If you are an Arizona property owner, don’t forget that your property tax payment for the first half of 2018 must be postmarked no later than November 1, or delivered to the County Treasurer’s office by 5 p.m. that day. Here’s the law on it:
42-18052. Due dates and times; delinquency
That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? The first half of your property taxes must be paid by November 1 of the tax year, and the second half must be paid by May 1 of the following year, unless the taxes for your property are $100 or less, in which case you have to pay the whole amount by November 1 of the tax year.
If you don’t pay by November 1, you will have to pay interest:
42-18053. Interest on delinquent taxes; exceptions
So if you don’t pay the first half amount by November 1, there’s an exception that allows you to avoid paying interest on the unpaid amount, if you pay the full year amount by December 31
You’ll find more information, including a link to a page for making your payment online (if your property is in Pima County) at the Pima County Treasurer’s web site.
What in the World
What in the world- my question following the Kavanaugh hearings, but in an attempt to put a finer point on it, asked otherwise- can I sue for say defamation of character, on behalf of another, as I guess one citizen for another? Thinking, Justice Kavanaugh certainly can’t sue on his own behalf, from the bench.
The answer to my question turns out to be, no, and in very clear terms. As will be evident, I’ve gone so far as to seek this clarification in extant law: 206 Ariz. 520, Arizona Supreme Court. Dec. 4, 2003. “This court has, as a matter of sound judicial policy, required persons seeking redress in the courts first to establish standing, especially in actions in which constitutional relief is sought against the government . . . In Sears [v. Hull], we denied standing to citizens seeking relief against the governor because they failed to plead and prove palpable injury to themselves.” Federal case law in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals takes an almost identical approach. (I had help with this information).
Clear enough? Yes, I think so. What I might extrapolate from it is that mere embarrassment for the actions of our senators in the confirmation hearings, will not qualify any citizen for “standing.” Embarrassment would not be considered palpable, personal injury; which makes a kind of unassailable sense. Embarrassment will not even attract judicial notice. Nor should it, I suppose. The court goes on to say in the above citation, “A contrary approach would inevitably open the door to multiple actions asserting all manner of claims against the government.” I won’t argue with that.
But I remain troubled. Whether any of our sitting senators would willingly subject themselves to an interrogation of the sort Justice Kavanaugh has had to endure, is very much in doubt, reaching as it did into adolescent experience. Would the ranking minority member, for example, want to tell us about her first experience in the back seat of a car? No, at least I hope not, nor would any other members of the senate judiciary committee. Because it’s personal, very old stuff, and while some of our own reflections of this period of our lives may make us wince, we go on, most of us, to lead productive lives. We grow, up.
Some senators will still resist, want to re-explore adolescence as if it were really legitimate investigative ground, at least for senatorial blessing’s sake. Our own senator Flake insisted on one more investigation into the adolescent behavior of our newest justice, which redirected our FBI on yet another panty raid mission.
Most of us have come to understand that American government has become politics, and that politics, particularly in recent years, have gravitated to no holds barred war. Someone in government said as much, not long ago. I forget who. Well even war has a few rules which pertain to decency; a Geneva Convention, other moral considerations regarding civilian populations. Decency, perhaps where decency might be loosely defined as some level of appropriateness supporting at least some consideration for others.
The senate purports to have rules, rules of order certainly, but not so certainly rules of decency. A senator from somewhere might be given five minutes to try to destroy someone’s reputation by reference to vague adolescent incidents beyond clear, complete memory, and by filling in blanks with innuendo. And then that same senator might yield some of his time to someone who’s got some more artfully dirty questions, to which there can be no convincingly clean or dignified answers.
A hearsay rule is a provision of decency for both sides of dispute, but particularly, I think, for people who find themselves in circumstances of their own defense. When hearsay is permitted, and the accuser, absent any factual basis or corroborating evidence, is urged on in her remarks and commended again and again for courage, any prevailing atmosphere of decency evaporates. Hearsay in the Kavanaugh hearings took the form of testimony, testimony so blurred by youthful assessment, alcohol, and by the passage of time that the name ‘testimony’ hardly applies to what amounts to little more than self- assembled hearsay. I’m not sure there are any hard rules for inadmissibility in the senate chambers, but if there were, there would have been no substance or reason for a hearing of this sort. It couldn’t have taken place. No chance for a partisan grilling.
Apparently anything goes in the senate. How is it that our senators are allowed to operate below the law, below the belt, and beyond redress? What in the world? Well, somehow we picked them, oh for their political views yes, but trusting perhaps in an underlying presumption of their judgment, and in this instance their judgment as to what kinds of things are appropriate for their official consideration, especially as a senate judiciary committee. And shame on us I suppose, for supporting their offices in these pursuits.
The camera and the microphone were on, revealing as it was of America’s top tier representative house in action. Maybe the nation needs to call some of these senators home for a little old fashioned upbringing, a little schooling in what many of us would want to call common decency or respect for our fellow man. I don’t want people around the world to think democracy has lost its helm, or that in September we lost our minds, our moral compass, and our dignity in one senatorial swoop.
What can I do? No courtroom remedy, is there, for just a red face. And I’m certainly not going to be invited to testify before the senate. (Maybe I’m not so certain of this). The answer though has been right in front of me all the time, hasn’t it; this next month coming, is November.
It’s the fault of the company’s board of directors, for not having adequate systems in place to prevent inappropriate workplace conduct? That’s what an investor in the Papa John’s pizza enterprise said in a lawsuit claiming that because the value of their investment declined after the CEO said something stupid, the enterprise should pay them damages.
What system would prevent the CEO from saying anything stupid? Have someone follow the CEO around to tell him or her to shut up whenever he or she starts to say something that sounds stupid?
I have a better idea: if the CEO is going around saying stupid stuff, the board of directors should fire that CEO and hire a smarter one. That should improve the share price of the company, shouldn’t it?
ANOTHER SENATE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD RAISE THE ESTATE TAX, BUT THIS TIME TO DIRECTLY FUND A NEW ENTITLEMENT
A U.S. Senator recently announced a plan that would give each new American baby a savings account of $1,000. Each of those children who is in a family with income under certain limits would receive an additional deposit to his or her account each year. The amount of those deposits would be progressively smaller as the family income increases.
The account would not be accessible until the child reaches age 18, and then would only be available for certain purposes, such as home ownership and higher education. Sorry kids, no Corvette at age 18 (although I haven’t seen any explanation of how the limitations on the use of the account would be enforced).
The distinguishing characteristic of this proposal is that funds for a direct benefit to one group of taxpayers would come solely from a tax on another group of taxpayers. The funds for the proposed accounts would come from an increase in the estate tax, according to the proposal.
Senators have already floated one proposal this year for increasing the estate tax, but this proposal is qualitatively different. Has the federal government ever taxed one group to fund a direct benefit to another group? I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.
I DON’T KNOW IF IT WOULD WORK, BUT REPLACING SUBWAY TRAINS WITH AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES SOUNDS LIKE AN IDEA WORTH EXPLORING
I have written several posts on autonomous vehicles. I think they will be in widespread use in my lifetime.
I had never heard this idea before, but it is intriguing: in cities where there are subways, replace the electric trains (an early 20th century technology, at best) with autonomous electric cars. Such a system would replace the old subway trains with smaller, more efficient, easier to maintain vehicles. Sounds like it might be a good idea.
I wrote about a superficially similar idea several months ago: have dedicated lanes for autonomous vehicles, like the HOV lane on the freeway.
I don’t claim to know much about urban planning, but I find the subject interesting. It is somewhat related, sometimes, to my work on real estate transactions.
I found this item on worker commuting trends to be very interesting. It explains phenomena that I believe can be discerned from simple observation: large population centers provide greater opportunities for both workers and employers, but there is a limit to how much time workers will spend commuting.
JEFF BAXTER MAY BE MORE FAMOUS THAN MOST, BUT HE’S FAR FROM THE ONLY MUSICIAN WHO HAS OTHER TALENTS (OR WHOSE TALENTS HAVE TRANSLATED TO OTHER AREAS)
I saw a link to this Business Insider article on Instapundit. Even if you don’t have any interest in the substance, go there to see a great photo of Jeff "Skunk" Baxter standing behind the president, who is standing next to another (less accomplished, in my opinion) musician.
I have known a number of musicians (none of whom were as famous as Skunk Baxter, I admit) who not only had tremendous talent as musicians, but were also amazing talents in other areas. It’s impossible to tell for certain, of course, but I think the qualities that made those individuals great musicians were, in most cases, the same qualities that made them able to excel in other disciplines. In other words, their talents translated to other disciplines. I think that explains how Skunk was able to become an expert in missile defense. And while his comments in the Business Insider article don’t exactly say that, I think that’s what he meant.
I’ll get to writing about the Music Modernization Act (which is the reason Skunk was with the president) as soon as I know more about it.
Single serving pizzas can’t be over 928 calories, say the UK food police, according to this item.
The item also mentions that similar restrictions on sweets have been ineffective, with the result that the food police are making noises about doubling down. What, you thought the failure of their efforts would have given them pause?
The Miracle Mile neighborhood in Los Angeles appears, from the aerial photos, to be bounded by Wilshire, Olympic, Highland, and Fairfax. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art is on Wilshire, adjacent to the northwest corner of the neighborhood. There are large commercial properties lining the south side of Wilshire, abutting the neighborhood.
It sounds like LACMA is building new buildings on its existing site. Hard for me to see how the neighbors could be finding fault with that, but apparently they are.
At least one commentator is suggesting that the neighborhood opposition is a shakedown by the neighbors to get amenities for the neighborhood. Hard for me to see how that would work.
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH THE CONTENT PROVIDERS AND THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THEIR OWN INTERESTS IN THE NET NEUTRALITY DISPUTE?
I think that’s exactly what is happening, and anyone who doesn’t see that could be, well, in my humble opinion, naive. Coyote posted a good discussion about it earlier this week.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.