Thanks to the Citizen for recognizing RGF President Paul Gessing and other deserving individuals as “community heroes.” I wholeheartedly agree. The evidence for Paul is here.

Thanks to Walter Bradley for his fine opinion piece supporting defense of our precious property rights in New Mexico.

We discovered that local governments could use New Mexico’s incredibly broad condemnation authority to take virtually any property in the state and hand it over to developers.
Most people recognize the need for eminent domain to accomplish traditional public uses, such as roads and utilities. But, 99 percent of the public comments to the task force made clear the overwhelmingly predominant position of citizens: New Mexico should respect the rights of individuals to keep what they have worked so hard to own, and should protect its citizens from eminent domain abuse.

One of the great things about living in New Mexico is the New Mexico Symphony Orchestra. I was reminded of that this morning when Robin brought me this:

Will he bring the cat? Find out May 24, 2007.

The New York Times today reports on the latest release on population trends from the Census Bureau:

Measured by rate of growth, Arizona was first, followed by Nevada, Idaho, Georgia and Texas, Utah, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida and South Carolina. For 2005-6, Colorado and South Carolina displaced Delaware and Oregon. Arizona’s estimated population grew by 213,311 to 6.2 million, an increase of 3.6 percent. Most of the increase was driven by more people moving in from other states than leaving — most from California. But immigrants also contributed to the growth, as did more than twice as many births as deaths. (By comparison, in West Virginia, deaths outnumbered births.)

Despite the exodus of population from high-tax California, the West leads the nation in population growth. But how does New Mexico fit into the picture? Estimates for all states may be found here. New Mexico and the region look like this:

One year is not long enough to discern a clear trend. Nevertheless this one-year change is consistent with New Mexico’s prior, consistently poor standing for migration trends. People tend to move where they face a brighter future; and New Mexico is not the destination of choice in the West. Only another high-tax state (Oklahoma) does worse than NM in the region.

Amidst all the snow and holiday hustle and bustle, I almost missed the fact that City Council wisely decided not to impose a moratorium on so-called “big-box” shopping centers. Although the regulations on the location and appearance of these stores could be problematic depending on which direction Council decides to go, at least they have avoided imposing an unnecessarily harsh moratorium. Although the Rio Grande Foundation did not take the lead role in opposing these restrictions (we did go on record as opposing them ahead of the vote), it is our hope that their rejection may be a sign that Albuquerque’s Council is beginning to realize that heavy regulatory and tax burdens will harm Albuquerque and push even more economic development out to Rio Rancho and beyond.

To cap on Harry’s blog regarding the encouraging news on eminent domain, the Governor’s announcement is very good news because, should the legislation he has outlined pass, the protections for property owners will be far better than they would have been under the bill he vetoed last year. If you are curious, the final recommendations are available here.
Don’t think that the fight is over, however. The Municipal League has already come out and said they will fight hard against these reforms.

According the the Albuquerque Journal this morning Governor Richardson is proposing to “ensure that government cannot take private property for economic development.”

Richardson’s proposal, which incorporates recommendations from a governor-appointed task force, would repeal the state’s Urban Renewal and Community Development laws.
It also would remove eminent domain power from the Metropolitan Redevelopment Act, a comprehensive economic development statute, said Richardson’s Deputy Chief Counsel Vincent Ward.
The proposal will not limit governments’ traditional use of eminent domain to condemn property for the public use, such as widening roads or to build schools, Ward said. But it would bar the taking of private property for economic development. Many viewed last year’s ruling by the nation’s top court as creating an additional use for eminent domain.

Thanks to Paul and the Institute for Justice for their effective work on the eminent domain issue.

The Environmental Working Group has just published its database in which you can find exactly who is receiving federal farm subsidies. Past recipients of federal largesse have included media mogul Ted Turner and NBA star Scottie Pippen. Who are the top recipients in New Mexico?

I have long felt that the ongoing shortage of body organs for transplants is an artificial result of federal regulations that prohibit any financial incentives for those who — upon death — donate their bodies to save the lives of others. As is so often the case when government policies fail (the United Kingdom and Canada both have similar “no-compensation” policies), additional regulations are adopted. The UK and Canada are now considering rules that would essentially allow the state to “steal” the organs of the dead. The authors of this article suggest we go the other direction by allowing financial incentives for those who choose organ donation.
This seems to me like “Economics 101,” but financial incentives are the only proven way to create desired results while also respecting personal freedom.

On Monday, City Council is expected to vote on a six month moratorium on so-called big box stores. In an opinion piece published on The Citizen I explained exactly why the moratiorium and the placing of additional regulations on big box stores would harm the very low-income residents of Albuquerque that Council normally seeks to protect.

In case you missed it, on Thursday, the Albuquerque Journal reported that New Mexico’s new pre-K program is “falling below national norms in rankings of classroom quality and literacy and math scores.” The full article is available here if you have a subscription.
Although the findings of this study are not conclusive, it definitely demands more study, especially since other studies have found mixed results from these programs as well. Not in New Mexico…Governor Richardson has instead proposed doubling pre-k spending next year. That seems to be the pattern in this state. Start a new program and before effectiveness or lack thereof can be studied, increase its size.

Coyote blog has more interesting commentary on light rail boondoggles here. The rip-off arithmetic he cites is the same relative magnitude as for our Rail Runner and so-far potential streetcar debacles. For example, about LA:

If the core ridership number is 125,000, the highest possible choice, then the total capital cost of the system per rider is $20,000 per rider. This means I was right, that we could have instead bought ever rider a car for the same money. Since the real ridership is probably less than that number, this means we could have bought ever rider a car and had money left over. Concerned about the environment? Then make every car a Prius, which the money would just about cover even without the volume purchasing discount they would likely get.
But what about gas? Well, they say they have a $252 million per year operating loss. This subsidy, which is above and beyond ticket sales, equates to $2,106 (!) per daily rider, even using the higher 125,000 figure. At $2.50 per gallon, this equates to 15.5 gallons of gas per rider per week.
So you can see with the LA numbers, even using the largest possible interpretation of their ridership numbers, the money used for the train could have instead bought every passenger a new car and filled the tank up with gas once a week for life.
Yes, I know, the argument is that the train reduces congestion. Supposedly. I have two responses:
Rail has never reduced congestion in any city. Go see London and Manhattan. In fact, rail seems to encourage urban density that increases congestion.
In Phoenix, where rail will often replace existing lanes of roads, the train will likely carry fewer people than the lanes of traffic used to, so congestion will increase.

Randal O’Toole blogs about the failure of light rail in Portland:

In fact, Portlanders recently learned that their much-praised transportation plans were really nothing more than a scheme by what local reporters call the “light-rail mafia” to separate taxpayers from their money and enrich themselves. Far from relieving congestion or getting people to stop driving, Portlanders are so angry at the congestion and other problems resulting from the plans that they have repeatedly voted against light rail and other projects.
Worst of all, the high cost of these plans has led to a decline in urban services throughout the Portland area. This was illustrated with Dickensian irony in September when a leading member of the light-rail mafia calmly ate dinner at an outdoor restaurant a few feet away from police who were kicking a schizophrenic man to death. The budgets for police and mental health services that could have saved this man’s life had been cut by the city council that continued to subsidize rail transit and high-density developments that enriched the light-rail mafia.
Now, cities such as Albuquerque and Madison are rushing to follow Portland’s example of rebuilding downtown streetcar lines. Yet, despite claims of Portland’s advocates, the streetcar did not get anyone out of their cars or stimulate economic development.

Read the whole thing. You will find some interesting links.
HT: Coyote Blog

Rarely are the cutthroat politics of our nation’s agriculture cartels exposed for average Americans to see, but a recent example of a California dairy man being crushed by the establishment dairy interests clearly illustrates how depression-era federal laws designed to keep the industry afloat in tough economic times are now used to eliminate competition and keep prices (and profits) artificially high.
Agriculture is undoubtedly one of the last great bastions of socialism in this country. Fortunately, groups like the Cato Institute are working to publicize how these policies hurt consumers and taxpayers alike.

Last night, Bernalillo County became quite possibly the only county in America to set its own minimum wage above the federall rate. The fact that minimum wages are bad policy has been mentioned repeatedly at this site and by the Foundation in general.
The fallacy of minimum wages is repeated in the example cited by the Tribune and Journal in their write-ups of the wage hike. Victor Rivera, a 15 year old that spends his weekends working 11-hour shifts on a construction site outside Albuquerque and supposedly gives all the money to his mother to buy the basics for the family, makes the minimum wage. According to convential wisdom, Rivera is obviously being underpaid by his employer who could easily pay him $6.75 or even $7.50 per hour.
In reality, Rivera could easily lose his job if his current employer decides that this young man is not worth more than $5.15 an hour. That would make it even more difficult for mom to buy necessities and put groceries on the table. Maybe the employer will suck it up and pay the higher wage while cutting elsewhere or maybe not. My 15 year old cousin has been looking for a job at $5.15 an hour and can’t find one. It will be even more difficult for him as the wage rate rises as this miguided law takes effect.

The latest estimaes are in and it looks like New Mexico is in for a massive windfall of $720 million in FY 2008. While we are confident that our elected officials would have no problem spending it all, thus digging the state a financial hole, it makes more sense for our economically-impoverished state to continue reducing the income tax burden the state places on the productive activities of its citizens. With $720 million in unanticipated revenues, there is no reason to stop cutting the income tax when the rate reaches 4.9 percent.

In case you missed it, Governor Richardson’s eminent domain task force heeded the advice of property owners and supporters of private property rights like the Rio Grande Foundation and Institute for Justice and recommended that the Governor and Legislature prohibit the use of eminent domain to promote economic development in New Mexico.
Hopefully, the Governor and Legislature can agree this year on long-overdue protections for New Mexico property owners….in the meantime, it is our understanding that S. 3873, the “Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2006” will come to the floor of the United States Senate this week. Find out more about this important legislation and how to contact your Senators at the website of Americans for Tax Reform.

The United Health Foundation ranks us 40th among states in overall health. Details may be found here. The overall rankings:

It turns out that Albuquerque got $8.1 million of your tax money from the state to “plan” the “modern” streetcar. A “consultant” HDR was “hired” without competition. That consultant also “planned” the train to nowhere.
What happened to our $8.1 million?
HT: Terry Storch

Suddenly the councilors and mayor are sounding fiscally responsible:

Mayor Martin Chávez and City Council President Martin Heinrich said Saturday they will seek to repeal tax changes that would have financed a streetcar project.
In separate interviews with the Journal, Chávez and Heinrich said they are backing away from the streetcar project for the time being.
Each called for a comprehensive study of local transportation needs before the city decides whether to develop a streetcar system.
Chávez said it “makes no sense” to keep the tax changes in place when there is no consensus on the City Council about proceeding with streetcars.

Why couldn’t we have trusted them in the first place?

Check out Paul’s article today in NRO:

Fueled by oil and gas revenues that have been flowing into government coffers at a record pace, New Mexico has joined the nationwide rush to embrace expensive rail projects, with little regard for cost and even less consideration for utility.

And:

Unfortunately, Rail Runner is just one of New Mexico’s rail boondoggles. Albuquerque’s city council recently adopted a plan that would build a $270 million “modern streetcar” system, with up to $135 million of that money being funneled into one small part of the city from all over the state.
Although Richardson has not formally committed state funding to the scheme, as a close ally of Albuquerque mayor Martin Chavez, he has committed to “being helpful in contributing to the project.” With Richardson, “help” usually comes in the form of a tall stack of taxpayer dollars.

Read the whole thing.

Alan Meltzer has written a fine tribute to Milton Friedman. He documents how the country and world have changed due to Friedman’s courage and steadfastness in challenging the climate of opinion of the 1930’s and 1940’s:

Friedman’s four major successes were ending the military draft, floating the dollar and other currencies, removing interest-rate ceilings on bank deposits, and auctioning government debt. Each of these examples shows that a market solution is rarely the first choice of governments. Free-market solutions have a greater chance of success if officials gradually become familiar with the proposal and come to believe it can work.

And how it will continue to change:

In Free to Choose the Friedmans proposed to phase out Old Age and Survivors’ Insurance. They would honor existing obligations, repeal the payroll tax, and rely on voluntary decisions about savings and pensions. The United States has so far rejected every move to permit choice in the government pension program, but other countries have changed their programs in the direction the Friedmans advocated: Chile is a well-known example. Even Russia now relies heavily on private decisions after providing a public minimum. As the present generation of young workers moves toward retirement and recognizes the very low return they will receive on their public pensions, pressure for change will likely increase.
Milton devoted a large part of his later years to urging education vouchers that would permit students or their parents to choose a preferred school. Despite strong opposition–especially from teachers unions–school choice has expanded. The charter-school movement is a widely adopted example of choice. It is not the Friedmans’ proposal, but it is a move in their direction.
Welfare reform has emphasized work and choice in place of welfare. The present system is not what the Friedmans proposed. They preferred a negative income tax–a cash payment to the poor that would replace all other programs. The closest we have come is the earned income tax credit that supplements incomes for the working poor. Welfare reform and the earned income tax credit reflect the Friedmans’ influence and their emphasis on personal incentives and individual choice in place of bureaucratic regulation.

Check it out.

I’ve never been very good at math so help me out on this one. The Rail Runner’s website says that its 200,000 rider was celebrated on October 13. The Rail Runner has run on weekdays since July 14 (except for Labor day). That means it took 64 days of train rides before the 200 thousandth rider was celebrated (by counting all the weekdays from July 14 until October 13). Are you with me so far?
This article in the Albuquerque Journal quotes Lawrence Rael as saying that during the 3 and one-half month free trial period the Rail Runner was averaging 1500 riders per day. By counting all the weekdays until November 1 (when the free rides ended), we get 75 weekdays of free rides. But if I multiply the number of days (75) by Raels 1500 riders per day average I only get 112,500 riders during the entire free ride period. So here’s the puzzle: how can the Rail Runner celebrate it 200,000th rider on October 13 when only 112,500 riders had taken the train through October 31?
Here’s another one for extra credit: How can the Rail Runner be averaging only 1500 riders per day during the free ride period when 200,000 riders had taken the train by October 13? By my calculation that is 3,125 riders per day (200,000 divided by 64 days). Where have I gone wrong?
I wonder if this math puzzle arises from a later statement by Rael that ridership is now down to 800 to 1200 riders per day. It doesn’t look so bad if ridership goes from 15 hundred down to 8 to 12 hunderd per day. But how does it feel to explain a decrease that goes from over 3,100 down to 8 to 12 hundred per day? Doesn’t that look like ridership is down some 62 to 74 percent!? Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks to Silvio Dell’Angela for rallying the public in opposition to the streetcar nonsense.