty nasty and pretty dangerous to civilians, what with all those Brits’ splitting as fast as they can.

We have no intention of plumbing the depths of the moral disparity of this reportage. We think it’s sufficient to note this gross asymmetry in the displays of moral outrage in these two locales. When Libyan Arabs kill 25 people, it’s hey man, c’est la guerre. But when the Israelis defend themselves and kill Arabs, that’s an outrage. You don’t suppose that this has something to do with the fact that the folks who are the object of all that “outrage” are Jewish, whereas the Libyans aren’t. Could it be that the Times considers the latter barbarians of whom nothing better is expected, while the former are . . .well, Jews, so they are held to high standards whereas for their enemies, anything goes, so that the Times need not concern itself with moral symmetry, consistency of moral judgment, and all that other good stuff. So as we suggested above, all that Times display and reportorial “outrage” is plain old bullshit.

It was an American, General Sherman, who told us that “War is hell.” Not “heck,” but “hell.” So that people who start a war (as did the Arabs in this case by firing thousands of rockets at Israel) have nothing to complain about when the gates of hell that they opened release forces of violence that they now have to confront and live with.

Follow up: If any of this leaves you with the impression that the moral asymmetry we note extends to reportage, go to the head of the class. For an article dealing with press intimidation by the Arabs go to http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/203449/why-no-photos-of-hamas-militants/?







This News Item is Worth Reading, if Only for Its Headline Which Says . . .

Red Wings Generously Agree to Accept Huge Sums of Money From Public, by Bill Bradley, deadspin.com Jul. 21, 2014. In this case, “the pubic” means Detroit. 

Since Detroit is bankrupt, that sounds like an intriguing headline. Check out the article – click on http://deadspin.com/detroit-scam-city-how-the-red-wings-took-hockeytown-fo-1534228789/1608278028/+bradleybill


Lowball Watch — California

Word reaches us that a verdict has come down in an eminent domain case in which the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority took a 3777 sq. ft. building (including a billboard) from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The county’s “final” offer was $1,500,000, but after the court decided a motion in limine in the owner’s favor, the offer went up to $2,250,000.

The verdict was $3,357,323 (on the owner’s appraisal opinion of $3,805,000, and the condemnor’s appraiser’s trial opinion of $1,004,000. Which makes the verdict 3.34 times the condemnor’s trial appraisal.

So it appears that the condemnor proffered three different opinions of value for the same building, one of which was less than what it was before the trial court ruled on that motion in limine, whch sounds to us like some sort of effort on the condemnor’s part to grant itself a do-it-yourself motion in limine. And we are supposed to trust these guys?

The owners intend to request the court to award them their attorneys’ fees. Stay tuned.

Climate Change Proponents Use More Energy Than the Doubters

You might think that folks who worry about human activities contributing to climate change would consume less energy than those who disagree. Right? Wrong.

We now learn that the opposite is true. People who profess to worry about such things tend to use more energy than those who don’t. So says a British study inquiring into such matters, as reported in the UK by The Telegraph. Click here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/10965887/People-who-claim-to-worry-about-climate-change-use-more-electricity.html