Rep. Reed Admits His “Property Rights Act” is Unconstitutional!

Posted on May 29, 2015 by

sharing-ideas13

Rep. Tom Reed’s Big Flats Town Hall Meeting was promoted to be a discussion on his proposed “Defense of Property Rights Act”, as well as other topics.  Rep. Reed started explaining it right after the pledge to the flag, There was not his usual News from Washington segment. I didn’t count the people who attended, but the Big Flats Town Hall staff had to bring out some extra chairs.

There were discussions about landowners loosing their gas leases which were countered by people owning property within a few miles from the proposed Crestwood LPG storage area near Seneca Lake. Rep. Reed spoke of the Property Rights Caucus which he helped organized—how his concept of being able to sue the government if they make decisions that affect the value of your property is being embraced by members of both parties.

Then a pivotal point was presented which may prove to be a critical barrier in process of turning Rep. Reed’s Act into law: Using the present interpretation of the Supreme Court, Rep. Reed’s proposed law is unconstitutional. And Rep. Reed agrees!

Attorney Leslie Danks Burke said, “You and I are also attorneys and we both have taken constitutional law. So we both understand this jurisprudence stuff. I appreciate that you started out this conversation mentioning the legislation that you are proposing is not in accordance to the constitution as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court. At this point the Supreme Court says that your proposed legislation is unconstitutional because your proposed legislation creates this 20 percent threshold.”

Rep. Reed rapidly replied, “Absolutely That is why I fundamentally disagree with the Supreme Court’s interpretation.”

Ms Danks Burke responded, “Ok. I think that is part of the reason some of us does not think that your legislation have much of a shot of passing…”

Rep. Reed defended himself, “Just as you know, Supreme Courts have a tendency over the years to change course and interpret the constitution both ways.  We’re trying to be part of the effort to stand with the property owners and the individuals and say to the court as well as the nation that this is the voice that needs to be respected.”

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains the  Eminent Domain clause, which gives the government the right to acquire property for public use. It also states that the landowner shall receive “just compensation” for the land.  There would need to be a massive change in the constitution, or interpretation of the constitution, to expand the compensation provision to include what Rep. Reed is proposing in his “Defense of Property Right’s Act.”

Anyone can claim that something is unconstitutional. Look at all who have declared the SAFE Act is unconstitutional by both the Federal AND the New York State’s Constitution, but the Courts have not. This is not just another blogger declaring Rep. Reed’s proposal doesn’t mustard the Constitutional standard, it is another attorney, and she justifies her opinion by using the constitution itself.  More importantly Rep. Reed agrees with her! To me, the answer he gave about the Supreme Court might change their mind sometime is just telling me that he is preparing to use this ploy for the long haul–to drum up support for campaigns to come.

Ms Danks Burke then asked, “So my question is by creating the 20 percent threshold you are actually creating a massive entitlement program that will have to be paid for somehow. Somehow instead of only compensating landowners for full “takings” which is constitutional right now, you’re going to have to pay landowners who have only a partial “taking”, which is currently unconstitutional.

(At this point she was interrupted by a crowd member yelling: “How about if you get it so it actually prohibits or stops the government from the damn taking in the first place.” There was just silence, he received no response, then she continued.)

“So how do you plan to pay for this massive new entitlement program which the state will have to compensate not just for full taking but for partial taking?”

Rep. Reed’s response was his general defense that local governments should think twice and examine the situation to see if it is worth the cost the government will have to pay to the so called harmed individuals.

Ms Danks Burke: That gets to a second constitutional problem that I have with your legislation. What you’re saying is you are attempting as a Federal government to come in a quell state action. You are attempting to have the federal government to come in and force the state government to do what you want. I think that is a States’ Rights concern.

Rep. Reed:  Well we’ve opened it up. The individual has the right to pursue their claims in state court as well as federal court. So we are giving both avenues of relief.

Ms Danks Burke: I heard you say that you are asking the federal government to quell state action. Is that not what you are saying?

Rep. Reed: Local Government. To make sure local government to take this into consideration for individuals.

Ms Danks Burke: To make sure local government does what you ask.

Rep. Reed: We may disagree. You want to stand on the side of big government. I get it.

Ms Danks Burke: I oppose to big government guys like you to come in and tell my municipality what to do.

Rep. Reed: We recognize that local government can still take action, but it needs to think it through all of the way. I don’t think local government does it as good for individuals today as it did.

View the above conversation and the discussion of States’ Rights:

Posted in Constituents, Economics, Environmental, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, NYS Government, Reed's Views, Rights | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Ode To (Rep) Reed

Posted on May 27, 2015 by

Flash MobThe following song was sung to Rep. Reed and members of the audience at the Big Flats Town Hall Meeting on Tuesday, May 26. For a MUST SEE Video of the singing of the song , along with Rep. Reed’s quick comments, go to: https://youtu.be/3GmfLahbFdw. It is an event Rep. Reed and District Director Joe Sempolinski will not soon forget. Want a PDF copy of the song? Go To Ode To Reed.

Ode To Reed

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Rep. Reed in Big Flats Tonight!

Posted on May 26, 2015 by

This article was written by Leslie Danks Burke of Ithaca. She  is an attorney, and sits on the Agriculture subcommittee of the Southern Tier Regional Economic Development Council.

bigflats_nyMany upstate farmers know that New York’s fracking ban protects agricultural livelihood. Staying in the farming business means keeping gas companies out of vineyards, crop rows, and livestock grazing areas.
Of course, some landowners bought into the gas companies’ false promises of opportunity. But the low odds of a few striking it rich through horizontal gas leases don’t outweigh the huge costs.  I’ve seen what’s happened to my parents’ farm in a fracking state. Trees are dying, water is running out, and jobs are drying up.

Congressman Reed pretends to keep the fantasy alive through his so-called “Defense of Property Rights Act.” Mr. Reed wants to force all of us to make entitlement payments to the few landowners who hoped to strike it rich.  Not only is his proposed law unconstitutional, but it would raise taxes and expand government – the very opposite of what he says he supports. We can’t afford that and he should know better.

Mr. Reed has announced a Town Hall at the Big Flats Community Center Tuesday, May 26, 5:30 pm, to promote his plan. We can show up to support our farmers and our agricultural heritage, and speak out against this unfair, one-sided handout.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Privacy and Equality in the Constitution

Posted on May 25, 2015 by
catt

Carrie Chapman Catt

To get the word male . . . out of the Constitution cost the women of the country fifty-two years of pauseless campaign.–Carrie Chapman Catt

Writing in the May 25th issue of The New Yorker, historian Jill Lepore discusses the history of the struggle for equal rights. Her article is titled “To Have and to Hold.” Lepore explains that the Constitution was written for men, so that protections for reproductive and marriage rights needed to be added.

Lepore writes:

The Constitution never mentions sex, marriage, or reproduction. This is because the political order that the Constitution established was a fraternity of free men who, believing themselves to have been created equal, consented to be governed. Women did not and could not give their consent: they were neither free nor equal. Rule over women lay entirely outside a Lockean social contract in a relationship not of liberty and equality but of confinement and subjugation. As Mary Astell wondered, in 1706, “If all Men are born free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves?”

Lepore discusses reproductive rights which are based on a right to privacy said to be implicit in the Constitution. Lepore finds this justification relatively weak and vulnerable to attack. Lepore writes that the right to marriage equality, currently before the Supreme Court, is based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, which she considers a much stronger claim. Lepore suggests that if Griswold, the decision upholding a right to contraception, had been based on the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments rather than the right to privacy, reproductive rights might have survived challenges such as the Hobby Lobby case.

I highly recommend Lepore’s interesting article cited below.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/to-have-and-to-hold

Posted in Constitution, gay rights, pro-life/pro-choice, Rights, Supreme Court | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

NYS Tax Cap and Public Schools

Posted on May 23, 2015 by

New York State presently limits the amount a local government (County, City, Town, Village, Special District, Public School, and Public Library)  can raise the Tax Levy between two budgets. The limit is known as  the “2 Percent Tax Cap.” If the taxing entity proposes a budget that is more than their Tax Cap, it can only pass if it is approved by a 60 per cent ‘“Super Majority” approval rate.

In governments where an elected board approves the budget (Counties, Cities, Towns, and Villages) the Super Majority applies to the Board Members. On the seven member Penn Yan Village Board, we need to have five members approving a budget that is over the Tax Cap. On a five member Town Board you will need three affirmative votes. The 14 member Yates County Legislature needs to have nine affirmative votes.

School districts and Public Libraries have their budgets approved in a public vote. They need to have 60 percent affirmative votes of those who vote to have the budget approved.

school4cLast Tuesday, May 19, Public Schools over New York State held their budget referendums. Eighteen schools districts presented budgets that exceeded their tax cap.   Two were nearby school districts, Geneva and Dundee, were ones that proposed school budgets that needed a Super Majority to pass. Dundee’s budget succeeded (161-100); Geneva’s budget failed by 24 votes (676-490).

Looking at the facts tells us a lot about the Tax Cap law. Although commonly known as “2 percent Tax Cap”, it is seldom two percent. There is a complicated formula to determine each district’s Tax Cap.  Geneva’s proposed Tax Levy was a 1.95 percent increase. Their actual Tax Cap was 0.34 percent! Dundee’s proposed Tax Levy was a 3.9 percent increase. It’s actual Tax Cap, according the the State’s formula, was a NEGATIVE 4.3 percent! (Yes, you read it right.) Dundee’s  voters approved a budget that exceeded their Tax Levy by 8.2 percent!

There were 18 school districts whose budgets were over their Tax Cap, and 11 districts were successful in having their voters approved a budget override. The unsuccessful seven districts were Chazy and Northeastern Clinton in Clinton County, Parishville-Hopkinton in St. Lawrence County,  Herkimer (Herkimer County in the Mohawk Valley)  Patchogue-Medford (Long Island) and NY 23rd’s Geneva and Tioga Central Schools.  Two school districts that needed a simple majority had failing budgets—Walton (Delaware) and NY 23rd’s Addison (Steuben).

Almost 99 percent of the 658 school districts passed their under the tax cap budgets. What did those schools have to do to stay under their cap? Did they cut staff? Did they move funds from reserve accounts? Did they delay replacing or upgrading equipment? Did they eliminate programs and/or extra-curricular activities? Priorities have to be made.

The Tax Cap Law expires next year, but the State Legislature may decide to extend it or have it die by the end of their legislative session on June 15. The Republican controlled State Senate passed a bill to indefinitely extend the bill as it now stands on Tuesday, 47-13. The Democrat controlled Assembly representatives are discussing changing it a bit as well as offering a bill that would reduce state-mandate spending.

There are those who are very supportive of extending the Tax Cap, who estimate that  the Property Tax has saved New Yorkers $7.6 billion. On the other the New York State School Board Association pointed out:

“School boards already have a de facto “tax cap” in place every time their spending plans go up for a public vote. School boards and their leadership teams across the state have worked hard to balance taxpayer support with student need. Even before enactment of the tax cap in 2011, school district increased spending just 0.8 percent in 2011-12, 1.1 percent in 2010-11, and 2.3 percent in 2009-10. Those are very responsible numbers.

School decision-makers know the economic climate in their communities and put forth budgets that reflect that climate, along with the needs and wants of their communities. In fact, school boards have attempted fewer and fewer tax cap overrides that require a 60 percent supermajority for passage. In 2012, there were 51 attempts, followed by 31 in 2013 and 29 last year.”

Has the Tax Cap really made a financial deference? It looked like schools were acting on their own to respond to their district’s financial needs.

There are school officials who point out that the Tax Cap has limited funds at a same time New York State initiated the  Gap Elimination Adjustment which reduced State Aid, and Common Core. Trying to master a new teaching system and standards while trying to provide our children with the best educational experience possible with less funding is a recipe for frustration. Some wonder if  these changes are a way to promote Charter Schools. 

Remember  all local governments are covered by the Tax Cap law. The public doesn’t vote directly on their budgets. They are approved by the Board Members who create the budgets. Has anyone ever heard of a County or City or Town or Village Government Budget not pass? I found no figures on how many Board approved local governments budgets that were over the Tax Cap.

We would like to hear your comments on New York State’s Tax Cap. Should the present one be extended the way it is now? Should out be modified, if so how? Should it be eliminated all together? How has it affected your School District.

Posted in Constituents, Economics, Education, NYS Government | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

Standardized Testing

Posted on May 22, 2015 by

half-truth

Tom Reed claims the EMPOWER (Enable More Parents to Opt-Out Without Endangering Resources) Act would allow parents to opt-out of annual standardized testing required for their children by No Child Left Behind, such as the assessments aligned with Common Core.

Our school districts should not be punished because parents exercise this choice,” said Reed. “Tens of thousands of parents have already opted their children out of required public school testing and students and teachers alike have felt the financial sting for non-compliance. It simply isn’t fair to take away the resources they need or shift the financial burden to local property tax payers. —Rep Tom Reed

It isn’t fair to deny funding to school districts that fail to show that they meet standards? Really, that is a surprising view for a Republican. Many Republicans, including Tom, are often big fans of accountability and punitive measures.

Parents need to be empowered to make the educational decisions that suit their children the best. Testing can be a valuable diagnostic tool for identifying problems and determining how best to help children succeed. But making high-stakes tests rather than learning the centerpiece of the education system, and the one and only indicator of success or failure, is problematic.– Rep. DeLauro

DeLauro and Reed are blowing smoke. DeLauro claims “… making high-stakes tests rather than learning the centerpiece of the education system, and the one and only indicator of success or failure, is problematic.” That’s tilting at windmills–no responsible educator would make tests a centerpiece or the only indicator of success.

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-delauro-testing-%E2%80%9Copt-out%E2%80%9D-proposal-will-empower-parents-help-students-and-protect

Posted in Congress, Education, Political, Reed's Views | Tagged | 4 Comments

How easily we are fooled

Posted on May 21, 2015 by

deliberately_misleading_bumper_stickers-rc7be4eb62d0b42fa8ba5809206507001_v9wht_8byvr_512We cannot compromise the fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the American people in the name of national security. After carefully considering this legislation, I believe that this is the starting place to address the injustices that have been levied against the American people, and provides some restoration to the delicate balance between national security and individual privacy rights.–Rep. Tom Reed

We voters are easily taken in by deceptive politicians. Here are examples.

Rep. Tom Reed on the USA Freedom Act of 2015:

The legislation ends the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk phone record collection under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This prevents the federal government from collecting large-scale, indiscriminate, information about ordinary Americans through their phone records.

Rep. Amash, the original author of the act, writes:

On May 13, 2015, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 (H.R. 2048) passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 338 to 88. We, the undersigned representatives, opposed the measure because its reforms do not adequately or appropriately reform surveillance practices or address privacy concerns.

Why does Rep. Reed ignore his fellow Republican’s concerns which are echoed by GOP Presidential candidate Rand Paul? It seems he seeks to fool us.

On the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, Rep. Reed writes:

Like our Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act, this bill will stimulate economic growth, leading to the creation of new industries and hi-tech manufacturing jobs.

The Obama Administration writes:

The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015, which would undermine critical investments in science, technology, and research. The Administration believes that H.R. 1806 would be damaging to the Administration’s actions to move American competitiveness, innovation, and job growth forward through a world-leading science, technology, and innovation enterprise.

Why does Rep. Reed ignore the Obama Administrations view? It seems he seeks to fool us.

On Social Security, specifically Social Security Disability Insurance, Tom professes great concern for the disabled, yet he rushed to forestall needed funding. Evidently he expects we can be easily fooled by what he says, ignorant of his actions.

On TPP and Fast Track, Tom Reed, taking the GOP misleaders view, tells us that TPP is all good. Readers of New NY 23rd will know that this is a misleading view.

Why are we treated as patsies?

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-protects-individual-liberties-and-fosters-national-security-usa-freedom-act

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/114/saphr1806r_20150518.pdf

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-votes-protect-and-create-american-jobs

Posted in Congress, Constituents, Political, Reed's Views, Seniors, Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , | 5 Comments