Tag Archives: regulations

I’ll Be Home for the Holidays… If I Can Afford It

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

View Flying into Michigan

I love being home for Christmas, and am overjoyed at a chance to be at the Mackinac Center during break. The great, snowy state of Michigan is clearly a fitting place to spend the holidays, but if you need to fly in like I did, you may end up asking, “Can I afford it?”

Though prices often depend on when a passenger buys their tickets, statistics show that the average domestic airfare has gone up from $319 in the highest quarter of 2009 to $355 at the start of 2011. This is not surprising as most airlines are basically bankrupt and need a profit for survival. One of the most commonly cited reasons for this is the volatile price of oil, which comprises nearly 35% of operating costs. Within two years it went from $39 a barrel to $100. Mix that with the bad economy causing fewer people to fly, and most observers could assume they knew the reason for the increases.

Though these factors undoubtedly play big roles, there are additional reasons for air travel problems. For instance, American Airlines recently filed for bankruptcy citing union contracts that cost them$800 million a year more in labor costs than their competitors. The Transport Workers Union (TWU) made their own statement after, fearing that workers would lose their contracts and that airplanes would be less safe. Though workers may be asked to take cuts, this is financially preferable to the company dying altogether. As for safety, any airline which wants to stay afloat will take adequate measures to ensure customer satisfaction, safe service and good publicity without union urging.

Regulations also affect ticket costs. Early on, the prices for commercial flights were high, but in 1978 there was a massive deregulation. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, it removed government control over fares and lowered ticket prices by almost 40%. It also allowed for the entry of new, cheaper airlines into the market alongside the luxury carriers. Today, the Department of Transportation recently passed new regulations, requiring airlines to reimburse passengers for lost bags, give greater compensation to those bumped from flights and fine any plane which waits on the tarmac for more than three hours. These may be good ideas, but wouldn’t an airline which was seeking to be competitive already try to do these things? If an airline loses my bags I am not going to fly with them again, and they have the price of my future tickets to lose, not just the bag reimbursement. In fact, according to Joshua Mitchell of the Wall Street Journal, the regulations may make things worse, as airlines are three times more likely to cancel flights than wait out the time a little longer on the tarmac. If the fine is applied, the proceeds don’t even go to the passengers, thay go straight to the Department of Transportation.

Environmental regulations are another nightmare for both airlines and passengers. A NCPPR study shows that they contribute significantly to cancellations and delays by inhibiting construction of needed runways. Despite a 25% increase in departures since the 90s, only six new runways were added at major hub airports. A runway which should take two years to build can take ten or more, as airport authorities must obtain a number of permits under federal and state laws regarding environmental concerns. These permits are often further delayed by lawsuits from groups opposed to new construction.

Perhaps the key to enjoying cheaper flights and a more stable airplane industry is just to trust the free market. Freedom – that is what I want to find in my stocking and in my state. Happy Holidays from the Mackinac Center’s interns!

Treed?

Posted on by cjarrettdieterle
2

Imagine a young couple moving to the Midwest to escape the grime of New York City. Newly married and seeking open space, they buy a 5 acre wooded lot in a Michigan township. These do-it-yourselfers clear just enough space for a building site, as well as a solar field to power their house. Eventually, they hope to recycle the large oak trees they reluctantly cut as building material for their new home.

This scene appears idyllic; in reality, it’s illegal. Guilty of a municipal civil infraction, the newlyweds are subject to a fine. Like many other Michigan municipalities, their township – say, Bloomfield Township – has a Tree Preservation Ordinance, and large oaks are “landmark” trees.

The newlyweds stop by to caution you with their tale of woe after you close on a lot adjacent to their property. Ever confident and self-reliant, you laugh it off. You are too intelligent to be ignorant of the law! Why, you will simply follow the rules from the beginning and be just fine, thank you. Like any responsible citizen, you download the township’s zoning ordinance and flip to section 42-5.14: Tree Preservation.

First, you learn that if you build a new house or simply want to remove a significant number of trees, a “tree permit” will be necessary. No problem: You’ll just submit the application form, pay the permit fee and then wait for your request to be “approved or rejected” by the “Planning, Building and Ordinance Department.”

That wasn’t so bad, you think to yourself. But hold up there, young fellow! If you intend on removing any “protected” trees, you will be responsible for replacing them “at a rate of fifty percent of the total DBH removed.” DBH, of course, is shorthand for diameter-at-breast-height. Watch out! Do not get “protected” trees confused with “landmark” trees. A landmark tree requires a replacement rate of 100 percent of the total DBH removed, instead of 50 percent.

Unsure what constitutes a “protected tree”? Just consult this convenient scoring chart:

It’s easy! Protected trees score 10 or higher, while any tree nine and under “could be” non-protected. Luckily, a professional Arborist conducts a “tree survey” to determine such things as whether the “twig elongation” growth rates are six inches or seven.

Landmark trees, on the other hand, include 32 species (of varying DBHs) listed in the township zoning ordinance’s “definition” section (separate from the tree ordinance section). Remember: all landmark trees are protected, but not all protected trees are landmarks!

Oh, and when you go about replacing a protected or landmark tree, be sure that the replacement tree you purchase meets the five standards set forth in the ordinance by the American Association of Nurserymen. And your new tree certainly cannot be located within 4 feet of a property line or 10 feet of a power line.

The township may choose to waive the tree replacement requirement if “it is not reasonable, practical and desirable to relocate or replace trees on site or at another approved location.” Of course, if this happens, you may be required to pay “an amount of money equal to the value of the replacement trees” to the township’s Woodland Trust Fund instead.

When you finally start building your new home, you had better get out the posthole digger, because you’ll need to put protective fencing around any tree in the construction area. Be sure to place the fencing five feet outside the tree’s “drip line” (consult the ordinance’s helpful graphics below!); make certain that your stakes are a maximum of 10 feet apart; and confirm that your fencing material is at least 48 inches high. Hopefully, your tree-fence is sturdy, because it’s going to remain in place “until such time removal is authorized by the Township.”

Congratulations! After several weeks, you have successfully obtained your permit and arranged for the safe replacement of the protected trees! Unlike the newlyweds, you were a good citizen and worked hard to follow the law.

But wait! Upon further review, it appears you forgot to “conspicuously display” the tree permit near your building site. Thus, a township representative was unable to inspect the property. This places you in violation of the tree ordinance and guilty of a civil infraction.

Maybe the newlyweds weren’t so stupid after all. Upon paying the fine, they decided to hire a contractor to clear the land and handle the ordinances. For the same price, you too can enjoy your inalienable rights to Life, Landmark Trees, and the pursuit of Ordinance Compliance.

Who Is John Galt?

Posted on by sjcammenga
Reply

After recently finishing Atlas Shrugged for the first time I could finally answer this question for myself. Perhaps stemming from the state of the economy, Atlas Shrugged has become wildly popular; after selling 200 thousand copies in 2008 it sold half a million in 2009. Although I beg to differ from much of Rand’s objectivist philosophy of life, where economics and politics are concerned I found she had some terrific insights which are applicable today.

John Galt is the man who felt no debt to society and took care of himself, not asking for handouts from anyone nor giving any. When the government demanded he give his mind and money for others who did not work for it, he went on strike and took the other movers of his world with him. With them gone, the nation went to pieces as the government watched each regulation they made cause more damage than the one before.

In our day as well, where there is a crisis more government control seems to appear. The increased regulations and restrictions on production cause more problems which the government again steps in to fix. What could help the people is the exact opposite, freedom to spend their own money and produce at their maximum capacity without restrictions.

An intriguing, though very time consuming read, the length gives you the time to digest how each directive affects jobs and production and how the businesses relate to one another. Competition is welcomed and there is no place for the government’s force – only for the justice of receiving what one has earned. Though this does let some have more than others, it harkens back to the old quote “free people are not equal and equal people are not free.”

Michigan Unemployment Decreases

Posted on by clint7981
1

The unemployment figures for the month of May recently decreased throughout Michigan from 14% to 13.6%. The administration and michigan legislators are pointing to these numbes as proof that intense government action, in the form of stimuli and bailouts, actually improves our standards of living. But nothing could be further from the truth and it is insulting to the intelligence of every Michigander.

The truth is that the numbers are decreasing despite the harmful actions of both the federal and state government, thus illustrating the force of markets and government’s inability to contain them.

If lawmakers both state-wide and federal want to have a more significant impact in encouraging a speedy recovery they would abandon their activist efforts and embrace free market solutions, namely lower taxes, less regulations, and more economic freedom.

The Bossy City?

Posted on by hkmead
3

-Hannah Mead, MCPP intern, 2008

In a study of the 35 most populous U.S. cities, Reason Magazine reports, “Chicago wins the booby prize for most meddlesome metropolis by a wide margin.” Citing such regulations as bans on guns, smoking and DWOTP (driving while on the phone), Reason supports their hypothesis.

A group of us head off to Chicago later this week for Students for a Free Economy‘s second annual celebration of Milton Friedman’s birthday. I was surprised when people of all stripes started warning me that I can’t smoke in Chicago. I have no interest in smoking and, while I on principle oppose such regulations, I don’t deny I enjoy smoke-free air. (When I moved from Seattle to the Midwest it was such a throwback to hear “smoking or non?” — I hadn’t heard that since I was a small child.)

Howsomever, we nonsmokers have to realize the “first they came for the Jews” nature of these regulations. In a Chicago Tribune piece Mary Schmich argues, “Big cities are like big families—put a lot of people into a small space and somebody has to be charged with the power to say ‘Stop it.’” She [sarcastically?] lists activities that she would like banned because they bother her, such as barbequing with lighter fluid and running air conditioners during the day. For their own safety, she would like to see bicyclists barred from wearing headphones.

Whether she was kidding or not, Ms. Schmich paints a picture of what Reason calls “moral prudery and public health fanaticism” taken to the extreme. Once regulation gets started, there’s no way to stop it. If people can’t drive while talking on a cell phone, why should they be allowed to drive with the radio on? If the city needs surveillance cameras downtown, why shouldn’t they be able to put them inside private establishments? If smoking is banned, why should people be able to eat unhealthy foods? — oh wait, they’re not (Los Angeles, New York City).

So say goodbye to others’ freedoms, and say goodbye to your own. You may think you know better how to run others’ lives, but how many people do you think could run your own life better than you? That’s what I thought.

(Josh discussed the issue of smoking bans in a previous post.)