It’s an ill blizzard that blows nobody good! In this case, the District of Columbia seems to have done well from the misjudgment of drivers in the snowbound city [Faiz Siddiqui, Washington Post]
Posts Tagged ‘disasters’
Environment roundup
- Availability of Uber and Lyft at LAX airport tied up in lawsuits including one filed under CEQA, the California environmental-review law often used tactically to delay projects [Los Angeles Times]
- Twenty years after his classic contrarian article on recycling, John Tierney returns with another close look at its pros and cons [New York Times] Quit scapegoating plastic bags, they carry enough weight as it is [Katherine Mangu-Ward, Reason, related]
- California class action: Reynolds should have disclosed formaldehyde in vaping [Winston-Salem Journal] Authors of widely noted New England Journal of Medicine formaldehyde/vaping paper got “philanthropy to support research” from two big-league trial lawyers [NEJM paper, disclosure form, Joseph Nocera January, related April, August and recent New York Times columns, Michael Siegel]
- Federal court blocks EPA’s hotly disputed Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) rule [Jonathan Adler; National Wildlife Federation (pro-rule); Todd Gaziano and M. Reed Hopper, PLF (against), American Farm Bureau Federation (same)]
- Environmental law firm intervenes in Louisiana governor’s race to tune of $1.1 million [Greater Baton Rouge Business Report]
- Same state: “BP oil spill settlement to reimburse millions Louisiana paid to politically connected law firms” [Kyle Barnett, Louisiana Record]
- Government subsidies for rebuilding hurricane-prone areas disproportionately aid the wealthy [Chris Edwards, Cato]
N.J. court: loss of ocean view in dune condemnation
New Jersey’s highest court ruled that a Harvey Cedars couple do not have to be compensated for the loss of an ocean view, as distinct from the loss of actual land, after the government condemned a strip of their beachfront for a dune restoration project. Relevant factor: the dune restoration is believed to have saved the couple’s home when Hurricane Sandy hit, and that benefit could properly be offset from the taking. [MaryAnn Spoto, Star-Ledger; earlier; edited/corrected to reflect comment]
More from reader TD in comments: “The reporter absolutely got it wrong. The court agreed the loss of a view could be a taking, but that it needed to be offset by the benefit incurred because the dune would presumably prevent future flooding. The lower courts had not allowed for the offset.”
“Feds Require Magicians To Make Disaster Plans For Their Bunnies”
Inspired in part by Hurricane Katrina, a new federal regulation requires commercial animal handlers to develop disaster contingency plans for their animals. Because working with even a single animal can put you under the rules, a magician in Missouri is now mulling how to assess what potential disasters may pose risks for his rabbit, what “materials, resources, and training needs” may be necessary to prepare for them, and how best to “identify a chain of command” given that it’s just him and the rabbit. [J.D. Tuccille, Reason]
Hurricane Sandy, meet Mighty Wind
A Houston-based trial lawyer has some grandiose plans for snagging New York storm-insurance cases: Steve Mostyn “indicates his firm should be able to take on more than $1 billion in disputed claims — or half of all the Sandy litigation.” That’s assuming clients sign on, of course. One who did was a swim club owner from Pound Ridge who was frustrated dealing with New York lawyers and quickly signed a contract with Mostyn’s firm: “It is worth the 40 percent just for someone to listen to my story and be kind to me,” she said. [Austin American-Statesman]
With gun and camera through darkest Kristof-land
The popularity of auxiliary home power generators is somehow proof that taxes should be higher? John Steele Gordon tries to parse a New York Times columnist’s argument. [Commentary]
New Jersey: taking land to save it?
If the town’s dune project saved their house but also spoiled their view, are the oceanfront owners owed compensation? [Asbury Park Press]
Federal flood insurance: the Sandy next time
“After disasters such as Superstorm Sandy, the natural inclination is to do everything possible to help people struggling to rebuild their homes, businesses and lives. But over the next couple of years, those good intentions will lead to a lot of foolish, even dangerous, decisions that will encourage people to rebuild in harm’s way.” [USA Today editorial via Ira Stoll]