The Pelican Post

In response to a growing budget deficit, the city of New Orleans has stepped up its parking enforcement efforts.  The city recently designated new parking spaces near the Superdome – only to post No Parking signs and ticket offenders.  Mayor Ray Nagin has proposed installing more meters around the city and expanding the hours and days for metered parking.  And the city has gone on an aggressive ticket-writing spree, most notably at the Turkey Day race at City Park.

This is the wrong approach.

Parking regulations exist for the benefit of the general public.  These rules are useful because they provide access to emergency vehicles, facilitate commercial activity, and encourage turnover in crowded downtown areas.

Enforcing these regulations may generate revenue for local government, but elected officials should never lose sight of the fact that the revenue is lagniappe.  The real benefit of properly enforced parking rules is a functioning city, a benefit that all citizens enjoy.

The aggressive ticketing and new meters do nothing to make the city function more smoothly.  The city is not solving a problem, just treating residents and visitors as ATMs.  The good will of locals and tourists cannot be measured in dollars and cents, but in the long run they are worth far more than a $75 fine.

While some may view this as a minor issue, the casual abuse of power can have lasting consequences. At the very least, it fosters contempt for elected officials and city employees.  With this in mind, the mayoral candidates should address quality of life issues like parking enforcement and explain why they do or do not support the city’s current approach.

Manipulating parking regulations to generate revenue rather than to facilitate an efficient city is a practice that promotes cynicism.  If the next mayor wants to be a transformative figure, changing the approach to something as simple as parking tickets is a step in the right direction.

Many in Louisiana this week will be enjoying oysters with their turkey dinner as we give thanks for cuisine unmatched anywhere else on the planet.  We can also give thanks to the vocal efforts of seafood enthusiasts and the Louisiana congressional delegation, which prevailed upon the Food and Drug Administration to rethink (for now) a ban on unprocessed raw oysters from the Gulf of Mexico for most of the year.

The FDA had announced plans to get the regulatory ball rolling with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) with the  rule going into effect in the summer of 2011.   After weeks of controversy, FDA stated that it planned to convene an “independent study” before initiating the formal rulemaking process.

This is no guarantee that the FDA won’t simply pick up where it left off after the study and push through the ban.  Sen. David Vitter and others in Congress will seek to guarantee that doesn’t happen with legislation barring the agency from spending any funds on such a regulation.

The FDA said their plan was based on Califronia’s 2003 ban of raw oysters imported from the Gulf.  California’s move was of questionable constitutionality considering that is Congress, not the states, who are supposed to regulate interstate Congress.

But Louisiana can take an example from California’s initiative and pass a law asserting that the intrastate harvest, sale, and consumption of raw oysters is not subject to federal jurisdiction under the Constitution; assuring that whatever else, diners here will be able to enjoy this delicacy.

Senator Mary Landrieu may have secured Louisiana a $300 million Medicaid supplement within the Senate health care bill when she voted in favor of cloture. While a provision within the bill is geared towards states currently recovering from major disasters, “when the bill is closely examined…the provision provides immense financial support for only one state: Louisiana.”

Although some, including Landrieu, downplay the significance of the cloture vote, Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) points out “fully 97 percent of bills that win a vote to proceed eventually become law.”

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out: “Old-fashioned vote-buying is one thing, but what is one to make of supposed fiscal conservatives who voted for a bill that would increase federal spending by $2.5 trillion over its first 10 years of actual operation (2014-2023), paid for by 15 new or increased taxes?”

Do not be fooled into believing Landrieu is helping the state of Louisiana. If the proposed healthcare legislation were to be signed into law, the $300 million allocated to Louisiana will pale in comparison to the long-term debt Louisiana citizens will ultimately shoulder.  Landrieu has done our state no favors by displaying that she, like so many other politicians in the state of Louisiana, has a sweet spot for cash.

And consider this comparison between the actual Louisiana Purchase of 1803 with what has come to be known as the modern day Louisiana Purchase of 2009:

Purchase of Louisiana territory + Cancellation of Debt = $15 million in 1803 for all of the Louisiana Purchase

In today’s dollars, this would be equivalent to $212 million (calculated from Minneapolis Fed historical CPI estimates).

This is $88 million less than it cost to purchase Senator Landrieu’s vote Saturday, which came with a price tag of $300 million.

The theatre of the absurd has found a new headlining act in Comer v. Murphy Oil USA.  Essentially, landowners in Mississippi are suing oil and coal companies for rising sea levels and increased hurricane strength, claiming that the greenhouse gases they release is the cause.

The Fifth Circuit Court in New Orleans recently overturned a lower court’s ruling and will allow the plaintiffs their day in court. J. Russell Jackson, an expert on mass tort litigation, commented that, “Comer is a private class action for compensatory and punitive damages, not a suit brought by states or municipalities for injunctive relief.  And that means contingency fees.  And thus the promise of copycat lawsuits.”

While the Court ruled that the plaintiffs only had standing to assert their claims for public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence, it has opened the door for a flood of activist lawsuits by environmental groups.   Journalist Kirsten Korosec speculates how far this ruling could go by asking if it would be possible to sue an automaker for making mostly SUVs.

According to Jackson, the Katrina case is at an early stage, and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling “does not mean there is enough causation evidence to survive a motion to dismiss.”  Hopefully, that is exactly what will happen.

The watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a complaint with the FEC over a $25,300 donation by Senator Mary Landrieu’s campaign to the U.S. Treasury.

CREW executive director Melanie Sloan argues, “We all know politicians don’t give up campaign contributions – much less $25,000 – without a very good reason. It appears Sen. Landrieu’s reason may have been to avoid a scandal or, even worse, a federal investigation into some of her contributions.”

Marc Elias, Senator Landrieu’s campaign lawyer, called the lawsuit “frivolous” and said the campaign wanted to protect the identity of donors who “may not have done anything wrong.”  The CREW complaint however argues that the only two scenarios in which “dirty” money may be donated to the Treasury are if a donor is under a Justice Department investigation, or has been convicted for making illegal contributions.  In both of these cases, the identity of the donor must be made public.

Sloan follows up, “Our campaign finance laws were designed to ensure transparency.  If Sen. Landrieu did nothing wrong, she has no reason not to come clean with the American people and explain why she turned over $25,000 in contributions to the Treasury.”

The Landrieu campaign will have 15 days to respond after the FEC provides its formal notification.