Sam Altman Says ‘Some Bad Things’ Will Happen With AI. That Doesn’t Mean We Should Stop It.


Sam Altman | Andrej Sokolow/dpa/picture-alliance/Kyodonews/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has drawn scrutiny from across the political spectrum for his take on the future of AI.

On a recent podcast, Altman attempted to distance himself from more pro-regulation AI companies, such as Anthropic, arguing that society must think about the tradeoffs associated with slowing down AI advancement. “I think one of the biggest differences between us and some of the stricter, let’s say, AI safety people, is we believe that the world should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology,” he said.

This comment in particular drew criticism from the likes of Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who said, “And a handful of tech oligarchs get to make that decision for the rest of us? No dice.” New York University professor and AI skeptic Gary Marcus joined in, saying that Altman was “saying the quiet part out loud: suck it up, so you can make us rich and powerful,” and former diplomat Patrick Gaspard called it “freaking insane.” Some commentators resorted to describing Altman’s comments as “sociopathic bullshit.”

The argument Altman is making is one of tradeoffs. He rightfully points out that no technology is 100 percent safe, that “some bad things are going to happen,” and that we ought to still have a “lighter-touch” regulatory approach. There’s no way to guarantee a risk-free environment, that there will not be major hacks, scams, or negative consequences of AI, Altman says. Notably, the OpenAI CEO said that giving “a single lab in San Francisco” unchecked power is “a completely unacceptable trade-off from a perspective of liberty and human agency and people self-determining the future.”

The basic principle of Altman’s argument is relatively ordinary: Society tolerates risk from virtually every transformative technology because zero-risk societies don’t innovate. Cars, for example, killed over 36,000 people last year in the U.S., and yet there is a consensus that the benefits of cars far outweigh the risks—which are declining thanks to innovations like autonomous vehicles, which are far safer than human drivers and may eliminate car deaths (if the government allows them to operate).

The internet itself has enabled fraud, bullying, child exploitation, and countless other horrible crimes. Medicines have side effects, and even electricity itself electrocutes hundreds of people every year.

The relevant question is not to ask whether something bad can happen, but whether the expected benefits outweigh the expected harms, and whether companies can mitigate those harms without destroying the benefits.

So far, AI has already proven to have an enormous number of benefits. In medicine, AI has helped discover a new antibiotic, accelerate the drug discovery process, identify potential Alzheimer’s disease causes, make strides in breast cancer treatments, and a whole host of other lifesaving advancements.

AI has improved forecasts for hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, giving communities more time to prepare for disasters. Of course, none of this means that harms should be ignored. The point is that every technology involves tradeoffs, and the task is to reduce risks without regulating away the benefits.

President Donald Trump has, at least so far, largely rejected the notion that government regulation is necessary in the case of AI. The administration’s approach is reportedly going to focus on liability, meaning that companies can self-regulate but are directly liable for any harms they pose.

As this discourse around AI continues, Altman’s broader point is certainly worth remembering. Progress requires tradeoffs. In trying to eliminate every possible risk, we should be careful not to eliminate the benefits too.

The post Sam Altman Says 'Some Bad Things' Will Happen With AI. That Doesn't Mean We Should Stop It. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/JKGClMo
via IFTTT

The SEC Is Watching American Investors’ Trades. That’s a Privacy Nightmare.


United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) logo | Maciek905/Dreamstime/Wiki Commons.

The federal government built a system that records the lawful trading activity of tens of millions of Americans, invades their financial privacy, and makes investors pay for the surveillance. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) calls it the Consolidated Audit Trail, or CAT. Now the agency is considering “fundamental changes” to the setup. It should eliminate the system instead.

CAT, launched in 2020, records almost every order, modification, cancellation, and execution by tens of millions of investors. The SEC requires these records so regulators can search trading activity and reconstruct it long after a trade occurred. The records are collected before there is probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or even an allegation of wrongdoing. Lawful activity is gathered first and searched later. Even the SEC has acknowledged that CAT raises civil liberties, privacy, confidentiality, and cybersecurity concerns.

Congress did not authorize the SEC to create this system or appropriate money to run it. The agency instead required brokers and exchanges to build and pay for it, with costs that can reach investors. That is a tax in all but name, imposed without the vote or the appropriation the Constitution requires. And even Congress cannot authorize a search the Fourth Amendment forbids.

A trading record also cannot explain why someone made a trade. Though it predated CAT, the SEC’s case against Mark Cuban shows why that matters. The SEC sued Cuban in 2008 over trades he made in 2004. He fought the case for five years and later said he spent approximately $12 million in legal fees before a federal jury found him not liable.

Under CAT, regulators no longer need to begin with a well-known individual or a conspicuous transaction. The system creates a searchable record of trading activity across the market, allowing the government to reconstruct the actions of ordinary investors long after the fact. Cuban’s case shows how a chronology of communications and trades can become the foundation for a serious allegation. CAT makes it possible to assemble those chronologies far more broadly and systematically. The record shows what happened, but it does not show what the investor knew.

The SEC has reduced some privacy risks. In 2025, it eliminated requirements to report customer names, addresses, and years of birth for most U.S. natural persons. Early this year, it approved additional changes requiring previously reported identifying information to be deleted or made inaccessible to regulators. But anonymized identifiers still link trading activity to customers, enabling regulators to obtain someone’s identity through brokers. Removing names does not erase that history.

Removing names also does not remove the cost. Brokerage firms still must maintain systems to report to CAT, reconcile records, and correct errors. Firms can absorb those expenses or pass them along through higher prices or fewer services.

For smaller firms, absorbing the expense can be harder. A reporting system and the staff to run it do not cost proportionately less just because a firm has fewer clients. A large brokerage can spread those costs across a broad business. A boutique helping young companies raise capital has less room to do so.

That expense can affect which offerings reach investors. A small offering may no longer be worth pursuing once another compliance cost is added. When a firm walks away, an entrepreneur loses a path to public capital, and investors lose a chance to participate. The SEC can narrow access to the market without prohibiting a single offering. An agency charged with facilitating capital formation should account for those lost opportunities as carefully as it counts the enforcement benefits it claims.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the SEC’s positions on its administrative-proceedings regime in SEC v. Cochran (2023) and SEC v. Jarkesy (2024). And in 2025, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the SEC’s CAT funding order, which directed how its costs would be allocated among industry participants. The SEC responded with a temporary plan that still charges brokers, exchanges, and the private Financial Industry Regulatory Authority for CAT.

Concerns about how the SEC uses its power are not theoretical to me.  I saw that firsthand in Powell v. SEC. For more than 50 years, the agency required defendants who accepted settlements with sanctions to agree never to deny its allegations publicly. Thousands of Americans were bound by that restriction. I was one of them. We challenged the policy, and this year the commission withdrew it while our petition for the Supreme Court review was pending.

That policy had stood since 1972. Americans should not have to spend years fighting an agency to get it to question the limits of its own power. Investors challenging CAT should not have to go through the same ordeal.

Changing who runs CAT, who pays for it, or which names it stores does not cure the underlying problem. The SEC cannot fix a lack of authority by rearranging the program, and Congress cannot make an unconstitutional search lawful by funding it. Shut it down.

The post The SEC Is Watching American Investors' Trades. That's a Privacy Nightmare. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/YWSFzjL
via IFTTT

If Manchester City Weren’t (Basically) Owned by the UAE, Their Scandal Would Be a Lot Less Complicated


People in suits stand and look out, in the center of the frame is a man in glasses with a light blue and white Manchester City scarf tied around his neck. | Shaun Brooks/Action Plus/Newscom

Hello and welcome to another edition of Free Agent! It’s a good week to keep your mouth shut.

Sorry, Dad, but we’re leading off with soccer today. That’s what happens when national governments get involved in sports! Then it’s time to be mad at Nick Saban and we’ll close with thoughts on the MLB playoff format.

Locker Room Links

  • The Portland Trail Blazers hired a new TV announcer, then fired him hours later after people dug up racist and sexist things he had tweeted over a decade ago as a teenager.
  • Outgoing Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser wants to spend almost $400 million on upgrades to “modernize” Nationals Park, which is less than 20 years old. (I was there about 10 days ago, it’s modern enough already.)
  • As we briefly noted last week, South Korean golfer Tom Kim needed an individual or team win at the Asian Games this week to earn an exemption from military conscription—he won by three strokes.
  • The Big Ten is falling behind the SEC, at least on all-important football TV ratings.
  • College football leaders are still considering playoff expansion to 24 teams, but lost revenue from conference championship games is a major obstacle. Also important: Viewership is down 11 percent this year from last year, and the lower stakes under a bigger playoff system probably aren’t helping.
  • Elsewhere in Reason: “The Millennial Internet Is Dead, and Politicians Killed It.“
  • If you wondered why you’re seeing commercials for a Senate race happening nowhere near you while you watch a national sports broadcast, this might be why:

Don’t Let Governments Get Into Sports and You Won’t Have This Problem

Always be careful who you go into business with.

That’s a lesson the Premier League may now be learning the hard way. If you thought it was a lot when the Los Angeles Clippers seemed to send tens of millions of dollars to Kawhi Leonard to circumvent the NBA salary cap, just wait until you hear what Manchester City’s owners did to avoid financial rules in soccer.

Over the course of a decade, the team allegedly hid more than $1 billion in fake sponsorship deals. Those deals cover 2009 through 2018, and it’s unknown if, and to what extent, the same thing has been going on since then (the club has not been fully cooperative with the Premier League’s investigation).

In short, while American sports fans demand their billionaire team owners spend more of their personal funds on their teams, Manchester City went ahead and did it. That’s easier to do when your team is, for all intents and purposes, owned by the United Arab Emirates. The club is owned by City Football Group, which is 81 percent owned by the private equity firm Abu Dhabi United Group, which is owned by Sheikh Mansour—the UAE’s vice president and a member of the royal family (and you thought President Donald Trump’s entanglements with private companies were bad!). Since 2009, the team’s jersey sponsor has been Etihad Airways, and since 2011 they’ve played in the Etihad Stadium in the Etihad Campus of Manchester—Etihad Airways, of course, is a state-owned enterprise of the UAE.

Soccer doesn’t have a salary cap, but it has “financial fair play” rules where owners are not allowed to use outside wealth to cover the club’s losses (basically, teams are supposed to break even over a certain period of time). Player acquisition is also much more free market than in American sports leagues—there’s no draft to send the best young talent to bad teams, so wealthy teams can just buy the rights to the best players in the world and then give them lucrative contracts.

The scheme worked. Man City won the Premier League three times in that 2009–2018 timespan (five more since), plus several domestic cup trophies and the European Champions League in 2023. Their women’s team has enjoyed recent success too. It’s worth mulling how much of their success, fueled by the shady sponsorship deals, created even more unjustly gained sponsorship revenue.

Now, the powers that be in soccer are trying to decide City’s punishment, while the club readies its appeal. The team might be stripped of past trophies, fined into oblivion, given a massive points deduction in the Premier League table, or automatically relegated to the second division.

If any of that happens, the UAE is threatening to pull back on massive investments from the United Kingdom.

All that creates a second point of pressure on the Premier League via their own government. “I would be really concerned to lose them,” Prime Minister Andy Burnham (the former Manchester mayor) said about the possibility of Man City’s owners taking their ball and going home by selling the team if their punishment is too harsh. So competitors and fans are calling for the harshest possible punishments, but on the other side are two governments. (Don’t worry, club chair Khaldoon al-Mubarak has diplomatic immunity.)

What a mess. That’s why it’s important to be careful who you go into business with. You might end up working with liars, cheats, and shady characters—or worse, a government.

Nick Saban Doesn’t Make Any Sense

Nick Saban has a silly argument to make about capping student-athlete pay but not coach pay. They are “totally different markets,” he said. “How much value does a coach create for a university?”

Saban, no doubt, created plenty of value for the University of Alabama. But he couldn’t have done that without Derrick Henry, Julio Jones, and many more star athletes who created incredible value for Saban and the university while getting very little in compensation.

Yet, in case you missed it last week, the Senate passed a bill (the Protect College Sports Act) to limit spending on student-athlete compensation while rejecting an amendment to limit spending on coaches. Its backers say there’s runaway spending on student-athletes, but say little about all the spending on coaching salaries and buyouts.

Congress shouldn’t pass a law at all limiting that spending, in my opinion, (just look at all the problems exemplified by Manchester City and the Clippers above!). But if they’re worried about athletic spending getting out of control, then just limiting spending on student-athletes won’t fix the problem—universities will find other ways to spend on athletics to get the same result they want, which is essentially better marketing than any commercial can ever provide.

While we’re on the subject, I have another complaint about the student-athlete compensation cap in the Protect College Sports Act. The cap isn’t flat over time, it’s set to rise with inflation—permanently. But all the evidence we have from professional sports shows that athlete salaries rise faster than inflation, even in salary cap systems. By tying the cap’s rise to inflation, Congress is basically making it much better to be a student-athlete today while screwing over the athletes of the future—athletes who don’t currently have a voice to complain about it.

The Last Year of MLB’s Playoff Format?

Another postseason, another year to complain about the MLB playoff format—except this time, with a collective bargaining agreement in the works (however far off that may be), the format may actually change before the next time the playoffs roll around (again, however far off that may be).

I think it’s tough to look at the teams eliminated in the Wild Card round and argue they deserved to advance instead. The Red Sox were eliminated by the Yankees, who had six more wins in the regular season. The Astros, with a negative run differential and the worst record for a division winner in baseball history, were knocked out by the White Sox, who had been in a division title fight but came up just short. The Cubs forgot how to hit and were knocked out by the Padres. The Phillies got sent home by the Braves, who had six more wins and a better run differential by the slight margin of 101.

But I still hate the three-game format. Your team spends months and months looking at their playoff spot, and if you have two bad days in a row it ends. I’ve had flight delays last longer than these postseason runs. Does it really feel like your team made the playoffs?

I’d be fine going back to the format with just one wild card team, or two wild card teams if we have to do a play-in game (don’t call it the playoffs, though!). But most importantly, make the divisional round a best-of-seven series (inventory for TV is king, here). Give people at least a little bit longer to have their hope before the Dodgers inevitably slam that door closed.

Replay of the Week

A lot happened this week, but it’s hard to resist a multisport goalie goal double feature.

That’s all for this week. Enjoy watching the real game of the weekend, as future Man City opponents Swansea City and Norwich City face off in the EFL Championship (7:30 a.m. Eastern on Saturday on CBS Sports Network).

The post If Manchester City Weren't (Basically) Owned by the UAE, Their Scandal Would Be a Lot Less Complicated appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/xdUhnWV
via IFTTT

The Energy Department Is Offering $4.2 Billion in Loans to Nuclear Projects in Ohio and Pennsylvania


Nuclear reactor with money coming out of it | Illustration: Rudi1976/Mekcar/Joedeer/Dreamstime/Fatima Ruiz.

On Monday, the Energy Department unveiled a conditional loan package of up to $4.2 billion to retail electricity and power generation company Vistra Corp. to finance upgrades to nuclear power plants in Ohio and Pennsylvania. 

The loan will fund the uprating—a process that increases electricity generation at existing power facilities by improving equipment—of three of Vistra’s nuclear power plants. This includes a 1.3-gigawatt nuclear reactor in Perry, Ohio, a 900-megawatt nuclear reactor in Oak Harbor, Ohio, and a two-unit 1.9-gigawatt nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Together, the three power plants generate enough electricity to power roughly 3 million homes. Under the agreement, the Energy Department could expand its loan commitments to Vistra to include the company’s Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas. The agency said the deal as a whole could “add 433 megawatts (MW) of new nuclear capacity,” although funding is contingent on Vistra meeting “certain technical, legal, environmental, and financial conditions.” 

Energy Secretary Chris Wright justified the release as a necessary step to deliver “more affordable, reliable, around-the-clock energy for American families and businesses.” It’s the latest in a series of government-backed loans issued through the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF)—formerly the Loan Programs Office (which served as a chief financier of the Biden administration’s green agenda)—acting under President Donald Trump’s executive order to “work with the nuclear energy industry to facilitate 5 gigawatt of power uprates to existing nuclear reactors and have 10 new large reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030.” 

The EDF has over $289 billion in loan authority, $250 billion of which is available through September 30, 2028, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill signed into law last year. Excluding the Vistra commitment, the agency has committed at least $18.5 billion to nuclear power projects. This includes $17.5 billion to finance five projects to accelerate the deployment of those 10 new large nuclear reactors nationwide. It also includes a $1 billion loan to help finance a revamp of the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. 

With rising energy costs and increased demand, lawmakers nationwide have joined the private sector in exploring nuclear energy as a reliable power source. A 2026 report by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) shows that in the past year, 45 states have taken legislative, regulatory, or executive action—some in the form of tax breaks—to support new or existing nuclear energy generation. At the forefront of this nuclear renaissance, the Trump administration has been eager to spur private capital by showing its willingness to do the same: It’s continuing measures such as a $900 million subsidy program to finance small modular and other advanced nuclear reactors.

Yet aside from easing permitting regimes or loosening regulations, there’s little role for the government to play in an industry that the private sector is eager to support.

The NEI’s 2026 Nuclear Costs in Context report shows capital spending in America’s nuclear industry rose to $7.59 billion in 2025, up from $6.10 billion the previous year, including $365 million to uprate existing nuclear power plants. So far in 2026, investors have spent $6.22 billion on startup companies developing nuclear energy technology and infrastructure, $1.9 billion more than in all of 2025, according to Crunchbase News. Globally, the International Energy Agency reported that investment in nuclear energy topped $80 billion in 2025.

With innovation and a commitment to exploring new technologies, America’s nuclear industry is making a comeback. 

Instead of letting the market identify and invest in the nuclear power plants worth upgrading, the Trump administration would rather pick winners and losers so it can portray the president as the driving force behind the sector’s growth.

The post The Energy Department Is Offering $4.2 Billion in Loans to Nuclear Projects in Ohio and Pennsylvania appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/36PZx7u
via IFTTT

‘I Never Lie’: Audio Recordings Raise New Questions About Cornell 7 Allegations


Robby and Amber discuss Cornell protest over rape allegations | Illustration: Fatima Ruiz

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss new developments in the “Cornell Seven” lawsuit, especially in light of released audio between Jane Doe and one of the fraternity members.

If you enjoy this kind of content and want more, subscribe to Soave’s newsletter, Free Media.

The post 'I Never Lie': Audio Recordings Raise New Questions About Cornell 7 Allegations appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/4EPxZiT
via IFTTT

After More Than Three Years, Judge Newman’s Case Is Transferred To The Eleventh Circuit

Today the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit released this order:

On March 24, 2023, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit identified Complaint No. FC-23-90015 against United States Circuit Judge Pauline Newman under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364, and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings of the Judicial Conference of the United States. On August 19, 2026, the Chief Justice of the United States transferred Complaint No. FC-23-90015 and any pending or new complaints relating to the same subject matter to the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council, where it was assigned Complaint No. 11-26-90237.

Let’s review the timeline.

On June 15, 2026, the Supreme Court denied cert in Newman v. Moore. And the period for reconsideration finished 25 days later on July 10. On July 28, the Federal Circuit issued a ninety-five page opinion extended Newman’s suspension for another year. Then on On August 19, the Chief Justice transferred the case to the Eleventh Circuit. It is’t clear if Judge Moore asked the Chief Justice to reassign the case  or if the Chief Justice simply pulled rank and took the case away from Moore. I lean towards the latter option. If so, kudos to the Chief for taking control. Better late than never, I suppose? But why now? Perhaps the Chief Justice was waiting for all pending litigation to conclude before taking the case away from Judge Newman?

After nearly three years of Chief Judge Moore waiting for Judge Newman to die, the case might actually find a favorable forum in Atlanta. May Judge Newman return to the bench as soon as possible.

Indeed, there is a parallel between Chief Judge Moore and Judge Southwick. Both judges care very much about who sits on their court and they seek to use their own judicial power to control who sits on the court. The judicial ethics mavens apparently see nothing wrong with either of their conduct, but I do. And for what it’s worth, Judge Newman could have hand-picked her successor a long time ago, but has made the moral choice to serve until she can serve no longer.

The post After More Than Three Years, Judge Newman's Case Is Transferred To The Eleventh Circuit appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/xs3gaWS
via IFTTT

The ‘World’s Oldest’ Bartender’s Very Illegal Basement Bar


Irvine Koch | oshua McKerrow/TNS/Newscom

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. In this week’s issue, we have stories on: 

  • Another court loss for San Francisco’s “empty homes” tax. 
  • Spain’s housing revolt.
  • Another religious land use case that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But first, our lead story on the zoning angle behind a feel-good story about the world’s oldest bartender. 


Great-Grandfathering in Basement Bars 

The Washington Post yesterday profiled Irvin Koch, who, at the ripe old age of 103, is considered to be the world’s oldest bartender. 

The centenarian’s establishment, Irv’s Basement Bar, is quite literally in the basement beneath his home in Anne Arundel County, on the outskirts of Baltimore. The bar came with the house when Koch purchased the property in 1963. The cash bar proved lucrative enough that he’s kept operating it ever since. 

If running a bar out of your basement sounds like a fun idea, you are unfortunately out of luck. Koch’s dive is Maryland’s last true “basement bar”: an establishment that has more or less been killed off by modern zoning codes. 

As a lawyer for the county’s liquor board told Baltimore’s The Sun in a 2014 profile of Koch, “You can’t do it these days. No one could come in now and do the same thing.” 

Koch’s own establishment only survives because it was up and running long before the county’s modern zoning and building codes were adopted. It’s thus been grandfathered into the long list of county and state regulations adopted over the decades. 

It’s almost comical to count all the ways that Koch’s existing business would be illegal today. Going through the list is also educational. It sheds light on the pieces of red tape silently at work blocking interesting “third places” like Irv’s Basement Bar. 

Per the Post‘s history, Koch’s farmhouse was built as a private summerhouse in 1912, some four decades before the county adopted its first comprehensive zoning ordinance in 1952. 

That initial lack of zoning allowed the residential home to be converted into a commercial inn with the basement bar sometime before Koch’s purchase of the property. Today, that couldn’t happen. 

The county’s zoning code places Koch’s property in an R-2 low-medium density zone. Per the code, this zone is designed to create areas of exclusively suburban single-family housing. As such, a long list of commercial uses is flatly prohibited, including “taverns.” 

That would be enough to block Koch’s bar in its current form. He could potentially try to convert the property into a country club, which is allowed in R-2 zones as a conditional use requiring special permits. Alcohol uses as an accessory use are also allowed as a conditional use. 

Even if that were possible, the fact that Koch lives in the house above the bar would pose additional regulatory problems. 

Anne Arundel’s zoning code prohibits all home-based businesses that are not expressly permitted, and a bar is not one of those permitted businesses. Moreover, home-based businesses are not allowed to sell products that are not produced on site. 

So even if Koch could somehow get his bar classified as a country club or other permitted R-2 use, he might have to move out of his longtime home so that it’s no longer a primary residence subject to home-business restrictions. 

While I’m not sure what the parking situation is at Irv’s, the county’s zoning code requires restaurants and taverns to have the greater of one parking space per three seats or one parking space per 200 square feet. 

That could require Koch to pave over his lawn, even if his bar doesn’t need that many spaces to accommodate his collection of regular customers. 

Beyond the zoning code, Anne Arundel County also has a building and fire code with specific requirements for how taverns must be built and operated. Odds are that Koch’s 114-year-old house doesn’t completely conform to those code requirements either. 

The customers’ bras hanging from the wall might not be the county health department’s favorite thing in the world. 

All of that is to say, there’s a reason that Koch’s bar is the last of its kind. 

What’s notable is that, even though zoning and building codes stop Koch’s bar in eight different ways, everyone seems to love it. 

In the media profiles, regular customers give glowing testimonials about it being their favorite bar. The dive’s walls are covered in graffiti from tourists who traveled to Maryland just to have a drink there. 

No one has a problem with Irv’s bar. Even the regulators seem to have given it a lot of grace. Its grandfathered status notwithstanding, one could assume that officials could find some reason to more tightly regulate Koch’s establishment. 

As it stands, no one has a problem with the basement bar, and no one is in a rush to force it to comply with all the rules a normal bar would have to. 

If that’s true, one wonders what’s so desirable or necessary about applying all the zoning regulations that would kill off Koch’s bar to every other business in the county. 

Surely a broader amount of regulatory forbearance would allow for a lot of new, interesting, and novel businesses like Irv’s to spring up. 


Vacating San Francisco’s Vacancy Tax 

San Francisco voters passed a special tax on vacant homes back in 2022, but its actual implementation has been stalled in the courts ever since. 

Now it looks like the tax, which was supposed to start raising revenue in 2024, will never go into effect. Earlier this month, a division of the state’s appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that had blocked the tax. 

The plaintiffs in the case were property owners who argued a tax on their empty or irregularly occupied properties violated a long list of their legal and constitutional rights. 

In an opinion issued earlier in September, Justice Kathleen Banke, joined by two other justices, agreed that the vacancy tax was superseded by a state law that guarantees landlords the ability to withdraw their property from the rental market. 

San Francisco had tried to argue that it was not interfering with that right. Rather, it was merely taxing people for exercising it. 

Banke found that unconvincing, writing, “As the City apparently sees it, while a property owner, indeed, has the right to exit the residential rental business, they have no correlative right to remain out of that business and can be pressured back into it on pain of significant taxation. This circularity in reasoning is a patently unreasonable reading” of state law. 

Thus far, San Francisco has declined to say whether it’ll appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court. For the time being, the tax is dead. 

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see my full piece from last week. Here is also a piece on the larger issue of vacant housing in expensive cities. 


Spain’s Housing Revolt

In less feel-good news, Spain is experiencing increasingly riotous protests after the country’s parliament rejected legislation that would have imposed emergency rent controls and eviction protections. 

In the city of Valencia over the weekend, protesters were dispersed with rubber bullets and tear gas after they’d breached a security perimeter at a real estate conference, reports the Associated Press. In Madrid and Barcelona, demonstrators have turned public squares into protest encampments. 

The trigger for these protests was the eviction of an 87-year-old pensioner by the real estate company that had bought her once rent-controlled apartment and then substantially raised the rent. 

That eviction came amidst rising anger in Spain over increasing rents and anemic economic growth. 

The Spanish Parliament’s narrow rejection last week of emergency rent controls and eviction moratoriums proposed by the country’s left-wing minority government accelerated the street action. 

Those provisions have since been approved by lawmakers, and Spain’s prime minister has called for early elections. 


Do You Really Need a Shrine That Big? 

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a religious land use and liberty case involving Catholic priests in Kentucky who were denied permits to build a grotto featuring a Marian shrine. 

Zoning officials in Park Hills had initially granted the Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist a conditional use permit to build their planned grotto. That permit was then challenged by neighbors who worried about the traffic impacts of the shrine. 

A lower court sided with the neighbors and rejected the shrine, as did the Kentucky Supreme Court, which reasoned that zoning restrictions on a shrine’s size are not a substantial burden on religion. 

The priests appealed that decision, arguing that the zoning restrictions are a substantial restriction on their religious mission in violation of federal law that protects religious land uses. 

This will be the second religious land use case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear recently. Back in June, it also agreed to hear a case stemming from an Ohio city’s restrictions on Jewish prayer services in a private home. 


Quick Links

  • Property owners who are suing the Rent Guidelines Board have released texts showing communication between board members and the Mamdani administration in the run-up to its approval of a rent freeze. The plaintiffs are alleging in their lawsuit that the allegedly independent board ignored evidence and made a politicized decision at the behest of the mayor to freeze rents. 
  • New real estate grift just dropped. 

  • New York City can proceed with its second home tax for now. 
  • Voters in Redwood City, California, will consider a rent control ballot initiative.

 

The post The 'World's Oldest' Bartender's Very Illegal Basement Bar appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/j8TW9wC
via IFTTT

Lurching Through The Audition Trap

Recently, Judge Ho of the Fifth Circuit issued a concurrence that cited my post, The Audition Trap. The allegations in this case were problematic. The defendant’s counsel told the magistrate judge that he had connections to a Texas Senator and other members of government. The counsel warned that he was “consider[ing] asking my Texas friends to write to you and ask why I have to continue waiting” for the resolution of a motion. The magistrate judge, who was seeking a federal district court appointment, agreed to an ex parte hearing with the lawyer.

Judge Ho observed:

Any judge who abuses his office to promote his own interests—including the desire for future appointment—has violated the judicial oath and doesn’t belong in his current post, let alone whatever new post he seeks. There are, to be sure, both honorable and dishonorable people on the bench—just as there are in every other segment of life. Just as there are no doubt those on the bench who have strong ambitions for future office, there are others who are happy to be public servants, but who would be just as happy earning their living by some other means. For the outside observer, however, it can be difficult to discern which is which. And therein lies the quandary for the dutiful judge. How should a good judge respond when it’s suggested that his exercise of judicial authority might be tainted by his private, personal desire for elevation to another post? . . .

Professor Blackman’s point is simple, but important. No one has the power to look into another man’s heart and ascertain his actual motivations or ambitions. So the accusation of auditioning is indeed irrefutable. Certain actions may seem like auditioning to some, but to others, it’s simply doing the job as the judge best sees fit. There’s no solution. So the good judge simply accepts that criticism is a fact of life—and that unrebuttable charges come with the job. The First Amendment guarantees the right of every citizen to criticize public officials—whether the criticism is fair or unfair.

Judge Ho and I are often accused of auditioning. And there’s no way to disprove the accusation. Who can look into our hearts to know our true motivations? But as I often remind people, if we are auditioning, we are doing so very poorly. The way to get ahead in the world is to keep your head down, make powerful friends, and avoid doing anything that could prove controversial. Look no further than Todd Butler’s nomination to the Fifth Circuit. Fight to overrule Roe v. Wade and you are stuck on the sidelines. Defend municipalities who violate the First Amendment rights of street preachers and you get a circuit court nomination.

The truth is that those who lob the auditioning accusation are those who are most likely to audition in their own careers. I noted in my post:

The fact that everyone auditions demonstrates why this charge is so common. As a general matter, people project onto others the flaws they see in themselves. If you accuse me of auditioning, you can be pretty sure this is something that you have done in the past. Think carefully.

I recently saw some suggestion that I was on some undisclosed payroll. I wish! The truth is that I speak my mind, which is not conducive to any paying client. I am grateful some outlets offer me modest honoraria to speak and lecture, but I always retain full control over my message–and I often withdraw works when the editing becomes too intrusive. Indeed, I wrote several posts publicly agonizing about whether to put some of my content behind a paywall as a means to generate some revenue, but I ultimately decided not to so my discretion would remain unfettered. By contrast, as a general matter, managing partners at firms play some role in setting the compensation of their colleagues. Like I said, people project onto others the flaws they see in themselves.

I wish things were different with the judicial selection process. I wish that Presidents would nominate those who were unafraid to challenge political orthodoxies. Steve Calabresi’s post today on the 40th anniversary of Justice Scalia’s swearing-in provides a flashback to a different time.

On June 14, 1986, Judge Scalia was invited to speak at a conference organized by Attorney General Meese. The timing was “risky” as President Reagan would interview Scalia for the Supreme Court vacancy on June 16.

Scalia could have played things safe, but that was not who Scalia was. Calabresi writes:

Given this, most lawyers would say something mild, uncontroversial, and ingratiating toward the attorney general. But Judge Antonin Scalia was not a normal, cautious lawyer. Indeed, as a law professor, he liked to teach against the views of his class and tell them things that they did not ordinarily want to hear. Or to make a more historical reference, Justice Scalia was the type of person who would speak to King Henry VIII as if he were St. Thomas More. He was temperamentally unable to flatter or to say something that he did not believe to be true.

And Scalia would not flatter the sitting Attorney General. He took the occasion to explain why Meese was wrong to focus on “original intent” and instead should focus on “original public meaning.” That speech set the stage for the modern originalist revolution. Scalia took a risk at the most inopportune time, and prevailed. And Attorney General Meese approved:

Ken Cribb, who was then Ed Meese’s counselor and chief of staff, cleverly took a name tent card from his table, folded it inside out, wrote “Stipulated” on it, and showed it to Attorney General Meese. Attorney General Meese nodded approvingly, and Cribb put the tent card saying “Stipulated” on the podium in front of Judge Scalia before the judge had even finished speaking.

On June 17, President Reagan nominated Scalia for the seat, and the rest is history.

Calabresi concludes:

Whether one agrees with their views or not, I believe this story shows how open-minded and humble Attorney General Ed Meese was, and how gutsy and principled Judge Antonin Scalia was. That’s something worth reflecting on four decades later.

Alas, that was forty years ago. Now we are stuck to Lurch through the audition trap.

The post Lurching Through The Audition Trap appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/rz2RdVJ
via IFTTT

These Minnesota Parents Were Censored at a Public Meeting for Saying School Employees’ Job Titles


Blake DeMarais | Blake & Katy The Advocators/Facebook/foleyfalcons51/Youtube/

A local school board in Minnesota has taken censorship to absurd heights. 

During the public comment period at Foley Public School Board meetings, concerned citizens are forbidden from saying not only the names of school staff and officials but even their titles. These revelations come from Blake and Katy DeMarais, concerned parents of a disabled and nonverbal special education student in the district. Over the summer, the parents complained that the district was failing to provide educational services to their son, only to be censored in a public meeting. 

During the board’s June 22 meeting, Katy DeMarais opened her comment by stating she would like to speak about her family’s “experience with the special education director and district leadership.” According to a video posted by the DeMaraises, a board member’s voice then interrupts, telling Katy DeMarais that “I’ll have to stop you…because we’re not allowed to speak about people in the public meeting.” When Katy DeMarais proceeded to finish her public comment, she would verbally say “blank” when referencing the special education director. 

Later in the same meeting, Blake DeMarais gave his own public comment, which was also recorded. In the video, Blake DeMarais begins reading an email sent to them by the district’s superintendent, but when he says nothing more than “superintendent,” he gets shut down too. “Blake,” the voice intones, “you’re done. You can’t talk about the superintendent. We already addressed this.”

Nearly two months later, it happened again at an August 17 meeting. Visibly upset, Blake DeMarais reads an email from the district’s lawyer. Quoting the email, he mentions “Superintendent Posthumus” and is immediately silenced. “Blake, I need you to stop at this point,” a voice interrupts. “When you start talking about staff members, that’s when we have to stop.” 

“Do you know what viewpoint discrimination is?” Blake DeMarais asks. “That’s what you’re doing to me right now.” 

He’s right, of course, but the absurdity only gets worse: The board is also violating its own policy and state law. According to the policy adopted by the board in August 2024, personnel data that is public information includes both the name of the employee and their job title. It also includes a slew of other information, such as “actual gross salary” and “the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action.” The district’s own policy tracks Minnesota law, which also states that a government employee’s name and job title are public data. 

Regardless of what district policy or Minnesota law says, the Foley school board trampled on the DeMaraises’ First Amendment rights. When a school board opens a meeting to public comment, it can’t censor its constituents for criticizing school staff, much less simply naming them or mentioning their titles. A government body can constitutionally restrict some speech during a public comment period, such as limiting comment to a maximum allotted time or ensuring it’s on topic, but all those restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. In its treatment of the DeMaraises, the Foley Public School Board has hit the trifecta, violating its own policy, state law, and the First Amendment. 

There’s a good reason that school staff names and titles are public. The community has the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent and whether the public servants they pay are doing their jobs effectively, ethically, and constitutionally. How can parents in Foley public schools know if the adults in charge of their kids’ education are doing their jobs if nobody can criticize them by name or even mention their titles? 

The DeMaraises won’t be silenced. During the last school board meeting in September, Katy DeMarais stepped up to the microphone once again to advocate for her son and reminded the board members of their duty to the families they serve.

“Parents have a right to speak about their experiences—the good, the bad, and everything in between,” she said. “Advocacy is not harassment.”

The post These Minnesota Parents Were Censored at a Public Meeting for Saying School Employees' Job Titles appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/1dkrLDo
via IFTTT

Live Reason Roundtable 10th Anniversary Show!

Tune in on YouTube at 6:30 p.m. ET on October 7, 2026.

For 10 years, The Reason Roundtable has been proving that the best political conversations aren’t the ones where everyone agrees—they’re the ones where smart people challenge each other, chase unexpected tangents, and somehow end up making more sense of the news than anyone else. Join Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Matt Welch as they celebrate a decade of the podcast with a special live taping. It’s your chance to watch the chemistry, the disagreements, the running jokes, and the occasional exasperated sigh happen in real time.

The post Live <i>Reason Roundtable</i> 10th Anniversary Show! appeared first on Reason Magazine.

from Latest – Reason Magazine https://ift.tt/E1ZvMy7
via IFTTT