Tag: legislation

The consummate political football: Title IX

Rules under the new Title IX go into effect August 1, 2024. While the original 1972 Title IX was a straightforward 37-word mandate to treat women and men in educational environments equally, the new 2024 rules are a salad bowl of schemes sure to bring confusion rather than equality under the law.

On August 1, 2024, rules under President Joe Biden’s revision of Title IX go into effect. The new Title IX reverses the revisions provided by former President Donald Trump, which in turn reversed the revisions provided by former President Barack Obama.

Title IX has become a special kind of proverbial political football, as it grows bigger and more adorned with every presidential administration.

The rules, commonly known as Title IX, were signed into law by then President Richard M. Nixon as part of the Education Act of 1972. Title IX was a straightforward command based on the 14th Amendment’s Constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. It read,

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

This 37-word directive worked just fine for three decades after its enactment, providing major educational opportunities for girls and women. Educational institutions could no longer exclude women from elite sports, courses, and activities – exclusions that were the norm rather than exceptions.

The original Title IX was not without opposition, especially from those concerned about its effect on time-honored and often lucrative men’s sports. However, all states complied with and implemented Title IX rules.

As time passed, meanings for the words “discrimination” and “sex” proliferated. In the case of Title IX, discrimination no longer simply meant not providing equal treatment, and sex no longer simply meant a difference in number of chromosomes or bodily characteristics.

Along with the growing interpretations of what is discrimination, of what is sex as opposed to gender as opposed to identity, and of who belongs to what category, came the proliferation of agendas. In 2024, the new Title IX looks more like a salad bowl of schemes than a necessary, ethical and Constitutional effort to provide equal protection under the law.

Yes, the argument can be made that the original 1972 Title IX broke with some conventions accepted by many at the time: Family and society need women as caregivers not as scholars or athletes. Elite educational institutions need the revenue and prestige brought by men’s athletics. Women’s athletics would dilute revenue and prestige. Women don’t like sports, anyway. However, all states accepted and complied with the new rules without major revolt.

The argument can also be made that a woman’s team that includes a biological male would have an advantage over an all-biological female team. And that would be a good thing for the inclusive team.

However, attorneys general in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have sued the Biden administration, arguing primarily that the administration exceeded its authority changing Title IX. Governors and state education officials in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas have directed their states’ educational institutions not to comply with the new Title IX rules.

The position of conservative, Republican-led states is that the new rules are a bridge too far in its intent to ignore physical differences by requiring protection against discrimination based on gender identity. Although the new rules stop short of specifically permitting biological men that identify as women competing in women’s sports, the rules lead to such permission by adding gender identity to protected characteristics.

Certainly, a biological male athlete that has received at least 2 years of gender-affirming care prior to puberty could claim his muscle size and strength is comparable to that of a biological female. Totally fair to allow him in women’s sports. But, nowhere in Title IX rules does that eventuality appear, thereby opening the doors to biological males unfairly competing with biological females.

The new Title IX rules are not only unfair to women but are also loaded with nuances likely to cause confusion.

The original 1972 Title IX established a new, straightforward rule that did not exist prior to the title’s enactment. The new 2024 Title IX heaps more prohibitions against infractions that are already punishable under federal, state and local laws, purportedly to tailor said infractions to sex and gender. For example, harassment, assault, violence, and stalking are already punishable. It should be questionable whether the new Title IX rules needed to list all of these already punishable infractions under “sex based” behavior – and why the rules did so. Is a sexual assault on a campus that receives federal assistance any different than a sexual assault in a shopping mall’s parking lot?

Legislators passed the original 1972 Title IX to help end the evident unfairness inherent in the exclusion of women from elite sports, courses, and educational activities. The Title IX rules helped women to achieve excellence in fields previously closed to them. If federal, state, and local jurisdictions abide by existing laws against all harassment and other violence, is there really a need for more than the original Title IX? Probably not. But factions have not resisted the urge to use Title IX as an agenda-driven political football.

Picture: New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard, a trans athlete, competed in the women’s weightlifting team in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Hubbard was eligible to compete because his testosterone level was below the maximum allowed trans athletes at the time. Requirements did not take into account that if transgender care starts after puberty, biological males will keep their muscular advantage over females.

California dreamin’ of EVs

Often, when reading news from California, one wonders whether the state is at the forefront of innovation or delusion. California’s fixation with climate change and electric vehicles serves as example.

Often, when reading news from California, one wonders whether the state is at the forefront of innovation or delusion. California’s fixation with climate change and electric vehicles serves as example.

Here is a quote from one of the more progressive members of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Rafael Mandelman.

“We have to take action to expand our public EV-charging infrastructure and make EV ownership more accessible and practical for all San Franciscans.” … “Our curbside EV charging program is not just about installing charging stations. It’s about creating a more equitable and sustainable transportation ecosystem.” The City wants to add thousands of EV chargers by 2030, San Francisco Examiner, March 19, 2024.

San Francisco, as California, does have ambitious climate mandates, including plans for EVs for everyone and a ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars after 2035.

Given the real world, such climate ambitions border on delusional.

Supervisor Mandelman must be aware that San Francisco is projecting a deficit of $245 million in 2025 and a deficit of $554 million in 2026. He must also be aware that about 10% of the City’s residents live below San Francisco’s poverty rate, necessitating substantial subsidies if this population segment is to switch from gas-powered cars to EVs.

It is unknown whether Supervisor Mandelman wants to include the City’s 7,700 plus homeless population in his “equitable and sustainable transportation ecosystem.”

The high cost directly associated with EVs is not the only issue. Well-known shortcomings of current EVs include unreliable performance in extreme weather, need for more frequent charging than gasoline fill-ups, and electric grids that limit EV charging to specific times.

Beyond immediate inconveniences, EVs pose environmental challenges of their own.

Industry boasts that 95% of battery components can be recycled; extraordinarily expensively, but it can be done. However, industry seldom mentions that EV battery recycling is in its infancy, placing in question whether EV mandates are getting ahead of recycling capacity. As we all know, EV batteries are the last thing one would want in a landfill.

Although extraction of minerals necessary to produce EV batteries – mainly lithium and cobalt –is increasing, only a few countries extract these minerals in significant quantities. Australia, Chile and China extract the most lithium, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo extracts 70% of the world supply of cobalt. If EV mandates continue at the present rate, how long until environmentalists jump on the environmental challenges posed by widespread mining?

Despite mandates and incentives, drivers in the U.S. are not entirely sold on electric vehicles, according to an April 2023 Gallup poll. Current ownership is of EVs in the U.S. is only 4%. Gallup summarizes as follows.

“While ownership of electric vehicles is on the rise in the U.S., the percentage of Americans who say they own one remains limited at 4%. Though they are often promoted as a key way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and address the effects of climate change, the public remains largely unconvinced that the use of EVs accomplishes this aim.”

As with all consumer goods, electric vehicles respond to price competitiveness and consumer needs. Without those two essentials, adoption of EVs at present can significantly increase only through government intervention. And here is where leaders like the aforementioned member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors, Rafael Mandelman, comes in.

Money to subsidize projects is never really a problem for governments, since taxpayers willing to fork over their hard-earned cash are always available. Consumer concerns with EVs are easily overcome by removing the alternative of purchasing gas-powered vehicles. Uneasiness with widespread mining is minimized by exporting environmental degradation.

Leaders have created a delusional world where petroleum disappears without credible supplies of products to replace petroleum and its thousands of derivatives. They have created an unnatural market where people buy what they don’t really want.

In the real world and the real market place innovators step in with new products that reliably and competitively replace products that no longer satisfy consumers. When whale bone became too costly due to overkilling of whales, plastics were invented. The decline of silkworms brought on the invention of nylon.

But, what can today reliably fly the thousands of airplanes in our skies except petroleum? What can credibly replace the hundreds of plastic products in our homes, especially our less affluent homes? Nothing. Because oil is efficient, and kept cheap relative to alternatives in large part as a result of government subsidies.

“The oil and gas industry is expected to reap $1.7 billion in 2025 from the intangible drilling tax break, and $9.7 billion over the next 10 years, according to the White House. It is expected to realize $880 million in benefits from the depletion allowance tax break in 2025, and $15.6 billion by 2034.” The Zombies of the U.S. Tax Code: Why Fossil Fuels Subsidies Seem Impossible to Kill, The New York Times, March 20, 2024.

As long as oil is efficient and relatively cheap, it will take either gargantuan innovation to make EVs competitive or massive taxpayer-funded subsidies to make EVs affordable.

The real, non-delusional world, seldom allows us to have our cake and eat it too.

Pictured: Henry Ford’s electric vehicle prototype. The dream of electric vehicles is not new. Henry Ford worked with Thomas Edison for several years on an EV project before abandoning it. Some say the project did not work because of battery shortcomings, and some say the oil companies conspired to deep-six the project. Good article on the subject on Wired Magazine, Ford, Edison and the Cheap EV That Almost Was, June 18, 2010.

Why would wealthy families need school vouchers?

The newly-expanded North Carolina school voucher program – Choose your School, Choose your future – grants tuition assistance to any North Carolina family, regardless of income. Do wealthy families really need financial assistance to choose which ritzy school is best for their kids?

On May 17, 2023, the North Carolina Assembly passed House Bill 823, enthusiastically called Choose your School, Choose your Future. The bill expanded the state’s K-12 school voucher program, originally enacted in 2013 to assist low-income families. The Opportunity Scholarship, as the North Carolina voucher program is called, now grants vouchers to all North Carolina families regardless of income. Grants are on a sliding scale determined by family income, with amounts varying between $3,360 and $7,468 per child per year.

Legislators allocated $354.5 million for the Opportunity Scholarship program’s reserve fund for the 2024-2025 school year, and $416 million for the 2025-2026 year.

Lawmakers included HB-823 in the state’s $30 billion very much delayed and anticipated budget, which Governor Roy Cooper allowed to become law without his signature in September.

This program has received accolades as well as criticism.

Sadly, many traditional public schools are of poor quality and lately mired in controversy regarding race, gender, and sexuality. Children should not be stuck in such schools. The Opportunity Scholarship program is a godsend to lower-income families who cannot afford or who can barely afford private, including religious, schools.

However, back in May 2023, WFAE opinion columnist Tommy Tomlinson came up with an interesting description of the newly-overhauled North Carolina voucher program: “Robin Hood in reverse.” He said,

“At some point, I have a certain grudging respect for the dedication some people have to playing Robin Hood in reverse — taking money from regular folks and handing it to the rich. Their latest maneuver here in North Carolina is a move to provide taxpayer-funded vouchers to any child in the state who wants to go to private school …

Kids from families with modest incomes have been eligible for similar vouchers here for the past 10 years. That, to me, actually makes some sense. It provides an escape route for a kid stuck in a failing school.“

Wealthy families, whose children already attend the “ritziest schools in town” can argue that given the poor quality of public schools they are forced to pay both private school tuition and taxes that support public schools. Vouchers would help level their playing field. However, let us not forget that the working poor also pay taxes, some of which will help pay for school vouchers their wealthy neighbors receive.

Unfortunately, “Robin Hood in reverse” is not the only problem with universal school vouchers.

A worrisome possibility is a significant tuition increase.

North Carolina News & Observer education columnist T. Keung Hui noted in his excellent report of February 15, 2024, that some private schools have already announced tuition increases.

“Private schools across the state are raising tuition and sending information to families about applying for Opportunity Scholarships. How much of the tuition increase is due to inflation or to take advantage of additional voucher funding is unclear. … The tuition rate increases for some schools across the state is more than 10%, which is well above the rate of inflation.”

People who attended college in the late 1980s might recall the shock wave of sudden tuition increases. Reasonably affordable four-year colleges became voracious, pushing students into quagmires of student loan debt. 1987 to 2010 witnessed a 106% increase in college tuition, according to a Mises Institute report dated November 30, 2021.

Coincidentally, the years 1980 – 2010 also saw expansion of college student loans guaranteed by the Federal government. William Bennett, President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Education, provided in 1987 his view for the college tuition increases he witnessed. Bennett’s assessment — what became known as the Bennett Hypothesis — was discussed in Science Direct, December, 2019

“Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

Scholars have debated the Bennett Hypothesis ever since it was first presented. But even when pitted against other possible reasons for substantial tuition surges — increase in attendance without concomitant growth in institutions, inflation, excessive regulation — the Bennett Hypothesis survives common sense. Is there a valid argument against the view that everybody likes money, and if it is available, most individuals and institutions will take it? Or a valid argument against expecting substantial expansion in school vouchers to have negative effects like those associated with college student loans?

Families should also be concerned about class sizes.

Mr. Hui of the News & Observer indicated an estimated 60% increase in students getting vouchers. Recipients that are already attending private schools will not affect class sizes, but students crossing over from public schools might. Chances are private schools will not rush to expand their facilities to accommodate the crossover population, which could result in increased class sizes.

Vouchers might not be operating on a level playing field.

Lower-income families and their advocates should ask themselves whether universal school voucher programs operate on a level playing field.

By way of comparison: Progressive advocates for poor and minorities often oppose voter ID requirements, citing that poor and minority voters face greater difficulties obtaining IDs. Would the same difficulties apply to obtaining school vouchers? Might more affluent, more educated families possessing greater resources hold advantages over the less fortunate?

Hopefully, in the interest of fairness, the priorities in receiving vouchers contained in HB-823 will lower any advantages held by wealthier families. Families whose children were voucher recipients prior to HB-823 (when there were income limits) will enter a voucher lottery first, followed by lower-income applicants; the more affluent applicants will enter the lottery last to receive what funds are left in the year’s allocation.

Lastly, do the wealthy really need vouchers?

The common-sense answer is clearly “No.” The title of House Bill 823 — Choose your School, Choose your Future – although catchy, is disingenuously applicable only to lower-income families. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which wealthy families need vouchers to choose which ritzy school is best for their children.

Indeed, it is unfair that families with children who attend private schools pay both tuition and taxes that support public schools. However, universal school vouchers possess an unfortunate aura of benefits for the rich.

Conceivably a better idea might be to pass legislation absolving parents with K-12 children in private schools from paying taxes that support public schools, limiting vouchers to very low-income families living in poor-performing school districts, and improving the performance and cost effectiveness of public schools by practicing the good old focus on “reading, writing, and arithmetic.”

Picture: The beautiful Groton School in Groton, MA. Founded in 1884. Educating 380 students, grades 8-12.

A Nation of Immigrants: That was then

We are a nation of immigrants. But, 12 million immigrants that arrived at Ellis Island from 1892 through 1954, that was then.  The 2,063,692 undocumented immigrants that crossed U.S. borders in 2023, this is now. Different numbers and different worlds.

Razor and concertina wire continue to go up along the Texas border with Mexico, and the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States continues unabated.  Meanwhile, President Joe Biden says, “I’ve done all I can do.  Just give me the power.  Give me the border patrol … “  And all the while, Congress and Senate bicker over border solutions that make little sense anyway.  

Illegal border crossings have become not only another crisis, but also another divisive issue among Americans.  Contentious pro/con arguments abound.  Here are some: 

*   Pro – We are a nation of immigrants.  Con – The country cannot sustain the current level of undocumented immigrants. 

*   Pro – Immigrants of all kinds contribute to the labor force and thus to GNP growth.  Con – Most unauthorized border crossers are not self-sufficient, and the costs to taxpayers they incur outweigh contributions they make. 

*   Pro – America is humane and cannot turn away people escaping poverty and violence.  Con -Every cent that goes towards being humane to unauthorized border crossers is every cent not applied to current lawful residents. 

Perhaps the most often used argument in favor of the current liberal border policies is that we are a nation of immigrants. 

Indeed, immigrants have always been attracted to the U.S., mostly because of this country’s fairly strong adherence to a Constitution that protects individual liberties, and a largely market-based successful economy.  Thus, former President John F. Kennedy, when still Senator from Massachusetts, coined the phrase “A Nation of Immigrants” in a 1958 essay, which was later publishes posthumously as a book in 1964.

The story told by John F. Kennedy about his Irish-born great-grandparents could be told about millions of immigrants who have contributed mightily to the economy and culture of the U.S.

However, it is worthwhile to place in context John F. Kennedy’s classic essay on immigration.  Here are some statistics that might help:

The numbers.

*  The U.S. Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Populations of the United States 1850-1990 indicates in 1850 (around the time the Kennedys first settled in the U.S.) there were 2,244,602 foreign born individuals residing in the U.S., 9.7% of the total population. 

*  U.S. Customs and Border Protection Stats and Summaries indicates total FY 2023 nationwide encounters (apprehensions) were 2,063,692.

Nationwide Border Patrol encounters in one year (FY 2023) are almost as high as the total number of foreign-born people living in the U.S. in 1850. 

*  The U.S. Customs and Border Protection historical figures 1925-2020 indicate total FY 1958  nationwide Border Patrol encounters (apprehensions) were 40,504.

The 1925-2020 Border Patrol nationwide apprehension figures fluctuated considerably from year to year (lowest in 1934 10,319; highest in 1986 1,692,544; and last in 2020 405,036).   But the 1958 figure 40,504 serves to put into context the time of Kennedy’s essay vs. today (FY2023  2,063,692 apprehensions).

The costs.

There is a misconception that government at the federal level does not provide public assistance to undocumented foreign-born individuals.  Although there are restrictions, the federal government does provide plenty of taxpayer-funded programs that benefit undocumented aliens.  Information on the following programs can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

*   Unaccompanied Children Program:  By law HHS must assume custody and provide care for children under 18 who enter the U.S. undocumented and unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, and who have no parent or guardian in the U.S. 

*   Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):  The federal government provides grants to states, DC and territories that can be used with flexibility to help low-income families with children.  (There is no indication that states cannot use TANF grants to assist low-income undocumented families with children). 

*   Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):  This federal nutrition program is available to victims of trafficking, Cuban or Haitian entrants under the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980.

*   Head Start and Early Head Start:  This program is in the Office of Head Start (OHS), within the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  It is not considered a federal public benefit, and any child whose family qualifies under income limits can participate regardless of immigration status.

In addition to the social costs mentioned above, the federal government funds immigration courts, border agents, medical emergencies at the border, processing centers, and grants to non-federal entities to support border and interior communities receiving migrants through the Shelter and Services Program (shelter for apprehended and released undocumented border crossers). 

What services to undocumented immigrants cannot be funded with federal money, several states and localities fund them with state and local taxes.  As of November 2023, California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia offer some form of state-funded health coverage to all residents regardless of immigration status.  12 states offer health coverage to income-eligible undocumented children.

As in the case of the federal government, states also bear costs of providing shelter, food and emergency medical care to undocumented immigrants, as Texas Governor Greg Abbot has made abundantly clear!  In addition, states bear costs educating all children.

Obviously, we are talking here about immigrants who have limited education and resources, not about university postgraduates from well-healed families on expired visas or arrivals by private jet.  And obviously, many of the former magnificently rise above their circumstances. 

During his testimony on September 13, 2023, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget, Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation made the following observations.

“The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S. is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes.”

“The real economic test of any immigration policy is whether it makes current lawful residents better off by raising their after-tax incomes. Both low skill immigration and illegal immigration in general harm current citizens and lawful residents by placing substantial added burdens on U.S. taxpayers.”

The last of these two observations should give us pause.  First, let’s assume Mr. Rector’s calculations are correct.  Secondly, let’s note he does not seem to be accounting for illegal workers who pay into Social Security and Medicare but cannot receive benefits from either.  Still, given the verdict of illegal immigration’s “general harm” to lawful residents (native born and lawful foreign born), should we allow our humanity, compassion, and awareness that we are a nation of immigrants override our economic best interests?  The tax well is not inexhaustible and neither is the borrowing well; therefore, we need to choose beneficiaries of limited resources thoughtfully.

The workforce.

The often-used argument that illegal immigrants help fill jobs nobody else wants is correct.  As Robert Rector indicated in his testimony, illegal immigrants on average lack education and resources, limiting them to low-paying, back-breaking work.

Another argument is that illegal aliens help replenish a shrinking workforce like that of the U.S.  That is also correct.  The U.S. is experiencing a declining birth rate, so children of immigrants – lawful and unlawful – will be welcomed in a future workforce. 

The nostalgia.

Images of the Statue of Liberty welcoming “the huddled masses” and of heroic families literally stepping into the unknown at Ellis Island generate empathy towards the brave souls wading rivers and climbing over barbed wire. 

But the 12 million immigrants that arrived at Ellis Island from 1892 through 1954, that was then.  The 2,063,692 undocumented immigrants that crossed U.S. borders in 2023, this is now. Different numbers and different worlds.

Pictured:  Concertina wire with shreds of clothing, indicating border crossers climbed over the wires to enter the U.S.  The crowd near the wire will probably attempt the same feat.  Picture by Omar Ornelas of the El Paso Times is from Time article Along Texas’ floating border barrier, migrant children left bloody by razor wire, July 23, 2023. 

Is North Carolina getting too Republican or too Democrat

As a California expatriate now residing in North Carolina, I can attest that any state heads for doom when it becomes “too” anything – too conservative, too progressive, too Democratic, too Republican.

California, the once Golden State known for sunny beaches, breathtaking scenery, and unbound opportunities, is now best known for unaffordable housing, high taxes, and uncontrolled homelessness. California became too progressive. It fell victim of the uni-party syndrome.

Should one be surprised? No. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this case it is corruption of judgement. Most political leaders are fairly decent people. However, temptation to submit to special interests, to be part of the in-crowd, to outdo the doers is too great when there is strength in numbers. Unopposed thought and actions often become extreme – because they can.

North Carolina at present is reasonably balanced politically, but…

As of October 2022, there were 34% registered Democrat voters, 30% Republican, 36% Unaffiliated, and 0.7% Libertarian. The state’s executive branch is reasonably balanced as well: Democrat Governor, Republican Lieutenant Governor, Democrat Attorney General, Democrat Secretary of State, Republican State Treasurer, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction.

However, Republicans control both chambers of the North Carolina legislative branch. The state’s House of Representatives enjoys a Republican supermajority with veto power. North Carolina’s Supreme Court – the body tasked with interpreting laws passed by the legislative chambers – is majority Republican.

With such majority and veto power since April 2023 (when a Democrat legislator switch her affiliation to Republican), Republican legislators easily passed an expected slate of bills: lowering the threshold when legal abortions can be performed from 20 weeks to 12 weeks; tightening elections laws, like requiring voter ID and ending grace period for counting absentee ballots; prohibiting health care professionals from administering gender enhancing drugs or performing gender transition surgery on minors under 18; prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women’s leagues.

These are well intentioned bills meant to protect the unborn, children who are not fully cognizant of their desire to transgender, female athletes that should not be made to compete with biological males, election integrity, etc. The problem is these bills are broad, one-size fits all, and in some cases draconian.

Perhaps, compromise between legislators of different parties might have better considered unintended consequences of these bills – such as doctors making a fatal decision not to perform an abortion for fear of losing their license. (The Just Vote No Blog discussed the potential collateral damage inherent in the abortion and transgender bills).

One additional provision was not expected, or even noticed by most voters, since it was buried in the 625-page budget passed September 22, 2023. The provision states:

“… the custodian of any General Assembly record shall determine, in the custodian’s discretion, whether a record is a public record and whether to turn over to the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, or retain, destroy, sell, loan, or otherwise dispose of, such records.”

Legislators are custodians of their own records, and can now destroy anything that might look bad in the eyes of voters.

Even more surprising was the inclusion of casino expansion outside of tribal lands in the 2023-2024 budget. Did legislators figure placing casino expansion in a stand alone bill that would properly go through committees never pass? Maybe. So, they placed the bill in a highly anticipated budget, containing highly anticipated Medicare expansion and teachers’ raises. Interestingly, the ploy did not succeed because Republicans did not agree on it among themselves.

Misguided legislation occurs when circumstances allow them to happen. A legislative supermajority can be fertile ground.

In California, anyone can trace the state’s ills to poorly considered legislation.

For example, homelessness could be considered California’s most serious problem. Vast areas of once busy, clean streets in the state’s downtowns now serve as homeless encampments. Popular hotels that once served California’s tourist and convention industry, now house the homeless at taxpayers’ expense.

Lenient voters, without much opposition, allowed for passage of lenient laws intended to “help” the homeless. The number of government agencies and non-profit organizations replete with employees dealing with homelessness and drug use grew exponentially. Finding a real solution and putting thousands of these employees out of work seems unlikely.

Hopefully, it is not entirely true that “as goes California, so goes the nation.” Although one could take note that North Carolina’s left-leaning strongholds like populous Wake County are already busy converting hotels into homeless shelters.

Our nation’s Founding Fathers were not at all keen on political parties.

Wisely, our Founders did not mention political parties in our Constitution, and strongly warned against them. One of the most emphatic of many quotes on the subject is that of John Adams,

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

That is not to say that our Founders advocated that everyone hold the same ideas! What they preferred was a system under which leaders (and voters) thought for themselves, free of ideologies. Thomas Jefferson expresses this sentiment unequivocally,

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

Jefferson sounded the alarm against vain and destructive ideology – groupthink – and advocated careful individual thought.

A leader or a voter able to think independently, is more likely to listen to divergent opinions, work towards compromise, and avoid unfortunate unintended consequences.

Politically unaffiliated voters, growing exponentially in every state, might be channeling Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Founders. Let’s hope so.

Pictured: 19th century painting by American artist Caleb Bingham. Notice that voters are telling the official who and what they are voting for, since ballots were not secret. Needless to say, opportunities for pressuring voters were great.

North Carolina, rent control is not a solution

State Senator Linda Grafstein recently introduced Bill 255 aimed at repealing North Carolina’s prohibition of rent control. Surely, Senator Grafstein is aware of the inefficiencies inherent in rent control?

Recently North Carolina state Senator Lisa Grafstein (Democrat – Senate District 13), submitted Bill 255, Act to Permit Local Governments to Enact Rent Control. Bill 255, if enacted, will repeal Statute 42-14-1 Rent Control, and allow municipalities to enact any form of rent control.

Statute 42-14-1 prohibits North Carolina jurisdictions from implementing rules that interfere with the rental of private property:

No county or city as defined by G.S. 160A‑1 may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance or resolution which regulates the amount of rent to be charged for privately owned, single‑family or multiple unit residential or commercial rental property.

Senator Grafstein’s reason for introducing this bill is the usual one: rising rental costs are causing financial hardships. Indeed, that is the case, especially since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2019. Rent control is the easiest way to show constituents a representative is “doing something.”

Rent control is also an inefficient way to address housing costs.

Unfortunately, rent control is also plagued with consequences and uneven results. Renters under rent control love their housing cost stability. Lower-income workers with hopes of stable housing costs support rent control. On the other side of the coin, landlords who are unable to pass their rising costs to tenants due to rent control seek solutions detrimental to tenants: poor property maintenance, raising rents on units not under control (thus raising overall rental costs), or withdrawal from the controlled market.

Given rent control’s uneven consequences, opinions on it vary widely. Here are two seemingly heart-felt quotes.

…our family was always able to afford a roof over our heads, because we were living in a rent-controlled building. That most minimal form of economic security was crucial for our family. Senator Bernie Sanders, CNN Opinion, July 30, 1919.

In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing. Assar Lindbeck, The Political Economy of the New Left, 1972.

While lower-income residents, especially those in more progressive cities, support rent control in hopes of stabilizing their housing costs, economists generally agree controls are destructive. Here is a good summary of the challenges economists see in rent control. The author is economist John Phelan in his essay 81% of economists agree that rent controls are bad policy, Center of the American Experiment, December 18, 2018.

… there are, in fact, areas where the economists’ cacophony dies down and they speak with more or less one voice.

One such area is rent control. This proposal – to cap the price landlords can charge tenants – crops up perennially as a solution to high rents. This is mistaking the symptom for the illness. When prices are high they are sending you information. They are telling you that demand is high relative to supply. If you want to do something about this, act to either reduce demand or increase supply. Either way, trying to fiddle with the signal makes no more sense then trying to slow down your car by breaking the speedometer.

But fiddling with the signal is expedient if not effective.

Decreasing demand for housing or increasing supply are solutions to high rents more complex than implementing rent control. Decreasing demand requires decreasing population growth, a solution not embraced by governors or legislators. Increasing supply (and growth) sounds good to state leaders, but their efforts are very often met with public outcry from residents rejecting loss of open spaces, increased traffic, and change in neighborhood character.

Thus, legislators sometimes opt for rent control – even though rent control seldom works as intended.

At present, two states, California and Oregon, plus the District of Columbia have state-wide rent control ordinances. Seven states allow local rent control: California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Maine, Oregon, and Minnesota. California, New York and New Jersey have the highest rents in the nation.

Most certainly Senator Linda Grafstein is aware of challenges inherent in both rising rents and rent control. Hopefully, so are her constituents.

Pictured: From widely circulated videos of protesters in Charlotte, NC, on January 25, 2023. Protesters were demanding accountability from corporate landlords; specifically, a stop to the growing ownership of homes by corporate landlords, improved building maintenance, and a 3% cap on rents.

Who stole Arbor Day?

In 1885, Nebraska declared Arbor Day a state holiday, to be celebrated on April 22. Within the next 20 years, Arbor Day was celebrated in most states. Tree-planting on this holiday remained popular, until the 1970’s. Then events overshadowed it.

A question meriting even more attention than who stole Arbor Day is “Why?” Who would want to hijack a holiday? Half a century after the takeover, events have developed sufficiently for a reasonable guess.

The story started way back in 1854.

In 1854, a journalist named Julius Sterling Morton and his wife Caroline moved to the wind-swept territory of Nebraska. There were few trees to serve as windbreaks, and few trees to protect soil from erosion or crops from burning in the sun.

For several years, Morton editorialized on the benefits of trees and encouraged his fellow Nebraskans to plant trees. As part of his campaign, Morton proposed an Arbor Day.

In 1885, Nebraska declared Arbor Day a state holiday, and April 22 the date of annual observance. April offered ideal weather for planting trees, and the 22nd of April was J. Sterling Morton’s birthday. By that time, Morton had led the planning of more than 1 million trees.

Within the next 20 years, Arbor Day was celebrated in all states of the U.S., except Delaware. The Arbor Day concept also spread outside the U.S., to Japan, Europe, Canada, and Australia.

Enter Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin.

In 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson saw the opportunity to capitalize on a populace spooked by environmental ruin. Rachel Carson’s widely read Silent Spring, published in 1962, lifted the veil that theretofore had hidden massive pollution caused by pesticides. In January of 1969, an oil well off the pristine coast of Santa Barbara, California, blew up, and hundreds of images of aquatic animals covered oil flooded the airwaves.

In the same year as the Santa Barbara oil spill, Senator Nelson started organizing nation-wide rallies to bring attention to what was happening to Mother Earth. The day he picked for the coordinated rallies was April 22, for the purported reason that young college students, who were expected to play a big role, would be on spring break. April 22 was also the original day for Arbor Day celebrations already established throughout the nation. (Critics of Earth Day point out that April 22 is also Vladimir Lenin’s birthday, but any connection between the environmental movement and abolition of private property shall be left for another day.)

Earth Day 1970, with its catchy slogan “Give Earth a Chance” and heavy promotion, was a success. An estimated 20 million people attended various rallies and festivities.

Meanwhile, Richard Nixon promoted environmental legislation.

President Richard M. Nixon embarked on a series of environmental legislation. He signed the National Environmental Policy Act (January 1970), creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (December 1970), Clean Air Act (December 1970), Marine Mammal Protection Act (October 1972), Endangered Species Act (December 1973).

As part of his environmental plan, Nixon signed two proclamations:

Proclamation 4042, dated April 2, 1971, designated the period of April 18 through April 24, 1971, as Earth Week.

Proclamation 4126, dated April 24, 1972, designated the last Friday of April 1972, April 28, as National Arbor Day.

These celebrations today continue, but at different levels.

Today, Arbor Day is still observed by avid supporters on the last Friday in April, as well as on several other dates in different states. The Arbor Day Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, claims more than 1 million members.

However, Earth Day, remains much more visible, and some have given it the mantle of fighting climate change.

The Earth Day Network (Earthday.org), a 501(c) corporation, whose mission is to “Broaden and diversify the environmental movement worldwide”, picked “Invest in our Planet” as the theme of Earth Day 2023. Its press release states,

Investing in a green economy is the only path to a healthy, prosperous, and equitable future. Human influence is unequivocally to blame for the warming of the planet and the sad truth is some forms of climate disruption will be felt for centuries to come. However, we must collectively push away from the dirty fossil fuel economy and old technologies of centuries past – and redirect attention to creating a 21st century economy that restores the health of our planet, protects our species, and provides opportunities for all.

On April 21, 2023, President Joe Biden issued A Proclamation on Earth Day, 2023.

On Earth Day, we celebrate the modern environmental movement that kicked off 53 years ago, when millions of Americans of every age and background first rallied together to change our laws and become better stewards of our planet …

This work has never been more urgent. Climate change is a clear and present danger — in the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, it is a “code red for humanity.

The last Presidential Proclamation helping to celebrate Arbor Day appears to be that of President George H.W. Bush in 1990.

It would have been nice if both celebrations remained popular.

Arbor Day and Earth Day occupy different spheres of influence. Arbor Day incentivizes individuals to develop personal awareness of the benefit of trees in absorbing carbon dioxide, combating soil erosion, protecting people and crops from sun overexposure, and adding beauty. Earth Day has the much broader objective of fixing the environment by any means necessary.

Senator Gaylord Nelson could have meant well when he chose to celebrate Earth Day on the same day as Arbor Day had been celebrated for more than 80 years – perhaps as a nod to J. Sterling Morton’s birthday.

But surely Senator Nelson must have considered the possibility that the massive publicity received by Earth Day would overshadow Arbor Day. Environmental action by any means necessary?

Pictured: Arbor Day celebration in New York City, 1908.

DA Bragg’s case against Trump: dubious

Progressive New York DA Alvin Bragg presented his case against Donald Trump. Unfortunately for him, even the liberal media has pointed to the pitfalls in the case.

Alvin Bragg’s 2020 campaign for New York County DA included a promise to “get Trump.” He is trying to deliver on his pledge by filing a pile of charges against the former President. Unfortunately, even the liberal press, known to turn cartwheels defending progressive DAs like Bragg, is skeptical.

Very skeptical.

Vox explains the root of the skepticism in its article of April 4, The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained. A few words can summarize:

“The actual felony counts arise out of allegedly false entries that Trump made in various business records in order to make the payment to Daniels appear to be ordinary legal expenses paid to Cohen.

But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law.”

The HuffPost, while seemingly expressing hopeful thoughts of a Bragg success, states in its April 4 article How The Manhattan District Attorney Ended Up Charging Donald Trump With Felonies,

“There are potential pitfalls for DA Alvin Bragg in the legal theory he is using to charge the former president with 34 felony counts.”

Conservative Washington Free Beacon seems to have had a field day quoting liberals in its article of April 5, Even the Liberal Media Aren’t Buying Alvin Bragg’s Bogus Trump. Possibly the best quote is,

“[Bragg is] plunging forward with a premise that has given pause to even some of Mr. Trump’s toughest critics.” — Charles Savage, New York Times

And there is more.

Trump is accused of violating a state law that makes it a crime to falsify business records with the intent to defraud, specifically to conceal another crime. The concealment of another crime turns the misdemeanor of falsifying business records into a felony. A felony conviction is what DA Bragg wants, even if he must stretch facts and laws. And stretch he does.

  • The alleged other crime is influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by arranging for hush money to keep two women from divulging their affairs with Trump. But Trump was running for a federal office, so it is questionable whether Bragg can bring state charges based on an alleged federal violation.
  • Bragg claims Trump violated a New York election law that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. But this law is not mentioned in Bragg’s charges.
  • Trump’s final payment of hush money was in 2017. The statute of limitations for the felony charge of falsifying records to conceal another crime is 5 years. The statute of limitations for the misdemeanor charge of falsifying records is 2 years.
  • Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made the hush money payments on behalf of Trump, and Trump then reimbursed Cohen, calling the reimbursement “legal expenses.” The Feds charged Cohen with violation of campaign finance law. But the legality of the charge was never tested in court since Cohen quietly went to prison without contesting the charge. Trump could challenge the legality of the charge now. If the hush money payments are not deemed illegal, then there is no violation of campaign finance law for Bragg to hang his felony charge on.

One could wonder why bring dubious charges.

DA Bragg is simply following a script prescribed by those who do not wish their long-standing power disturbed by Trump: just keep throwing stuff at him until, 1) he quits, or 2) voters can no longer stand the turbulence and want Trump gone from public life.

It really does not matter what is thrown – a lineup of accusing ladies (we are talking back in 2015), claims of Islamophobia, impeachments, treason, inciting violence, too many Tweets.

In all fairness, it should be mentioned that Donald Trump’s penchant for creating chaos provides good cover for the extreme actions taken against him. However, it should also be mentioned that Trump supporters view chaos as means to reform. Alvin Bragg may have just helped to ensure Donald Trump’s return to the Presidency.

Pictured: New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg announcing his charges against former President Donal Trump.

Choosing life is admirable, but so is choosing mercy.

The rash of state anti-abortion laws popping up since the overturning of Roe v Wade has led to heartbreaking situations in which an expectant mother must carry a fatally abnormal baby only to bury him at birth.

When an ailment is rare, it is placed way down in everyone’s awareness list – unless the ailment strikes home. That situation has appeared and will continue to appear as a result of the rash of state anti-abortion laws popping up since the overturning of Roe v Wade.

A recent case in the news serves as example. A Florida expectant mother carrying a baby with a rare and fatal abnormality referred to as Potter syndrome, has found herself with no other choice than giving birth then surely burying her dead infant. This tragic scenario comes in the wake of Florida’s new law, “Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act,” HB 5, passed by Florida’s Legislators in 2022 and signed by Governor Ron DeSantis.

Potter syndrome, present in 1 per 2000-5000 births, is considered fatal at or shortly after birth. The U.S. National Library of Medicine describes it as follow,

Potter syndrome is a fatal congenital disorder characterized by the changes in physical appearances of neonate due to oligohydramnios caused by renal agenesis and impairment. It is incompatible with life as neonates with Potter syndrome have pulmonary hypoplasia that leads to respiratory distress within an hour of birth.

In other words, babies with Potter syndrome have abnormal kidneys or no kidneys at all (bilateral renal agenesis), which prevents production of the amniotic fluid that keeps them afloat in their mother’s uterus and helps organs, including lungs, develop. Underdeveloped lungs (pulmonary hypoplasia) mean babies cannot breathe outside the womb and die.

Suspicion of anomalies may arise during a standard first-trimester ultrasound performed around 4-12 weeks of pregnancy. In the case of the Florida mother in question, a standard ultrasound performed at 11 weeks and 6 days did not show any abnormality. Her second-trimester ultrasound (usually, these are high-resolution anatomy scans) at 23 weeks did show lack of amniotic fluid and several abnormalities. A third diagnostic scan at 24 weeks showed the baby had no kidneys, and the diagnosis of Potter syndrome was made.

Although this was a very much wanted baby, the mother, Deborah Dorbert, and her husband Lee Dorbert decided to end the pregnancy, since they were given no hope their baby would survive past a few hours after birth. They thought that although the pregnancy had gone past the 15-week limit imposed by HB 5 – note the heartbreaking diagnosis was done at 24 weeks of pregnancy — the law did provide for an exception in the case of “fatal fetal abnormality.”

However, the Dorbets’ doctors felt they needed to investigate the legal ramifications of HB 5. After doing so, they decided the wording of HB 5 was uncomfortably unclear, and refused to perform the abortion.

Indeed, unclear it is, whether by sloppiness or design. HB 5 says:

(1) … A physician may not perform a termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 15 weeks, unless one of the following conditions is met …
(c) The fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgement, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality.

Section 390.01112 of the Florida Statutes requires that a physician perform and record exhaustive examinations to determine fetus viability. Should the fetus be viable, the physician must exercise as much care and professional skill as he would delivering a baby not intended for abortion.

Abortion laws like HB 5 are more form than substance.

Laws like HB 5 have the buzzwords – life of the mother, fatal fetal abnormality – but not the intent of finding optimal medical outcomes.

Diagnostic tests that can accurately detect fetal abnormalities are usually done around 18-20 week of pregnancy; HB 5’s prohibits abortion after a fetus’ gestation age of 15 weeks. Such a situation is even more unsound in states that have adopted “heartbeat” laws, with limits around 6 weeks of gestation.

HB 5 requires exhaustive reporting that could prompt physicians to err on the side of not performing a medically necessary abortion: “The physician must document in the pregnant woman’s medical file the physician’s determination and the method, equipment, fetal measurements, and any other information used to determine the viability of the fetus.”

These laws are more Christian evangelical religion than medicine

The U.S. Constitution clearly separates secular laws from religious laws in the First Amendment. Yet, at the signing ceremony of HB 5 into law, Governor DeSantis said, “This will represent the most significant protections for life that have been enacted in this state in a generation.” Several religious leaders attended the ceremony and expressed delight at HB 5 becoming law.

“I see this as the beginning of what is yet to come. It is a step in the right direction..” Leidy Rivas, director of Catholic Charities of Central Florida’s Culture of Life office. April 21, 2022.

Not all religions interpret “life” as Governor DeSantis does, and several religious leaders have filed suit against HB 5.

The Rev. Tom Capo of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, whose motion now rests with Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit, has skillfully pointed out that HB 5 fails “to account for the diverse religious views of many Floridians. . . whose faith leads them to take a very different view of when life begins and to counsel abortion.” New legal challenges to Florida’s abortion law, MSNBC, October 18, 2022.

Respect for life, even unborn life in the view of evangelical Christianity, is admirable. But so is mercy.

Luke 6:36 “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”

Leaving a mother no choice but to give birth to her baby only to bury him is far from merciful.

Friendly advice from a former Californian

California’s handling of its population growth resulted in astronomical housing costs and an exodus of residents. Hopefully, North Carolina will handle its current growth a lot better.

North Carolina is a beautiful state. It has ample open space and homes surrounded by lovely woods. It is strong economically, business friendly, rich in job opportunities, and still relatively affordable. World-class universities like Duke, University of North Carolina, and North Carolina State University, help attract businesses seeking a talented workforce.

But how long before the crucible of housing, or unhousing, ensnares North Carolina as it did California?

North Carolina’s strengths attract expatriates.

North Carolina is among the fastest growing states in the nation, as new arrivals pour in seeking jobs and lower living costs. Since 2010, North Carolina’s population grew by 9.7%, compared to the overall U. S. population growth of 7.4%.

New arrivals need housing, like everybody else. In North Carolina, growth in new housing production since 2010 has been around 8.8%. The 0.9% shortfall, predictably, has caused housings costs to rise. Since 2010, home prices have increased by 31.5%, and rents by 14.6%.

Some benefit, some don’t

Such significant increases in home prices provide benefits to current property owners and landlords. Meanwhile, house hunters are thrown out of housing markets and renters often out of rented homes. Eventually, disadvantages of increasing housing costs overwhelm the middle class. Then, we see the rise of “U cities” that become home for the rich and the very poor. Anyone in the middle who can afford to do so, departs.

In California, the economically-comfortable class easily outbids the lower-income middle class, gentrifies older communities, and pushes residents out of neighborhoods. Some residents slide into homelessness, some into dependency on subsidies, and many are trapped into immobility by rent control (move, and your rent might shoot up 100%).

So, just build?

Just build more housing, one might say. That is not at all an easy feat. In North Carolina, as in many other states, planners and policy makers face a litany of challenges in their quest to reach the holy grail of “equitable, affordable housing.” Here are some of these challenges:

Societal challenges like differing needs and often unwarranted fears make housing development difficult. Current homeowners, used to their tree-lined single-family neighborhoods, do not want changes in zoning that allow for density. But priced-out house hunters would welcome any hope of density creating affordability. Residents of affluent and peaceful neighborhoods fear intrusion by the working poor dreaming of safety and good schools for their kids.

Political challenges also impede housing construction. Leaders desire economic growth; therefore, they focus on welcoming new business, job creation, and population growth. But they thread lightly when it comes to developing homes for new workers, since their more established and economically comfortable constituents resent incursions into their neighborhoods.

Self-determination challenges are not often brought up in housing discussions. North Carolina, unlike California, has not yet felt the brunt of state and regional housing mandates. Chances are it will, if cities and counties do not find satisfactory ways to provide enough construction to house the state’s growing population.

We say, “Sorry we are full?”

Even if local leaders are willing to let old neighborhoods be, there are higher powers that might want to prevent that course of action.

North Carolina is governed by the Dillon Rule, with limited Home Rule. In Dillon Rule states, cities derive their power from what the state chooses to grant. That includes how much decision-making in housing development the state grants its cities.

Also, states must abide by The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. Included in that Act is the creation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Under the Act, all urbanized areas with 50,000 or more in population must join an MPO. North Carolina has 19 MPOs scattered around several regions of the state.

The original intent of MPOs was to coordinate transportation funding between regions. Today, the functions of MPOs include housing development. Recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-58 11/15/2021) further codified housing as a purview of MPO’s. The Act makes several changes to include housing considerations in the metropolitan transportation planning process, including:

“Within a metropolitan planning area that serves a transportation management area, permitting the transportation planning process to address the integration of housing, transportation, and economic development strategies through a process that provides for effective integration, including by developing a housing coordination plan. [§ 11201(d)(5); 23 U.S.C. 134(k)].”

MPOs in California serve as cautionary tales. The San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), for example, is a behemoth agency with significant powers over housing development. The challenge for residents and voters is that MTC’s decision-making Commissioners are not elected to their MTC positions by the residents who they supposedly serve. No matter how harebrained their plans are, there is no way to kick them out of their positions.

North Carolina’s MPOs have not come close to exhibiting the power of MPOs in large California regions. Therefore, residents have not yet felt the impact of major housing mandates.

Growth is here and cannot be ignored

There is no denying that North Carolina is going through a population explosion. Legislators and other leaders are happy with the arrival of new job-creating companies. They are also happy with the influx of new residents that will help increase the state’s representation in the U.S. Congress. Their glee could be relatively short lived if they do not handle growth well. Growth involves numerous variables and cannot be solved by merely trying to match supply to demand.

Newcomers need realistically priced homes, so does a well-functioning market – nobody wants a way overvalued housing market that will surely correct with a plunge. Established residents love their single-family homes in tree-filled neighborhoods. Housing developers can be persuasive in calling for changes in zoning and building standards. When zoning changes, there will be homeowners that will sell their homes to developers at very good prices.

Once, California was a beautiful state. It was a destination state, just like North Carolina is today. Now, folks cannot leave the state fast enough, as they escape high taxes, astronomical housing costs, uncontrolled homelessness, and unsanitary cities. What happened?!

Some will say the rich refused to pay their fair share of taxes, so programs could not thrive. Others will say housing costs rose so much that people became homeless (and drug addicts as well). Others will say voters willingly chose ill-conceived proposals.

The latter is closer to the truth. And many of the ill-conceived ideas related to housing. Mandated affordable-housing allocations resulted in gentrification and no affordable housing. Piles of money allocated to housing non-profit organizations resulted in a thriving homeless industrial complex. Destruction of old neighborhoods to make room for development contributed to the rise of a serious missing middle.

Had voters and leaders handled growth by consensus of all residents, not just consensus of the elite and the government-dependent (those that enrich the bureaucracy), things would have worked out better. California has huge areas of protected open space where no housing development is allowed. Open space is great, but it remains pristine at the expense of destruction of established neighborhoods. Once there is enough destruction, people start voting with their feet.

Forewarned is forearmed. North Carolina can prosper while retaining its quality of life by handling population and housing growth wisely.