December 19, 2016
In this episode of RealClear Radio Hour, Brian Hodges discusses West Hollywood’s extortion of local developers and Robert Kanigel shares stories of Great American Cities heroine Jane Jacobs.
Opening the show this week is Brian Hodges, Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). Brian tells the story of how his organization, the first public interest group to defend property rights and challenge government overreach, has helped change the American legal landscape. As an example, he details a current case in which PLF is defending an entrepreneurial couple from an unconstitutional attempt by the City of West Hollywood, California to extort a half-million dollar “affordable housing” permitting fee on their new condominium development.
November 10, 2016
Trade: The core element of Trump’s rhetoric is that free trade has...
November 2, 2016
The real victim in the controversy over the Dakota Access Pipeline is Dakota Access Services, the company behind the $3.7 billion project that would move almost 500,000 barrels of oil daily from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to a refining hub in Illinois. The operators of the pipeline are being jerked around by the government, environmentalists, and the Standing Rock Sioux, all of whom are acting in varying degrees of bad faith.
President Obama Yanked the Rug out from under Dakota Access Partners
The pipeline route is 99% on private land. As such, the federal government’s role is quite limited. In fact, the U.S. government’s jurisdiction extends only to the immediate area where the pipeline crosses navigable waterways.
After jumping through all the appropriate hoops, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitted construction of the...
September 16, 2016
The $3.7 billion Dakota Access Pipeline is a partially completed project that would move almost 500,000 barrels of oil daily from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to a refining hub in Illinois.
More than 99% of the pipeline traverses private land, which means that the project is subject to very little federal permitting. However, the project does require Clean Water Act permits for every river or lake that it crosses.
In early 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency responsible for issuing the aforementioned Clean Water Act permits. The suit alleged that Corps had violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to consult with the tribe before permitting the pipeline to cross under Lake...
September 5, 2016
In this episode of RealClear Radio Hour, we discuss the fiascos of government overreach and overregulation—on American Indian reservations, in the EpiPen saga, and with political intimidation campaigns.
Naomi Schaefer Riley, New York Post columnist and author of The New Trail of Tears: How Washington Is Destroying American Indians joins me at the top of the hour. Naomi details how federal policies have consigned Native Americans to poverty and contributed to their high rates of suicide, domestic abuse, gang violence, unemployment, and drug and alcohol epidemics. She argues for repealing both stifling tribal regulations and the loophole economy regulatory exemptions, instead allowing for true property rights and...
August 25, 2016
June 21, 2016
June 17, 2016
Hundreds of people have been burrowing into this week’s D.C. District Court of Appeals 2-1 decision giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) everything it wanted and more in its campaign for net neutrality regulation, or conversion of the Internet into a public utility with FCC as overlord.
Entropy Economics’ Bret Swanson summed it up well:
The court upheld not only the FCC’s reclassification of broadband as a Title II telecom service (a switch from its previous designation as a lightly regulated Title I information service), it also allowed the FCC...
June 15, 2016Magna Carta we can trace the beginnings of the great experiment that became America. The monarch of England became bound by the rule of law, and as the Texan Congressman and jurist Hatton...
September 25, 2015
The World Bank is considering changing its definition of what constitutes extreme poverty, raising the level below which someone is treated as extremely poor from $1.25 a day to $1.90 a day. This comes after a long trend of people moving out of the category, leading some to point out that the Bank may have an interest in maintaining high numbers of people defined as poor.