November 2014 NOLA Ballot Propositions

The November 4, 2014 ballots in New Orleans will include 3 parish-wide propositions. The text of the propositions can be found here. The Times-Picayune has an editorial on them here. This post will cover my brief thoughts on them.

Law Enforcement District Proposition:

I oppose the creation of this millage. While it appears that the millage isn’t technically a tax increase, but rather an extension of the existing tax, that is mere window dressing. Regardless of what happens, the people of New Orleans will be forced to pay for federally mandated improvements to the jail either by an extra 10 years of the current millage or by the city cutting costs by eliminating or reducing other city services. Since I find it laughable that the city just can’t seem to find enough waste, bloat, unnecessary programs or services, or other expenses to cut, I will not support paying for this millage.

Charter Amendment for City Contracts:

I like the measures that Mayor Landrieu has put in place to create a more transparent and competitive process in reviewing and granting city contracts. Yet, the Mayor does not need a charter amendment to continue these practices. I oppose this amendment solely because of the requirement that a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program be established. DBE programs are nothing more than affirmative action for businesses and arbitrarily manipulate what is supposed to be a competitive process. Partly basing business decisions on race and gender used to be called racism and sexism. What changed?

Charter Amendment for Inauguration Dates:

Yeah, sure. Why not?

November 4, 2014 LA Constitutional Amendments (Part 2 of 2)

The November 4, 2014 ballot in Louisiana will include 14 constitutional amendments. Last week I wrote about the first 7 proposed amendments. This post will cover proposed amendments 8-14. The text of the amendments can be found here. The Public Affairs Research Council provides a helpful, non-partisan guide to the amendments. I, however, will provide my own thoughts on the amendments below.

8.) Sure, programs to create artificial reefs, certify wild-caught fish, and develop inshore fish habitats are interesting and probably useful. However, I oppose making these projects so vitally important that the funding for them becomes protected by our Constitution. This is exactly the kind of thing that belongs in statutes where the funding can be adjusted for other needs.

9.) The number of individuals in Louisiana who qualify for the freeze on their property tax assessments is relatively small (5,660 as of 2012). However, eliminating the requirement that these 5,660 people certify each year that their income is not too high to qualify for the freeze would be a bad idea. It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with ways this honor system could be taken advantage of. Chiefly, imagine a person becomes eligible for the freeze due to a sudden disability from an accident. At the time of their qualification for the assessment freeze their income is under the $67,670 (adjusted for inflation) threshold. Yet, suppose that 2 years later they receive a large cash settlement or insurance payout that causes them to no longer qualify for the freeze. This amendment would rely on the individual to voluntarily report that they will now lose the tax cut. I oppose the amendment because it is not too much to ask for simple income verification in exchange for a tax break that is partly based on income.

10.) While I do not find this amendment to be an unreasonable compromise from a policy standpoint, on a matter of principle I must oppose it. I am supportive of this amendment only impacting vacant, abandoned, and “blighted” properties, rather than also including occupied properties. However, removing 18 months of redemption opportunity for a property owner that is behind on their taxes for any number of reasons is not something I will support. Protecting property rights is supposed to be one of the key functions of government. This amendment takes away the protection of property for the sake of expediency and convenience.

11.) When I first read this proposed amendment I literally laughed out loud. It had might as well simply asked if we approved of increasing the size of the state government. I’m sure that those who desire to create the Department of Elderly Affairs have noble goals, but creating an entirely new department for those goals is unnecessary. If supporters want the existing services for the elderly to run more efficiently, then work with those existing programs. Placing them all under one department does not mean they will magically become more efficient and save money. If anything, I imagine the department would quickly begin coming up with new services and programs that the elderly in Louisiana “need.” I oppose.

12.) I am skeptical as to why this provision is in the Constitution in the first place. We should not have to ask the people of Louisiana how the make-up of the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission should be allocated. I have no idea what the best allocation should be or what the factors that go into such a consideration even are. This is exactly the kind of thing that belongs in the hands of the legislature. Aside from all of that, there is nothing that prevents the Governor from appointing members from northern Louisiana as it is, so I oppose.

13.) Even if I were not worried about the concerns that this proposed amendment may have problems complying with federal law, I would still oppose it. If people are not willing to pay fair market value for property, then perhaps that is a market signal that the properties don’t need to be bought or sold. Arbitrarily setting the price at $100 is a pure manipulation of the property market and unwise. We should not force New Orleans to sell property on the cheap merely because there are some people who would like to buy the property, but not for the fair market value. Would it be nice if the Lower 9th Ward were a bustling community rather than essentially vacant? Maybe so. If that’s the case, let the market prove it rather than allowing the government to create an incentive to buy property that on its own terms is not attractive enough to warrant buyer interest.

14.) Would you like to be able to have your tax bill cut every year or only every other year? I absolutely oppose preventing the legislature from considering cutting taxes whenever the chance may arise. Sure it sounds nice that general bills are considered during general sessions and fiscal bills during fiscal sessions, but I am not willing to limit the opportunities for tax decreases. On the other side of the same coin, I of course support limiting the ability of the legislature to raise taxes to every other year.

November 4, 2014 LA Constitutional Amendments (Part 1 of 2)

The November 4, 2014 ballot in Louisiana will include 14 constitutional amendments. The text of the amendments can be found here. The Public Affairs Research Council provides a helpful, non-partisan guide to the amendments. I, however, will provide my own thoughts on the amendments below. This post will cover the first 7 proposed amendments.

1.) Using the Constitution to create inflexible budgeting could be a good thing. However, an inflexible budget presumes that the constitutionally set rate is the correct one. I oppose this amendment because it would require the approval of 2/3 of the legislature (or of the budget committee if the legislature is not in session) to lower the rate. What if the rate deserves to be lowered, but 2/3 of the legislature does not want to be labelled during their next campaign as having taken money away from the poor, elderly, or disabled? In that case, the state Treasurer will be required to pay inflated rates to medical providers.

2.) The proposed amendment is unhelpfully lacking in relevant details. Creating a new system of fees, but not detailing how exactly the fees will be structured or assessed is not something I am prepared to support. A complex system of fees, lacking in specificity, combined with added budget inflexibility (see #1 above), is not an appropriate provision to enshrine in the state Constitution. I oppose.

3.) Government-employed tax collectors are bad enough. I oppose allowing local governments to contract with additional, private tax collectors who are not accountable to the voters.

4.) The legislature was unable to pass legislation that would create the Louisiana Transportation Infrastructure Bank. Even if it had, I would oppose the very existence of the bank because I believe there are better ways to fund transportation projects. As a result, I certainly oppose amending the Constitution to allow for transferring funds to this bank in the event that legislature succeeds in creating it in the future.

5.) I support removing the arbitrary retirement age for state judges. Who knows whether 70 is the right age for every judge to retire? No one could possibly know that. In fact, 4 United States Supreme Court Justices are well over the age of 70, and the only one speculated to be considering retirement, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is 81 (nevermind the fact that most who call for her retirement are doing it for political concerns). There are existing mechanisms in place to remove judges who become unable to do their jobs, yet refuse to voluntarily step down. That mechanism is the appropriate means of accomplishing what an arbitrary age limit attempts to accomplish: having judges without diminished capacity.

6.) Precisely what New Orleans residents need right now is to not require the city to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending. Instead, to increase funding for police and fire protection, the city should be allowed to DOUBLE taxes that pay for police and fire protection. That is what this amendment would allow, and obviously I oppose it.

7.) This one is kind of a toss-up for me. Normally, I oppose special tax exemptions for small, specific groups. But, I also normally support tax cuts. In the case of this amendment, since the increased homestead exemption for disabled military veterans would apply to veterans who are determined to be 100% unemployable, the group singled out is certainly sympathetic. For me, the kicker is that the localities losing the revenue are not allowed to makeup the difference by charging everyone else more. As a result, I support it.

Louisiana Means Licensing

Received this email from the Institute for Justice yesterday. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to regular readers.

Louisiana Means Licensing


Louisiana is ground zero for one of the greatest threats to economic liberty in America: occupational licensing. An occupational license is just what it sounds like—a government permission slip to work in a particular field.

Licensing Fail: Map of states which license florists
In our groundbreaking study of the nationwide licensing of 102 low-to-moderate income jobs, License to Work, we found that Louisiana licenses more occupations than any other state in the country: 71! For example, Louisiana is the only state in the country to license florists. Many of these laws have nothing to do with protecting the public’s health and safety, and instead provide protection to industry insiders.

We’re looking for entrepreneurs struggling to escape unconstitutional licensure. If you or a loved one are fighting for your right to earn an honest living, let us know today by visiting 

Airbnb or Not2b?

Renting out space in your home to travelers provides an easy means to make ends meet, and offers greater options to visitors to your city. But the Big Easy does not want to make this easy. The New Orleans City Council has voted to outlaw residential rentals for periods of less than 30 days. This effectively bans the use of popular websites like Airbnb. Show your support for property rights, economic liberty and southern hospitality by visiting this petition to legalize short-term rentals in New Orleans. Read more…

Be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter for more local news and calls-to-action!

Potential Uber Vote Coming

Tomorrow, August 14, could see a vote from the New Orleans City Council on the pending ordinance updates to the luxury, for-hire vehicle (sedans and limos) code. Of course, Uber’s luxury sedan service, Uber Black will be impacted by the result of the Council’s decision.

I have previously written at length about the issues at play here and here. To briefly sum up the main points:

1) Removing the 3 hour reservation requirement is good.

2) Leaving in place the requirement that luxury vehicle companies own at least 2 vehicles serves as a barrier to entry for entrepreneurs who can only afford to break into the market with one vehicle. This requirement should be repealed.

3) In spite of Council President Head and advisor to the Mayor, Ryan Berni’s fun with words, adjusting the minimum fare formula is still price fixing. Creating an arbitrary, artificial difference, by law, between fares that taxis and luxury vehicles can charge only accomplishes economic protectionism. The existing vehicle companies, especially taxis, are using the government to force people to pay more than they otherwise might.

In short, it is not the job of the government to protect an entrenched, traditional industry from competition. Whether taxi owners like it or not, technology will eventually force them to truly compete with newcomers like Uber and Lyft, or go out of business fighting it.

Rather than trying to use the government to prolong the status quo, they should instead focus their energy on lobbying for fewer government mandated restrictions on their operations. Services like Uber show that the public can still be protected without the current burdensome regulations imposed on for-hire vehicles.

While it is a welcome sight that the city is taking a fresh look at the current laws, a more basic overhaul is what is truly needed for the New Orleans transportation industry to truly thrive and become something we can be proud of in a city that prides itself on creativity and innovation.

The City Council meeting is scheduled for 10AM at City Hall.

*UPDATE* According to multiple reports on Twitter, the Council voted to table a vote on this issue until the September 4th meeting.