What Erica Gilmore can learn from the Soviets

Nashville Councilwoman Erica Gilmore has resurrected a bill banning single-bottle sales of beer in a misguided attempt to curb drinking and littering. To understand the unintended consequences of hair-trigger paternalism, we turn to the Soviets.

Continue Reading

To curb alcohol and vagrancy, the Soviet Union tried everything from burning some of the oldest grape vines in Europe (fine wine is often the alcoholic's cheap fix) to banning sales of vodka in containers smaller than one liter. Since Ms. Gilmore has not yet suggested a torching of wine stocks, it is the latter experience that is instructive.

Vagrants of the social-drinker ilk would certainly consider a liter excessive, as three is the optimal number of people for splitting such a volume (really!). A simple social convention was born. The first thirsty citizen arriving at the store would stand outside with three extended fingers held against his chest. The symbol conveys an attempt to create a troika, or group of three held by the common interest of securing the appropriate measure of the beverage. A second would arrive and assume a similar loitering stance. Upon a third compatriot's arrival, a bottle would be purchased and shared.

Result: more loitering, more nuisance, more litter, and a slight uptick in violence, partly resolved by bringing a 1/3 liter measure.

Burning the grapes didn't do much, either, except hinder the economic growth of modern Moldova and Georgia.

Hat tip thinktrain, though one who asks "who really needs just one beer" has probably never heard of Trappist ales, imperial stouts, doppelbocks, barley wine, and, well, beer.

Life, liberty, and that other thing

A local recording studio is being confiscated by the city of Nashville to put it to a "higher valued use." Apparently, the music emanating from Music Row in Music City sounds sweeter from a high-tax-rate high-rise than from an historic, independent label. Joy Ford was unwilling to sell her business of thirty years to the Lionstone Development Group, the Houston-based buyer of "underdeveloped real estate assets." In response, City officials slipped under the covers with the developer to transfer the property from one private interest (its owner) to another—a Robin Hood in reverse.

I blame Karl Dean. I blame Phil Ryan. And yes, I blame (despite this being grounds for revocation of my UVA diploma) Thomas Jefferson. He should have foreseen the impact of his aspirational turning of the phrase. Sandra Day O'Connor did, but she was outvoted.

Let's review...

Continue Reading

A bit of history

John Locke's tripartite statement of natural rights, life, liberty, and estate made its way into the first resolution of the Declaration of Colonial Rights, encoding the principles of a new nation. Thomas Jefferson, also borrowing heavily from John Locke, saw the phrase as insufficiently wishy-washy, penning "pursuit of happiness" in the place of property as the third pillar of natural rights. This was partly rectified by the fifth amendment which allows property to be ceased only for "public use."

"Public use" becomes "whatever we want"

Since railroads prefer to run more or less straight, the taking of private property was originally construed as necessary for the establishment of public utilities. Soon, towns stumbled on a remarkable idea: if we "condemn" a building and hand it over to a developer who will build a more expensive building, doesn't that raise our tax base? Isn't a higher tax base in the public interest? Answer "yes" to both questions and you have found a way around the Fifth Amendment. Public use is whatever public officials want it to be.

The Supremes

This self-serving interpretation in the face of constitutional protections is ripe for a vehement smack-down by the Supreme Court Defenders of Liberty. Alas, no. In the 2005 Kelo decision, the five-person majority expanded government's "takings" power even when (i) no blight is present, (ii) the transfer is from one private party to another, and (iii) the land use will not be open to the public. The government need only identify monetary or even "aesthetic" benefits.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote

Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.

Intended, certainly not. But TJ's transmutation of Locke's key word suggests that they didn't foresee it, either.

Justice Stevens, writing for the constitutionally-challenged majority (pun intended), explains that we need not worry as "legislative judgments" would carefully construe public use. Teach a man to fish...fine, but if you legalize tossing grenades into a fish-stocked pond, don't expect a hungry man to exercise "judgment." Perhaps Mr. Stevens should watch a Metro Council meeting.

Back to Music Row

And so Nashville's Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) (ironic motto: "We value integrity") has decided that Music Row needs more high rises, current property owners be (con)dæmned! The MDHA's authority to act as it pleases stems from a ten-year old City Council ordinance that found Music Row circa 1995 "detrimental to the safety, health, morals, or welfare of the community."

Several local bloggers have been following the story (since local purported journalist/advocate can't get off the dime):

• Kay Brooks goes on location and finds that Joy Ford's business is the only thing not blighted, with surrounding properties (already owned by the developer) looking a bit neglected.
• BlueCollarMuse provides adequate background in her two part series, and is not afraid to name names.
• We hear tones ranging from concern to outrage at eminent domain abuses from a local home inspector, real estate investor, professor of entrepreneurship, talk show host, and more. The action is opposed by at least one Metro Council member, State Representative, and local perennial candidate.

But none of those people run the MDHA, whose Director and Board of Commissioners play with a city-sized cookie jar of private-house treats.

Two years ago, MDHA Director Phil Ryan lamented that "public housing is not a priority" at the federal level. Nashville laments that private property is not a priority for Mr. Ryan.

Country music and occupational hazard

In a week, my street will again be closed to roll out the red carpet for the fan-voted CMT Music Awards, a night where the Average Joe decides who best expresses in musical form the malaise of a life of run-down trucks and sickly stray dogs.

While some will inevitably feel compassion for the stars who force artifical, botox-meliorated smiles along with polite claps when their rivals' names are announced, my real concern is for the fans. As professors Steven Stack and Jim Gundlach reported in a study several years ago, listening to country music causes you to kill yourself:

The results of a multiple regression analysis of 49 metropolitan areas show that the greater the airtime devoted to country music, the greater the white suicide rate. The effect is independent of divorce, southernness, poverty, and gun availability. The existence of a country music subculture is though to reinforce the link between country music and suicide.

The authors conclude that someone already at risk of suicide can be pushed over the (figurative) edge by listening to musical reinforcements of themes such as alcoholism and alienation. Unfortunately, the study suffers from two common fallacies in interpreting causality.

First, that prolonged exposure to country music can lead some to rip off their own ears, even at risk of death, can be explained by many much simpler theories. For example, this could simply be because a majority of the population is not deaf. Alternately, those with elementary school-age children may have tired of the simplistic rhyme patterns ("weather," "better," and "sweater"? "freedom and "need'em"? Really, Mr Urban).

Second, always check if reversing the hypothesized causality is equally sensible. Why conclude that listening to country music causes one to give up on all pleasurable pursuits on earth, rather than the other way around?

---

Addendum: I apologize to elementary school-age children for equating your creativity to that of country music's greatest. I expect most kids (unlike Patty Loveless) would know the difference between horribly executed puns and clever song titles. Case in point: "Timber! I'm Falling in Love."

The poor children

Jake starts school next year. Public school. In Nashville. And I'm scared.

Continue Reading

The Chief Administrator of the Nashville public school system (i) can't write, and (ii) has not come to terms with his disability, or he would have hired an editor. From Benjamin Wright's page:

Mission Statement: To provide guidance and assistance to local schools in effectively fulfilling their administrative duties and responsibilities in doing whatever it takes for all students to acquire the knowledge, skills, and experiences to become productive, responsible citizens.

Lesson 1: Schools no longer teach how to diagram a sentence.

And my tax dollars fund the electrons that make this mission statement possible.^[1]

Belief Statements: accept that leaders are responsible for insuring that others are successful.

Lesson 2: Homonyms are a bitch. Or, if your child fails, call Mr. Wright to file a claim.

UPDATE: As Ben Wright might say, I'm even scareder for my son's future now, after discovering his self-promotion site.

Mr. Wright is a visionary Transformationalist with over thirty-three years experience implementing paradigm and pedagogy changes

Mr. Wright is available for speeches: "He is beyond being a motivational speaker, but rather spiritual, knowledgeable and an action oriented presenter." Perhaps your ESL group can hire him?

Want a fuller fisking?

UPDATE June 2008: Fortunately, the web page referenced in my post is no longer Ben Wright's. Despite apocolyptic predictions that he would eventually be the Director of Schools, Mr. Wright resigned in February, presumably to concentrate full time on his transformationalist pursuits. Back in December, Mr. Wright informed me by email that he "will have the page edited and corrected as soon as possible." No need to tidy things up if moving out, but the page's new resident, Assistant Superintendent Sandra C. Tinnon, has redecorated with an editor's brush, properly distinguishing between "ensure" and "insure."

^[1] The same tax dollars send over these intertubes a 1.4 MB picture of Mr. Wright to every visitor. Note for the twelve year old empowered with the html programming job for Metro schools: setting an image size within the html code does not actually change the size of the image.

State senator enjoys wines, as I do

Some time ago, I emailed my state representatives asking for their positions on interstate wine sales. I received a letter from State Senator Douglas Henry in response. I wasn't expecting much, since the Senator receives substantial contributions from the liquor wholesalers cabal. As anticipated, with his donations, the Senator also apparently received the industry's standard talking points, which are easily dismissed.

That, however, was not the disturbing part of the letter.

Continue Reading

The last line of the letter reads:

The presumption, of course, is that no one would advocate legislation unless he or she has a direct, personal stake in it. My letter to the senator identified me only as an economist and a voter. I also have opinions about the death penalty, our inaction in Sudan, and policy governing media mergers, but expect none of them to impact me directly.

I am curious how the last sentence of Senator Henry's position letter on gay marriage would read.

Bootleggers, Baptists, and political connections

Over 20 years ago, economist and FTC director Bruce Yandle wrote an influential column on the origins of social regulation. The theory of "Bootleggers and Baptists" contends that legislative regulation of "sin" (e.g., alcohol, tobacco) requires both a vocal "moral" voice (the Baptists) and a quiet though politically powerful lobby that profits from the regulation:

"Baptists" point to the moral high ground and give vital and vocal endorsement of laudable public benefits promised by a desired regulation. Baptists flourish when their moral message forms a visible foundation for political action. "Bootleggers" are much less visible but no less vital. Bootleggers, who expect to profit from the very regulatory restrictions desired by Baptists, grease the political machinery with some of their expected proceeds. They are simply in it for the money.

Here in Tennessee we have some of the most draconian laws protecting the liquor wholesalers. We also have no shortage of legislators who speak in moral absolutes. Of course, the "Baptist" is the protagonist in this story, since he purports to represent moral ideology and social welfare, rather than cynical greed.

Or does he?

Of the 32 members currently serving in the Tennessee State Senate, seven find their religious affiliation with Baptism sufficiently important to list on their short State Senate biography. While Baptist conventions continue their internal debate on the merits of total abstinence from alcohol, there is apparently no debate on whether one ought to practice, legislatively, what one preaches.

A quick perusal of campaign finance records indicates that all seven members have received political donations from the beer and spirits lobby since 2000. Particularly:

• Jerry Cooper (D-14) received $8,000 in the last two election cycles.
• Steve Southerland (R-1) received $4250 in 2006
• Lowe Finney (D-27) received $4000 in 2006
• Jamie Woodson (R-6) received $4000 in her last election
• Tommy Kilby (D-12) received $1000
• Dewayne Bunch (R-9) in 2004
• Mike Williams(I-4) in 2000

The "Baptist" in Yandle's theory is not meant to be literal, but merely a proxy for the voice of morality. However, other self-professed voices of moderation would likely yield similar results.

Anyone want to guess how many of these names also profited from tobacco lobbyists' efforts?

Has Tennessee evolved since the Scopes trial?

While Dayton, Tennessee annually celebrates its conviction of the heretical teacher, John Scopes, one state legislator wants the fanfare expanded state-wide.

Tennessee State Senator Raymond Finney (R) proposed a bill that would require the state's Education Commissioner to answer questions, in flow-chart form, on the origins of the universe.

First, the Commissioner would be asked if a Supreme Being exists (presumably, in Jesus-form, rather than all of those heathen supreme beings). A "no" answer would, according to the legislation, earn the Education Commissioner "the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists."

Creationism, biting sarcasm, and legislative power -- a unity made in heaven... or here on earth... depending on your view.

"There has never been any proof offered that Darwin's theory of evolution is correct," Senator Finney explained, presumably before taking listeners on an exotic voyage through circular-argument world.

Tennessee legislator in search of TV remote

Tennessee State Senator Doug Jackson (D) proposed a ban on "Girls Gone Wild" commercials because, as he was intently watching one, he was unable to change the channel.

"This is being interjected right into our living room," Jackson said, presumably explaining how televisions work in general.

"People feel like, as they sit in their living rooms, they just have to surrender; there's nothing that can be done."

Unless, of course, your cable service offers multiple channels. Or an off button.

"You know, it's time to draw the line," he said, and immediately demanded that he be in charge of the Official First Amendment Line Drawing Institute.

But what if I’m easily annoyed?

Another gem from the Nashville Codes (6.72.400)

No taxicab driver shall solicit patronage in a loud or annoying tone of voice or in any manner annoy any person.

There’s a hard criterion to meet.

Soliciting for purported eleemosynary purposes

In deciding what are reasonable methods for businesses to solicit customers, Nashville makes exception for solicitations with a charitable purpose. How do we differentiate between these noble goals and the subaltern drive for the mighty dollar? Nashville codes (6.64.070) to the rescue:

"Charitable purpose" means any purpose which is benevolent, ..., philanthropic, ..., eleemosynary, either actual or purported.

Apparently, Council members are provided a thesaurus and are not afraid to use it. A dictionary, unfortunately, does not seem standard issue:

purport: To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending

We don't ask you to be charitable, but merely to feign concern.

UPDATE: I have been made aware that (i) many towns have this precise definition of charitable purpose (google search) and (ii) at least one member of Council has no idea what "eleemosynary" means.

Your type of auction theory ain’t welcome here

I decided to combine two activities that frequently occupy my day: study of auctions for my research, and perusal of the Nashville Codes for entertainment. The section of Nashville law on auctions and auctioneers (Chapter 6.84) defines an auction as:

The offering for sale or selling of such property by the method known as “down hill selling” by which is meant first offering any article at a higher price and then offering the same at successive lower prices until a bidder is secured.

So, the elegant Dutch Auction is legally permitted. I wonder who determined that this method is “known as down hill selling.” The Dutch have yet to discover a single elevation change in Holland that can in any way be construed a “hill.”

The definition continues:

“Selling at auction” also means the offering for sale or selling of such property to the highest bidder.

And there you have the exhaustive list of market mechanisms that the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County considers an auction.

Preferential auctions, where I might care about who wins? Procurement auctions, where the lowest bidder should be selected? Take that crazy stuff out of state!

Drink the booze in your trunk before you drive

Rank these alcohol-related activities by the level of criminal offense in Tennessee:

• Obtaining a third DUI conviction
• Piloting a commercial cruise line up the Mississippi while intoxicated
• After a couple of beers, shooting that dog that's been scaring your cow
• Driving from nearby St. Louis with six bottles of wine
• Purchasing alcohol for a child
• Member of the Alcohol Beverage Commission accepting a bribe

See the answers

After navigating the many blue laws of my new environs, I discovered at a Sunday morning brunch that my Bloody Mary will not be arriving until after noon, because, well, Sunday mornings are for sober reflections and, for the Lord. Talmudic debate about the appropriate day to celebrate the Sabbath aside, there is an exception: Titans stadium. Football! Hallelujah!

Here is the ranking, from lowest to highest offense, and the cite to the relevant section in the Tennessee Code:

• Not a crime:
• After a couple of beers, shooting that dog that's been scaring your cow
  Dogs shouldn't be scaring livestock anyway (44-17-203). Now, if the dog was minding its own business, then it rises to the level of a ...
• Misdemeanor:
• Member of the Alcohol Beverage Commission accepting a bribe
  A Class C Misdemeanor (57-1-109), the lowest punishment for alcohol-related offenses is reserved for the corruptible officials who oversee them.
• Purchasing alcohol for a child
  It is a class A misdemeanor, unless the child tells you he's 21, in which case you could be okay (39-15-404).
• Piloting a commercial cruise line up the Mississippi while intoxicated
  Having hundreds of passengers endangered is, in the view of Tennessee law, the same as buying an 18 year old a beer. And, they might take away your boating license (69-9-219).
• Obtaining a third DUI conviction
  Only your third DUI? (55-10-403) After all, people make mistakes, right? And mistakes. And mistakes. Now if you get convicted a fourth time of driving under the influence, only then have you committed a ...
• Felony:
• Driving from nearby St. Louis with six bottles of wine
  Yup, its a felony (57-3-401).

I think I finally made sense of this ordering. Buying booze for kids and driving or boating while intoxicated all require the purchase of alcohol. Only bringing a few wines from out of state bypasses the Tennessee wholesalers. Isn't taking money from their pockets the worst crime of all? Probably not. But that's why we have to keep the penalties for bribing public officials so low.

And if you have several bottles of out-of-state beer in your car, drink them before continuing on your way. The penalty is lower.