Politics

Chevron Deference

by

I wrote a bit on this last January (here) when I first heard the Chevron Deference was up for consideration by the Supreme Court. (Kiplinger’s follow-up article here.) Now there seems to be a huge uproar over this or to paraphrase the words of Charlie Daniels: They’re all out there steppin’ an’ fetchin’, like their heads are on fire and their asses are catchin’… (from Uneasy Rider)

Saying that we’ve always done it this way, fails to recognize that the Chevron Deference is a product of the 80’s, not something springing from the Constitution. It was a case where the courts gave up their constitutional power to interpret laws, ceding it to the administrative agencies. This has been abused by the agencies and aided by lazy lawmakers, who intentionally or unintentionally write ambiguous legislation.

Unfortunately, the agencies are abusing their power over their clients, the citizens of the United States, while also ignoring their bosses, the Senators and Representatives that write the laws. (Check out this video of Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin, schooling Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, on the way that agency is disregarding very specific language in a Law he wrote and helped pass.) Unambiguous language in legislation is rare, but even when it’s in place, it requires legislators to be enforcers, as with the above video or citizens to risk their livelihoods taking them to court. The Chevron Deference had been used to give the advantage in these situations to the agencies as the de facto experts.

I seriously feel that the various bureaucratic agencies are being allowed to run the show. Even granting them the benefit of the doubt on knowing a lot about the things they oversee, bureaucracies tend to be invasive. They try and make themselves seem more valuable by growing and inserting themselves into more things. This is true with private bureaucracies and seemingly more so with public bureaucracies. When President Biden said we’re going to add 80,000 more IRS agents, I never heard the IRS say, they could get by with 50,000 or even lets start with 30,000 and see how it goes… No, they gladly accepted the growth, the larger budget and the increase power that came with this.

IRS: You owe us money. It’s called taxes. Me: How much do I owe? IRS: You have to figure that out. Me: I just pay what I want? IRS: Oh, no! We know exactly how much you owe. But you have to guess that number too. Me: What if I get it wrong? IRS: You go to prison. ME: [rifling through papers] Ok this is all kind of confusing, but I think this is how much I owe. IRS: Yikes, looks like you missed a number somewhere. I guess you’re going to prison. ME: [being handcuffed] Can’t argue with justice! – Jordan Stratton

As I mentioned on the previous post here, the agencies’ positions and enforcement can swing wildly based on whichever party is in office. Taking the political positions out, at least as much as possible, by putting it back in the hands of the judiciary, seem prudent. Acknowledging their expertise in these things, it would make more sense to bring them in when the law is being crafted rather than waiting until it’s in place and subject to their, sometimes bias, interpretation.

The striking down of the Chevron Deference seems to make perfect sense to me, but only time will tell. While in place, it was interpreted broadly, which caused the problems leading to the Supreme Court’s review. Doing away with it may create a new set of unintended consequences, but with government in general, less is better…

Dunes Approvals

by

The Dunes received a major subdivision plat approval and site plan approval from the Culver Plan Commission on June 18th and from the Culver Town Council on June 26th. This was somewhat a foregone conclusion since Culver has been working with the developer for over a year on this project. It was interesting though that neither entity passed these approvals unanimously.

The preponderance of people in attendance at the meetings were against the project. Some in its entirety, but most in its scale. Some (falsely in my opinion) called the Town to task for not communicating enough and not listening to concerns. (If there is one thing that I would say Culver is above average in, it’s communication with its citizens…) There were also those that attempted to complain on both sides of the issues, saying it was too big, but might be left incomplete; it was being pushed to quickly, but the developer shouldn’t be give 8 years to complete it; it was not planned to be part of the community, but but it should be connected directly to State Road 17, to direct traffic out of community.

I remain generally in favor of the project. I am a little disappointed in the the follow through on requirements the town had placed on the project. The project presentation to the plan commission has been delayed twice because of engineering questions being unanswered. As presented, at the meeting, most of those were answered “in concept”, but details were still not complete. There were also pending questions regarding the projects connection to South Main Street that were not complete. And then there was the statement from the developer that the town would be receiving a lot of money from increased TIF capture on this project which could be directed towards some of the short falls in water and sewer needs. Many of these things affect adjacent property owners, including a wetlands and the town’s own well field, while the money being proposed for water and sewer improvements had previously been suggested for other TIF district needs not connected to this project. I would have liked to have seen all these things tied down before authorizing them to proceed.

I was pleased that many of the questions from the audience were addressed, but I have concerns with their substantiation. I do not in anyway want to speak ill of the developer and their honesty regarding the project, but the answers given were off-the-cuff, having little if any documentation or requirements of follow-through. Many of the questions were, frankly, not the business of anyone but project investors, but the reassurances carried no weight. While I trust that everything said was in good faith, there is nothing that keeps them from changing direction on them if economics of the project suggest better uses of funds. As suggested here before (second to last paragraph), their development agreement included none of the delineated requirements seen in past agreements.

That said, I think many of those protesting this development fail to understand that this project was not a surprise, but something that has been in the Town of Culver’s plans and one of their goals for over a decade. When the Culver Garden Court property was annexed around 2010, the surrounding property was annexed as well. It was rezoned as R-2 to promote housing in that area. When the last revisions to the Culver Zoning Ordinance were completed, R-2 was rewritten to allow higher density developments. The 2014 Comprehensive Plan suggested, due to citizen input, that more housing is needed. The Stellar Communities surveys of 2016 and 2017 indicated more housing is needed. The 2024 Comprehensive Plan still indicated the need for more housing, even with The Dunes under discussion. This was not a project that required a rezoning or multiple variances to make happen. It fits with the planned development of the town.

Do I think things might have been done better? Always. Until I’m appointed benevolent dictator, I will most likely always see alternatives that I would have pursued. (I still have questions about whether it follows the Culver Complete Streets Ordinance, whether there were drywells added, where they drain and who owned them, and whether the wetlands have been properly addressed, etc.) Do I think those in charge were (mostly) following the will of the majority of citizens? Yes.

GC Horizons at the Plymouth Common Council

by
Pitchforks and Torches were out at the Council Meeting

It was a very disheartening meeting of the Plymouth Common Council this past week. What should have been a relatively easy vote for the council, acting on the Plymouth Plan Commission‘s recommendation to rezone property for Garden Court’s GC Horizons project, went nowhere because of misunderstandings, miscommunications and emotional responses. The arguments at the plan commission meeting, some of them not much more than mudslinging, were apparently repeated over the last week, inundating the council with calls, texts and emails. The Plan Director, Ralph Booker, was not allowed to make his presentation nor present the recommendation of the Plan Commission. With no discussion, a motion to deny the rezoning was made, seconded and passed 4 to 2.

Some of the comments from the board after the vote were difficult to hear. It was said that this wasn’t the right location… This site was found after a year of searching, because the council voted down the site we presented last year. We vetted a dozen sites, some turned down by the City in pre-discussions and some because property owners were unwilling to sell or unable to make a decision to sell. This was a good site, following the Comprehensive Plan in a transitional neighborhood, adding apartments and single family homes in an existing neighborhood with apartments and single family homes.

From Ali Riza Kukuk on LinkedIn

The project was conflated with the motels on the north side of town, but not as a solution… just a spreading of the problem. Paraphrasing one statement made, “We (City, Council) should be directing our funds and efforts towards the motel issue instead of this project.” This is a specious argument since Garden Court has not requested any funds from the City. This project would bring in $14MM in outside investment to the community and put a new property on the tax rolls, maybe delayed by an abatement, but still, a property paying taxes above the current farmland rate. There is nothing preventing the City from investing in a different motel solution. These are different projects!

The volunteer Garden Court board stepped up to the challenge of helping with the housing problems in Plymouth with this project. They were encouraged by IHCDA, providing training and offered $14MM in capital investment. It is not the total solution, but it would have been a great first step. Hopefully, the effort hasn’t been completely in vain, but like me, many involved are feeling unappreciated and beaten down. Garden Court’s name has been dragged through the mud throughout these discussions. These were undeserved attacks on their reputation. We’ll see how or if this moves forward. Disheartening…

Revisiting the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of Culver (Part 1)

by

I’ve written about the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the Extraterritorial Boundary here before. You can search the site and come up with a handful of blog posts from the past on this. As a member of the Culver Comprehensive Plan Committee, I lobbied for language that Culver should consider expanding their extraterritorial planning boundary to the 2 mile limit allowed by State Statute. (The language from the draft plan is to the right.) To me, this is a totally reasonable premise for several reasons: 1) Culver already has extraterritorial jurisdiction, just not out the allowable 2 miles. Obviously, it’s something the town has seen value in and has maintained. 2) Culver has annexed land, expanding the boundary of the town without any additional expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction in those directions. 3) Marshall County is currently considering a county-wide sewer system. Sewer access is one of the main incentives for annexation. 4) The Comprehensive Plan, is just that… a plan. The name of this one is Destination 2040. Is it truly unreasonable to consider planning for the area surrounding Culver sometime over the next 16 years!?

2013 Zoning Boundary (Pink)

The illustration to the right if from an old blog post. It shows the zoning boundary in 2013. The circle around the outside of that shows the approximate location of the 2 mile area Culver could have requested at that time. Since that time, the planning area was reduced and the annexed area was increased. The reason for the reduction in the planning area was the inflexibility of the County’s GIS system and the way Building Permits were issued. This resulted in a negotiation between Marshall County and Culver to change the boundary to follow parcel lines. For the most part, parcels with split zoning per this map were moved completely into Marshall County jurisdiction or Culver jurisdiction following whichever controlled the greater percentage at that time. While I understood the problem, I lobbied that spit parcels should have gone 100% to Culver as they were all within the 2 mile radius. I was a bit frustrated that the split parcel owners weren’t even asked if they might want to be part of Culver’s Planning Jurisdiction.

2024 Zoning Boundary (Pink)

The illustration to the right shows the new zoning boundary as of 2024. This also shows the new annexation lines accounting for The Dunes, the Executive Storage facilities and Culver Meadows. The majority of the area outside of Culver proper is zoned S-1 (More on that later), with a L-1 districts around the lakes and the occasional C-2 and PUD zonings. There would be very little difference in the 2 mile potential area, since the annexations that have occurred are to the west and south where Culver would be limited by the county line. (I think… There maybe options to cross county lines with the blessing of the adjacent county, but that so far outside the bounds of feasibility at this point, that it’s not worth researching.) What isn’t clear in this map, is that part of what was done during the parcel swap was to add an A-1 Agriculture District to Culver’s Zoning Ordinance. The County’s A-1 District and Culver’s A-1 District are nearly identical, by design. The GIS doesn’t even recognize a difference and shows them with the same designation and color.

At some time during the 30 day review period for the Destination 2040 Comprehensive Plan draft, some people read into it, not only the intent to actively pursue planning and zoning expansion, but by some interpretations to pursue annexation of this area. On top of that, in some cases it was construed as an additional 2 miles on top of the current extraterritorial jurisdiction, spreading the planning area even further. The rumors spread and grew. The Culver Town Council held a meeting to discuss this on April 9th. I tried to attend the meeting, but the council chambers were woefully too small for the group that wanted to be heard, so not wanting to stand in the corridor or outside the door, I left. After an extensive discussion with the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee last week, the original paragraph from the draft (above) was left intact, but the following was added at the end to further clarify the current intent: “At present, The Town of Culver does not have plans to extend its zoning limits. Any future consideration of extending the town’s zoning authority will be done through a partnership between the Town, Union Township, and Marshall County.”

The irony of how this played out is amusing to me. In a nut shell, those outside the town limits do not want to be in the planning area, because they do not have a vote for the elected officials that would make the decisions, and therefore, no influence on what is decided. Yet they appealed to those same elected officials, that they didn’t vote for, and influenced their decision at the expense of those elected officials’ actual constituents. Kinda makes my head spin… Ha!

As always, kudos to those who step up to take the slings and arrows. It sounds like that meeting was rough. I appreciate that they took a step back to consider the language rather than running with a snap decision based on the ire at the meeting. There are also plans to create an advisory committee and have some discussions with landowners in the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction, both the area in it now and the potential expansion area.

The important thing to remember here, that seems to have been lost in the heat of the moment, is that this is a plan… A plan with a 16 year horizon… The things in here are designed to give direction, but it is not set in stone. In regards to expanding the planning jurisdiction, it says, “Opportunities to expand the current extraterritorial planning boundary to its full allowable two mile radius should be explored whenever they arise, and particularly, whenever access to the town infrastructure and resources in the unincorporated areas, contiguous to Culver’s town limits is considered.” Nothing about that says to do it tomorrow. It just means be aware and cognizant of opportunities.

This has gotten long, so I’m ending it here. I will follow up with Part 2 to discuss what inclusion in Culver’s planning jurisdiction could mean to those not in it now. (Spoiler Alert, there are some positives.)

Inflation Allegory

by

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…

Skinny ’21
Inflated ’24

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!