Property Rights

If you watched tonight's city council meeting closely, you could see the Urbana Development Corporation holding a gun to the head of Julian Gorski, the owner of 508 W. Elm who is trying to sell his property.

To make a long story short, the city council passed a 45 day period preventing demolition to preserve historically "significant" properties.   508 is not a historically significant property by any rational argument.   Yet, the historic preservation commission and Brandon Bowersox are willing to do anything to prevent apartments from being constructed in their neighborhood.

In this particular situation:

1) Reps from the Urbana Development Corporation encouraged the owner to donate the property or sell it to them at a lowball price, threatening the hassles that await.

2) The Urbana Development Corporation submits a low-ball offer just in the past few days in hopes their political efforts force the owner to sell them at below-market prices.   They didn't have the votes tonight, so Charlie Smyth deferred until next council meeting.

My prediction:

Expect a political curve ball to be thrown by Charlie Smyth and Company to ensure the Urbana Development Corporation gets the property at a deeply discounted price.

Property Owners Beware:

According to the precedent set with this protest, ANYONE can petition that your house is historic if ANY of the following apply:

1) If a postmaster lived in your house.   There are currently 14 of you according to Julian Gorski.

2) If someone lived in your house who had prominent pallbearers.

3) If a women lived in your house who was president of a state-wide organization, without any reference to influence of the organization.

4) If someone lived in your house who was in a newspaper article.

5) If someone is historically significant (any one of the above), but only lived in the house for 6 years.

Basically, if your neighbor doesn't like your taste they can petition your house historic against your will if it meets ANY of the criteria.    This is NOT an exaggeration. You would need their permission to make any changes to the exterior of the house.  

The argument against the 45 day period was that this process would be leveraged to screw property owners.   I encourage you to watch the city council meeting and listen to Julian Gorski's argument.   Take note that an independent expert reported the property was not historically significant.   Take note the city staff argued the property was not historically significant.   Take note that the Urbana Development Council did not have any interest in the property until someone else wanted it.   Take note that Julian Gorski has a contract on his house CONTINGENT upon permits.   Get used to ridiculous contingencies if you want to sell your property to an investor in Urbana.

Kudos to the Urbana Development Corporation.   They are ruthless and they know how to get their way.   Even if this vote goes in favor of Gorski, this is a huge loss for property rights unless they reform the process and provide more SPECIFIC guidance in determining whether or not a property is historically "significant".

I can't believe our laws were written to allow this type of thing, but what can you do?

"Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." --Thomas Jefferson

This link tells it all

If an employer can't find anyone to fill a job at the salary he is willing to pay, can he complain that he has no choices? What if he had an employee quit, and he is really poor... hopeless you might say.. no choice. We need legislation to fill such positions. You want the poor guy to lose everything and become homeless?

I propose that we have a law that allow employers to sue individuals who refuse to work for him based on totally irrelevant criteria. The federal government should pay for these lawsuits. Unless these prejudicial individuals can prove that they had a valid reason to refuse the job offer, they should be fined or forced to work for that employer. The burden of proof will be on the person who refused the job to demonstrate that he had a good reason (I know this seems contrary to the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.. but this is such an important issue that we can't let that get in the way.)

Think about it... an employer being discriminated against because he is gay, or a person of color, or because he thinks he's a she. Or maybe the applicant simply didn't like the appearance of the office. We've come a long way to end discrimination, but I fear we're stopping only half-way. We need to end discrimination on the side of employees as well. You know, they are so greedy, they will just quit and go to another company if they can make more money. Where's the compassion, the humanity? This law will restore such things to the workplace. We need such laws to control the greed and self-interest all too often found in employees.

Where there’s smoke . . .

The Minot Daily News, Minot, North Dakota -

Once again, smoking is a hot topic at the North Dakota Legislature.

Senate Bill 2164, which was defeated 30-15 by the Senate on Thursday, would have banned smoking in bars and truck stops. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Ralph Kilzer, R-Bismarck, came two years after the Legislature approved a smoking ban in most buildings to which the public has access. Bars were exempt, as were separate, walled-off areas in truck stops where children were not allowed.

We were in favor of the smoking ban in all restaurants, and we still support that ban. But supporters of this bill had a tougher fight on their hands. They couldn’t use the health of children as one argument for banning smoking, since bars are a controlled atmosphere, with no one under the age of 21 allowed.

We do agree with the supporters of the ban on at least one point: There’s clear evidence that smoking and secondhand smoke contribute to or cause a wide array of health problems.

But we also agree with opponents of this bill on this point: If smoking would have been banned in bars, what’s next? Some states are considering whether to ban smoking in outdoor public places and whether to prohibit adults from smoking in a vehicle when children are present. Where will the fight against smoking end? It likely won’t end until smoking is banned everywhere – indoors and outdoors.

Just because something is bad for your health doesn’t necessarily mean the government should ban its use. Candy, donuts and soda all have proven health risks, but are still available. There should still be some personal responsibility in life.

Certainly smoking rises to a slightly different level, because of the health risks of secondhand smoke. But if the smoking ban supporters were truly concerned about public health issues, why weren’t they proposing a state ban on the sale of alcohol, which would eliminate the need for bars altogether?`

Jim Eykyn, Publisher; Bryan L. Obenchain, Editor

I was drawn to the package -- a royal red box, a knight's helmet atop a coat of arms flanked by two regal lions. Beneath the logo, a banner bore the phrase "In Hoc Signo Vinces."

And inside the palm-sized package were my father's favored smoke, the unfiltered Pall Mall red.

I remember my first lip lock with tobacco. I swiped a pack from the kitchen counter where my dad would drop his wallet, keys and smokes every day. I found a book of matches and snuck into the darkened basement. Crouched beside a dresser where my father's reel-to-reel tape recorder sat, I nervously struck a match, set fire to the pilfered stick and sniffed the smoke, the scent of Pall Mall red inextricably connected to my dad.

I placed the cig to my lips and drew a breath -- first a little, then a lot.

Whereupon I choked and my eyes teared. I tried again, only to gag and spit. Little flecks of tobacco stuck to my lips.

What a tough guy my father must be, I marveled.

I was 11.

A week later, I mustered up the nerve to try again. I studied my father's technique.

This time, I got sick to my stomach.

Curiosity extinguished.

Five years later, my father noticed a few of my buddies carried packs of Marlboro Lights -- a womanly cigarette, in my view. Dad admonished me not to start.

"Way ahead of you, Dad," I replied, recalling the ill-fated basement experiment.

I never joined the legions of smokers, but I empathize. Throughout my childhood, both my parents smoked, as did every aunt and uncle in the family. Second-hand smoke never bothered me. Still doesn't. Today, though, nearly everyone in my family has quit. Dad's been off the cancer sticks for about 20 years now. Mom can't drop the habit, though. When she comes to visit, she sneaks them in the bathroom.

My fascination with smoking ended quickly, but the American fascination has endured for hundreds of years.

"In Hoc Signo Vinces" ... in this sign, you will conquer.

These days, smokers seem to be the conquered.

Two decades after workplaces forced their nicotine-addicted employees outside to smoke their lungs, local governments now are declaring all public places tobacco-free zones.

The put-upon smoker feels like a criminal, a victim of discrimination. Smokers' tempers have flared of late with Orland Park and Tinley Park looking anew at their smoking bans and the effect they may have on local restaurants and pubs.

Look back in history, however, and you'll find these latest bids to stomp out smoking pale in comparison (as pale as an 11-year-old sucking on an unfiltered Pall Mall red). In centuries past, the punishment for fouling the air with your lung-candy was far more severe.

Abigail Cutler, writing in the January/February Atlantic monthly, assembled the following great moments in tobacco prohibition history.

1624: On the logic that tobacco use prompts sneezing, which too closely resembles sexual ecstasy, Pope Urban VIII issues a worldwide smoking ban and threatens excommunication for those who smoke or take snuff in holy places. A century later, snuff-loving Pope Benedict XIII repeals all papal smoking bans.

1633: Sultan Murad IV prohibits smoking in the Ottoman Empire; as many as 18 people a day are executed for breaking the law.

1634: Czar Michael of Russia bans smoking, promising whippings, floggings, a slit nose and a one-way trip to Siberia for even first-time offenders. By 1674, smokers are deemed criminals subject to the death penalty. Two years later, the ban is lifted.

1646: The General Court of Massachusetts Bay prohibits citizens from smoking tobacco except when on a journey and at least five miles away from any town. The next year, the Colony of Connecticut restricts citizens to one smoke a day, "not in company with any other." By the early 1700s, New England is a major consumer and producer of tobacco.

1895: North Dakota bans the sale of cigarettes. Over the next 26 years, 14 other statehouses follow suit. By 1927, all smoke-free legislation -- except that banning the sale of cigarettes to minors -- is repealed.

1942: Adolf Hitler calls tobacco "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor," and directs one of the most aggressive anti-smoking campaigns in history, including heavy taxes and bans on smoking in many public places. Germany's anti-smoking movement loses most of its momentum after the Nuremberg trials, and by the mid-1950s, domestic consumption exceeds prewar levels.

I think banning smoking in bars is a little over the top, though not as severe as flogging or nose-slitting.

The cigarette and the alcoholic drink go hand in hand, so to speak, at the local tavern. Smoke is part of the culture, and you know this if you frequent any watering hole. Full-fledged restaurants, on the other hand, here a case for a ban can and should be made. A smoker ought to be able to exercise enough self-control to abstain for the course of a meal.

Contrary to the invective unleashed by irate smokers these days, the crusade to stop smoking in eateries now sweeping the country doesn't quite match the zeal of the Nazis or, worse yet, the Puritans.

Dennis Robaugh can be reached at drobaugh@dailysouthtown.com.

Yesterday, I received the annual report from the University of Illinois, which includes information on all three campuses.  Very well done, and lots of interesting research.  Much of it I had heard about in the news, but one item caught my attention.

A professor at UIC, Robert Bruegmann, has written a book called Sprawl.  The Amazon profile has this review from Publisher's Weekly:

"After 70 years of suffering the slings and arrows of academic criticism, suburban life finally finds a compelling defender in Bruegmann. A professor of art history and urban planning at the University of Illinois-Chicago, Bruegmann demonstrates that urban sprawl is a natural process as old as the world's oldest cities, wherein large metropolises reach a point of maturity and those with financial means escape the congestion and high prices of city life. What has changed over the past century, the author says, is that an increasing number of citizens have achieved the financial means to participate in what was once an exclusive luxury of the wealthy. Bruegmann acknowledges that the effects on cities are not always positive, but he also demonstrates that many of the criticisms of suburban sprawl-e.g., that it is culturally deficient and environmentally noxious-are greatly exaggerated and ignore the very real benefits sprawl offers in terms of privacy, mobility and choice. With his disdain for doomsday predictions and his disregard for the academic consensus, Bruegmann's thorough analysis is sure to be controversial, but a shot of controversy ought to do the field, and public dialogue about it, some good."--Publishers Weekly

I'd love to hear this guy speak here.  (Perhaps he's already been here.)  The MTD last year brought in a guy who was generally of the opposite opinion.  Maybe they can balance that with Prof. Bruegmann.  Nah, I'd rather if a few of us could just read his book and fill in the rest of the community.  Sounds a lot cheaper.

In Sunday's NG, Brandon Bowersox complained about Christie's move out of downtown.  One of his reasons was this would contribute to urban "sprawl".  I also saw a few "letters" oppose the Unit 4 building plan because it was encouraging "sprawl".

Likewise, I believe the county board has been wrestling with a land-use policy, with "sprawl" reduction being one of its goals.

So what is wrong with sprawl?  Well, anti-sprawlers will contend it requires more gas and creates more pollution to get all these people back into town.  Also, cities must spend a disproportional amount to service such outlying developments (sewer, roads, fire and police protection).  And this sprawl removes farmland from production, reducing this precious resource, maybe forever.

My thoughts:

With gas over $3 per gallon, people can decide if their lot "in the country" is worth the transportation costs.  And I am not really worried Champaign county is going to become L.A. 

The cost of sewer hookup sounds like a legit argument.  Of course, a lot of housing wouldn't mind not being on the sewer system, so maybe that is not quite the waste of taxpayer dollars that opponents claim.

The other service costs seem to me to be offset by the costs of the alternative - high density.  All you need to remember is the $$$$$ tram plan.  More crime with high density?  Specialized fire service for taller buildings?  More expensive road maintenance because of the critical nature of the crowded streets in a dense community?

But my biggest beef is the "save the farmland" argument.  Who is the county board, or a city council, to tell a farmer to whom he can sell his land?  And as long as farmers are collecting millions in subsidies, seems to me taking land out of production (and putting up houses) is a good thing - reduce supply to help prices.  If the best farmland becomes scarce, land prices will make it unwise to sell it to developers.  Until then, relax and let it sprawl.

This from the National Review today. Our new Chief Justice Roberts sided with the 'liberals' on the court in favor of a plaintiff who's house was sold in a property tax auction. The man had moved out, but his wife (they were separated, not divorced) and daughter continued to live there and ignored the notices. Read the article for more details, but here is the key summation: And might Roberts end up again one day with Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg”â€Âif that foursome manages to get something right? I suppose. But something in that Unsuitable Quintet sets off tremors That quintet does set off tremors with me. Conservatives have been counting on the legacy of Bush's appointments to help our cause for years to come - now?

No link, just a discussion thread.  Resolution passed 5-4, and will go into effect if Urbana passes a similar ordinance.  No exceptions for bowling alleys or private clubs.

I wonder how Savoy will respond.

Kind of a focused Open Thread, but there are lots of things floating around locally:

• Urbana rejects rooftop bar - no big shock
• Urbana wants to raise their sales tax (to be equal to Champaign and make up for lost utility tax revenue from U of I) - so much for being a new retail mecca
• Champaign transportation plan - we have had some discussion about changes to Spfld Ave and the bridges over I-57 (neither in the plan)
• Smoking ban proposal at the Champaign council tonight - sounds like Ennan could be the swing vote.
• Provena and Personalcare are duking it out, in public.

Sound off.

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, once wrote: "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

Yet, the current craft of the rewriting of Champaign County's zoning ordinance, which has now been ongoing for more than a decade, contains all sorts of restrictions that verge on "takings" of private property.  Some of the highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective):

1.  "Stream protection buffers" that prevent landowners from maintaining their property without asking the county's permission to cut down trees.

2.  Landowners will only have the right to erect one house per 40 acres.

3.  In "Rural Planned Development Districts" landowners lot sizes will be restricted to 10 acres.

4.  And no part of a "Rural Planned Development Districts" can be on "best prime farmland."

5.  If you have more than a certain number of trees on your property, you will have to ask the county's permission to cut down a tree.

Whatever happened to freedom and property rights?  Half of Champaign-Urbana was built on "best prime farmland"...if it's that sacred, shouldn't we knock down all our houses and plant corn?  If a farmer can make more money doing something other than farm on his "best prime farmland," why should the government tell him he can't do it?

We raised enough money (about $500) for yard signs and flyers, so if you have some time and would like to help”¦

Come be a part of invalidating CUMTD's undemocratic forced annexations by distributing “vote yes” flyers March 4-5 and 11-12 (we will also be distributing flyers soliciting funds to help defend against CUMTD's legal challenges). We're just "dropping" (i.e., no knocking), so it should be quick/painless.

Send me an e-mail at s.tapley@sbcglobal.net and I will coordinate starting times and locations.

If you're sympathetic to our cause but don't have time or ability to help”¦your check payable to “CSWMTD Supporters” would be welcomed. I estimate we will need another $15,000 to $20,000 to defend against CUMTD's next round of legal challenges.

(Checks may be mailed to me at 4405 Crossgate Drive, Champaign 61822 or Brett Kepley at Rawles, O'Byrne, Stanko and Kepley, 501 W. Church St., Champaign 61820.)

The Champaign council passed an ordinance last night making possession of tobacco by a minor illegal, punishable by a hefty fine.

From the 1/16 News-Gazette:

The CU Smokefree Alliance, which has led the fight for a smoking ban in public places in Champaign-Urbana, also will not support the proposed ordinance, according to spokesman Matt Varble.

The alliance believes the proposal "is a bad idea whose time has not come," Varble wrote in a news release.

"It appears that the mayor is simply pretending to be anti-tobacco in a way that blames our youth for tobacco problems when, in fact, the problem is citywide and spans beyond youth possession," Varble said. 

The best way for underage youths to learn not to smoke "is for adults to stop smoking in public places," he said.

"A focus solely on youth possessing cigarettes says smoking is wrong for kids, but just fine once you reach 18 and beyond," Varble wrote. "It's not."

My question – I thought the alliance was concerned about public health? For them not to support this measure seems to give credence to my contention that they really just want smoking banned in bars and restaurants because it annoys them.

Update:

Commenting closed - thanks to all for participating.  We shall see soon enough if the fears of those opposing this new ordinance were realistic.

2nd update:

By popular demand, comments are now being accepted again.  More thoughts? 

While telling the Village of Savoy and the public that it was willing to enter negotiations to avoid the need for creation of a Savoy Mass Transit District, guess what CUMTD was doing behind the scenes?

During the veto session, CUMTD's director, Bill Volk, and a CUMTD-paid lobbyist, were in Springfield trying to get legislation passed that would stop Savoy and S.W. Champaign residents from creating mass transit districts.

Can you say negotiating in bad faith? Is there no length to which Bill Volk would go to crush democracy and the will of Champaign County residents?

This is the best proof yet that the CUMTD board needs to be directly elected. An elected board would have the will to deal appropriately with Mr. Volk. An elected board would likely dedicate more CUMTD resources toward improving efficiency, safety and service and spend less money on lobbyists and attorneys whose sole purpose is forcing an unwanted agenda down the throats of local residents.

It's time to start contacting our representatives in Springfield and asking them to sponsor a bill enabling direct voter election of CUMTD board members. Here are some phone numbers”¦

St. Rep. Chapin Rose
558-1006
348-7673

St. Rep. Bill Black
782-4811
431-1986

St. Rep. Naomi Jakobsson
558-1009
373-5000

St. Rep. Shane Cultra
558-1039
558-1098
815-268-4090

The Champaign County Board is moving closer to a final draft of a comprehensive zoning ordinance re-write:

More than a year after Champaign County residents first reviewed zoning ordinance changes proposed for rural districts, the county appears to be inching closer to presenting another draft to the public.

At 7 p.m. Nov. 2, the Champaign County Board's Environment and Land Use Committee will hold a study session to review the most recent draft and direct staff on whether or not to release it to the public for review. Then, at the group's regular Nov. 14 meeting, they could vote on the draft's release.

After that, public hearings will be held (possibly in January) and eventually the county board will vote on the new zoning amendments. That may be in March.

"It's a fascinating and complicated process, but I believe staff and members of the Environment and Land Use Committee are trying to create a zoning ordinance that's updated, modern and represents the will of the county," said committee co-chair Nancy Greenwalt of Champaign.

It's been a long time coming. For years, county board members and staff have been working on rewriting zoning for the county's agricultural districts (generally areas 1.5 miles beyond a municipality's border).

"It came down to a crisis a few months ago when we started getting planning commissions for townships and municipalities involved. They were filing protests on various proposed changes and state law provides if a township or municipality files a complaint, then it requires three-quarters of the members of (county) board to pass that over their objection," said Ralph Langenheim of Urbana, chair of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

This is an interesting consequence of the redistricting map drawn by County Board Democrats after the 2000 census.  The Democrats, with 15 of the 27 members, control the Board.  And 14 of the 15 Democrat members live within the city limits of Champaign and Urbana.  The new zoning ordinances, however, will only affect areas more than 1.5 miles outside of city limits.  So the 14 Champaign-Urbana Democratic County Board members can, conceivably, pass this a new zoning ordinance that will restrict the property rights of County residents living only in rural Champaign - and it's an ordinance to which the Democratic members themselves will never be subject.

While I hate to distract from a fantastic set of debates about CUMTD, a bunch of smoking-ban-related stuff is happening around the state.

Hoffman Estates:

After rejecting a similar ordinance about two years ago, Hoffman Estates trustees are again considering a smoking ban.

The ordinance would affect commercial buildings with multiple tenants who share a common ventilation system. The village's Public Health and Safety Committee approved the ban 5-2 on Monday.

I think such a ban would impact some restaurants and bars, but I wouldn't think it would be a majority. How many business share their ventilation systems?  

Kane County:

Kane County officials said Tuesday that they plan to take advantage of a new law giving each of the state's 1,200 communities more muscle to ban smoking in public places.

The county's tobacco program, which was awarded $139,000 in state funding for the 2006 fiscal year, will use some of the grant money to promote and encourage more smoke-free restaurants, said Maureen Obuchowski, Kane County health education coordinator.

I have a problem with the grant (shoot, I have problem with most government-funded grants) but at least they'll be using the funds to persuade business owners to go smoke-free voluntarily. 

...smoke. According to the Kirby Pringle in the Etc. section of the News-Gazette Thursday, the Blind Pig has canceled their smoke free Happy Hours on Tuesday because of a lack of support from non-smokers. Similarly, according to Pringle, the Outer Banks in Pesotum, also ended the smoking ban in their bar.

In a surprising reversal for Missouri nanny-staters, a proposed smoking ban in St. Louis County was defeated on Tuesday evening:

The indoor clean air act, which would have outlawed smoking in most public buildings, was voted down Tuesday in a three-hour meeting that drew more than 400 residents. Nearly 100 people spoke.

The council's decision comes after six months of contentious debate. It stunned many advocates who thought the county would join the ranks of Minneapolis, Boston and New York as smoke-free environments.

"We are dismayed, despondent and disgusted," said Dan Duncan, director of community services for the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. "But if anyone thinks this issue is dead, they have another thing coming. It will return, and it will return with a vengeance."

Of course it will.  Nanny-staters will never give up trying to run other people's lives for them:

Duncan said people are talking about starting a voter initiative to get the smoking ban on the ballot next year. Such a move would require a petition signed by more than 25,000 residents - five percent of voters in the county in the last gubernatorial election.

I still think a ban is an unfair restriction of business owners' property rights, but I'd rather have a ban enacted by referendum than by Council fiat.  At least a referendum will allow for the voices of the Sixty-Four Percent For Freedom.

One council member changed her mind, due to the fact that exempt businesses would have too much of an advantage over those whose management decisions would have been made by the County Government:

Erby proved to be the swing vote. She had wrestled for weeks with her decision. Odenwald said he had her support up until the night of the vote.

"She came in at the last minute and wanted changes that would have gutted the bill," he said. "I just couldn't accept that."

Erby said she never promised Odenwald her vote. She said she wanted to vote for the ban but felt the bill was unfair.

"I just couldn't, in good conscience, vote for it," she said.

The latest version of the proposal included exemptions for small bars, bowling alleys, Harrah's casino and Lambert Field. Critics said it favored certain businesses over others. 

Obviously, not everyone is buying the nanny-stater propaganda that a smoking ban will actually help those businesses that are forced to go smoke-free.  Evidently there really isn't a significant proportion of people hiding in the homes, traumatized by the notion of being exposed to second-hand smoke, unwilling to take personal responsibility by walking out of smoking-allowed establishements, who are only waiting for a government-mandated smoking ban so they can frequent their favorite taverns again.

The Coalition to Protect People From Themselves (CPPFT) argument is so counter-intuitive that I am still having a hard time understanding why anyone is falling for it.  But Champaign's study session will probably occur in September.  The CPPFT will start pushing their "facts" and "science" again shortly.

The Governor has finally signed legislation allowing local communities to set their own smoking regulations.

But lawmakers voted this spring to eliminate that feature, deciding that all towns and cities should have the power to crack down on smoking if they wish to do so. Blagojevich had expressed ambivalence about the bill in recent weeks, but he signed it Wednesday.

Earlier, he had teased that he was holding out for more campaign contributions from the restaurant, liquor and tobacco industries reconsidering his support of the legislation.