Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Bloomberg's Disdain for Property Rights
Last week WPU held is press conference in support of the Private Property Protection Act, a bill that passed the House and has been sent to the Senate for disposition. The NY Daily News covered the event:
"A proposed federal law could hinder the city’s bid to revamp Willets Point, business owners there are hoping... Willets Point United, a vocal group of stakeholders there, has long contended the city’s use of eminent domain to take their land for a mixed-use development is unfair and unethical.“Does this sound like it should be happening in America?” attorney Michael Rikon said to an applauding crowd gathered around him at a Sunoco gas station in Willets Point on Thursday."
On cue the city cried foul: "But a city official said the bill, which would discourage municipalities from taking private property for economic development, could also squash future unrelated revitalization projects....'If this bill were to become law, important revitalization projects, such as the ones that gave new life to Times Square, MetroTech and Lincoln Center, wouldn’t be possible and it would also jeopardize the long-sought redevelopment of Willets Point,” said Lisa Bova-Hiatt, an attorney with the city Law Department."
It's always nice to know that young city officials remain ignorant of NY's history-and citing the Robert Moses removal of a large Puerto Rican population from the West Sixties to build Lincoln Center for the glitterati as an example of a shining city on a hill confirms young Ms. Bova-Hiatt's ignorance. But wait, that's not all.
The redevelopment of Times Square, when Bova-Hiatt was probably in diapers, started with a push from the threat of eminent domain but as crime dropped and property valuers rose the area developed naturally and organically without the heavy hand of condemnation. But the young woman's comments expose the basic philosophy of the plutocrat mayor: use the power of the state to abscond with the hard earned property of the little guys in order to turn it over to someone richer and more connected. As if nothing would ever get redeveloped in this town without this kind of usurpation of property that is familiar for citizens of the former Soviet Union.
The city also ignores the fact that 44 other states have moved forward with property rights protection-not fearing the potential loss of development, or perhaps being more concerned with property rights protection, a right that is the foundation for all other rights in this country. And the city has a right to be concerned: "The act would also prohibit the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development. City attorneys said the city is not seeking federal money for the Willets Point plan, but the law could discourage it from moving forward because the city could lose out on future money."
Mike Bloomberg is a believer in the power of government to tell you how to run your life, and when it suits him, to use the state to take away all that you have struggled to build in a lifetime-all for the greater good as he sees it. One thing we can all be sure of, however, no one will ever take the property of the very rich to build, let's say, affordable housing or a rec center for the poor. The transfers are always the other way around.
So we urge the senate to take up this measure and do what the besotted citizens of NYC have failed to do: Remove this awful power from the hands of a mayor who has been a scourge of all small business and property owners in this city. If we only had had the foresight to build a mosque on the Iron Triangle we would have been safe from Bloomberg's graspy, greedy hands.
"A proposed federal law could hinder the city’s bid to revamp Willets Point, business owners there are hoping... Willets Point United, a vocal group of stakeholders there, has long contended the city’s use of eminent domain to take their land for a mixed-use development is unfair and unethical.“Does this sound like it should be happening in America?” attorney Michael Rikon said to an applauding crowd gathered around him at a Sunoco gas station in Willets Point on Thursday."
On cue the city cried foul: "But a city official said the bill, which would discourage municipalities from taking private property for economic development, could also squash future unrelated revitalization projects....'If this bill were to become law, important revitalization projects, such as the ones that gave new life to Times Square, MetroTech and Lincoln Center, wouldn’t be possible and it would also jeopardize the long-sought redevelopment of Willets Point,” said Lisa Bova-Hiatt, an attorney with the city Law Department."
It's always nice to know that young city officials remain ignorant of NY's history-and citing the Robert Moses removal of a large Puerto Rican population from the West Sixties to build Lincoln Center for the glitterati as an example of a shining city on a hill confirms young Ms. Bova-Hiatt's ignorance. But wait, that's not all.
The redevelopment of Times Square, when Bova-Hiatt was probably in diapers, started with a push from the threat of eminent domain but as crime dropped and property valuers rose the area developed naturally and organically without the heavy hand of condemnation. But the young woman's comments expose the basic philosophy of the plutocrat mayor: use the power of the state to abscond with the hard earned property of the little guys in order to turn it over to someone richer and more connected. As if nothing would ever get redeveloped in this town without this kind of usurpation of property that is familiar for citizens of the former Soviet Union.
The city also ignores the fact that 44 other states have moved forward with property rights protection-not fearing the potential loss of development, or perhaps being more concerned with property rights protection, a right that is the foundation for all other rights in this country. And the city has a right to be concerned: "The act would also prohibit the federal government from using eminent domain for economic development. City attorneys said the city is not seeking federal money for the Willets Point plan, but the law could discourage it from moving forward because the city could lose out on future money."
Mike Bloomberg is a believer in the power of government to tell you how to run your life, and when it suits him, to use the state to take away all that you have struggled to build in a lifetime-all for the greater good as he sees it. One thing we can all be sure of, however, no one will ever take the property of the very rich to build, let's say, affordable housing or a rec center for the poor. The transfers are always the other way around.
So we urge the senate to take up this measure and do what the besotted citizens of NYC have failed to do: Remove this awful power from the hands of a mayor who has been a scourge of all small business and property owners in this city. If we only had had the foresight to build a mosque on the Iron Triangle we would have been safe from Bloomberg's graspy, greedy hands.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Post's Goodwin Flatters WPU on Living Wage But Misses Larger Point
We have described the so-called mayoral living wage exemption-now deceased-as an example of crony capitalism; something the Mike Bloomberg thrives on. Now Michael Goodwin of the NY Post follows our lead:
"To get a ground-level view of how government distorts the economy, look at the twists and turns in the city’s “living wage” bill. It begins with the massive subsidies City Hall hands out to businesses to get them to come to Gotham, or keep them from leaving. Unions and liberal pols object, saying many of the jobs created pay too little. So the City Council wants to force any company getting $1 million in subsidies to pay its workers at least $10 an hour, or $11.50 without benefits.
Secret talks over final language are focusing on exemptions. First, one provided that tenants of developers who get the subsidies don’t have to pay more than the minimum wage, now $7.25 an hour. That was a good idea that improved a bad bill and a business group signed on. Second, the business group insists the mayor be able to exempt any deal from the wage rules. That was a bad idea and an invitation to crony capitalism.
Each deal would turn into a lobbying frenzy, complete with campaign contributions and, possibly, bribery.When the council sensibly dropped that provision, the business group withdrew its support. Notice that none of this has anything to do with free markets and free enterprise. It’s all about politicians picking winners and losers — with taxpayer money."
Of course the entire Bloomberg economic development opus has been-not about capitalism-but "politicians picking winners and losers"-with the mayor as holding the tout sheet for his rich friends. And Willets Point is next on the menu-with Related salivating for another Bloomberg prepared meal.
All of this makes the controversy over the living wage bill a classic case of misdirection-taking our attention away from Bloomberg's crony capitalism and his egregious use of eminent domain in a reverse Robin Hood manner. That's where Goodwin should focus his attention-and if he does he will find large numbers of small businesses stacked up right under the Bloomberg bus.
"To get a ground-level view of how government distorts the economy, look at the twists and turns in the city’s “living wage” bill. It begins with the massive subsidies City Hall hands out to businesses to get them to come to Gotham, or keep them from leaving. Unions and liberal pols object, saying many of the jobs created pay too little. So the City Council wants to force any company getting $1 million in subsidies to pay its workers at least $10 an hour, or $11.50 without benefits.
Secret talks over final language are focusing on exemptions. First, one provided that tenants of developers who get the subsidies don’t have to pay more than the minimum wage, now $7.25 an hour. That was a good idea that improved a bad bill and a business group signed on. Second, the business group insists the mayor be able to exempt any deal from the wage rules. That was a bad idea and an invitation to crony capitalism.
Each deal would turn into a lobbying frenzy, complete with campaign contributions and, possibly, bribery.When the council sensibly dropped that provision, the business group withdrew its support. Notice that none of this has anything to do with free markets and free enterprise. It’s all about politicians picking winners and losers — with taxpayer money."
Of course the entire Bloomberg economic development opus has been-not about capitalism-but "politicians picking winners and losers"-with the mayor as holding the tout sheet for his rich friends. And Willets Point is next on the menu-with Related salivating for another Bloomberg prepared meal.
All of this makes the controversy over the living wage bill a classic case of misdirection-taking our attention away from Bloomberg's crony capitalism and his egregious use of eminent domain in a reverse Robin Hood manner. That's where Goodwin should focus his attention-and if he does he will find large numbers of small businesses stacked up right under the Bloomberg bus.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Bloomberg Fights Against Communism
Just how out of touch is Mike Bloomberg? We know that he doesn't like the living wage bill-now watered down into insignificance, but to compare it to communism? Here's the mayor's genius in action:
"The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR and that didn't work out so well," Bloomberg said. "You cannot stop the tides from coming in." Really getting into his nostalgia for the Red Scare of his youth, Bloomberg also promised to file a lawsuit against the living-wage bill, which would require that certain recipients of large city-sponsored economic-development subsidies set wages at a minimum of $10 an hour."
The incredible cluelessness of the mayor is seen in the comments of REBNY, the city's large real estate group: "The contentious living wage bill, which the Hudson Yards is exempt from, will likely not affect more than 500 workers total in its current form, the New York Times reported...“Its impact, I believe, will be minimal,” Steven Spinola, the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, told the Times."
For 500 workers max Bloomberg is losing his cool? What kind of silly game is this?
So what's up Mike Bloomberg? Is he-just like his union adversaries over at RWDSU-waging a largely symbolic war on an issue that has lost any substantive significance? Sure looks like it. And this is from a guy whose economic development policies look more like those of corporate fascism-using the power of the state to take away people's property and transfer it to favored corporate cronies-just like with Willets Point.
We at WPU feel that the mayor should stay away from the philosophical arguments-he's out of his depth and his assertions are as inane as they are hypocritical.
"The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR and that didn't work out so well," Bloomberg said. "You cannot stop the tides from coming in." Really getting into his nostalgia for the Red Scare of his youth, Bloomberg also promised to file a lawsuit against the living-wage bill, which would require that certain recipients of large city-sponsored economic-development subsidies set wages at a minimum of $10 an hour."
The incredible cluelessness of the mayor is seen in the comments of REBNY, the city's large real estate group: "The contentious living wage bill, which the Hudson Yards is exempt from, will likely not affect more than 500 workers total in its current form, the New York Times reported...“Its impact, I believe, will be minimal,” Steven Spinola, the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, told the Times."
For 500 workers max Bloomberg is losing his cool? What kind of silly game is this?
So what's up Mike Bloomberg? Is he-just like his union adversaries over at RWDSU-waging a largely symbolic war on an issue that has lost any substantive significance? Sure looks like it. And this is from a guy whose economic development policies look more like those of corporate fascism-using the power of the state to take away people's property and transfer it to favored corporate cronies-just like with Willets Point.
We at WPU feel that the mayor should stay away from the philosophical arguments-he's out of his depth and his assertions are as inane as they are hypocritical.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Eminent domain press conference today
Willets Point Property owners, workers, community leaders, and elected officials come together to support H.R. 1433, The Private Property Protection Act that has been sent to the Senate after passing the House in February.
When: April, 12, 2012
Time: Noon
Where: 127-48 Northern Boulevard; Flushing, New York 11368 (The Sunoco gas station is located on the perimeter of Willets Point on Northern Boulevard, accessed by traveling eastbound on Northern Boulevard).
On February, 28, 2012, in a voice vote the House passed H.R. 1433, a bill that would prohibit the use of federal funds for any local economic development project that uses condemnation of private property for anything aside from a public use-such as a bridge, a school or a road. The bi-partisan bill was co-sponsored by Republican James Sensenbrenner and Democrat Maxine Waters and has been conveyed to the senate for consideration.
Willets Point is the front line, in the entire United States, of the important battle between private property rights and the controversial abuse of eminent domain for economic development purposes. Accordingly, Willets Point property and business owners are taking the lead to support and publicize the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2012 (H.R. 1433) – a proposed fed33eral law that strongly discourages eminent domain abuse by withholding, from any state where eminent domain is used for economic development purposes, all federal economic development funds for a period of two years. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives on February 28, 2012 by an overwhelming bipartisan voice vote, and is now at the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill reached the Committee during 2006 but did not progress. New York especially needs this federal legislation, as the Institute for Justice has identified New York State as possibly the worst abuser of eminent domain in the nation.
The congressional legislation recognizes the justice of the WPU fight and, if the bill is passed into law, it would mean not only that the city would not be able to access any federal money for the project; but the State of New York would lose ALL federal economic development funding for a period of two years-a severe punishment, for what the House has determined is a most inappropriate and egregious use of eminent domain.
It has been reported that EDC is looking to obtain federal money to defray the cost of controversial ramps slated to be built to accommodate the estimated 80,000 car and truck trips a day generated by the 62 acre development. If the bill passes, however, NYC tax payers will be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure costs.
The bill now is at the Senate Judiciary Committee and at the press conference WPU, local Queens civic leaders, and an assortment of elected officials will be calling on the US Senate to hold immediate hearings on the bill and move swiftly to vote it into law. All congressional and senate candidates have been invited to the event and Councilman Halloran have tentatively agreed to attend. Also scheduled to attend are State Senators Bill Perkins and Tony Avella. Perkins is the state senate sponsor of an eminent domain reform bill that would restrict the use of condemnation for anything other than a public use.
As Senator Perkins says, “It is time that the rights of small property owners, racial minorities and immigrant workers were legally protected from the land grabs orchestrated by rich developers and their political friends."
Senator Avella agrees: “Too often development schemes use eminent domain to harm small property owners for the benefit of a rich cohort of real estate developers. Willets Point is the front line in the fight to stop harmful eminent domain seizures. Here, the City is trying to uproot small businesses that have been in the area for decades in order to sell out to real estate moguls. It is an absolute disgrace that these businesses need to defend themselves from the City they chose to do business in.”
The proposed federal law, passed by the House via an overwhelming voice vote, confirms what Willets Point United Inc. has been saying since 2008: That eminent domain is NOT properly used for economic development purposes. Now the U.S. House of Representatives, along with 44 states -- other than New York -- that have already passed their own local legislation to limit eminent domain for economic development purposes, are all now on record opposing precisely the use of eminent domain that the Bloomberg administration is attempting at Willets Point. The press conference will demonstrate that the people of Queens want the federal law passed so that New Yorkers will finally have the benefit of some property rights protection-something which does not currently exist in New York today.
Councilman Dan Halloran, running for the congressional seat in the 6th CD, agrees; “Willets Point could have been the site of a responsible development that reinvigorates our borough," said Council Member Dan Halloran (R-Whitestone). "Instead, it has witnessed the worst in eminent domain abuse and government overreach. The small businesses here deserve better."
The press conference will also be attended by long time civic leader Ben Haber who will be speaking on behalf of the Bay Terrace Civic, Juniper Civic, College Point Taxpayers and Homeowners, John Bowne Civic, and Comet. These groups collectively represent over 10,000 Queens’ households.
Aside from the issue of eminent domain WPU has been fighting the city’s misguided effort to build ramps off of the Van Wyck because it believes that the traffic that will be generated by the project will overwhelm Queens’ highways and local roads. There is simply no way to accommodate the huge amount of traffic that this project will generate. Eight local civic groups have endorsed the WPU position on eminent domain and the ramps.
A Living (Wage) Lie
The attempt by Speaker Quinn to have her cake and eat in on the living wage bill is apparently falling apart. According to the NY Times: "The long battle over a measure that would raise the wages of workers whose companies receive subsidies from New York City took a surprising turn on Wednesday, when a previously undisclosed loophole was scrapped, prompting a major business group to withdraw its support for the measure."
Loophole, what loophole? It appears that the cagey Quinn was looking to give the mayor a right to exempt any project from the provisions of the law-a great idea for crony capitalists: "The business group, the Partnership for New York City, had agreed to support the bill, which would require companies receiving city subsidies to pay their workers more than the minimum wage, on the condition that it include a provision allowing the mayor’s office to waive the requirements in certain cases."
So, you'd have a law that the mayor (whoever she is) could abrogate for her friends. What happens to those who are big political contributors? Well, they would have sucked wind, as the saying goes. But there is something fishy going on with all this because as soon as the Speaker dropped the provision we found out the following: "But on Wednesday evening, the office of Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, revealed that the waiver provision, a sticking point in talks with a critical labor union, was being dropped. Minutes later, the president of the partnership, Kathryn S. Wylde, released a statement saying that the group was withdrawing its support."
Sounds like a coordinated action with the speaker looking as if she's at odds with the business group that she has been courting. But there's one problem with this, it still leaves the Hudson Yards development outside the law's reach-and the two developers, Related and Vornado, will be very appreciative of the speaker's dispensation:
"Although the mayoral waiver has now been dropped, an exemption for companies involved in part of the Hudson Yards project, a 26-acre mixed-use development along the city’s Far West Side, appeared likely to stay in the bill. In a radio interview on Wednesday, Ms. Quinn said that the final version of the bill would “more than likely” include an exemption for Hudson Yards."
What this all comes down to is that Quinn, the former community organizer, has become the heir apparent to Bloomberg's crony capitalist economic development policies-after all, Willets Point was supposed to include a living wage requirement but that has disappeared along with all of the other broken promises. (http://www.willetspoint.org/2011/12/living-wage-and-bloomberg-hypocrisy.html)
Loophole, what loophole? It appears that the cagey Quinn was looking to give the mayor a right to exempt any project from the provisions of the law-a great idea for crony capitalists: "The business group, the Partnership for New York City, had agreed to support the bill, which would require companies receiving city subsidies to pay their workers more than the minimum wage, on the condition that it include a provision allowing the mayor’s office to waive the requirements in certain cases."
So, you'd have a law that the mayor (whoever she is) could abrogate for her friends. What happens to those who are big political contributors? Well, they would have sucked wind, as the saying goes. But there is something fishy going on with all this because as soon as the Speaker dropped the provision we found out the following: "But on Wednesday evening, the office of Christine C. Quinn, the City Council speaker, revealed that the waiver provision, a sticking point in talks with a critical labor union, was being dropped. Minutes later, the president of the partnership, Kathryn S. Wylde, released a statement saying that the group was withdrawing its support."
Sounds like a coordinated action with the speaker looking as if she's at odds with the business group that she has been courting. But there's one problem with this, it still leaves the Hudson Yards development outside the law's reach-and the two developers, Related and Vornado, will be very appreciative of the speaker's dispensation:
"Although the mayoral waiver has now been dropped, an exemption for companies involved in part of the Hudson Yards project, a 26-acre mixed-use development along the city’s Far West Side, appeared likely to stay in the bill. In a radio interview on Wednesday, Ms. Quinn said that the final version of the bill would “more than likely” include an exemption for Hudson Yards."
What this all comes down to is that Quinn, the former community organizer, has become the heir apparent to Bloomberg's crony capitalist economic development policies-after all, Willets Point was supposed to include a living wage requirement but that has disappeared along with all of the other broken promises. (http://www.willetspoint.org/2011/12/living-wage-and-bloomberg-hypocrisy.html)
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Claire Shulman's LDC and the IRS
We have been tracking the lackluster efforts of law enforcement in bringing the illegal lobbying work of Claire Shulman's Flushing/Willets Point/Corona Local Development Corporation to some sort of just enforcement conclusion. We have harped on the fact the NYS Attorney General's Office has completely tanked its original investigation of the illegal lobbying (under Section 1411 of the not for profit laws of NY), but haven't dwelled too much on our complaint to the IRS-something that we had written to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell about.
Now, however, a disturbing story prompts us to re-visit the federal aspects of Shulman's illegal lobbying scheming-the fact that the IRS is hounding Tea Party groups, forcing them through hoops to qualify for their not for profit status. The Daily Caller has the story-via Instapundit:
"During a 2009 commencement address at Arizona State University, President Obama joked that he’d send the IRS after those who didn’t see eye-to-eye with him. For over 100 tea party groups, his comments are not amusing; they are a reality. The tea party has had a profound impact on the national political debate, bringing the size and scope of the federal government to the forefront of the American dialogue. As voters increasingly connect with the tea party’s values, President Obama and Democrats have grown concerned about the movement’s grassroots energy. In a “Chicago style” attempt to smother the movement before the 2012 election, the Obama administration is using the IRS to attack tea party groups."
Check out what one Tea party group is being forced to do:
"The Waco Tea Party submitted an application for tax-exempt status in 2010. Nearly two years after the IRS’s 90-day response window elapsed, the group finally received a reply — a list of over 50 demands. The three-year-old organization was asked to compile every Facebook post and tweet it had ever produced. It was told to submit transcriptions of its weekly radio show — a request that would cost $25,000 to comply with, more than twice the group’s annual budget. It was ordered to explain any “close relationships” with candidates. And when the Waco Tea Party asked the IRS to clarify “close relationship” and “candidate,” the IRS replied, “Send us everything.”
Well, well, compare that with the Shulman application. As we said to Senator McConnell:
"The reason for this letter, however, is your publicly expressed concerns about the politicization of the IRS
concerning the not for profit status of various tea party groups. (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/216049-gop-presses-irs-on-treatment-of-tea-party-groups) We at WPU share your concerns because
we have seen firsthand how the IRS has ignored our own complaints about the FWPCLDC-a group made up of real estate developers with no charitable objective.
As the group’s director Claire Shulman told the NY Times in 2009 lobbying was the "primary purpose" of FWPCLDC and "the whole idea." However, when filling out the IRS forms under lobbying the group wrote, “No.” This was in spite of the fact that the Shulman-led lobbying effort in favor of the Willets Point development was extremely successful-leading to the passage of this eminent domain inspired project that has put our properties at extreme risk." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/nyregion/21lobby.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=claire%20shulman%20and%20willets%20point&st=cse)
WPU made a formal complaint to the IRS about Shulman's group and have yet to hear from these politicized bureaucrats-even when they are handed a prima facie case of illegality right in their lap. So it's pretty clear that when it comes to the equal enforcement of the law the Obama administration believes that some groups are more equal than others-and property rights be damned!
Now, however, a disturbing story prompts us to re-visit the federal aspects of Shulman's illegal lobbying scheming-the fact that the IRS is hounding Tea Party groups, forcing them through hoops to qualify for their not for profit status. The Daily Caller has the story-via Instapundit:
"During a 2009 commencement address at Arizona State University, President Obama joked that he’d send the IRS after those who didn’t see eye-to-eye with him. For over 100 tea party groups, his comments are not amusing; they are a reality. The tea party has had a profound impact on the national political debate, bringing the size and scope of the federal government to the forefront of the American dialogue. As voters increasingly connect with the tea party’s values, President Obama and Democrats have grown concerned about the movement’s grassroots energy. In a “Chicago style” attempt to smother the movement before the 2012 election, the Obama administration is using the IRS to attack tea party groups."
Check out what one Tea party group is being forced to do:
"The Waco Tea Party submitted an application for tax-exempt status in 2010. Nearly two years after the IRS’s 90-day response window elapsed, the group finally received a reply — a list of over 50 demands. The three-year-old organization was asked to compile every Facebook post and tweet it had ever produced. It was told to submit transcriptions of its weekly radio show — a request that would cost $25,000 to comply with, more than twice the group’s annual budget. It was ordered to explain any “close relationships” with candidates. And when the Waco Tea Party asked the IRS to clarify “close relationship” and “candidate,” the IRS replied, “Send us everything.”
Well, well, compare that with the Shulman application. As we said to Senator McConnell:
"The reason for this letter, however, is your publicly expressed concerns about the politicization of the IRS
concerning the not for profit status of various tea party groups. (http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/216049-gop-presses-irs-on-treatment-of-tea-party-groups) We at WPU share your concerns because
we have seen firsthand how the IRS has ignored our own complaints about the FWPCLDC-a group made up of real estate developers with no charitable objective.
As the group’s director Claire Shulman told the NY Times in 2009 lobbying was the "primary purpose" of FWPCLDC and "the whole idea." However, when filling out the IRS forms under lobbying the group wrote, “No.” This was in spite of the fact that the Shulman-led lobbying effort in favor of the Willets Point development was extremely successful-leading to the passage of this eminent domain inspired project that has put our properties at extreme risk." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/nyregion/21lobby.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=claire%20shulman%20and%20willets%20point&st=cse)
WPU made a formal complaint to the IRS about Shulman's group and have yet to hear from these politicized bureaucrats-even when they are handed a prima facie case of illegality right in their lap. So it's pretty clear that when it comes to the equal enforcement of the law the Obama administration believes that some groups are more equal than others-and property rights be damned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
