Message to America

Well, that's an encouraging decision. America will now be safe from fiends hellbent on the purchase of refrigerated trucks. There's also the irony that the man was going to buy a vehicle that could refrigerate its contents (a large cooler, essentially) who was arrested for carrying a very small refrigerated vehicle (a small cooler, literally) filled with cold hard cash. Although this decision doesn't seem to affect many of us (who has that kind of money?) it does affect us all: it demonstrates ever more clearly that we're one, dumb-ass ruling away from any number of civil liberties being stolen from us (as illegally as the seizure of currency without justification). I have to think that this will be overturned by the Supremes, beliving as I do that America is only situationally loony, not clinically bonkers.

Still, thank you, Message to America, for spreading the word. Keep it up!

Your friend,

Gui
 

This is, indeed, a disturbing decision and a blow to private property rights.

Usually, an appellate court will defer to the fact finding of the trial court because the trial judge, who actually heard the witnesses testify, is best able to judge their credibility. In this case, the appellate court negated the testimony of the defendant’s friends and family who testified under oath that they had given him the money for the purpose of buying a truck.

As the dissent pointed out, in this case, there were no drugs, drug paraphernalia, or drug records recovered in connection with the seized money. There was no evidence the claimant was ever convicted of any drug-related crime, nor was there any indication the manner in which the currency was bundled was indicative of drug use or distribution. At most (and even this is a stretch) the evidence suggested that the money seized may have been involved in some illegal activity – activity that is incapable of being ascertained on the record. See United States v. U.S. Currency, $30,060.00, 39 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[A] mere suspicion of illegal activity is not enough to establish . . . that the money was connected to drugs.”).

It is wrong for the government to seize private property on a hunch. For those of us who favor strong property rights, this case should cause concern.

However, it surprises me to see this concern for private property rights on Message to America. Does my liberal cousin now oppose rent control – which is also the seizure of private property?
 

David,

I read this story with the same amount of shock and despair as you did. Today I ran across another frightening example. This from New Hampshire where the state Supreme Court ruled that 500 CDs that were seized did not have to be returned although no crime had been committed.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?
headline=Police+property:+It%E2%80
%99s+finders+keepers+in+NH&articleId
=c2807a58-75ed-4972-8ab9-caec6bbbb979

Frightening times...

Chuck
 

Kirshy writes that it is absurd to consider rent control to be a form of private property seizure since rent control is a “regulatory device.” But just because the government uses a regulatory devise to take private property doesn’t make it right or fair. (And Koff’s Conservative Cousin is never absurd)!

Ask the rental property owner who is forced to accept below market rent if he has lost something. Unless he purchased the property with the rent control regulation factored into (and depressing) his purchase price, it is truly unfair. (And, if he purchased it at a discount then his seller took the hit – there is no free lunch).

Assume a woman purchased her home in 1995 and decided to sell now. As you know, the housing market has appreciated dramatically in most places during that time. Would it be fair to tell her that she can’t sell at the market price because some people would find it to be unaffordable? Would it not be a private property seizure if the government, through a “regulatory device,” bared her from selling for more than what a willing purchaser would pay? Why must she bear the disproportionate burden of public housing assistance?

It was wrong for the government to seize the money of Emiliano Gonzolez. It is just as wrong for the government to seize the money of a landlord every single month.
 

actually, i understand both sides of the rent control/property seizure debate.

on the one hand, we've got the government using a regulatory device (rent control) to help those less fortunate than ourselves. i view this as a "partial financial seizure" because rent control laws don't take property away from landlords, it simply caps their profits in order to help those less economically fortunate. and, because i believe it's our DUTY to help those less fortunate, i support rent control.

on the other hand, if i were a property owner interested in using my real estate as a business, i wouldn't want government (or anyone) telling me that i couldn't charge a fair market price for that real estate. that's not fair. i invested money to buy something i knew would appreciate. why for god's sake should i not be able to reap those financial rewards?!?

the answer for me boils down to common sense: I'm NOT a property owner in a rent controlled market because i've done my research and learned that I'm at financial risk if i invest in those areas.

and, since this kind of market information is available to everyone, i have no sympathy for ignorant business owners who don't understand the law and then have the temerity to ask poor people for a bailout. not cool.

if you don't like rent control as a business owner, then do your homework and don't invest in those sectors where it's operating. but don't blame those who support it or those who benefit from it when the other 95% of real estate opportunities aren't saddled with some restrictions.

conservatives LOVE to preach about having a fully unregulated market because business (i.e. the free market) should never be constrained.

and the problem with this theory is just that: it's a theory. we HAVE regulation and stopgaps because the unfettered pursuit of profit has, historically, proven to be a dangerous, unethical and undemocratic method of running any country.

so what do i support? i support people making intelligent decisions for themselves. but if they don't and need a second chance, i'll support helping everyone, the rich AND the poor.

but in my view, we should help the ignorant poor first because they lack the financial means that the ignorant rich people have at their disposal.

do wealthy people deserve a second chance if they've made a mistake. of course.
 

David Koff properly has little sympathy for the person who buys into a rent controlled property. One pays less for a property with defects – and rent control is a significant defect! However, property rights preceded rent control laws. Somebody got ripped off by the government in a rent control scheme. The seller (or the seller’s seller, or the seller’s seller’s seller, etc) ultimately had his property seized by the government – and feels just as mad as Mr. Gonzolez did upon having his $100k seized on the “suspicion” of his criminal activity. (For the landowner suddenly subjected to rent control, his property gets seized without even a suspicion of criminal activity).

Real estate investors should, indeed, conduct due diligence. However, how do you predict that a future government will seize a portion of your property through rent control? Avoid buying in “blue states?” (Where does this leave Florida?) I suppose you could look at liberal governments as one looks at hurricanes – know they are out there and hope they don’t strike. But it is unseemly for citizens to fear an arbitrarily-acting government.

Query: Would you support the Gonzolez currency seizure if you knew that the government was using the money to directly subsidize the housing of a poor family? Do ends justify the means?

The larger issue for you is affordable housing. Rent control is just an unfair and unsuccessful attempt to help the poor.

Affordable housing does not require regulation. Indeed, regulation can drive up housing costs. For example, if a community limits development density (which is very common) it lowers housing supply and causes housing prices to rise.

But, if you must engage in compelled charity, a broad-based tax is a superior form of wealth redistribution. The social burden would then be borne by everyone and not just landowners. But I’m not advocating this – I’m one of those conservatives who love to preach about a marketplace with minimal regulatory burdens.
 

Who cares about rent control? This is about the police taking money from a citizen without providing proof of a crime.

I was raised on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty", and this case appears to ignore that concept. Given what was reported, a police dog barked at the (apparent) smell of drugs. Yet nowhere in the article was it mentioned that the money or the cooler were examined for traces of drugs. Traditionally, drug-sniffing dogs were considered suitable for searching for drugs without need of a warrant (most warrants requiring little or no evidence anyway); but once a case goes to court, laboratory evidence is required to convict, or otherwise confirm seizure of goods.

This new law is clearly illegal; it's designed to punish those who don't feel the need to pay a cashier's-check fee in order to transport cash from point-to-point.

I'll certainly think twice before I consider carrying my loose change to the bank for exchanging (it's in a 5-gallon water-jar).
 

Wonder if this is related to the practice that Chicago police have been doing on the West Side: seize the cash of either motorists or pedestrians, in any amount, regardless of whether the individual has drugs or other illegal things on them, or whether they are charged with a crime or not. This happened to several people i met when i lived in this poverty and drug stricken, African American community.
 

To XAX – There are many instances where government just takes away your property just because it can. The government took Gonzolez’ money because it suspected him of drug dealing. The government took an entire neighborhood in New London, CT because it suspected that a private developer would make it nicer. The government takes a landlord’s money because it suspects that it will help the poor. All three cases are wrong.

To Janett – Of course developers are looking to make as much money as they can. That is capitalism. But the next time a developer appears before your Commission asking for higher density, say ‘yes,’ resist the temptation to demand proffers, and thank the developer. Like the force of gravity, the force of supply and demand works. The greater the supply, the less the demand, the lower the prices.
 

i'd offer this to my cousin who is "one of those conservatives who love to preach about a marketplace with minimal regulatory burdens": i'm glad you understand the need for at least SOME regulation. you used the word "minimal" but of course, that's a very ambiguous word: who's definition of minimal are we using here? yours? mine? a five-person panel appointed by a federal or state agency?

rather, let's look at why regulation is necessary: to protect someone - the poor, the lenders, the children, the environment or the human race.

liberal, conservative or centrist, we live in a country of laws. regulations (a kind of law) and the humans that enforce them protect us all from those who would seek to take advantage of us or to help give us all a worthwhile benefit.

we don't allow children to work around dangerous equipment. we don't allow employers to work us over 40 hours without compensating us for the extra work. we require licensing and certification in order to do some types of work like practicing medicine and the law. these are all regulations on the marketplace. and they are all life savers.

take state and federal laws requiring seat-belts in every auto or the new stability laws that will be enacted: http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/09/14/nhtsa_esc/index.html

you can decide to call these regulations which interfere with the free market, but i'd consider them benefits for all americans.

the bottom line is this: even though there are those in the marketplace with good morals, the market isn't structured to reward morals: it's about profit. regulations therefore provide us all with a modicum of morals and ethics in the marketplace.

and make any argument you like about how the market will adjust to what the people want: it's just not true. industry, when consolidated, can assert more control than conservatives like to discuss or admit. and yes, we've got anti-monopoly laws but that doesn't stop the damage from being done until much of it has been levied on the populace.

for example: i'd sure like cheaper gas, but i won't get it because the price of oil and the subsequent price of gas is set across the board by large organizations that are not beholden to me. never mind the record profits by the oil industry: i can't go down the street and buy cheaper gas from a competitor - the entire reason to have a marketplace in the first place! no: all gas in my city is within 5 to 10 cents of the same price. so much for competition.

since there will always be those who favor profit above basic human responsibility, we will always need regulation to protect those who stand to be hurt by unfair market practices.