A new ordinance in San Luis Obispo, California makes it illegal to feed ducks. The solons of San Luis Obispo claim that feeding the animals increases pollution.
One wonders what political intrigues and backroom deal-making went into the duck feeding ban. It was not a stand-alone ordinance; it was tucked into a bill updating the city’s storm water management regulations.
Was the duck language tucked in to guarantee a wavering council member’s vote? If so, it was a lot cheaper than the “Lousiana Purchase” and “Cornhusker Kickback” that enabled the health care bill to pass.
Joking aside, one is still left wondering what would cause a politician to hold such a grudge against ducks. Of all the sources of pollution in San Luis Obispo, ducks would have to be pretty low on the list.
(Hat tip: Megan McLaughlin)
A regulation passed in 2005 states that “at least 10 percent of all business at the airport selling consumer products or providing consumer services to the public are small business concerns (as defined by regulations of the Secretary) owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged individual (as defined in section 47113(a) of this title).
The requirement that the size of a business be taken into account is puzzling; a company’s size has little to do with whether it will do a good job or not.
I would also argue that airports are disadvantaged enough, having already to deal with the TSA, the FAA, the DOT, and others. Snark aside, airports are poorly run, almost without exception. Forcing them to hire vendors and contractors on factors other than price and performance is unlikely to improve matters.
Disadvantaged business quotas bring up a third issue: What happens if a disadvantaged business owner prospers through her hard work, and can no longer be considered disadvantaged? Does she get kicked out of the airport?
That thorny question would have been put to rest on April 21 of this year, when a built-in sunset provision would have made the regulation expire. Wayne Crews and I have written before favoring sunset rules for all new regulations. It’s a painless way to automatically get rid of rules when they become obsolete, or that turn out to be more trouble than they’re worth.
If a rule merits another five years on the books, Congress should be able to vote on it.
In this case, however, the Department of Transportation is getting set to renew the disadvantaged quota program all by itself. Permanently.
According to the DOT, leaving in the sunset provision “would simply cause confusion and disruption, making it more difficult for all parties concerned to carry out their responsibilities under the statute.”
Laws are supposed to be made by legislative branch, not the executive. What we have here is one more case of regulation without representation, out of thousands. You can read all about it in today’s Federal Register.
A dying patient in the UK’s NHS made the news after nurses refused to bring him a glass of water, despite his repeated begging. He died soon after of pneumonia. It really is a terrible story.
Had that poor soul lived in Arizona, he might not have had that problem. In that fine state, it is against the law to refuse someone a glass of water if you have any to spare.
As the U.S. slowly but surely hands its health care sector over to government, and NHS horror stories repeat themselves on this side of the Atlantic, this may become a more pressing issue than one would expect.
In New York City, it is illegal for four or more unrelated people to live together. At least 15,000 New York homes openly flout the rule.
The ranks of lawless hooligans cut across lines of class and race. According to the New York Times, violators “include young actors and ponytailed post-graduates; rising and falling junior investment bankers; immigrants, legal and illegal; and trend-obsessed residents in Brooklyn neighborhoods.”
The Times also interviewed a young film star who lives with five other people. He is not related to any of them.
People break the regulation to save money on rent. Given the cost of living in New York, this is a smart and prudent way to save money. It also leaves more housing left over for others, which helps to drive down housing costs.
Even better, if enough people pool their resources, they can afford to live in a larger home in a nicer neighborhood than they could pay for alone.
The city has the good sense to rarely enforce the rule – just three times since July, according to the Times. This is good. What would be better is to repeal it. When a law is almost universally regarded as counterproductive, not only should go unenforced, it should go away.
Washington, DC city law states that “No loose herd or flock shall be driven or conducted in the District, except with a permit issued by the Chief of Police.” (See District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, Title 24, Chapter 9, Sec. 906.10.)
Many, many years ago, Washington was a pretty rural place. There were even farms in the Northwest and Southeast quadrants of the city. This was before the automobile, and well before the federal workforce climbed into the millions. But a lot of these old laws are still on the books. Nobody seems to have thought to get rid of them.
Other animal herding laws in DC include:
-No droves of mules or horses larger than six animals are allowed. (906.6)
-However, “Horned cattle may be led singly by a rope or halter through any of the streets in the District.” (906.8). That includes K Street, Constitution Avenue, and every other street in the District, great or small (Note to self: this might be worth trying someday).
-As with cars, the driving age for herds is 16. (906.12)
-A drove of sheep crossing a bridge must have at least six drovers. (906.4)
-It is illegal to “water, feed, or clean any horse, mule, cow, or other animal” within 15 feet of a fire hydrant. The same rule apples to cars.(906.13)
(Hat tip: Marc Scribner)
You need a license to be a bounty hunter in New Jersey. You can apply by clicking here.
The license comes with a cool bounty hunter identification card that you must keep on your person whenever you’re on the job.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There are lots of hoops to jump through first. For one, you need valid photo ID. And you need to pass a criminal background check, and give five character references.
You must also have at least five years of experience in either bounty hunting, law enforcement, or a related field. No one under the age of 25 may be a bounty hunter.
The license fee costs $300; biennial renewal costs $200.
You also need to take a 2-day, 16-hour bounty hunter training course at the Middlesex County Fire Academy in Sayreville. Topics covered range from Constitutional law to proper boundaries on the use of force.
If you want to hire a secretary or other administrative worker, that employee has to register with the New Jersey State Police and go through a background check at his or her own expense. If the employee quits or is fired, you have to let the state know within ten days.
If you can get through all that, happy hunting!
Over at the American Spectator, I explain why it won’t, but a deregulatory stimulus would. Main points:
-Anything that Washington giveth, it must first taketh away from somewhere else. The jobs bill is a zero-sum game.
-When government borrows more, less investment capital is left over for the productive sector.
-Taxes will have to be raised later to pay for today’s increased borrowing.
-Deregulation is a better approach. The biggest obstacles to job creation and economic growth are all in Washington.
George Stigler won a Nobel Prize for his work on the economics of regulation. He wrote extensively about regulatory capture, and in fact coined the term. He was one of only a few sane souls who stubbornly insisted that regulations be judged by their actual results, not their intended results. Good intentions, however noble, are not enough. Here’s an example of Stigler at his finest:
Regulation and competition are rhetorical friends and deadly enemies: over the doorway of every regulatory agency save two should be carved: “Competition Not Admitted.” The Federal Trade Commission’s doorway should announce , “Competition Admitted in Rear,” and that of the Antitrust Division, “Monopoly Only by Appointment.”
-George Stigler, “Can Regulatory Agencies Protect the Consumer?”, from The Citizen and the State: Essays on Regulation (1975), p. 183.
Southern California is a dry place, prone to droughts. So Angelina and Quan Ha, of Orange, CA, ditched their water-hungry grass lawn about two years ago. They replaced it with “a drought-tolerant garden filled with lavender, rosemary and native wildflower seeds.” They claim the switch is saving them hundreds of dollars per year, not to mention hundreds of thousands of gallons of precious water.
The city of Orange promptly sued them, claiming their lawn violates local regulations. At least 40 percent of a yard must be covered with living plants. The city contends that the sparse shrubs and plants in the Ha family’s yard don’t meet the threshold.
“Compliance, that’s all we’ve ever wanted,” Senior Assistant City Attorney Wayne Winthers said. “They put up a nice fence, but it didn’t show anything about how they had complied with code, as far as the front yard goes.”
This is a fancy way of saying, “you will do what I tell you.” This is not a healthy attitude for any person to have.
The Has pled not guilty in court on March 2. If they lose, they are looking at up to six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine.
Fortunately, after a rash of bad publicity surrounding the court hearing, the city announced within hours that it was considering dropping the charges.
(Hat tip to Megan McLaughlin)
One of Great Britain’s most light-hearted traditions is the cheese-rolling race. Every year on the May Bank Day holiday, wheels of cheese are rolled down Cooper’s Hill in Brockworth, Gloucester. Adventurous and/or foolhardy souls roll down the hill in hot pursuit; the one who gets a hold of the cheese before reaching the bottom of the hill wins. You can watch a video of last year’s race here. Winners get to keep the cheese as a prize.
Cheese-rolling races have been held at Cooper’s Hill since the 1800s. Until this year, that is. Health and safety regulators shut down this year’s event because it has become too popular. The Daily Mail reports:
More than 15,000 spectators turned out last year, which, at three times the site’s capacity, means it has ‘outgrown the location’.
Richard Jefferfies, one of the organi[z]ers, said: ‘‘We have had to cancel on the advice of the police and local authorities this year because of the issues of health and safety and other aspects.
‘As well as concerns about the safety of the crowd and the competitors, local landowners were also worried by the amount of damage done by people climbing over fences and that sort of thing.’
It is hoped the races will return next year.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 