Politics: J'accuse!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We're going to need a Restatement of the Law (Colonialism) after this is done.

All this never came up back when I did crim law (never practiced near any of the rez's) but do you need to prove BARD that a defendant knew he was subject to certain laws in order to convict?

(American law? But it's legal here!")

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We are still talking about Abu Whatever prison, right? When the military appropriates foreign property for a battlefield purpose, I'd say it's federal land for purposes of jurisdiction, which was what we were talking about as the first stage of the analysis.

In retrospect, saying the federal reservation rule would apply to the whole of Iraq was excessive, but the prison, definitely. As for the rest of it, there's probably some doctrine of international law (ha!) that says you can prosecute your foreign nationals committing crimes abroad. It's not like it would be a double jeopardy problem --- just a "principles of comity" one. You get to hang your guy after the other guys quarter him.

We're going to need a Restatement of the Law (Colonialism) after this is done.

Fuck it. Congress actually thought of this one:

18 U.S.C. § 3261

Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States -

(1)

while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside the United States; or

* * *

But anyway, isn't your proposal to designate the iraq pen. before the supreme court in re guantanamo right now?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
All this never came up back when I did crim law (never practiced near any of the rez's) but do you need to prove BARD that a defendant knew he was subject to certain laws in order to convict?

(American law? But it's legal here!")

malum in se!

My recollection is that it depends on a) the level of intent required by statute and b) whether it's a malum in se, in which case you're presumed to know that it's a bad thing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
malum in se!

My recollection is that it depends on a) the level of intent required by statute and b) whether it's a malum in se, in which case you're presumed to know that it's a bad thing.

But we seem to "know" a different set of badness from that which is "known" elsewhere.

I "know" I can't beat my wife, and that's only partially based on the true and certain knowledge that she'd kick my ass.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Enough with the socks. When were you joking, as this is your first post, no?

The last post from Iniquity. Until someone catches on and starts posting with other -ty socks, all the -ty socks are mine. Oops, shouldn't have mentioned that.

As for arbitration, have they agreed to it already? There's no reason that their contracts couldn't specify that Halliburton can discipline people for conduct prohibited by federal law as if commited in the US. But if there's no contract saying such for these folks, kind of out of luck.

Beats me. I was reading yesterday that it's not even clear whether the CPA is a part of the United States government or an international organization. Its creation was never announced; rather, it just started getting referred to. I imagine there are contracts, but who gets to see them?

If someone was really interested in coming down on these guys, they'd have canned the contractors at the prisons who were fingered months ago. But their employer said yesterday that it hasn't heard "boo" and they're still working.

[Duplicity]

Here's an article from the SF Chronicle about a family that's getting evicted after 25 years from their 3 BR apartment because the owners want to move in. Look, this is a major bummer for them, but why is it news? The reporter doesn't quite say so, but apparently it's remarkable that the family occupying the housing doesn't get to stay as long as it likes, at a monthly rent approximately the lease payment for an expensive car. (It's not news, apparently, that they were paying on $500/month. Wish I could get a deal like that.)

The person who owns the building gets to decide who lives there! Bizarre!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Duplicity
The person who owns the building gets to decide who lives there! Bizarre!

It's news because, in a rent-controlled mindset, the idea that an owner has property rights is bizarre.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Duplicity
Here's an article from the SF Chronicle about a family that's getting evicted after 25 years from their 3 BR apartment because the owners want to move in. Look, this is a major bummer for them, but why is it news? The reporter doesn't quite say so, but apparently it's remarkable that the family occupying the housing doesn't get to stay as long as it likes, at a monthly rent approximately the lease payment for an expensive car. (It's not news, apparently, that they were paying on $500/month. Wish I could get a deal like that.)

The person who owns the building gets to decide who lives there! Bizarre!

Wow! Your posting this is up there with the fact that Posner clerked for Brennan.

(ETA) Although I suppose it's news in the sense that people are having their attention called to the fact that property owners still retain some rights to control the property they own.

I think Fidel has a job for this guy:

"Allowing landlords to empty entire buildings, even where tenants have done nothing wrong, allows speculators to use the Ellis Act for the sole purpose of maximizing their profit without regard to what it does to the housing stock of the city of San Francisco or individual tenants," Preston said.

It's shameful that an owner might want to make a profit. Shameful!

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Wow! Your posting this is up there with the fact that Posner clerked for Brennan.

If we had some actual lefties on this board, I could argue with them. As it is, I have to post articles from the local paper to mock.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
It's news because, in a rent-controlled mindset, the idea that an owner has property rights is bizarre.

It's news because reporters can't afford to buy houses in the Bay Area, and it scares them that their ability to live where they work is dependent on the whims of some ass-jack who bought the property in the 1950s.

Human interest stories are news because they are illustrative of some life experience that is either similar to that of readers, or interesting to readers. This qualifies as the first, but not the second.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It's news because reporters can't afford to buy houses in the Bay Area, and it scares them that their ability to live where they work is dependent on the whims of some ass-jack who bought the property in the 1950s.

Stop copying my posts.

(ETA: In retrospect, I should have said "stop illustrating my posts.")

[Duplicity]

I can't think of a good excuse for rent control, which, like Prop 13's rules barring valuation for property tax purposes except when housing changes hands, is a tax on newcomers to subsidize people who haven't moved recently. The costs for the rest of are hard to see. The Chronicle writes this story about evictions, but doesn't write a story about how bone-headed regulation of the housing market leaves people who aren't grandfathered at $500/mo. paying recockulous rents.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I can't think of a good excuse for rent control, which, like Prop 13's rules barring valuation for property tax purposes except when housing changes hands, is a tax on newcomers to subsidize people who haven't moved recently. The costs for the rest of are hard to see.

The tax is on the property owner, really, even though it does make it more expensive for new arrivals. It's the property owner who's stuck charging below-market rents to those who got in early.

The only justification, and it's a slim one, is for the temporary relief of skyrocketing rents. DC implemented rent control during WWII (IRC) in order to prevent massive increases with the influx of DoD people to the area, thereby pricing current residents out of the market. OF course, like any government handout, the beneficiaries like the taste and become addicted to it like heroin and won't give it up. It then becomes entrenched.

Comparative example: Property taxes in DC have skyrocketed in recent years, not because the rates have gone up, but because the assessments have. Double the value of hte house (or more) and the taxes double. For us, we're kind of lucky because we can afford a couple thousand more each year (not that I want to pay it into the black hole of DC gov't), but for many folks on fixed or lower incomes, they're really hit hard. So, DC finally, in it's usual close-the-door-after-the-horse-is-out fashion, put an annual cap on increases in the tax obligation, so the increase is spread out over several years. Seems reasonable. (and it applies only if you're in the same house, so a purchaser pays the full amount).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I can't think of a good excuse for rent control . . .

There are more renters than there are landlords.

[PuriTY]

thishttp://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Bush-Cuts-Public-Housing1mar04.htm sort of has Linda Carson spelling out why this landlord issue is really bush's fault. Its pretty interesting reading!

Bush Proposes Huge Cuts to Public Housing
LYNDA CARSON / Street Spirit v.10,n.3, (San Francisco) 1mar04
The massive cutbacks in HUD's budget would place at least 250,000 elderly, disabled and low-income renters at risk of losing their vouchers.

Bush's Public Housing

The Bush Administration's dangerous attempts to achieve world domination by use of force, along with the very expensive creation of a police-state apparatus in America, have cost Americans dearly and have severely cut into the nation's most needed domestic programs for years ahead.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is feeling the pinch of cost-cutting measures being proposed by the Bush Administration for fiscal year 2005, in addition to internal audit problems occurring at HUD during recent years that resulted in the agency being unable to account for $59.6 billion. Critics have been asking "where's the money?" As of yet, the question has not been resolved [see http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/melmartinez.htm].

The Bush Administration proposes several billion dollars in cuts to the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program over the next five years. The cuts could result in a loss of 250,000 vouchers in 2005, and 800,000 vouchers by 2009, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).

Barbara Sard, director of housing policy at the CBPP, stated, "The Administration proposal would abandon three decades of progress in improving the voucher pro-gram, and would undermine the program's goal of providing access to affordable, decent housing for people who otherwise would be unable to secure it."

HUD's proposed budget for 2005 requests $31.3 billion to fund its pro-grams; approximately 74 percent of the HUD budget is earmarked to fund $23.2 billion for Section 8 and public housing.

HUD subsidizes about 1.2 million public housing units through local agencies known as Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), usually operated by city governments. The HUD website states that there are 3,300 Public Housing Authorities in the United States. California has 124 PHAs that control 44,953 housing units.

The Oakland Housing Authority operates 76 developments containing 3,308 public housing units and provides subsidies for 10,919 Section 8 units funded by the federal government (HUD). The Oakland Housing Authority has 307 units in the Hope VI Program, and in total there are 267 scattered public housing sites in Oakland. On average, there are 6.5 rental units per site, offering 2.9 bedrooms per apartment for the renters.

The Bush Administration's new pro-posed budget for fiscal year 2005 has severe consequences for the elderly, disabled and low-income renters using the Section 8 voucher programs. Bush's new budget proposal also cuts spending meant to revitalize severely distressed public housing projects across the nation.

On February 2, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonprofit organization that analyzes federal budgets, stated that funding for the housing voucher pro-grams (Section 8) would fall more than $1.6 billion short of the amount needed to maintain the vouchers already in use. This shortfall places at least 250,000 elderly, disabled and low-income renters at risk of losing their housing vouchers, unless funding levels are increased enough to maintain the existing vouchers.

Other cuts being proposed for HUD's 2005 budget would cause additional hard-ships for the renters in public housing pro-grams and the Section 8 programs.

A look at the HUD budget summary for fiscal year 2005 reveals that federal funding for revitalization of public housing developments has decreased rapidly. Funding in 2003 was set at $570 million, and then declined to $149 million in fiscal year 2004. But Bush's current proposal would literally zero out this portion of the HUD budget — zero dollars are being proposed for 2005.

Funding for the Hope VI Program was set at $149 million in fiscal year 2004, and the new budget proposed for 2005 slashes the funding to nothing. The Hope VI Program demolished and converted public housing developments into mixed-income housing projects; and critics have claimed that the Hope VI projects have resulted in a huge loss of low-income housing for renters across the nation.

Even at a quick glance, the summary of the proposed HUD budget for 2005 may be shocking to the residents of public housing. No funding is being allocated to revitalize severely distressed public housing developments, and $30 million is being granted to accelerate the demolition of public housing units across the nation. HUD claims that it is committed to ensuring that the public housing stock is either maintained in good condition or demolished. Making matters even worse for renters in public housing units that may face demolition, Tenant Protection Replacement Vouchers are proposed for elimination. Funding in 2003 and 2004 was set at $48 million annually, with zero funding pro-posed for fiscal year 2005. Tenant Protection Replacement Vouchers have been used to assist renters to relocate from public housing units being demolished or converted into Hope VI Projects; and the vouchers also are used to assist renters losing their housing in Section 8 buildings where the owners decide to opt out of the programs.

Another concern to HUD recipients is a new proposal called the "Flexible Voucher Program" (FVP) which is intended to replace the Housing Choice Voucher Program. When the Section 8 Certificate Program was combined with the Section 8 Voucher Program, the new combined program was named the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP).

HUD claims that the HCVP is not sustainable, and has reduced HUD's ability to fund other programs. Countering HUD's claims, critics charge that rents have been decreasing nationwide, and that in the following years the Section 8 programs will be less costly to operate.

HUD is proposing to return to a dollar-based grant program — a switch from the existing unit-based system which HUD alleges has allowed for a dramatic increase in program costs. If the proposed Flexible Voucher Program (FVP) replaces the existing HCVP, it will allow greater discretion by Public Housing Authorities to avoid existing mandated federal requirements, and would terminate the "one size fits all" program design.

The proposed FVP would include all administrative costs in the total grant, and would reward the Public Housing Authorities with bonuses for increasing the number of participants that use the voucher assistance programs on a transitional basis rather than a permanent basis to fund their housing needs.

In addition to the proposed elimination of Section 8 renters who use vouchers on a permanent basis, the new HUD budget also proposes an experiment called the "Public Housing Reform Demonstration" (PHRD) which is intended to involve 50 participating PHAs in the experiment.

This experiment will maximize the ability of the PHAs to make decisions affecting their tenants in public housing units while serving the same number of low-income families. Participating PHAs in the experiment will be allowed to combine the use of capital and operating funds to set locally determined rent structures for tenants in public housing, while simultaneously being able to free themselves from many requirements of federal reporting.

HUD claims that this experimental Public Housing Reform Demonstration will allow for more flexibility for the PHAs, and will allow the local PHAs and HUD to shift to an asset-based management practice in the public housing projects. It appears that HUD believes that more flexibility allows the PHAs to be in a better position to persuade public housing renters to find a job and work longer hours, whether they are able or not.

The experiment will be evaluated and measured; and 50 other PHAs will be used as a control group. The control group must follow current regulations and housing laws as a comparison to the proposed 50 PHAs that will be allowed to avoid existing housing laws and regulations.

Renters in the Section 8 voucher pro-grams are not allowed to pay landlords more than what is known as the Fair Market Rents during each fiscal year. In Oakland, landlords are restricted from charging more than $936 per month for a studio blah blah blah blah blah