Tag Archives: regulation

Regulation of the Day 106: Clotheslines

Some homeowners’ associations ban clotheslines. For people who would like to use clotheslines and aren’t allowed to, this presents a problem. Luckily, there are three solutions:

  1. Convince the homeowners’ association that their ban is unreasonable. Get it repealed. Or compromise. Maybe restrict clotheslines to backyards so they stay out of sight.
  2. Move somewhere else. Clotheslines are allowed in most places.
  3. Get regulators involved. Pass a law overriding any homeowners’ association clothesline bans.

Guess which option is being considered in Massachusetts? Hint: it’s not either of the first two.

(Hat tip: Amanda France)

Regulation of the Day 105: Not Driving Your Car

John Delacey of St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, received a court summons for keeping a car in his driveway and not driving it.

The car, which he bought for his daughter, needs new brakes. He claims it is otherwise in good condition, and not an eyesore. Delacey had been saving up money for the repair.

Here’s the really shameful part:

“City property inspectors became involved when someone in the neighbourhood complained about the car.”

It would have been considerate of the offended neighbor to talk to Mr. Delacey first. Maybe they could have come to a compromise (economist Ronald Coase‘s preferred solution). Instead, he went right to the authorities.

Take a look at some other St. John’s by-laws here.

(Hat tip to Jonathan Moore)

Regulation of the Day 103: When Products Are on Sale

Two states have regulations for when stores can say their products are on sale. The Boston Globe editorializes:

This is a perfect example of a problem that the market can sort out on its own. If there’s one thing 21st century shoppers don’t lack, it’s information. The task of determining whether a “sale’’ is really a sale is best left to comparison-shopping consumers, not the authorities. And given the popularity of websites dedicated to nothing but price-watching and -comparing, doing so is easier than it has ever been. If a store offers an obviously phony promotion, it will be duly punished by its customers. The state needn’t pile on.

(Hat tip to Jonathan Moore)

Regulation of the Day 101: Brushing Teeth After Meals

This one comes from Massachusetts:

[A]ny child who has a meal in day care or is in care for more than four hours will be required to brush their teeth, according to the Department of Early Education and Care.

Regulators, perhaps recognizing the rule’s almost literal paternalism, are allowing parents to opt out if they wish.

I’m researching right now to see if day care providers are required by law to make sure the children in their charge eat their vegetables.

(Hat tip: Fran Smith)

Regulation of the Day 99: Salty New Yorkers

New York City is seeking to regulate how much salt is in peoples’ food.

Enforcement will prove difficult; most food that New Yorkers eat comes from outside the city’s jurisdiction. But the goal is to cut average salt intake by 25 percent.

Mayor Bloomberg can probably put a sizable dent in the city’s per capita salt intake all by himself. According to The New York Times, “He dumps salt on almost everything, even saltine crackers. He devours burnt bacon and peanut butter sandwiches. He has a weakness for hot dogs, cheeseburgers, and fried chicken, washing them down with a glass of merlot.”

The mayor also “likes his popcorn so salty that it burns others’ lips.”

There is a lesson to be learned here. People like salt. That’s why they eat so much of it. Suppose some of that salt is cut out of pre-packaged or processed foods. Anyone who wants to can just dump some on from a salt shaker to make up for it. This regulation is completely unenforceable.

There is also something to be said for practicing what one preaches.

Regulation of the Day 98: Gastrointestinal Drugs

Did you know that the federal government has a Gastrointestinal Drugs Advisory Committee? It’s true. If you don’t believe me, you can attend their upcoming meeting on February 23. The topic of the day will be a new drug application to treat hepatic encephalopathy.

Hopefully some hepatic encephalopathy sufferers will be there. They can ask the Committee why the FDA takes as long as a decade (and as much as $800 million!) to approve medications that could be helping people and saving lives right now.

That Didn’t Take Long

Today is the fourth working day of the new year. The Federal Register is already over 1,000 pages long.

At this rate, the 2010 Federal Register will hit 63,187 pages. This is an improvement over 2009, when it reached 69,676 pages. In 2008, it was 79,435 pages.

Regulation of the Day 97: Full Body Scans and Child Protection Laws

Sometimes, when two regulations love each other very much, they get together and have little baby regulations. This is happening right now in Britain.

Full body scans are coming into use at many UK airport security checkpoints. Since screeners essentially see all passengers naked, the scans run afoul of child protection laws for passengers under 18.

The thought of pedophiles using the body scan images for their own sick ends is decidedly creepy. So the British government is taking steps to keep that from happening. Those steps include:

-Exempting everyone under 18 from being scanned. This defeats the security purpose of the scanners.

-Moving the scanner operators out of sight of passengers. That keeps the scanner images anonymous. But it doesn’t prevent perverts from seeing things they shouldn’t.

There is an easier way: don’t do full body scans. They do more to make people feel safe than to actually make them safe.

Reinforced cockpit doors, proactive passengers, and checked baggage screening are much more effective. And they’re already in place. Besides, terrorist attacks are rare. Full-body scans are an over-reaction. The resources spent on them have other, better uses.

Regulation of the Day 93: Predatory Lending

Congress has used the financial crisis as an excuse to regulate what it calls “predatory lending.” As so often happens, its new regulations have had unintended consequences.

A bank in South Dakota, in order to comply with the new rules, is charging 79.9 percent interest for one of its low-limit credit cards. The pre-regulation rate was 9.9 percent.

The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 makes it illegal to charge annual fees greater than a quarter of a card’s limit. For small-balance cards, the allowable fees are tiny now. That leaves banks with three options:

-1. Lose money. The Wall Street Journal correctly notes that “Banks can’t be expected to give money away, even if Congress is in the habit of doing just that.” So this option is unlikely.

-2. Stop offering low-limit cards. This will hurt people who need them, such as people with low incomes, people with bad credit records, and young people who are trying to establish a credit record.

-3. Charge higher interest rates to make up for the money lost in fees. This is exactly what is happening here with the 79.9 percent rate for a $250-limit card.

If the bank calculated correctly, the 79.9 percent rate will be roughly a wash compared to the earlier high-fee, low-rate policy. But different customers will be paying. The people who incur a lot of  interest-rate charges are usually the people who can’t afford them. And they’ll be paying a lot more than they were before the CCARD Act.

People who can afford to pay their balances on time often don’t pay little or no interest interest anyway. The 79.9 percent rate doesn’t really affect them. And now their annual fees have gone way down. The CCARD Act is, completely unintentionally,  a wealth transfer from poor people to richer people. Congress is actively hurting the very people it intended to help.

Regulation of the Day 92: Camping at the Beach

In Oregon, it is illegal to set up a tent at most beaches.

A beach would not be my first choice for a place to spend the night. It would be cold and wet, especially in Oregon. Sand would get into all kinds of places I’d rather it wouldn’t.

But is a law necessary? Before the tent ban, was there an epidemic of cold, wet, and sandy people on Oregon’s beaches, who would gladly turn to safer, more comfortable accommodations if only a law would nudge them in that direction?

Or should the Solons of Oregon turn their attention to more important matters?