The end of brick and mortar retail?

The parking meters in downtown question MUST NOT be addressed in isolation from other forces at work in Salem.

For example, take Salem's new-ish Peak Sports on State St., a terrific addition to downtown and to Salem. Peak's lease rate, like all rents downtown, was negotiated and set without meter paid parking on the horizon. Add metered parking to the mix while the rents stay fixed under the leases and you have a great recipe for even more empty storefronts in Salem, which is already precariously close to tipping into a vicious cycle of decline.

Peak now faces REI in the hideous sprawl plex called Keizer Station, in an environment where all retail stores, including both Peak and REI, are struggling to adapt to the cut-throat competition of Amazon. Amazon's whole business model is exploiting the tax advantage it gains by not paying any, while it enjoys the use of the roads everywhere but pays nothing to maintain them.

Now add parking meters in downtown Salem only to that equation.

In a dynamic environment characterized by intense competition, very small factors that make one business less fit relative to competitors can have outsized consequences because our economic system is increasingly winner-take-all.

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/08/24/the-end-of-brick-and-mortar-retail/

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

DRAFT-- some tentative thoughts on parking meters and transport in Salem generally

I have been working sporadically for many months to come up with an approach to dealing with the nasty, sniping fight that has flared up over parking on Salem. I  wanted to have a more polished presentation ready before unveiling it but like all good intentions . . . Overtaken by events.

Anyway, here's a first draft of thoughts, dictated (so excuse typos), definitely subject to revision:

Q: why do you oppose parking meters in downtown Salem?

A: several reasons.

First, parking meters or a permanent and costly solution to a temporary problem, which will likely solve itself as continued high gas prices and increasing unaffordability of driving makes alternative approaches better equipped to succeed, without the nasty investment and then perpetual payback for meter infrastructure and upkeep.

Second, and this is related, is that solving the systemic problem in only one area simply disadvantages that area relative to the rest.

Third, there is the equity problem. In a city without a functioning transit system, There is a real equity problem in imposing parking meters that are not tied to ability to pay. The poor already spend a hugely disproportionate share of their income by having to have a car. Allowing free parking ramps, but making prime parking spaces on the street available for a price, continues the privatization of the public space, where those with wealth get to purchase the best of the public has provided for everyone and those without resources or shunted further and further away out of sight.

This is not to say that pricing is not a solution Salems parking problems. Only that it is important that the system must be treated first as the system and not as unrelated isolated problem. Parking is only a small part of the system problem.

Q: okay, then what is the solution?

A: I think the most productive path to a suite of positive approaches – what I am carefully trying not to call the solution — is to recognize that the paved roadway system is a network utility, like the electricity, Internet, telephones, water, natural gas, and sewer.

As many people have noted, the way we pay for transportation – the burden we place on the public system, and the imposition we inflict on those around us by our use of the network – is terribly illogically priced. 

Gasoline is probably the only logically priced part of the system, because gasoline is strictly priced according to use, and use roughly correlates with the weight of the vehicle, which is a proxy for the damage that the vehicle does to the public roadways. This is changing somewhat with the advent of electric and hybrid cars, but for all the publicity they get, they are still a trivial share of the driving we do, and so they do not change the fundamental reality that fuel is the only part of our transportation system that is logically priced according to use.

Q: so how does thinking of the transportation system, or the roadway system, as a network utility help anything?

A: the great thing about thinking of the roadway system as a network utility is that it immediately offers a wealth of alternative and experience from other systems about how other networks manage to sort out conflicting priorities and how to allocate the resource most efficiently and how those network managers deal with equity considerations within a larger price structure that allocate the resources according to ability to pay.

Q: such as?

A: consider how we are now dealing with storm water runoff, which is related to our sewage treatment costs. We used to hit everybody with basic sewer charges and that gigantic house with lots of concrete and impermeable surface pay the same for water stormwater runoff processing contribution as a tiny house with nothing but trees on the lot. Now we've gone to recognizing that different development patterns place different burdens on the stormwater runoff system. Each lot is considered individually, and they are charged a different assessment based on their fraction of impermeable surface – the surface that causes stormwater runoff.

The burdens on the roadway system can be assessed individually easily as well. Every business and residence in Salem places a call on the common resource – the roadway system. But the grandmother who long since stopped driving puts a very low call on the system compared to the busy house with 3 teens and two adults each of whom have a car or truck of their own. Essentially, grannies call on the system is the ability of emergency vehicles to reach her home when necessary. 

By placing the use of emergency vehicles into the general fund, and making public agencies pay for the transportation – whoever is the use of alternative one possible – it's possible to charge ready for her access to the service but she never uses in the same way that we all pay insurance quotes that we never use the insurance.

Q: what are you talking about?

A: i'm talking about paying for roads through a series of charges that are assessed on each address in on each vehicle in order to pay for a complete, functioning transit and roadway system. In other words, we reduce everybody's taxes by cutting their taxes , that is, taking off of their tax bills all the money currently being spent on transit and roadways. And then we change to fund those public goods -- those network services --  through a series of charges that are based on individual assessments rather than on property values.

The individual assessments are quantifiable, objective, fair, charges for the burden that each person at each address places on the network services — transit and roadways.

For residences, the charges start with each vehicle that is registered at each residence. The size and weight of the vehicle is the first consideration. That's pretty elementary, and pretty easy to do. You end up with a table that everyone can consider when shopping for a vehicle, and it really makes the decision to purchase a second vehicle or the first vehicle a big step up in fees— Which is another way to reward people for only having one vehicle or avoiding additional vehicles, and especially big reward for those who have no vehicles and who plays little or no demand on the roadway system through usage.

The second component of the roadway network utility charge for residents this has to do with accessability. Here, there is a reward for people who live in compact spacing and who will provide the density needed for efficient delivery of goods and services and support for transit. People who live in transit third areas will pay more on their network utility charge because of having access to transit. But they will pay less proportionately because of the density factors the excess ability of their home is hard and so many others will share the charges with them.

Contrary to that, is the people living in low-density suburban sprawl, the winding streets and cul-de-sacs that characterize places like West Salem. These are fantastically expensive places to serve with public services, and impossible to serve with transit. With a few residence per network mile, the charges for people living in those places will be much higher per capita. This is offset somewhat by the fact that those places tend to be much more affluent anyway. But, it's not about taxing based on income, but rather charging based on the costs that they impose on the system. Sprawl is simply so inefficient that it's impossible to serve inexpensively, and it has a lot to do with why Salem's budget is so broken.

But density is not the only factor. The location within the network is another factor for each residence. A high density unit on the edge of the city will pay more for the network utility charge than the same high density unit would pay in a more central location. Each address would have a computed accessibility score, which factors in the number of approaches – the number of nodes through which you can reach the point of analysis without duplicating the path — and in this analysis, the centralized network place is better than the place on the branch, because of the first number of paths to the same point suggest that the pressure will be distributed evenly around the residence, rather than building up pressure to expand the arteries on the network.

Thus, the person who lives in a transit served, dense area will pay little or nothing for the network utility charge directly if they choose not to have a car because they place little or no direct demand on the system. Conversely, if they choose not to have a car, but demand that services be delivered to them through a car or a truck, they will pay (through the price of the goods and services delivered to them) the prices that those service providers will pay in paying the network utility charge.

Q: how does billing work?

A: same as water and sewer bills now, only more predictable and efficient.

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

WORD: Kurt Vonnegut on Salem's Mania to Build a Giant Boondoggle Instead of Fixing What We Have

"Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do the maintenance."

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

WORD -- Different rules apply

A most important article. As true in Salem as everyplace else.

http://www.rogerebert.com/mzs/what-white-privilege-really-means-an-anecdote


"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

Cohen has been drinking fracking fluids again

http://mgpaquin.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/cohen-nocera-and-bruni-14/

Serious insanity by NYT's Cohen. Anyone who says USA is heading towards energy self sufficiency is either themselves innumerate, a con man, or way too trusting of those who are.

The magnetism of Silicon Valley may suggest that the United States, a young nation still, is Rome at the height of its power. American soft power is alive and well. America's capacity for reinvention, its looming self-sufficiency in energy, its good demographics and, not least, its hold on the world's imagination, all suggest vigor.

The Nation's editor has Washington Post column on fair representation voting for Congress

This is the uber-reform, the one that unlocks all the other reforms we need.

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-we-need-a-fairer-system-for-choosing-house-members/2014/08/19/bf93c84c-271c-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

We need a fairer system for choosing House members

By Katrina vanden Heuvel  August 19 at 8:48 AM

In the original conception of our Constitution, the House of Representatives was to be the branch of government that best reflected the will of the people. House members cannot serve without being elected — vacancies are not filled by appointees — and they must face the voters every two years. Notably, the House holds pride of place as the first branch of government to be described in the Constitution. The framers move directly from "We the People" to the House, underlining the notion that, for our Constitution (and our government) to function, representatives must be accountable to the people.

Unfortunately, as we near the 2014 midterm elections, the reality of House races today clashes with that goal.

Let's start with the connection between votes and seats. In 2012, we faced a major choice between the major parties and a mandate on President Obama's first term. In the presidential race, Obama defeated Mitt Romney in the national popular vote by almost three percentage points, and Republicans suffered the worst performance in Senate elections by any major party in a half-century.

In House races, Democratic nominees overcame incumbent advantages for Republicans and won the national popular vote by more than 1.1 million votes. By those numbers, Americans painted the Capitol royal blue. Shockingly, though, Republicans won 54 percent of the House seats,establishing for themselves a 33-seat majority. And looking ahead, analysts estimate that Democrats may need as much as 55 percent of the popular vote in November to secure a majority.

Such a disconnect between voters and those who are installed as their congressional leaders goes far beyond any distortion we've seen in the Electoral College in presidential elections. It's absolutely unacceptable in House elections, and it deserves far more debate than it has received.

The most-discussed culprit for the abysmal nature of House elections is gerrymandering. Every decade, states redraw congressional districts. Given the sophistication of today's technology, the growing partisan divide among voters and the relatively low-profile nature of the process, those in charge of mapping have the means, motive and opportunity to use redistricting to help their friends and hurt their enemies. Republicans in states such as Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia did just that. Barack Obama carried all those states in 2008, but today, Republicans hold a 68-31 edge in those states' House seats.

But while gerrymandering matters, we must think more broadly. The core problem turns out to be districting, not redistricting. Congress's 1967 law that mandates use of single-member districts for House elections has institutionalized the practice of shoehorning voters into boxes that restrict choices and distort representation. That is, districts are drawn in ways that lead to results predetermined by the powers that be. But today, there's a growing call, from members of Congress including James Clyburn (D-S.C.)to institutions such as the The Washington Post editorial board, to consider allowing voters to define their own representation in multi-seat district elections.

FairVote has created just such a fair-representation plan that Congress has full authority to establish. Every state would keep its same number of seats, but districts would be combined into larger districts drawn by independent commissions. Of critical importance: In each new "superdistrict," like-minded voters could elect candidates of choice in proportion to their share of the vote. To illustrate: In this "open-ticket system," a voter would cast a vote for one candidate. This vote counts for the candidate and, if that candidate is associated with a political party, also for that party. Seats are then allocated to parties in proportion to their share of the vote using a proportional-representation formula — like that used by Democrats to allocate convention delegates in their presidential primaries. Each party's share of seats is filled by its candidates who won the most votes. An independent wins by exceeding the minimum share of votes necessary to win. (Watch FairVote's excellent video for a primer on the system.)

In Massachusetts, for example, more than a third of the state's voters consistently vote Republican, but the GOP has not won a House seat there in two decades. Yet by consolidating Massachusetts's nine districts into three districts of three seats each, and by using a fair-representation system, that significant bloc of Republican votes would consistently win three — rather than zero — of Massachusetts's nine seats, a direct translation of the voters' will. Similarly, Democrats could end Republican monopolies and exaggerated majorities in states such as Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.

Although novel, fair representation has the potential to draw a strong coalition of support. Women, for example, are deeply underrepresented in House elections, with more than four in five seats still held by men, andwomen win about 10 percent more seats in multi-seat state-legislative and city-council elections than they do in congressional districts. Other supporters would be those in favor of 50-state parties, as we would engender two-party competition in every corner of the nation. Third parties would be able to field viable candidates, not mere spoilers, and our ideological polarization would be lessened with a new mix of representatives that better reflects the diversity of our thoughts and interests.

How we can move such a bold plan forward? To start, Democrats who are crafting a redistricting reform package should enable commissions to create such plans. State leaders should petition Congress for an exemption from the 1967 mandate. Maryland state Sen. Jamie Raskin (D) has proposed that two states that have done partisan gerrymanders — one for Democrats and one for Republicans — could even enter into an interstate compact in which they agree to utilize a fair-representation plan together.

We may have an opportunity this year. In July, Florida's congressional gerrymander was tossed out by a state judge on the grounds that two districts did not comply with the state's Fair District constitutional amendments, which had been approved by voters in 2010. A FairVote proposal has shown how, in a fair-representation system, the five Florida districts affected by the ruling could be combined into a single district, its representatives chosen by the open-ticket rule. It would make every voter count, provide fairer partisan representation and uphold the Voting Rights Act.

People are thinking creatively about how to re-energize American democracy. It is not acceptable to sit on our hands as we watch the value of a vote get more and more skewed. It's time to launch a drive for a fair-representation system for Congress so that the House of "We the People" can finally live up to its name.

Read more from Katrina vanden Heuvel's archive or follow her on Twitter.

Petition: when the student dies, the student loans should too

Even on loans with a co-signer

https://www.change.org/petitions/please-forgive-private-student-loans-when-the-primary-borrower-dies

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

Sad but true: Status Anxiety Drives Trains, Shuns Buses

I have heard young people refer to buses as the "loser cruiser."  In theory, mature adults would have outgrown this sort of juvenile status anxiety.  In practice, not so much.

Status Anxiety Drives Trains, Shuns Buses
// Next City Daily

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

Great reminder: the power of refusing to go away

One of my net friends has a great post for citizen activism today, 

"Stay Calm and Go to the Top of the Foodchain"

She ends with this great reminder

Fellow Citizens, we're not crazy and we're not stupid.  There's always something we can do to disrupt the patterns of secrecy that create an unhealthy balance of power, especially now that we can network through social media.  When you get that yucky feeling in the pit of your stomach about what's going on, dig in your heals and refuse to go away.   Because that's what they count on.   Not because our public officials and administrators are bad people.  They're just like the rest of us, always slightly over-whelmed and trying their best to do some very complicated jobs – so, of course, it would be easier for them if we Citizens would trust their judgement and not worry our pretty little heads about these complicated political issues.  

Ask questions.  Get angry.  Pick up a pen.  Talk to each other.  We are powerful, Citizens, and nobody is more important.

Here's her full post:

Stay Calm and Go to the Top of the Foodchain

Anger can be a very productive emotion if you learn how to use it properly.  But it requires a conscious effort.  Let's take a look at my most recent bout when I was being given the run-around by the Port Authority regarding Western & Southern's equity participation in Queen City Square.  (See the blog post, Now I'm Pi$$ed)

1.  Their Associate Counsel sent me a 63-page document that did not answer my question and told me to hire a lawyer to read it for me.

2.  Since I had copied the specific employee who negotiated the original deal for the city on my request, this was very frustrating and I did not feel they were making a good-faith effort to supply the information. Grrrrrrrrr. The implication that I was too stupid to understand a legal contract did not help my mood and I started using terms like "that little pip squeak." Double grrrrrrrr.  "Stupid" is the worst thing anybody can imply since I try very hard to do more homework than anybody else in any room.  My poor husband – who really doesn't understand why I don't just mind my own business – had to pretend like he was listening to a lot of complicated real estate jargon that doesn't directly impact his life.  

3.  Then I slept on it.

4.  And when I woke up this morning, I wasn't mad anymore and knew from the bottom of my heart that I was not a powerless, little insect that the Port Authority could flick-off at will, a mere annoyance on a list of much more important considerations.  I am a Citizen and there's nothing more important.

Still in my nightgown, I created a multi-pronged plan to march towards change.  And the change I'm looking for is increased transparency, a better educated electorate, and more meaningful community conversation.  None of it requires casts of thousands or any money.  It is a commitment of time, will, and faith in the intelligent goodness of my fellow citizens.  I believe in us.

The first item on my action-list was to go back to the Port Authority and ask for the intervention of the woman who runs the show, Executive Director, Laura Brunner.  

Hello, Laura.  Christopher Recht has been very responsive in my recent requests for public documents regarding the Queen City Square project.  But we seem to have reached an impasse on the question of any retained equity ownership of the building by Western & Southern Life Insurance or any of their affiliates.  Since the building is currently on the market two years after completion and the Lessee can terminate the lease on or after October 1, 2015 this is important for the citizens of Cincinnati to understand. 

Christopher's first response to my query was a one-page summation of the project financing and it clearly included no discussion of division of proceeds should the building be sold. When I told him that this was not the information I needed he sent the 63 page Lease Agreement and suggested I consult an attorney for interpretation of the document.  

 

I have seen a 15% percent retained ownership mentioned in other sources, so I am puzzled as to why I don't see any reference to such an arrangement in documents provided by the Port Authority.  Susan Thomas negotiated the terms of the project for the City and I was hoping this would be a fairly simple question for her to answer.

 

As Christopher implied in his most recent email, perhaps I don't have sufficient expertise to read and understand legal contracts without going to the expense of paying an attorney. But if that is the case, then I would suggest we need a uniform executive summary of the most important financial facts regarding each of the Port Authority's projects that is accessible on your website.  I'm sure this improvement in communication would save a lot of valuable time for your staff in responding to inquiries such as mine.  Currently there is no standardization and the information on Queen City Square appears to have been written by a public relations professional, seriously lacking in financial detail. Your biggest project to date by ten-fold, it deserves far greater transparency and I would be happy to volunteer my time to help the Port Authority develop a standardized format for use by elected public officials, citizens, the press, and commission members.

 

In the meantime, I would very much appreciate it if Christopher could supply me with a reference to the particular section and page numbers in the Lease Agreement that pertain to division of proceeds on sale of Queen City Square.  If my other source is wrong in regard to equity participation, that would also end our conversation and I could feel comfortable in my understanding of the relationship of the city to this project, but I would like somebody to say it out loud. 

 

Thank-you for your help,

Kathy Holwadel

  

Fellow Citizens, we're not crazy and we're not stupid.  There's always something we can do to disrupt the patterns of secrecy that create an unhealthy balance of power, especially now that we can network through social media.  When you get that yucky feeling in the pit of your stomach about what's going on, dig in your heals and refuse to go away.   Because that's what they count on.   Not because our public officials and administrators are bad people.  They're just like the rest of us, always slightly over-whelmed and trying their best to do some very complicated jobs – so, of course, it would be easier for them if we Citizens would trust their judgement and not worry our pretty little heads about these complicated political issues.  

Ask questions.  Get angry.  Pick up a pen.  Talk to each other.  We are powerful, Citizens, and nobody is more important.

"market-based" health care = A $10,000 blood test?!? Yes, really.

A $10,000 blood test?!? Yes, really.
http://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnews%2Fto-your-health%2Fwp%2F2014%2F08%2F15%2Fa-10000-blood-test-yes-really%2F&theme=white&size=medium
----
Shared via my feedly reader

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."