The Editor's Desk

My editorial today is essentially a libertarian wish list of what I think folks in people in elected positions in town should consider before making decisions with the public’s money. It’s my hope that like-minded citizens would also encourage their public officials to think more about both the actual need and the actual consequences of the decisions they make.

I developed this “back to basics” concept a few months ago for a different and perhaps surprising reason: I was considering running for City Council myself. A couple of local friends also encouraged me to consider the idea. I do a lot of analysis and discussion, of course, of City Council decisions and provide a different point of view.

Unfortunately, I can’t be the editor of the newspaper and serve on City Council. Well, in a purely technical sense I could, but my boss certainly wouldn’t keep employing me, and if I were a reader I wouldn’t trust any news stories about City Council if the main editor were a member.

So if I were to run for City Council, I would have to find another job. The problem, here, though, is that there really isn’t a whole lot in Barstow I’m qualified to do besides work at the newspaper. We journalists aren’t good for a whole lot once you get us out of our element.

The only other logical fit would be education, which would have been a problem. I have issues with the union-dominated, money-wasting operations of our public school systems. It would be hypocritical for me to promote smaller government and then turn around and live off the public dime as a school teacher. (This is assuming they’d have anything to do with me anyway)

So, being the market-loving libertarian I am, I realized that I’m pretty much where Barstow needs me to be. If I don’t have value as an employee in Barstow’s business market outside the newspaper, then obviously I should stay here. Whether the City Council would have been better or worse with me on board (assuming the idea I could have won) is a question that will remain unknown.

Though feel free to speculate in the comments.

The original headline for today’s editorial about drug use and the drug war was “We are all on drugs.” However, after a discussion in the newsroom I ultimately decided that there probably is not a significant amount of overlap between Desert Dispatch opinion page readers and Weezer fans and I might get some angry calls from people thinking I was accusing them of being on drugs.

Seriously though, I do want to add a little more insight to my attitude about the drug war. Libertarians are known for their attitude in favor of drug legalization. Also, and not entirely unrelated, many libertarians are perceived to be casual drug users.

I don’t touch drugs, at all. I rarely even drink alcohol. I want to make it clear that my attitude toward drug use is not based on some naive idea that drugs are not dangerous or a problem. My attitude is based on the belief that families and friends are better resources in helping deal with these problems than the government, and there’s a lot of information out there that backs up my view.

On a personal level, I’m a child of the drug war. I turn 37 on Monday, so it was interesting to me to notice that I’ve essentially lived my entire life in this fight. Drug use tore my family apart when I was a child. I don’t care to get into the details of it, but it was devastating. I know what drug abuse can do to people. Subconsciously, I’ve made many decisions about my life to make sure I never become one of those people.

But I also know what families can do. We put ourselves back together (well, really, it was my father’s hard work that did it). Government intervention did not play a role. If the government had gotten involved in this situation when it was at its worst, who knows what would have happened? I and my sister might have become wards of the state, and as difficult as things were, I can’t imagine such a turn of events working out better for me.

Over at Reason, one of the litigators for the now-famous eminent domain Supreme Court decision describes what has happened three years after the court ruling.

The house at the center of the case has been moved. And the project that the city used to justify taking it under eminent domain practices … is pretty much dead.

You know, that’s another argument against eminent domain abuse that didn’t even occur to me. Private projects and developments change all the time. Sometimes they die entirely. Keeping eminent domain confined to an identifiable public need — like a courthouse or school — doesn’t guarantee a project’s completion, but it is certainly more likely than a huge complicated private development.

Imagine if the City of Barstow had used eminent domain to get the land for one of these proposed housing developments that haven’t and maybe won’t come to pass. People forced to move and buildings bulldozed. And then, the developers don’t have enough money or can’t actually complete the project.

That’s something to keep in mind when a municipality defends its eminent domain abuse for economic development projects. There’s absolutely no way of truly knowing whether the project will ever come to fruition.

Damon Root over at Reason Magazine analyzes why Proposition 98 failed and Proposition 99 passed and came to the same conclusion as me and other eminent domain observers: We need a proposition that limits eminent domain and does nothing else.

My editorial for Wednesday is about the wasteful spending behind the state’s seat belt public safety campaign. Paying officers overtime to check to see if folks are wearing seat belts? Really? Is this really a smart way to spend tax money?

I had my own experiences with this program last month. While I was driving down to Ontario to catch a flight, I was pulled over by a CHP officer for apparently no reason other than to see if I was wearing a seat belt. I was. Fortunately I always make sure to give plenty of padding time to get to the airport, given the potential bottleneck of the Cajon Pass, and it was just a slight nuisance.

Then, toward the end of May, I returned back from another trip on a Friday and of course got caught up in crawling traffic on Interstate 15 heading toward Cajon Pass. I wondered if this was just typical holiday traffic (Memorial Day weekend) or if there was an accident or problem up ahead. My car slowly crept along the highway, approaching one of those big signs they put in place to warn about traffic conditions or Amber Alerts. Maybe it would tell me what was going on?

Nope. Instead, it read: “Click it or Ticket.” That’s it. The sign’s intended use was subverted as well for some wasteful campaign.

A press release that arrived yesterday:

SAN BERNARDINO - San Bernardino County Supervisors Dennis Hansberger and Josie Gonzales are hosting a free workshop this week to help local non-profit organizations secure dollars from major foundations.

The “Meet the Funders” forum, featuring a panel of grant-making foundations, will be held Friday, June 6, from 8:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisor’s Chambers located in the County Government Center, 385 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino.

Representatives from major funding institutions, such as the Bank of America Foundation, the California Endowment, James Irvine Foundation, Verizon Foundation, and the Washington Mutual Foundation will meet face to face with local non-profits primarily serving the County’s third and fifth district residents.

Daniel Foster, Chief Executive Officer of the Riverside Arts Museum, will lead a panel discussion to educate local organizations on how to effectively approach these foundations for funding focused in the areas of health and human services, homeless, education, youth, and the arts.

That’s right, folks in county government are going to help non-profits learn how to turn to private foundations to try to get money for programs instead of begging for public money. Kudos! Brad Mitzelfelt should join them, but then he wouldn’t have press releases to send out crowing about his involvement in getting funding for High Desert organizations.

I received a press release from the No on 98 folks crowing about the latest polls that show the proposition losing and losing pretty badly next Tuesday.

Given that the entire campaign against the proposition is based on the rent control provision, I do have to wonder if it was a mistake to include it. We ran a guest commentary from Timothy Sandefur explaining in detail why the rent control issue isn’t a big deal, but sadly in some situations it is tough to fight emotional arguments with rationality.

Somebody needs to just suck it up and write a ballot initiative that restricts eminent domain and does nothing else, period. There’s too much mission creep going on. I understand the arguments for getting rid of rent control and keeping local government from abusing the zoning process to get what they want, and I agree, but this is a battle fought in increments. Let’s re-establish the proper use of eminent domain first and then wage the other battles.

I’m also disappointed in the number of newspapers who have fallen for the horrible arguments that have been presented to kill 98 and approve 99. You’d think an industry that requires government respect for the Bill of Rights in order to function would have a little more appreciation for property rights. But, sadly, for many newspaper editorial writers, the strength of your rights seems to weaken based on the amount of money you have. If you own a mobile home, you have all sorts of rights. If you own a mobile home park, well then, forget it.

These days, most speeches from gay activist organization leaders tend to inspire eye rolls from me. I’m not that interested in identity-based politics, and it frequently feels impossible to connect with gay political movements unless you’ve purchased the entire liberal identity package and think the government can make everybody get along. You also have to be willing to act like a victim, and I can’t stand doing that.

However, as a libertarian, my belief in the bedrock foundation of civil liberties is no different from theirs (the difference is where the foundation ends). I believe, and I have said before, that marriage is a right. We treat marriage as a right. As such I believe the U.S. Constitution already endorses gay marriage in the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Essentially, just because a right isn’t laid out specifically in the Constitution does not mean said right doesn’t exist. But that’s considered a radical argument in today’s era of nanny government. The government gives you rights now, when it once existed to make sure your rights weren’t taken away.

I’m getting a little too far ahead, actually, as yesterday’s gay marriage decision was based on California’s Constitution, not the United States’. The judges determined denying marriage to same-sex couples violated the state’s constitution.

The responses from gay marriage opponents have been predictable, but no less frustrating. Apparently the definition of an activist judge is one that makes decisions you don’t like. Consider the response from our own county supervisor, Brad Mitzelfelt: “In 2000, the people of this state overwhelmingly supported Proposition 22, defining marriage in state law as a union between a man and a woman. With this decision, the Court has chosen to overrule the will of millions of California voters.”

Well, yes, Mr. Mitzelfelt, when millions of California voters approve a proposition that violates the state’s constitution, the court is supposed to strike it down. Determining the constitutionality of legislation is what the state Supreme Court is for.

Our congressional representative, Howard “Buck” McKeon, is also either dense or cynically manipulating the matter to get votes: “[U]nder no circumstance should the courts be allowed to show such utter disregard for the democratic process. In this case, it appears partisan politics and personal opinions are taking precedence over the rule of law; and that’s an alarming turn of events.”

Yes, actually, the court is supposed to overrule the democratic process if the democratic process produces an outcome that violates the state constitution. That’s how the “rule of law” works. Now, if you want to debate whether the judges have misinterpreted the wording of the constitution, that’s one thing, but a legislator who doesn’t understand the role of the court is a legislator who isn’t fit for office.

Let’s try changing the parties involved here to see if I can’t get my point across. According to a 2007 report from the California Secretary of State, registered Democrats make up 42.5 percent of all voters and Republicans account for 34.2 percent in this state.

So let’s say a group of Democrats got together a petition that said the State of California would not recognize marriages between registered Republicans. In theory, such a petition could pass, given the Democrats have the Republicans outnumbered. Would Mitzelfelt and McKeon accept the will of the people under such circumstances?

No, of course not, because, and I’m sure they’d agree, the state doesn’t have the right to deny the marriages of Republicans. So what makes this case different?

The state has no business deciding the legitimacy of a family, nor does it have any business validating relationships between consenting adults. I will not vote for candidates who believe that the government is the hammer to help them beat people into submission so that they may build their fantasy utopia. If private individuals choose to believe my marriage wouldn’t be valid with another man, or if churches decline to perform them, then that’s certainly their right. But I won’t have the government making that decision for me — or them.

Don’t expect my vote in June, Mitzelfelt. I don’t vote for those with no respect for basic civil liberties.

I’m very happy about today’s California Supreme Court decision regarding gay marriage, though I know there are many people in our area who are probably not.

I’m leaving myself out of the decision-making process in the newsroom (a very rare occurrence) as I have absolutely no objectivity on the matter, letting the staff decide how to run the coverage of the decision.

I will be out of town next week for a business conference, but I’ll try to put something together as an editorial comment for Monday’s Desert Dispatch. My editorial will be one of my less formal ventures in order to account for my personal stake in the debate.

We’ll be running The Orange County Register’s editorial about Propositions 98 and 99, the competing eminent domain measures on the ballot in June, in Wednesday’s Desert Dispatch.

I know some folks tend to ignore the editorials we run from other newspapers, but OCR’s editorial writers are experts when it comes to eminent domain issues, and they’ve certainly taught me a thing or two. I consulted with one of their editorial writers, Steven Greenhut, before taking my position in support of Proposition 90 back in 2006. I will ultimately write my own editorial prior to the June vote, but OCR’s editorial writers are saying what I plan to say anyway.

Whenever there’s a state proposition on the ballot, I get inundated with press releases and phone calls from folks hoping to bend my ear and influence our editorial stance for the vote. Yesterday I took a call from a polite woman who wanted to encourage us to take the exact opposite stand that we’re taking. I don’t argue with these folks, because there’s no point in it. It’s not like I’m going to convince this paid shill to change sides. But it did amuse me that she clearly had no understanding of our libertarian editorial position (not that I blame her; at times I feel Freedom Communications is pretty much alone in the mass media wilderness in our worldview). She attempted the “bandwagon” argument by pointing out all the government agencies and organizations that oppose Proposition 98 and support Proposition 99, unaware that this actually makes me more skeptical of her claims.

Her big misstep, which they keep repeating in their e-mailed press releases, is try to convince me to oppose Proposition 98 on the grounds that it harms rent control laws. I don’t support rent control laws (and I say this as somebody who rents a house), so this argument has the exact opposite effect of their intentions. And they’re not convincing me otherwise with such arguments as “Proposition 98 hurts real people,” somehow suggesting that people who rent property are not real people and don’t have rights.