Wait for that young man to encounter Wickard v. Filburn!
As some of you may know, I’m in a soccer family. Daughters started playing at 4 years old and continued through college and into adult leagues. I’ve been reffing youth soccer for 20 years. I no longer engage with my Ds friends on politics, but one in particular has been greatly enjoying the WC and I’ve been educating him on the finer points of soccer. He posted a picture of Erling Haaland, the amazing player from Norway. I commented that the guy would look great in a horned helmet and with a broadsword. I was immediately chastised by his friends for “ethnically profiling” Norwegians. Never mind that the Norwegian fans in the WC stands are totally decked out in Viking regalia.
On a similar, and I guess unsurprising note, they are now claiming it’s Trump’s fault that the US lost to Belgium. How that’s possible doesn’t seem to cross their minds. I gave them a link to Carli Lloyd’s brutal assessment of the US team’s lack of focus and poor play, but it’s still Trump’s fault. Just another example of how politics and TDS affect these people…..I’m convinced it will be written up as a true mental condition in the future.
Here’s to Judith Curry, for her bravery, strength and intelligence. “Scientific American” called her a “heretic,” she was unfairly maligned by the whole climate alarmism establishment, but she stood her ground, paid various prices and made a difference.
She’s my idea of a true scientist — all too rare these days.
Land use planning has some agreeable features, but the ordinances he’s describing are so far beyond the cost-benefit inflection point that I would chuckle if an appellate court invalidated that county’s ordinance as an impermissible imposition on property rights which adhere to households.
==
The point of building codes is to promote health and safety. (Which also incorporates a cost-benefit calculation).
==
Utile land use planning should be devoted to: (1) ensuring congruence between private land use and the operation of public works, (2) containing nuisances which have an impact on neighbors. These are primarily of interest in core cities and suburbs of a certain density, not where they are living.
==
Where they are living, you can construct a well and a septic system. As long as these are up to code, there should be no issue. If there’s an issue with the tree house, the one to raise it should be an insurer. The only objection to subdividing the property should concern the appropriate distance between well heads and leechfields (which would not come into play subdividing a ten acre property, much less a 100 acre one).
IMO, county and multi-county authorities should be concerned with arterial transportation, lumpy public works, and commercial developments of a dimension exceeding a certain threshold. Granular land-use planning should be the business of municipal government.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Wait for that young man to encounter Wickard v. Filburn!
As some of you may know, I’m in a soccer family. Daughters started playing at 4 years old and continued through college and into adult leagues. I’ve been reffing youth soccer for 20 years. I no longer engage with my Ds friends on politics, but one in particular has been greatly enjoying the WC and I’ve been educating him on the finer points of soccer. He posted a picture of Erling Haaland, the amazing player from Norway. I commented that the guy would look great in a horned helmet and with a broadsword. I was immediately chastised by his friends for “ethnically profiling” Norwegians. Never mind that the Norwegian fans in the WC stands are totally decked out in Viking regalia.
On a similar, and I guess unsurprising note, they are now claiming it’s Trump’s fault that the US lost to Belgium. How that’s possible doesn’t seem to cross their minds. I gave them a link to Carli Lloyd’s brutal assessment of the US team’s lack of focus and poor play, but it’s still Trump’s fault. Just another example of how politics and TDS affect these people…..I’m convinced it will be written up as a true mental condition in the future.
Oh, and here’s Haaland:
https://media1.tenor.com/m/IlVAGnBzTUAAAAAd/erling-haaland-haaland.gif
First, awesome treehouse. Second, over 100 acres on fertile land… nirvana.
Nice essay over at The Federalist.
https://thefederalist.com/2026/07/08/in-a-year-of-high-stakes-scotus-decisions-justice-alito-steals-the-show/
Re: Judith Curry / Climate Etc.
A few weeks ago Curry closed shop on her long-running blog, Climate Etc. It’s still up as an archive.
_________________________________
RIP Climate Etc.
It’s time to declare victory against climate stupidity and move on.
–Judith Curry
https://judithcurry.com/2026/06/23/rip-climate-etc/#comment-1026015
_________________________________
There’s more worth reading at the link.
Here’s to Judith Curry, for her bravery, strength and intelligence. “Scientific American” called her a “heretic,” she was unfairly maligned by the whole climate alarmism establishment, but she stood her ground, paid various prices and made a difference.
She’s my idea of a true scientist — all too rare these days.
Land use planning has some agreeable features, but the ordinances he’s describing are so far beyond the cost-benefit inflection point that I would chuckle if an appellate court invalidated that county’s ordinance as an impermissible imposition on property rights which adhere to households.
==
The point of building codes is to promote health and safety. (Which also incorporates a cost-benefit calculation).
==
Utile land use planning should be devoted to: (1) ensuring congruence between private land use and the operation of public works, (2) containing nuisances which have an impact on neighbors. These are primarily of interest in core cities and suburbs of a certain density, not where they are living.
==
Where they are living, you can construct a well and a septic system. As long as these are up to code, there should be no issue. If there’s an issue with the tree house, the one to raise it should be an insurer. The only objection to subdividing the property should concern the appropriate distance between well heads and leechfields (which would not come into play subdividing a ten acre property, much less a 100 acre one).
IMO, county and multi-county authorities should be concerned with arterial transportation, lumpy public works, and commercial developments of a dimension exceeding a certain threshold. Granular land-use planning should be the business of municipal government.