Monday, December 26, 2022

Kelo

Wiki - quotes relevant passages cost was $78M for expected $1.2M in revenue + 3169 jobs (but not gotten)

Friday, December 23, 2022

Saturday, December 17, 2022

The Atlantic on weak property rights

 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/weak-property-rights/608476/


Constitutional protection for property rights began weakening in the early 20th century. That shift was largely driven by Progressives’ perception that property rights mainly benefit the wealthy, and that they were an obstacle to benevolent, expert social planning. The experience of the last 80 years suggests that the very opposite is true. Social planners are usually far from wise and benevolent, and the people who suffer most when property rights are undermined are usually poor people, minorities, and anyone else with little political power. Recent years have seen some progress on strengthening protection for property rights. But much more is needed.

Let’s begin with what’s in the Constitution itself. The Fifth Amendment mandates that the government can only take private property for “public use.” This is a crucial constraint on the government’s power of eminent domain, which enables the state to force owners to turn over their property to the state, even if they refuse to sell voluntarily. During the late 18th and 19th centuries, courts usually interpreted “public use” as either government ownership or private ownership in which the private holder is legally required to serve the entire public. The former covers situations in which land is taken for purposes of building public infrastructure such as roads or military bases. Public utilities are examples of the latter. Even when under private ownership, they are legally forbidden to turn away members of the public willing to pay for their services; ordinary private businesses, by contrast, are largely free to accept or reject customers as they please. This “narrow” view of public use was in accordance with the original meaning of the takings clause, and also of the Fourteenth Amendment, which first made the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments, in addition to the federal government.

But in the 20th century, courts began to shift toward what was previously the minority view, which held that a public use exists whenever the public could potentially benefit from the taking. This culminated in the Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Berman v. Parker, which upheld an “urban renewal” condemnation transferring private property to private developers, as part of a project that displaced some 5,000 poor African Americans in Washington, D.C. The land was used to build more expensive housing, occupied mainly by whites. As the legal scholar Wendell Pritchett points out, it was both ironic and tragic that a ruling that “enabled institutional and political elites to relocate minority populations and entrench racial segregation … was decided just six months after Brown v. Board of Education” by a Court that included nearly all the same justices. While most of the justices were not racial bigots, their lax attitudes toward property rights blinded them to the harm their ruling caused to the very people they sought to protect against oppressive government policies in other contexts.


There is room for reasonable disagreement about exactly where to draw the line on takings. But severe restrictions on ownership rights that are not justified by health or safety concerns are ripe for reconsideration. Such tightening of the takings doctrine is justified on both originalist grounds, which emphasize the need to protect traditional property rights against erosion, and living-constitutionalist concerns about the need to protect vulnerable groups against abuses of government power.

Sunday, November 27, 2022

Wednesday, November 23, 2022

Friday, November 11, 2022

Tuesday, November 1, 2022

Monday, October 24, 2022

Saturday, October 8, 2022

Economic Freedom

 https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/EconomicFreedom.html

The key ingredients of economic freedom are personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete in markets, and protection of person and property.

https://www.heritage.org/index/about#:~:text=Economic%20freedom%20is%20the%20fundamental,in%20any%20way%20they%20please.

Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. 

Form for suggesting Irving Library purchases

 https://irvinglibrary.libanswers.com/form?queue_id=4482

Thursday, October 6, 2022

Fantasy baseball

 Phil Dussault NFBC 2021 champ

Tuesday, October 4, 2022

Saturday, October 1, 2022

Hilaire Belloc The Rise of the Capitalist State

 https://www.panarchy.org/belloc/servilestate.html

Belloc’s Humane Defense of Personhood and Property

 https://lawliberty.org/classic/belloc-humane-defense-personhood-property/

Kitson

 “Moral conduct is that line of human action, conformity to which tends to promote the life, happiness and well-being of society and its members” (Arthur Kitson, The Money Problem, Ch. 1).

Sunday, September 25, 2022

Fantasy baseball "rising stars"

 George Kirby
Kerry Carpenter
Moises Gomez

Cheo Hernandez

 https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=hernan017jos

12-10 in NNL, 1920. Had similar records in C level Florida State League in next few years.

Friday, September 23, 2022

Quality of early Mexican League


1940 27 Sacramento PCL AA .232/2               .301
1941 28 Union L.     MEX      .343/0/18 .439 .529 


1938 23 Birmingham SOUA  A1   .243/3/66  .285 .329
1939 24 Birmingham SOUA  A1   .278/9               .412
1940 25 Chattanooga/Selma A1/B  .200/1              .284
1940 25 Union L.       MEX            .339/2/44         .464
1941 26 Union L.       MEX            .346/1/39         .477
1942 27 Meredian      SEAL   B     .211/0               .232


1938 30 Clinton/Dayton B/C   .243/5/48  .298 .367
1939 31 Muskogee+2others C .209/4               .373
1940 32 Tampico  MEX          .257/0/10   .307 .371

1946 29 San Antonio TL AA  .197/0/2     .250 .239
1946 29 Torreon        MEX    .312/1/38   .418 .439
1947 30 Austin        BSTL B  .326/24/92 .401 .518


1938 35 Oklahoma City TL A1  .305/1/56  134g
1939 36 Portsmouth   PIED B    .329/1         32g
1940 37 Oklahoma City TL A1  .328/2         42g
1940 37 Tampico        MEX       .229/0/4      19g
1941 38 Boise            PION C   .323/2         93g


1938 26 Tucson AZTX D .367/8/121 .420 .504
1939 27 Tucson AZTX D .294/4                .439
1940 28 Veracruz MEX    .325/1/48   .372 .433
1941 29 Union L. MEX   .326/0/23    .372 .399


1939 20 Tallahassee GAFL D .239/0              .271
1940 21 Mexico City MEX    .231/1/7  .307  .319
1941 22 Two teams  NCSL D .157/ 0             .176






Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Nov shmoz ka pop?

 http://screwballcomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/nov-shmoz-ka-pop-gene-aherns-mysterious.html

Do trees talk to each other?

 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/#:~:text=Trees%20share%20water%20and%20nutrients,Scientists%20call%20these%20mycorrhizal%20networks.

some helpful stuff

By the time she was in grad school at Oregon State University, however, Simard understood that commercial clearcutting had largely superseded the sustainable logging practices of the past. Loggers were replacing diverse forests with homogeneous plantations, evenly spaced in upturned soil stripped of most underbrush. Without any competitors, the thinking went, the newly planted trees would thrive. Instead, they were frequently more vulnerable to disease and climatic stress than trees in old-growth forests.

When Europeans arrived on America’s shores in the 1600s, forests covered one billion acres of the future United States — close to half the total land area. Between 1850 and 1900, U.S. timber production surged to more than 35 billion board feet from five billion. By 1907, nearly a third of the original expanse of forest — more than 260 million acres — was gone. Exploitative practices likewise ravaged Canada’s forests throughout the 19th century. As growing cities drew people away from rural and agricultural areas, and lumber companies were forced to replant regions they had logged, trees began to reclaim their former habitats. As of 2012, the United States had more than 760 million forested acres. The age, health and composition of America’s forests have changed significantly, however. Although forests now cover 80 percent of the Northeast, for example, less than 1 percent of its old-growth forest remains intact.

And though clearcutting is not as common as it once was, it is still practiced on about 40 percent of logged acres in the United States and 80 percent of them in Canada. In a thriving forest, a lush understory captures huge amounts of rainwater, and dense root networks enrich and stabilize the soil. Clearcutting removes these living sponges and disturbs the forest floor, increasing the chances of landslides and floods, stripping the soil of nutrients and potentially releasing stored carbon to the atmosphere. When sediment falls into nearby rivers and streams, it can kill fish and other aquatic creatures and pollute sources of drinking water. The abrupt felling of so many trees also harms and evicts countless species of birds, mammals, reptiles and insects.

Ryan told me about the 230,000-acre Menominee Forest in northeastern Wisconsin, which has been sustainably harvested for more than 150 years. Sustainability, the Menominee believe, means “thinking in terms of whole systems, with all their interconnections, consequences and feedback loops.” They maintain a large, old and diverse growing stock, prioritizing the removal of low-quality and ailing trees over more vigorous ones and allowing trees to age 200 years or more — so they become what Simard might call grandmothers. Ecology, not economics, guides the management of the Menominee Forest, but it is still highly profitable. Since 1854, more than 2.3 billion board feet have been harvested — nearly twice the volume of the entire forest — yet there is now more standing timber than when logging began. “To many, our forest may seem pristine and untouched,” the Menominee wrote in one report. “In reality, it is one of the most intensively managed tracts of forest in the Lake States.”

Trees have always been symbols of connection. In Mesoamerican mythology, an immense tree grows at the center of the universe, stretching its roots into the underworld and cradling earth and heaven in its trunk and branches. Norse cosmology features a similar tree called Yggdrasil. A popular Japanese Noh drama tells of wedded pines that are eternally bonded despite being separated by a great distance.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/02/magazine/tree-communication-mycorrhiza.html

Monday, September 19, 2022

An Exploratory Guide of Minor League Statistics

 https://pages.pomona.edu/~gjc04747/MiLB.pdf

The Dutch and Indonesia

 https://www.indonesia-investments.com/culture/politics/colonial-history/item178

Did Britain Stole $45 Trillion From India

 https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2018/12/19/how-britain-stole-45-trillion-from-india

response: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2021/09/british-india-and-the-45-trillion-lie/

deserves further looking in to.

https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/economy-politics/story/this-economist-says-britain-took-away-usd-45-trillion-from-india-in-173-years-111689-2018-11-19

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts

https://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2006/06/getting-into-it-with-niall.html

"The British fundamentally changed patterns of land and resource ownership. Furthermore, they changed the taxation system in a way that imposed onerous burdens on the average farmer. This change of taxation is remarked upon by Adam Smith in his wealth of nations. Previously, taxes by most kings was in proportion of earnings. The British imposed absolute tax requirements, and given the nature of agriculture, this meant that the tax burden could often not be met."


Tuesday, September 13, 2022

Eminent domain

  1. "The right of a government or its agent to expropriate private property for public use, with payment of compensation."




"In 1949, the federal government enacted a new approach to the housing problems of cities: urban renewal. The approach was new in both philosophy - for the first time in America, government was given the right to seize an individual's private property not for its own use but for reassignment to another individual for his use and profit - and in scope: a billion dollars was appropriated in 1949 and it was later agreed that this was only seed money to prepare for later, great plantings of cash."

    - The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, p.12
  1.  

    "The right of eminent domain, or the state’s ability to seize land for public use (paying the owners fair market value), is longstanding. But over the years the phrase “public use” has taken on broader and broader meaning."

  2. According to Norman Siegel, the civil-rights lawyer and former head of the New York Civil Liberties Union, a 1954 Supreme Court decision allowing land to be taken by a public agency put the court’s stamp on the urban-renewal boom that followed. A 1981 decision in Michigan, allowing a neighborhood to be condemned for a GM plant, transformed eminent domain into the voracious creature it is today. “From my perspective,” says Siegel, “eminent domain has run amok.”

“The problem with New York State is judicial,” explains Dana Berliner, a property-law expert with the libertarian Institute for Justice in Washington. “It’s public use to engage in any development project—it almost doesn’t matter what.” Berliner points out that New York is one of a handful of states that don’t give notice to owners in time to challenge a condemnation. (A published notice is the only announcement; 30 days later, the challenge period expires, all before the owner gets a formal letter.) A bill was passed by the State Legislature last year to rectify this Catch-22. It was vetoed by the Master Builder himself, George Pataki." 


Like in Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.

"To “help” low-income neighborhoods, Robert Moses used eminent domain to raze them and erect tower-in-the-park-style apartment complexes, which we today know have proved woefully ineffective. "





Walser v. Best Buy auto dealerships condemned to make way for $118M Best Buy corporate campus.
also mentioned Minneapolis Fed


Putting the squeeze on landowners in order to build a shopping center or marina may seem harsh, defenders of the use of eminent domain for private development admit. But they maintain that it's an essential tool for community revitalization, a means of reshaping shopworn inner cities and suburbs to meet new economic exigencies.

If local governments didn't have recourse to eminent domain, recalcitrant property owners could hold cities and developers hostage, demanding payment far in excess of fair market value, the legal standard for just compensation. Or "you could have an individual who at any cost, any price would not sell," observed Sherman Malkerson, a Twin Cities real estate broker who has served as a court-appointed commissioner in condemnation cases. "That may not be in the best interest of the community as a whole."

Condemnation powers make it easier for built-up communities to assemble large redevelopment tracts from multiple, individually owned parcels. If a few holdouts jeopardize the comprehensive plan, a condemning authority can acquire their property at fair market value (under state laws, landowners may also receive compensation for relocation costs), then resell it to a developer.

Such takings fulfill a legitimate public purpose, say proponents of eminent domain. Yes, for-profit companies—the developer, property management firms and corporate tenants—reap much of the benefit from government intervention in redevelopment projects. But putting land acquired by eminent domain to a higher, better use improves the welfare of city residents: Property values in the project area and surrounding neighborhoods rise; additional office workers and new homeowners buy groceries, shoes and DVDs from local merchants; increased tax revenues may help pay for public services and amenities that the city might otherwise be unable to afford.


Is the use of eminent domain for private development critical to the continued vitality of communities? If municipalities and port authorities no longer had a big stick, would frayed downtowns and dowdy inner-ring suburbs go into decline, starved of private investment and consumed by blight?

That's difficult to say, although recent history in Seattle, where a statewide ban on condemnation for economic development is in effect, suggests that cities can indeed prosper without resorting to eminent domain.

One thing is certain, however: Property targeted for taking is almost never as run-down and in need of redemption as condemning authorities say it is. Findings of blight are often a smoke screen for a local government's true motivation in moving to condemn private property—increasing employment and expanding the tax base. Under current law in most district states, it's easy for local officials to declare viable neighborhoods and commercial areas blighted and ripe for redevelopment.


Real or imagined blight was not an issue in the Kelo case; in condemning working-class homes to make way for a waterfront hotel, housing, marinas, and retail and office space, the City of New London never claimed that the neighborhood was dilapidated or even slightly seedy. City planners simply saw an opportunity to create more than 1,000 jobs and boost tax revenues in an economically depressed community. By a narrow 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court ruled that economic rejuvenation, in and of itself, fulfills a "public purpose.

The case confirmed what has been true on the ground in many cities in the district and around the country for at least 25 years: Local government can take private property for redevelopment virtually at will, as long as it can demonstrate some benefit to the community.

But from a regional or national perspective, using eminent domain to grease the wheels of private development is at best a zero-sum game and at worst a loss for the economy as a whole. The inescapable economic truth about government takings for private development is that without condemnation, the development would almost certainly have occurred somewhere else.

In practice, condemnation often results in a net economic loss, because eminent domain is routinely used in conjunction with TIF, tax abatements and other tax incentives designed to entice developers and major employers to build in a particular community.

The City of Richfield collected $1.9 million in incremental taxes from Best Buy in 2005—revenue that wouldn't exist if the campus had not been built. But only about $1.1 million of that money was actually spent on infrastructure and services that benefit city residents. Under the terms of the TIF agreement, the rest flowed back to Best Buy to pay off debt incurred in developing the campus. The city won't capture its full share of taxes levied on Best Buy's headquarters until 2026.

Giving away a portion of property tax revenue to local businesses means that cities have fewer resources to spend on law enforcement, snowplowing, schools and other public services that have been shown to stimulate private investment and business activity. In contrast, unsubsidized private development contributes fully to the local tax base. Assuming that civic leaders allocate resources wisely, the additional revenue finances public services that benefit city residents and the overall economy.

Basic economic theory states that markets operate most efficiently without government interference, and for many economists, that premise extends to the use of eminent domain to further redevelopment. Private businesses and investors, not politicians, are in the best position to decide when and where development should occur, said V. V. Chari, a professor of economics at the University of Minnesota and consultant to the Minneapolis Fed who has done research on eminent domain.

"We have learned through painful experience that in lots of situations, markets—individuals acting in their own self interest—lead to better outcomes than the outcomes that we can attain if governments or central planners undertake those kinds of activities," he said.

https://www.mackinac.org/6714

LD sources

 https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/03/12/the-devastation-caused-eminent-domain-abuse/yWsy0MNEZ91TM94PYQIh0L/story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/29/the-story-behind-the-kelo-case-how-an-obscure-takings-case-came-to-shock-the-conscience-of-the-nation/


forced poor people off land, into cities, creating huge workforce
devastated peasant class

"When access was systematically denied, ultimately the peasantry was left with three basic alternatives: to work in a serf-like manner as tenant farmers for large landowners; to emigrate to the New World; or, ultimately, to pour into already-crowded cities, where they pushed down each others’ wages by competing for a limited number of jobs." 

Historians J.L. and Barbara Hammond in The Village Labourer 1760–1832 (1911) describe the workers who were driven into factories by the Enclosure Acts:

The enclosures created a new organization of classes. The peasant with rights and a status, with a share in the fortunes and government of his village, standing in rags, but standing on his feet, makes way for the labourer with no corporate rights to defend, no corporate power to invoke, no property to cherish, no ambition to pursue, bent beneath the fear of his masters, and the weight of a future without hope. No class in the world has so beaten and crouching a history.

  As even the anti-libertarian historian Christopher A. Ferrara explains, “England’s response to the crisis of poverty among the landless proletariat” was a

system of poor relief supplements to meager wages, adopted de facto throughout England (beginning in 1795) in order to ensure that families did not starve. The result … was a vast, government-subsidized mass of wage-dependent paupers whose capitalist employers, both urban and rural, were freed from the burden of paying even bare subsistence wages.

English Enclosures and Soviet Collectivization: Two Instances of an Anti-Peasant Mode of Development 

The Village Labourer: 1760-1832 : A Study in the Government of England Before the Reform Bill

From A History of England, Hilaire Belloc:

The lord was already enclosing common land etc. before Reformation. Reformation hastened process in the struggle between the peasant and the local lord, and to make the victory of the latter certain in England.

The fees tenants payed to monasteries were quite conservative. The lords who took the land after had no such constraints of conscience or custom. 


Saturday, August 27, 2022

Bizarre aging patterns

Did better in International League at 36 than in Lone Star League at 27. 

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Tabletop baseball game stuff

 Two Base Errors

From 


48003.11 in reply to 48003.5

48003.11 in reply to 48003.5 
I did a lot of research into this for Season Ticket Baseball.


Errors by infielders that allowed the batter to reach base, using 2018 data (ground balls, bunts excluded):

1-Base Errors: 4.3 per 600 Plate Appearances
2-Base Errors: 0.6 per 600 Plate Appearances

So, roughly 12% of infield errors on ground balls are 2-base errors.


(2-base errors make up a larger percentage of errors by outfielders — although outfield errors 

that let the batter reach base (ROE) are rarer in real life than they are in a game like Strat-O-Matic.)

sim4ever said...

Season Ticket has the occasional two-base error on some hitting cards and on its rare play chart.

I broke out the ROEs into slow runners (Speed or 2 or less in Season Ticket) and fast runners 

(Speed of 5 or more) and found that 2-base errors generally only occur with fast runners:


So it didn't make sense to have 2-base errors occur randomly on every infield error result. 

To get the right result without an extra die roll, I put 86% of 2-base errors on the Batting Cards 

and the remaining 14% in the Rare Plays table*:

next


In Strat-O-Matic baseball, the percentage of 2-base errors for INFIELDERS differ arbitrarily between 

each of the various error ratings, but it appears to shake out as an overall 20 percent.

Gamers can choose whatever 2-base error percentage they like by using a percentage dice roll 

whenever certain errors occur in replay, instead of accepting the 2-base error that the game you're

 playing spits out.

For INFIELDERS, I allow for the possibility of a three base error occurring, but only for PITCHERS

, THIRD BASEMEN, FIRST BASEMEN, and CATCHERS...and only for them on BUNT plays...

On such BUNT plays, if a 2-base error comes up (my modification allows for pitcher, catcher, third basemen, 

and first basemen to be charged with errors when SPEED or DEFENSE readings occurs from the bunt charts)...

a 3-base error may occur when the lead runner tries to advance [a DECIDE play] and score.

In Strat-O-Matic, I use runners SPEED minus 7 plus/minus rightfielder's ARM rating plus rightfielder's 

RANGE to calculate the safe range of the lead runner for wild throws to first base by infielders on bunts.


Wednesday, March 30, 2022

Friday, January 21, 2022

 https://xkcd.com/559/

same as mentioned in awkwardness speech

Monday, January 10, 2022

Friday, January 7, 2022