Communities, Planning & Activitism

The Atlantic Cities has an article by Anthony Flint, "How the Tea Party is Upending Urban Planning".  It looks at the activism of the Tea Party in local communities.  It begins, fittingly enough, with a recounting of how legendary urban activist Jane Jacobs spoke at a planning meeting insisting that the community have a real voice in the process, rather than the usual rubber-stamping that typically happened back then.

Flash forward to today's Tea Party.  Given the libertarian tendencies of the Tea Party, it's not surprising that those activists are opposing planning efforts.  Environment safety?  Nah.  Growth management?  Forget about it.  Rail?  Not a chance in hell.   Climate Change?  No such thing.  Smart Growth?  Why, that's Communism!

Of course, give the bias in the article, written by a planner, it's natural that the author would cast a critical eye on people that are opposed to the very work he does.

But, still...it's hard to take seriously people who ramble about "Agenda 21" and call people UN Agents.  See this (particularly comments) for a taste of their perspective on this. 

The way I've seen planning work in many hearings often involves making changes to proposed developments or projects to satisfy community concerns.  Sometimes this unnecessarily drives up the cost ("those homes must be brick or stone all the way around") and sometimes objections may be based in prejudice and misinformation (New Berlin). The author wrote at the end:

Yet, as in national politics, the Tea Party view doesn’t leave room for compromise. Even the most open-minded and free-speech supporting planner can’t operate when the framework for the dialogue itself has been invalidated. Where does one go from there?

So what's the answer? Ignore them?  That presents a peril of its own as planning commissions often have elected officials on them in addition to citizen members.

In the words of Jane Jacobs in 1952:

The other threat to the security of our tradition, I believe, lies at home. It is the current fear of radical ideas and of people who propound them. I do not agree with the extremists of either the left or the right, but I think they should be allowed to speak and to publish, both because they themselves have, and ought to have, rights, and once their rights are gone, the rights of the rest of us are hardly safe …

 I left out the other half of the ending paragraph from the author, Anthony Flint, a while ago.  The other half was:

The skirmishes at town halls around the country over the past year or so means that planners will have to try even harder to make their case. But in the mean time, the chairman of that sleepy planning board hearing might be eying the exits, looking for a black helicopter, to make a run for it.

"Compassionate Conservative" in Action

I wonder what people like this think will happen to the homelessness when there are no funding?

As near as I can figure, their thinking goes like this:

1.  Funding for social programs cut

2.  Pull own bootstrap

3.  Success!

That kind of wishful thinking isn't good policy.

Phew!

Phew!  So glad Wisconsin went ahead with more rail.  Oh, wait...

If not now, when?

Interesting look at the issue of sex education in the Wisconsin State Journal.  Apparently in 2010, a comprehensive sex education curriculum was passed, and this year's Republicans want to reverse that.  Leaving aside the whole issue of abortion funding which the article also covers, I've never gotten a real answer to my question:  When exactly do Republicans think that today's teens will receive the comprehensive sex education they need?  And from who?  Clearly many parents aren't doing it, which means teens are getting their information from potentially unreliable sources of information.

Today's teens are tomorrow's adults.  If we want to cut down on unplanned pregnancies, on sexually transmitted diseases, etc. then kids need to be educated.  Now, that's good policy.

Cuts For Thee and None for Me

The Republicans are trying to renege on their deal.  There's no other way to look at this; Republicans agreed that if the so-called Super-committee failed to reach a deal, there would be painful cuts to defense.  Now they're trying to renege on that deal.  But they're still perfectly happy to continue with cuts to social programs.

I especially loved this quote:

“If you look at these cuts, it is not just the amount of the dollars that is a concern, but also the arbitrary way the cuts are done,” said Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), whose district includes huge military installations in Hampton Roads. “The worst thing you can do is reach up and pull a figure and say you are going to cut without any strategic review.”

Why not?  They've been pushing cuts for years, if not decades, without thought as to the impact they'd have.

Food Insecurity

As we recuperate from our Thanksgiving meals, it's important to remember that many Americans did not have the same opportunity to, well, gorge as we just did.

Think Progress has a post on food insecurity in America using data from last year. Food insecurity means that a person does not always know where his/her next meal will come from.  Shockingly, over 17 million households faced food insecurity in 2010, or 1 in 7 households.

Most people,such as yourself, upon hearing this, would probably say, "how can we ensure that those households, especially those with children, have access to their daily nutritional needs?"  But you're probably not a Republican in Congress.  And you would definitely not be Representative Paul Ryan, whose budget slashes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by $127 billion (yes, with a "B") over the next decade.  Even with the additional number of families struggling in this economy.

The farm bill is not yet finalized, so the final budget for food assistance programs are not known (at least, by me), but with it under attack by Republicans in Congress and likely pressure on Democrats from agricultural states to protect farm subsidies, outlook is not good.  For some annoying reason, nutritional assistance programs are in the same budget pot as farm subsidies, which means that food assistance tend to suffer first.

Studies have shown the importance of good nutrition for families-from pregnant women to kids in school, so it's simply inexcusable that we are sabotaging our future by not ensuring that our children receive the proper amount of nutrition.

Faux Outrage

The only thing more tiring than the faux outrage of the day is the insistence of the stenographers in reporting it dutifully.  Come on, media-at some point, you gotta say, "here's the latest idiocy that they're pretending to be upset about.

Addition:  Needless to say, we would be better served if the press would focus on substantive follow-up questions such as: Why is it so important that Obama thank God?  Why are some acting so outraged when some in the same party had a similar omission?  Did previous presidents always thank God?  And finally, does anyone actually care?

Regulations

One thing I've commented on-if not here, then elsewhere-is that very often regulations are pushed by businesses and industries rather than the government as a way to lock out the competition.  Matthew Yglesias over at his new home, Slate's Moneybox, has a great illustration of this.

So how do you prevent this?  Mostly by making sure that the need for licensing is justified, and making sure that the foxes are not in charge of the hen house; in this case, the Commission ruling on the justification of the regulation are controlled by those who would benefit from it.

Housing Policies & Advocacy

Affordable housing, in some ways, is very difficult to do advocacy on.  The people most directly impacted by poor housing policies very often are unable-for various reasons-to do any advocacy on the national level, which is where much of funding for affordable housing happens.  People who are searching for housing, people who has to work two jobs to make ends meet, etc. simply do not have the time or background to educate themselves on housing issues, which can be complex.  The idea of calling their Senator and/or Representative can be intimidating, especially when you're not sure of what the difference between Section 811, Section 8, Section 202, Section 42, etc. are, or what SEVRA, SESA, PETRA, etc. are.

Service providers, the organizational staff that very often work with segments of the low-income population, such as those who work with people with disabilities, people who are elderly, struggling families, etc. are often overwhelmed.  Many non-profit organizations are also often confused at where the line between advocacy and lobbying is, so they err on the side of caution.

So often it falls to people whose job is to learn about housing issues-the finances, the budgeting, the regulations, etc. to do the advocacy on behalf of the low-income population.  Of course, there are people who represent tax-credit developers, public housing authorities, etc. but they have a different perspective than the people who would actually occupy the units. 

Representing the low-income population are a number of national organizations-the one I'm most familiar with is the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC).  And then there are other organizations who focus on community/neighborhood development such as the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC).  Some work on homelessness issues such as the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness. 

Those and other organizations (feel free to suggest additional ones in comments) do policy analysis and distribute that information to legislators and other policy makers.  They also often freely share their results with the public.  Many, if not all, have newsletters and/or advocacy alerts for people.  In other words, it can be easy to just sign up for some alerts, and then start advocating almost immediately even if you don't know much about the issues-those alerts often explain what's at stake.

So what I'm saying is, get off your duff, go sign up for the newsletters, and start advocating for better housing policies on the national level.  And while you're at it, help out those under appreciated organizations by becoming a member-I'm a member of NLIHC-to help support them financially so they can continue their fine work.

(Yes, I know, unfortunately, much of this information sharing is almost entirely Internet-based, so it can be difficult for people without reliable access to the Internet to participate. )

Update:  How could I forget the Technical Assistance Collaborative? 

Serious Question

Let's look at two groups.  The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street.

Both groups protest what they see as injustices.

• The Tea Party protest taxes-even though taxes are at a historic low.
• Occupy Wall Street protest the disparity between the financial elite and the rest of us, which is statistically demonstrated in a number of ways.

Both groups received media coverage.

• The Tea Party received extensive corporate media coverage-very often disproportionate at some events to the actual numbers of Tea Party members present.  Much of coverage-in particular from one network-has been very positive.
• Occupy Wall Street initially received very little coverage, and much of the coverage from the "mainstream" media has been negative.

Both groups received police attention.

• The Tea Party members had polite police attention-even when Tea Party members were openly carrying weapons.
• Occupy Wall Street protesters were attacked by the police-very often when protesting peacefully.  In some instances, they were sprayed with pepper spray while sitting on the ground. 

Both groups receive financial support.

• The Tea Party received extensive financial support from right-wing billionaires and other moneyed people.
• Occupy Wall Street relies heavily on individual and online donations.

So we have one group that is protesting tax rates that are already low, and receiving favorable attention and support from the media-to the extent that one network (FOX) even quite literally promoted an event.  And are funded by moneyed people. The other group, despite facts on their side, have been attacked both by the corporate media and the police (who take commands from the Mayor).  The second group relies on individual support.

So the question is-which group do you think will actually create societal change?  And which one is merely a cat's paw for the moneyed elite?

Update:  Just saw this, which indicates that Wall Street fears the Occupy Wall Street to the extent they're willing to spend money to smear the movement. 

I Pay More State IncomeTaxes than Rockwell Automation

And you probably do, too.  Details from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.

More on Senator Johnson and Regulations

I blogged recently about Senator Johnson's obession with the mythical regulation problem and how misguided his actions are. 

Two more articles on this from Kevin Drum and Tanya Somander which add to a series of posts and articles around the web on the convenient timing of the Republican war on regulations (in that they only seem to worry about it when the President is a "D").



....And how could I forget the definitive smack-down on this?  Somehow, I doubt this and other documentation will persuade the good Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Johnson's Misguided War on Regulations

Week after week, Senator Johnson in his newsletters lambastes the supposed effect of regulations on jobs.  He has even introduced a bill, S1438, Regulation Moratorium and Jobs Preservation Act of 2011, which would "Prohibits any federal agency from taking any significant regulatory action until the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports a monthly unemployment rate equal to or less than 7.7%. "

Senator Johnson apparently is firm in his belief that regulations are, to use a favorite Republican phrase, "job-killing."  The truth?  Not so much.

First up, the Washington Post fact-checked a recent Republican presidential debate in which this issue was brought up.  Their conclusion?

THE FACTS: Labor Department data show that only a tiny percentage of companies that experience large layoffs cite government regulation as the reason. Since Barack Obama took office, just two-tenths of 1 percent of layoffs have been due to government regulation, the data show.

Businesses frequently complain about regulation, but there is little evidence that it is any worse now than in the past or that it is costing significant numbers of jobs. Most economists believe there is a simpler explanation: Companies aren’t hiring because there isn’t enough consumer demand.

Mother Jones did a similar investigation into this, finding that the effects of regulation on jobs are likely not great, and ended with:

"The issue in regulation always should be whether it delivers benefits that justify the cost," said Noll. "The effect of regulation on jobs has nothing to do with the mess we're in. The current rhetoric about regulation killing jobs is nothing more than not letting a good crisis go to waste."

Senator Johnson, in discussing his bill, stated:

Under the Obama administration, each year the government implements an average of 84 "economically-significant" new regulations, ones that each cost the economy $100 million or more annually.

There are more than 4,000 new regulations now being written, including hundreds of economically-significant ones, but any one of them is significant if it's the one that overturns your business model. If you were a worried entrepreneur, would you be eager to hire amid such uncertainty?

But what he leaves unsaid is that President Bush had a higher pace of economically significant regulatory activities. 

Let's see:  President Obama isn't doing as many regulations as his predecessor did, and regulations rarely are "job-killing" in the first place.  Plus they often deliver public benefits!  That isn't to say that there aren't regulations that are outdated or ill-thought, something the Obama administration is already tackling. 

Update:  An inappropriate remark was removed.

Just Think

Less money on housing and transportation = more money on useless junk that fuels the economy!  Plus charity to support all those sick people that Republicans are saying should depend on charity not taxpayers.

Highway Priorities

According to this study, via Ezra Klein's Wonkblog, 43% of the average state transportation budget went to repairing 98.7% of roads, meaning that 57%  of the budget went toward highway expansion and new construction for just 1.3% of the roads.  The study, Repair Priorities, from Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense, analyzed that Wisconsin spent $429 million annually in road repair and preservation between 2004-2008, but that $685 million annually was needed. 

Using highway data, it estimates that 51% of Wisconsin's roads were rated as being in good condition.  While 51% isn't that great, it's better than the national average of 47%.  That "the nation as a whole earned a D- for road conditions on the 2009 American Society of Civil Engineers report card" is not a good sign.

As the Wonkblog's Brad Plumer noted, there was another paper with a more detailed case for "Fix It First" by Matthew Kahn( UCLA) and David Levinson (University of Minnesota).  Titled Fix It First, Expand It Second, Reward it Third, the paper outlines a new strategy for the nation's highways.  What's interesting is that it discusses how roads tend to stay in good quality for a long time, then its quality drops suddenly as it starts to fall apart.  If enough funding is provided to maintain roads, that period of good quality can last longer.  Replacing a road costs substantially more than the cost of repairing it.

As Governor Walker is so fond of saying, Wisconsin is broke.  So shouldn't we prioritize our highway funding to get more bang for the buck? 

Another aspect is that new highway construction and expansion adds more sprawl, more inefficient land use.

Imagine This in Milwaukee

Can you imagine something like this happening in the Milwaukee metro area?  Even though we've seen some major highway work, there's still plenty of work that could be done, particularly with bridges, dams, and tracks.  Not to mention the fact that Atlanta area is spending so much money, 52% of $6.14 billion (yes, "b") on mass transit.

Shut Out, Priced Out & Segregated

The Metro Fair Housing Services in Georgia published a report, Shut Out, Priced Out, and Segregated: The Need for Fair Housing for People With Disabilities.  It looks at housing issues that people with disabilities face-accessibility, affordability, and integration.

It, in particular, does a thorough job of documenting the need for Visitability, which is no surprise as Atlanta is home to the "Mother of Visitability", Eleanor Smith and the organization she founded, Concrete Change.

Check it out.

Vouchers in Wisconsin-Responses

A while ago I blogged about some data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).  To summarize, CBPP published data on Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") that Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) have, showing that many vouchers are being unused.  While some PHAs were using all, or nearly all, of their vouchers, others had relatively low voucher usages.

This provoked a response from two housing authority directors (not of the PHAs that CBPP listed as among the lowest voucher usage), who correctly pointed out that just because a PHA had the authority to issue X number of vouchers doesn't mean they have funding for those vouchers.  They point out that a few years ago, HUD changed their policies so that instead of authorizing a PHA to issue X number of vouchers, HUD now says "here's a pot of money that 'should' give you X number of vouchers."  The problem is, that pot of money is an estimate, and when you have rising rents (higher rents) and families needing even more housing assistance (lower income = more voucher needed to cover the rent), that pot of money may not be enough.

I asked Barbara Sard, Vice President for Housing Policy, to comment on those responses.  Below is her response:

Your blog using our data is excellent.  It’s great to see the data used so effectively, and obviously you got some PHAs to take notice.  We’re going to post a background piece that will help provide context for the data.  But the short answer to your question is that it is correct that some PHAs do not receive enough funding to use all their authorized vouchers.  At the same time, many agencies do receive sufficient funding, or have sufficient funding in reserves, to assist more families.  That’s the point of the third bullet at the top of the state fact sheet, which says that Wisconsin agencies had sufficient funds available in 2010 to use 1,276 of the approximately 2,800 total vouchers that were unused.  This estimate is based on a calculation that Wisconsin agencies had unspent funding reserves of close to $10 million at the end of 2010.  While we agree (as noted on the sheet) that it is prudent for agencies to hold modest funds in reserve to meet unanticipated costs, it is also the case that a significant portion of these funds could be used to assist additional families.  Let me know if you have additional questions.

I don't see the background piece she mentions on the CBPP site, but I will post it when I see it.

Interesting Experiment in Sweden

According to this, many drivers will like mass transit more than they think.  I, of course, fully support getting more drivers off the roads into the buses and the trains.  Less traffic for me.

Vouchers in Wisconsin

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, always an indispensable source of information on federal issues, has released some new information.

First up is a state-by-state summary of federal rental assistance.  The Wisconsin fact sheet points out that only a small number of Wisconsin's renters are assisted by federal assistance, and with that comes additional risk:

When housing costs consume more than half of household income, low-income families are at greater risk of becoming homeless. Point-in-time surveys suggest that at least 6,525 people are homeless in Wisconsin.

The housing voucher data for Wisconsin shows that 91% of vouchers were used in Wisconsin, in line with the national average.  But that missing 9% means that 1,824 less families received assistance.  This page shows data over the past few years for each public housing authority.

The top public housing authorities in terms of voucher usage for 2010:

• Chippewa County at 100% (382 Vouchers)
• Eau Claire at 100% (405 Vouchers)
• Fond Du Lac County at 100% (430 Vouchers)
• Eau Claire County at 99% (219 of 221 Vouchers)
• Dodge County at 99% (151 of 152 Vouchers)
• Beloit Community Development at 97% (577 of 598 Vouchers)
• WHEDA at 97% (1,326 of 1,366 Vouchers)
• Winnebago County at 97% (401 of 413 Vouchers)
• Portage County at 97% (242 of 250 Vouchers)

And the public housing authorities that are not doing so well at voucher utilization:

• Platteville at 79% (101 of 128)
• Oconto County at 78% (57 of 73 Vouchers)
• Marshfield Community Deveopment at 76% (72 of 95 Vouchers)
• Sauk County at 74% (220 of 298 Vouchers)
• Burnett County at 73% (24 of 33 Vouchers)
• Taylor County at 70% (21 of 30 Vouchers)
• Dodgeville at 70% (56 of 80 Vouchers
• Wausau at 61% (265 of 435 Vouchers)

While I'd like to offer my kudos to the housing authorities that are doing a good job of utilizing their vouchers, especially year after year, the housing authorities that are not fully utilizing their vouchers simply has to do a better job.  That's something the local advocates need to take a part in. 

Wausau's 61% is simply horrenous when there is so much demand for vouchers, and all the more puzzling since they were at 98% in 2004 and kept utilizing less and less each year.  Same with Sauk County, going from 100% in 2004 to 74% in 2010. Taylor from 97% to 70%.  What's going on with those and other housing authorities? 

Update:  I'm getting some pushback on this, pointing out that the budget authority for the vouchers can be very different than the number "allocated".  A few years ago, HUD changed to a different system in which PHAs are given a specific budget number rather than a commitment to fund the assigned number of vouchers.  I'm trying to follow up with CBPP on this, and I should have a fuller explanation on this in the near future.

Update 2:  New blog post on this.

Freeloaders & Mooches

In the comment sections in newspaper websites, which are ruled by cruel people, I constantly see people complaining about freeloaders and moochers.

I doubt this is what they had in mind, but I also doubt they'll be nearly as outraged.

Family Self Sufficiency Award announced

On Thursday (Sept 22), the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced awards for the Housing Choice Voucher Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program.  FSS programs are designed to assist people receiving Housing Choice Vouchers ("Section 8 Vouchers") obtain employment that would eventually lead them to be more economically independent.  There is a similar FSS program for public housing residents.

FSS program services may include, but are not limited to:

• child care
• transportation
• education
• job training and employment counseling
• substance/alcohol abuse treatment or counseling
• household skill training
• homeownership counseling

HUD awarded $60 million across the nation, including $566,120 in Wisconsin.

Appleton Housing Authority $49,600

Brown County Housing Authority $135,462

City of Kenosha Housing Authority $67,266

Dane County Housing Authority $38,572

Dunn County Housing Authority $18,698

Housing Authority of Racine County $66,190

Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee $69,000

Sauk County Housing Authority $52,332

Winnebago County Housing Authority $69,000

HUD believes that the program works, and issued a new report evaluating the program.

After 4 years in the FSS program, 24 percent of the study participants completed program requirements and graduated from FSS. When the study ended, 37 percent had left the program without graduating and 39 percent were still enrolled in FSS. Program graduates were more likely to be employed than other exiters or the still-enrolled participants. Program graduates also had higher incomes, both when they enrolled in FSS and when they completed the program, than participants with other outcomes.

At first take, having more drop-outs than graduates isn't exactly a picture of a rousing success.  The report states that 31 of 63 who left the program did so involuntarily; they were removed due to violations of either FSS agreement (such as showing up for review meetings) or due to voucher program violations.  Others left the program for various reasons, usually due to family & work obligations making it difficult to keep in contact with the FSS staff person.  The fact that keeping in contact seems to be a big factor for those who leave the program involuntarily and for those who leave voluntarily makes me wonder if the FSS program couldn't have better outcomes if the FSS staff showed more flexibility.  My limited experience with the rental assistance program is that they tend to tell people, "show up at this date & time, or else."

Outcomes were generally positive for those who graduated from the program, with some clues for improved program efficiency.

This study finds that the financial benefits are substantial for participants who remain in and graduate from the FSS program. The study also highlights certain personal and program characteristics that tend to make families more successful in FSS. (For example, those with higher levels of education at enrollment did better.) These findings suggest approaches that program administrators can take to target FSS services more effectively.

Policies & Babies

Reading this Journal-Sentinel article about premature babies, I was struck by how expensive they are.

In Wisconsin, prematurity cost BadgerCare Plus, the state health plan for families and pregnant women with limited incomes, $81 million in the 2010 fiscal year and more than $300 million over the past four years

.
When one realizes that caring for an infant born at 24 weeks can exceed $630,000, and that in totality, including special education, lost productivity, etc., premature babies cost at least $26.2 billion (as of 2006) nationally, one has to think that there has to be a way to reduce all this cost.

While medicine has not arrived at a single prescription to prevent prematurity, experts say there are measures that have been shown to reduce rates and save money.

Programs that help women stop smoking, stay off drugs, maintain a healthy weight and reduce rates of chronic illness ultimately translate into fewer preterm deliveries. Medications, such as progesterone gel for women with a short cervix, have also shown great promise in reducing prematurity.

This is the sort of thing that a program I pointed to yesterday can help with.  Efforts to help guide people through the confusing health care system, to ensure they receive preventive care and are educated, can save us money down the road.

But in the eyes of some, that'd be big government and socialism.

Better Policies Lead to Better Results

One of the things I hope to stress in this blog is that policies have an impact, even if one does not always realize it.  In the past, I've pointed to bad policies, usually in housing.  But this time, I'd like to point to a policy in San Francisco that has led to improved results and lower costs.

Via Ezra Klein, I read about a program designed to ensure that people with low income have access to health care, and to nip problems in the bud before they become larger (& more expensive) problems. The website for Healthy San Francisco describes the program as:

Healthy San Francisco is not insurance, but a reinvention of the San Francisco health care safety net, that will enable and encourage residents to access primary and preventive care. It provides a Medical Home and primary physician to each program participant, allowing a greater focus on preventive care, as well as specialty care, urgent and emergency care, laboratory, inpatient hospitalization, radiology, and pharmaceuticals.

Better access to preventive health care leads to fewer emergency room visits, which are much more costly to the community.

A Humble Suggestion

With this Tom Daykin article describing Harley's decision to back out of developing offices on 6th & Canal, I have a humble suggestion to make.

Tom writes:

If approved Sept. 20 by the Common Council, Harley would not be obligated to develop the buildings, totaling 100,000 square feet, on the parking lots it owns west of S. 6th St., across from the museum.In return, Harley would pay the city $700,000.

Also, if Harley gets an offer to sell the parking lots over the next five years, it must first give the city an opportunity to buy the 3.5-acre parcel for $535,000. The city could then sell the land to a developer, or hold it for future development prospects.

 If you look at the location:




View Larger Map


You can see it offers immediate bicycle & pedestrian access to the Hank Aaron Trail as well as downtown area and the lakefront. 

I suggest that instead of simply accepting $700,000 from Harley, the City negotiate with Harley to turn over those two parking lots, and then the City use those lots for visitors wishing safe access to the trail.  One of my pet peeves in the past has been than it can be difficult to access bike paths and trails in other communities. The City could even figure out if it'd be worthwhile to install meters (in affordable hourly increments).

This Book Looks Interesting

I think The Gated City will be next on my reading list, as well as Matthew Yglesias' forthcoming The Rent Is Too Damn High.  Those two e-books will cover, indirectly and directly, issues affecting housing in America.

Well Deserved Award

Congratulations to Housing Authority of City of Milwaukee Director Tony Perez on his well-deserved honor of being the 2011 receipent of the Frank Ziedler Public Service Award.

Update on Odious Wall Street Article

A while ago, someone with an agenda wrote a very slanted article for the very conservative Wall Street Journal op-ed pages.  This article, Raising Hell in Subsidized Housing, showed that the author, James Bovard, was confused about the difference between project-based housing and tenant-based vouchers.  Very often he cited studies that included project-based housing units to argue against tenant-based vouchers, even though the studies he refers to argues in favor of tenant-based vocuhers.  I do a take-down here.

The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) wrote a response to the article, and I'm finaly getting around to linking to it.    NAHRO points out (as I did) that Mr. Bovard cherry-picked the facts that he thought would support his point, ignoring contradictory evidence.  NAHRO points out that there are studies and evidence in support of positive outcomes of the housing assistance programs:

In an attempt to characterize Section 8 voucher-assisted households as engaging in a greater percent of criminal acts than the general populace, he also cited an article by Hanna Rosin ("American Murder Mystery," from the Sept. 2008 issue of The Atlantic). However, this article was rebutted by Susan Popkin, who notes that "Rosin’s summary understates [the] positive results [of the research] and distorts the facts" and that she also disregards Stefanie DeLuca and colleagues’ recent findings that 15 to 20 years later, more than two-thirds of the families are still in better neighborhoods, and many mothers continue to enjoy employment gains and fewer require welfare." Claims from the Rosin article were also debunked by Xavier de Souza Briggs and NHI board member Peter Dreier.

Smaller Homes & Zoning Issues

A Journal Sentinel article by Paul Gores covers a builder, Miracle Homes, that is building a smaller home, "Mi-Pad" (I think that's Apple's lawyers on the other line), with a 3 bedroom and 2.5 bathrooms that supposedly sells for as low as $89,000.  Here's a hint-you don't need 2.5 bathrooms for a 3 bedroom home!

I don't see this on Miracle's website, but the article says they'll have two Mi-Pads for this year's Miracle Tour of Homes (apparently not to be confused with the Parade of Homes).

Here's what jumped out at me.

Not every community welcomes small homes, but Hignite said he's found that Mount Pleasant, Belgium and West Bend are among those that do.

My question is-why doesn't other communities welcome smaller homes (on, presumably, smaller lots)?  Smaller homes offer more affordable options for people, as well as options for lifestyle preferences.

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission offers a list of communities and their zoning policies.  As you can see, there are quite a range in the minimum sizes of single-family homes and minimum lot sizes.

I've heard jokes that very often many older dense areas would be illegal under modern zoning policies, and that's true to a large degree.  Zoning for new developments very often have larger requirements than older parts of the community.  To some extent, this is intended to bring in more upscale housing for more property tax revenue, but I suspect this will come back to bite many communities in the backside years later when those homes are no longer upscale, yet the community has to spend money to maintain the infrastructure and services for those homes.

Super-Pinocchio alert!

What is this?  Why, it's our old friend, the inspiration for the Pinocchio series of posts, Senator Ron Johnson!  I'm going to have so much fun with his most recent newsletter! Blogger really sucks at copying/pasting, so I'm going to have to fix the formatting.  Do you suppose if I send him a note asking him nicely to put his newsletters online so it's easier for me to mock him, he'll do it?  I don't suppose so.

Senator Johnson Outlines Plan for Economic Recovery

In the Washington Times this week, I outlined my plan for economic recovery. Since taking office in admittedly tough economic conditions, the president has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction. His failed $825-billion stimulus, Obamacare,  Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his administration’s other  job-killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy. Until these policies are reversed, the lack of confidence that dampens consumption, business investment and job creation will be the order of the day. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is blinded by ideology and refuses to acknowledge the harm his agenda has wreaked on America and our economic future. Fortunately, some in Congress understand the harm his agenda is causing and are working hard to reverse course.

As the former chief executive officer of a midsized manufacturing business, I do understand the value of the real job producers in America.   I also understand how Mr. Obama’s policies affect their ability to expand their businesses and create new jobs. What we need to do to get our economy moving again is pretty obvious. Here’s a short outline of the necessary components of a solution:

• Repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank: Neither of these laws fixed the problems they were designed to solve, and instead, they do far more harm than good.
• Regulation moratorium: The $1.75-trillion-per-year regulatory burden is making the United States a very unattractive place for  global business investment. Imposing a moratorium on new regulations is a necessary first step in reversing the damage. A bill I introduced last month would do just that.
• Credible plan to control spending: The elements of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people. Once consumers and investors are  convinced we have spending under control, confidence will return  to our economy.
• Tax reform: Our 70,000-page tax code costs taxpayers more than $300 billion in annual compliance costs to raise $2.2 trillion in revenue. It is riddled with special treatments that result in less efficient economic behavior. Reforms should make the system  more streamlined in a way that promotes rather than harms economic growth.
• Budget reform: I will work with House members to pass legislation that will:

              1. Replace “base-line” budgeting with “zero-based” budgeting.

              2. Require Congress and the administration to make all  entitlements structurally solvent for 75 years by fiscal 2014.

              3. Require all spending to be authorized regularly by Congress.  (Currently, 70 percent of the budget is on automatic pilot.)

              4. Replace the annual budget process with a biennial budget process that authorizes spending in Year 1 and conducts spending oversight in Year 2.

• Civil service hiring freeze: Controlling the size of the federal work force would be a powerful tool in limiting the size, scope and cost of government.
• Energy security: The United States should protect our national security and help ensure price competition by fully utilizing our own natural energy resources.
• Congressional “sunset” committees: Both the House and Senate should have permanent committees whose only focus would be on the elimination of unneeded laws and regulations. More often than  not, government has become part of the problem instead of the solution.

I am willing and eager to work with anyone who is serious about addressing the long-term fiscal crisis facing our nation. Hopefully, Mr. Obama will begin to realize the harm his agenda has caused and work with Congress to reverse course quickly.

Let's go through this step by step.

• Since taking office in admittedly tough economic conditions, the president has taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction.  Below, courtesy of Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, a graph of monthly job gains/losses:

 

 Red is toward the end of the Bush presidency, when the economy crashed.  Blue is the Obama presidency.  Is the good Senator saying he wants a return to the direction of the economy under Bush?

• His failed $825-billion stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations have combined to put a stranglehold on our economy. Whoa, that's quite a mouthful.  Let's unpack that a bit.
• Stimulus:  I don't know, this looks like the stimulus saved our butts.  Too bad we don't have another one for another jump-start.

• Obamacare: Does Senator Johnson understand that one cannot do a reform overnight?  That any reform takes time?  That it won't be fully implemented until 2020, with many of the major reforms occurring in 2013?  He brags about running a company, so even he should understand it takes time to line up all the elements.  He can't just go out on the floor and say, "You know what, toss those into the trash, we're going to do it this way instead."  No, he has to design products, line up new suppliers, figure a thousand details before the first new product rolls off the assembly line.
• Dodd-Frank: I'm frankly mystified by his, and other Republicans', position on financial reform.  Wall Street nearly trashed our country, and we spent massive amounts on bailouts.  Why wouldn't we, as taxpayers, want some kind of protection?  Just like health reform, it takes time to implement the financial reform.
• Explosion of his administration’s other job-killing regulations:  Republicans really love that turn of phrase, don't they?  "Job-killing regulations!"  They do toss it around at every chance they get.  Unfortunately for them, the truth is something else.  A survey of small businesses found that they weren't worried about regulations.  Indeed, some even welcomed them, and expressed a willingness to close some tax loopholes.  Guess who hates regulations?  Big corporations.
•  The elements of the “Cut, Cap and Balance” plan had the support of 66 percent to 74 percent of the American people.  Does Senator Johnson mean this CNN poll that, if you go into the gritty details, showed that 64% of respondents supported both spending cuts and tax increases?  The one that says 63% of Republicans have not acted responsibly in the debt ceiling debate?  The one where responses to Question #24 on potential cuts are virtually the opposite of Senator Johnson's positions?  Oh, that poll.
• Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is blinded by ideology and refuses to acknowledge the harm his agenda has wreaked on America and our economic future. Projection, baby, projection.
• Tax reform: Our 70,000-page tax code costs taxpayers more than $300 billion in annual compliance costs to raise $2.2 trillion in revenue. It is riddled with special treatments that result in less efficient economic behavior. We actually agree on the special treatments thing, although I imagine our definition is different.  After all, it was Senator Johnson's party that vigorously defended the tax loophole for corporate jets.  You know, the same corporate jets that corporate executives seem to be using as a personal perk for vacations rather than solely for business.
• Civil service hiring freeze: Controlling the size of the federal work force would be a powerful tool in limiting the size, scope and cost of government. The same federal workforce that's already at a relatively low level even though our population has grown?
• Energy security: The United States should protect our national security and help ensure price competition by fully utilizing our own natural energy resources. Well, perhaps companies should start fully utilizing the drilling permits they do have, rather than leaving 2/3 idle in 2010?
• Congressional “sunset” committees: Both the House and Senate should have permanent committees whose only focus would be on the elimination of unneeded laws and regulations. More often than not, government has become part of the problem instead of the solution.  Isn't plagiarizing unethical?
• I am willing and eager to work with anyone who is serious about addressing the long-term fiscal crisis facing our nation. I think the past few months have shown that Senator Johnson isn't. 

Phew! 

Thoughts on Fear, Inc.

Somebody decided to trace the money behind the rising anti-Islam activities, and came up with a network of moneyed folks who seem to like funding people who specialize in trying to scare people.  The result is Fear, Inc. 

Article Which Supports My Selfishness

I've argued that, from a viewpoint of pure selfishness, drivers should be supporting bicycle lanes and mass transit.  After all, every person on a bicycle or a bus/train is one less person on the road in front of you.

Now comes along a writer who supports my viewpoint.

Every additional trip we take on foot, on a bicycle or by public transit frees up significant space for drivers, since the “footprints” of these other modes are so much smaller. The cyclist beside you is not the car in front of you; the bicycle locked to a ring at curbside means one less parking space is taken.

What's Your Ideal City?

A kinda cool game, Urbanology, that identifies the city you most identify with.  They ask you just ten questions, but apparently have plenty more in stock, so each time you take the quiz, you won't see the same questions-or the same results.  A bit odd because the first two times I took it, it said I placed a low priority on innovation, but the third time, a high priority.

Go check it out.

The point of the quiz seems to be to make you think about issues that communities face.  The fun part is seeing how many people agreed-or disagreed-with you after each question.

Schools & Budgets

Some of my recent posts included discussions on the impact of state budget cuts on school budgets and the "budget repair bill" that allegedly would've offered schools a way to fix that.

I don't know about you, but I think it's weird for schools to ask parents for wipes and other classroom supplies.  What's next, toilet paper?

Tax Breaks for My Buddies and None for You

Apparently the Republican Party's Golden Boy likes his tax loopholes for people who give him money.

But a look at Ryan's record since he was elected to Congress in 1998 shows that he has tried to create an array of special loopholes for his top contributors, whose interests range from air fresheners to fraternity housing to beer.

But remember, it's those greedy poor people with Social Security and Medicare that's the problem!

Uh-oh, Someone's In Trouble

Really, how do you not know your actions were wrong?

Update on Pinocchio Watch & Nygren (Part II)

In a recent post, I conceded that Representative Nygren's claims about the effect of the budget repair bill on school districts seemed to be bearing out, no matter how I disagree with how it was done.

However, Representative Mason shared an article by Susan Troller for Capital Times that seems to explain what actions schools were forced to take in order to make ends meet.

Anecdotal evidence, backed up by a recent survey The Capital Times sent to school superintendents across the state, shows that a majority of those who responded, from districts large and small, are now operating with considerably fewer teachers and other staff. Only a small percentage have increased staff, reduced class size —shown to improve student achievement — or added programs.

Many responding districts report that savings from newly imposed employee benefit contributions — 12.6 percent of health insurance premium payments and a 5.8 percent salary contribution toward their pensions — have not been sufficient to get district school budgets to balance, and have required cuts elsewhere to offset the losses in state aid. In any case, the savings of these “tools” only provides a big boost once.

Go read the article.  It's quite depressing.

Fairness Doctorine Amusement

Kevin Drum discusses the conservative belief that liberals are just itchin' to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine, obessing about it far and wide despite the current apparent utter lack of interest on the part of liberals in doing it.  FCC formally laid that to rest on Monday, axing this and other "outdated" rules.

But first, let's look at what Wikipedia says the Fairness Doctrine (in use 1948-1987) means:

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.

Kevin Drum points to Google image search results on the topic of Fairness Doctrine.  Many are from conservative political cartoonists.  I was highly amused that the Fairness Doctrine, which required that contrasting views be presented, was interpreted repeatedly as meaning that conservative voices would be silenced, that they would be gagged.  Go take a look for yourself.

In case Google search results change eventually, here's a few examples.

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

Either they don't understand the Fairness Doctrine-which would be odd considering how long right-wingers have howled about it-or they truly believe that the presence of dissenting voices is the same as silencing their own voices.  What that says about their beliefs or ideals, I don't know-that it's so weak?

Update on Pinocchio Watch & Nygren

I previously criticized Representative Nygren for boasting about how certain school districts benefiting from the "budget repair bill."  I noted that Kaukana and Pewaukee were the only two school districts I could find that benefited from the repair bill, although the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel  reported that 410 of 424 will receive less public aid.  I pointed out that both are school districts from affluent communities.

In the interest of honesty, I have to share that Representative Nygren's latest newsletter now reports that the Marinette school district will also have a balanced budget.  Marinette is by no means an affluent community, so my theory that the richer school districts benefits more has taken a blow, although my point about none of those three school districts dealing with a voucher program like Milwaukee and Racine does still stands.

An earlier newsletter from Nygren also points to a Fox6 report (I have my doubts about anything FOX-related, but I'll give the local station the benefit of doubt) on this topic which seems to confirm his assertion that forcing teachers to contribute to their health care insurance and pension plans costs are a good thing. 

Maybe it is financially for the district, maybe it's "fair." But I know that many, many, many teachers spend their own money on school and classroom supplies without reimbursement from the school district.  Where's the "fairness" on that?  Not many of our employers expect us to spend our own money on job-related duties.  Funny how "fairness" only seems to operate one way.

Update Here with a better picture of what else school districts had to do to make their budgets work.

HUD & Rural Communities

With a name like Housing and Urban Development, it's easy to forget that HUD does work in rural communities as well.  They recently announced $28 million in grants for rural communities.  The Rural Innovation Fund is designed to "to address distressed housing conditions and concentrated poverty" in rural communities.

HUD awarded Rural Innovation Fund grants in three categories:

• Comprehensive Grants – 7 Comprehensive grants, in which grantees have examined the social, housing and economic needs and resources of their target areas and made proposals that address these needs through activities that will have sustained benefit and resources after HUD assistance is used. The maximum grant amount was $2,000,000 for this category.
• Single Purpose Grants – 31 Single Purpose grants, for more targeted initiatives, which typically focus primarily on either housing or economic development. The maximum award amount was $300,000 for this category.
• Economic Development and Entrepreneurship for Federally Recognized Tribes – 8 Indian Economic Development and Entrepreneurship grants, awarded from $5 million set aside for applications for federally recognized Indian tribes. The maximum award amount was $800,000 for this category.

Congratulations to two Wisconsin grantees.

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Hayward which received $789,063 "to enhance the tourism-based economy by creating a visitor’s center, museum, and gift shop located in former Kinnamon School, which will be renovated. The visitor’s center will promote tribal businesses and will provide a venue for the work of local crafts and tradespersons."

The Ho-Chunk Housing and Community Development Agency, in Tomah, received $300,000 for rehabbing 20 homes in Black Rivers, which includes geothermal heat-pump system and new basement insulation to increase energy efficiency by 63%.

Strange Standards

I had to laugh at this.

In a statement issued late Sunday, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they regretted that "this success was so long in coming due to the failure of the United States to employ the full weight of our airpower."

"Ultimately, our intervention in Libya will be judged a success or failure based not on the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, but on the political order that emerges in its place," the two senators said.

"Ultimately, our intervention in Libya will be judged a success or failure based not on the collapse of the Qaddafi regime, but on the political order that emerges in its place," the two senators said.

 Look, I get that Republicans don't want to credit any part of the successes in Libya to the United States, and by extension, President Obama, especially with an election coming up.  But the degree to which they're abstaining from crediting our role is ridiculous.

Never mind the fact that the NATO forces were literally running out of targets in Libya.  The double standard here is breathtaking.    Remember that the rebellion in Libya began in Feburary, and apparently is concluding in September, an impressive timeline.  I don't pretend to know what happens next-probably nobody does.  But without the loss of American lives, compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, this has been a resounding success.

Yet by the good Senators' standards, this isn't good enough.  No, we have to wait and see what happens next.  Fine, maybe that's a fair standard, but certainly not one they held President Bush to as he invaded two countries, both which still are ongoing, incidentally, costing us billions of dollars and many lost lives.

Untouchables

I'm starting to think we have a new class of "Untouchables" in this country.  We have regulatory agencies like Moody's and SEC conspiring to, respectively, give higher ratings to make clients happy (remember those ratings are supposed to be rational and objective), and to literally shred/delete preliminary investigations, despite a law requiring them to archive all of their information.  Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone did a great story on the SEC cover-up.  Go check it out.

Balloon Juice asks a good question regarding the Moody's situation;

Again, I am not a lawyer, but what exactly has to happen before this stuff falls under RICO. How is this not an organized crime situation?

In an earlier article for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibi opens with this:

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

I've said before that it's not that the poor commits more crime like everyone believes, it's that the rich have more options.  And apparently they have a Get Out Of Jail Lifetime Pass as well.

Follow Up

As a follow up to my previous post, I'd like to note, once again, the biggest housing subsidy is the home mortgage interest deduction program (and other smaller homeownership-related programs).  But there are no oversight or requirements associated with owning a home with that subsidy like there is for renting a home using rental assistance.  Evidently it doesn't matter what crimes I commit if I own a home, but if I rent...then hell breaks loose.

Odious Wall Street

The Wall Street Journal, infamous for its blindly conservative leanings in its editorial pages, has come out with an odious editorial by James Bovard on Section 8 Housing, "Raising Hell in Subsidized Housing", which unfortunately is walled off behind a subscription. 

I'll quote from it as much as I can without violating the "fair use" principle, although I fear there is so much odiousness in it that I might very well end up quoting it in its entirety.

Something Cool

"The 5 Most Incredible Stories of Pimped Out Wheelchairs!"

Wow.

The New York Times has an article on California's Lancaster and its deplorable response to an influx of Section 8 Voucher holders seeking cheap housing in the community after the market crash.  Lancaster, a L.A. suburb, is a city with a population of 157,000, and the market crash doubled its number of the Section 8 (from the county housing authority) voucher holders to 3,700 which by my math is .02% of the population.  Palmdale, another city in the Antelope Valley, had a similar influx, and a similar response.  But because they apparently had the good sense to keep their mouth shut with media, the article focuses mostly on Lancaster.
Lancaster had such an extreme response that they were actually doing frequent check-ups on the households using Section 8 in an effort to catch them at a rule violation.  And that's not all.

She said that in the last few years, her Palmdale home had been the target of intense investigations, with dozens of sheriff’s deputies showing up at her door repeatedly and intimidating her four children. After neighbors learned that the family received a housing voucher, a group of boys threw urine at her youngest son and yelled racial epithets when he was walking to school one morning.

“It turned into a nightmare where we were just afraid to leave our house,” said the woman, who is black. “The reason we came out here some years ago was so we didn’t have to be afraid.”

There is a widespread resentment against the influx of Section 8 participants in the area. The local newspaper, The Antelope Valley Press, prominently features stories about people with any kind of Section 8 violation. “I hate Section 8” became almost a rallying cry — a Facebook page by that name featured pictures of some rental homes. In January, the garage of one such home was spray painted with a racial epithet and the “I hate Section 8” message.       

And why does Lancaster hate Section 8?  Apparently they're destroying neighborhoods (again, .02% of population) and Lancaster contends that Lancaster and Palmdale have a disproportionate number of vouchers from the county in their community.  They contend that there is a lack of social services and there is no real safety net for the voucher holders in the Valley.

He said that by not providing the city with more money to provide social services or warning potential residents that there is little public transportation, the county was “just sending people here to die.”   He has repeatedly said that the program simply “moves the urban poor to the hard-working suburbs.... People come here with no support network, no family at home to help them, nothing but just a house to live in,” Mr. Parris said. “It makes no sense to encourage them to come.”           

Now, because this blog is all about better policies, let's examine this from a policy perspective.

Would the correct response be to limit the number of Section 8 vouchers permitted in the community?  No, because the Section 8 voucher allows people to live wherever they can find an affordable home in the housing authority's service area (county in this case).  Section 8 also allows people to move to other communities-it's called porting. 

Aggressive enforcement like this is, in the larger picture, a useless action because one of the goals of the program is to move people closer to job opportunities, better schools, etc. so that the households can improve their lives to the extent they are no longer poor.  Kicking people out of the program needlessly simply ensures that they remain poor.

So instead of allocating funding toward enforcement, they should've hired people to work with the households, to help them integrate better into the community.  Ensure that they have access to the resources in the community-for example, one of the items in the article mentioned a rising crime rate until the aggressive enforcement began (and I'd want to see real statistics before I believe that).  Perhaps ensuring kids get involved in after-school programs, connecting other household adults with jobs programs, community college, etc. would've helped.

This is hardly the first time that an influx of voucher holders have moved from urban areas into the suburbs, so a search for best practices would've been a step.  Did that happen?  A quick search led me, within seconds, to Baltimore's Housing Mobility Program which does exactly what the Mayor talked about-it provides a support system.

Applicants who pass back-ground checks and meet other eligibility criteria enroll in MBQ’s counseling program, where they are prepared to succeed as tenants in more competitive housing markets.  Participants are taken through budgeting and financial education and are guided by counselors who serve as motivational coaches.  Bus tours introduce participants to the myriad of employment, education, and health-related amenities in high-opportunity neighborhoods. Participants save for a security deposit and, when  they are ready to move, work with their counselor to find a house or apartment that suits their needs.

I really wish that people would look for better policy responses to perceived problems rather than simply trying to make it go away one way or another.

Rental Housing Policy Articles

I think something many people don't realize is just how much work there is being done to find the best approach, the best policy, the best way, etc. in various programs and services.  Housing is no different.  HUD's current Cityscape issue has a focus on rental housing policies.  I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but if you're interested in rental housing policies, this is a good issue for you.

Regulatory Effectiveness and the Environment

Two Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel articles, unintentionally, started me mulling on my thoughts for this post.

The first, an article by Dan Egan, "The Lake left me.  It's gone." looks at the decline and death of commercial fishing in Lake Michigan, focusing on the departure of Milwaukee's last commercial fishing boat to Alaska.  The article notes that although the fishing stock began to decline due to the overfishing, the death blow was the arrival of the quagga mussels that pretty much took over the lake bottom, estimated in numbers at 900 trillion (yes, that's the number in the article, with a 't'!).  The invasive mussels arrived in ballast tanks that were discharged into the lake waters.

What could've saved commercial fishing?  As noted in the article, there were two factors; the overfishing and the mussels.  Both are situations where stronger regulatory efforts could've preserved those jobs.

1. Better controls (or other solutions) on catchs allowed by commercial fishers could've preserved the fishing stock.  Overfishing is an ongoing problem all around the world.  Unfortunately, fishing interests and sympathetic lawmakers have stymied efforts worldwide.
2. Better regulations on ships entering the Great Lakes from other parts of the world could've prevented the entry of mussels into the eco system.  Part of the problem is shipping interests that dislike regulations (just like any other industry), and part of the problem is resistance on the part of some ("Republicans" ) to any regulatory efforts.

The second article that caught my eye was Sand mines create jobs, concern by Lee Bergquist.  It covers the growth of mines extracting sand in western Wisconsin.  Those mines have a special type of sand used to extract oil and natural gases. 

But there are concerns:

Opponents have raised concerns about air and groundwater pollution, and residents living near sites have objected to truck traffic and concerns over falling home values....

Questions are also being raised over whether the industry needs more regulation. A chief concern is crystalline silica, an air particulate of sand mining that has prompted public health concerns.

A decision on whether Wisconsin should limit silica emissions has not been made, and there has been little progress since it was first considered seven years ago, a DNR report acknowledges.

"It's an emerging situation with plenty of questions that deserve to be answered," said John W. Welter, an Eau Claire attorney who recently ended a six-year term on the state Natural Resources Board and now serves as conservation coordinator in the western Great Lakes region of Trout Unlimited.

"There isn't a lot of regulatory oversight and now is the time for research and vigilance to find out what level of protection is necessary."

As someone who looks at housing issues frequently, I am very familiar with the issue of Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) and doubtless that may be motivating some of the opponents, but when you have a large scale operation like a mine with potential environmental problems (one might even say proven instead of potential), there are valid concerns.

But because those mines are moving into rural areas with little zoning oversight, it's unlikely that there will be much resistance.  After all, what county board is going to fight this:

"Anytime you can inject $100 million in capital in a 50-mile area, that's huge," (president and chief executive officer of the Chippewa County Economic Development Corp)Walker said.

It seems that jobs always truimph.

A spokesman for a company, Unimin, said "I don't think that people are focused on the fact that silica is one of the most prevalent substances on Earth - it's sand."  Guess what?  Water is also one of the most prevalent substances on the earth, but if you try to breath water, you're going to have problems, too!

Who Does Not Pay Taxes?

I've been enjoying the "Who Does Not Pay Taxes?" series of newsletters from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future.  Their August poster child is a well-known multinational corporation based in Racine that does not pay any state taxes-not a single cent between 2000 and 2008.  But I bet it used plenety of state infrastructures, services, and had plentiful access to politicos. 

The newsletter also takes a slam at the non-profit tax exemption given to large health care systems.

Evil

Evil.  Just Evil.

Sad thing is, this makes perfect sense from the bank's perspective.

Group Homes Approved in Waukesha

Waukesha's Plan Commission approved two group homes by St. Coletta.  Initially the Catholic service organization wanted to build two group homes in Welsh Oaks, but later modified it after opposition to one in Welsh Oaks (approved in a previous meeting) and one in Rolling Ridge South (approved in the recent meeting).

I always have mixed feelings about city ordinances limiting the number of group homes, or limiting how close they can be to each other.  It's a unquestionable violation of the Fair Housing Act in my view since it limits the choices of people with disabilities, so I'm mostly against those types of ordinances.

But I wouldn't want to see multiple group homes in neighborhoods creating "ghettos of disability" either, since providers tend to like to cluster their facilities for easier staff transit.

New Approach to Foreclosed Homes

A while ago I discussed the City of Milwaukee selling foreclosed houses that they own to Gorman & Company, who then will use tax credits to rehab the properties and rent them out.  Since then, the City has entered a similar agreement with developers Maures and Brinshore.

Now the federal government is getting into the action-sort of.  They're looking at ways to convert foreclosed houses into rental housing, and easing the pressure on home sale prices that are depressed by the glut of foreclosed homes on the market.

I'm of mixed feelings about this.  On one hand, actions like what the City has done, and what the federal government might do, could be seen as subsidies to investors.  With the City, because of the involvement of tax credits from the state, it's a double bonus; they get affordable rental housing, and they get run-down houses that will be rehabbed and improved, as well as maintained for the next thirty years.

But a program like the City's is unlikely to be replicated on a national level, which means that there likely will be no affordability requirements, and who knows what will be involved regarding maintenance.  This could very well end up being a new generation of slumlords who put the bare minimum into the properties.  There'd have to be some kind of upkeeping requirement and oversight, which won't be popular.

Pinocchio Watch

In my ongoing Pinocchio Watch, I noticed that Senator Johnson had the following in his August 5 newsletter:

Senator Johnson Answers Constituent Calls During Debt Ceiling Debate

Um, no.  As a  constitutent, I called his office, spoke to Senator Johnson's staff and asked specifically which programs he would cut if the Cut Cap Balance that he supported so much was passed.  I received a form letter telling me quite literally nothing.  If that's his idea of "answering" then millions of students would've gotten better grades in school!

Freeman Comes Out for Mortgage Interest Deduction Reform

In this period of debt hysteria, the home mortgage interest deduction has come under some attention.  A subsidy previously considered untouchable is now being examined for its impact and effectiveness.  Detractors argue that it disproportionally benefits the well-off, and people would've bought homes anyway. 

The Waukesha Freeman, hardly a liberal rag, has taken a cautious stance on the issue, arguing that "... as part of a resetting of federal taxing and spending, Congress should carefully trim the deduction, keeping a meaningful break where it does the most good."

I've previously covered this question, latest entry here,  In a different one, I noted that

The president's fiscal year 2010 budget reports that, in 2012, the MID will cost the federal Treasury an estimated $131 billion, much more than the total of all outlays by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ($48 billion). Homeowners also benefit from other federal tax preferences, including deductibility of residential property taxes on owner-occupied homes ($31 billion), and exclusion of tax on the first $250,000 ($500,000 for joint returns) of capital gains on housing ($50 billion).

Deregulation and Pollution

Want to know what a world with minimal and lax regulations would look like?  Try this cheery article about the massive oil pollution in Nigeria.  There you have a climate where corporations have free reins\ in a country with little accountability.  The situation in Nigeria was finally brought to London because the Nigeria justice system was not holding corporations accountable.

That'd never happen here, right?....Right?!?

Look, I'm not saying regulation is always the right answer-there has to be a balance and sometimes we'll go too far in one direction or another, which is why it should be an open transparent process with hearings and input from stakeholders.  We should give agencies the authority to determine the reasonable standard, without interference from grandstanding politicos.

Pinocchio Watch

A few days I talked about a new recurring feature that would look at what legislators are saying in their newsletters and calling them on misstatements.  I very nearly named it Johnson Watch in honor of Senator Johnson who inspired this feature.  But given the ahem...double meaning of the word...I decided to search for a new name.  This now will be known as the Pinocchio Watch!  Up at bat this week is Wisconsin State Representative Nygren.

Budget Repair Bill Yields Lower Class Sizes for School Districts

It has only been a month since Governor Walker has signed the new state budget, yet we are already seeing positive results from reforms that we have put in place.

We are seeing the media report across the state that local governments and school districts have already saved more than $220 million in operating costs with millions more likely savings yet to be reported.

The Kaukauna School District, who reported major savings due to changes in the budget repair bill, is now reporting they will have the ability to hire additional teachers.  This will reduce the projected class sizes from 26 to 23 students at their elementary schools and an astounding 31 to 25 students at the high school level.

Offering smaller classroom sizes will give teachers the ability to have more one on one time with their students.  The school district is also reporting they will have money to set aside for merit bonuses for good teachers.

This is, yet again, another case in which Madison special interests continued to spread lies to the public to save their six-figure union salaries.  The head of the teachers’ union Mary Bell, who each year makes $173,466 (2009 WEAC 990 Form) (IRS.gov) from taxpayer funded union dues, said that class sizes would be threatened under the budget repair bill.      

These claims were flat out lies, yet Madison special interests were more than willing to preach them like the Gospel.  For once, the majority party in Madison has put this state’s taxpayers before the liberal special interests in Madison.

Indeed, the whole conservative movement seems to be flogging the Kaukana example online, as if it was-how did Rep. Nygen put it?-Gospel. 

First...don't you love how he conflates "local governments and school districts" to show the $220 million in savings but headlines it as school districts alone?  The fact is, I'm only able to find ONE school district that had a surplus-the school district he named, Kaukana, and not all of the credit goes to the budget repair bill.  Greg Sargent of the Washington Post noted that teachers already offered concessions that would've produced similar savings-if not more.

In April, the school board rejected a proposal from the Kaukauna Education Association to extend the union’s contract and incorporate pension and healthcare concessions along with a wage freeze, a move the union projected could save the district about $1.8 million next year.

Rep. Nygren pretends that Kaukana is representative of all school districts, but the truth is, Kaukana is an outlier.  The Journal-Seninel notes that 410 of 424 school districts will receive less public aid.  Because of caps to property tax levy also passed in the budget repair billl, many communities do not have much flexibility to attempt to balance out the cuts with other funding.

Kaukana and Pewaukee, the two communities mentioned in the article, are both communities with household income above the average.  In the meantime, school districts like Milwaukee and Racine, both cities with lower household income, are  two school districts that get hit with a double whammy-state budget cuts AND school voucher program requirement which takes money away from their schools.