Outdoor mega-retailer Bass Pro Shops is planning on coming to Decatur.  Hooray, right?  Not so fast.

The store will be part of the “Sweetwater” project - and the city offered up a sweet deal indeed to entice the outdoor juggernaut.  The city will give them - that’s right, give them - a “free” $32 million dollar building sitting on a $2.5 million dollar piece of land.  That is in addition to millions of dollars in infrastructure improvements.

The deal has predictably irritated a Decatur outdoor retailer that has been in business for over five decades.  David Wiley of Wiley’s Outdoor Sports is fighting the sweetheart deal.  He has launched the aptly named website www.saynotobasspro.com and has been on WHNT (video here) and in the Decatur Daily.

Long time readers know that I am no fan of government furnished corporate welfare.  I abhor seeing the government giving one business a competitive advantage over another.  This particular case is especially egregious.  Wiley Outdoor Sports has been in business locally since 1953.  The stakeholders there have deep roots in the community.  For the city to extend such a generous offer to attract a large, out of state direct competitor to come to town and siphon off business from Wiley’s is unconscionable.

Decatur mayor Don Kyle gave this statement to WHNT:

The development will add significant value to our community tax base, grow our population, and bring many shoppers off the interstate and from surrounding communities to shop in all our stores.

It reminds me of the mindset present in the infamous Kelo vs. New London SCOTUS decision.  While that case centered on eminent domian abuse, the local officials in Connecticut shared Kyle’s philosophy.  All they care about is growing the tax base.  To hell with anyone who may be hurt along the way.  Kyle gave his statement in response to a story specifically about the impact on local competitors, namely Wiley’s.  He acted as if Wiley’s didn’t even exist or, worse yet, that having a Bass Pro Shops down the road will somehow help Wiley’s business.

If Bass Pro wants to come and pay their own freight I wouldn’t even bat an eye.  But to provide such an unfair advantage to one company at the expense of a local company is detestable.  Is it really worth growing your tax base if it means trampling all over members of the community who took risks to establish and operate businesses?

[Sidenote: I'm a big Bass Pro fan.  Back when I was a kid I convinced my parents to route our summer road trip so that we went to the original Bass Pro store in Springfield, Mo.  Some kids want to go see a pro baseball game.  I wanted to shop at the fishing gear Mecca.] 

AL-05 (100% reporting)

Parker Griffith has the Democrat nomination sewn up with about 90% of the vote. David Maker pulled in twice what I expected with 10%.

In the Republican race Wayne Parker won 49% of the vote, which will trigger a runoff. Cheryl Baswell Guthrie led the remaining five candidates with 18% of the vote. If Guthrie had an ounce of dignity or any respect for the party she would concede. There is no way - NO WAY - that she will win a runoff with Parker. All she’ll do by prolonging her futile vanity campaign is harm Parker’s chances against a very strong Democrat adversary.

Side notes on the race…

• David Maker received 3,874 votes, which is more than Ray McKee, George Barry, or Mark Huff. Ouch.
• Cheryl Baswell Guthrie got 6,941 votes. That’s about $70 per vote.
• There were 38,415 votes cast for the two Democrat candidates, but only 37,934 cast for the six Republicans. This is a very bleak sign for the Republicans. There was little motivation for Dems to come out and vote for Griffith, who was a shoe in. The Republican race was a great deal more wide open, which should have resulted in a strong turnout - and they still got out voted by the Dems.
• Every FairTax candidate finished behind candidates who did not support the FairTax.

Madison County (99% reporting)

The sales tax increase got shot down, as expected. 64% opposed the tax hike and 36% supported it. I’m predicting we haven’t heard the last word on this. The county commission can still vote to implement this sales tax at any time. I’ve heard murmurings about certain county commissioners possibly voting to pass it shortly after the November election with the expectation that voters will have forgotten after four more years.

County Commission, District 1: Bob Long beat Chris Stuckey 67% to 33%. Both were really solid candidates; I’m surprised to see such a large margin.

County Commission, District 2: Faye Dyer won handily in a tough three person race with 58% of the vote. I’m particularly pleased with this result; Dyer has demonstrated strong leadership in the fight against the half cent sales tax increase. Glenn Watson only pulled in 22%. Who knows how this race would have shaped up if it weren’t for the homeless shelter fiasco. Will Watson stick to his pledge to not seek re-election for his HSV city council seat? He has until July 15th to decide.

County Commission, District 5: Mo Brooks cruised to victory over Bobby Abernathy with 79% of the vote. Brooks is a reliable conservative and ethical leader - no surprise to see him keep a lock on this seat.

County Commission, District 6: Bob Harrison cruised to victory with 74%.

U.S. Senate (97% reporting)

Jeff Sessions and Vivian Figures cruised to victory so that Sessions can smack her down in the general. 14% of Dems voted for Mark “No NCAA” Townsend. That is crazy.

Alabama PSC (98% reporting)

Republican stalwart Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh failed to get through the three person race without a runoff, which is a result that had been characterized in advance as “underwhelming.” She did pull in 47% of the vote, but will have to best Matt Chancey, who won 28%.

State Board of Education (99% reporting)

The candidates propped up by the AEA in an attempt to take control of the board got slaughtered. District 1 incumbent Randy McKinney dispatched Paul Christopher 73% to 27% and in District 3 Stephanie Bell trounced Troy Smithwick 68% to 32%. Alabama educators: I hope you’re happy with the way Czar Hubbert spent your confiscated dues on losing candidates so he could try to preserve fake, cushy jobs for legislators.

From AL.com:

State Sen. E.B. McClain has been named in a 50-count indictment by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiracy, mail fraud money laundering and bribery involving a program receiving federal money.

U.S. Attorney Alice Martin during a press conference today said McClain used his public office for “personal profit.”

“He worked the ‘pass through grant process not to help his community and those in need of GED training, but to line his pockets with over $300,000,” Martin said.

50 counts!  Dang.  The state of Alabama is already after him for allegedly using grants to line his on pockets.

The Alabama legislature failed to pass the education budget yesterday on the last day of the regular session.  The disagreement was over $25 million that higher education institutions wanted.  The total education budget was $6.3 billion.  That’s right, they’re forcing a costly special session over a disagreement amounting to 0.4% of the total education budget.

From the Tuscaloosa News:

The Alabama House has approved a bill to add crimes against people because of their sexual orientation to the state’s hate crimes law.

The bill by Rep. Alvin Holmes, a Montgomery Democrat, generated heated criticism last year and did not get enough votes to come up for passage. The bill passed Tuesday by a close 46-44 vote with no discussion.

The bill now goes to the Senate where passage is doubtful with only two days remaining in the regular session.

Holmes said the state’s current hate crimes law, passed in 1994, includes crimes against people for race, color, religion and national origin, but left out sexual orientation because of a technical mistake.

I wasn’t even aware that Alabama had its own “hate crimes” laws.  I’ll state up front that I fundamentally disagree with laws that punish people for thoughts.  At least federal hate crimes serve an ostensibly more virtuous purpose as they enable federal prosecution in cases that would otherwise be purely within the state’s jurisdiction.  I suppose the thought is that some locales might be reluctant to prosecute crimes committed against certain minority groups and that the federal government should be able to sweep in and right the situation.

The Alabama law, however, doesn’t serve such a purpose.  It merely lumps on additional punishment because of your thoughts or beliefs.  That is asinine.  If someone burns down my house for fun they should be eligible for the exact same punishment as someone who might burn down someone else’s house who might belong to a state sanctioned protected group.  In either case the criminal is prosecuted for the actual crime, but due to “hate crimes” laws the “hateful” person gets punished further because the state didn’t approve of their thoughts.

Here is Alabama’s hate crime law as it is currently written:

Section 13A-5-13

Crimes motivated by victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity or physical or mental disability.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(1) It is the right of every person, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, to be secure and protected from threats of reasonable fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by activities of groups and individuals.

(2) It is not the intent, by enactment of this section, to interfere with the exercise of rights protected by the Constitution of the State of Alabama or the United States.

(3) The intentional advocacy of unlawful acts by groups or individuals against other persons or groups and bodily injury or death to persons is not constitutionally protected when violence or civil disorder is imminent, and poses a threat to public order and safety, and such conduct should be subjected to criminal sanctions.

(b) The purpose of this section is to impose additional penalties where it is shown that a perpetrator committing the underlying offense was motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability.

(c) A person who has been found guilty of a crime, the commission of which was shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, shall be punished as follows:

(1) Felonies:

a. On conviction of a Class A felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than 15 years.

b. On conviction of a Class B felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than 10 years.

c. On conviction of a Class C felony that was found to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the sentence shall not be less than two years.

d. For purposes of this subdivision, a criminal defendant who has been previously convicted of any felony and receives an enhanced sentence pursuant to this section is also subject to enhanced punishment under the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, Section 13A-5-9.

(2) Misdemeanors:

On conviction of a misdemeanor which was found beyond a reasonable doubt to have been motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability, the defendant shall be sentenced for a Class A misdemeanor, except that the defendant shall be sentenced to a minimum of three months.

If I read that correctly any misdemeanor, regardless of how trivial it may be, that was deemed to be committed based on “the victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or physical or mental disability” will guarantee the offender no less than three months behind bars.

Holmes’ proposed modifications would add “sexual orientation” to the list of protected characteristics, with “sexual orientation” defined as “heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”  I’m only half surprised they didn’t include transgenders.

The bottom line is that in Alabama you should be punished for committing a crime against anyone.  Period.  Additional punishment for your state of mind is unnecessary and, quite frankly, unfair to victims whose assailants receive less punishment because their assailants didn’t single them out for some state approved reason.  The legislature should not waste time with this particular bill and should instead take efforts to repeal Alabama’s existing hate crimes law.  Alternatively, they could just go ahead and make everyone a protected group and therefore amplify the punishment for all criminals.

From AL.com:

The Alabama Legislature sent to Gov. Bob Riley a $2.01 billion general fund budget Tuesday that depends, in part, on an appeals court’s restoring $63 million to the fund and an uptick in the state’s economy.

The House voted 78-26 to concur with the Senate version of the budget, which passed the upper chamber earlier in the day on a 29-4 vote.

Also of note from the article:

In an April ruling, a Montgomery judge agreed with Tuscaloosa businessman Stan Pate, who argued that Riley improperly transferred $63 million to the general fund.

Circuit Judge William Shashy issued a preliminary injunction against the transfer and ordered the money restored to a state savings account known as the Alabama Trust Fund.

The litigation is part of Alabama’s long-running lawsuit against Exxon Mobil Corp. over royalties due from natural gas wells the company drilled in gulf waters off the Alabama coast. The state won a $3.6 billion verdict in 2003, but the Supreme Court tossed out most of that in November 2007.

“We lost billions of dollars in ill-gotten gains that the jury had penalized Exxon for that could have really helped our children in this state,” said [Sen. Roger] Bedford.

I have discussed the Exxon Mobil royalty issue ad nauseam here, but I couldn’t let Bedford’s absurd quote go unnoticed.  After all the legal dust from the case settled the state would up losing absolutely no “ill-gotten gains.”  Exxon Mobil paid back every cent that they were found to be liable for plus interest.  What they didn’t pay was the egregiously high multi-billion dollar punitive award that was ultimately struck down.

The author, Bob Lowery, mentions the compensatory award, but sprinkles in what I construe as an editorial comment on the situation by stating that, “Coincidentally, Exxon Mobil just recorded the highest quarterly profits in the it’s history - $11.7 billion.”  That has absolutely nothing - not one thing - to do with the matter at hand.  Lowery chose to toss that little nugget of information in not because it adds value to the story, but because it may bias the reader against the big, rich, evil oil company.  So what if Exxon Mobil is a profitable company?  Should they have to pay beyond what they legally owe simply because they have the misfortune of being large and reasonably successful?  Lowery’s injection of Exxon Mobil’s profits into an unrelated story, which I might add is something of a pastime in the journalism circuit, sounds like a faint call for “each according to his ability.”  Is Lowery advocating for income or profit based fines like the Finns issue for speeding tickets?

Recently the Alabama House passed a bill that would officially legalize double dipping.  Nothing surprises me anymore with those guys.

Numerous editorial boards across the state have denounced the move.  But whatever the Alabama Senate might do to move the bill forward it may all be for not.  That is because due to a filing glitch the Senate cannot pass the bill until the final day of the session, which leaves the bill susceptible to a pocket veto by Gov. Riley.  So far Riley is promising to veto the bill.

Alabama Democrats have yet again broken one of their highly touted promises made during the 2006 campaign. In their “Covenant with Alabama” they pledged to “stop annual property tax increases by returning property reappraisals to a four year cycle.” Despite controlling both houses of the legislature they failed to move forward and pass any bills last session that would have returned reappraisals to a four year cycle. This year they continue to boldly flaunt their arrogance for all in Alabama to see.

Two weeks ago one of the House Democrats, Randy Hinshaw, cheated to pass John Knight’s sales tax bill by voting another legislator’s machine without his permission and against his wishes. What was not reported at the time - or at least I didn’t see reported - is that Rep. Robert Bentley, a Republican from Tuscaloosa, offered two amendments to the bill that would have reverted back to four year reappraisals. Democrats voted to table, or defeat, both.

Currently Alabama’s online legislative system, ALISON, does not have the text of either amendment uploaded, but I have hard copies of each one. Here is the first amendment, with roll call votes, and here is the second. The votes fell along party lines with only four Democrats (Steve Hurst, Frank McDaniel, Johnny Morrow, and William Thigpen, Sr.) casting votes in keeping with their party’s campaign promise.

Democrats in the Senate didn’t do any better. They actually chose to let Knight’s bill die there instead of allowing an amendment moving reappraisals to every four years be attached. At least they didn’t cheat to pass it. One might think that they would eagerly pass a bill that they stridently support coupled with an amendment that was a key campaign promise. But one would be wrong. Kind of makes you question the sincerity of their promises.

Ken Guin has been pushing bills this session in the Alabama House that would mandate more physical education in government schools and force schools to clear their menus with state nutritionists.  Local school officials pushed back hard, rightly claiming that the bills would add considerable expense.

Guin, who has shaved his head and promised to keep it bare until he loses 30 pounds, is not pleased.  To quote Adam Sandler’s talking goat character, Guin must be taking out his “fat aggression” on the schools.  He retaliated against the schools by sponsoring a resolution asking for an audit of the schools’ finances.  The resolution, unlike his PE and nutrition bills, passed (by one vote).

As the Tuscaloosa News put it:

From the looks of it, however, the move also is designed to ratchet up the pressure on superintendents to drop their opposition to Guin’s pet bill.

If that’s the case, then it’s a blatant abuse of the auditors. And Guin, while saying he didn’t threaten anyone, hinted at more: “If they think a resolution asking for some financial information is a threat, then they are really underestimating what any member of the Legislature can do. There are an awful lot of other tools at their disposal.”

Maybe the schools should hire Guin in a bid to assuage his frustration.

Time has been short around here lately, so I haven’t been able to write much about progress in the Alabama Senate this session. Hold on. I got confused for a minute! While it’s true that time has been quite limited in these parts lately that isn’t exactly the reason there haven’t been any stories about progress in the Alabama Senate. That is because they are currently engaged in their annual festival of pointless absurdity that always culminates in an orgy of bill passage late in the session (and maybe even violence!).

This year the bone of contention has been a gambling bill affecting Macon County. Milton McGregor is of course at the center of the sordid scenario. According to A. Eric Johnson of the Southeast Law Institute the bill “would make the VictoryLand gambling facility in Macon County an unregulated Mecca for gambling.” While his pronouncement is WAY over the top - no way some video gambling will turn VictoryLand into Las Vegas - he makes a few good points, such as how the bill would eliminate some potential judicial oversight.

The bill has led to some good times and fun quotes in the senate. According to the Tuscaloosa News:

On Thursday, [Rodger] Smitherman sang for his colleagues. Standing at the front of the Senate chamber, he broke into an a capella rendition of the Temptations’ hit “My Girl,” featuring lyrics that he wrote all by himself:

“My bill. My bill. Talking ’bout my bill.”

The bill’s sponsor, Myron Penn, threatened his opponents by saying, “If you kick my dog, I’m going to kick your cat.” That’s OK with me, though. I don’t like cats either.

Personally, I never understand the big fuss over gambling in Alabama. If people want to put their hard earned money at risk in a game of chance then let them do it. If your religious or fiscal beliefs don’t include gambling then don’t gamble. I don’t want the government running some gambling monopoly, like the “education” lottery that Don Siegelman once championed. Let private entities operate gambling establishments with proper regulation. One thing I don’t like about the proposed bill is that, according to the Times Daily, “It would also make it more difficult for competing bingo operations to open in Macon County.” It’s never good to see a business leveraging government to set up artificial barriers to entry for prospective competitors.

On one hand I really don’t mind the Senate bickering over some petty, local legislation. It beats them raising our taxes or their own compensation. The down side is that compressing the time that will be spent debating the budget will make it nearly impossible for that and other lengthy legislation to be properly scrutinized.