Politics
SCOTUS, Ambiguous Laws and Bureaucratic Rule Making…
A recent article from Kiplinger.com, “Will a Supreme Court Case About Fishing Water Down the IRS?”, intrigued me. The case has to do with the IRS. Kiplinger is a financial website, so their article concentrated on the obvious tax implications of IRS interpretations of obscure laws. The following two paragraphs caught my eye:
“The IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury are responsible for implementing tax regulations. Due to the complexity of tax law, they often have to fill gaps in tax legislation passed by Congress.
This is especially true when Congress drafts complex tax legislation at the last minute or amidst challenges on Capitol Hill, as is happening now with a bipartisan tax compromise proposed just weeks before tax season begins. In those and other instances, experts at the IRS and Treasury make interpretations and create rules to provide clarity to taxpayers.”
The implications of the rethinking the Chevron Deference, will have implications for a myriad of government agencies and their control over citizens. Our system of governance is based on compromise. Unfortunately, that often results in Congress passing compromised Laws, written in a manor that allows both sides to somewhat legitimately say, “I voted for this Law because I understood it to mean <blank>.” Under the Chevron Deference, this results in a bureaucratic agency effort to divine the meaning and write rules based on their interpretation.
In a perfect world, the agencies would do this even-handedly, with the rules being interpreted through an impartial lens. In reality, the agencies are controlled by the President’s Administration, leading to wild swings in policy based on the political party in office. This negates all of the compromise required to create the original Law.
Example #1 – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): This one hits hard for the construction industry. From their website, “The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.” In reality, board members are rotated and appointed by the President’s Administration. Because there is a general Democrat Union bias and a Republican Non-Union (Free Enterprise) bias, this board’s rulings swing wildly based on the political party in the White House and the appointments they make to this board.
Example #2 – Waters of the United States (WOTUS): For decades there have been rules protecting wetlands. All States have rules regarding wetlands, with varying degrees of protection, in attempts to balance property rights vs perceived public good. With theoretically good intentions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded the definition of WOTUS to include even minor wetlands, woodland wetlands, intermittent streams etc. bringing them under EPA control. In many cases this impeded or stopped development, and at times went so far as to deter existing farming practices. Currently, the courts have reigned this in, putting much of this control back in the hands of the States. In some cases this has caused a pendulum swing resulting in not only the repeal of current regulations, but even some long standing and accepted regulations on wetland protection Nationally and at the State level.
I could easily cite a half dozen more of which I’m aware. Suffice to say, that there could be big changes on the horizon… some good and some bad.
In theory, I’m very much in favor of a requirement that laws be clear. Jingoistic names for Bills should be ditched in favor of either a name that reflects what is included or just a number and no name at all. I’m also in favor of ending Christmas Tree Bills that have ridiculously unrelated items lumped together, under a name that often implies something completely different. (The Washington politicians that can say the Inflation Reduction Act did anything to reduce inflation with a straight face are truly scary!) For this reason I’d be in favor of the Line Item Veto, no matter which party is in office, as it would eliminate at least half the graft… (The Line Item Veto has been deemed unconstitutional, but it still seems like a good idea!)
Bureaucracies are a somewhat necessary evil, but they are never accused of expediting anything or being efficient. It would seem their main function is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. (Read up on the March of Dimes… They’re still around despite successfully completing their mission in 1949.) If the Chevron Deference is overturned, it will cause some serious shake-up. Some good could come of it though. Honesty and completeness in the crafting of Laws would be a good thing.
Municipal Services
One of the things that continually comes up in response to the controversy regarding The Dunes, is the State requirement that municipalities provide utility service to annexed properties within 3 years. The parcels The Dunes is being built on, plus the next parcel south were annexed into Culver around 13 years ago. This was done when Culver Garden Court was being built. The Town is remiss in providing water and sewer to these properties. Granted, they hadn’t asked for services before and as I understand it, the south property doesn’t particularly want services, but it is an obligation the Town accepted in their annexation plan which included a fiscal plan on how to pay for the utility extensions.
The initial impetus for this annexation was to bring Culver Garden Court into Town and provide utility service to support the project. As often happens, politics entered into this. The then Clerk treasurer had just moved to the southernmost property. So the annexation was expanded to include that parcel, else she would have had to resign her position as she would no longer be a resident. Doubling down on this, Culver has annexed the property on the south side of the Masonic Cemetery and that property owner HAS requested utility service. As I understand it, Culver has sufficient utility capacity for this extension, though it will use a significant portion of the capacity reserve.
I have no issue with any of the above. But the conversations regarding the municipal obligations do cause me some concern. If those are truly an issue, there is another ticking timebomb for Culver…
As with most of us, my life is now divided into prepandemic and post-pandemic, so I’m going to forego the research on the timeline beyond that as I talk about the property owned by Culver Investment Corp outlined in cyan and yellow on the adjacent map. (Also known locally as ‘The Beste Property’.) Prepandemic, Culver was presented with a plan for a PUD development at the Northwest corner of Town. This would take in most of the unannexed area within S.R. 17 and S.R. 10. Along with that area (72 acres), the PUD included 14.6 acres of land on the north side of S.R. 10. The majority of this land was to be residential, a continuing Town priority, with the parcel north of S.R. 10 slated to be a gas station/convenience store (area in cyan on the adjacent map). As part of that negotiation with the developer, Culver had sufficient utility capacity, but the developer would be responsible for extending utilities to serve the property. Overall, this was a positive for Culver. I didn’t have any issues with the project, though I did have a few issues with it holding up Sand Hill Farm Apartments and with the treatment of existing business, Good to Go. The property was annexed and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning was approved.
The project stalled shortly after that. No doubt the pandemic was a factor, but I suspect there were other issues as well. The Plan Commission gave the developer several extensions, but in the end, the PUD was rescinded this year (’23) and the land was rezoned back to S-1, Suburban Residential, as it was prior to the PUD. Shortly after the PUD was rescinded and the rezoning was completed, the property went on the market.
This brings me to my concern: The properties were never combined and are listed for sale individually. Culver Investment Corp is not doing any development of these properties, so the development agreement with that corporation is null and void. If the 6.7 acre parcel at the north east corner of S.R. 17 and S.R. 10 sells and is developed, Culver must run utilities to that parcel per State annexation requirements. (Culver would be unable to deny a permit for a house on that property per current zoning.) It would appear the nearest utilities at 4/10ths of a mile away… as the crow flies… There are no easement provisions to get utilities to this property. Right-of-way access would require INDOT cooperation, which can be tedious at best and require nearly a mile of utility extensions without even considering the need for a water loop.
I have not seen or heard anything about this in public meetings, but this seems to be a potentially large budget item. One potential solution, would be to de-annex the property, but I would suggest that’s not best for Culver either. Having control of that area is important. That was discussed extensively with the Comprehensive Plan Committee. (There was also extensive discussion about increasing our extra territorial boundary.) Getting together a new fiscal plan for the area would seem to be another important step. Culver can’t be completely distracted by the growth on the south side of town and ignore this 86 acre area on the north. That could come back to bite us.
Edit 4-3-24 – This past weekend, I was contacted by a Culver Town Council member regarding this post. The Town Council and their attorney believe my conclusions here are in error. They’re determination is that the development agreement with Culver Investment Corp. is still in force and Culver Investment Corp. is in default. The Council has signed and recorded a resolution affirming their rights of enforcement. I’m pleased that they are looking into this and are pursuing remedies. As attorneys are fond of saying, “Time is of the Essence.” I sincerely hope their interpretation proves to be correct.
Culver Library Woes
Starting with a disclaimer on this. I’m not taking sides on any of the “I’m with Esmie” debacle, because I don’t know the facts of the matter. That said, I work with three other libraries and I’m friends with 4 other librarians. I thought some of their comments were worth sharing:
- All of them have been amazed by the community support for Mrs. Rodgers. The number of names on the petition as a percentage of residents was staggering to them.
- All of them were dismayed by how the Library Board handled the situation.
- Two of them said, “Maybe our library should hire her!”
- One of them told me about attending a library symposium in Wichita, Kansas. When people found out she was from Indiana, she was asked, “What’s going on with the Culver Library!?”
- Three of them were shocked by the resignations.
- Three of them were concerned by the rehiring of Mrs. Rodgers before the hiring of a new director.
- Two of them express concern for the library’s director search due to the notoriety of the situation.
- Two of them noted that there are still “I’m with Esmie” signs around Culver after her rehiring. They said that those signs would be intimidating to anyone interviewing for the director’s position.
- Three of them said that at this point, they should just make Mrs. Rodgers the director.
I’m probably writing this a bit late. I don’t know the current status of the Library Director search, but my impression is it will be a challenge to fill the position. I’m not throwing shade on anyone involved, just noting that the eyes of the library world are on us, and in not the best light.
Little Pink Houses…
After the last Culver Town Council meeting, John Mellencamp‘s Pink Houses song was in my head… “Little Pink Houses… for you and me!” Though on reflection, a couple of Talking Heads‘ more angry song lyrics might have been more appropriate, i.e. “Burning Down the House!” or “This is not my beautiful house!”
A local resident rose to speak during public input. Apparently just recently finding out about The Dunes (seriously!?), she had many concerns, not the least of these being aesthetics. She wanted to see what the buildings were going to look like. She didn’t want a bunch of cookie cutter houses looking all the same. (What, like The Riggings, Chadwick Shores, The Harbour or The Cove?) Paraphrasing here, she used a line similar to what has been used from multiple perspectives and variations against The Dunes, “That isn’t Culver!” Really? What is Culver? She made reference to living on South Street. The last lake home on South Street, the Shaffer house, was demolished within the last month as it is about to be replaced by something new. In many ways, THAT is what Culver has become. A continuing renaissance of demolition and replacement.
Back in 1998, Culver hosted a Charrette, where some themes were identified. Recommendations were made on things that should be highlighted. One of these was the use of field stone, which prompted the pillars for the Welcome to Culver sign at 10 & 17 and covering the wall at the Lake Shore Drive curve with stone. Even recently, this theme has been continued in the developments at Sand Hill Farm (Stone facades at The Paddocks & Sand Hill Farm entrance sign) and with the wall replacement completed by Boo Marshall & Paul De Benedictis on Lake Shore Drive. But there was never a directive or ordinance requiring compliance. Thus within a year or so of the Charrette, Bob & Mary Tanguy built Mary’s Shoppe, now the Culver Academies Museum, on the southeast corner of Main Street and Jefferson Street. (As another recommendation, the Charrette discussed the need to follow the existing downtown character with infill development, but Tanguys were allowed to do what they wanted.)
Where do we draw the line on such things? Culver has very few zoning requirements that apply to aesthetics. The first two that come to mind are the height restrictions (no, it’s not a fire department requirement) and side yard requirements that mostly are there to keep similar aesthetics in similar neighborhoods. On the lake, there is currently a line-of-sight front setback restriction which is mostly aesthetic. (And is currently under review for removal from the ordinance.) Culver has a grass ordinance and the unsafe building ordinance has been stretched to cover aesthetics, but other than that, residents are mostly free to do as they please. Much to some people’s chagrin, there used to be a pink restaurant building on Lake Shore Drive, a yellow house on the south side of the lake, a yellow & orange house on the east side of the lake and now there are a few that are nearly completely black. To each their own!
As it has been discussed so far, The Dunes will be built out by the developer, so all decisions on construction styles will start there. It will have a Home Owners Association (HOA), which would control such things as colors and landscaping, if they want. (In reality, the developer plans to hold ownership on the majority of the properties and thus would have control of the HOA decisions.) All those decisions will be made based on their ability to wring the most profit from rentals and sales. I personally don’t agree with their decision to face all of the houses inward to the property with no front doors on South Main Street, but it’s their property, so they can do as they please. The decision to make the project self-contained makes the complaints about cookie cutter houses even less salient. As with all HOA style developments, buyers and renters know what they are getting when they move in. Some people like every property the same and under control, thinking that makes their neighborhood better. Isn’t that what the local ‘Walking Ladies’ hoped for when they would call out properties that didn’t meet those elusive Culver standards?
Due to the comments of this resident, the Town Council suggested asking for some renderings of buildings (reasonable) and maybe asking for a model of the property (totally unreasonable!). But before going too far with this, the council and residents need to ask how far they really want to go? Is this standard going to be the new one throughout Culver? Much like an HOA, is the council going to dictate paint colors, shingle colors, roof materials, siding types, etc. throughout Culver? Would the resident complaining about this, want that standard applied to her home?
Burning Down the House contains another line that might be salient here: “Ah watch out… you might get what you’re after.”
Inflation Allegory
April 22, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Politics, Rants
government, Rants, Trends
I just heard another sound bite with President (and candidate) Biden touting his administration’s success in bringing inflation down. The 2019 inflation rate was 1.81%, a decrease of 0.63% from 2018. The inflation rate for 2020 was 1.23%, despite or because of Covid. The 2021 inflation rate was 4.7%. The inflation rate for 2022 was 8.0%. The inflation rate for 2023 was 3.4%. As of today, the 12 month rate of inflation is 3.5%… While there is no denying that going from 8.0% to 3.5% is better, it does not make the 8.0% rate (that occurred two years after he took office) go away.
So, here’s my favorite explanatory allegory… explained in pounds. Fat pounds, not British pounds…
Lets say your heathy weight is 160 lb. You’ve maintained that weight for years, but at your annual check-up in 2021, your doctor notes, “You’ve put on 4.7 lb. You need to keep an eye on that.” You note it. You watch your weight, but at your 2022 check-up, your Doctor’s not happy. “You’ve put on another 8 lb since your last visit. Here’s some diet and exercise suggestions to get this under control.” You make an effort. You weigh yourself before going to your 2023 check-up. You’ve gained another 3.4 lb. What do you think the chances are that the Doctor congratulates you on ONLY gaining another 3.4 lb? Hmmmm… Zilch. Nada. Not gonna happen. He’s going to tell you to get your ass to the gym and get a lock for the refrigerator because in the last three years, you’ve gained 4.7 + 8.0 + 3.4 = 16.1 pounds! You now weigh 176 lb!
Inflation accumulates in a similar matter. Even at the Fed’s target 2.0%, that means things are 2% more expensive every year, so what costs $1.00 this year would cost $1.02 next year and $1.04 the next year.
Inflation is equivalent to a regressive tax, as in the less net worth you have, the harder you’re hit by it. If you have $10 to your name and inflation is 8%, you have to spend it for whatever you can afford at the inflated rate. If you have $1,000,000, your spending money is affected in the same way, but inflation increases the value of your house, stock portfolio and provides a higher interest rate for you at the bank. All the things you have when you’re worth $1,000,000 that you didn’t have when you were worth $10. Makes it damn hard to get from $10 to $1,000,000!
0 comments