Is Money More Important Than Freedom ?

I found this story to be very interesting as a comment on the value we place on free speech in this country. The Constitution supposedly guarantees free speech to all Americans, but there are many times when it just doesn't seem to work out that way, especially when it comes to money.

In Colorado, a woman decided to showcase her religious views. She did it by placing an 8-foot tall cross in her front yard. Now some, especially christians, might think this was a good thing, but the woman's neighbors (Homeowner's Association) took a different view. They said the erection of the cross violated the homeowner's covenant in the "religiously-neutral" neighborhood (in plain English, it hurt property values). They demanded that she remove it.

When she refused, the matter went to court. A state court ruled that the cross must be removed, and the woman took her case to a federal court (Weatherspoon v. Provincetowne Master Owners Association), claiming it violated her free exercise rights (of speech and expression). The federal court bought the "religiously neutral" neighborhood argument and upheld the covenant of the homeowner's association.

Now those of you who read this blog at least semi-regularly know I am an atheist. You may think I would agree with this court decision and celebrate the removal of the cross. If so, you would be wrong. While I do not believe in a god, I firmly believe in the Constitution -- all of it, especially the parts guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Don't get me wrong. I undoubtably would find the cross to be offensive. But being offended every now and then is just part of the price I'm willing to pay to live in a free country (and if you're never offended than you don't live in a free country).

Frankly, I have never liked homeowner's associations and their restrictive covenants. To me it seems like they violate the very principle of private property rights (and isn't the right to private property supposed to be one of the great things about a capitalist economy such as ours). I think if a person can afford to buy a piece of property (and pay the taxes on that property) then they should be able to do whatever they want on that property -- regardless of who is offended by it.

If a person owns some property and want to put a christian symbol on it (or a muslim, jewish, hindu, buddhist, wiccan or atheist symbol), he/she should be free to do that. They should also be free to paint their structures a weird color or put up a fence of their choosing or whatever else they feel like doing.

I know some of you are probably screaming now about property values. A property near yours with a religious symbol or a structure painted a weird color might affect the value of your own property. I agree -- it might. But we must ask ourselves a question -- is freedom more important or money (because that's what the phrase "property value" is really about)?

I come down on the side of freedom. The court decided that as far as property goes, money is more important than freedom. What do you think. Is money more important than freedom?

Do Property Owners Have Any Rights ?

There was a time in this country's history when the owners of private property could do pretty well what they wanted with their own property, as long as they didn't damage their neighbors (such as diverting a public water source to deny water to others that have traditionally had access to it). The owner could build on it, run a business on it, or do nothing at all with it. But those days are gone.

Now city ordinances, state laws, homeowner groups, and who knows what else have combined to limit what a property owner can do with his/her property. A homeowner is told what kind of house can be built and even what color it must be. A businessman is told not only what kind of building he can construct, but what his signs can look like and even what kind of business he can have in that location.

I know there are many who disagree with me, but I generally don't like those kind of laws and restrictions. They trample all over the rights of the property owner. The owner put up the money to buy the property and is solely responsible for paying any taxes due on that property, and should be able to do whatever he/she wants to do with the property. This continuing battle over property rights has popped up again -- this time in Arlington, Texas. And I think the city has gone too far with its greed this time.

The new Cowboys Stadium was built in Arlington right next to the baseball stadium that is home to the Texas Rangers. Together, the two facilities have 27,000 parking spaces. There are another 97 properties with city permits (costing from $150 to $400) that have another 12,000 parking spaces. And then there is Michael Anthony Caldwell.

Mr. Caldwell owns some property near the two stadiums, and he has been renting out parking spaces on his property during big events held at Cowboys Stadium (U2 concert, Cowboys games, etc.). This has upset the city of Arlington because Caldwell doesn't have a city permit to park cars on his property. They have issued him repeated tickets for the parking -- tickets that total to more than $120,000.

Caldwell has not paid the ridiculous fines, and the city is taking him to court. His trial will start today in Arlington Municipal Court for 40 of the over 390 citations he has received. Now you're probably asking yourself why doesn't he just get a city permit? He's tried, but the city has refused to sell him a permit.

To get a city permit, the property owner must have a business on the property, provide lighting, stripe the parking lot, have a sign showing the rates and have parking attendants. Caldwell cannot qualify because he does not have a business on his property, since an office building that was there burned down in 2008.

The city is afraid if they let Caldwell make money just off parking cars, the property might remain undeveloped and therefore be less valuable for tax purposes. In other words, their motive is "city greed". A commercial parking venture will not provide the city with as much tax money as another type of business would (even though commercial parking makes imminent sense near the two sports and entertainment facilities).

Personally, I think the city is way out of line in this matter. Caldwell owns the property and pays his property taxes (even if they are somewhat less than the city would like to have), and he should be able to make money off parking just like the properties all around his property. He provides a needed service, and is hurting no one. He even meets most city requirements -- the exception being he has no other business on his property.

I hope the Municipal Court jury chosen to hear his case has more sense than the city officials. A property owner should have at least some rights, even in our modern world. The city's desire for more taxes should not be able to trump this property owner's right to use his property as he sees fit.

The city of Arlington is in the wrong, not the property owner.

Railroad Commission Misuses 1965 Law

Once again Texas Republicans show that in a showdown between citizens and corporations, they will always go with the big money and side with the corporations. The Republican-dominated Railroad Commission has turned a 1965 law on its head and misused it to allow natural gas drillers to drill in urban areas, even when the property owners do not want the drilling on or under their property.

The 43 year-old law was originally passed to protect property owners. It said a drilling company couldn't just sign a few leases and then drill in an area, but had to include all the property owners in the affected area. But instead of using the law to protect property owners, the Railroad Commission has used it to allow drillers to force property owners to let them drill, even when they oppose the drilling.

The practice is called "force pooling" and a few gas companies banded together (Finley Resources, Chesapeake Energy, Dale Resources) to convince the Railroad Commission to use the law in a new way -- a way that would allow them to force property owners to cooperate with them.

Finley Resources had signed leases with about 300 property owners in Fort Worth's Eastside. But there remained about 6% of the area where owners had refused to lease their property or where the owners couldn't be found. These properties were scattered throughout the drilling area.

Since the companies could not drill on or under unleased property, and that would have made drilling around them very expensive, the companies asked the Railroad Commission to use the 1965 law to force the unsigned property owners to comply. And the Republican Commission gave them that right.

This is just so wrong! Private property rights have always been sacrosanct in the state of Texas. No neighbor or corporation could force a Texan to do anything with his property that he didn't want to do. This new misuse of the "force pooling" law destroys much of that concept.

Now that it's been done once, you can expect this to become a common practice for the corporate drillers. If an owner doesn't want drilling on or under his property, they have this ruling to use as precedent and they will force that owner to comply.

This is anti-property rights and anti-Texan. Isn't it time we got rid of the Republican corporate sell-outs in our state government, before they sell the whole state to their rich corporate buddies?