Maes Talks Taxes, Abortion, and Eminent Domain

I have been dismissive of Dan Maes, who is challenging presumptive front-runner Scott McInnis for the Republican nomination for governor. (See my first, second, and third set of comments.) But Maes shows up and answers questions, and that counts for a lot. His tenacity earns him at least a second glance -- especially given that McInnis is the ideal candidate of few.

I talked with Maes at the December 21 Liberty On the Rocks holiday party (er, "Christmas party!") hosted by the Independence Institute. We talked about a number of issues, but I assured him the conversation was off the record. He also complained that I had not given enough consideration to his candidacy. So I figured I'd invite him to further articulate some of things we talked about, on the record. I sent him five questions, which he generously answered. My questions are in bold.

I appreciate you giving me your time at the II event to discuss your campaign.

I would like to again give you the opportunity to further articulate your views, on the record. I have a number of questions arising from our conversation. I will be happy to publish your replies, unaltered, on my web page.

1. As governor, what would be your role in dealing with the military's desire to expand Pinon Canyon operations? [See the write-up about McInnis's statements on eminent domain for background.]

I would like to act as a mediator and seek out a mutually beneficial solution if possible. I do not see issues like this as zero sum. I only have the ranchers' input thus far and they have presented a very strong case for preservation based on many valuable criteria not limited to private property rights, less federalization of state land, and cultural history. I await the Army's position in detail beyond a GAO report that has unaddressed exemptions in it.

2. Generally, when do you believe eminent domain is appropriate, if ever?

It is a constitutionally acceptable process and should be applied on a case by case basis. Application of the practice should only be exercised when there is a clear and convincing case for a purely public use and benefit.

3. Please explain what specific economic policies you would adopt. Would you seek to cut specific taxes?

Yes, personal income tax and business property tax. Possibly explore a Fairtax (consumption tax).

Cut specific state programs?

Yes, TBD.

Roll back specific economic controls?

Clarify please.

[I was under the impression that Maes wanted to cut certain regulations on business, and I was trying to figure out which regulations he might want to repeal or modify. I will be happy to post Maes's additional comments on the matter if he cares to send them.] Many politicians, including W. Bush and Obama, promised to cut taxes, so I'm looking for some specific proposals.

I see our energy industry and the accompanying tax revenues as an enormous potential for our state just like our energy producing neighbors. With aggressive and responsible energy policies we could increase these revenues dramatically. Simultaneously, I have articulated my position on downsizing government FTE [full-time employees] by up to 4000.

I will defend Tabor while seeking a better balance with the effects of Amendment 23. I am a strong advocate for public schools as I have two children attending them, however; we must seek more fiscally responsible reform.

Cutting taxes is part of my plan but only after we have struck an appropriate sizing of state government and started a statewide recovery.

4. As you know, the Colorado legislature directs corporate welfare to a variety of industries, including tourism and energy. What are your views of corporate welfare?

I would like to examine the specifics in each case. Our state constitution clearly states we are not to make investments in private entities. I want to honor the spirit of our federal and state constitutions. I do see tax breaks as viable incentives to spur our economy.

5. The "personhood" measure slated for the 2010 ballot states, "As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the term 'person' shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being." Please explain your views on this measure.

I support it with the understanding that the life of the child is equal to that of the mother and shall never be considered more important than that of the mother.

I appreciate your pledge to answer the survey coming soon from my dad and me. That will probably come out the first days of January.

In closing, understand that we have 3 months until caucuses, 5.5 months until state assembly, and 11 months until the general election. It is still a tad early to have all the answers but I hope I have given you something to start with. Contrary to my opponent, I do have a copy of the current state budget and will continue to examine it, get consultation on it, and come
ready to provide even more specifics in the near future. Thank you.

I will indeed be interested to see whether McInnis is as forthcoming in his answers to the upcoming survey. (I also hope the survey prompts even more specific and revealing answers from Maes on a variety of issues.) I believe the voters of Colorado deserve to know where candidates stand on the issues.

By the way, a People's Press Collective article discusses some of the recent comments of the candidates, including McInnis's comments about the CSU gun ban.

Talking both with Maes and with Clive Tidwell, the underdog in the U.S. Senate race, I picked up a "throw the bums out" vibe, which is to be expected from candidates with no political experience running against seasoned former politicians. However, I have no interest in replacing one bum with another, potentially worse one. While experience and biography do matter in these political races, I hope ultimately they are about fundamental ideas and their application to policy. So I will continue to try to get candidates to articulate their ideas and policies as fully as possible. I hope the voters -- and other political writers -- join me in this.

Scott McInnis on Eminent Domain

In the comments to my recent post about Dan Maes, "Mike" reminded me about a proposal to expand military lands around Piñon Canyon.

Lynn Bartels writes for the December 10 Denver Post, "Republicans opposed to the military's Piñon Canyon expansion project are disappointed that property rights weren't addressed when party leaders unveiled a new platform and rallied around gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis."

Here is how the Post's article summarizes the issue: "The Army wants to [expand] its 235,000-acre Piñon Canyon training maneuver area by almost 100,000 acres. The Army has promised to acquire the land only from a willing seller or through a long-term lease, but landowners in the impacted areas in southeastern Colorado fear their property will be seized, adversely-affected or the military will eventually want even more land."

It is important, then, to distinguish between expansion of the military lands and the use of eminent domain. Property rights do not always protect the owner from being "adversely affected." For instance, unless you live in an HOA that controls for such things, your neighbor might paint his house an ugly color, park ugly cars in front, and otherwise do things that incidentally reduce the value of your property. So we must limit the discussion to actual violations of property rights, such as the use of eminent domain to forcibly seize property from those unwilling to voluntarily sell it.

According to State Representative Steve King, McInnis said the government "is no longer threatening eminent domain in the Piñon Canyon expansion." Apparently, then, McInnis's support of the project assumed that eminent domain would not be used.

However, the Fifth Amendment states that private property may be taken for public use for just compensation. Do McInnis's critics wish to claim that government ought never use eminent domain, even though the Constitution explicitly authorizes it? That's my position, but I think McInnis's critics need to detail their views. If Republicans are going to beat up their candidates for considering eminent domain for an obviously public use, that's a high bar, and one that should be set intentionally rather than as a pretext for partisan attacks.

Another comment by McInnis on the matter is more troubling. According to the Post, McInnis said, "Balancing the deep need that Colorado has for quality jobs with the rights of Piñon Canyon property owners requires leadership and dialogue."

I believe that property rights should be consistently protected, not "balanced" against some alleged need to forcibly seize property for somebody else to use. I would be interested to learn if McInnis's Republican critics believe that eminent domain should be abolished across the board, or if they merely want to restrict the practice to somebody else's property.

In the meantime, it would be helpful if McInnis would further clarify his views on eminent domain and property rights.

Westminster Declares Mall Blighted

The Westminster Mall is nearly dead. That is obvious to anyone who's visited it in the last year or two. So, obviously, breathing new life into it is the job of central economic planners who work for the city of Westminster. We couldn't possibly leave individuals free to use their own resources to renovate the property; this is about maximizing tax revenues, after all.

Monte Whaley's fawning article for the Denver Post, which includes not a single word of skepticism or criticism about the city's plans, nevertheless offers some useful details.

Whaley notes that the city has formed "an urban renewal area created after the City Council declared the 32-year-old center blighted this month."

Blighted? The mall is largely empty, but blighted? Here's is the key bit of Whaley's article:

The city hired Leland Consulting Group and Matrix Design Group to assess the complex. Their findings showed substantial problems that led the city to put the blighted tag on the mall.

The problems included buildings without fire-suppression sprinklers, poor water availability to fight fires, deteriorating parking and sidewalks, unsanitary pools of standing water, poorly lit areas, unscreened trash and bad traffic circulation.

An urban renewal authority will allow the city to use tax increment financing for upgrades.

The authority will also have the option to use the power of eminent domain to seize ownership of some of the shops in the mall, McFall said.

Eminent domain? "Tax increment financing?" If the problem is that taxes are too high for businesses to succeed in Westminster, then why doesn't the city simply reduce taxes across the board? That would never do: the purpose of the city is to maximize tax revenues, after all.

Did anyone doubt, going into the study, that Leland Consulting Group and Matrix Design Group would find blight conditions? (How much were they paid to return those results?)

We all know that the city of Westminster will not possibly tolerate any exposed hazards, messy trash, or standing water:









My guess is that, if every property in Westminster were evaluated by similar standards, over half would be declared blighted. But everybody knows that declaring a property "blighted" has only a superficial relationship to the condition of the property. The point is to let the city threaten people with eminent domain. (This might be a move the mall's owners would actually welcome, given the lack of business there, but I'm not sure because Whaley apparently didn't consider contacting them, and I don't have the time to do Whaley's job for him.)

Here's a thought: why doesn't the city stop trying to plan the economy and instead create simple rules and low taxes that would benefit existing businesses and attract new ones? We all know the answer: then the politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't get to doll out favors and take credit for other people's work.

Around Colorado: May 4, 2009

Arvada's Economic Non-Development

Now this is investigative reporting: Face the State published an article titled, "Arvada Redevelopment Project Sits Mostly Vacant, Costing Taxpayers Nearly $800,000."

The article begins:

After the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority condemned and forcibly acquired an elderly small business owner's property in 2004, the land was transferred to a private developer who was given the property free of charge. Now city leaders and other project supporters are lauding the project with awards, despite the fact that the new development sits mostly vacant. The total tab to taxpayers thus far is estimated at nearly $800,000 and counting.

Governments, including city governments, simply should not be in the business of "economic redevelopment." Such central economic planning invariably employs political force through eminent domain, zoning, or taxation. Politicians can't ably plan the economy. Leave that to free individuals working together voluntarily with their own resources. What city officials can and should do is get out of the way of economic progress.


Fake Free Speech

In a predictably wishy-washy editorial, the Denver Post worries about the FCC's ability to fine stations for "fleeting expletives," but adds, "We believe that protecting children from adult programming and swear words is important..."

Parents who wish to protect their children from naughty words are perfectly free to do so. They can choose whether to purchase a television or radio and whether to leave it turned on to any particular station.

The FCC, properly called the Federal Censorship Commission, should be completely disbanded.


'Job Creation Bills'

The Associated Press claims that Governor "Bill Ritter is preparing to sign two of the top job-creation and business-development bills this session." A centerpiece of the legislation is granting "businesses that create at least 20 jobs" tax breaks.

But if giving businesses tax breaks creates jobs, then doesn't taxing all other businesses destroy jobs, damage the economy, lower wages, and increases prices on consumer goods? Of course it does. But, somehow, when Ritter signs a $17.9 billion state budget, he doesn't describe that as the "economy-crushing bill."

Also, why is it great to generate twenty jobs but not, say, nineteen? Isn't it better if two companies each create fifteen jobs than if one company creates twenty? Yet the discriminatory taxes will punish the two smaller businesses and give the larger business a break. Because, under Colorado tax law, some tax payers are more equal than others.


Clear the Bench

Matt Arnold has set up a new organization called Clear the Bench Colorado, an effort to urge voters to decline to retain the four State Supreme Court justices up for vote next year.

In an April 29 speech, Arnold explained why this is an important opportunity to vote against the taxpayer-hating Supreme Court.