Posted on 11/23/2006 7:05:30 AM PST by bannie
Kern County's sludge ban suffered another blow Wednesday from U.S. District Court Judge Gary Feess of Los Angeles.
Last week, Feess issued a tentative ruling that stopped Kern County from enforcing the sludge ban while Kern fought off a legal assault from the city of Los Angeles, Orange County and the businesses that haul and farm sludge for them.
Feess said in court that the Kern ban, enacted as Measure E by local voters on June 6, violated state recycling laws.
On Wednesday, Feess issued a formal ruling that upheld those two previous decisions.
But this new ruling went further.
Feess also ruled that there are two other reasons the Measure E sludge ban is illegal.
He said the sludge ban violates the U.S. Constitution's protections of interstate commerce because Los Angeles would likely have to ship its sludge to Arizona if Measure E was allowed to take effect.
Feess wrote in his decision that, because the Measure E political campaign targeted Los Angeles sludge specifically, it was clear Kern County intended to discriminate against Los Angeles' economic trade in sludge.
Feess also ruled that Kern County has overstepped its local government "police" powers -- its right to govern itself -- by imposing its needs on Los Angeles and Orange County by eliminating their ability to dispose of its sludge.
The scientific unknowns about the negative properties of sludge, Feess ruled, aren't enough to force Los Angeles and Orange County to spend millions of dollars to take their sludge somewhere else.
Los Angeles attorneys hailed the decision Wednesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at bakersfield.com ...
Un-FReepin' Believable! ..and by an LA judge. I'm so surprised.
If we only had more sludge in the world...
Visualizing "World Sludge" now. Ahhhh....
Private practice, Los Angeles, CA 1974-1979No LA bias here, nope - move along now. And a Klintoon judge to boot, who'd a thunk it?!?
Assistant U.S. attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1979-1987
Private practice, Los Angeles, CA, 1987-1988
Chief assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1988-1989
Private practice, Los Angeles, CA, 1989-1996
Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court, CA, 1996-1999
So what's the problem here? Just dump it all over Compton. It will improve the area.
I've always felt that a county or state should be responsible for its own garbage. I would require NYC keep its garbage instead of shipping it to New Jersey. I would require states with nuclear power plants find ways to store/dispose/recycle its own nuclear waste instead of shipping it to Nevada. I think the same thing should apply here. If you don't have the resources to clean up after yourself, you are not being a responsible citizen of the state/world. Let LA make its own sludge farms.
Exactly.
There is a landfill in Wayne County, Michigan that has customers in Toronto, Canada. People get all hysterical saying we cant have Canadian garbage dumped in Michigan's landfills. I ask is the landfill built in a State Park, or other state owned land? The answer is no, the landfill is built on private property. I would then say the landfill is not Michigan's landfill, but rather it is the owners landfill.
There is an Ikea store in Wayne County, should it be closed down, because customers may come from out state, or from Canada? Of course not. Neither should legitimate landfills or sludge farms. Those who want to limit the property owners, really do not take the right of property ownership to heart.
I believe any area should be able to charge a market rate to host sludge, garbage, or any other waste from any source. Certainly reasonable zoning restrictions should apply.
Nothing is evenly distributed. I will drive a distance (maybe across a state line) to find a certain specialty store. That store might not exist if I and others like me didn't patronize. Taking the "every state should" principle to an extreme, perhaps it should be every community, or every individual household should create their own landfill in the back yard. I prefer to let the market rather than the regulators help me establish what is the best value good or service to satisfy a need that I have.
Well, I see your point about allowing free markets but there is not really an equal bargaining position in most cases. As I understand it, in California Los Angeles is the 800-lb gorilla of the state. What it wants it takes (gets). I believe, in a lot of cases, such agreements might be construed as contracts of adhesion.
Fact is, places like Los Angeles County get my blood boiling because it is the home of such self-righteous people who demand "sustainable development" while importing their water from up north, exporting their garbage, and maintain a landscaping scheme far out of whack with its natural environment.
While counties are little more than arbitrary and imaginary lines in the sand, I believe the people of Kern County have spoken and they don't want LA's garbage. All over the state, parties are demanding that slow or no-growth measures be respected, so why not this?
Is the Sludge Farm located on County owned land, or on privately owned land? It would seem to me that if the sludge is not going on county property, but rather on private property, the county is not taking the sludge. Now if you believe all property belongs to the government...
Fact is, places like Los Angeles County get my blood boiling because it is the home of such self-righteous people who demand "sustainable development" while importing their water from up north, exporting their garbage, and maintain a landscaping scheme far out of whack with its natural environment.
While counties are little more than arbitrary and imaginary lines in the sand, I believe the people of Kern County have spoken and they don't want LA's garbage. All over the state, parties are demanding that slow or no-growth measures be respected, so why not this?
I agree with you that the people of Kern County have spoken. Were their decision sustained it would put pressure on the market and likely raised the tariff due from the Angelinos. I'm for that. Usually sustainable development serves really to off-load costs onto and limit benefits achievable by the less-well off folks in both domestic areas and the third world.
"I ask is the landfill built in a State Park, or other state owned land? The answer is no, the landfill is built on private property. I would then say the landfill is not Michigan's landfill, but rather it is the owners landfill."
Well, to me part of the issue would be whether the private landowner actually has to live with the decision on the use of his/her land. I would look rather dimly on an owner who converted private property to a landfill while living somewhere far from the landfill.
The limits to private property use ought to take into consideration private property rights but also quality of life for those who are its neighbors. Zoning laws are sometimes sufficient but not always. The right palm grease can frequently produce a variation, no matter what the zoning laws say.
If someone invests a ton of money building a landfill to code, the operation of the landfill should not be affected by where the owner of the property decides to live. As long as the landfill is up to standard, where the customers of the land fill come from does not mater. If people do not want the landfill in their backyard, they can purchase the landfill and close it down.
If the county wants to stop LA Sludge the Kern County taxpayers can buy the landfill, and charge LA a price that will force them to take their business elsewhere.
Why do you believe your rights should vary by how you exercise them?
"Why do you believe your rights should vary by how you exercise them?"
Because your right to swing your fist ends with my nose.
Baloney, that assumes I have the right to hit you. I never had the right to hit you in the first place. I am saying that one's right to own property, should not be limited by owning property. Just as ones right to free speech can not be limited by the government, just because you have spoken out on a subject before.
People who have little value for individual rights are the one who want the government to restrict the rights of others.
In the sense that people who have little regard for others want the government to take from others and give to them, I agree. Fact is, too many times my freedom to do something has the potential of inhibiting your freedom to do something. In an ideal world, we would reach some sort of agreement and achieve a win-win solution. In the real world, it seldom works.
Our Founding Fathers created the best form of government they could with maximum personal freedom and minimal regulation but it was premised on the idea that the citizenry of this nation would be either self-disciplined in the Golden Rule or constrained by other non-government influences such as clan, community or church. Unfortunately we have become an undisciplined citizenry and the constraining influences have imploded over the past several decades. The result is largely dog-eat-dog for too many people. Libertarianism plus libertinism is as sure a recipe for cultural disaster as socialism plus dependency.
Today a real estate investment group can purchase land anywhere in the country, get zoning variances, and go about abusing an area solely to make money without regard to the impact of that abuse on the nearby neighbors because they don't have to live with it. Yes, there is the possibility of civil liability but it is a poor substitute for life and health and destroyed livelihoods. Usually the ones who want/need the government to protect their rights to property integrity are those who are trying to be responsible landowners and are facing irresponsible landowners.
If everyone were a responsible landowner, I would agree with you. But we don't live in an ideal world where all landowners are responsible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.