Banning childhood’s important lessons
By Jessica Peck Corry

My daughter is celebrating her first birthday this month and already she has mastered the art of mischief. When we sit down at the kitchen table each morning, I know her breakfast is much more likely to end up in her hair than in her mouth. With a great big grin, she’s embracing an independent streak sure to define the years to come in our home. That is, only if society doesn’t scare it out of her first.

The rites of passage that defined the youth of so many generations before her - including my own - are slowly being eroded by legislators and school administrators determined to protect her from the valuable lessons of childhood.

Today’s children are forced to navigate a confusing system of politically correct rules where competition is shunned, sneaking out is criminal, spit wads are weapons and, as seen recently in Golden, a rowdy game of playground tag can lead to talk of misdemeanor sex assault charges.

It’s amazing any kid makes it out of high school today without being arrested.

When I was a determined sixth-grader, I took my school’s administration to task when it tried to forbid girls from playing basketball with boys at recess. I joined together with my girlfriends and we launched our own impromptu blacktop sit-in, refusing to move until administrators considered our “demands.”

I’m proud to say that after a trip to the principal’s office, we were successful. It was a victory that made sense; we were taller and bigger than half of the boys in our grade. The sit-in was a wonderful lesson in civil disobedience and women’s rights.

Any hope I had, however, that we brought equity to future generations of blacktop denizens was short-lived. Today, school administrators are all too eager to ban any student - boy or girl - from competing in any sport where anyone might lose. Over the last decade, the great playground sport of dodgeball has also fallen victim to this trend because its opponents believe it’s too violent. In a transparent attempt to boost self-esteems everywhere, all Field Day participants receive a blue ribbon at the end of day. Even a 5-year-old can see through this tactic.

Other life lessons are banned as well. When I was a young teen, my friends and I would sneak out of slumber parties to string toilet paper in the trees and around the houses of boys we liked. It was a harmless prank, an early lesson in flirting, and after we got caught (which always seemed to happen) we ended up cleaning the mess the morning after. Today, such a gesture isn’t seen as a rite of passage. It’s good enough to nail a kid on curfew violation charges. In Jefferson County, young people out after midnight on a weekend face the wrath of the sheriff and a $300 fine.

It’s the same with spit wads or snowballs. In Harrison District 2, “missile throwing” is prohibited, with a “missile” defined as “any object which is thrown or otherwise propelled through the air, whether it be an object as hard as a rock or as soft as a snowball, \[which\] can cause serious personal injury or property destruction.” Imagine trying to explain away a “missile throwing” food fight on a college admission essay.

While I’ll have to fight the temptation to wrap my daughter in bubble wrap on her first day of school, I also understand that without earning childhood’s bumps and bruises, exploring her own curiosities, or making her own set of mistakes, she’ll miss out on many of life’s most important lessons. She’ll learn from being bullied just as she’ll learn from being the bully. She’ll win a few games and she’ll lose a few.

My husband and I may even get a call from her elementary school principal informing us that she’s organized a hunger strike against a tasteless hot lunch in the cafeteria. We’ll greet that day if and when it ever comes. I’m just hoping we don’t get an additional call from police concerning charges of “lunch lady intimidation.”

Jessica Peck Corry (jessica@i2i.org) is a policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, where she specializes in higher education, civil rights and land-use policy. This column first appeared in The Denver Post on June 7, 2006.

Business Pulse Survey: Should ’scrape-offs’ be more tightly controlled?
Legislature tightens eminent domain rules
The Denver Business Journal - June 2, 2006by Michael PerraultDenver Business Journal
Three new eminent domain laws on tap in Colorado will require the formation of partnerships to condemn property for private toll roads, will list all entities with the power of eminent domain and will establish a new burden of proof to eradicate blight.

The Colorado Legislature passed three of eight eminent domain bills presented in the 2006 session.

House Bill 1411 preserves the ability of urban renewal authorities to take property to eradicate blight, but requires that the need to eradicate blight be proven by clear and convincing evidence. That could reduce the ability of municipalities to designate areas as blighted and therefore subject to condemnation.

But some opponents claim it lacks teeth and will prove prohibitively costly for small businesses and families trying to save their properties.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year, in Kelo vs. City of New London, that eminent domain can be used solely for economic-development purposes. That sparked a flurry of activity by lawmakers in Colorado and other states.

“The court went on to say that state legislatures are free to pass more restrictive measures if they see fit,” said Erin Goff, staff attorney for the Colorado Municipal League.

The eminent domain bills that passed were Senate Bill 78, SB 154 and House Bill 1411. SB 154 takes effect Aug. 7. SB 78 took effect March 31, when Gov. Bill Owens signed it. HB 1411 awaits the governor’s decision, but will take effect June 7 if he ignores it.

Goff and Sam Mamet, the Colorado Municipal League’s executive director, believe all the discussions and activity in Colorado and elsewhere generally sent a good message.

“We are fortunate that a majority of the members of our state Legislature understand and appreciate the need to maintain the ability of urban renewal authorities to use eminent domain, when absolutely necessary, to alleviate slum and blight,” Goff and Mamet concluded in a summation about the legislative session.

“It was really a moving target, because there were so many bills, there were so many legislators interested, there was so much public involvement,” said William Mutch, executive director of Colorado Concern, which represents 80 chief executives from across the state.

“Everyone seemed to have a plan for how to address this,” Mutch said. “It was way more complicated than I ever imagined.”

Even with the passage of the three bills, more action may follow.

Some property rights advocates claim HB 1141’s language is “too watered down” and will attempt to place their own initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Members of Colorado Citizens for Property Rights hope to gather enough signatures by the Aug. 7 deadline so voters can consider a state constitutional amendment to prevent local governments from taking any land for economic-development purposes.

Buzz and Peggy Kilker, owners of Buzz’s Auto Body in Aurora, spent six years fighting off condemnation before the city of Aurora abandoned one recent project, according to Jessica Peck Corry, director of the Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project, and author of “At the Crossroads of Condemnation: The Debate Over Eminent Domain For Private Development & Open Space.”

The city of Aurora had included the Kilkers’ business as part of a blight designation that encompassed the neighborhood surrounding the newly rehabilitated Fitzsimons Health Sciences Center, Corry said.

SB 78 requires a public/private partnership between the state and a private toll road developer to condemn property for a private toll road.

Mutch said it can be tough to get total funding for transportation projects in Colorado, so the bill made sense in that it allows private investors to pursue toll road projects.

“We supported that concept where basically CDOT does the condemnation part and private capital can be used to buy the right of way,” Mutch said.

SB 154 lists all entities with the power of eminent domain.

HB 1411, the last eminent domain bill introduced, designates a new burden of proof for the eradication of blight. It also prohibits taking private property for public or private use without just compensation and consent of the owner, among other guidelines.

The bill requires condemning entities to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the taking of private property is for a public use, unless the condemnation action involves taking the land to eradicate blight, Goff said.

“HB 1411 clarifies that private property cannot be taken for economic-development purposes in Colorado,” Goff said. “The legislation preserves the ability of urban renewal authorities to take property to eradicate blight, but requires that the need to eradicate blight be proven by clear and convincing evidence.”

Corry believes HB 1411 lacks teeth for two reasons.

“First, if history is any lesson, cities will attempt to exempt themselves from the constitutional protections provided by the bill by claiming ‘home rule’ status,” Corry said. “The litigation that will arise will prove prohibitively costly” for the families and small businesses trying to save their properties.

“Second, there is a huge loophole in the bill [in that] it still allows cities to continue eminent domain abuse through Colorado’s urban renewal statute,” Corry said. “It’s time for government to stop putting for-sale signs in the yards of Colorado’s working families. We anticipate that residents will again call on legislators for meaningful change in next year’s legislative session.”

Mutch believes HB 1411’s new legal standards and language will create a different environment.

“It’s not going to be business as usual,” Mutch said.

The National Conference of State Legislatures, based in Denver, said eminent domain laws have been enacted in at least a dozen states, most leaving room for flexibility and allowing takings in certain instances while seeking to further define “public use.”

Michael Perrault | 303-837-3523 mperrault@bizjournals.com