November 3, 2005
Recommended Reading

The Autumn issue of City Journal is available online, and I highly recommend two pieces appearing there, written by Nicole Gelinas.

The first piece is a clear-eyed examination of the critical problem that may prove to be the most daunting hurdle for New Orleans to recover from its current woes.

I'm not referring to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I'm referring to the murders and other serious crimes that plague the city's efforts to attract and retain its businesses and its population.

The second Gelinas article should be required reading for lawyers and others attempting to assess the remarkable public reaction against the Supreme Court's Kelo eminent domain decision. Gelinas cites example after example of how the promise of economic development that provided the legal support for the use of this extraordinary governmental power has rarely if ever paid off in practice.

November 2, 2005
New Music

One advantage of having older daughter hanging around the house is that she keeps us exposed to new music.

Otherwise, we would probably continue to rely upon our vast collection of stuff from the 1970s and 1980s, supplemented by the occasional movie soundtrack issued since that time.

Here's a link to OK Go, a great new band she's recently recommended (new to us, anyway). Make sure you download and watch their music video, A Million Ways.

Real ROFL stuff.

November 1, 2005
CJR and the Judge

The folks at the Columbia Journalism Review are becoming web-savvy in their marketing efforts.

They sent me an email today, complete with a link, pointing to an interesting profile they're running about Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner.

It's hard to believe that they've sent this notice out to every blogger, what with there being a few million of us out here. I assume they did a search at Technorati or some similar service, looking for those who have written about him previously.

I certainly fit that description.

November 1, 2005
Only butchered the story a little bit

Apropos of yesterday's post, today marked the first day in which the Delaware Department of Transportation embarks on its new, expanded enforcement program against illegal signs in the state's rights-of-way.

The 1998 version of the sign law addressed some of the issues raised in the Rappa lawsuit, by among other things establishing a Clear Zone in the rights-of-way, where unofficial signs would be subject to immediate removal.

The new law gives DelDOT the additional authority to remove unofficial signs from utility poles and the rest of the state's rights of way. The legislation also creates a civil penalty of $25 per sign, along with a $15 recovery fee for those who want it returned to them during a 30-day waiting period before DelDOT can and will dispose of it.

The legislation appears at 17 Del.C. Sections 524-527 and 17 Del.C. Section 1111 (c), and was enacted earlier this year as part of the annual bond bill.

The Wilmington News-Journal ran a first-page story about the new law, and managed to mangle the facts a little bit, while attempting to explain one aspect of the new scheme.

The law makes an exception for political signs, permitting them 30 days before and after an election. No signs--political or otherwise--will be removed during those times, and no fines will be imposed....

Well, not exactly.

The facts are that any such signs within the Clear Zones (close to the roadsides and in the median strips) will be removed immediately, regardless of the political season, along with any signs stuck on utility poles.

During the political seasons, however, signs placed elsewhere in the rights-of-way won't be subject to immediate removal. This time-based exception applies to all signs, and not merely political signs. Since the signs won't be removed during this period, there won't be any fines or recovery fees, either.

The News-Journal is usually a bit shy about running corrections, so I thought it might help to correct this particular error. Otherwise, folks might have the mistaken impression that the State is making a content-based distinction in its enforcement policy.