It is important for opponents of eminent domain to attend the meeting this Thursday of the Governor’s Eminent Domain Task Force. This will be the only opportunity that the public will get to express their opposition to eminent domain abuse.
Pertinent information is as follows: The meeting will be held at 4:00 PM on September 28th (this Thursday) at the Village Hall in Los Ranchos de Albuquerque. The Village Hall is located at 6718 Rio Grande Blvd. NW.
The purpose of the meeting is to allow members of the public to provide comments and suggestions to the Task Force. The Task Force was convened by Governor Bill Richardson following the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, to study the adequacy of New Mexico’s eminent domain laws and determine whether there is currently sufficient legislative protection to prevent the abusive use of eminent domain for economic development purposes.
If you are unable to attend the open meeting, please send comments to the Task Force via mail, fax, or the Governor’s website as follows:
Mail: Governor Bill Richardson
Attn: Task Force on the Responsible Use of Eminent Domain
State Capitol Building, Suite 400
Santa Fe , NM 87501
Fax: (505) 476-2207
Website: http://www.governor.state.nm.us (click on contact the Governor)
Questions concerning the Task Force can be directed to the Governor’s Office at 476-2200.

Despite the fact that I live nowhere near a Rail Runner station and have no real need to ride the thing, I decided to take a ride on the train this morning to see how ridership is holding up. As you may know, the train is still “free,” at least in the sense that it costs nothing to get on, but that will change in mid-October.
Anyway, I took the train from Journal Center northbound at 7:46am and found that the crowds have thinned out considerably as compared to what I’d read in early news reports about the throngs of people aboard. Despite the fact that there were only two cars on the train, I had my own row and there were less than 25 passengers on my car.
When I got off at the 550/Sandoval station, a handful (less than 5) people got off who looked like they were going to work. Most of the rest of the people seemed to be waiting either on or near the train for the trip south. Clearly, 2 months in, a large percentage of the train’s passengers are joyriders.
On the way back south on the 8:20am train, I switched cars and counted 10 passengers on board. When I got back off at the Journal Center station, there were between 10 and 15 people getting on to go downtown, but by no means was the train going to be crowded.
Another sign of the Rail Runner’s declining popularity was abundant parking — the lots at 550/Sandoval and Journal Center were at most half full.
So, what does this all mean? Just that before millions of additional taxpayer dollars are spent on laying Rail Runner track to Santa Fe, perhaps we should more honestly assess whether these trains more resemble shiny new toys that will actually harm our overall transportation network or whether they are in fact serious efforts to better move people from place to place.

I just loved this little blurb from Grace-Marie Turner at the Galen Institute: Wal-Mart announced yesterday that it will soon offer a 30-day supply of nearly 300 generic medicines for just $4 each. Target quickly followed, and surely Walgreens and others will be close behind. Who says that competition doesn’t work?
Wal-Mart’s program is starting in Tampa Bay and will include the entire state of Florida by January, then spread to stores around the country.
Not to be outdone, Target announced it is matching Wal-Mart’s prices in Tampa Bay first, with other stores to follow. Three cheers for Wal-Mart for getting this started!
Generics already are cheaper in the U.S. than in Canada, so how long do you think it will be before we have Canadians coming to the U.S. to get their prescriptions filled here?

There is a lot of talk about the 2005 Energy Bill that passed Congress and the campaign ads in which Patty Madrid criticized Heather Wilson for voting for a bill that contained $2.6 billion in subsidies for the oil industry. Wilson defenders have hit back saying that the Energy Bill was “good for New Mexico” and that all five members of the New Mexico delegation voted for the bill.
So, what is the real story? Well, Dr. Harry Messenheimer recently cut through a little of the confusion by putting “a pox on both houses” by criticizing both politicians for their disinformation about gas prices and the energy industry in general. But, there is even more meat on this bone.
First and foremost, yes, there were very real subsidies in the Energy Bill. In fact, the Energy Bill was far more costly than the $2.2 billion received by the oil industry. The real cost of the Energy Bill is closer to $74 billion. Unfortunately for Madrid, much of that money was spent on nuclear energy, “clean coal,” and the development of “next generation” energy sources.
Is this good for New Mexico? After all, New Mexico is a big producer of energy. Any economist worth his or her salt would say “no, let the market decide.” First and foremost, people need energy from all sources, the only thing subsidies do is alter which form of energy is used and artificially raise or lower demand. Unless the bill specifically encouraged use of energy sources from New Mexico at the expense of other sources of energy, there is no net benefit to the state.
Unfortunately, in New Mexico, the concept of a “free market” might be as rare as a saguaro cactus sighting is within our borders.

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez is acting as if the city itself won the latest lottery jackpot. A week ago he introduced plans for a new, taxpayer-backed downtown sports arena, now he is pushing his latest big-budget idea, a so-called “modern streetcar” running along Central Avenue from Old Town to Nob Hill and from Central Avenue to the Sunport.” (I urge you to check the previous link to the schedule of “town hall” meetings the Mayor is holding on this project and to attend and speak your mind as I will)
Never mind that the cost for this system would be $240 million (split evenly betwen the city and the state) and that although the Mayor has repeatedly called the system “modern streetcar,” it is really just a light rail system that brings all the costs and problems of light rail (cost overruns, slowness of service, and clogged streets among the prominent issues).
Beyond all of the problems associated with light rail is the question that must be asked, “Why do we need light rail running down Central Avenue when the Rapid Ride serves the same purpuse at a much lower cost?” Instead of blowing $240 million on a shiny new toy, Mayor Marty should consider ways to expand bus service to serve more people at a far lower cost, or he should do nothing and let taxpayers keep some of their hard-earned money for a change.

The results are in and it appears that you can fool some of the people all of the time, or at least 58 percent of them anyway. Now, we turn our attention to the so-called quality of life tax increase that will face voters in November.
For more on the deluge of tax hikes that are falling on taxpayers in Bernalillo County and Albuquerque like the monsoon rains did earlier this year, check out this recent missive from the Rio Grande Foundation on the web-magazine The Citizen. By the way, if you are a close follower of the news, especially what happens here in New Mexico, but the Tribune and Journal leave you feeling less-than-fully-informed, I highly recommend bookmarking The Citizen.

Before heading off to the polls, it’s always wise to take a look at the sample ballot, you know, so you don’t end up accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan. Preparing for tomorrow’s APS special election, we find, in English and Spanish:

“Shall the Albuquerque Public School District issue $351,000,000 of general obligation bonds to erect, remodel, make additions to and furnish; school buildings within the district, to purchase or improve school grounds, to purchase computer software and hardware for student use in public schools, and to provide matching funds for capital outlay projects funded pursuant to the Public School Capital Outlay Act?”

This language was erected by someone clearly interested in the bond measure’s passge–plenty of detail of all the good things that will be done for the children, but nary a word on who is going to pay or how much. Who will own this ‘obligation’? How will this obligation be repaid?
Expand on the benefits, obfuscate the costs, and any deal sounds sweeter. The ballot measure should state in plain terms that passage would raise property tax rates by 5.6%, forcing the owner of a $100,000 house to pay an additional $71.32 per year in taxes.
Given that APS only graduates 52.8% of the students who enter its schools, and of those who enroll at New Mexico’s institutions of higher learning, 44.1% need remedial classes, it seems unlikely that APS is adequately preparing its students to face this kind of decision as educated adults.
But this is no surprise coming from a school district better known for its conflicts of interest, for paying huge settlements to administrators with substance abuse problems, and for blaming failing schools on the ‘diversity’ of its own students, than for any success in actually educating.
$351 million that actually improves the education received by APS students might very well be worth the increase in property taxes. But what worth is $351 million in the hands of Albuquerque Public Schools? $351 million dollars breaks out to about $3884.29 for each and every one of APS’s 90,364 students, most of the average private school tuition in this country.
If you were going to spend $3884.29 on your child’s education, would you make out the check to APS?

It really shouldn’t be such a radical, nor should it be such an uphill push in Congress, but it is good to see the Albuquerque Journal throwing its considerable weight behind more transparency in government.
Speaking of “transparency,” although I can’t say for sure whether the Republican Party’s lawsuit on biased location of early voting stations has merit, it seems pretty obvious that locating an early polling station in the Albuquerque Public Schools headquarters for the September 19 school tax hike is a transparently political move. I’m not sure how this problem can be solved, but ways to improve neutrality in voting sites should be considered.

As Election Day rapidly approaches, it appears that Congress may be on the verge of accomplishing something positive for taxpayers for a change. Although it took a massive coalition of groups from across the political spectrum and endless pressure from the blogging community, we are one step away from slightly greater transparency in government and exposing all those earmarks that Congress is so addicted to.

What a concept! Take a government monopoly — in this case I’m talking about America’s taxpayer-funded national passenger railroad known as Amtrak — and allocate a portion of the money appropriated to you by Congress every year to fund a group to lobby for more funds for you. These practices are not entirely uncommon in the federal government, but at least there is usually a middleman, say the public employee unions, that does the lobbying. In this case there is no pretext, Amtrak simply gives the National Associtation of Railroad Passengers — one of Amtrak’s most dedicated backers — money to lobby on its behalf, theoretically as a citizen-backed organization.

Now that Rio Rancho is set to open its arena in a matter of weeks, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chávez has a serious case of arena-envy. Chávez has threatened eminent domain for a project that wouldn’t have a single permanent tenant lined up. Of course, eminent domain isn’t the only potential problem with the proposed arena, taxpayers would also be on the hook as an insurance policy on debt repayment. This may have been something of a gamble when a similar agreement was made, but with a competing arena located in Rio Rancho, not to mention The Pit, I can only imagine how poorly the taxpayers will fare under such an arrangement. Here’s hoping Mayor Marty comes to his senses!

Interesting commentary by Professor Roberts on suddenly understanding reality in Chicago.

The Cato Institute has just released its 10th annual report on Economic Freedom. Whether it be big limitations or small limitations New Mexico continues to remain unaware of the benefits of economic freedom. For example, here is an excerpt from the press release:

“Economic freedom is unambiguously good for the poor, not just in terms of incomes, but also in terms of the whole range of development indicators such as longevity, access to clean water, or the extent of child labor,” states Ian Vásquez, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Global Economic Liberty.

Check it out.
Update: Professor Boudreaux comments on the link between freedom and prosperity.

New Mexico is one of five states which license the phrases “Interior Design,” “Interior Designer,” and “Designer.” Anyone can practice interior design in New Mexico, licensed or not, but you need the state’s permission to in any way indicate that you do such work. The law clearly isn’t designed to protect consumers, since anyone can offer such services regardless of professional training and experience. Instead, the law is designed to protect a small cartel of state-favored businesses against competition.
Government-approved businesses have the privilege of paying the state an initial $300 plus $250 per year in fees to “license” the above terms and buy protection from competitors. We’ve even got a “New Mexico Board of Interior Design” to manage the program–if there was ever a useless bureaucrat jobs program, this is it.
The Institute for Justice has taken up the case of two New Mexico “interior designers” who are suing the state on first amendment grounds. The IJ has a good report on Interior Design licensing here.
In the meantime, the members of the New Mexico Interior Design Cartel can be identified, even avoided if so desired. There are plenty of other talented and experienced “Designers” out there, but good luck finding them in the Yellow Pages.
Hat tip: Coyote Blog

I took my first-ever trip on the new Rail Runner commuter train this weekend to and from the New Mexico Wine Festival and thought I’d offer a few thoughts on the train. First and foremost, I got on at the Paseo/Los Ranchos station for the first train of the day. The train was jammed to the gills and it wasn’t just standing room, but sardine-like conditions. The train cars are nice and the air conditioning was cranked up so conditions weren’t too bad. On the way back on the 3:05 train, there were fewer people although it was still standing room only.
Obviously, the price for a ticket is still “0” and most economists will tell you that there is a nearly unlimited demand for anything that is “free.” Curiously enough, this very same dynamic was at work inside the wine festival as well where the lines for a “free” sip of wine were upwards of 10 minutes long. I did notice that, while large numbers of passengers did take the train to the wine festival, equally large numbers (at least on the first train of the day) appeared to be joy-riding. After all, I saw many of the people that had just gotten off the train at Bernalillo, get back on the train right away.
While the train may prove popular even after the “reduced fare” of $2 per trip (as opposed to free) is instituted on October 14, the most important number is the estimated $320 million cost to taxpayers. Even if you don’t believe as I do that the $320 million would be best given back to the taxpayers of New Mexico in the form of tax cuts, it is hard to believe that other legitimate needs would not be better served than a train, the tickets for which, are priced far below market prices.

A recent story about Trilby Lundberg, the nation’s guru of gasoline prices, is a must-read for politicians and those who think that high gas prices are the result of some kind of conspiracy. Ms. Lunberg publishes a twice-monthly newsletter that analyzes gas prices nationwide. While Ms. Lunberg, as far as I can tell, hasn’t got a political bone in her body, she does have a few opinions about the possibility for oil companies to manipulate prices on a grand scale. Of price gouging she says, “It would be a comedy because it is impossible” and “oil companies have no interest in helping each other and instead want to increase their sales at the expense of the competition.” She goes on to say, “They all have no mercy.”
So, while some on the left criticize oil companies and business in general for being “greedy” and “merciless,” it is these very traits that prevent businesses from colluding. Ask Trilby Lundberg, the “guru of gas prices!”

One of New Mexico’s few groups of educational innovators came under attack recently when the National Center for Education Statistics released a study that argued, in part, that students in charter shools lagged behind their peers in regular public schools. Unfortunately, as is so often the case when the results of studies fail to make common sense, the analysis used government data that failed to fully account for the socio-economic differences between charter school and public school students.
The charter school concept is a compromise between those who would like to see significant educational reform that goes far beyond the limits presented by the public schoos and those who grudgingly view some forms of school choice as essential tools for improving existing public schools. It is, nonetheless, hard to believe the results of a study that finds students doing worse at schools that are targeted to their needs and interests than similar students who remain in traditional public schools where socialist-style mass production is the name of the game.

According to the August 17 article, about 4.1 percent of New Mexicans moved here from another state within the last year. This puts New Mexico at No. 9 in the nation for the percentage of its residents who had moved from another state within the previous year.
Although New Mexico’s increased popularity is a good sign, it is hard to tell whether the state is actually becoming a more attractive place to live or whether greater numbers of native New Mexicans are leaving the state for greener pastures. The Rio Grande Foundation recently studied the issue and found that at least historically-speaking New Mexico has tended to lose population to other states as a result of poor tax policies.

While Richardson bashes Wal-Mart for offering “substandard” wages and health care benefits, millions have been lifted out of poverty by Wal-Mart, in China, other developing nations, even in the US. Why would Richardson want to prevent New Mexicans from obtaining this kind of benefit? Would we not see similar effects on standard of living here in New Mexico, with low prices stretching the dollar further and decent wages for those who choose to work at a local branch?

The Rio Grande Foundation and others knowledgeable of the uses and abuses of eminent domain recently presented before Governor Richardson’s eminent domain task force. Aside from presenting a variety of information relating to eminent domain laws in other states and how New Mexico property owners could best be protected, the experts all criticized Rio Rancho’s recent uses of eminent domain.

In the last few weeks, dueling economic surveys have been published outlining the economic imact of Santa Fe’s minimum wage law. One study by the New Mexico Department of Labor found that “Santa Fe County added only 300 jobs between June 2005 and June 2006, the lowest rate of job growth in almost four years,” most likely due to Santa Fe’s dramatically-higher minimum wage.
Yet, just a week prior to the release of the Department of Labor study, the UNM Bureau of Business & Economic Research had found that for a different time period than was studied by the Department of Labor, “Santa Fe’s minimum-wage ordinance hasn’t affected overall employment levels in the city.”
So, who do you believe? For a trained economist, the answer is obvious: to the degree that a minimum wage is actually effective in the sense that it will raise wages, people at the lowest ends of the economic ladder will lose jobs, businesses will rely on automation, or labor-intensive businesses will move elsewhere. If the wage rate is low enough that it has no reall economic impact on wages, then the economic impact will be minimal.
It seems obvious that as Santa Fe’s wage rate continues to rise, hitting $10.50 an hour in 2008, the impact on Santa Fe’s economy will become more pronounced and job growth will slow. Rather than jumping on the minimum wage bandwagon with Santa Fe, the rest of the state should wait to see how things play out there.

Check out the current probablilities here. Note that these probabilities are derived from the behavior of real traders exchanging real money in a political market. If you think you have better information, then you can profit from your knowledge.

Here is an idea for you taxpayers who are tired of getting ripped off by the Guv’s wasteful use of your money for “commuter rail.” You could rendezvous at the Wheels Museum.
HT: Coyote Blog
Update 8/20/06
This morning Albuquerque Road Runners did their annual Lamy Run alongside the tracks from Eldorado to the Lamy Train Station. This is likely to be a future route for the train to nowhere. And look what we saw south of the tracks!

Our Guv is among the Democratic presidential hopefuls jumping on the bash Wal-Mart strategy. The strategy could backfire. After all, Wal-Mart can be expected to defend itself. Here is Daniel Drezner’s enlightening political and economic commentary on that strategy.
On Wal-Mart defending itself (as quoted from Financial Times): “First, it has attacked its critics – arguing that it is the victim of an unholy alliance between Democrat lawmakers and the unions they rely on to deliver votes and campaign financing. Second, it is seeking to make the argument that the company is good for America.”
On how economists view the matter: “they [the Dems] think Wal-Mart’s greatest impact is as an employer. Most (thought not all) economists, I suspect, see Wal-Mart’s greatest impact as lowering the costs of consumption for Americans who frequent their stores — including the middle class.”
HT: Michael Munger
Update: BTW have you ever noticed that Wal-Mart employees voluntarily work for Wal-Mart rather than someone else? If employment at Wal-Mart is so bad, then why don’t they make different decisions?