I read and responded to an opinion column in the Evansville Courier Press concerning eminent domain by D. Eric Schansberg of the “Indiana Policy Review.” He discusses HB 1010 and says, among other things:

A philosophical and practical problem with eminent domain is that it arbitrarily violates the sanctity of private property. When is it ethical to take another person’s property? When is it ethical to use the government to take another person’s property? In most value systems, that would be ethical only when that person’s use of the property causes direct and significant harm to others.

At this point, I confess that I stopped reading. I have a question with this underlying premise that, left unanswered, prevents me from considering arguments founded on the premise.

What is sacred about real property? The government takes our private property in the form of taxes every day when it takes sales taxes, it takes our personal property twice per year in the form of property taxes, it takes our property every week in the form of payroll taxes. Often times, the government turns around and gives that money to other private entities in the form of subsidies and incentives.

Before I can buy into the rest of the argument, I would have to know why real property is inherently more sacred than personal property. If using eminent domain on real property can enhance the local economy, thereby lowering the percentage of my personal property the government needs to operate, then I’m at least willing to consider it.

I’m not saying that I’m necessarily convinced that real property and personal property are equivalent in the context of government taking, but neither do I think the sanctity of real property can be taken as given when government is permitted to take personal property every day.

The Lowell Sun has a story on U.S. Representatives altering the Wikipedia entries for themselves and others. In particular, it focuses on Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA). He or a member of his staff deleted, among other things, a reference to his 1992 promise to surrender his seat after 8 years, a promise he has broken.

He isn’t the only Representative to engage in such behavior. Apparently the problem was so bad that Wikipedia went so far as to block users of the House of Representative’s IP address from making edits.

Wikipedia certainly isn’t perfect. Relying on the public to input knowledge is going to cause problems given the inevitable existence of axes to grind, oxen to gore, and any number of other political metaphors. But U.S. Representatives and their staffs ought not be in the business of deleting factual information.

Violation of a campaign pledge made me think of Rep. Souder. His page didn’t show any evidence that his term limits campaign pledge had ever been on Wikipedia. However, I did see that the following statement was deleted:

He has come under widespread criticism from students, educators, and substance abuse recovery advocates for authoring and championing the [[Higher Education Act Drug Provision]], which denies federal financial aid eligibility to college students with drug convictions. The law has thus far afected (sic) more than 175,000 students.

Souder was originally elected in 1994 on a platform that included a 12 year term limit. 12 years later, Mr. Souder is apparently not going to honor that pledge.

I see that the trial of Enron magnates “Kenny Boy” Lay (as George W. liked to call him) and Jeff Skilling begins today. It occurs to me that with some luck, greedy corporate executives, and ineffectual government oversight, we could be hosting our own trial. Only, instead of a trial of post-deregulation energy company executives, it would be a trial of post-deregulation telecommunications company executives.

If the legislature passes SB 245 maybe we can grab some headlines with telecomm execs who engage in post-regulatory excesses. Instead of electric bills in California, we might be seeing Grandma Millie taken to the cleaners over her telephone bills.

(Just a refresher on the Enron-Grandma Millie angle — from some recorded conversations between two Enron employees concerning California’s deregulated energy market:

Employee 1: “All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?

Employee 2: “Yeah, Grandma Millie man.

Employee 1: “Yeah, now she wants her f—–g money back for all the power you’ve charged right up, jammed right up her a—for f—–g $250 a megawatt hour.”

Some other choice quotes in that story:

One trader is heard on tapes obtained by CBS News saying, “Just cut ’em off. They’re so f—-d. They should just bring back f—–g horses and carriages, f—–g lamps, f—–g kerosene lamps.”

And when describing his reaction when a business owner complained about high energy prices, another trader is heard on tape saying, “I just looked at him. I said, ‘Move.’ (laughter) The guy was like horrified. I go, ‘Look, don’t take it the wrong way. Move. It isn’t getting fixed anytime soon.”

Of course, I’m just speculating about potential abuses if Indiana’s telephone companies are deregulated. Like I said, corporate executives would have to be greedy and government oversight would have to be ineffective. What are the odds of that happening?

Martin DeAgostino, writing for the South Bend Tribune, has an article entitled Lease said to lack impartiality. I probably would have chosen a different headline, but the jist of the article is that the State is operating blind when deciding whether to enter into this deal.

Public and legislative debate on a proposed lease of the Indiana Toll Road probably will occur without any detailed, independent analyses of the proposal, according to economists and public policy experts.

In their view, the only private-sector analysis that is likely to occur already has been done by the four bidders, and no publicly accessible studies have been commissioned.

While the broad outlines can be weighed by legislators and the public, an in-depth study would “involve a web of assumptions and data that are beyond the scope of most individuals or organizations.” Professor Mikesell, professor of public finance and policy analysis at IU expresses reservations I share about the deal when he says that the proposed lease involves major policy choices that require broad discussion.

“The strangest thing about the whole adventure is that the governor would advertise for bids before he had clear legislative authority to enter into the lease,” Mikesell said.

Although many lawmakers have said they could not OK a lease without specific bids on the table, Mikesell said most good economists could have “ballparked” a value for them.

Yet no economists have entered the fray with any detailed analyses, including Mikesell, who said he favors the privatization of government functions “whenever possible.”

“But,” he said, “when we’re dealing with a core state function, like intercity transportation and a valuable asset … I want a whole lot more reflection on essentially selling the property.”

This is a big deal, and there is no need to rush. The Governor’s attempts at a hard sell are counterproductive, in my opinion. Absent those tactics, legislators could be gathering information which might ultimately lead legislators on both sides of the aisle to conclude that this is a good idea and a good deal. Instead, time and resources have to be spent fending off Governor Daniels frantic attempts to close the deal immediately.

Meanwhile, we get some insight into why the Indianapolis Star is so enthusiastic about the deal. As a regional matter, it’s a great deal to sell lease for the next 3 generations a road that primarily serves northern Indiana in exchange for improving the transportation infrastructure in and around Indianapolis. The Star singles out improvements on the northeast side of Indianapolis to relieve congestion from Fishers to Castleton as well as U.S. 31 from Indy to Kokomo, and finally, I-69 from Indy to Evansville.

One thing leads to another, and suddenly, hundreds of miles away, I’m following Perry County politics. Today’s Indiana Law Blog picks up a story from the Perry County News reporting that, for the first time “in decades,” Perry County voters will have a primary contest to decide in the race for Circuit Court judge. Incumbent Democratic Judge James McEntarfer will face Lucy Goffinet who is currently the Deputy County Prosecutor.

For some reason the name “Goffinet” rang a bell, so I ran a search on my blog and found that Chris Goffinet is the Perry County attorney and presumably advised them on the legality of adopting the Certificate of Need ordinance of which I have been so critical.  (Quick background: Perry County adopted an ordinance which had already been declared illegal when adopted in Morgan County. Goffinet said they were aware of the court ruling but their ordinance was drafted narrowly enough to withstand challenge. I strongly disagree with that assertion.)

Goffinet is an unusual enough name that I am going to guess that Lucy and Chris are related. Husband-wife? Father-daughter? I don’t really know. But, hypothetically, if they are husband and wife, and someone wants to challenge the Certificate of Need ordinance, will Judge Goffinet have to recuse herself because Attorney Goffinet is the County Attorney? Will she have to recuse herself in every suit in which the county is involved? Yahoo Maps tells me its 213 miles from my office to Tell City, so why am I bothering with this post? Good questions all.

The Lafayette Journal & Courier is reporting an awful piece of news: Lafayette attorney Charlie Deets died in a house fire.

Veteran Lafayette attorney Charles R. Deets III died this morning in a fire at his home.

Deets, 62, was one of three adults in the home at 7315 Greenview Drive off Pretty Prairie Road when the fire broke out about 1:30 a.m.

A man and woman who lived in the home with Deets escaped, along with a dog.

. . .

Deets, who had been in ill health, recently closed his law office in Lafayette, ending a 37-year career.

That’s just awful. Charlie had been having his problems in recent years, but he was never anything but friendly to me. I never had the opportunity to work with or against him directly, but those who knew him in his prime have told me he was an excellent attorney. Rest in Peace Charlie.

The Poor Man Institute has an excellent post on the dust up over Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell’s false claim that Democrats had received contributions from indicted “superlobbyist” Jack Abramoff. In fact, Abramoff did not donate any money to Democrats. All of his donations were to Republicans.  Howell’s false claim triggered a firestorm from the leftie blogosphere.

Among other things, The Poor Man Institute has an amusing take on the false equivalency imposed by certain members of “the media” — saying, right wingers attacked Clinton, left wingers attacked Bush. Same old, same old. Yawn. To which, The Poor Man Institute responds:

When one is an Elder Statesman of the American media, and when one can’t be bothered to look into the particular details of some issue, it is never a bad idea to fall back on Ecclesiastes, and remind the readers – in a tone as wise and weary as you can muster – that the seasons change and the winds blow now this way, now that, turn turn turn, but there is nothing new under the Sun. As there was a time of saying Clinton was a coke-dealing Commie and a serial rapist, now comes the time of saying that George W. Bush shouldn’t run secret torture prisons. Men of Principle lament both of these equally, for they are just two sides of the same lamentable coin. Vanity of vanity, all of it. Can’t we just play nice?

I thought the Eccliastes reference was inspired.

Kos has a story on “Deadbeat Democrats:” those Democrats who have failed to pay their dues to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There are 21 Democratic Caucus members who have not paid a dime toward their dues for the 2006 cycle. One of them is Indiana’s own, Julia Carson (D IN-07). Despite having a warchest of $271,000, she has paid nothing toward her DCCC dues.

I just came across an entry in Wikipedia on Ontario’s Highway 407 Express Toll Route. Apparently not all is roses with their Toll Road sale of about 73 miles of highway which appears to be similar to the one contemplated by the General Assembly for Indiana’s Toll Road.

As part of a controversial plan to finance revenue for tax cuts, the highway was sold to a conglomerate of private companies in 1999 for $3.1 billion. The deal included an unprecedented 99-year lease agreement, unlimited control of the highway and its tolls, as well as a clause protecting the corporation from any competition, not the least of which includes a ban on construction of any nearby provincial highways that may reduce toll revenue. When purchased, the highway ran from the junction of Highway 403 in Mississauga to Markham Road in Markham. Extensions westward to the Queen Elizabeth Way and eastward to Highway 7 and Brock Road in Pickering were constructed by the corporation, as mandated in the lease agreement. Both of these extensions were not part of the original Highway 407 plans, rather, these protected corridors were to be future, non-tolled 400-Series highways. The westward extension from Highway 403 in Mississauga to the Queen Elizabeth Way in Burlington was initially intended to be part of Highway 403.

Today, the highway is valued at over $10 billion, and the Progressive Conservative party has been heavily criticized for the poor terms of sale including underestimating the value of the road. Many “905ers” in the rapidly growing Greater Toronto Area who had been expecting to be served by a much-needed non-tolled Highway 407 consider its sale and skyrocketing toll rates a sellout and this significantly eroded the Conservative’s formerly strong support base in that region. The CAA considered the 407 contract a fiasco and adopted a platform where they would not support the tolling of any new or existing highways. Even though the succeeding Liberal government have been unsuccessful in their attempts at legal action against the 407 ETR operators, the contract still reflected badly upon the opposition Conservatives who defended it. Current Conservative leader John Tory has distanced himself from his predecessors on this issue and has said that he would not have sold Highway 407 if he had been Premier.

The company, known as 407/ETR International Incorporated is 30% owned by the Australian Macquarie Infrastructure Group, one of the largest private developers of toll roads in the world.