No matter how good a GM is, it's pretty unlikely he's going to come up with a better use of 14M than turning a Peralta-level pitcher into a Skubal-level one.

"Carceral" is not a synonym for "judicial." Insofar as we use the traditional definition of carceral (of or relating to prisons/imprisonment) it's pretty clearly anti-carceral. Insofar as mandatory IID prevents racking up multiple DUIs, it decreases incarceration risk.

I'm pretty skeptical it would cost the state less, given how these things generally go, but whether state or privately administered, there's some efficiencies of scale waiting to be captured through broader adoption.

I'd happily support that but whether it's state-run or contracted out and regulated seems pretty trivial relative to larger questions at play here. (I'm also open to universal adaption, but that's probably too politically implausible to bother with for the short/medium term.)

And while I appreciate the cost can be an issue, treating IID installation as a "punishment" reveals how dismissive we are of the carnage caused by bad driving as a society. Unless you're a sociopath you should be grateful the tech prevented you from inadvertently committing a very dangerous crime!

That's why it drives me crazy that the ACLU and some civ libs are so opposed to mandatory IID for DUI. It's a non-carceral consequence that's more effective than fines and prison! It reduces likelihood of racking up multiple DUIs, which in addition to being good-in-itself reduces incarceration!

Says more about the writer for including it, IMO. People are unmarried for all kinds of reasons, it's idiotic and unhelpful to attempt to create a stigma about being not being married.

100%. There's truth in Balko's point, but it's better framed as "a society in which nearly everyone drives regularly is a society that's chosen to arrange itself in a way that makes strong civil libertarianism less likely and less desirable."

Fair point; it's an empirical question where our dueling intuitions just need to be tested. As an Ohio resident I've heard plenty of people casually mention taking longer routes to avoid checkpoints on the way home from the bar, which naturally induces skepticism.

isn't announcing the locations in advance simply helping drunk drivers evade consequences?

Like, if stores posted the aisles and times loss prevention officers would be observing, that would almost certainly encourage more shoplifting?

In a very literal sense, insofar as they work in the intended manner, they almost certainly keep people out of prison!

Public opinion on density/zoning/affordability issues has shifted pretty substantially in their direction in some high cost jurisdictions (Seattle and Bay Area, for sure, and I'm sure others) and that happened for a number of reasons but they were certainly part of it.

The most generous interpretation: he's making reasonable and important argument about employment protections, but insists on trying to use the culture-war-hot-potato-of-the-moment as a hook, when it doesn't make any sense (and undermines his point) to do so.

Do you think they might be less willing to take a chance on hiring someone with her checkered past if they knew they would be forced to continue to employ her even if she treats paying customers like this?

It also seems important, if we care about freedom of expression as well as labor protections, to make a distinction between on-the-job conduct and views expressed on social media. This article attempts to blur that distinction.

This couldn't be more wrong. Many people who care deeply about housing affordability oppose unfunded IZ because it reduces construction, leading to higher rents a wide swath of people, which harms aggregate affordability more than the small number of constructed aff. units helps it.

For the record, very few to no YIMBYs in WA or Portland, where such policies have recently passed, oppose funded IZ. If the funding mechanism (like tax credits) is fair and broad, rather than putting it all on the shoulders of market rate renters, the YIMBY opposition melts away.

I don't understand; how is it not a tax?

Taxes aren't inherently bad! The fact that it's a tax isn't an argument against the policy, it's just being honest about how it works. I see no rhetorical or political purpose in denying the obvious.

The Supreme Court did it, in the case that made zoning constitutional. Apartment dwellers are "parasites," according to Justice Sutherland.