Lincolnite

Have you ever noticed that when the Big Dogs get nervous about a project, the Little Dogs get slapped with a whole lot of extra work in the form of new reporting requirements, extra meetings, and so forth? How, exactly, is that supposed to help or encourage the Little Dogs to work harder and finish the project on time? Grr. Not that this little rhetorical exercise has anything to do with real life. I'm just sayin'. Really. I swear.

An actual conversation from the bus ride this morning: Two high school-age girls sit at the back of the bus. They are chatting the way high school girls chat. A high school-age boy, an acquaintance, gets on. Girl 1: Hi, Boy. Boy: Hi. Girl 2: Are you a virgin? Boy: [After a slight pause] No. Girl 2: OK. Do you have any chapstick? And that was that.

The Journal Star has been giving Tom Osborne, relative to Dave Heineman, quite a bit of column space these past couple weeks. For example, in Sunday's paper the score was: Heineman, one photo, one shared article; Osborne, three photos, one shared article, one dedicated article, and one editorial. The Journal Star also backs Osborne in next week's primary. My question: to what degree is the Journal Star's support for Osborne related to his disproportionate coverage? I see two possibilities:

1. The Journal Star is so overcome by Coach Tom Fever that it is using its pages to promote its desired candidate as much as possible.
2. Tom Osborne is doing more newsworthy things than Dave Heineman in the days leading up to the primary.

The first option makes a lot of sense. After all, if you want a guy to win, you talk him up whenever you get the chance. It stands to reason that the Journal Star would do the same thing. They don't have any real obligation to provide equal time to all the candidates, beyond any state and federal campaign laws. And besides, Governor Heineman got all sorts of free press during the legislative session by virtue of being Governor. The second option also makes sense, at least from the Journal Star's perspective. They'll cover what needs to be covered. But if it's true, what the heck is wrong with Dave Heineman's campaign? Why isn't he increasing his media presence, especially in light of all the coverage Osborne has received lately (e.g. from the NSEA, Dennis Hastert, and John McCain endorsements)? I don't know which of these possibilities is correct, if both are partially correct, or if there's another option I completely missed. But to me the gap in coverage has been noticeable.

The proposed small commercial development at 9th/10th and Van Dorn Street apparently isn't popular with neighbors. I'm a little surprised by their opposition. The block being renovated is currently occupied by an empty lot and a few extremely run-down rental properties. It is clearly not a showcase block. The block sees far too much traffic on three sides to be viable as a residential block. It once housed light commercial activity (a greenhouse, and maybe another shop, but my memory is fuzzy) on the south portion of the block. It isn't as though new commercial development will draw more traffic to the neighborhood. Instead, the most likely customers for the proposed businesses -- a Starbucks, a dry cleaners, and a sandwich shop -- are individuals who are already on their way to or from Downtown, or to or from Highway 77. Resident Zemis Sedricks thinks that property values will decrease. On the contrary, tasteful, vibrant economic activity should increase property values in the immediate vicinity, especially in comparison to the dillapidated conditions currently found on the block. The neighbors' opposition seems to me to be based on unfounded fears. That's not to say their fears are entirely unreasonable, but given the realistic alternatives for the block, the current plan seems almost ideal. As long as the neighbors and developers maintain an open dialog, there is no reason the development can't add value to the area.

The City Council acted wisely yesterday and eliminated any fears that eminent domain would be used to acquire Chan Hua's property at 14th and 'Q'. I'm especially interested in this:

In the past week, private parties have expressed interest in relocating Hua and then dealing with the city, possibly by becoming part of the development team. As private operators, they wouldn’t have the same constraints.

That's the way these things should work. If the City can't win with Mr. Hua, then having a private party step in to work with him -- especially since Mr. Hua has said he is willing to negotiate, so long as the deal is fair for him -- is an ideal solution. Everybody will come out ahead. I'm crossing my fingers.

After a brief, but welcome, hiatus, it appears that Mayor Seng and the City of Lincoln have brought the hot topic of eminent domain abuse back into the spotlight. The first paragraph of Deena Winter's article on the topic is beautiful:

Chan Hua's grandparents lost a hog and farm operation to Communist China. His parents lost a construction company in Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge. And now, Hua fears he's about to lose his Chinese restaurant to the city of Lincoln.

Granted, Winter's comparison of Lincoln to China and Cambodia is a little over the top. But only a little. To be clear, the City and Hua are still in negotiations, so eminent domain is not the primary option at this point. Still, it is an option because the property has been declared blighted. Then again, Lincoln will declare anything blighted, so don't put too much stock in that declaration. Communities often leverage the blight label as a way to get property owners to back down during negotiations. Hua's property was valued at $199,200 during the 2005 tax year. He paid $290,000 for the property on December 23, 2003. The nearly $100,000 gap illustrates the vast difference that often exists between the taxed value of property and its market value. (Both of which are distinct from the value of the property to the property owner, which is often much higher.) Also remember that new tax valuations will come out in June, so the tax figure may be revised. At some level this appears like a simple dispute. The City wants a chunk of land for public use (a parking garage). The property owner doesn't want to sell. No big deal, right? The owner should be bought out, or, in extreme circumstances, eminent domain might fairly be used. But that simplistic perspective doesn't work here. The City played its cards all wrong. The City admitted early in the process that Hua's property is not necessary for completion of the parking garage project. Instead, his property is only necessary for some of the secondary private projects that may be built on top of the parking garage. In other words, eminent domain is not an option for taking Hua's property because the desired use for his property is private rather than public. Well, that isn't entirely accurate. Eminent domain is an option even in this case because of the Supreme Court's ridiculous ruling in Kelo v. New London. But using eminent domain would come with a price: it would be labeled as eminent domain abuse, and suddenly public outcry would become a significant liability. In a worst case scenario (from the City's perspective), the City could find itself in a battle with the Institute for Justice. The City's lawyers would really have fun with that. Long story short, this scenario would work out much better for everyone if Lincoln would just offer Mr. Hua an extremely fair price for his property, along with support services for relocating his business. What's "extremely fair"? Mr. Hua paid $290,000 two years ago. I say offer up $350,000. Overkill? Not really. Remember that the City is strong-arming a man out of his property against his will. We owe him not only for the "real" value of his property, but we also owe him enough to try to overcome his unwillingness to sell. To me, $350,000 is within the range to satisfy those constraints.