The Most Important State-Federal Dispute You're Not Paying Attention To

The Wall Street Journal editorializes
today, not for the first time, about the long-running dispute
between New York's suburban Westchester County and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Even if you're not a
former county resident (as I am), it's a dispute worth knowing
about, with many implications for property owners in the rest of
the country. Excerpt: 

At issue is a 2009 settlement with HUD in which Westchester
committed to develop 750 public housing units in mostly white
neighborhoods over seven years. County executive Rob Astorino has
financing for 305 units (110 of which are already occupied),
putting Westchester ahead of schedule. ... [Not
satisfied,] the agency is interfering with local zoning in
Westchester to force more racial diversity on suburban
neighborhoods. Last week, HUD New York's Director of Community
Planning and Development Vincent Hom wrote Mr. Astorino and
threatened to cancel $7.4 million in unrelated housing and
community development funds. To keep the cash, Westchester must
produce "a satisfactory zoning analysis and plan to overcome
exclusionary zoning practices."

Part of the county's defense is that under New York's system of
home rule, towns enjoy legal independence and their surrounding
counties cannot simply order them to change their zoning. These
town zoning laws assuredly perpetuate economic stratification -- if
every home needs to be on an acre or two with well-and-septic,
you're likely to draw an affluent average resident -- and
libertarians, with some notable exceptions such as Richard Epstein,
have often dismissed zoning based on economic-stratification
motives as bad policy, improper infringement on property rights, or
both. But zoning for economic stratification, when distinct from a
racial motivation, has not up to now been thought in itself to
violate federal law, and part of the question in the Westchester
case is whether HUD will succeed in developing such a norm.
(Westchester argues with considerable evidence that affluent,
heavily zoned towns like Scarsdale, Chappaqua, and Katonah have a
history of being relatively welcoming to minorities, and have long
scored well on measures of integration when compared with other
similarly affluent communities.)  

For a libertarian, it's easy to click past
stories like these on the grounds that 1) this is a complex dispute
among levels of government, not directly between the state and the
individual citizen; 2) it's about time someone pressed these towns
to reconsider economic-stratification zoning, so why shouldn't that
someone be the feds? 3) HUD's main leverage is its threat to cut
off federal money, and from a limited-government standpoint, the
more federal funds that get cut off the better.

But as usual, it's more complicated than that.

To begin with, in this case -- as indeed in most cases of this
sort -- the threat of a federal funds cutoff is being deployed with
the aim of raising government outlays, not lowering them. HUD is
pressing the county to commit to extremely costly plans for
subsidized housing, at a price tag estimated to run between $730
million and $1 billion. For more on how the modern arrangements
sometimes called "cooperative federalism" operate to push all the
participating levels of government into expanding their level of
activity, rather than employing the ambition of one level to check
another, see Michael
Greve's recent work.

Moreover, the question of whether the federal government can ban
local government practices for which it cannot show racial
motivation, but which have "disparate impact" on one or another
protected group, is emerging as one of the hottest issues in
housing and local government law. Consider, for example, the
situation of a town council that is considering cutting back public
bus schedules or recreation programs with more than their share of
minority users. Even if motivated by budget concerns or an overall
small-government philosophy rather than by a desire to harm or
discourage minority patrons, such cutbacks might be arguably
illegal if "disparate impact" concepts are to rule the day, as the
Obama administration keeps suggesting. 

Not least, the Westchester dispute does relate directly to
regulation of private citizens. As part of its pressure on the
county, HUD is insisting that it is a violation of fair housing law
for the county not to enact an ordinance commanding that private
landlords not engage in so-called source-of-income discrimination
-- which in practice mostly means banning them from turning away
government-aided applicants like those from the Section 8 program.
Nationally, landlord participation in the Section 8 program is
supposed to be voluntary, and many apartment managers and private
renters do not participate, sometimes because of less-than-happy
experiences with Section 8 tenants. If HUD prevails, it will be one
step closer to its apparent goal of requiring -- federal law or no
-- that property owners nationwide consent to become Section 8
landlords, a status that brings them under a variety of additional
regulations as well as itself seriously infringing their freedom to
run their businesses as they please. 

That's one reason even those who aren't fans of restrictive
zoning should hope HUD loses this fight. 

Read More

Walter Olson on the Most Important State-Federal Dispute You're Not Paying Attention To

The long-running dispute between New York's
suburban Westchester County and the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development is once again in the news. Even if you're not
a former county resident (as Walter Olson is), it's a dispute
worth knowing about, Olson writes, with many implications for
property owners in the rest of the country. 

View this article.

Read More

Why Did Andy Rubin Get Demoted? Here's The Most Surprising Gossip We've Heard

A couple of weeks ago, Google announced that Andy Rubin, the inventor of Google's Android smartphone operating system, was stepping down.

In a blog post, Google CEO Larry Page said that an executive named Sundar Pichai would take Rubin's place.

It was a shock. 

Rubin created Android as a startup, sold it to Google, and then managed a team that got the OS installed on hundreds of millions of smartphones worldwide.

It was his baby.

Why was he getting pushed aside?

Was it because of his infamous, Steve Jobs-like temper?

The week after the news came out, we spent a few days in the Bay Area, talking with ex-Googlers and other plugged-in sources.

We asked each of them about Rubin's sudden demotion. 

Here's one explanation from one ex-Googler that we found particularly compelling.

Rubin didn't get the boot because he's a tyrant with Google employees. 

Don't be confused.

All of the sources we gossiped with say Rubin does have a reputation for being ornery, nitpicky, and unhappy in a sometimes poisonous way.

But Rubin has always been difficult to work with, and it never cost him his job before.

Likewise, Google's very successful revenue boss, Nikesh Arora, has a reputation with former colleagues as being someone who will "stab you in the face" — and he doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

What we heard is that Larry Page doesn't mind employing gruff types ... so long as they serve his purpose.

Page must have decided that the way Rubin was running Android no longer served his purpose, and that an Android run by Sundar Pichai would.

So the question becomes: What does Pichai bring to Android that Rubin does not?

Android is just a means to an end

Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Andy Rubin viewed Android's most successful partner, Samsung, as a potential threat.

Why?: Samsung could grow so popular with consumers, that it could eventually re-write Android's code in an entirely customized way, and stop calling it Android altogether.

The report said Rubin told a room full of Google executives that Google-owned phone-maker Motorola was a hedge against Samsung growing too powerful.

Rubin's comments indicated a view of Android as something to preserve and protect.

Our source believes that Larry Page isn't nearly so worried about Android itself. This source says that Page views it as a means to an end.

He says Page views Google as "a cloud services company," built on cornerstone products like Search, Maps, Mail, and YouTube.

He says Page views Android as a way for Google to partner with hardware-makers to make these services more available to consumers.

As a side benefit, Android has made it so that the world of smartphones is not dominated by a single player: Apple.

In this context, the promotion of Pichai makes more sense.

Pichai established himself at Google running the team that convinced computer-makers to pre-install the Google Toolbar.

Our source says that at the highest levels of Google, it is believed that Pichai's success establishing those partnerships played a crucial role in exposing Google search to consumers, and making it a part of their daily routine.

Now, according to this speculation, Page is asking Pichai to pull off the same trick again: Make new Google services a part of consumers' daily lives by having hardware-makers install software access points to those services. 

If those "software access points" are called Android, fine.

If they are called Samsung OS; that's fine too.

But what about Motorola?

Some people say that Google bought Motorola in order to copy Apple's business model. 

If that were true, that would contradict the theory that Android is just a means to an end for Page.

But our speculating ex-Googler has a good answer for this. He notes that Page didn't put an executive with product-building experience in charge of Motorola; he gave the gig to Dennis Woodside, a former McKinsey consultant from Google's sales organization.

Our source believes Google bought Motorola for the reason it's stated over and over: patents.

He believes that Page put Woodside in charge because he wants to optimize Motorola's core competency: hardware technology development.

Our source believes Page wants Motorola to focus on better, longer-lasting batteries and faster chips, with the goal of pushing the entire phone-making industry forward.

Why?

So that Google's cloud-based services run better and can do more things on all kinds of mobile devices.

Please follow SAI on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

Read More

HBO Talks 'Game Of Thrones' Piracy

How does HBO feel about having the most pirated show on TV?

Read More...

Read More

A History Of The Gay Rights Movement, One Of The Most Successful Political Enterprises In History

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court heard arguments for two landmark gay rights cases — California's Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

The cases came amid a huge surge in public support for gay marriage over the past decade. 

But this is just the latest fight in a near 40-year battle fought by LGBT Americans to gain recognition and rights. Here's the timeline of how that successful journey progressed. 

The Gay Rights movement burst onto the public scene with the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York City, but the groundwork existed even before that. Here are demonstrators protesting in front of Philadelphia's Independence Hall on July 4, 1967.

Source: Infoplease, AP

This demonstration took place a week before the first Christopher Street Day, the commemoration of the Stonewall Riots. The riots — which took place on June 28, 1969 — were a retaliation by members of the gay community following a police raid on the Stonewall Inn, a bar in Greenwich Village.

Source: Infoplease, AP

Throughout the early 1970s, the gay rights movement expanded, specifically in New York and San Francisco. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their definitive list of mental illnesses.

Source: Infoplease, AP

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Read More

The Most Expensive Homes You Can Buy In New York City

The New York City real estate world is abuzz over two properties reported to be hitting the market for well over $100 million in the past couple of days.

One belongs to SAC Capital honcho Steve A. Cohen; the other was owned by late investor Martin Zweig.

In light of these two blockbuster properties, we're taking a look at the 10 most expensive homes that are currently for sale in New York City, based on publicly available listings.

#10 A 7-story townhouse on the Upper West Side is on sale for $50 million.

This townhouse on West 86th Street was built in 1900 in the Beaux Arts style.

It was gut-renovated in 1998, and has eight bedrooms, 14 bathrooms, and a roof garden. 

#9 A duplex penthouse on the Upper East Side is on sale for $50 million.

The penthouse at the all-new 135 East 79th Street has six bedrooms, eight bathrooms, and multiple terraces.

The apartment, a duplex, is 8,987 square feet, and is located on the 19th floor of the building.

#8 The penthouse atop the Mandarin Oriental in Columbus Circle is listed for $50 million.

The penthouse at the Mandarin Oriental hotel in Columbus Circle's Time Warner Center has bounced on and off the market for more than a year. It was previously listed for $42.5 million, according to Curbed.

The 4,825-square-foot condo has a 30-foot gallery and a wine cellar, as well as access to the hotel's concierge service and amenities.

See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Please follow The Life on Twitter and Facebook.

Read More

Most Afghans Are Certain The Demons Of Myth Actually Roam The Earth

All cultures have fairy tales and folklore, stories that teach morality or emphasize the importance of not going into dark or dangerous places all by yourself. Some are so effective that they leave our siblings too terrified to go swimming in the ocean as kids, and, to this day, if I hear noises coming from under my bed in the middle of the night I’m high-tailing it out of my room and not coming back without some silver bullets or a wooden stake or a priest/rabbi/shaman or&something. (What?&Jaws&and&The Exorcist&were what passed for fairy tales in my house growing up. Thanks, Dad.) Like us, Afghans have myths and stories, legends and monsters. Overall, though, they tend to be a bit more superstitious than your average American. Not many Americans (openly) believe in fairies, dragons or headless horsemen. Until it’s dark anyway. And a whole lot of us still knock on wood or toss spilled salt over our left shoulders or even just say “bless you” when someone sneezes. They may be reflexive, but we still often do them. Many Afghans, though, are pretty certain that the monsters of yore are still stomping around the earth. While out on a patrol with some local policemen, we came across this grave marker: It was about 20 meters (about 65 feet) long. One of the policemen pointed at it and said, “This was a famous giant. He was almost 20 meters tall, that is why his grave is so long.” “A giant?” I asked, perhaps a touch skeptically. “Yes!” chimed in a second one. “As recently as 80 &years ago, there were giants all over in this area!” “Ah, so maybe just really tall people, like 2.5 meters (8-9 feet). That happens sometimes,” I replied. “No, no!” a third guy insisted. “Not just tall people, real giants. This man was a small one at only 20 meters. Some were as tall as 30 meters (almost 100 feet)!” I continued to be somewhat cynical, thinking they were pulling my leg and trying to suggest that if the grave marker was any indication of his size, he had been 20 meters tall, but really, really, really skinny. Not only did my sarcasm fall on deaf ears, it actually insulted the Afghans. Before I knew it, I had a whole squad of Afghan police who were pretty angry and yelling at me. My interpreter, who had a university education and had lived abroad, was no exception–he was vehemently supporting them. As I stood there somewhat flabbergasted, one of my colleagues stepped in with our stories about giants, such as David and Goliath, and came across as much more open-minded. That mollified the crowd somewhat, and they explained that people’s grandparents had seen the giants and had told their grandchildren about them, so it must be true. In the end, the Afghans&knewthat giants had roamed the earth within living memory and nothing some disbelieving (female) American could say was going to change the truth. In my defense, my interpreter later admitted that Afghans do get a kick out of misleading people, especially Americans, about goofy things like this, and had they been doing so, I would have earned super cool points for calling them out. It just happened that the one time I thought they were joking, they weren’t. In addition to giants, I knew of one mountain nearby that was inhabited by a dragon, who flew around with a giant diamond in its mouth and would eat anyone who went up the mountain alone at night. Not too far from that mountain was another one where evil dwarves lived, who would kill you if you went up their mountain alone at night. (Lesson: don’t go up mountains alone at night.) Last but not least are the djinn (no, they don’t grant wishes). In Islam, they are beings of fire created before humans. There are good djinn and evil djinn, Muslim djinn, Christian djinn and heathen djinn. And a lot of mischievous djinn. We can’t see them, but they’re everywhere, living under your stairs or in your garden or even your kitchen sink if you have one. And, like Americans and ghosts, most Afghans aren’t too troubled by djinn by the light of day. A good recitation of the first line of the Qur’an will scare them away, but once it gets dark…well, best not to take any chances. Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.Join the conversation about this story »

Read More