After reading this little gem on teh Internetz, I have concluded that the vast majority of Americans just don't get it. Or at the very least, those that read the New York Times and decide to comment on articles. Me, I forwent posting a commentary on the website that nobody will read in favor of a commentary on my blog that nobody will read. It seems a fair exchange of words.
Right now, in some 30 states, a campaign is being waged entitled "Recession 101". Billboards have sprung up across America reminding Americans to think less about the recession. I, for one, have never improved my situation by worrying about it, so I think that this is a good reminder to people that things can and do get better.
Some of the gems include:
"This will be over long before those responsible are paroled."
"Bill Gates started Microsoft in a Recession."
"Self worth is greater than Net Worth."
All of these are great messages and serve as reminders on the road of life that maybe you should worry about something other than money. In my experience, dwelling on a problem makes it worse. That's why I don't even bother to count my money. I set up direct deposit, my bills autodraft from my account, and I know that I have a budget of $70 a week to live off of. I have no clue how much money is in my bank account. Hopefully, if I continue to live within my frugal ways, my new income from my job promotion will turn into incredible savings. I even just started a 401(k). PetSmart matches 50% contributions up to 6% of pay. I'm already vested because I've been there so long. I'm just awesome.
But I don't want to talk about the futility of counting money like it has actual value. It's a fiat currency, which is why they print "In God We Trust" on the bills. It's because the powers that be don't know if it's going to have any worth tomorrow. Fiat currencies are great for inflation...I digress again.
I want to talk about the extreme pessimism that people have towards these billboards. I mean, WOW!!!
A select few quotes that are indicative of the general commentary:
"Obviously the anonymous East Coast donor isn’t much affected by the recession if he (?) has the extra funds to underwrite this."
"The tone of derisive dismissal in the slogans is particularly galling, knowing its author is himself very rich."
"More trash for America — obviously this rich person isn’t being taxed enough to pay for medical care, close the budget deficit, support the WARZ — whatever….wonder does he take this money off his taxes — via his charity in which case those who pay their taxes and all the regressive fees are in fact subsidizing this nonsense. more info please…"
These are typical of the ad hominem attacks of people that are relative captives of the current economic mess and lash out at those they perceive as their 'Better.' Or, more correct, those they believe think they believe they are someone's better.
But if you look at the actual ideas behind the comments, these people consider those that fund the billboards as somewhat repsonsible. "You have money. We don't. Therefore, you must be doing something illegal/wrong/unethical," is the general psychology of these types of comments. It is interesting that these people aspire to the "Rich" class, while demeaning those that are there. One wonders if they will change the system once they get there. At least the third person asked for more information.
My personal favorite: "Well, let’s see, the REST of the story is the WHO part. Who is the anonymous donor of these signs? Whoever he/she/it is should have donated the money to help some people who are unemployed. HYPOCRITE!" Well, firstly, we don't know that this person isn't donating money to the unemployed. Secondly, should he stop giving money to the employed to give to the unemployed? Meaning, should he stop funding jobs by providing billboards so that those that are unemployed can stay unemployed? I don't understand the obvious lack of sympathy for the "Rich, billboard purveyor". I mean, he's doing a good service by pumping liquidity into the economy by spending money on billboars, which are expensive endeavors. I don't know all the financial ramifications of billboard economics, but I know that someone has to design the signs, someone has to construct it. I'm sure there is regular maintenance to perform. I'm also sure that the rent of the billboard itself is significantly higher than the actual cost associated with the constructive elements of the billboard. This translates to liquidity in the market. The property management can use the excess funds from the billboard to shore up liquidity in other areas that I'm sure the billboard managment company is involved in.
If I was an optimist and the type of person to makes a commentary on the New York Times site, I might make the following:
"Praise be the (wo)man, who in time of recession, chose to use his money to fund jobs in the billboard industry, forsaking actual advertisement and therefore, a return on his money; in favor of pure, un-adulterated donation of his hard-earned cash in the hopes of inspiring people to value people and relationships, over money."
Suze Orman sums it up for me: "People First. Then Money. Then Things."
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Saving Money Equals Spending!
It's dismaying to hear people talk about saving like it's a bad thing. "So many people are saving their money, it's ruining the economy!!!"
Well, let's look at the ways in which you can "save" money.
1) Mattress saving--Literally, sticking it under your mattress. Only you have access to your money. It garners no interest; it garners no risk (other than from fire or what-not). No multiplier effect takes place. No jobs are created. Eventually, though, the idea is that this money will be spent on something or other. That spending goes to people with jobs. Those people will most likely later use the cash to buy "Stuff" with a net end result of "Spending."
Why this form of Saving is Bad for the Economy
Conventional wisdom says that some portion of this money will be subtracted from the assets in the aggregate economy because it WILL catch fire, or be lost, or some other manner in which the cash will not be usable again.
Why It May Be Good for the Economy
Non-conventional wisdom says this may be a good thing. If you take that money and spend it, then you are creating demand for whatever it is you buy because you are increasing the scarcity of the commodity. If, however, that money is taken out of circulation, you are not creating demand by buying anything, and "deflation" occurs on EVERY commodity because you are not buying any of EVERYthing.
Clarification
It's also unclear whether this is deflation or just an advanced form of depreciation (if you wait a sufficiently long enough period of time, the value of your money becomes Zero (0). Burning money just speeds along that depreciation (but the depreciation of money is called inflation, so that's this issue is unclear).
Ancient Egyptian Counter-Argument
If, however, burning money is such a bad thing, then why did the ancient Egyptians do an equivalent thing and bury their dead with Assets, effectively taking them off the market and encouraging deflation? Well, they also had slaves... I digress.
2) Savings account--This is the way banks used to loan money. You save with a bank, the bank promises a low-interest for using your money to grant loans. Decades ago, this was pretty much the only reliable way to manage savings. I also lump CD's and other saving devices into this group. When the banks issue loans with your cash, jobs are created and the workers use their wages to buy "Stuff" with a net result of "Spending."
How Banks Loan Money Nowadays
Awhile back, banks figured out that they didn't actually have to have money in their coffers to issue loans because they figured out that not people rarely ask for their money back once they put it in the bank. That's because we use a nifty little thing like "Notes" that have no intrinsic value, except what we place on it (plus we use electronic transfers for upwards of 50% of our spending. I have no clue of an exact number).
Well, when banks figured out that they could issue loans with money they didn't have, they originally made sure that the loans they issued had an upwards of 99% chance of No-Default (Let's call it 3 standard deviations from the norm). The reason was if someone defaulted on a loan for which there wasn't any money to begin with, the bank would be screwed.
Well, after awhile, banks figured out that as long as their rate of default was abnormally low, they could issue more loans and even take a loss by issuing some loans at slightly higher risk levels. So, they could issue loans to people with a 95% chance of No-Default (Call this 2 standard deviations from the norm). As long as the banks issue more loans that are good than are bad, the bank will turn a profit and can still provide the cash to its depositors.
How can it provide cash to the depositors?
Well, a bank issues loans to somebody or a company. That entity typically either spends the loan outright and the person receiving the loan money deposits it into the bank, or the entity receiving the loan deposits it in the bank outright. Either way, the cash ends up in the bank for use.
So, essentially, banks loan out money that they then get back into their coffers.
The Federal Reserve requires that banks keep something like 10% of all money they loan out in liquid cash in the bank vaults, but banks have figured out using the above bogus accounting rules that for every $100,000 they loan out, they only need about $1,100 in liquidity.
Loophole in the Rule
Using real rules of the Federal Reserve, with that $1,100, they should be able to loan out a maximum of around $10,000. But since that $10,000 is going to end up back in the bank because somebody is going to deposit it somewhere down the line, the bank knows that it can use that $10,000 of loan money to issue $100,000 in loan, using the same Federal Reserve requirement rule.
Now obviously, the money that a bank loans out may not go back into the coffers of that bank. But when taken in the aggregate of all banks loaning to all individuals, statistically the money spreads itself around so that any money issued by a bank comes back to that bank at a future point in time. Statistically, there's no difference between the loan money going into this bank versus that one.
I think the current economic crisis, while based on the fact that banks are providing loans at high risk without the cash requirement to support it, is nothing more than a natural response to issuing all that money without "stuff" behind it. I also think that banks have relaxed their "stringent" 2 standard deviations for 1 standard deviation, which is closer to 68% chance of No-Default. The 95% makes sense because humans typically fall in the 95% range. The 68% NEVER makes sense, either in science, math, or in budgeting (which confuses me why the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both use the 1 standard deviation when making sure that their figures are accurate).
But when you issue money at rates 100x the actual "money" that exists, it is only natural that eventually the market will "contract" to compensate for the difference between money having been spent in the past and the assets that actually exist. I'm sure if I had more knowledge of how bank loans were measured, I could calculate how much of the recent economic contraction was equal to the number of loans being issued at that 1 standard deviation level of 68%.
Paradoxically, banks almost always require collateral to issue a loan. Seems a double-standard, doesn't it?
Also, paradoxically, as banks issue more loans without the necessary cash reserve, the excess flow of money causes inflation, which drives up the price of goods. As the price of goods increase, people require more loan money in order to buy these assets. Inevitable result: Market contraction to the actual value of the assets in question.
3)Investments--Large risk if you're investing for quick bursts of cash. Lesser risk if you're doing long-term portfolio investing in stable markets. The important part when considering investments is that since the money is usually channeled through the stock market, the money you are providing is being used as capital by the company itself. So, the $100,000 in your 401(k) is being used by car companies to retool their factories, thus creating jobs. The people in these jobs use their newfound salary to buy "Stuff" with a net result of "Spending." Not to mention you earn the equivalent of Interest from your investment. As a company's value increases, so do the share of your assets you own in the company. Hopefully, these assets increase at rates greater than the rate of inflation. If the interest is re-invested, then you almost always get a return greater than inflation. If you start using dividends to "Spend", while this is good for local economies, it's not so good from an investment standpoint because you personally lose Rate of Return. No, it's better to leave money invested for as long as possible. Ideally, retirement.
How Risk is Really Decided
Stock market investment is really only risky if you invest for the short-term for quick profit, of if you invest in risky companies. Given time, short-ranged market contractions cancel out and your initial investment always nets a gain. This isn't to say that if you plan on retiring and all of a sudden the market takes a nose-dive and your 401(k) loses about 50% of its value that you'll come out on top. Sure that 50% is still worth more than your original investment. But you'll have to reconfigure your retirement plans by either working another couple of years, or by planning on withdrawing less from your stash while you're in retirement. Both options suck, but then again, you invested in the free market instead of municipal bonds like Suze Orman told you to, which I guess are still free market, but a lot less risky.
The only other way it's risky is if you get companies like Enron, WorldCom, etc. that use faulty accounting practices to "prop up" their value. In the case of WorldCom, the accounts were actually using the depreciation of their assets and calling it "re-capitalization," i.e. buying new assets. It's the equivalent of saying that the $2,000 in value your new car loses every year is being spent "buying $2,000 worth of new car." Doesn't make sense. Since depreciation is on a paper a "profit" it looked like WorldCom was doing good. Not so. I think their stock is back up to twenty cents a share if you can find a market that still carries it.
There's no real way to prevent accounting fraud, except to have a well-funded and well-policed SEC (the guys in charge of making sure companies on the stock exchange obey accounting rules). If WorldCom hadn't had exorbitant Top-Level-Management Salaries, WorldCom might still be around. CEO pay=A bitch.
4) Asset Ownership--This is buying houses and land and holding your cash in the value of a property or other asset. Classic cars, antique vases, etc. These typically involve a direct transfer of assets (cash) for another one (house) with the belief that the second asset will increase in value faster than inflation diminishes the value of the first asset. This isn't a reliable method of savings, but I put it here because many people erroneously think it is. If you think you're saving money by buying a house, just look at all the factors that go into determining property values (Value of house; Perceived value of house; Desirability of house in relationship to neighboring houses, property values in the area; job market in the area; desirability of the city; many other factors not directly related to the actual value of the house). As you can see, there's a lot of risk that goes into buying a house, so much so that it's not investing so much as it's just pure risk-taking.
Can Assets Truly be Saving
You can, of course, hedge your bets by buying properties and then renting them out, but that brings about an entirely new set of headaches. At that point, asset ownership becomes more along the lines of investing, which is a truer form of savings. The difference is that you become the business you're investing in. Most people wouldn't invest in someone like themselves, so I would invest in you either. :D
Assuming that at some point you do sell/auction off your asset, a transfer of cash occurs. Regardless of whether you sell your house at a loss or a profit, someone will pay you for the value of your house, and you turn around and use that cash to buy "stuff". So, in the end, asset ownership still nets a result of "Spending," not to mention that someone just "Spent" money on your house.
I think I covered all the basics of saving money. The point, however, is that any saving done has an end result of "Spending." Or to put it another way:
So if Saving=Spending, then what doesn't equal spending?
I shall take the economics easy way out and say, "It depends." If someone spends 100% of their earnings, but no more, then that constitutes Spending. Notice how I make a distinction between Spending and spending.
If, however, someone spends 100+% of their earnings, then the percentage higher than 100% DOES NOT equal Spending. I would classify this as the equivalent of WorldCom recapitalizing their assets. Until the debt is fully paid off, any multiplicative effect from this debt-spending is not true spending. Also, as a corollary, if a person spends 100% of their earnings, but no more, and a portion of their earnings is spent on interest on debt, then that interest does not equal Spending.
So, when all these "economists" (i.e. populist political commentators) say that people aren't spending money because they're saving, they're missing the point. Money saved is money Spent! And how you save depends on how much money gets Spent in the end. Money invested nearly always has a higher multiplier effect than money put put into a savings account, and always has a Multiplier effect compared to Mattress-Stuffing.
Populist Political Commentators only know how to do one thing: Be full of themselves.
Well, let's look at the ways in which you can "save" money.
1) Mattress saving--Literally, sticking it under your mattress. Only you have access to your money. It garners no interest; it garners no risk (other than from fire or what-not). No multiplier effect takes place. No jobs are created. Eventually, though, the idea is that this money will be spent on something or other. That spending goes to people with jobs. Those people will most likely later use the cash to buy "Stuff" with a net end result of "Spending."
Why this form of Saving is Bad for the Economy
Conventional wisdom says that some portion of this money will be subtracted from the assets in the aggregate economy because it WILL catch fire, or be lost, or some other manner in which the cash will not be usable again.
Why It May Be Good for the Economy
Non-conventional wisdom says this may be a good thing. If you take that money and spend it, then you are creating demand for whatever it is you buy because you are increasing the scarcity of the commodity. If, however, that money is taken out of circulation, you are not creating demand by buying anything, and "deflation" occurs on EVERY commodity because you are not buying any of EVERYthing.
Clarification
It's also unclear whether this is deflation or just an advanced form of depreciation (if you wait a sufficiently long enough period of time, the value of your money becomes Zero (0). Burning money just speeds along that depreciation (but the depreciation of money is called inflation, so that's this issue is unclear).
Ancient Egyptian Counter-Argument
If, however, burning money is such a bad thing, then why did the ancient Egyptians do an equivalent thing and bury their dead with Assets, effectively taking them off the market and encouraging deflation? Well, they also had slaves... I digress.
2) Savings account--This is the way banks used to loan money. You save with a bank, the bank promises a low-interest for using your money to grant loans. Decades ago, this was pretty much the only reliable way to manage savings. I also lump CD's and other saving devices into this group. When the banks issue loans with your cash, jobs are created and the workers use their wages to buy "Stuff" with a net result of "Spending."
How Banks Loan Money Nowadays
Awhile back, banks figured out that they didn't actually have to have money in their coffers to issue loans because they figured out that not people rarely ask for their money back once they put it in the bank. That's because we use a nifty little thing like "Notes" that have no intrinsic value, except what we place on it (plus we use electronic transfers for upwards of 50% of our spending. I have no clue of an exact number).
Well, when banks figured out that they could issue loans with money they didn't have, they originally made sure that the loans they issued had an upwards of 99% chance of No-Default (Let's call it 3 standard deviations from the norm). The reason was if someone defaulted on a loan for which there wasn't any money to begin with, the bank would be screwed.
Well, after awhile, banks figured out that as long as their rate of default was abnormally low, they could issue more loans and even take a loss by issuing some loans at slightly higher risk levels. So, they could issue loans to people with a 95% chance of No-Default (Call this 2 standard deviations from the norm). As long as the banks issue more loans that are good than are bad, the bank will turn a profit and can still provide the cash to its depositors.
How can it provide cash to the depositors?
Well, a bank issues loans to somebody or a company. That entity typically either spends the loan outright and the person receiving the loan money deposits it into the bank, or the entity receiving the loan deposits it in the bank outright. Either way, the cash ends up in the bank for use.
So, essentially, banks loan out money that they then get back into their coffers.
The Federal Reserve requires that banks keep something like 10% of all money they loan out in liquid cash in the bank vaults, but banks have figured out using the above bogus accounting rules that for every $100,000 they loan out, they only need about $1,100 in liquidity.
Loophole in the Rule
Using real rules of the Federal Reserve, with that $1,100, they should be able to loan out a maximum of around $10,000. But since that $10,000 is going to end up back in the bank because somebody is going to deposit it somewhere down the line, the bank knows that it can use that $10,000 of loan money to issue $100,000 in loan, using the same Federal Reserve requirement rule.
Now obviously, the money that a bank loans out may not go back into the coffers of that bank. But when taken in the aggregate of all banks loaning to all individuals, statistically the money spreads itself around so that any money issued by a bank comes back to that bank at a future point in time. Statistically, there's no difference between the loan money going into this bank versus that one.
I think the current economic crisis, while based on the fact that banks are providing loans at high risk without the cash requirement to support it, is nothing more than a natural response to issuing all that money without "stuff" behind it. I also think that banks have relaxed their "stringent" 2 standard deviations for 1 standard deviation, which is closer to 68% chance of No-Default. The 95% makes sense because humans typically fall in the 95% range. The 68% NEVER makes sense, either in science, math, or in budgeting (which confuses me why the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both use the 1 standard deviation when making sure that their figures are accurate).
But when you issue money at rates 100x the actual "money" that exists, it is only natural that eventually the market will "contract" to compensate for the difference between money having been spent in the past and the assets that actually exist. I'm sure if I had more knowledge of how bank loans were measured, I could calculate how much of the recent economic contraction was equal to the number of loans being issued at that 1 standard deviation level of 68%.
Paradoxically, banks almost always require collateral to issue a loan. Seems a double-standard, doesn't it?
Also, paradoxically, as banks issue more loans without the necessary cash reserve, the excess flow of money causes inflation, which drives up the price of goods. As the price of goods increase, people require more loan money in order to buy these assets. Inevitable result: Market contraction to the actual value of the assets in question.
3)Investments--Large risk if you're investing for quick bursts of cash. Lesser risk if you're doing long-term portfolio investing in stable markets. The important part when considering investments is that since the money is usually channeled through the stock market, the money you are providing is being used as capital by the company itself. So, the $100,000 in your 401(k) is being used by car companies to retool their factories, thus creating jobs. The people in these jobs use their newfound salary to buy "Stuff" with a net result of "Spending." Not to mention you earn the equivalent of Interest from your investment. As a company's value increases, so do the share of your assets you own in the company. Hopefully, these assets increase at rates greater than the rate of inflation. If the interest is re-invested, then you almost always get a return greater than inflation. If you start using dividends to "Spend", while this is good for local economies, it's not so good from an investment standpoint because you personally lose Rate of Return. No, it's better to leave money invested for as long as possible. Ideally, retirement.
How Risk is Really Decided
Stock market investment is really only risky if you invest for the short-term for quick profit, of if you invest in risky companies. Given time, short-ranged market contractions cancel out and your initial investment always nets a gain. This isn't to say that if you plan on retiring and all of a sudden the market takes a nose-dive and your 401(k) loses about 50% of its value that you'll come out on top. Sure that 50% is still worth more than your original investment. But you'll have to reconfigure your retirement plans by either working another couple of years, or by planning on withdrawing less from your stash while you're in retirement. Both options suck, but then again, you invested in the free market instead of municipal bonds like Suze Orman told you to, which I guess are still free market, but a lot less risky.
The only other way it's risky is if you get companies like Enron, WorldCom, etc. that use faulty accounting practices to "prop up" their value. In the case of WorldCom, the accounts were actually using the depreciation of their assets and calling it "re-capitalization," i.e. buying new assets. It's the equivalent of saying that the $2,000 in value your new car loses every year is being spent "buying $2,000 worth of new car." Doesn't make sense. Since depreciation is on a paper a "profit" it looked like WorldCom was doing good. Not so. I think their stock is back up to twenty cents a share if you can find a market that still carries it.
There's no real way to prevent accounting fraud, except to have a well-funded and well-policed SEC (the guys in charge of making sure companies on the stock exchange obey accounting rules). If WorldCom hadn't had exorbitant Top-Level-Management Salaries, WorldCom might still be around. CEO pay=A bitch.
4) Asset Ownership--This is buying houses and land and holding your cash in the value of a property or other asset. Classic cars, antique vases, etc. These typically involve a direct transfer of assets (cash) for another one (house) with the belief that the second asset will increase in value faster than inflation diminishes the value of the first asset. This isn't a reliable method of savings, but I put it here because many people erroneously think it is. If you think you're saving money by buying a house, just look at all the factors that go into determining property values (Value of house; Perceived value of house; Desirability of house in relationship to neighboring houses, property values in the area; job market in the area; desirability of the city; many other factors not directly related to the actual value of the house). As you can see, there's a lot of risk that goes into buying a house, so much so that it's not investing so much as it's just pure risk-taking.
Can Assets Truly be Saving
You can, of course, hedge your bets by buying properties and then renting them out, but that brings about an entirely new set of headaches. At that point, asset ownership becomes more along the lines of investing, which is a truer form of savings. The difference is that you become the business you're investing in. Most people wouldn't invest in someone like themselves, so I would invest in you either. :D
Assuming that at some point you do sell/auction off your asset, a transfer of cash occurs. Regardless of whether you sell your house at a loss or a profit, someone will pay you for the value of your house, and you turn around and use that cash to buy "stuff". So, in the end, asset ownership still nets a result of "Spending," not to mention that someone just "Spent" money on your house.
I think I covered all the basics of saving money. The point, however, is that any saving done has an end result of "Spending." Or to put it another way:
"Saving=Spending"
Is this true Socially?So if Saving=Spending, then what doesn't equal spending?
I shall take the economics easy way out and say, "It depends." If someone spends 100% of their earnings, but no more, then that constitutes Spending. Notice how I make a distinction between Spending and spending.
If, however, someone spends 100+% of their earnings, then the percentage higher than 100% DOES NOT equal Spending. I would classify this as the equivalent of WorldCom recapitalizing their assets. Until the debt is fully paid off, any multiplicative effect from this debt-spending is not true spending. Also, as a corollary, if a person spends 100% of their earnings, but no more, and a portion of their earnings is spent on interest on debt, then that interest does not equal Spending.
So, when all these "economists" (i.e. populist political commentators) say that people aren't spending money because they're saving, they're missing the point. Money saved is money Spent! And how you save depends on how much money gets Spent in the end. Money invested nearly always has a higher multiplier effect than money put put into a savings account, and always has a Multiplier effect compared to Mattress-Stuffing.
Populist Political Commentators only know how to do one thing: Be full of themselves.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
American Inconsistency
I've had the opportunity to notice in my few years as an adult the fact that many people don't know what they're talking about. I'm sure everyone has had similar experiences. I mean, can you believe that some people think that this is a Christian nation??!!! Founded on Christian ideals???!!!
I started doing some research to figure out just what exactly those Christian ideals are. Here's what I discovered.
Almost unanimously, abortion is considered NOT a Christian ideal. It sort of makes sense. I mean, after all, if you kill a baby you're kind of violating that whole tenet of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Which is actually more of a Jewish ideal if you think about it. But I digress. It's unclear whether foetus's exist in the Bible, but I'm willing to guess that if they did, some people did kill them. There are recorded instances of abortion being used in many prehistorical cultures. The earliest described abortion suggests that the practice was common in Egypt. Also in China, various abortions are mentioned having taken place about 500 years prior to Jesus. But these countries obviously weren't Christian, so while abortion was present, it was probably not a Christian ideal.
Pre-birthed babies (or foetuses) aren't mentioned much in the Bible. Some point to Jeremiah 1, 5 "Before I fromed you in the womb, I knew you before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." I maintain that this only applied to Jeremiah, seeing as how God was addressing him directly. I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know what the original texts say.
Some point to Psalm 139 v 13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." However, this is a Songwriter addressing God, not God addressing the songwriter. The Songwriter leaves it to Faith that God was the one that created her.
So other than that, abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible. As to abortion not being an American ideal I can't attest to that. I just happen to think that Jesus and God didn't really mention whether or not a foetus was a human, so the issue of whether or not it's morally permissible to perform an abortion shouldn't factor into the discussion of whether abortion should be legal or not....assuming that we're a Christian nation.
Also, guns. Guns and the Second Amendment seem to be a Christian ideal. After all, Jesus HIMSELF said in Matthew 10 v 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." [Emphasis mine.] Now, allowing for anachronisms and developments in technology, it's obvious that Jesus meant that he came to Earth to bring weapons to the Christians. Then they could use these weapons to do whatever they wanted to do. Jesus meant for us to have Guns!
But perhaps Jesus had a change of heart because in Matthew 26 v 52 "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." So, I guess Jesus had a change of heart and decided at a time near his death that maybe violence wasn't the answer.
OR if guns are supposed to be an American ideal, then Jesus meant that fighting would not allow the prophecy to be fulfilled. So, in order for the prophecies to come true and Jesus fulfill his role as the Messiah, he must lay down his weapons just this once in order to die so that everyone would be free to worship him and shoot their guns.
OR If American really were a Christian nations with Christian ideals, we would not look down on efforts at gun control considering that most violent crimes are committed with firearms. Jesus also said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," though that may have been Mahatma Ghandi. If so, ignore that quote.
Jesus also said stuff like, "Taxation is a bad thing. Keep all your money for yourself. Nationalized healthcare options are the work of the devil."
Except Jesus didn't say those things. I think he said something about, "You can't take your riches to Heaven," and maybe, "Blessed are the poor and hungry." I don't know. I don't claim to understand Jesus' motives, but I'm pretty sure he didn't care about whether or not you had health insurance....I'm pretty sure the only thing he might care about is what you did to make sure that someone else that doesn't have healthcare gets it.
Oh, and in case you couldn't figure it out, I don't believe that this nation was for one second founded on Christian ideals. It bothers me, however, when the same people that say that America was founded on Christian ideals later decries nationalized healthcare on the basis that it will "raise their taxes and the government is evil."
Or as Wanda Haught Etchason of Facebook fame stated on America's Facebook page under the topic of "Do you think Obama should nationalize healthcare?":
"If you dont work then you arent entitled to anything."
Well said, Wanda Haught Etchason. Well said. Jesus would approve of not giving anything to children, the elderly, the poor, the destitute, or the disabled. Jesus would be proud.
I started doing some research to figure out just what exactly those Christian ideals are. Here's what I discovered.
Almost unanimously, abortion is considered NOT a Christian ideal. It sort of makes sense. I mean, after all, if you kill a baby you're kind of violating that whole tenet of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Which is actually more of a Jewish ideal if you think about it. But I digress. It's unclear whether foetus's exist in the Bible, but I'm willing to guess that if they did, some people did kill them. There are recorded instances of abortion being used in many prehistorical cultures. The earliest described abortion suggests that the practice was common in Egypt. Also in China, various abortions are mentioned having taken place about 500 years prior to Jesus. But these countries obviously weren't Christian, so while abortion was present, it was probably not a Christian ideal.
Pre-birthed babies (or foetuses) aren't mentioned much in the Bible. Some point to Jeremiah 1, 5 "Before I fromed you in the womb, I knew you before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." I maintain that this only applied to Jeremiah, seeing as how God was addressing him directly. I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know what the original texts say.
Some point to Psalm 139 v 13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." However, this is a Songwriter addressing God, not God addressing the songwriter. The Songwriter leaves it to Faith that God was the one that created her.
So other than that, abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible. As to abortion not being an American ideal I can't attest to that. I just happen to think that Jesus and God didn't really mention whether or not a foetus was a human, so the issue of whether or not it's morally permissible to perform an abortion shouldn't factor into the discussion of whether abortion should be legal or not....assuming that we're a Christian nation.
Also, guns. Guns and the Second Amendment seem to be a Christian ideal. After all, Jesus HIMSELF said in Matthew 10 v 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." [Emphasis mine.] Now, allowing for anachronisms and developments in technology, it's obvious that Jesus meant that he came to Earth to bring weapons to the Christians. Then they could use these weapons to do whatever they wanted to do. Jesus meant for us to have Guns!
But perhaps Jesus had a change of heart because in Matthew 26 v 52 "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." So, I guess Jesus had a change of heart and decided at a time near his death that maybe violence wasn't the answer.
OR if guns are supposed to be an American ideal, then Jesus meant that fighting would not allow the prophecy to be fulfilled. So, in order for the prophecies to come true and Jesus fulfill his role as the Messiah, he must lay down his weapons just this once in order to die so that everyone would be free to worship him and shoot their guns.
OR If American really were a Christian nations with Christian ideals, we would not look down on efforts at gun control considering that most violent crimes are committed with firearms. Jesus also said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," though that may have been Mahatma Ghandi. If so, ignore that quote.
Jesus also said stuff like, "Taxation is a bad thing. Keep all your money for yourself. Nationalized healthcare options are the work of the devil."
Except Jesus didn't say those things. I think he said something about, "You can't take your riches to Heaven," and maybe, "Blessed are the poor and hungry." I don't know. I don't claim to understand Jesus' motives, but I'm pretty sure he didn't care about whether or not you had health insurance....I'm pretty sure the only thing he might care about is what you did to make sure that someone else that doesn't have healthcare gets it.
Oh, and in case you couldn't figure it out, I don't believe that this nation was for one second founded on Christian ideals. It bothers me, however, when the same people that say that America was founded on Christian ideals later decries nationalized healthcare on the basis that it will "raise their taxes and the government is evil."
Or as Wanda Haught Etchason of Facebook fame stated on America's Facebook page under the topic of "Do you think Obama should nationalize healthcare?":
"If you dont work then you arent entitled to anything."
Well said, Wanda Haught Etchason. Well said. Jesus would approve of not giving anything to children, the elderly, the poor, the destitute, or the disabled. Jesus would be proud.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
New Hendrix-ism
So, as I'm driving back to Conway from work today, I start to think about the new Hendrix Village and whether or not my friend Phil is right about New Urbanism not being good. I quote:
"So here's my argument: While I like the idea of the amenities and green strategies entertained by New Urbanist developments like The Village and Somerset it just seems like these neighborhoods, having been cut out of whole cloth are instead only encouraging a whole new generation of inorganic community development ideas. Check out the Hendrix Village website. Nothing has been left to chance in their meticulous plans. Where is the "life" here? Where is the "breathing room" for self-expression? Where is the "diversity"?"
If you look at their website, you almost have to agree that this development is the inverse of the ghetto. The ghetto=an unplanned bastion of low-income residences, high crime and monochromatic socio-economic classes. The Village=The 100% planned utopia of high-income residences, (hopefully) low crime and MONOCHROMATIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES.
Phil's position that the Hendrix New Urbanist development is flawed is right...and wrong. Why? Because while the Hendrix New Urbanist development incorporates some aspects of New Urbanism, it (in my view) is not a true New Urbanist development. I would argue that it is more along the lines of a Neo-Traditional community. And for that explanation, I think we need a new definition of New Urbanism
New Urbanism is typically described as Mixed-Use development, incorporating the natural environment, multiple-transportation options, and density. In theory, this should be enough to allow a wide-variety of housing types, and in theory, a multitude of housing types increases socio-economic variety.
The reason the Hendrix Village is not by itself a New Urbanist development is because it does not truly have a variety of housing types. Sure there are $150,000 aparment flats in close proximity to $400,000 houses. And architecturally, these dwelling units are very diverse and are definitely not suburban style housing. But what fresh-faced college graduate can move into a $150,000 apartment? What person in their early 40s can afford to move into a $500,000 home? In practice, the only people that can move to this development, are the "upper-class." A very mono-chromatic socio-economic class.
I think it's important not to denigrate the Hendrix Development. It does provide for mixed-use and does offer some transportation options besides a car, including pedestrian walkability. It's a great improvement over the conventional subdivision. I think it's time, however, to develop a new concept of what New Urbanism is....at least for Conway. Because until HendrixCity fits into a larger framework of New Urbanist principles, it will remain a secluded development separate from the rest of the city...just like every other subdivision.
I think I shall term this new concept "The Diet Theory of New Urbanism." Allow me to ponder the implications.
"So here's my argument: While I like the idea of the amenities and green strategies entertained by New Urbanist developments like The Village and Somerset it just seems like these neighborhoods, having been cut out of whole cloth are instead only encouraging a whole new generation of inorganic community development ideas. Check out the Hendrix Village website. Nothing has been left to chance in their meticulous plans. Where is the "life" here? Where is the "breathing room" for self-expression? Where is the "diversity"?"
If you look at their website, you almost have to agree that this development is the inverse of the ghetto. The ghetto=an unplanned bastion of low-income residences, high crime and monochromatic socio-economic classes. The Village=The 100% planned utopia of high-income residences, (hopefully) low crime and MONOCHROMATIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES.
Phil's position that the Hendrix New Urbanist development is flawed is right...and wrong. Why? Because while the Hendrix New Urbanist development incorporates some aspects of New Urbanism, it (in my view) is not a true New Urbanist development. I would argue that it is more along the lines of a Neo-Traditional community. And for that explanation, I think we need a new definition of New Urbanism
New Urbanism is typically described as Mixed-Use development, incorporating the natural environment, multiple-transportation options, and density. In theory, this should be enough to allow a wide-variety of housing types, and in theory, a multitude of housing types increases socio-economic variety.
The reason the Hendrix Village is not by itself a New Urbanist development is because it does not truly have a variety of housing types. Sure there are $150,000 aparment flats in close proximity to $400,000 houses. And architecturally, these dwelling units are very diverse and are definitely not suburban style housing. But what fresh-faced college graduate can move into a $150,000 apartment? What person in their early 40s can afford to move into a $500,000 home? In practice, the only people that can move to this development, are the "upper-class." A very mono-chromatic socio-economic class.
I think it's important not to denigrate the Hendrix Development. It does provide for mixed-use and does offer some transportation options besides a car, including pedestrian walkability. It's a great improvement over the conventional subdivision. I think it's time, however, to develop a new concept of what New Urbanism is....at least for Conway. Because until HendrixCity fits into a larger framework of New Urbanist principles, it will remain a secluded development separate from the rest of the city...just like every other subdivision.
I think I shall term this new concept "The Diet Theory of New Urbanism." Allow me to ponder the implications.
Friday, February 20, 2009
A Change of Pace
For those that don't know, after graduation, I took a promotion to management within PetSmart. It was a promotion in name only because in addition to not really having any more power, I didn't receive that much of a raise either. To make matters worse, the powers that be hired another manager (same position as me) that was making just as much money as me. I've been with the company how long? (Four years). So I began looking for another way.
After putting out numerous applications, one company contacted me: American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, otherwise known as Aflac. After sitting through a first and second interview, I was extended an invitation to be hired on. Wow. Selling insurance. Is this for me?
I say "interview(s)", though it was more like a presentation. They made me want to work for them. I actually didn't do that much advertising to them. They did all the work. Maybe I am special.
But what really turned me onto Aflac as an insurance company was the fact that Aflac does not cover doctors bills: it pays cash to the policy holder, who may in turn use the cash in whatever manner he sees fit. If he wants to use it to pay doctor's bills, fine. If he wants to use it to cover grocery expenses for his kids, fine. If she wants to use it to pay her mortgage, fine. Go on a cruise for all I care.
Having my background in political science, I know the problems that are associated with medical insurance. As I write this, I'm one of the 40 million uninsured. If I get hurt in a car accident tomorrow, I'm going to be a burden to the rest of society (mostly my family, though).
One problem: As someone without insurance, if I have a heart attack tomorrow I'll be at the mercy of whatever treatment the state can spare for me. Legally, they have to treat me. They'll find a loophole to give shoddy treatment, but whatever. After the fact, however, if I try to get insurance, I'm going to run into the problem called "pre-existing condition." Basically, it's a way for insurance companies to avoid handing out insurance to someone with a pre-existing medical problem. They may make it too expensive to be affordable, or they may issue insuranace that does not cover any condition related to heart disease. You'll still most likely be paying the price that includes cardiac coverage, as well. So it's still more expensive. I ask: Is this fair?
Another problem: If I have medical coverage through my workplace (a group plan) and I pay about twenty dollars a week for insurance. When I leave my job, I have the right to take that coverage with me (under C.O.B.R.A)....for about $300 a month. I understand group rates and everything, but I ask is this fair?
Or I am diagnosed with cancer while still working. After several treatments, I am prescribed to hospital confinement because my treatments are major. As an hourly employee, I'm now not making enough to cover the premiums of my insurance...essentially, I don't work there. I can lose coverage for no reason other than I'm sick. My medical insurance could potentially drop me in the middle of coverage for failure to pay. If it goes to C.O.B.R.A., I now have to deduct the $300 a month from what the insurance company is paying the doctors. If I lose coverage because of loss of income, and then try to apply for medical insurance on my own, my previous diagnosis with cancer gives me a pre-existing condition, and I'm back to the first problem.
In all of these situations, it's not my fault. The rules are stacked against me. As long as nothing happens to me, I'm fine. But the second something does, I'm penalized even though I had no direct part in it.
I can understand insurance premiums being higher for those that smoke. I can even maybe understand it for those that are obese and saturate themselves with food and alcohol, but I think it's a dangerous slope to start charging people more just because they are overweight because then the problem becomes one of where the line is drawn.
And from the point of view of the insurance companies, I can understand why some of these rules are in place. If I'm diagnosed with high blood pressure, there needs to be a method in place to keep that person from going out and purchasing insurance just to cover the cost of his upcoming treatments. That's not the way insurance should work.
So, for now, my research interests will diverge from city and urban planning, and it will turn to the world of insurance. I've got a little bit to say about it.
And it gives me a forum to discuss my day at work!
After putting out numerous applications, one company contacted me: American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, otherwise known as Aflac. After sitting through a first and second interview, I was extended an invitation to be hired on. Wow. Selling insurance. Is this for me?
I say "interview(s)", though it was more like a presentation. They made me want to work for them. I actually didn't do that much advertising to them. They did all the work. Maybe I am special.
But what really turned me onto Aflac as an insurance company was the fact that Aflac does not cover doctors bills: it pays cash to the policy holder, who may in turn use the cash in whatever manner he sees fit. If he wants to use it to pay doctor's bills, fine. If he wants to use it to cover grocery expenses for his kids, fine. If she wants to use it to pay her mortgage, fine. Go on a cruise for all I care.
Having my background in political science, I know the problems that are associated with medical insurance. As I write this, I'm one of the 40 million uninsured. If I get hurt in a car accident tomorrow, I'm going to be a burden to the rest of society (mostly my family, though).
One problem: As someone without insurance, if I have a heart attack tomorrow I'll be at the mercy of whatever treatment the state can spare for me. Legally, they have to treat me. They'll find a loophole to give shoddy treatment, but whatever. After the fact, however, if I try to get insurance, I'm going to run into the problem called "pre-existing condition." Basically, it's a way for insurance companies to avoid handing out insurance to someone with a pre-existing medical problem. They may make it too expensive to be affordable, or they may issue insuranace that does not cover any condition related to heart disease. You'll still most likely be paying the price that includes cardiac coverage, as well. So it's still more expensive. I ask: Is this fair?
Another problem: If I have medical coverage through my workplace (a group plan) and I pay about twenty dollars a week for insurance. When I leave my job, I have the right to take that coverage with me (under C.O.B.R.A)....for about $300 a month. I understand group rates and everything, but I ask is this fair?
Or I am diagnosed with cancer while still working. After several treatments, I am prescribed to hospital confinement because my treatments are major. As an hourly employee, I'm now not making enough to cover the premiums of my insurance...essentially, I don't work there. I can lose coverage for no reason other than I'm sick. My medical insurance could potentially drop me in the middle of coverage for failure to pay. If it goes to C.O.B.R.A., I now have to deduct the $300 a month from what the insurance company is paying the doctors. If I lose coverage because of loss of income, and then try to apply for medical insurance on my own, my previous diagnosis with cancer gives me a pre-existing condition, and I'm back to the first problem.
In all of these situations, it's not my fault. The rules are stacked against me. As long as nothing happens to me, I'm fine. But the second something does, I'm penalized even though I had no direct part in it.
I can understand insurance premiums being higher for those that smoke. I can even maybe understand it for those that are obese and saturate themselves with food and alcohol, but I think it's a dangerous slope to start charging people more just because they are overweight because then the problem becomes one of where the line is drawn.
And from the point of view of the insurance companies, I can understand why some of these rules are in place. If I'm diagnosed with high blood pressure, there needs to be a method in place to keep that person from going out and purchasing insurance just to cover the cost of his upcoming treatments. That's not the way insurance should work.
So, for now, my research interests will diverge from city and urban planning, and it will turn to the world of insurance. I've got a little bit to say about it.
And it gives me a forum to discuss my day at work!
Monday, April 7, 2008
A Look at Impact Fees
As I was standing in the shower this morning (March 7), and I'm thinking through an Open Space Ordinance for the city. As I get finished, it hits me that a comprehensive OSD should encompass three things: (1) Preserving sensitive areas from future growth, (2) reclaiming sensitive areas that have already been developed and (3) providing linkages between already existing OS areas (these linkages could be built or environmental in nature).
In a public setting, it's very difficult to pass comprehensive, bottom-up legislation, the foremost reason being because it's difficult to handle extreme change. The City could pass legislation tomorrow that makes all city services private affairs (meaning each citizen would need to pay for police services on their own), but they won't because that is such a marked difference from practice. It's possible to gradually phase out city services in favor of the private sector (trash collection is a good example), but again time is a factor.
For this reason, it is unlikely that all three aspects of an Open Space Ordinance could be passed simultaneously. It would be much more politically prudent to attempt to pass all three at separate times. Since development is occurring at such a rapid pace, the second option is somewhat limited in scope. If we pass an ordinance to reclaim areas that have already been built upon (such as a stream and riparian area), it's possible that in twenty years, Little Rock might have reclaimed all the environmentally sensitive areas. At that point it would turn outwards and see how development has still occurred in the last twenty years claiming environmentally sensitive areas. Little Rock must then turn around and fund the acquisition of those lands. Until the fundamental problem of encouraging responsible development occurs, the city will not make significant headway into the preservation of city-wide open spaces.
If this logic holds true, then the natural course of action is to address future growth first. Once future development has been instilled with the virtue of conservation, then the city can work to reclaim environmentally sensitive areas. At the culmination of that time period, not only will lands within the city have been addressed, but also the future growth. At that point, the city can stop funding acquisition of new lands. It's an economic decision of process.
How can the city address new developments in the city by encouraging the conservation ethic? One method is by passing ordinances that forbid building on certain types of land (steep slopes, waterways, etc.). These types of ordinances are very restrictive, however, because they eliminate the function of land. Eliminating functionality can affect property values, which makes these types of ordinances (however positive in attributes) not well received by developers and the general public.
Another method of addressing the conservation ethic is to make it economically beneficial to do so (to take a page from my pet training hand-book: "Positive Reinforcement"). A more politically expedient method of doing so is for the City Council to implement Impact Fees. Impact Fees are one-time fees assessed to new developments to pay for infrastructure improvements off-site that can benefit those in the new development as well as others. These fees must go into an account to pay for specific functions.
So, let's follow a hypothetical developer wanting to build a typical subdivision. And just to simplify things, let's assume that the land is already zoned appropriately (so that we don't have to deal with messy re-zoning requests). Normally what happens is that a developer has the land mapped out for maximum occupancy. So on twenty acres, he might build 20-25 homes. He then divides the land into 20-25 roughly equal sections. He then draws in the roads and utility lines that will serve the subdivision, and then re-adjust based upon rationality. He then submits this design to the local planning department that reviews it against the Zoning Map and Text, calculates its impact on the roads, and then approves the permit or sends it to the Planning Board for review (this doesn't normally happen; if it's a sound design and the land is zoned as such, it normally passes permitting).
At this point, depening on the place, the city or the developer pays to put in the infrastructure requirements, and then the city will pay for the maintenance of said utilities (I'm including roads as a utility in this. Sewage and water lines would be the other ones). Now, these 25 new homes are going to use their new roads, water lines, etc. but they will also be using already existing roads and water lines. Moreover, since water comes from a central location(s) they will be using up the water plant's capacity. Eventually (after enough new developments), the city will be at capacity for providing water, so the city must build a new water pumping station (or treatment plant, etc.) to provide more water for further growth.
With impact fees, a city can assess a new development a cost that the new development is imposing on the city. If a new development results in a consumption of enough water to warrant building a new water plant, then a percentage of that total cost should be assessed to the new developments.
So, over the course of ten years, let's anticipate that five new subdivisions like the one mentioned above, will be built. When all developments are fully built and house people, they will place a cumulative effect of a million gallons of water on the city (all these numbers are fictitious). Since the city is at capacity already, we can anticipate that adding a million gallons of water capacity will cost the city $100,000. To assess an appropriate cost, we could divide $100,000 by five to yield a cost of $20,000 per development. The city would then impose an Impact Fee of $20,000 per development to provide for the additional capacity that must be built.
In reality, the somewhat arbitrary numbers I threw around earlier would not be used. A study would be made of types of houses, the density of land, placement of the development, etc. While I think that Impact Fees should be imposed on all developments for all new services, as it pertains to the conservation ethic, only a Park/OS Impact Fee will be addressed here.
Since in our above scenario our developer did not take into account the contours of the land, he most likely had 25 parcels of property with various states of usefulness. Ten properties may have a creek running through their backyard. Another two may have a boggy area. Five of them may have a steep slope that prevents any useful activity. In an ideal world, those sensitive areas would be classified as Open Space and would be preserved from development. Since most developers will not, however, then the city will have to provide a park or open space area at another location. This will impose a cost upon the city, which would normally be shared by the rest of the city's population (a population that has already paid for their park services and aren't creating new demand; they are maintaining old demand). The city should turn around and impose a cost (an Impact Fee) on the development for having to provide new Park/OS services.
This method does allow a city to provide new parkland in growing sections of the city; however, it doesn't automatically protect the most sensitive of environmental areas (in my head, I automatically think of water). Furthermore, these funds are almost always demanded in the form of Active-Recreation, such as a baseball field, over flat, open parkland. There's no guarantee that these funds will be used for OS.
A city could, however, make a further provision in the Impact Fee Ordinance that developers who provide a certain percentage of land in their development as communal OS will be exempt from the Impact Fee. The developer can establish an easement with the city, where the city retains the right and the cost to preserve/maintain the land, or the developer can leave it under the control of the neighborhood property owners. Since additional costs could theoretically be assigned to different types of developable terrain, this means that additional deferral of costs could be implemented for those developers that make an effort to design the subdivisions around the natural features of the land. These Conservation Subdivisions usually have smaller lots, but the nature of the subdivision doesn't affect home size. Essentially, the property owners own smaller acreage next to a park, but don't have to pay for the park or take care of it themselves.
There are definite pros and cons to Impact Fees, but for the purposes of conservation in future subdivisions, they definitely warrant a further look (maybe next time!).
In a public setting, it's very difficult to pass comprehensive, bottom-up legislation, the foremost reason being because it's difficult to handle extreme change. The City could pass legislation tomorrow that makes all city services private affairs (meaning each citizen would need to pay for police services on their own), but they won't because that is such a marked difference from practice. It's possible to gradually phase out city services in favor of the private sector (trash collection is a good example), but again time is a factor.
For this reason, it is unlikely that all three aspects of an Open Space Ordinance could be passed simultaneously. It would be much more politically prudent to attempt to pass all three at separate times. Since development is occurring at such a rapid pace, the second option is somewhat limited in scope. If we pass an ordinance to reclaim areas that have already been built upon (such as a stream and riparian area), it's possible that in twenty years, Little Rock might have reclaimed all the environmentally sensitive areas. At that point it would turn outwards and see how development has still occurred in the last twenty years claiming environmentally sensitive areas. Little Rock must then turn around and fund the acquisition of those lands. Until the fundamental problem of encouraging responsible development occurs, the city will not make significant headway into the preservation of city-wide open spaces.
If this logic holds true, then the natural course of action is to address future growth first. Once future development has been instilled with the virtue of conservation, then the city can work to reclaim environmentally sensitive areas. At the culmination of that time period, not only will lands within the city have been addressed, but also the future growth. At that point, the city can stop funding acquisition of new lands. It's an economic decision of process.
How can the city address new developments in the city by encouraging the conservation ethic? One method is by passing ordinances that forbid building on certain types of land (steep slopes, waterways, etc.). These types of ordinances are very restrictive, however, because they eliminate the function of land. Eliminating functionality can affect property values, which makes these types of ordinances (however positive in attributes) not well received by developers and the general public.
Another method of addressing the conservation ethic is to make it economically beneficial to do so (to take a page from my pet training hand-book: "Positive Reinforcement"). A more politically expedient method of doing so is for the City Council to implement Impact Fees. Impact Fees are one-time fees assessed to new developments to pay for infrastructure improvements off-site that can benefit those in the new development as well as others. These fees must go into an account to pay for specific functions.
So, let's follow a hypothetical developer wanting to build a typical subdivision. And just to simplify things, let's assume that the land is already zoned appropriately (so that we don't have to deal with messy re-zoning requests). Normally what happens is that a developer has the land mapped out for maximum occupancy. So on twenty acres, he might build 20-25 homes. He then divides the land into 20-25 roughly equal sections. He then draws in the roads and utility lines that will serve the subdivision, and then re-adjust based upon rationality. He then submits this design to the local planning department that reviews it against the Zoning Map and Text, calculates its impact on the roads, and then approves the permit or sends it to the Planning Board for review (this doesn't normally happen; if it's a sound design and the land is zoned as such, it normally passes permitting).
At this point, depening on the place, the city or the developer pays to put in the infrastructure requirements, and then the city will pay for the maintenance of said utilities (I'm including roads as a utility in this. Sewage and water lines would be the other ones). Now, these 25 new homes are going to use their new roads, water lines, etc. but they will also be using already existing roads and water lines. Moreover, since water comes from a central location(s) they will be using up the water plant's capacity. Eventually (after enough new developments), the city will be at capacity for providing water, so the city must build a new water pumping station (or treatment plant, etc.) to provide more water for further growth.
With impact fees, a city can assess a new development a cost that the new development is imposing on the city. If a new development results in a consumption of enough water to warrant building a new water plant, then a percentage of that total cost should be assessed to the new developments.
So, over the course of ten years, let's anticipate that five new subdivisions like the one mentioned above, will be built. When all developments are fully built and house people, they will place a cumulative effect of a million gallons of water on the city (all these numbers are fictitious). Since the city is at capacity already, we can anticipate that adding a million gallons of water capacity will cost the city $100,000. To assess an appropriate cost, we could divide $100,000 by five to yield a cost of $20,000 per development. The city would then impose an Impact Fee of $20,000 per development to provide for the additional capacity that must be built.
In reality, the somewhat arbitrary numbers I threw around earlier would not be used. A study would be made of types of houses, the density of land, placement of the development, etc. While I think that Impact Fees should be imposed on all developments for all new services, as it pertains to the conservation ethic, only a Park/OS Impact Fee will be addressed here.
Since in our above scenario our developer did not take into account the contours of the land, he most likely had 25 parcels of property with various states of usefulness. Ten properties may have a creek running through their backyard. Another two may have a boggy area. Five of them may have a steep slope that prevents any useful activity. In an ideal world, those sensitive areas would be classified as Open Space and would be preserved from development. Since most developers will not, however, then the city will have to provide a park or open space area at another location. This will impose a cost upon the city, which would normally be shared by the rest of the city's population (a population that has already paid for their park services and aren't creating new demand; they are maintaining old demand). The city should turn around and impose a cost (an Impact Fee) on the development for having to provide new Park/OS services.
This method does allow a city to provide new parkland in growing sections of the city; however, it doesn't automatically protect the most sensitive of environmental areas (in my head, I automatically think of water). Furthermore, these funds are almost always demanded in the form of Active-Recreation, such as a baseball field, over flat, open parkland. There's no guarantee that these funds will be used for OS.
A city could, however, make a further provision in the Impact Fee Ordinance that developers who provide a certain percentage of land in their development as communal OS will be exempt from the Impact Fee. The developer can establish an easement with the city, where the city retains the right and the cost to preserve/maintain the land, or the developer can leave it under the control of the neighborhood property owners. Since additional costs could theoretically be assigned to different types of developable terrain, this means that additional deferral of costs could be implemented for those developers that make an effort to design the subdivisions around the natural features of the land. These Conservation Subdivisions usually have smaller lots, but the nature of the subdivision doesn't affect home size. Essentially, the property owners own smaller acreage next to a park, but don't have to pay for the park or take care of it themselves.
There are definite pros and cons to Impact Fees, but for the purposes of conservation in future subdivisions, they definitely warrant a further look (maybe next time!).
Thursday, April 3, 2008
San Diego
I've spent the last few days researching San Diego on the recommendations of the Open Space Review Committee.
Essentially San Diego's OS Policy centers around a conservation ethics, since there are more endangered and environmentally sensitive species in San Diego county than in any other county in California. What follows is the report I sent to Mark with an expanded commentary at the end.
The city of San Diego implemented an open space element into their General Plan in 1979.[1] In 2003, San Diego had a population of approximately 1,266,753 people dispersed over 324 square miles.[2] When looking at Figure 1, it is apparent that the total developed urban area of the city has grown 39%, from 79,067 to 110,044. Grassland, shrubland, and tree cover have decreased from a collective 127,647 acres to 96,368 acres. The current urban forest system has a total stormwater retention capacity of 82 million cubic feet. Without trees, the city would have to build $164 million in infrastructure to accommodate the runoff.[3] The forest system also removes 4.3 million pounds of pollutants from the air at a value of $10.8 million annually.[4] The trees also sequester (absorb) 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually and store 1.2 million tons collectively as biomass. [5] As the urban area of the city has grown, the “green” area of the city has decreased diminishing the ability of flora to reduce runoff and counter pollution. Continuing this trend could seriously damage the city’s ability to counter the effects of sprawl and the imprint of urbanization.
Figure 1—City of San Diego Landcover Change Trends (1985-2002)[*]
1985 acres 2002 acres 2002 Percent Percent change
Urban
79,067 110,044 51% 39%
Grassland
71,988 48,674 22% -32%
Shrubland
35,565 32,956 15% -7%
Tree Cover
20,094 14,738 7% -27%
Other
10,827 11,151 5% 0%
Total
217,542 217,564 100% 0%
[My apologies for the lack of formatting on the above table. I cut and pasted a Word document that didn't translate, and I don't have the time to make it pretty.]
The city’s Open Space Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation has been responsible for managing the open spaces within the city (including the Park Rangers in OS parks) and implementing the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). In 1996, the MSCP was established to further aid in the protection of native endangered plant and animal species. San Diego county has the most endangered species in California,[6] but funding from sources such as the Environmental Growth Fund aren’t sufficient to cover the complete costs of management;[7] According to Paul Kilburg with the Open Space Division of the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department, these funds aren’t nearly enough to acquire all of the land that the city has been tasked with acquiring;[8] therefore, most of their funding comes from the city’s general fund. In the past, as some lands have become conservation districts because of endangered species, property owners have surrendered their land to the city or minimally developed it (25%).[9] This has provided the city with some land to preserve as open space, but it is not a guaranteed method of acquiring land.
Luckily, San Diego at large has a friendly nature toward the natural environment. Community volunteers actively help in revitalizing and maintaining parks, even if it is just to help build a ranger kiosk. There is not an overt hostility to parks in general. Also, the Sierra Club has gotten involved in creating “Friends of-” groups to help inform and mobilize the public to participate in the park process.[10]
Currently, the department is working on a Trails Master Plan, since it has been deficient in that area in the past. There are three-hundred plus miles of trails in the city that have not been properly mapped out or planned for.[11] Besides increasing funding, developing a plan for trails is the most important task for the open space division right now.
To address the 12 April 2007 comment (Karen) on the Open Space Blog regarding parks being unsafe, perhaps as the open space system becomes more advanced, Little Rock could implement a ranger system similar to the one in place in San Diego. Rangers make people feel safe by providing an on-site city authority figure. They do not have arrest powers, but they can issue tickets for misdemeanor offenses. Rangers can also provide tours or programming as the citizenry deems necessary.[12] Being on-site and mobile also allows the rangers to inform the central parks office of any issues that may arise regarding maintenance in the park.
[*] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3
[1] The City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan (1979) (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/gpfullversion.pdf. The open space element has since been combined with the conservation element in the current plan.
[2] Census.gov
[3] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3 (accessed 7 February 2008) http://americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_SanDiego.pdf
[4] Ibid. p.3&19 American Forests uses UFORE Model for Air Pollution, developed for the USDA Forest Service to calculate the amount of pollution deposited in tree canopies and sequestered. Dollar values for air pollutants are averaged from State Public Service Commissions in various states. Externality costs include indirect costs to society, such as healthcare from air pollution
[5] Ibid. p.3
[6] Phone conversation with Paul Kilburg February 8, 2008
[7] Paul Kilburg. San Diego City Charter, Article VII, Section 103.1establishes the Environmental Growth Fund which provides funding to pay the principle and interest on bonds that are issued for the acquisition of open space lands.[7]
[8] Paul Kilburg
[9] Paul Kilburg
[10] Paul Kilburg
[11] Paul Kilburg
[12] City of San Diego Park and Recreation Dept., Regional Parks Ranger Program (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
I also developed a list of endangered/environmentally sensitive plants and animals in Pulaski County from the 2007 Annual Report of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, which is a division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH). Skip to pages 97-98 for Pulaski County listings.
Essentially San Diego's OS Policy centers around a conservation ethics, since there are more endangered and environmentally sensitive species in San Diego county than in any other county in California. What follows is the report I sent to Mark with an expanded commentary at the end.
The city of San Diego implemented an open space element into their General Plan in 1979.[1] In 2003, San Diego had a population of approximately 1,266,753 people dispersed over 324 square miles.[2] When looking at Figure 1, it is apparent that the total developed urban area of the city has grown 39%, from 79,067 to 110,044. Grassland, shrubland, and tree cover have decreased from a collective 127,647 acres to 96,368 acres. The current urban forest system has a total stormwater retention capacity of 82 million cubic feet. Without trees, the city would have to build $164 million in infrastructure to accommodate the runoff.[3] The forest system also removes 4.3 million pounds of pollutants from the air at a value of $10.8 million annually.[4] The trees also sequester (absorb) 9,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually and store 1.2 million tons collectively as biomass. [5] As the urban area of the city has grown, the “green” area of the city has decreased diminishing the ability of flora to reduce runoff and counter pollution. Continuing this trend could seriously damage the city’s ability to counter the effects of sprawl and the imprint of urbanization.
Figure 1—City of San Diego Landcover Change Trends (1985-2002)[*]
1985 acres 2002 acres 2002 Percent Percent change
Urban
79,067 110,044 51% 39%
Grassland
71,988 48,674 22% -32%
Shrubland
35,565 32,956 15% -7%
Tree Cover
20,094 14,738 7% -27%
Other
10,827 11,151 5% 0%
Total
217,542 217,564 100% 0%
[My apologies for the lack of formatting on the above table. I cut and pasted a Word document that didn't translate, and I don't have the time to make it pretty.]
The city’s Open Space Division within the Department of Parks and Recreation has been responsible for managing the open spaces within the city (including the Park Rangers in OS parks) and implementing the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). In 1996, the MSCP was established to further aid in the protection of native endangered plant and animal species. San Diego county has the most endangered species in California,[6] but funding from sources such as the Environmental Growth Fund aren’t sufficient to cover the complete costs of management;[7] According to Paul Kilburg with the Open Space Division of the San Diego Parks and Recreation Department, these funds aren’t nearly enough to acquire all of the land that the city has been tasked with acquiring;[8] therefore, most of their funding comes from the city’s general fund. In the past, as some lands have become conservation districts because of endangered species, property owners have surrendered their land to the city or minimally developed it (25%).[9] This has provided the city with some land to preserve as open space, but it is not a guaranteed method of acquiring land.
Luckily, San Diego at large has a friendly nature toward the natural environment. Community volunteers actively help in revitalizing and maintaining parks, even if it is just to help build a ranger kiosk. There is not an overt hostility to parks in general. Also, the Sierra Club has gotten involved in creating “Friends of-” groups to help inform and mobilize the public to participate in the park process.[10]
Currently, the department is working on a Trails Master Plan, since it has been deficient in that area in the past. There are three-hundred plus miles of trails in the city that have not been properly mapped out or planned for.[11] Besides increasing funding, developing a plan for trails is the most important task for the open space division right now.
To address the 12 April 2007 comment (Karen) on the Open Space Blog regarding parks being unsafe, perhaps as the open space system becomes more advanced, Little Rock could implement a ranger system similar to the one in place in San Diego. Rangers make people feel safe by providing an on-site city authority figure. They do not have arrest powers, but they can issue tickets for misdemeanor offenses. Rangers can also provide tours or programming as the citizenry deems necessary.[12] Being on-site and mobile also allows the rangers to inform the central parks office of any issues that may arise regarding maintenance in the park.
[*] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3
[1] The City of San Diego Progress Guide and General Plan (1979) (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/gpfullversion.pdf. The open space element has since been combined with the conservation element in the current plan.
[2] Census.gov
[3] Urban Ecosystem Analysis, San Diego, California; American Forests; July 2003. p. 3 (accessed 7 February 2008) http://americanforests.org/downloads/rea/AF_SanDiego.pdf
[4] Ibid. p.3&19 American Forests uses UFORE Model for Air Pollution, developed for the USDA Forest Service to calculate the amount of pollution deposited in tree canopies and sequestered. Dollar values for air pollutants are averaged from State Public Service Commissions in various states. Externality costs include indirect costs to society, such as healthcare from air pollution
[5] Ibid. p.3
[6] Phone conversation with Paul Kilburg February 8, 2008
[7] Paul Kilburg. San Diego City Charter, Article VII, Section 103.1establishes the Environmental Growth Fund which provides funding to pay the principle and interest on bonds that are issued for the acquisition of open space lands.[7]
[8] Paul Kilburg
[9] Paul Kilburg
[10] Paul Kilburg
[11] Paul Kilburg
[12] City of San Diego Park and Recreation Dept., Regional Parks Ranger Program (accessed February 8, 2008) http://www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
www.sandiego.gov/park-and-recreation/parks/drprangers.shtml
I also developed a list of endangered/environmentally sensitive plants and animals in Pulaski County from the 2007 Annual Report of the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, which is a division of the Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH). Skip to pages 97-98 for Pulaski County listings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
