Alabama

Regulation Roundup

by Ryan Young on September 16, 2011

in Regulation

Post image for Regulation Roundup

Here’s a fresh batch of regulatory bloopers:

  • Flirting is illegal in Haddon, New Jersey. (see § 175-12)
  • It is illegal to play cards on the street in Madison, Iowa.
  • In Haverbill, Massachusetts, it is illegal for women to wrestle.
  • It is a felony for bears to wrestle in Alabama.
  • You may now sit outside year-round in Stratford, Connecticut, if you like.
  • Talk about attention to detail. Massachusetts state law requires gift certificates to be valid for at least 7 years.
  • In Florida, it is illegal to release 11 helium balloons per day. Ten is ok, though.
  • Adams County, Colorado, requires all male massage parlor workers to wear white shirts and white pants. Transparent clothing is expressly forbidden.

You might’ve read about the unintended consequences of Georgia’s crackdown on undocumented workers. Well, the same thing is about to happen in Alabama. A few weeks after Governor Bentley’s signing of a bill that will attack undocumented workers, Hispanic immigrants are already fleeing the state. The Alabama law is one of the harshest in the recent spate of anti-worker and anti-business legislation. It criminalizes assisting undocumented workers and imposes harsh penalties on businesses employing them. Businesses will be forced to use the intrusive and wasteful E-Verify system, putting immigration enforcement costs on entrepreneurs. It makes all public officials into immigration agents too by requiring them to constantly enforce the law. More disturbingly, it allows for the arrest of individuals suspected of being in the country illegally, effectively making Alabamians guilty until proven innocent.

Practically, the law is just as stupid as Georgia’s. After tornadoes swept through the state, devastating large areas, including the city of Tuscaloosa, you’d think rebuilding would be a priority. But apparrently not if cheap, skilled, undocumented workers are doing the rebuilding. Contractors are predicting labor shortages, which will drive up the price of reconstruction. In a state that already suffers from tornadoes and hurricanes, making it more expensive to live in Alabama doesn’t sound like the brightest idea.

[click to continue…]

In 1957, the town of Cordova, Alabama banned single-wide trailer homes. It was a cynical attempt to lower the local poverty rate by keeping poor people out of town. Mayor Jack Scott explains, “We’re trying to better Cordova[.] We’re trying to clean up Cordova and keep it clean. We’re trying to keep the property values up. We’re trying to get it to where people will want to build homes on these vacant lots.”

The recent spate of tornadoes in Alabama has left a number of Cordova residents homeless. Some people are interested in buying trailers to live in temporarily while they rebuild their houses. FEMA also has trailers available for people. But they’re single-wides, so they aren’t allowed in Cordova. The weird part is that the ordinance was mostly unenforced until the tornadoes came. Now the city is cracking down at precisely the time when people need trailers the most.

The citizenry is understandably upset about this regulation. But when over 200 people, many of them displaced, showed up at a townhall meeting, they ran into another regulation. Fire marshals only allowed 100 people to enter the National Guard Armory, where the meeting was held. After much complaining, they relented and allowed everyone in.

Hopefully they will also convince Mayor Scott to rescind the trailer ban. Cordova’s people need roofs over their head more than they need their mayor’s aesthetic vision.

While Alabama certainly has some ambiguous laws and archaic regulations, the federal government ought to take a lesson from Alabama when it comes to property insurance.

In an effort to keep the state’s insurer of last resort solvent (meaning it will have enough money to pay the claims people are likely to file), Bob Groves, manager of the state-run insurer, announced that they will no longer issue policies for homes built over or standing in water.

People who currently hold policies on a building in or over water can keep the insurance as long as they own the building and pay the premiums. But the association will not cover the new owners, and it will drop coverage when water encroaches on a building that is now on land.

While this will only affect 400 out of the 18,000+ policies held by the Alabama Insurance Underwriting Association, over time this policy will make the state-run insurer more stable and could potentially shrink the facility a little.

This is policy the federal flood insurance facility should emulate. As I wrote back in August, when it comes to the National Flood Insurance Program, a division of FEMA, some in Congress have been doing just the opposite. They are attempting to expand coverage so not only are homes that repeatedly flood covered, but also homes that are likely to suffer wind damage.

One of the results of NFIP’s covering high-risk properties and undercharging premiums is that its debt has ballooned and it requested a bailout to the tune of about $20 billion.

The problem occurs when the government, either state or federal, starts underwriting property insurance at reduced rates. This encourages people to continue risky behavior, to forgo mitigation efforts (like cutting down trees, raising property, hardening roof structures), to continue building in risky areas, and it pushes out private insurers who can not compete with taxpayer-funded insurance facilities.

While the best case scenario is that the Alabama state-run insurer gets completely out of the market, this is one small step toward solvency. At least they are less likely now to need a bailout from the federal government (the American taxpayers). Hopefully those in Congress will learn a little something from the Yellowhammer State.

Some of the stranger governmental goings-on I’ve dug up recently:

-Since 1960, it has been illegal to fly a kite in Schaumburg, Illinois.

-If you are a tree in need of help, the federal government has a Tree Assistance Program.

-$18,881 of stimulus money spent on a single sign in Wyoming.

-Concerned about your fecundity? Consult the federal government’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.

-Northern Arizona University spends $75,000 in stimulus funds to install electronic sensors to see if students skip class. (hat tip to The Wall Street Journal‘s Kim Schatz)

-In Alabama, it is against the law to sell artificially colored potatoes.

-Need help with your math homework? Consult the government’s North American Numbering Council.

-In Yukon, Oklahoma, it is illegal for a patient to pull a dentist’s tooth.

Sen. Richard Shelby, who placed holds on over 70 of President Obama’s nominees, has lifted all but three of them. Politico reports:

A spokesman for the senator said Monday that with attention brought to these two concerns, the political maneuver had “accomplished” its goal and was no longer necessary.

Translation: “We were getting too much bad publicity.”

The three holds that Sen. Shelby is keeping in place have directly to do with the Alabama-based pork projects that he believes will make him look good to the Alabama voters he will be facing in November. So, in a way, nothing has changed.

This brings up a legitimate question: can earmarking abuse sometimes be an agent for smaller government?

Few, if any, of President Obama’s appointees will work to decrease the size and scope of government. Now that their path is cleared, they will probably do net harm to taxpayers. This is the nature of government workers, whether Republican or Democratic.

Sen. Shelby’s motive for blocking them is despicable: stealing from taxpayers to improve his re-election prospects. But one wonders if those same taxpayers would have been better off if Sen. Shelby had stuck to his guns.

It is illegal to conduct an auction without a license in Alabama. Unlicensed auctioneers can be punished with fines of up to $500.

Applicants must pay nearly a thousand dollars for 85 hours of coursework. 8 additional hours are required every two years to keep the license.

It’s worth asking: Does this benefit anyone besides the people teaching the courses and the auctioneers who get to limit the amount of competition they have to face?

Your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist are joined by special guest co-host Jeremy Lott for a very swashbuckling Episode 38 of LibertyWeek. We start with the rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips from Somali pirates by the U.S. Navy and Special Forces, look into the murky finances of AIG CEO Edward Liddy in Scandal Watch, and figure out what ISPs are up to in Technology News. We also get an update on how West Virginia is about to become even more Wild and Wonderful, and finally we answer the call for wealthy, multilingual volunteers in Olympic News.

“A Matter of Fact,” a new report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, challenges the Washington Post to correct George F. Will’s “Dark Green Doomsayers” column, published February 15th. The report, by CAP’s Brad Johnson, asserts that George Will made three factual errors:

  • Current “global sea ice levels” equals those of 1979
  • There hasn’t been warming in “more than a decade”
  • “Global cooling” joins a list of well publicized “planetary calamities that did not happen.”

Will’s column is not perfect, and Johnson raises some valid questions. For the sake of intellectual honesty, however, Johnson should broaden his fact-checking scope to incorporate misstatements on both sides of the global warming debate—including his own fudging of the truth.

But first, let’s address CAP’s critique of Will’s column.

Error 1. It seems that Will is guilty of delay. On the one hand, the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center, the source of his assertion that global sea ice levels haven’t changed in 30 years, publically disavowed Will’s claims. On the other, ACRC reported on January 1, 2009 that global sea ice levels were “near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979.” Will’s column appeared 45 days later, during which the discrepancy between current levels and 1979 levels grew by 8%.  If anything, this demonstrates the perils of reporting on an ever-changing global climate.

Error 2. CAP and George Will have it wrong. Will wrote that it hasn’t warmed in “more than a decade,” while Brad Johnson claims that “global warming is continuing.” According to data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, compiled by NASA’s Dr. Roy Spenser, there has been no statistical warming of lower atmosphere temperatures over the past seven years, despite the fact that global greenhouse gas emissions have increased.

Error 3. Will is right and CAP is wrong. Johnson notes that there was never a “scientific consensus” on global cooling, but that’s not what Will claimed. He only wrote that some scientists and media outlets warned of global cooling, which is true.

I am an unabashed global warming “denier,” but I nonetheless applaud Brad Johnson’s efforts. On the topic of global warming, misrepresentations of the science abound, and we in the energy/global warming policy community should root them out and expose them with vigilance.

With that in mind, I have a “Matter of Fact” list of my own:

Fiction: Al Gore claims in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, that “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others and it is this. When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer ….”

Fact: It hasn’t warmed in 7 years, despite a steady increase in global greenhouse gas emissions. Where’s the Warming, Al?

Fiction: Dr. James Hansen, ultra-alarmist, has suggested that a 2-3 degree warming would cause sea levels to rise by 80 feet. Hansen then lowered his estimation to 20 feet. His most recent estimate is “at least” 3.2 to 6.4 feet.

Fact: The preeminent body of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggests that a 2-3 degree warming would cause sea levels to rise 7 to 23 inches.

Fiction: In 1986, Dr. John P Holdren, President Barack Obama’s choice to become White House Science Adviser, is quoted as having said that global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion human beings by 2020. During his confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Holdren was questioned about this claim, and said that “it is still possible.”

Fact: To fulfill Holdren’s alarmist warning, climate change would have to kill twice as many people as died in World War Two, each year, for the next ten years.

Fiction: The Center for American Progress’s Brad Johnson last summer reported that the death of two Boy Scouts in Iowa was “evidence” of “the consequences” of global warming.

Fact: As recently noted on Roger Pielke Jr’s Prometheus, the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters cautions that “justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.”

Welcome to Episode 30 of everyone’s favorite podcast LibertyWeek, with your hosts Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist and very special guest Jeremy Lott. We start with the end of the U.S. economy as we have known it: the $790 billion economic stimulus plan and its chilling consequences. We take note of Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit’s pledge to work for $1 a year and celebrate some good news with Alabama’s plan to legalize beer with a higher alcohol content than most wines. We then enlist our listeners to defend against the War on St. Valentine’s Day and move on to Scandal Watch: Judd Gregg edition.

The highlight of our program comes with our interview with writer, raconteur and bon vivant around town Jeremy Lott. He talks about his book, The Warm Bucket Brigade: The Story of the American Vice Presidency, about Presidents’ Day and the best lunch to pack when hunting with Sarah Palin. Jeremy also takes on the much-anticipated Cool v. Drool Vice Presidential Snap Judgment Lightning Round. Finally we take some legal counsel with this week’s edition of Olympic News.