Wednesday, March 2, 2011
New Blog!
New city (sort of)... new career... new blog! Check it out here. It's a little rough at the moment, but I'll be posting there from now on, so if you want to continue following me, that's where I'll be. Miss you all on the East Coast and hope you are doing well. Bethlehembyfoot left by car and is now SLCUrbanist.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Beginning with Social Security...
So, after I've identified the problem, I feel as though I should at least present a plausible solution. Not that my solution should be THE solution, but maybe it will begin a conversation about the effectiveness of different policies toward reaching our goal of not only bringing down the deficit but also fostering sustainable (operative word) economic growth. And please don't think of me as a policy expert. I've studied social and economic policy, but the Ph.D. and a lifetime of experience are conspicuously absent from my resume, so I can't be starting from a much better position than anyone else reading this blog. But I hope you aren't looking to me for answers anyway... at least not exclusively. I hope you are looking to me and that guy, and that elderly lady over there, not to mention her 20-something grandson who is just beginning to make his way through this crazy world. We all have something to contribute, and the combination of our genuine efforts at working with each other toward a common goal cannot help but be greater than the sum of their individual parts. That's what democracy is all about; keep that in mind.
What should be done? I think the Deficit Commission report was a good start, but something has to come out of it, and it has to begin with the big boys: Medicare, Medicaid, and especially Social Security. There have been many suggestions for better efficiency with these programs, and all of them should be looked at. In the case of Social Security, age of eligibility changes should be looked at and, ultimately, enacted. 65 was a good age when the program began. Now it is a significant drain on the fund and should be increased to a graduated rate between 67 and 70 (25% benefit at 67, 50% at 68, 75% at 69, and full at 70). This will help to keep the fund from depleting as quickly as it is expected to. Also, a person's benefit should be tied to how much the person (or beneficiary) paid into the fund. For retirees who are in danger of running out of benefits, a separate safety net insurance fund will be set up, collected from a small companion tax that will be collected along with the Social Security tax from every worker. For example, a person's benefit would be determined by a 4% tax on wages, and an extra 1% will be collected as a broader safety net fund for those who outlive their benefits. Finally, a significant tax benefit should be set up for any retiree who denies the Social Security benefit. If you are well-off enough that you don't need the benefit and you have enough integrity to voluntarily give it up for the good of the system, you should be compensated in some significant way. A large tax break on your estate or other assets would be appropriate.
I'm not too familiar with the arguments for privatizing Social Security. I can imagine that it would be just like a 401(k) in the way that it would be a voluntary contribution rather than a mandatory tax. I don't see this as being a very sustainable solution. Except in times of economic pressure, we as a nation are not very good at saving money. A private retirement fund is no different. I can imagine that the structure that I proposed in the previous paragraph would be more conducive to a privatization than the way we currently do it, but I can't really imagine it having anywhere near the broad social benefit that it does now.
Well, it's obvious that this little experimental conversation starter of mine will end up taking several posts. I'm not about to overwhelm you (and myself) by trying to put all of my ideas here. We'll start with Social Security and move on to other policies soon. Now it's your turn to tell me what you think. Please take these as suggestions and not dictatorial decrees. Please give reasons why these policies would be beneficial and why they would be detrimental. Please stay away from cliches. And most of all, please be civil. I'll consider deleting any comment that doesn't follow these rules. Thanks.
Okay... give me your thoughts.
What should be done? I think the Deficit Commission report was a good start, but something has to come out of it, and it has to begin with the big boys: Medicare, Medicaid, and especially Social Security. There have been many suggestions for better efficiency with these programs, and all of them should be looked at. In the case of Social Security, age of eligibility changes should be looked at and, ultimately, enacted. 65 was a good age when the program began. Now it is a significant drain on the fund and should be increased to a graduated rate between 67 and 70 (25% benefit at 67, 50% at 68, 75% at 69, and full at 70). This will help to keep the fund from depleting as quickly as it is expected to. Also, a person's benefit should be tied to how much the person (or beneficiary) paid into the fund. For retirees who are in danger of running out of benefits, a separate safety net insurance fund will be set up, collected from a small companion tax that will be collected along with the Social Security tax from every worker. For example, a person's benefit would be determined by a 4% tax on wages, and an extra 1% will be collected as a broader safety net fund for those who outlive their benefits. Finally, a significant tax benefit should be set up for any retiree who denies the Social Security benefit. If you are well-off enough that you don't need the benefit and you have enough integrity to voluntarily give it up for the good of the system, you should be compensated in some significant way. A large tax break on your estate or other assets would be appropriate.
I'm not too familiar with the arguments for privatizing Social Security. I can imagine that it would be just like a 401(k) in the way that it would be a voluntary contribution rather than a mandatory tax. I don't see this as being a very sustainable solution. Except in times of economic pressure, we as a nation are not very good at saving money. A private retirement fund is no different. I can imagine that the structure that I proposed in the previous paragraph would be more conducive to a privatization than the way we currently do it, but I can't really imagine it having anywhere near the broad social benefit that it does now.
Well, it's obvious that this little experimental conversation starter of mine will end up taking several posts. I'm not about to overwhelm you (and myself) by trying to put all of my ideas here. We'll start with Social Security and move on to other policies soon. Now it's your turn to tell me what you think. Please take these as suggestions and not dictatorial decrees. Please give reasons why these policies would be beneficial and why they would be detrimental. Please stay away from cliches. And most of all, please be civil. I'll consider deleting any comment that doesn't follow these rules. Thanks.
Okay... give me your thoughts.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Entitlements, Politics, and Debt... Oh My!
If you are not concerned about the national debt, you should be. A recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office shows exactly why. Scary stuff! 2020 is less than 10 short years away, and 2040 isn't that far off either. It's easy to become dismayed or, worse yet, complacent in the face of such staggering numbers and need for change. How do we reverse course?
It is pretty predictable how politicians on each side will react to this report. Those on the right will attack Medicaid and the reckless spending of the past 2 years. There will be no mention from them of the spending that has exceeded our willingness to tax since the early 1980s, and there will certainly be no willingness to add taxes now... or ever again! They will be less than vague when describing how to reduce that interest payment, and, of course, they wouldn't touch Social Security or Medicare with a 50-foot pole. Those on the left are so afraid of losing even more of their jobs in 2012 and beyond that they don't want to touch any of it. They'll lose any influence with the largest group of voters if they touch Social Security and Medicare, and they'll lose their base if they touch Medicaid. They'll discuss the balooning interest by saying some of the same vague comments about the debt that their rivals on the right will say. They'll mention the reckless spending of the Bush Administration and conveniently leave out the past couple of years, and they'll indicate the need to raise taxes... not now, but at some point in the future.
Obviously, we have a problem. Two of our biggest programs are exploding, yet no one is willing to deal with them. Retirees are now taking more money out of the system than they ever put in... some twice as much... and we don't seem willing to raise the age of eligibility or have an income cap. Even taking a look at where to save money with Medicaid is suicide for the Democrats. Maybe our politicians should be more concerned about the country than their political careers. Or maybe the biggest problem is that no one seems to be able to have a civil and inteligent conversation about all of this. My wife just questioned me about it all and played devil's advocate, and all I did was get defensive about it. Why? Is it so hard for us to admit that other veiwpoints have their merits and that we don't know everything there is to know? Is it really that satisfying to us to demonize others just to get that intoxicating feeling of superiority?
The next 10 years are going to define who we have become as a civilization. Do we have any remaining ability to see beyond the paradigm of Red vs. Blue? Can we still solve our problems? We have to begin by talking, and we have to suppress that urge to come off as superior; that need to be right all of the time. For all of the politicians who have done the "right" thing in the past 50 years, things sure have gone wrong.
I've been one of the biggest proponents in the past for big government, at least when it comes to supporting those who are least able to support themselves. I have been an opponent of government's subsidization for large industries, such as oil, automobile, suburban housing, and agriculture. I still feel strongly about those things. But we've dug ourselves into such a deep hole from 60-some-odd years of fiscal and social policy that doing what I think is right will have to take a back seat to doing what is necessary. Don't get me wrong... I do not think at all that eliminating these programs and privatizing everything is what is sustainable, let alone necessary. But I do think that cuts to these programs, along with entitlements and highways and agricultural subsidies and the consideration of elevated tax rates on millionaires and billionaires, are necessary. Everything has to be on the table and debated on their merits. We no longer have the time to play political games.
My next post will describe what I think needs to be done to get things going in a sustainable direction, as well as what our fiscal and social philosophy should be when we emerge from this crisis. But do not think for a second that I am saying it can only be that way and that no other opinions matter. Think of it as the beginning of a conversation. We need a starting point, and apparently it needs to start outside of the Beltway. I'm not so self-involved that I believe it will start with me, but maybe I can influence someone that can start it.
This is a crisis; make no mistake about that. We've downplayed it and distracted ourselves from it for too long. It's time to put our asinine political games and arrogance aside. Let's talk!
It is pretty predictable how politicians on each side will react to this report. Those on the right will attack Medicaid and the reckless spending of the past 2 years. There will be no mention from them of the spending that has exceeded our willingness to tax since the early 1980s, and there will certainly be no willingness to add taxes now... or ever again! They will be less than vague when describing how to reduce that interest payment, and, of course, they wouldn't touch Social Security or Medicare with a 50-foot pole. Those on the left are so afraid of losing even more of their jobs in 2012 and beyond that they don't want to touch any of it. They'll lose any influence with the largest group of voters if they touch Social Security and Medicare, and they'll lose their base if they touch Medicaid. They'll discuss the balooning interest by saying some of the same vague comments about the debt that their rivals on the right will say. They'll mention the reckless spending of the Bush Administration and conveniently leave out the past couple of years, and they'll indicate the need to raise taxes... not now, but at some point in the future.
Obviously, we have a problem. Two of our biggest programs are exploding, yet no one is willing to deal with them. Retirees are now taking more money out of the system than they ever put in... some twice as much... and we don't seem willing to raise the age of eligibility or have an income cap. Even taking a look at where to save money with Medicaid is suicide for the Democrats. Maybe our politicians should be more concerned about the country than their political careers. Or maybe the biggest problem is that no one seems to be able to have a civil and inteligent conversation about all of this. My wife just questioned me about it all and played devil's advocate, and all I did was get defensive about it. Why? Is it so hard for us to admit that other veiwpoints have their merits and that we don't know everything there is to know? Is it really that satisfying to us to demonize others just to get that intoxicating feeling of superiority?
The next 10 years are going to define who we have become as a civilization. Do we have any remaining ability to see beyond the paradigm of Red vs. Blue? Can we still solve our problems? We have to begin by talking, and we have to suppress that urge to come off as superior; that need to be right all of the time. For all of the politicians who have done the "right" thing in the past 50 years, things sure have gone wrong.
I've been one of the biggest proponents in the past for big government, at least when it comes to supporting those who are least able to support themselves. I have been an opponent of government's subsidization for large industries, such as oil, automobile, suburban housing, and agriculture. I still feel strongly about those things. But we've dug ourselves into such a deep hole from 60-some-odd years of fiscal and social policy that doing what I think is right will have to take a back seat to doing what is necessary. Don't get me wrong... I do not think at all that eliminating these programs and privatizing everything is what is sustainable, let alone necessary. But I do think that cuts to these programs, along with entitlements and highways and agricultural subsidies and the consideration of elevated tax rates on millionaires and billionaires, are necessary. Everything has to be on the table and debated on their merits. We no longer have the time to play political games.
My next post will describe what I think needs to be done to get things going in a sustainable direction, as well as what our fiscal and social philosophy should be when we emerge from this crisis. But do not think for a second that I am saying it can only be that way and that no other opinions matter. Think of it as the beginning of a conversation. We need a starting point, and apparently it needs to start outside of the Beltway. I'm not so self-involved that I believe it will start with me, but maybe I can influence someone that can start it.
This is a crisis; make no mistake about that. We've downplayed it and distracted ourselves from it for too long. It's time to put our asinine political games and arrogance aside. Let's talk!
Friday, January 14, 2011
A New Nation Demanded by a Generation?
News flash: Generation Yers don't want what has generally passed for the American Dream since the 1920s. So says a reporter from the bastion of conservative printed news, the Wall Street Journal (a Murdock media outlet, if you weren't aware).
This article, based on a study by the National Association of Home Builders, is hopeful in some ways and kind of disturbing in others. On the up-side, it says what everyone already knows: the children of Baby Boomers, who actually outnumber their parents (why does no one talk about this???), do not want any part of a car-dependent lifestyle. Developers have known this for a while now, which has spurred them to start building condos and other housing closer to walkable commercial centers. The New Urbanists, for many reasons outside of the preferences of the silent majority generation, have begun developing entire traditional neighborhoods consisting of not just housing, but commercial and civic centers. Recently, car companies began to catch on to this trend, too, as they expressed worry over whether Gen Yers would actually buy their products. I happen to think we will continue to buy cars, especially when they transition from gasoline usage, just not in the insane, almost addictive levels that previous generations have. Much fewer than the majority of families living in neighborhoods with full amenities within walking distance, including good transit, will need more than one (and definitely not more than two) cars. Maybe to survive GM and Ford will have to return to the public transit business that they killed in the first half of the 20th Century.
I also like that developers are starting to nix home designs that include huge master bathtubs (can save a surprising amount of square footage there), more than one living room, and, if there are fewer cars, garages. What I was disappointed to learn about... though I'm not especially surprised... was the continual focus on designing the social areas of the house around the TV. Look, I've watched my fair share of TV in my lifetime (though not much recently), and I don't have a problem with the existence of TV or video games; but the whole culture of it has become ridiculous. Do we really have nothing better to do with our lives? If not, then maybe we should question what kind of story we're writing for ourselves (to borrow a concept from Donald Miller). I'm a big proponent of community-building and encouraging social interaction between people. Sorry, but TV and video games produce the opposite of these qualities.
But, I guess it's better to watch a lot of TV in a vital, mixed-use community where venturing out into the public realm (not surrounded by a ton of steel and glass) is more common than vegging in front of the tube in the burbs, where it's probably the most exciting thing you would have to do anyway. Oh, and by the way, if you think it is only the Gen Yers that want the walkable, functional, and social communities (if not in an urban environment, then at least in a suburb that is economically self-sustaining), then you are wrong by a mile. My own graduate research showed that as much as 90% of people (young and old, urbanite and suburbanite, rich and poor) prefer to live in these types of walkable communities. At the moment, most of what is offered is car paradise... but it looks like some much needed change is on the way.
This article, based on a study by the National Association of Home Builders, is hopeful in some ways and kind of disturbing in others. On the up-side, it says what everyone already knows: the children of Baby Boomers, who actually outnumber their parents (why does no one talk about this???), do not want any part of a car-dependent lifestyle. Developers have known this for a while now, which has spurred them to start building condos and other housing closer to walkable commercial centers. The New Urbanists, for many reasons outside of the preferences of the silent majority generation, have begun developing entire traditional neighborhoods consisting of not just housing, but commercial and civic centers. Recently, car companies began to catch on to this trend, too, as they expressed worry over whether Gen Yers would actually buy their products. I happen to think we will continue to buy cars, especially when they transition from gasoline usage, just not in the insane, almost addictive levels that previous generations have. Much fewer than the majority of families living in neighborhoods with full amenities within walking distance, including good transit, will need more than one (and definitely not more than two) cars. Maybe to survive GM and Ford will have to return to the public transit business that they killed in the first half of the 20th Century.
I also like that developers are starting to nix home designs that include huge master bathtubs (can save a surprising amount of square footage there), more than one living room, and, if there are fewer cars, garages. What I was disappointed to learn about... though I'm not especially surprised... was the continual focus on designing the social areas of the house around the TV. Look, I've watched my fair share of TV in my lifetime (though not much recently), and I don't have a problem with the existence of TV or video games; but the whole culture of it has become ridiculous. Do we really have nothing better to do with our lives? If not, then maybe we should question what kind of story we're writing for ourselves (to borrow a concept from Donald Miller). I'm a big proponent of community-building and encouraging social interaction between people. Sorry, but TV and video games produce the opposite of these qualities.
But, I guess it's better to watch a lot of TV in a vital, mixed-use community where venturing out into the public realm (not surrounded by a ton of steel and glass) is more common than vegging in front of the tube in the burbs, where it's probably the most exciting thing you would have to do anyway. Oh, and by the way, if you think it is only the Gen Yers that want the walkable, functional, and social communities (if not in an urban environment, then at least in a suburb that is economically self-sustaining), then you are wrong by a mile. My own graduate research showed that as much as 90% of people (young and old, urbanite and suburbanite, rich and poor) prefer to live in these types of walkable communities. At the moment, most of what is offered is car paradise... but it looks like some much needed change is on the way.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Can Transit Really Work in the Burbs? Two Australians Without Much Foresight Think So
So apparently some academics in Australia think that they've solved the problem of how to offer effective and efficient public transit to the suburbs. The common understanding among planners is that transit won't really thrive in outer suburbs because the densities are too low, thus making large, clunky buses and rail lines generally ineffective. These two blokes think such reasoning is rubbish. They're brilliant plan:
"The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes."
http://www.theage.come.au/victoria/transport-study-derails-thinking-on-outer-suburbs-20110104-19f3c.html
Genius! With this masterful opus of innovative transportation policy, we can finally put aside the old debate and do what we like doing best in English culture: have our cake and eat it too. We can live in large houses on large lots in maze-like suburban pods out in the middle of nowhere and still keep the world from running out of oil by taking efficient and easy mass transit right from our neighborhoods to anywhere we want in our sprawling regions. Sounds almost too good to be true, but if they say so...
Oh, wait! There are a couple of catches to this grand vision. First, there's the problem that communities built for cars (and only cars), such as pretty much all outer suburbs are, how many residents are likely to take public transit when it is just so much easier and faster (yes, still faster, despite the more frequent buses) to drive? I'm going to step out on a limb and say: very few. One big reason for this: many people who live in suburbia wouldn't be caught dead on a bus or railcar. I don't mean to stereotype, but there are a lot of truths in stereotypes, and the truth here is this: if you love your suburbia, you probably also love your car to the point that taking even the most convenient public transit would be unthinkable.
Even if gas prices went through the roof (which they will sooner or later), this still wouldn't work. No matter how pricey gas will become, it will still not be worth it for people to spend 15-20 minutes on a bus to go 3 or 4 miles. Insanely high gas prices will do one of two things: make people move inward, where transit is more efficient and accepable; or the car companies will scramble to mass produce affordable electric cars, which will kill all efforts at expanding transit to outer suburbs for at least another 50 to 100 years.
Then there's the problem that we seem to be running into a lot lately: how in the world do you pay for extremely frequent, interconnected, and "free" (there's that word again!) transit service to miles and miles of cookiecutter-ness, with minimum lot sizes of 1/2 acre or more, without either raising taxes to levels that suburbanites don't want to pay or increasing fares to levels that no one, regardless of affinity toward transit, can afford. The obvious answer is: you can't. If this were possible, it would be happening somewhere outside of places like Toronto and New York, where people aren't so tax-averse. I can't help but assume that these two professors didn't think about cost or politics when they formed their elegant theory.
Sorry, chums, but I don't buy it! You can't make anything, let alone transit, to operate efficiently in the suburbs, the universe's pinnacle achievement of inefficiency, just like you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Sure, you can sand down the edges and pretend it belongs in there, but it still doesn't really fit. Outer suburbs and efficient public transit don't mix. Period.
"The keys to increasing public transport use in outer suburbs are more frequent buses, running at least every 10-15 minutes, and not just in peak hour; better co-ordination with rail services; more convenient transfers; and fares that allow free transfers between modes."
http://www.theage.come.au/victoria/transport-study-derails-thinking-on-outer-suburbs-20110104-19f3c.html
Genius! With this masterful opus of innovative transportation policy, we can finally put aside the old debate and do what we like doing best in English culture: have our cake and eat it too. We can live in large houses on large lots in maze-like suburban pods out in the middle of nowhere and still keep the world from running out of oil by taking efficient and easy mass transit right from our neighborhoods to anywhere we want in our sprawling regions. Sounds almost too good to be true, but if they say so...
Oh, wait! There are a couple of catches to this grand vision. First, there's the problem that communities built for cars (and only cars), such as pretty much all outer suburbs are, how many residents are likely to take public transit when it is just so much easier and faster (yes, still faster, despite the more frequent buses) to drive? I'm going to step out on a limb and say: very few. One big reason for this: many people who live in suburbia wouldn't be caught dead on a bus or railcar. I don't mean to stereotype, but there are a lot of truths in stereotypes, and the truth here is this: if you love your suburbia, you probably also love your car to the point that taking even the most convenient public transit would be unthinkable.
Even if gas prices went through the roof (which they will sooner or later), this still wouldn't work. No matter how pricey gas will become, it will still not be worth it for people to spend 15-20 minutes on a bus to go 3 or 4 miles. Insanely high gas prices will do one of two things: make people move inward, where transit is more efficient and accepable; or the car companies will scramble to mass produce affordable electric cars, which will kill all efforts at expanding transit to outer suburbs for at least another 50 to 100 years.
Then there's the problem that we seem to be running into a lot lately: how in the world do you pay for extremely frequent, interconnected, and "free" (there's that word again!) transit service to miles and miles of cookiecutter-ness, with minimum lot sizes of 1/2 acre or more, without either raising taxes to levels that suburbanites don't want to pay or increasing fares to levels that no one, regardless of affinity toward transit, can afford. The obvious answer is: you can't. If this were possible, it would be happening somewhere outside of places like Toronto and New York, where people aren't so tax-averse. I can't help but assume that these two professors didn't think about cost or politics when they formed their elegant theory.
Sorry, chums, but I don't buy it! You can't make anything, let alone transit, to operate efficiently in the suburbs, the universe's pinnacle achievement of inefficiency, just like you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Sure, you can sand down the edges and pretend it belongs in there, but it still doesn't really fit. Outer suburbs and efficient public transit don't mix. Period.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Do Big People Require a Big Government?
Amongst my daily readings, I came across this gem:
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,6768723.story
I love it! Leave it to San Francisco to do what very few other places see the need for. Of course, this is very controversial, especially after all of the anti-government reactionary arguments flying around right now. And this will probably be sent to the courts and overturned, but I still want to revel in its accomplishment, however short-lived it may be.
I love the comment from the McDonald's lawyer about "this is not what our customers want." Well, duh! People who approve of your business model of marketing calorie-dense and nutrion-deficient food to kids are obviously not going to be the ones making a law such as this one. This is a spectacularly dumb comment. It is political, meant to stoke the fires of those who are inclined not to trust government in all its forms. It's like the Democrats complaining to the public after election day: "But this isn't what democrats wanted." Sorry chums, as much as I, a proud independent, sympathize with you, the people have spoken.
This gets at an important issue: does the public always have its own best intersts at heart? Natuarlly, we think so. We think that the will of the people is always best; this is the heart of democracy. But what happens when the will of the people brings about things such as unlimited corporate campaign contributions, lax gun laws for people without records (as if only people with current records will ever again use a gun in a malicious way), and more roads than we can possibly hope to pay for to maintain? Would a significant number of people actually say that these are good things? We voted for the politicians who made these things possible, and sometimes even voted for the laws directly, so they must be what we want, right?
I think we are drastically uneducated about the implications of the policies that the majority of us tend to support (education is the other heart of democracy). If we don't know enough about what we are voting for, then how can we claim that our "will" is a good thing? This San Francisco law is a case in point. If it is true that McDonalds speaks for "the people," then I think the people are just plain wrong. I'm all for personal responsibility; the parents should be the front lines of defence against their children consuming non-nutritious meals, but there are two inadequacies with laying the entire burden on the parents. First, the psychology of adding an appealing "free" gift to the product a company wants its consumers to buy is extremely powerful. I would argue that it borders on brainwashing. This is the "free good" phenomenon I've talked about in previous posts. When we perceive that we are able to get something for nothing (by the way, it doesn't exist), we go out of our way to engage in that "free" activity as much as we possibly can. The child throws tantrum after tantrum in public, embarrassing the parent enough to concede to their demand. Afterall, it's not that big of a deal, and the parent can get something artificially tasty and cheap as well.
Second, and perhaps most importantly these days, the undisputable fact remains that a cash-strapped parent can fill the bellies of two children with a couple of happy meals for the price that he or she could fill the belly of one child with healthier food. This is the result of the principles of commodity pricing and economies of scale combining to produce something that plays to our uniquely American value of "quantity trumps quality." It's genius, it's lucrative, and it's slowly killing us, especially those of us on the lower end of the economic ladder.
The mantra of "personal responsibility" seems to be winning the current debates, as evidenced by the massive shift to the right resulting from this week's election. I actually don't think it is such a bad thing to have a balance struck in the "environment-person" argument (is it the fault of the forces outside of the person or those inside of the person?). How can it really be only the person's environment that causes his or her behaviors when the person has a rational mind capable of making choices? And how can behavior only be determined by internal forces when behavior is, by definition, a reaction to or interaction with outside forces? We have to understand that there is always a mix of both going on (according to my argument above, there has to be; don't you agree?), or else we won't ever understand the root causes of anything and, as a result, will never begin to solve our various problems. So, here's my question: how far can and should we let this obesity problem go until we have to stop relying solely on the "personal responsibility" argument and start legislating healthier environments?
By the way, this same question could be asked about poverty, gun violence, suburbanization, cost of healthcare... the list goes on and on. What say you?
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,6768723.story
I love it! Leave it to San Francisco to do what very few other places see the need for. Of course, this is very controversial, especially after all of the anti-government reactionary arguments flying around right now. And this will probably be sent to the courts and overturned, but I still want to revel in its accomplishment, however short-lived it may be.
I love the comment from the McDonald's lawyer about "this is not what our customers want." Well, duh! People who approve of your business model of marketing calorie-dense and nutrion-deficient food to kids are obviously not going to be the ones making a law such as this one. This is a spectacularly dumb comment. It is political, meant to stoke the fires of those who are inclined not to trust government in all its forms. It's like the Democrats complaining to the public after election day: "But this isn't what democrats wanted." Sorry chums, as much as I, a proud independent, sympathize with you, the people have spoken.
This gets at an important issue: does the public always have its own best intersts at heart? Natuarlly, we think so. We think that the will of the people is always best; this is the heart of democracy. But what happens when the will of the people brings about things such as unlimited corporate campaign contributions, lax gun laws for people without records (as if only people with current records will ever again use a gun in a malicious way), and more roads than we can possibly hope to pay for to maintain? Would a significant number of people actually say that these are good things? We voted for the politicians who made these things possible, and sometimes even voted for the laws directly, so they must be what we want, right?
I think we are drastically uneducated about the implications of the policies that the majority of us tend to support (education is the other heart of democracy). If we don't know enough about what we are voting for, then how can we claim that our "will" is a good thing? This San Francisco law is a case in point. If it is true that McDonalds speaks for "the people," then I think the people are just plain wrong. I'm all for personal responsibility; the parents should be the front lines of defence against their children consuming non-nutritious meals, but there are two inadequacies with laying the entire burden on the parents. First, the psychology of adding an appealing "free" gift to the product a company wants its consumers to buy is extremely powerful. I would argue that it borders on brainwashing. This is the "free good" phenomenon I've talked about in previous posts. When we perceive that we are able to get something for nothing (by the way, it doesn't exist), we go out of our way to engage in that "free" activity as much as we possibly can. The child throws tantrum after tantrum in public, embarrassing the parent enough to concede to their demand. Afterall, it's not that big of a deal, and the parent can get something artificially tasty and cheap as well.
Second, and perhaps most importantly these days, the undisputable fact remains that a cash-strapped parent can fill the bellies of two children with a couple of happy meals for the price that he or she could fill the belly of one child with healthier food. This is the result of the principles of commodity pricing and economies of scale combining to produce something that plays to our uniquely American value of "quantity trumps quality." It's genius, it's lucrative, and it's slowly killing us, especially those of us on the lower end of the economic ladder.
The mantra of "personal responsibility" seems to be winning the current debates, as evidenced by the massive shift to the right resulting from this week's election. I actually don't think it is such a bad thing to have a balance struck in the "environment-person" argument (is it the fault of the forces outside of the person or those inside of the person?). How can it really be only the person's environment that causes his or her behaviors when the person has a rational mind capable of making choices? And how can behavior only be determined by internal forces when behavior is, by definition, a reaction to or interaction with outside forces? We have to understand that there is always a mix of both going on (according to my argument above, there has to be; don't you agree?), or else we won't ever understand the root causes of anything and, as a result, will never begin to solve our various problems. So, here's my question: how far can and should we let this obesity problem go until we have to stop relying solely on the "personal responsibility" argument and start legislating healthier environments?
By the way, this same question could be asked about poverty, gun violence, suburbanization, cost of healthcare... the list goes on and on. What say you?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
A Real Discussion About the Role of Government
The role of government is obviously a big issue right now in the public discourse, one which threatens the "political lives" of our elected leaders and the course of our country. Some say that the only goal of government should be to protect the rights of their people. Some wouldn’t even go that far. Still others think there is a role for government to play in almost everything. But how much of this debate is actually a true discussion about the consequences of each viewpoint? I happen to think most of it is sideshow coming from people who have a personal stake in others seeing it their way. Now once have I heard a politician in this election season challenge anyone to actually think about the consequences and discuss them with someone who holds a different opinion.
Democrats are telling other democrats that republicans "drove the car into the ditch," and after the democrats (and only the democrats) dug the car out, now the republicans "want the keys back." Funny, and partly true, but not helpful. And republicans are still calling democrats "socialists" and comparing them to our favorite despotic dictators. Not as funny, and not as true, but they’re just playing to their base of extremely xenophobic yet well-meaning voters. None of this is encouraging anyone to talk with each other.
I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago which was headlined by David Bradley, a community and economic development lobbyist who has been intimately involved with our Congress since Reagan took office. He basically knows everyone there on both sides of the isle and has a good relationship with many of them. He said that he’s never seen such a divide between the parties in 30 years. He took a very unscientific poll, but it is worth mentioning anyway. He asked legislators from both parties to estimate how many legislators from the other party they knew by name. They didn’t have to have a relationship with them or know anything else about them… just their first name. He kept getting the same number in response: 25%. Are you kidding me? Each legislator gets elected and paid handsomely to sit in the same room with other legislators to solve the many problems that this country faces, and yet they have no chance of solving them because they are too entrenched in their own political theater to even introduce themselves to someone across the isle.
I can’t influence our elected officials to talk with one another. I can’t think of any candidates for office in Pennsylvania that aren’t divisive in their campaign rhetoric. Even those in 2008 who I thought would be more inclusive (ahem, Mr. President) have not lived up to their end of the bargain. But I can do my part by providing a safe place for people to openly discuss the role of government, generally and specifically, in the lives of citizens. I don’t want any name calling or pejorative terms (mentioning made-up words like Obamacare and calling republicans "Repugs" are conversational non-starters), and I don’t want any accusations. No matter what your politics are and no matter how closely you hold those principles to your heart and think other views are just dead wrong, you have to know that, despite what some very loud social commentators not-so-subtly hint to, liberals don’t hate America and neither do conservatives. We all love our country and want to make it better; we just have very different ideas as to how to do that.
So, let’s start generally: What is the purpose of government? Why do you hold this view? What are the consequences, good and bad, of government having this purpose?
I’ll post interesting comments and reactions on the main page. Remember… don’t demonize each other: I will call you out on it.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
What Do We Value and How Do We Show It?
I came across an interesting article recently that explores issues of public goods and our attitudes toward them. You can read the article here:
There’s a lot more in this article than I want to discuss, but I do want to dig deeper into this issue of what we value. What do we put stock in? What means something to us, and how do we show it? Many say that the best way to determine what we value may be where we put our time and money. But I’m not so sure this is true anymore. Think about what you value most. Is that where most of your time and money is spent? The author has an opinion on this:
“What we value ... is cheapness. Rock-bottom prices. Low taxes. So we get tomatoes that taste like crunchy sponges, but at least we don’t pay a lot for them. Instead of percale bedsheets made in the
First of all, I don’t think we actually value cheapness. I think we truly value good food, good products, and healthy and well-kept communities. Instead, I think we have lost the understanding of the connection between those things which we value and the idea that they are worth paying for. In other words, when we buy the crappy tomatoes that have traveled thousands of miles so that food companies, and consumers, can get them cheaper, we have not lost value in good-tasting food; we have simply forgotten that good food is worth paying for.
And this brings up an important point: we’ve lost all sense of what is valuable. Even more, once we figure it out, we can’t remember the rational behavior involved in showing that the thing has value to us. The result: we can’t decide whether we value our tax dollars or vibrant, healthy communities more. And when we do decide, we behave irrationally. If we value lower taxes, we move out to the suburbs where we rack up infrastructure bills and abandon troubled areas, both resulting in higher taxes. And if we value healthy communities, most of us… well, we move out to the suburbs looking for that community, where the resulting infrastructure and city abandonment problems serve to create less vibrant and healthy communities (plus, more taxes). It’s amazing how backward we have become.
With all of the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party stuff going on, a pertinent question to all of this is: What is worth being taxed for? Where should tax dollars go and where should they not go? And to test my own thought; If people should receive tax cuts in poor economic times in order to spur economic growth, then shouldn’t they also be taxed more during good economic times in order to shore up some security for the bad times to come? I’m interested in hearing what people have to say.
Friday, September 10, 2010
2009 US Road deaths plunge to… 34,000???
There’s nothing like optimism to make a horrific number seem okay. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently reported that 33,808 people died on our roads in 2009. It’s difficult to even imagine such a number, and the easiest thing to do is to simply not think about it. But for those of you who might be outraged or even just a little concerned about such mass mortality, there are people like Morning Call journalist Dan Hartzell and, alternatively, yours truly.
For those of you who might care, Hartzell alleviates those cares with perhaps the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard about traffic deaths: “…the 33,808 deaths recorded last year represent 3,615 lives spared, if you will, compared with the 37,423 people killed in 2008.” Wow! Is this really his idea of good news? He might as well have said, “But at least 310,180,000 Americans survived!” I guess when it comes to our highway system and the deaths that it causes, I’m a little more pessimistic. Try this for perspective: In 2009, the entire City of Easton died on United States highways and roads. Or how about this: 4 times as many people died on our roads last year than Americans who died between 2001 and the present in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the two resulting wars. Or: Our traffic death rate is twice our murder rate, which itself is second highest in the world! How about this: While the death rate for rail passengers is currently 25 per 100 million miles of rail, our death rate for motorists, put in those same terms, is 1,338,136! And for good measure: Since our roads are subsidized at a rate of about $700 billion per year, or about $5,000 per tax payer per year, every 4,141 taxpayers literally pay for the death of 1 motorist.
And we’re okay with this, because we get relatively cheap subsidized gas, cheap goods transported by our subsidized trucking industry, and free parking. It’s what economists call a “free good,” a purposeful distortion of the market that takes away the demand ceiling so that we’ll continue to support industries that run our economy at perpetually higher rates every year. And it has been so successful that we are willing to put our lives on the line every day just to get a piece of it. Why? Because free goods predictably cause us to recognize that we are getting a massive deal every time we purchase that good (driving). And we all know that Americans simply can’t pass up a deal. To be fair, the rules of psychology show us that no one can, and our corporations and law makers know this all too well.
So, here’s my question: If the libertarian conservatives (and the Republicans who pretend to be ones) claim to be such pure free-marketeers and so deeply concerned about federal spending, why is a federal highway, industrial food system, and local free parking industry that receives over $700 billion per year in tax-payer subsidies (at 10% of our GNP, more than Social Security or Medicare) and kills off entire cities-worth of people not on their radars? Why does no one of importance (who can make or execute laws) ever talk about this? Is it because, as long as they don’t die on the road, they benefit from the system? Or is it because of their thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from said industries? This I would like to know.
For those of you who might care, Hartzell alleviates those cares with perhaps the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard about traffic deaths: “…the 33,808 deaths recorded last year represent 3,615 lives spared, if you will, compared with the 37,423 people killed in 2008.” Wow! Is this really his idea of good news? He might as well have said, “But at least 310,180,000 Americans survived!” I guess when it comes to our highway system and the deaths that it causes, I’m a little more pessimistic. Try this for perspective: In 2009, the entire City of Easton died on United States highways and roads. Or how about this: 4 times as many people died on our roads last year than Americans who died between 2001 and the present in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the two resulting wars. Or: Our traffic death rate is twice our murder rate, which itself is second highest in the world! How about this: While the death rate for rail passengers is currently 25 per 100 million miles of rail, our death rate for motorists, put in those same terms, is 1,338,136! And for good measure: Since our roads are subsidized at a rate of about $700 billion per year, or about $5,000 per tax payer per year, every 4,141 taxpayers literally pay for the death of 1 motorist.
And we’re okay with this, because we get relatively cheap subsidized gas, cheap goods transported by our subsidized trucking industry, and free parking. It’s what economists call a “free good,” a purposeful distortion of the market that takes away the demand ceiling so that we’ll continue to support industries that run our economy at perpetually higher rates every year. And it has been so successful that we are willing to put our lives on the line every day just to get a piece of it. Why? Because free goods predictably cause us to recognize that we are getting a massive deal every time we purchase that good (driving). And we all know that Americans simply can’t pass up a deal. To be fair, the rules of psychology show us that no one can, and our corporations and law makers know this all too well.
So, here’s my question: If the libertarian conservatives (and the Republicans who pretend to be ones) claim to be such pure free-marketeers and so deeply concerned about federal spending, why is a federal highway, industrial food system, and local free parking industry that receives over $700 billion per year in tax-payer subsidies (at 10% of our GNP, more than Social Security or Medicare) and kills off entire cities-worth of people not on their radars? Why does no one of importance (who can make or execute laws) ever talk about this? Is it because, as long as they don’t die on the road, they benefit from the system? Or is it because of their thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from said industries? This I would like to know.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What is Proposed in New York Should Stay in New York
I hate to get involved in this discussion – I really do – but there are a few important issues at stake in regards to the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. First, and foremost, this is a local land use issue. This is not a county issue, nor state issue, and certainly not a national issue. September 11th was a terrible tragedy, and we have made it a symbol of our national unity (“We are all New Yorkers”). But when it comes down to it, this is a decision that must be made by the council members of the City of New York in response to the will of the citizens of that – and only that – city.
It is ironic, though not surprising, that many conservatives have come out strongly against the Mosque proposal. Two of the bedrocks of conservatism are local property rights and strong adherence to the constitution (remember the religious liberty clause?), yet many conservative (and then there’s you, Mr. Reid) politicians are so worried about winning a fast-approaching election that they are recalling the tragic events 9 years ago to condemn the very principles that they claim to stand for. Some are making ridiculous statements to make their case. Mr. Gingrich said that this proposal is akin to placing a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust memorial. An extreme political party is not at all comparable to a wide-spread, world religion. Instead, a more apt comparison could be made to placing a Christian Church (Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian) next to the Holocaust memorial, which I’m sure we wouldn’t have a problem with (I’m a Christian myself, so don’t think that this statement is anti-Christian). But that argument doesn’t win votes.
I’m actually in agreement with many in the Tea Party on this one. For all of their political shortcomings, in my opinion anyway, they actually understand the heart of this issue. Rand Paul put it in perspective well when he said that his own state would not be happy if New York inserted themselves into Kentucky issues, so he is sure that New York wouldn’t appreciate Kentucky doing the same. Even the man who doesn’t seem to “get it” gets this one.
Personally, I’m really concerned that this is such a monumental issue nearly a decade after the attacks. Yes, we should always remember what happened and make sure we do what we can to ensure that it doesn’t happen again, but why are we still so fearful? Fear of attack is one thing, but fear manifested in the discrimination of a religion whose peacefulness has, historically, been at least on-par with Christianity (remember the crusades, conquistadors, Holocaust, and the conflict between Ireland and Scotland, just to name a few) is of a wholly different sort. In our post-millennium brand of politics, we have let this fear fester instead of letting it go and moving on.
Many of the people coming out against this proposal are claiming that allowing this Mosque (by the way, it’s not actually a Mosque but a community center; but “Mosque” sounds scarier) to take root 2 blocks from (not “at”) Ground Zero will be a victory for the terrorists. Mr. Gingrich has even said that this idea was planned by terrorists just so that they could celebrate their victory. Come on, Newt! Even you aren't that paranoid! Contrary to what the talking heads are saying, I think that our fearful reaction against this plan has already assured their moral victory because it is a harbinger of the dramatic changes taking place in so many of the great American ideals. We are a mere, cold shadow of who we used to (and ought to) be. Terrorism has changed our way of life, and not for the better… and this is exactly what they wanted to occur.
But my opinion doesn't really matter, and neither does yours, because unless you happen to be a resident of Manhattan, it is officially none of our business.
It is ironic, though not surprising, that many conservatives have come out strongly against the Mosque proposal. Two of the bedrocks of conservatism are local property rights and strong adherence to the constitution (remember the religious liberty clause?), yet many conservative (and then there’s you, Mr. Reid) politicians are so worried about winning a fast-approaching election that they are recalling the tragic events 9 years ago to condemn the very principles that they claim to stand for. Some are making ridiculous statements to make their case. Mr. Gingrich said that this proposal is akin to placing a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust memorial. An extreme political party is not at all comparable to a wide-spread, world religion. Instead, a more apt comparison could be made to placing a Christian Church (Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian) next to the Holocaust memorial, which I’m sure we wouldn’t have a problem with (I’m a Christian myself, so don’t think that this statement is anti-Christian). But that argument doesn’t win votes.
I’m actually in agreement with many in the Tea Party on this one. For all of their political shortcomings, in my opinion anyway, they actually understand the heart of this issue. Rand Paul put it in perspective well when he said that his own state would not be happy if New York inserted themselves into Kentucky issues, so he is sure that New York wouldn’t appreciate Kentucky doing the same. Even the man who doesn’t seem to “get it” gets this one.
Personally, I’m really concerned that this is such a monumental issue nearly a decade after the attacks. Yes, we should always remember what happened and make sure we do what we can to ensure that it doesn’t happen again, but why are we still so fearful? Fear of attack is one thing, but fear manifested in the discrimination of a religion whose peacefulness has, historically, been at least on-par with Christianity (remember the crusades, conquistadors, Holocaust, and the conflict between Ireland and Scotland, just to name a few) is of a wholly different sort. In our post-millennium brand of politics, we have let this fear fester instead of letting it go and moving on.
Many of the people coming out against this proposal are claiming that allowing this Mosque (by the way, it’s not actually a Mosque but a community center; but “Mosque” sounds scarier) to take root 2 blocks from (not “at”) Ground Zero will be a victory for the terrorists. Mr. Gingrich has even said that this idea was planned by terrorists just so that they could celebrate their victory. Come on, Newt! Even you aren't that paranoid! Contrary to what the talking heads are saying, I think that our fearful reaction against this plan has already assured their moral victory because it is a harbinger of the dramatic changes taking place in so many of the great American ideals. We are a mere, cold shadow of who we used to (and ought to) be. Terrorism has changed our way of life, and not for the better… and this is exactly what they wanted to occur.
But my opinion doesn't really matter, and neither does yours, because unless you happen to be a resident of Manhattan, it is officially none of our business.
Monday, July 12, 2010
My Crappy Day Could Have Been Worse
I look forward to my walks pretty much every day, no matter what the weather is like outside. But of course, some days are better than others, and some days are just down right terrible. In the late fall and early winter, the rain and slush creates freezing puddles at every turn, some that I simply can’t avoid stepping through. In the dead of summer, as you can imagine, it becomes so hot and sticky that I often have to fight the urge to strip. Today was one of those terrible days, but considering the circumstances, it may have been the crappiest yet… literally.
I’m actually surprised it didn’t happen sooner. Really, the odds are in the birds’ favor, but it took a year and two weeks for one of them to relieve itself from a tree branch at precisely the moment that I passed under it. Crappy indeed! I hoped perhaps the tree was shaking off some moisture remaining from the weekend rain, but looking down the front of my shirt confirmed what I was trying to deny. I was about 5 minutes from my bus, but I definitely couldn’t go on with my day covered in poo. So, I stripped (sorry ladies, but I’m taken!) and went back home.
All in all, it wasn’t the best start to a morning, but it wasn’t going to ruin my day either. Nature called, and I happened to be there too. Someone walking amongst such beautiful trees should expect as much. So, needless to say, I’m not discouraged and I’ll be out there risking my cleanliness again tomorrow morning. Walking is always an adventure, but I look forward to it every day.
I’m actually surprised it didn’t happen sooner. Really, the odds are in the birds’ favor, but it took a year and two weeks for one of them to relieve itself from a tree branch at precisely the moment that I passed under it. Crappy indeed! I hoped perhaps the tree was shaking off some moisture remaining from the weekend rain, but looking down the front of my shirt confirmed what I was trying to deny. I was about 5 minutes from my bus, but I definitely couldn’t go on with my day covered in poo. So, I stripped (sorry ladies, but I’m taken!) and went back home.
All in all, it wasn’t the best start to a morning, but it wasn’t going to ruin my day either. Nature called, and I happened to be there too. Someone walking amongst such beautiful trees should expect as much. So, needless to say, I’m not discouraged and I’ll be out there risking my cleanliness again tomorrow morning. Walking is always an adventure, but I look forward to it every day.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Another Bailout's A-Comin'
As Americans in the year 2010, after all that has happened, we are understandably suspicious of what we call "bailouts." Well, it looks like another one is coming: this time for public transit agencies who are suffering from the lack of funding that is provided from our sorry excuse for a gas tax.
A group of senators have introduced a bill for emergency funding for transit agencies in the amount of $2 billion. There's no doubt that this money is needed, especially since ridership numbers are up all over the nation (and driving is down). But is there political will in an election year for yet another taxpayer-funded safety net for a private (or semi-private) industry? Honestly, I'm not sure. Although $2 billion is pocket change next to what was given out to the auto industry, Wall Street, and in the Recovery Act, it's the perception that counts; and the perception is that the taxpayers would be on the hook for funding yet another unsustainable industry.
When it comes to the automobile industry and the banks, I would agree with that notion completely, but the argument doesn't hold up with the transit problem for one big reason: It is only unsustainable because it is not on a level playing field. I'm sure those on the political right will score political points for coming out strongly against another bailout, but what they'll neglect to tell you is that we essentially bailout the automobile industry and its supporting infrastructure with almost $2 billion every day! The government subsidizes car travel with almost $600 billion per year, but it would be political suicide to be against that.
So, what is it going to be? Are we for some bailouts and not for others? Can politicians who call themselves conservative really say that the government should get its fingers out of all private business affairs? I would love to see someone come out and say that there will be no more subsidies for driving, corn, Wall Street, and Haliburton. No more subsidies for private business at all! Then maybe we could see what all of the hooplah about the "free market" is all about. But that will never happen, because it is these financially-loaded industries that buy our politicians, and they expect extreme loyalty in return.
A group of senators have introduced a bill for emergency funding for transit agencies in the amount of $2 billion. There's no doubt that this money is needed, especially since ridership numbers are up all over the nation (and driving is down). But is there political will in an election year for yet another taxpayer-funded safety net for a private (or semi-private) industry? Honestly, I'm not sure. Although $2 billion is pocket change next to what was given out to the auto industry, Wall Street, and in the Recovery Act, it's the perception that counts; and the perception is that the taxpayers would be on the hook for funding yet another unsustainable industry.
When it comes to the automobile industry and the banks, I would agree with that notion completely, but the argument doesn't hold up with the transit problem for one big reason: It is only unsustainable because it is not on a level playing field. I'm sure those on the political right will score political points for coming out strongly against another bailout, but what they'll neglect to tell you is that we essentially bailout the automobile industry and its supporting infrastructure with almost $2 billion every day! The government subsidizes car travel with almost $600 billion per year, but it would be political suicide to be against that.
So, what is it going to be? Are we for some bailouts and not for others? Can politicians who call themselves conservative really say that the government should get its fingers out of all private business affairs? I would love to see someone come out and say that there will be no more subsidies for driving, corn, Wall Street, and Haliburton. No more subsidies for private business at all! Then maybe we could see what all of the hooplah about the "free market" is all about. But that will never happen, because it is these financially-loaded industries that buy our politicians, and they expect extreme loyalty in return.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Public School Funding
There have been two recent stories in the local paper about school districts having to cover deficits in one way or another. Easton Area School District is by far the worst of all local districts with an $8 million and change shortfall. The school board, after being pressured by many residents, has cut almost 100 jobs and most extra-curricular activities, including all sports and the music program. And then those same residents praised the school board for making the tough decision to do what had to be done.
This is really frustrating to me because it really didn’t have to come to this. It is the result of top-heavy administrator salaries and poor decisions by those administrators for sure. But even if that wasn’t the case, the district would still have problems because of the way the area has grown, the current economy, resident aversion to paying taxes to benefit someone other than themselves (which is a false belief anyway), and the way we fund public schools in this country.
Up until recently, the growth of the Lehigh Valley has almost exclusively taken place in the suburbs. Part of that growth has come at the expense of the 3 major cities. As a result, businesses closed, property values decreased, and tax revenues followed that trend. The people that could afford the necessary transportation costs moved outward and took their taxes to other municipalities, thus creating a rich source of funding for the suburban schools and a significant loss from the urban schools. Now that everyone is suffering financially, the urban schools, which are the ones that need the most help, lose out even more.
And no one seems to care. We are quick to blame the district administrators, who should shoulder some of it. But we are also quick to write off the kids in the district as future failures anyway. One comment under the story summed up many others by indicating that only 20% of the kids are “worth a damn anyway.” What the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide that? Is that what we want to happen: only 20% of them becoming benefits to the society that largely forgets them? Because that is precisely what will happen if we believe it so strongly and do nothing to counteract it. We seem to think that it is better to pay for their future incarceration and government-reliance than to pay a fraction of that cost now to make sure that they are well-educated and able to be self-sufficient. Conservatives like to slam wasteful policies and programs. I actually agree with them completely. The problem is, conservatives don’t seem to understand, or at least public acknowledge, that it is actually cheaper to invest in people on the front end to prevent the more costly future consequences of not doing so. This applies to education, healthcare, housing, diet… pretty much every social problem you can think of. Instead, we cut budgets for every social program while greatly increasing our corrections budgets, as Pennsylvania did again this year.
So, how can we fix this? The most obvious is to fund more prevention programs. For education, this takes the form of providing every child with as much opportunity as possible to succeed. Cutting teachers and after-school activities in a desperate urban area so that people can pay fewer taxes is not the way to do that. But I do understand that taxes are a burden on some people right now. This gets at the larger problem of how we fund education. If we rely almost entirely on property tax revenues, we are bound to see great inequalities between urban and suburban schools in good times and the complete decimation of both in bad times. We need a better way to ensure that urban students get the opportunities that they need and that those opportunities will not go away when anonymous investment bankers make bad bets on derivative futures.
My solution is to use a four-pronged funding approach. Property taxes can still fund a portion of local schools, but they should be complemented by regional sales taxes along with state and federal funding. If the property taxes are not as much of a burden, people should have more disposable income to purchase goods and services, which would contribute to the schools. Even when both are down, state and federal revenues should prop up the districts that need it to ensure that the public continues to benefit from a public good in the times that they need it most.
What other funding sources do you think would be more appropriate to ensure sustainability for public schools? Do you have any other ideas?
This is really frustrating to me because it really didn’t have to come to this. It is the result of top-heavy administrator salaries and poor decisions by those administrators for sure. But even if that wasn’t the case, the district would still have problems because of the way the area has grown, the current economy, resident aversion to paying taxes to benefit someone other than themselves (which is a false belief anyway), and the way we fund public schools in this country.
Up until recently, the growth of the Lehigh Valley has almost exclusively taken place in the suburbs. Part of that growth has come at the expense of the 3 major cities. As a result, businesses closed, property values decreased, and tax revenues followed that trend. The people that could afford the necessary transportation costs moved outward and took their taxes to other municipalities, thus creating a rich source of funding for the suburban schools and a significant loss from the urban schools. Now that everyone is suffering financially, the urban schools, which are the ones that need the most help, lose out even more.
And no one seems to care. We are quick to blame the district administrators, who should shoulder some of it. But we are also quick to write off the kids in the district as future failures anyway. One comment under the story summed up many others by indicating that only 20% of the kids are “worth a damn anyway.” What the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide that? Is that what we want to happen: only 20% of them becoming benefits to the society that largely forgets them? Because that is precisely what will happen if we believe it so strongly and do nothing to counteract it. We seem to think that it is better to pay for their future incarceration and government-reliance than to pay a fraction of that cost now to make sure that they are well-educated and able to be self-sufficient. Conservatives like to slam wasteful policies and programs. I actually agree with them completely. The problem is, conservatives don’t seem to understand, or at least public acknowledge, that it is actually cheaper to invest in people on the front end to prevent the more costly future consequences of not doing so. This applies to education, healthcare, housing, diet… pretty much every social problem you can think of. Instead, we cut budgets for every social program while greatly increasing our corrections budgets, as Pennsylvania did again this year.
So, how can we fix this? The most obvious is to fund more prevention programs. For education, this takes the form of providing every child with as much opportunity as possible to succeed. Cutting teachers and after-school activities in a desperate urban area so that people can pay fewer taxes is not the way to do that. But I do understand that taxes are a burden on some people right now. This gets at the larger problem of how we fund education. If we rely almost entirely on property tax revenues, we are bound to see great inequalities between urban and suburban schools in good times and the complete decimation of both in bad times. We need a better way to ensure that urban students get the opportunities that they need and that those opportunities will not go away when anonymous investment bankers make bad bets on derivative futures.
My solution is to use a four-pronged funding approach. Property taxes can still fund a portion of local schools, but they should be complemented by regional sales taxes along with state and federal funding. If the property taxes are not as much of a burden, people should have more disposable income to purchase goods and services, which would contribute to the schools. Even when both are down, state and federal revenues should prop up the districts that need it to ensure that the public continues to benefit from a public good in the times that they need it most.
What other funding sources do you think would be more appropriate to ensure sustainability for public schools? Do you have any other ideas?
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Why Live in the Suburbs?
As a former suburbanite, I naturally was ingrained with compelling reasons as to why the suburbs were better places to live than the cities. There are three main reasons that I can think of that sum up the argument for suburban living: 1) housing is cheaper and land is more readily available, thus one can afford to live in a larger house on a larger lot; 2) because the house is bigger and there is more open space, suburbanites are happier; and 3) there is less crime, thus it is safer.
Well, two studies are out refuting the first two reasons. The Urban Land Institute recently released a report showing that, when housing and transportation costs are taken together, city dwellers are actually living more cheaply than suburbanites, at least in Boston. But this would be similar to any urban area that prioritizes public transportation and walkability. Why is this? Urban living requires much less car travel; thus, most urbanites drive less, and many urban families have fewer vehicles than their suburban peers. When you consider that gas prices are up around $3.00 per gallon, the average person travels over 20 minutes (which works out to at least 20 miles) to work and 20 minutes (miles) back, and the average vehicle costs $10,000 per year when everything is factored in, you can see how the transportation costs add up quickly. So, the first argument for suburban living is on shaky ground. If we are paying more for suburbia, at least our increased happiness makes up for it, right?
If we are to believe two Swiss Economists (why not, they’re neutral!), then this argument is shaky, too. Frey and Stutzer identified a phenomenon called the “commuters paradox” in which we grossly underestimate the pain that we get from long commutes. In fact, perhaps the most emotionally painful feelings that we experience in our day-to-day lives are felt while stuck in traffic. But when we make the decision to move further away to get the bigger house and larger yard (which we have already seen is not necessarily cheaper), we think this benefit will outweigh the costs (literally and figuratively) of driving so far. Apparently, we are not very good at accurately weighing out these kinds of benefits and costs, and our happiness suffers as a result. This makes me think of the question: what are our priorities? Is status more important than time with family? Just as a caveat, if you ever get a chance to look at the rates of suburbanization and compare it to the rates of divorce over time, you might see something very interesting.
So, suburbanites don’t necessarily have a cheaper way of life, and they aren’t necessarily happier, but they must be safer! It is definitely true that suburbanites are less likely to be victims of violent crime, namely murder. There are, however, other measures of safety. Non-violent crime is almost as prevalent in the suburbs as the cities, and certain types of violent crime are actually more prevalent in suburbs. As an example, domestic abuse, both sexual and otherwise, happen more frequently in the suburbs than in the cities (the spread-out and private environment does little to discourage it). But more relevant to this topic is the safety of people operating motor vehicles. Americans are more than 6 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than be murdered. What’s more, automobile accidents are the leading cause of deaths for people between the ages of 15 to 24. With suburbanites doing most of the driving, you can guess the location of residence of most of those who die in car wrecks. By the way, another caveat: if you look at the rates of suburbanization and compare it to the rates of violent crime over time, you’ll see something else very interesting.
We don’t always think logically, and even when we do, we don’t always have all of the information that we need for our logic to give us an outcome that makes sense (remember the image-policy preference discussion in the previous post). If we are led to believe that we will be happier out in the burbs (as all of the real estate advertisements tell us), then the logical thing to do is to move there. However, if we find out that we aren’t happier in the burbs after all, how logical was our decision to move there in the first place? I think with all of the financial mess and foreclosures and gas prices (etc., etc., etc.), people are asking this question of themselves more and more.
When I think about it, I’m left with no real logical argument for living in the suburbs. I like being close to the action (if you can call what happens in Bethlehem “action”). I like not having to drive. I like the diversity (again, if you can call Bethlehem “diverse”). And I can’t honestly say that it’s more expensive, more “painful,” and less safe. So, I’m left to wonder: Are there any other compelling reasons to live in the suburbs? I’d like to hear them, because I’m fresh out.
Well, two studies are out refuting the first two reasons. The Urban Land Institute recently released a report showing that, when housing and transportation costs are taken together, city dwellers are actually living more cheaply than suburbanites, at least in Boston. But this would be similar to any urban area that prioritizes public transportation and walkability. Why is this? Urban living requires much less car travel; thus, most urbanites drive less, and many urban families have fewer vehicles than their suburban peers. When you consider that gas prices are up around $3.00 per gallon, the average person travels over 20 minutes (which works out to at least 20 miles) to work and 20 minutes (miles) back, and the average vehicle costs $10,000 per year when everything is factored in, you can see how the transportation costs add up quickly. So, the first argument for suburban living is on shaky ground. If we are paying more for suburbia, at least our increased happiness makes up for it, right?
If we are to believe two Swiss Economists (why not, they’re neutral!), then this argument is shaky, too. Frey and Stutzer identified a phenomenon called the “commuters paradox” in which we grossly underestimate the pain that we get from long commutes. In fact, perhaps the most emotionally painful feelings that we experience in our day-to-day lives are felt while stuck in traffic. But when we make the decision to move further away to get the bigger house and larger yard (which we have already seen is not necessarily cheaper), we think this benefit will outweigh the costs (literally and figuratively) of driving so far. Apparently, we are not very good at accurately weighing out these kinds of benefits and costs, and our happiness suffers as a result. This makes me think of the question: what are our priorities? Is status more important than time with family? Just as a caveat, if you ever get a chance to look at the rates of suburbanization and compare it to the rates of divorce over time, you might see something very interesting.
So, suburbanites don’t necessarily have a cheaper way of life, and they aren’t necessarily happier, but they must be safer! It is definitely true that suburbanites are less likely to be victims of violent crime, namely murder. There are, however, other measures of safety. Non-violent crime is almost as prevalent in the suburbs as the cities, and certain types of violent crime are actually more prevalent in suburbs. As an example, domestic abuse, both sexual and otherwise, happen more frequently in the suburbs than in the cities (the spread-out and private environment does little to discourage it). But more relevant to this topic is the safety of people operating motor vehicles. Americans are more than 6 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than be murdered. What’s more, automobile accidents are the leading cause of deaths for people between the ages of 15 to 24. With suburbanites doing most of the driving, you can guess the location of residence of most of those who die in car wrecks. By the way, another caveat: if you look at the rates of suburbanization and compare it to the rates of violent crime over time, you’ll see something else very interesting.
We don’t always think logically, and even when we do, we don’t always have all of the information that we need for our logic to give us an outcome that makes sense (remember the image-policy preference discussion in the previous post). If we are led to believe that we will be happier out in the burbs (as all of the real estate advertisements tell us), then the logical thing to do is to move there. However, if we find out that we aren’t happier in the burbs after all, how logical was our decision to move there in the first place? I think with all of the financial mess and foreclosures and gas prices (etc., etc., etc.), people are asking this question of themselves more and more.
When I think about it, I’m left with no real logical argument for living in the suburbs. I like being close to the action (if you can call what happens in Bethlehem “action”). I like not having to drive. I like the diversity (again, if you can call Bethlehem “diverse”). And I can’t honestly say that it’s more expensive, more “painful,” and less safe. So, I’m left to wonder: Are there any other compelling reasons to live in the suburbs? I’d like to hear them, because I’m fresh out.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Tragedy... and Confusion
It’s terrible when something happens that could have been prevented, especially when it happens to a child. Yet another pedestrian was hit by a car in the Lehigh Valley on Saturday; this time, it was a little girl who was trying to cross the street with her sister. The car, traveling along a 45-mile-per-hour street, did not see her. My heart aches for the family of the girl as well as the driver. Out of respect for them, I won’t comment on the intersection, but as time goes on and wounds heal (and hopefully not too long into the future), I hope someone on the township or County councils considers more pedestrian-friendly safety features in that and other residential areas.
I do, however, want to comment on a recent blog post on a website called Mother Jones. Kevin Drum, the author, addresses a debate that has been raging for many years now: does suburban sprawl exist because policies mandate them or because people want them? Not surprisingly, Smart Growth advocates blame the policies, and Randall O’Toole and similar folks point the finger at public opinion. Drum seems to agree with O’Toole when he says, “These regulations aren’t something that’s being imposed by ‘government.’ They exist because people really, really, really want them.”
So, this brings up two issues. First does research really confirm that people “really, really, really” favor low-density suburban development over dense cities and inner-ring suburbs? And second, if the data does support that conclusion, do people always know what’s best for themselves?
Luckily, I did my thesis research on just this very topic. Previous research came to different conclusions. But what I noticed while reviewing them was that the studies that concluded people favored suburbs most often had participants judge only policy statements. This is dangerous because words such as “density” have garnered negative connotations that conjure up images of the Projects or other such monstrosities. What’s more, most studies that found that the majority of people favored more traditional developments were only presenting participants with images of the city blocks and neighborhoods. I would argue that this is a more effective method of gathering people’s reactions because we all have the ingrained ability to instinctually react to visual stimuli; I cannot say the same about written policy stimuli (if such a thing exists). But the downside to only examining images without their underlying policies is that when it comes time for the design codes to either go urban or suburban, the policies are what matter. Therefore, the public often goes in with a vision of what they want (more traditional development features), but they fail to make the necessary policy connections and, instead, rally for suburbia.
To test this hypothesis of visual-policy disconnect, I tested people’s reactions to both images and policies and compared them. What did I find? The people that did visually prefer suburban development also preferred suburban policies. But, those that visually preferred urban designs, which was the vast majority, didn’t seem to show any connection with urban or suburban policies; there was absolutely no relationship whatsoever. I had to conclude that, in a way, Randall O’Toole is right that people really like suburbia… just not all of them, and in the case of the most acute of our 5 senses, most prefer otherwise. But I also had to conclude that the vast majority that wanted their neighborhoods to look more urban also had no clue how to bring about such a vision. For example, a good number of participants that liked pictures of walkable neighborhoods also expressed desire for cul-de-sac policies, which actually counteract walking, as well as narrower streets, which promote walking. And of those that liked pictures of well-designed density, there was no consensus when asked about density policies.
What can we take from this? Both the Smart Growthers and Randall O’Toole are correct: suburbia is the result of policies that most people support, not because they are in favor of the results, but because they misunderstand their consequences. People are just really, really, really confused, and planners are really poor at educating them.
I think I’ve already answered my second question. Don’t get me wrong: I truly believe that people do know what is in their best interest when they completely understand the issue at hand, but when they don’t, as is the case with urban development (as well as many other social policies), the democratic process caves in on itself. We end up enacting costly policies, then enacting more costly policies to correct for the original policies – until we get to the point that we are at today where we can’t even afford to maintain the roads we already have let alone continue to build new ones.
Anyone disagree?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Addressing Food Deserts
Here is a link to a post that I wrote today for RenewLV's Crossroads blog:
http://renewlv.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/smart-food-access-the-key-to-healthy-weight/
I'd like to answer my own question that I posed at the end of the post. I asked:
“What are your suggestions for improved (food) access?” There are likely many ways of effectively answering this question, but the most comprehensive answers, in my view, must contain the following two principles:
1) Incentives to bring grocery stores into retrofitted buildings. The Weis’, Giant’s, and Wegman’s of the world currently have a real financial incentive to build on large plots of land far, far away from the city. Land is cheaper, the building can be much larger (therefore capturing economies of scale), its customer base in the suburbs has more disposable incomes, and parking regulations can be easily satisfied. Cities and Counties could offer subsidized retrofits and building costs, distribution partnerships with other area stores (thereby capturing economies of scale), and reducing or eliminating parking requirements (which would save on construction costs; remember, more than half of construction costs of standard commercial buildings go into the parking lot).
2) Development of mixed-income, mixed-use communities. The root problem with food access for all income levels is the economic segregation of our communities. Historically, problems of food access and obesity (as well as high rates of inner city poverty and crime) did not exist on large scales until cities began funneling the majority of municipal investments away from city centers. The way to fix this is to do the exact opposite of what is currently being done: economic integration and central investment. Central cities and inner-ring suburbs should be redeveloped to lift the skills and provide opportunities for people of low-incomes, attract people of middle- and high-incomes, and build communities around both groups with necessities and amenities at their cores. At the same time, outer-ring suburbs must densify to various extents (the closer to the city, the denser) and offer housing and employment options for people of lower-incomes, while also offering convenient amenities and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, light rail, etc.). These types of economically-integrated communities will better attract food establishments.
Implementing the first principle without the second requires an increase in taxes and many significant political fights that can tear a community and city apart. Yet, if the second principle does not garner any support, incentives alone are worth it and can work if done properly and with public input and buy-in. Implementing the second principle, however, makes the first largely unnecessary. Although distribution partnerships and property tax incentives may be used to further encourage food development in comprehensive communities, the already extant customer base and relaxed parking requirements of a mixed-use community might be incentive enough.
http://renewlv.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/smart-food-access-the-key-to-healthy-weight/
I'd like to answer my own question that I posed at the end of the post. I asked:
“What are your suggestions for improved (food) access?” There are likely many ways of effectively answering this question, but the most comprehensive answers, in my view, must contain the following two principles:
1) Incentives to bring grocery stores into retrofitted buildings. The Weis’, Giant’s, and Wegman’s of the world currently have a real financial incentive to build on large plots of land far, far away from the city. Land is cheaper, the building can be much larger (therefore capturing economies of scale), its customer base in the suburbs has more disposable incomes, and parking regulations can be easily satisfied. Cities and Counties could offer subsidized retrofits and building costs, distribution partnerships with other area stores (thereby capturing economies of scale), and reducing or eliminating parking requirements (which would save on construction costs; remember, more than half of construction costs of standard commercial buildings go into the parking lot).
2) Development of mixed-income, mixed-use communities. The root problem with food access for all income levels is the economic segregation of our communities. Historically, problems of food access and obesity (as well as high rates of inner city poverty and crime) did not exist on large scales until cities began funneling the majority of municipal investments away from city centers. The way to fix this is to do the exact opposite of what is currently being done: economic integration and central investment. Central cities and inner-ring suburbs should be redeveloped to lift the skills and provide opportunities for people of low-incomes, attract people of middle- and high-incomes, and build communities around both groups with necessities and amenities at their cores. At the same time, outer-ring suburbs must densify to various extents (the closer to the city, the denser) and offer housing and employment options for people of lower-incomes, while also offering convenient amenities and opportunities for alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking, light rail, etc.). These types of economically-integrated communities will better attract food establishments.
Implementing the first principle without the second requires an increase in taxes and many significant political fights that can tear a community and city apart. Yet, if the second principle does not garner any support, incentives alone are worth it and can work if done properly and with public input and buy-in. Implementing the second principle, however, makes the first largely unnecessary. Although distribution partnerships and property tax incentives may be used to further encourage food development in comprehensive communities, the already extant customer base and relaxed parking requirements of a mixed-use community might be incentive enough.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
My Beef with Climate Change
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania recently submitted a Climate Change Action Plan to the public for comments. This plan contains 52 action items that the State intends to implement to save 36% of Green House Gas emissions between now and 2020. As some of you may know, I have a significant image problem concerning the Climate Change debate. I am a student of science, and therefore I know that the entire scientific community now concurs that climate change is occurring according to a warming trend (thus the term “Global Warming”). What very few scientists, and a good chunk of the American public, disagree on is the cause of this change. Most scientists attribute the change in climate to human use of fossil fuels for transportation, home and office climate control, and industrial production. Very few scientists disagree with this assessment, and those that do have the ears of a significantly forceful segment of the media, who in turn have the ears of about 30 percent of Americans. As a result, the terms “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” have become overly politicized to the point that it is very difficult to solve any local environmental problems without the divisive issue wedging a divide.
I believe that consumer excesses, backed by a culture of “Me”, are causing local environmental problems, which all combine together to create the global problem of climate change. If you ask any supporter of the climate change agenda, he or she would likely agree with that assessment, yet the way the issue and its solutions is presented makes it seem as if individual consumer behaviors on the local level are largely irrelevant. The problem with the Climate Change issue is one of marketing, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of human psychology. By and large, people are driven to act locally, because they live and breathe and think locally. There’s a reason why it is said that, “All politics is local.” As much as polar bears look cute and cuddly and most of us feel sorry that they are losing their home, it is difficult to understand that that is connected with my driving habits. If the presenters of climate change information and solutions understood this at all, they would realize that their efforts are working against their goals.
You can read the plan, or at least the parts you are interested in, at the following link:
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1532&q=539829
You may also comment on the plan by sending an email to epclimatereportcomments@state.pa.us. I thought some of you might be interested in a comment that I sent earlier today:
Thank you for your work in creating this Climate Change Action Plan. I am glad to see that Pennsylvania emits 4% of US GHGs (we are 4% of the population) and that our population growth is greater than our GHG emission growth, but it is disheartening, yet not particularly surprising, to know that we are emitting 1% of the world's GHGs (we are .2% of the world's population). I have been educated as a Smart Growth urban planner, so I will make a couple of comments about the Land Use and Transportation section of the plan.
First, I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice by relying on fuel efficiency standard increases without coupling it with increasing state gas tax rates. There is a phenomenon known as the "rebound effect" in which the consumer cost savings of better fuel efficiency encourages drivers to drive more. Unless CAFE standards are drastically increased from what they are currently, the gains we will make in fuel efficiency will be quickly lost in increased VMT. Thus, our GHG emissions from fuel efficiency will be cancelled out and, likely, increased. The evidence for this phenomenon is not conclusive, yet it is intuitive and well known. One goal that could be used in concert with higher CAFÉ standards to counteract the rebound effect is an increase in the amount of state tax added to gasoline purchases. This approach has worked well in many areas of Europe to discourage people from driving unnecessarily and encouraging them to use public transit and other low-energy transportation options, as well as encouraging municipalities to invest in Smart Growth options. The point here is that fuel efficiency in the absence of higher gas prices and other disincentives for driving will not only counteract your Smart Growth plans but will also nullify GHG emission savings in the long run.
My fear with this document, and the climate change debate as a whole, is that it encourages decision-makers to think of reducing GHGs as the end-goal and not as a byproduct of the end-goal. Personally, I believe the end-goal should be to create vibrant, inclusive, and healthy (economically, environmentally, and human-centered) cities and communities. Gasoline consumption is largely dependent on the design of our cities. Diesel consumption is largely dependent on how much of our materials can be produced and obtained locally. Electricity consumption is largely dependent on the size and efficiency of our buildings. Climate Change is a local problem that has global consequences, and focusing on the global consequences encourages us to take one of two flawed actions: 1) treat the symptoms and not the causes; or 2) completely dismiss the validity of Climate Change because it is presented as too large of an issue to fathom. Overall, you have done a decent job of presenting locally-based solutions, yet the fact that these solutions are presented as Climate Change solutions (no matter how much evidence exists to support those solutions) will largely work against you politically.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments to your plan. I wish you well in passing and especially implementing these actions. For questions or return comments, you may contact me at the address below:
I believe that consumer excesses, backed by a culture of “Me”, are causing local environmental problems, which all combine together to create the global problem of climate change. If you ask any supporter of the climate change agenda, he or she would likely agree with that assessment, yet the way the issue and its solutions is presented makes it seem as if individual consumer behaviors on the local level are largely irrelevant. The problem with the Climate Change issue is one of marketing, and reflects a complete misunderstanding of human psychology. By and large, people are driven to act locally, because they live and breathe and think locally. There’s a reason why it is said that, “All politics is local.” As much as polar bears look cute and cuddly and most of us feel sorry that they are losing their home, it is difficult to understand that that is connected with my driving habits. If the presenters of climate change information and solutions understood this at all, they would realize that their efforts are working against their goals.
You can read the plan, or at least the parts you are interested in, at the following link:
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/energy/cwp/view.asp?a=1532&q=539829
You may also comment on the plan by sending an email to epclimatereportcomments@state.pa.us. I thought some of you might be interested in a comment that I sent earlier today:
Thank you for your work in creating this Climate Change Action Plan. I am glad to see that Pennsylvania emits 4% of US GHGs (we are 4% of the population) and that our population growth is greater than our GHG emission growth, but it is disheartening, yet not particularly surprising, to know that we are emitting 1% of the world's GHGs (we are .2% of the world's population). I have been educated as a Smart Growth urban planner, so I will make a couple of comments about the Land Use and Transportation section of the plan.
First, I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice by relying on fuel efficiency standard increases without coupling it with increasing state gas tax rates. There is a phenomenon known as the "rebound effect" in which the consumer cost savings of better fuel efficiency encourages drivers to drive more. Unless CAFE standards are drastically increased from what they are currently, the gains we will make in fuel efficiency will be quickly lost in increased VMT. Thus, our GHG emissions from fuel efficiency will be cancelled out and, likely, increased. The evidence for this phenomenon is not conclusive, yet it is intuitive and well known. One goal that could be used in concert with higher CAFÉ standards to counteract the rebound effect is an increase in the amount of state tax added to gasoline purchases. This approach has worked well in many areas of Europe to discourage people from driving unnecessarily and encouraging them to use public transit and other low-energy transportation options, as well as encouraging municipalities to invest in Smart Growth options. The point here is that fuel efficiency in the absence of higher gas prices and other disincentives for driving will not only counteract your Smart Growth plans but will also nullify GHG emission savings in the long run.
My fear with this document, and the climate change debate as a whole, is that it encourages decision-makers to think of reducing GHGs as the end-goal and not as a byproduct of the end-goal. Personally, I believe the end-goal should be to create vibrant, inclusive, and healthy (economically, environmentally, and human-centered) cities and communities. Gasoline consumption is largely dependent on the design of our cities. Diesel consumption is largely dependent on how much of our materials can be produced and obtained locally. Electricity consumption is largely dependent on the size and efficiency of our buildings. Climate Change is a local problem that has global consequences, and focusing on the global consequences encourages us to take one of two flawed actions: 1) treat the symptoms and not the causes; or 2) completely dismiss the validity of Climate Change because it is presented as too large of an issue to fathom. Overall, you have done a decent job of presenting locally-based solutions, yet the fact that these solutions are presented as Climate Change solutions (no matter how much evidence exists to support those solutions) will largely work against you politically.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit my comments to your plan. I wish you well in passing and especially implementing these actions. For questions or return comments, you may contact me at the address below:
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Analyzing the Fat Tax
There has been a lot of controversy recently about a so-called “fat tax” that would essentially discourage people from buying products, such as soft drinks (with generally consist of more than 99% high fructose corn syrup), that are known to be high in empty calories and low in nutritional benefits. One of the main proposals right now would place a penny per ounce tax on soft drinks, which would raise about $15 billion per year for obesity prevention programs. Check out the following video for the full story:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/weighing-the-fat-tax/
I like the idea. Raising $15 billion for obesity and physical education, as well as physical environmental improvements that would encourage exercise, would go a long way in improving Americans’ quality of life. And that’s just from soft drinks. Imagine how much more money could be raised from candy, chips, sugary cereals, frozen dinners, high-fat restaurant foods, and (as much as it pains me to suggest) desserts. This is not the most popular idea, however. Many people are against adding any more taxes on American consumers, even ones that would likely be of significant benefit to us. It is seen as interfering with the market and making our current economic hardships even tougher.
There’s something to the economic hardship argument, but not in the way most people who argue for it are thinking. These high-fat foods are, by and large, the cheapest foods one can find at the grocery store. They also do not require a lot of time and energy to prepare. These foods are priced and ready-made for people of low-incomes. This is the reason why so many people living in poverty are also over-weight, a paradox that draws criticism from many people who don’t live in poverty because of the false belief that those people in poverty remain so partly because they spend so much money on extraneous food. In reality, people of low-incomes lack the resources to obtain extraneous foods, but they have just enough to obtain foods with extraneous calories, such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph above. They do not, however, have the resources to purchase the healthier foods that are priced at a premium and require time (which comes at a premium to people of low-incomes) to prepare. So, placing a tax on high-fat foods would essentially price people of low-incomes completely out of the food market.
Here’s what I would suggest: tax the unnecessary food items, such as soft drinks, candy, and (cringe!) desserts, and give tax credits for purchasing healthier items, such as fruit, raw vegetables, and whole grains. There are already government and private programs to visually mark foods as healthy. We could add a process to the system which would allow people to sign up for “credit cards” which can be swiped after each food purchase to keep track of healthy food credits. Those credits could then be cashed in during tax season. For people of the lowest incomes that cannot afford to wait until a tax credit comes, we could use some of the money raised from the “fat tax” to add more nutritious items to the food stamps allowances, which are currently sorely lacking. The credits could also be paid for by the tax, which would, unfortunately, leave less money for obesity prevention programs, but at least it would be a sensible solution that would likely work and appeal to both conservatives and liberals.
But my proposal seems too simple for someone not to have thought of it (and dismissed it) before. Am I missing something? What do you think? I would like your critical feedback.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/weighing-the-fat-tax/
I like the idea. Raising $15 billion for obesity and physical education, as well as physical environmental improvements that would encourage exercise, would go a long way in improving Americans’ quality of life. And that’s just from soft drinks. Imagine how much more money could be raised from candy, chips, sugary cereals, frozen dinners, high-fat restaurant foods, and (as much as it pains me to suggest) desserts. This is not the most popular idea, however. Many people are against adding any more taxes on American consumers, even ones that would likely be of significant benefit to us. It is seen as interfering with the market and making our current economic hardships even tougher.
There’s something to the economic hardship argument, but not in the way most people who argue for it are thinking. These high-fat foods are, by and large, the cheapest foods one can find at the grocery store. They also do not require a lot of time and energy to prepare. These foods are priced and ready-made for people of low-incomes. This is the reason why so many people living in poverty are also over-weight, a paradox that draws criticism from many people who don’t live in poverty because of the false belief that those people in poverty remain so partly because they spend so much money on extraneous food. In reality, people of low-incomes lack the resources to obtain extraneous foods, but they have just enough to obtain foods with extraneous calories, such as the ones mentioned in the paragraph above. They do not, however, have the resources to purchase the healthier foods that are priced at a premium and require time (which comes at a premium to people of low-incomes) to prepare. So, placing a tax on high-fat foods would essentially price people of low-incomes completely out of the food market.
Here’s what I would suggest: tax the unnecessary food items, such as soft drinks, candy, and (cringe!) desserts, and give tax credits for purchasing healthier items, such as fruit, raw vegetables, and whole grains. There are already government and private programs to visually mark foods as healthy. We could add a process to the system which would allow people to sign up for “credit cards” which can be swiped after each food purchase to keep track of healthy food credits. Those credits could then be cashed in during tax season. For people of the lowest incomes that cannot afford to wait until a tax credit comes, we could use some of the money raised from the “fat tax” to add more nutritious items to the food stamps allowances, which are currently sorely lacking. The credits could also be paid for by the tax, which would, unfortunately, leave less money for obesity prevention programs, but at least it would be a sensible solution that would likely work and appeal to both conservatives and liberals.
But my proposal seems too simple for someone not to have thought of it (and dismissed it) before. Am I missing something? What do you think? I would like your critical feedback.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
I Pay For Your Free Parking
I wanted to point out something related to my recent post on the Renew Lehigh Valley blog. I mentioned some numbers toward the end of the entry, and I want to discuss the implications of those numbers. I wrote:
“Though many of us recognize the benefits of TOD, it will probably take quite an epiphany for banks to begin to buck the industry standard of about 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of building space (which works out to about 15% more parking lot surface area than floor area at a cost of $30,000 per parking space [or about $50,000 per for structure parking], a cost that banks have no problem financing).”
As I said, this cost is financed as part of the overhead of the development. The new Walmart in your neighborhood must not only pay for the costs of its building, but it must also pay a great deal more to construct its massive parking lot. Now, since retailers, such as Walmart, see their profits as dependent on the customer’s convenience, parking (the ultimate convenience in suburbia) is most often “free.” Of course, when I say “free,” I mean that the costs of parking are added to the retail prices of the products that are sold. We pay for the parking one way or the other, and in the case of retail establishments that offer free parking, the cost is distributed evenly throughout their products.
This arrangement works out well for people who drive to these retailers. Motorists get the psychological benefit of thinking that they are parking for free. Plus, they are likely paying a lot less through the added prices of their food purchases than they would have if they had to insert coins into meters, because retailers who offer “free” parking pass on the costs to all consumers, even those who don’t drive. So, every time I walk to the Giant grocery store in Bethlehem to buy food, I am partially subsidizing the parking of almost everyone else in the store. And my reward for subsidizing those wealthy enough to afford a car? A few honks and several dirty looks as I inconveniently (for them and for me) walk across the parking lot that I am paying for them to use. I would rather they smile, wave, and say “thank you very much!” But most of them have no clue that their “free” parking has made my groceries more expensive than they should be, and that, through the wonders of trickle-up economics (which is more prevalent than we want to admit), they are benefiting from my car-lessness.
Many people would call this small and frivolous because, when the costs are spread out, the resulting price increases are small. But in light of the healthcare debate, why don’t people think about spreading the costs of covering the uninsured as small and frivolous? Despite the fact that healthcare premiums would likely decrease if everyone was covered, why are people not willing to pay a little extra so that everyone can be covered? I do it so that you can park at the store for “free,” so why can’t you do it so that Joe Uninsured can be healthy? Instead, healthcare for all is called “socialism.” Well, if that is your idea of socialism, then you better start screaming at town hall meetings about “free” parking too (along with Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Postal Service, urban taxing for extraordinarily costly suburban infrastructure, etc.), because it is exactly the same thing.
“Though many of us recognize the benefits of TOD, it will probably take quite an epiphany for banks to begin to buck the industry standard of about 1 parking space for every 250 square feet of building space (which works out to about 15% more parking lot surface area than floor area at a cost of $30,000 per parking space [or about $50,000 per for structure parking], a cost that banks have no problem financing).”
As I said, this cost is financed as part of the overhead of the development. The new Walmart in your neighborhood must not only pay for the costs of its building, but it must also pay a great deal more to construct its massive parking lot. Now, since retailers, such as Walmart, see their profits as dependent on the customer’s convenience, parking (the ultimate convenience in suburbia) is most often “free.” Of course, when I say “free,” I mean that the costs of parking are added to the retail prices of the products that are sold. We pay for the parking one way or the other, and in the case of retail establishments that offer free parking, the cost is distributed evenly throughout their products.
This arrangement works out well for people who drive to these retailers. Motorists get the psychological benefit of thinking that they are parking for free. Plus, they are likely paying a lot less through the added prices of their food purchases than they would have if they had to insert coins into meters, because retailers who offer “free” parking pass on the costs to all consumers, even those who don’t drive. So, every time I walk to the Giant grocery store in Bethlehem to buy food, I am partially subsidizing the parking of almost everyone else in the store. And my reward for subsidizing those wealthy enough to afford a car? A few honks and several dirty looks as I inconveniently (for them and for me) walk across the parking lot that I am paying for them to use. I would rather they smile, wave, and say “thank you very much!” But most of them have no clue that their “free” parking has made my groceries more expensive than they should be, and that, through the wonders of trickle-up economics (which is more prevalent than we want to admit), they are benefiting from my car-lessness.
Many people would call this small and frivolous because, when the costs are spread out, the resulting price increases are small. But in light of the healthcare debate, why don’t people think about spreading the costs of covering the uninsured as small and frivolous? Despite the fact that healthcare premiums would likely decrease if everyone was covered, why are people not willing to pay a little extra so that everyone can be covered? I do it so that you can park at the store for “free,” so why can’t you do it so that Joe Uninsured can be healthy? Instead, healthcare for all is called “socialism.” Well, if that is your idea of socialism, then you better start screaming at town hall meetings about “free” parking too (along with Social Security, Medicare, the U.S. Postal Service, urban taxing for extraordinarily costly suburban infrastructure, etc.), because it is exactly the same thing.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
When Walking is Illegal
Childhood obesity is a major problem in our country, and the planning of where we place our schools is a major cause of this problem. Most, if not all, of our newly-built schools are purposely located on large tracts of land far from the neighborhoods which they serve. Of course, it is easy to see that this type of planning makes it almost impossible for children to get to school without being driven there, whether by bus (which is infrequent) or by car. What is frightening, though, is when this is taken even further. Even after reading it, I still can’t believe that this is happening:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
That’s right! Some school districts are actually making it against the rules (or in the case of Saratoga Springs, NY, against the law) for children to walk or bike to school. This leads me to the question: do we want our children to be unhealthy? In this case, it sure seems that way. Schools have sold out to fast food and other low-quality food vendors for lunch, have taken away most recess and physical education, and now some have made possibly the only daily physical activity these kids can get illegal.
Of course, the point of this rule is that the school doesn’t want to be held responsible for the deaths of children hit by cars traveling the only path to the school (a major suburban arterial). This is understandable, but it brings up an important issue that lies behind this fear. Neighborhood-based schools do not fear how their children get to and from school, and if they do, they certainly do not make rules about it and call on the police to enforce it. Why? Because neighborhood schools are located within safe walking and biking distance from most of the households they serve. Bethlehem is full of these schools, and I see children on a daily basis as I take my own walks. So, the choice for our school boards becomes this: Do we build smaller neighborhood schools more frequently in order to allow kids to get to school however they and their parents see fit (not to mention the benefits of higher teacher-to-student ratios and the ability to effectively involve the students in their home communities as part of the curriculum); or do we continue to build massive, regional schools out where it is unsafe for children to get there and back home outside of a vehicle, and, if we deem necessary, make laws prohibiting walking and biking? If you ask me, this is a no-brainer, yet somehow we have made the wrong choice.
Although it is good to see people fighting this and civilly disobeying a rule that doesn’t make any sense, in the end, it all comes down to money. Big surprise! It is cheaper to build big schools out in the middle of nowhere. The land is cheaper, less teachers need to be hired, and neighborhoods can use the land that would have been devoted to the school for more housing, thus increasing the tax base. Oh yeah, and municipalities can justify paying less taxes for school support. Anything to pay less in taxes! But I have to wonder: what is worth paying for these days? Obviously nothing that a stupid law against walking can’t fix.
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
That’s right! Some school districts are actually making it against the rules (or in the case of Saratoga Springs, NY, against the law) for children to walk or bike to school. This leads me to the question: do we want our children to be unhealthy? In this case, it sure seems that way. Schools have sold out to fast food and other low-quality food vendors for lunch, have taken away most recess and physical education, and now some have made possibly the only daily physical activity these kids can get illegal.
Of course, the point of this rule is that the school doesn’t want to be held responsible for the deaths of children hit by cars traveling the only path to the school (a major suburban arterial). This is understandable, but it brings up an important issue that lies behind this fear. Neighborhood-based schools do not fear how their children get to and from school, and if they do, they certainly do not make rules about it and call on the police to enforce it. Why? Because neighborhood schools are located within safe walking and biking distance from most of the households they serve. Bethlehem is full of these schools, and I see children on a daily basis as I take my own walks. So, the choice for our school boards becomes this: Do we build smaller neighborhood schools more frequently in order to allow kids to get to school however they and their parents see fit (not to mention the benefits of higher teacher-to-student ratios and the ability to effectively involve the students in their home communities as part of the curriculum); or do we continue to build massive, regional schools out where it is unsafe for children to get there and back home outside of a vehicle, and, if we deem necessary, make laws prohibiting walking and biking? If you ask me, this is a no-brainer, yet somehow we have made the wrong choice.
Although it is good to see people fighting this and civilly disobeying a rule that doesn’t make any sense, in the end, it all comes down to money. Big surprise! It is cheaper to build big schools out in the middle of nowhere. The land is cheaper, less teachers need to be hired, and neighborhoods can use the land that would have been devoted to the school for more housing, thus increasing the tax base. Oh yeah, and municipalities can justify paying less taxes for school support. Anything to pay less in taxes! But I have to wonder: what is worth paying for these days? Obviously nothing that a stupid law against walking can’t fix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
