Let's jail owners of abandon property

If it has never happen to you and your neighbors, imagine for a moment.  You have a great house in what you thought was a good neighborhood.  Then, the owners of two houses on the block stop making repairs to their homes.  Maybe there were rental properties that went vacant because of the leaky roof or the electrical problems that haven’t been repaired.  Brush piles up, the pool in the back yard fills with swampy water creating a hazard for kids in the area, not to mention the mosquitoes.

After many violation tickets and years of issues, the property still doesn’t get fixed. 

According to a study by the University of Michigan, in Flint and other areas around the state, the value of a home in a neighborhood drops by 10% for every blighted house.  Not just on your block, but in a two block radius. 

A law proposed by Senator Virgil Smith that is getting some attention in Lansing would help with that problem.  Property owners that don’t care of their property could be jailed for a second offense.  It could be a year in the slammer for a third offense.   It would also speed up the process of placing liens on properties and prevent land owners with liens of obtaining building permits on other property.

People have the right to own property.  But, with any right, there comes responsibility.  When any right is exercised, as in purchasing property, the responsibility takes effect.  Property owners that don’t take care of their property, endanger the safety of people in the community and have a detrimental effect on the value of other property need to eventually lose their right to own property. 

This is a bigger problem than someone losing their job and not being able to take care of their property.  There are solutions to issues like that.  This issue is focused on properties owners that own multi properties and are abusing their right.  This is focused on banks that take over foreclosed property and don’t maintain them.

These bills in Lansing need the support of the community.  If we are to maintain our living environment, everyone needs to live up to their responsibility.  If not, they lose their rights. 
-----

Occupy needs to go home and vote

The protesters in Chicago will be leaving town soon because the NATO summit is over.  The protesters will plan their next campaign, perhaps an Occupy somewhere, maybe a protest in a city that hosts another national or international summit or conference.  The end result will be the same as before they took to the streets, nobody took much notice beyond the inconvenience they caused to the residents that just wanted to get back and forth to work.

That is unless they make some changes.

The Tea Party did the same thing a few years ago.  Remember the protests at the health care public comment meetings.  They were yelling and screaming at elected officials that voted for the law.  Images of angry people with veins bulging in their necks flashed on the front pages of newspapers around the country.  Two years later instead of continuing to yell and scream they are having a real effect on the outcome of elections.

What is the Tea party doing that is so different then what Occupy and other protest groups on the other extreme doing?  They organized, stayed local and motivated their base.  The establishment noticed because the Tea party people and their supporters showed up to vote.

Individuals and groups can have the very deepest and sincere passions about making changes, but unless they channel the passion, it will go unnoticed by elected officials.  People that are elected to office pay close attention to those that got them elected.  It may be the money people that provided the funds to run an expensive campaign.  It may be the unions that provide a natural organization to motivate.  Or, as we as seeing now, it is the Tea Party that is getting their supporters to the polls.

A politician told me a long time ago about his strategy for keeping his seat in the house.  By his telephone, he kept a voter registration list.  When someone called to make a comment about something, while politely listening he looked for their name on the list.  If it wasn’t there, he got off the phone as soon as he could and moved on.  If the name was there, he made sure he followed up on the issue.

As a community organizer for many years, I paid close attention to those that supported the positions I worked for and that were registered voters.  At the beginning of conversations about the issues I tried to find out the last time they voted and how they stood on the issues.  If they didn’t vote, I moved on to spend my time finding people that did vote.

It matters little that some may think that the system is rigged to help the incumbents.  You can design the very best representative government and somewhere along the process, someone has to vote to support an issue or a candidate.  The issue or the candidate will fail if there aren’t enough votes.  As the old expression goes, victory goes to those that show up.

Much of what Occupy and other groups say would be good for the community.  Any responsible community should support their positions because they will make improvements that are needed.  But, unless they go home and vote after the protesting is done, nothing will change.
-----

Domestic violence needs to be stopped

From a distance it can be difficult to understand what the current status is of a bill working its way through congress.  It can also be difficult to have a good understanding of the provisions of a bill and its impact on the issue.  Compromise, research, lobbying, the Constitution and many other things can all play a part in the final outcome.  What you can do is define the overriding issue and ask that the legislation address the issue in a clear way that is fair to all parties.

The Violence against Women Act is up for renewal, as it is every two years.  The Senate expanded the definition of those that could qualify for assistance to adjust to the change in domestic living arrangements in American society.  The House version doesn’t adjust and maintains the status quo.    

The Senate’s expansion in coverage recognizes that there are more same sex domestic partners in America.  It has been discovered that they are beginning to experience the same kind of problems that duel sex families face.  One of the members in the family can be an abuser and make life a living hell for the other.  The abused in same sex relationships can be just as trapped as others.  The Senate bill would allow the abused, no matter the legal relationship as long as they are domestic partners, to receive support to get out of the relationship while receiving protection from the abuser.  The House bill, as written at this moment, would not recognize the domestic arrangement.  The victim in same sex relationships would not be afforded assistance or protection.

There is a lot of pressure on the House Republicans, the party that is responsible for the wording of the current house bill, to change their opinion and broaden the definition of domestic relationships.  Let’s hope they recognize the importance of an inclusive bill before it gets to the house floor for a vote.

Think for a moment, if two people are being assaulted on the street, the cops that come to stop the violence don’t first ask the gender preference of the victims to know which one to help.  The cops stop the assault on both, arrest the abusers and protect the victims from further violence.  But, in domestic violence, the cops ask the gender preference, they then only help the straight victim while allowing the assault to continue on the gay victim.  Why is it different if it is a domestic relationship when both are of the same sex?  This is a relatively possible outcome of the law.  The victim from the duel sex marriage receives financial support to get out of the household, has protection provide by law enforcement and the local community has help in prosecuting the abuser.  None of that help is available to the same sex victim.  The current House bill would only help one kind of person, apparently the kind the House Republicans like, and not the other kind of person, apparently the kind the House Republicans don’t like.

People are people and deserve the community’s help regardless of their living arrangements.  House Republicans need to change their position on the current legislation and provide support to all domestic partners, not just those that are married.
-----

Gay marriage and dire predictions

Barack Obama has become the first President of the United States that supports gay marriage.  In an interview broadcast on the Today show, President Obama said he personally supports same sex marriage.  It ends a long weekend of speculation after Vice-President Biden said he was comfortable with it.  It also ends a long period of time when the President said he was conflicted about the issue.

There are now statements claiming that America is falling off a cliff and moving quickly down the road of moral degradation.  Similar claims were made when Abraham Lincoln ended slavery.  When Woodrow Wilson came out in support of giving the right to vote to women, more dire prediction where made.  In 1968 when the Supreme Court struck down keeping the races from marriage, it was said to be the end of civilization as we knew it.  But, the world didn’t end and debate soon dried up because of the terrible logic of those supporting the status quo. 

Now the national debate can happen again.  People will have to make choices about perhaps one the nation’s last codified discrimination policies.  There are two arguments over the last couple of days that have come to front and center on the issue. 

First, it is a moral issue.  Many religions think of marriage as only between a man and a woman.  The push to get amendments written into states’ constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on moralists trying to use a community’s laws to up hold their own moral code.  This is not the purpose of law or community.  The purpose of any community is shared responsibility and to build a safe environment.  Communities should address issues that prevent activity that endangers the safety of an individual.  If the community has no compelling reason other than morality to prevent an activity, then it should not be prevented.  Marriage equity doesn’t harm anyone, so it should not be prevented. 

The other is a more fundamental reason for the fear and loathing about same sex marriage, children.  While not often talked about because of its stealth nature, it is now beginning to rise to the surface.  After Obama’s statement, religious leaders on TV talk shows mentioned the issue to grab the fear of people that are undecided about the issue.  Moralists are concerned that by allowing same sex marriage, the couple will adopt children and advance the “gay cause” by increasing the amount of gay people.  They believe that by a gay couple living the lifestyle it will teach others how to be gay.  Besides the fact that there is no evidence that being gay is a choice, children will not be harmed.  They will find themselves in a situation just like their friends that have duel sex marriage.  That as long as the children know they are loved, they are safe and they are expected to succeed, they will be just fine. 

On a final point, how can the community prevent something that is legal (and doesn’t harm anyone as mentioned above)?  If it were illegal to participate in a same sex relationship, it might be argued that same sex marriage should be illegal.  A ruling by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas judged that laws prohibiting sex between consenting same sex couples is in violation of the Fourteenth amendment.  So, it is not illegal activity.

The President did the right thing to come out in support of gay marriage.  Like all the other times that we have broken with tradition, when we move pass this storm, we will find that no great harm will come to past. 

Our country is enjoying a little bit more freedom today.  Let’s allow it to grow. 
-----

The protection of the Constitution applies to all that live by it

An immigration case out of Chicago, Chaidez v USA (1), makes us question who shall receive the benefits of Constitutional justice and how the community should respond when justice isn’t applied.

The case is about a woman from Chicago, Roselva Chaidez, who was born in Mexico.  She has lived in the United States since the 1970s.  By many accounts Chaidez was the unwitting participant in an insurance scam.  The many details of the case are less important than the resulting issues, but it is clear that she was not involved in any violence and even the fed’s let her plead guilty and let her off with a fine.

Her lawyer worked the deal for Chaidez, encouraging her to tell the truth and end the case.  He did tell Chaidez about the direct punishment she could expect by pleading guilty.  What he didn’t tell her is that it would not allow her to apply for citizenship.  It isn’t clear if the lawyer knew that or not.  It should be expected that if a lawyer makes a strong suggestion that someone like Chaidez should plead guilty, he would inform her of all the collateral damage that would result.  That is the reason an expert is hired in any field, to help understand the short and long term consequences.

When Chaidez did apply for citizenship, she was picked up for deportation.  She was able obtain another lawyer to challenge the case in the courts.  It has found its way to the Supreme Court.

Chaidez’s new lawyer has built the case on a ruling by the Supreme Court after Chaidez’s guilty plea and conviction.  At the base for her case is Padilla v Kentucky.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens that are not advised that pleading guilty to a felony means automatic deportation were deprived of their Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to effective counsel.  Chaidez’s is the same situation, but since she pleaded guilty before the Padilla case, the United States is asking that the conviction stand.  The court is being asked if the ruling only applies to cases after Padilla or should it be retroactive.

The Obama administration is taking a hard stand on the issue.  The administration said that, “[it] will have a significant impact on the federal government’s efforts to enforce this nation’s immigration laws against those who have become removable as a result of pre-Padilla criminal convictions.”

Groups siding with Chaidez have taken an equaling strong stand in opposition.  “The lack of remedy,” the groups assert, “[for pre-Padilla ineffective counsel] imposes harsh consequences on countless non-citizens facing detention and deportation as a result of wrongfully procured plea-based convictions.” (3)

Whatever the legal arguments are, there are four practical issues for the community to consider.  First, the community can’t tolerate ineffective counsel for defendants when charged with a crime.  Second, while prosecutors have a responsibility to pursue their cases as aggressively as possible, they also have a responsibility to keep defendants, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, aware of the full consequences of the charges applied against them.  Also, there can be no finality to a case when Constitutional rights come to light after convictions, such as Supreme Court rulings that apply directly to the defendant’s case.  Finally, being a non-citizens living in the country doesn’t mean that that you are not protected by the Constitution. 

The right to counsel is a Sixth Amendment issue.  It clearly states that we all have the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his [her] defence.” (4)  To believe any other way means that people could be picked up and sentenced to prison with no trial.  After all, if they are guilty until proven innocent, let’s just get them off the street right away, no need for a trial. 

An innocent person has all the rights and privileges of the community and should expect that the community will defend them against all threats to their life, safety and freedoms.  So, if people are innocent until proven guilty, the logical responsibility of the community is to assure that they are properly defended and understand all the consequences if they are found guilty.  The community must be certain that the lawyer the defendant hires, or is provided, is competent enough to understand the obligations of providing a proper defense. 

As for the prosecution, we expect the prosecutor to aggressively pursue their case against a defendant.  Our system has provided this right to the prosecutor.  But, for every right there is an equally important responsibility.  The responsibility here is that the prosecutor will insure that the accused is fully aware of his consequences if convicted of the crime he or she is charged with. 

Once convicted, no matter the circumstances of the conviction, the case can only be final to factual issues not Constitutional issues.  If a person is convicted under a law that made his action criminal and is later changed, the convicted is to receive the benefits of the change.  This prevents laws from being enacted that make an action criminal just to jail someone, then changed once they are convicted.  Why should it be any different for Constitutional issues?  When the Supreme Court makes a ruling on an issue, it needs to have the same effect as changing a law.

Perhaps the most difficult issue for many is the non-citizen status of Chaidez.  The argument may be that since Chaidez is a not a citizen, she doesn’t have an automatic right to receive the full benefits of the Constitution.  (There is a question as to Chaidez’s immigration status.  It is not clear that she is here “illegally?”  But, it doesn’t matter because of the of the amnesty legislation that has been passed since Chaidez’s arrival.  The only issue that is important to this case is her non-citizenship status.)  All the time that Chaidez was here, she was expected to follow all the laws that the Constitution allows.  Yet, as soon as she runs in to trouble with the law, she is not given the full benefit of the Constitution.  In this case, she didn’t receive a proper defense as dictated by the Constitution.

This is not the intent of the authors of the Constitution.  They intended the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to apply to all.  It is simple to say this because of our own interpretation of the words of the document.  But, this time the proof comes from none other than a founding father. James Madison said, “But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.” (5)

According to Madison, when someone has the responsibility to live under the laws of the country, they also have the right to the protection of the Constitution.  This is the very essence of a Responsible Community; a balance between rights and responsibilities.  You can’t have one without the other.

(1)  Chaidez v USA (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/chaidez-v-united-states/ )

(2)  Obama administration response (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(3)  Response to the administrations statements (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(4)  Sixth amendment to the United States Constitution

(5)  James Madison, Debates to the Several State conventions on the adoption of the Constitution (http://books.google.com/books?id=OL3MdoqSb0QC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555&dq=If+the+banishment+of+an+alien+...+be+not+a+punishment,+and+among+the+severest+of+punishments,+it+will+be+difficult+to+imagine+a+doom+to+which&source=bl&ots=9pGFIPFT-4&sig=t01lRxRxpUI2iT3G8x7C0-EB0EQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PpKmT-2vHYqXgwe88cTPAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=If%20the%20banishment%20of%20an%20alien%20...%20be%20not%20a%20punishment%2C%20and%20among%20the%20severest%20of%20punishments%2C%20it%20will%20be%20difficult%20to%20imagine%20a%20doom%20to%20which&f=false )

CEO of GM talks about the government investment in GM

The saving of the Detroit auto industry is a popular thing to talk about during this election cycle.  President Barak Obama was instrumental in engineering the structured bankruptcy and the investment in the industry that was needed.  Mitt Romney, the son of an auto executive, said he would have allowed them to crash.

Even hindsight can’t tell us if the dire prediction about the failure of the auto industry would have ever come true.  But, a threat of some kind was there.  It is too easy to say that they should have allowed the industry to fail because new industry would have risen from the crumbling empty auto plants.  Even if one did, how long would it have been before the benefits of the market failure would have worked its “magic?”

The truth is, in practical terms the auto industry is alive, improving and perhaps in the best condition it has been in decades.

Dan Ackerson, CEO of GM, in an interview with The Take Away’s Celeste Headlee, points out that this wasn’t the first time the country has saved an industry and that the benefits were much more far ranging in practical terms.  Ackerson is a Republican.  As a Republican, he is not likely to give an interview in support of something that a president and congress from the other party did in an election year if he didn’t think it was an important thing to do.

Let’s read what Ackerson had to say about the investment we made in the auto industry.

Dan Ackerson -”This is not the first time that the American government has injected themselves into the American economy. If I asked you, who [was] the biggest owner of commercial property in the United States 1990s, you wouldn't say the United States, but it was. [During] the Savings and Loans crisis, [the U.S.] [pumped] in $394 billion dollars. Call it around $400 billion dollars.  Not $50.  $400 billion.

“So it's not unusual to see governments for a short period of time, inject themselves into a marketplace to stabilize it.  The analogy I like to make, you remember last year when Joplin, Missouri had the terrible tornado or Katrina [in Louisiana], it's in the basic DNA of Americans [that] we don't walk to help our fellow citizens, we sprint.  This part of the country, the arsenal of democracy saved this country in many respects along with many soldiers, marines, coast guard's men.  But it built the arsenal that saved Western Democracies.”

During the world wars in the last century, it was the heavy industry that we had on our home turf and owned by United States companies that built the machinery to defend ourselves and our allies.  Without that heavy industry already in place, it is hard to image that we would have been able to build all the factories needed before we built one tank in time to make a difference.  As another example, during the early part of the last century, the shipbuilding industry was in the same situation as the auto industry was during the last few years.  The United States stepped in to save it because of the importance of having the ability to build on our own shores.  Can you image the need to build heavy equipment in times of a crisis and expecting Honda of Ohio and the other foreign auto companies in Georgia to do the building?  What would happen if we went to war with the home countries of those companies?

Ackerson continues - “[After World War II] what did we do[?]  In the interest of international economy, international trade, we lowered our trade barriers.  We lowered them in Japan, we lowered them in Germany, our mortal enemies.  And they built export economies to the detriment of this part of the country.  It didn't happen overnight with a hurricane or tornado: It happened over 30 years.  So a million jobs were saved, that's what I say.  $150 billion it's been reported in terms of total tax revenues that would've gone by the boards had the company not been saved.”

That doesn’t include the increase in taxes on surviving companies to pay for the unemployment benefits that would have been paid on those that lost their jobs.  Instead, as Ackerson says, many auto workers didn’t lose their jobs and are still paying taxes.

Ackerson - “And all the supply chain that would've gone with us.  And then if you back off and you say, at the time we went under, or we went into bankruptcy, we had about a $25 billion pension deficit.  But think back if we'd gone into bankruptcy and liquidated in '09.  That $25 billion would've gone into the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) which is government sponsored.  Footnote to that comment is, $25 billion would've bankrupted PBGC.  And whose dime would that've been on?  It'd have been on the taxpayer’s dime.  That's never in the calculus.”

It might be said that if we hadn't backed the PBGC, we wouldn’t have had the problem with the pension deficit bankrupting the system.  But, then there would have been no pension money for all those currently retired and those that have worked for many years depending on the pension fund.

As for finding private money to invest in GM, Ackerson also addresses that issue. Ackerson at the time GM was going through its problems was managing private equity money for investors.  This is what he has to say about finding private money.

Ackerson – “So when people say, it should've been saved in another way, it should've gone through a bankruptcy, controlled bankruptcy.  I was in private equity.  I was managing many buyouts, where you do a big buyout of corporations with a portfolio of $50-$100 billion.  There was no way you could've gotten me to put a billion dollars into this thing without the restructuring that was really mandated by the government.

“So, you know I know this is a political year and everybody wants to argue for tactical and political advantage.  Again, I don't have the luxury to do that.  I'm not making a political statement.  I would say, let's be pragmatic about it: It worked.

Finally, Ackerson says, “I think the government does have an obligation to step up and help its people.  This wasn't a giveaway.  It was an investment.  It was an investment from the American people.”

Communities are not a separate entity from the people that live in them.  They are not there to just police the streets and facilitate common services.  Communities form for the safety net and security that they provide.

Thank you, Mr. Ackerson.  Your words represent the best of a Responsible Community.
-----

Emergency Manager Law initiative may not be close enough

The Michigan Board of Canvassers was deadlocked on the approval of a citizen’s initiative petition asking for a popular vote on the emergency manager law.  This is one of those situations where you need a score card to keep up on the game.  Yes, it is a game, one that isn’t being played very well by any of the players.

A group that would like the emergency manager law to go away submitted petitions to have the issue placed on the November ballot in Michigan.  The board of canvassers for the state has the task of certifying the submitted petitions.  The board is made up of two Democrats and two Republicans.  They found that there were more than enough signatures according to the law to approve it for the ballot.  But, the board split on the size of the type on the top of the petition.  The two Republicans said the font size was too small, the two Democrats said something like, “close enough.”

The Constitution of the State of Michigan insures that citizens will have input on state affairs with an initiative.  The state law that governs citizen’s initiatives says that the font size on the headline of the petition must be 14 point type.  (MICHIGAN ELECTION LAW (EXCERPT), Act 116 of 1954, 168.482 Petitions; size; form; contents.)  It is understood that the large font size on the header is an attempt to prevent the head line from being unreadable, meaning that the signer would need to rely on the petitioner for an explanation of the ballot proposal.  This in the past has been problem when petitioners don’t properly represent the meaning of the proposal.

A spokesman for the company that printed the petitions says that the headline is in a 14 point font.  But he could be in trouble if he printed the wrong font size.  What the groups should have done is ask for an approval from the board of canvassers in advance of the actual collection of signatures. 

The committee has promised they will take it to court.  This is where this type of issue should be in the first place.  The members of the board of canvassers should be non-partisan.  But, according the Michigan Constitution, it is to have four members and no party is to have a majority.  To leave a decision about a ballot issue with a partisan committee is to know that there will be trouble.  One party or the other, for political reasons, is not going to want the initiative to get through the board.  The objecting party will place tremendous pressure on their party’s board members to find a reason to not pass the initiative. 

The court could rule that the size of the font is indeed, “close enough”.  The requirement to have a certain font size could be determined to be an unreasonable restraint to an initiative.  They have ruled in the past that way with the timing of petition submissions.

But for now, the law is the law.  Close enough is not close enough since there is a specific requirement in the initiative law for the size of the font.  If the court doesn’t decide to let the initiative on the November ballot, the group will have to start over for the next election cycle. 

Let’s hope they do a better job next time.

-----