Red Tape Hurdles

There are some oversimplified narratives our nation entertains as if the events they describe happen in a vaccum. They're usually used to deflect responsibility for a problem from those who can actuall fix the problem.



Like "Teachers are responsible for the state of public education, and blaming school administrators, school boards, state offices and state legislatures are just excuses." Or "Blighted properties exist because poor people don't take care of the large and valuable properties they own, and cities can't do anything about it."



Another big one is "Amtrak specifically and trains in general don't make money," as if laws didn't exist to specifically make their overhead more expensive and hamstring their ability to make money and possibly turn a profic.



As if the laws Amtrak must follow rained upon the organization out of the clear blue sky.



And let's not even talk about how their competition is able to "make money."



.

Making Stuff Work

On the other hand, look what simplified and well stated zoning has done for Freret Street in New Orleans.



Things done correctly tend to work, after all.



.

Falling Apart

Let's try this:



1: An historic building is grandfathered in to a zoning change

2: The buiding changes owners

3: The building closes for needed renovations

4: The renovations take some time

5: During that time, the city removes the historic building's historic use

6: There is no other way to use the building

7: The city offers a longer, more tedious, and possibly less successful process to amend the zoning



For a city like New Orleans, where historic character is theoretically held in high esteem, this is ridiculous. It proves the lie behind what passes for historic preservation in this town, and the joke that is zoning here. This city is in such terrible condition in many ways because there are government regulations that force it to be this way.



And that's not just some sort of Tea Party "goverment = bad" rhetoric. Regulations are necessary, but you have to make sure they work for your city and don't kneecap your neighborhoods. You have to have a process where historic buildings can be purchased and updated and renovated so those properties can maintain value. If you require specific, specialized renovations, that work is going to take time. If that work takes time, you have to recognize that when it comes to zoning issues.



Most importantly, some aspect of reality must be factored into your decision-making process. Who the F wants to buy a 14 unit aparment building off the current owners and renovate it again for one or two family living?



Here's a few scenarios:



A: This will artificially drive down the value of the property for the current owners, who have already sunk money into the project. Some well connected individual can come along and buy the property so the current owners take a loss, then use their connections to get the zoning fixed and make bigger profits.



B: This will artificially drive down the value of the property for the current owners, who have already sunk money into the project. Some very wealthy individual comes along and buys the property, tears down the historic building, and constructs something more realistic to reflect the zoning.



C: This will artificially drive down the value of the property for the current owners, so they let the property deteriorate. It won't appraise for as much, but what is their incentive to keep up a property they cannot use? As a St. Charles Avenue home, this isn't likely to happen, but anywhere else this could contribute to blight.



You'll notice that "make a reality-based decision about the property; charge the owners a small fine for being late on the renovations; allow the property to go back into commerce and increase the city's property tax base, historical character, and housing stock" are not a part of the viable scenarios here. That would be to "win-win-win" for a city like New Orleans.



.

Truth About Blight

Owen Courreges at the Uptown Messenger examines some of the legal hurdles to addressing blight in New Orleans.



.

Follow Up

You remember those girls with the lemonade stand back in Georgia? Well, as of today,

These girls have learned a valuable lesson about small business, big government and the power of publicity.

Aint't that the truth.

.

Georgia Banks

Back in Georgia, they're still trying to figure out what caused so many of their banks to collapse when the real estate bubble burst. This is an interesting take on the situation. Such mature examinations are far more valuable than the "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" narrative so many right-of-center types have parroted since 2007.

It also may answer some of the questions jerztronics was asking on this blog back in March.

.

Peach Sticker Shock

Because the Almighty cares what sticker you put on your car's license plate. Doesn't have anything better to do, really.

< / eyeroll >

This is more news about Christians falling all over themselves to prove how Christian they are to other Christians, and make those of us who don't follow their particular narrow worldview of evangelical exhibitionism know that we are doomed to the Fiery Pit.

Of course some of them are going to be agitated that they'll have to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's by paying a $1 fee for the "In God We Trust" sticker. Customization always costs, though some of these folks would have you believe that not printing IGWT on ALL THE PLATES is somewhere in the arena of Christians getting thrown to the lions. There goes the government again, persecuting Christianists by not requiring every single car owner to agree with them.

There is, of course, little outcry that no non-religious sticker option yet exists. Because, you know, a lot of folks have bigger concerns in their lives. The end result? The Georgia DOT got the plate designs it wanted.

.

Development & Density?

No thanks. By failing to approve a new mixed use, high density urban development, the "preservationists" would rather keep Canal Street's "historical character" of boarded up buildings, shut down hotels, shoe shops, and faux-voodoo tourist kitsch.

That's a shame for a streetscape that should be one of the bustling, dynamic, walkable commerical avenues of the Southeastern United States.

Wide streets can be fronted by tall buildings, that's one of the way urban design is supposed to work. I find the complaints of this building's height to be baseless. There are plenty of other buildings on that streetscape of that height, and they work because they front Canal.

Historical character? The building design does look "modern" in the aspect that it appears to use state of the art building design and materials. While this may not fit perfectly with the rest of the street towards the river, it isn't like this is some concrete-block monstrosity or post-modern experiment going in on that street.

As for the building it is replacing, it is a ramshackle low rise with a boarded up first floor covered in graffiti and posters. There is a need here to balance historical character with needed economic expansion. You'll be more able to preserve the historical character of other buildings and this part of the city as a whole if it is part of a working, dynamic downtown economy.

In other words, the Saenger Theatre, the Lowe's Theatre, and the Broadway South concept for that intersection isn't going to work if the theatres have no economic support nearby. If the University Medical Center ever does get built, people who work there could live in this building and walk to work, increasing the value of properties between this location going up Canal Street - an area that desperately needs commerical dollars.

And the folks making these decisions need to look up the definition of "leverage." They have some leverage in that a location like this on Canal Street should be quite valuable. But that knowledge needs to temptered with the reality that a location like this on Canal Street currently isn't as valuable as it could be, because of a lack of developers willing to take a risk of locating there.

Because, while the location has the potential to be very valuable based on the proximity of planned theatres and hospitals, those planned theatres and hospitals aren't yet done deals. Going ahead with developments of this nature assist the critical mass required for those projects to be successful. Otherwise, you'll end up stuck with the street the way it is now.

.

Literal Dark Ages

I'm sure any government restrictions on asbestos and lead paint will be forthcoming after reading this.

.

Systems Failure

Patrick Appel at the Daily Dish ponders how little protections are afforded at-risk populations.

Looking at the story as is, this seems like a case of many patholgies that are crushing our society these days under weight of our own making.

The race and economic status of the guy thrown in jail. The bank incompetently refusing to honor its own check, and its inability to verify that check's accuracy in house. The inability of a criminal justice system to work swiftly while the parking police can sweep down and impound a car in a matter of hours. The litigation for the damage this has done to one man's life is dragging along. For want of a nail...


.

Peach Fail

I have never understood Georgia's inability to come up with an aesthetically pleasing license plate design. They were fine back when I started driving, but change after change has led to this ridiculousness.

.

Small Government at Work

You know why I don't trust the "Small Government" concept of political management? Contractors. If you operate on the premise that you can "run government like a business" and that "government can't manage things correctly," then it makes sense that one of the ways you deliver public services to the community is to set out a bid for a contract, and go with the lowest bidder for the services.

On its face, this appears to shrink the government and save the taxpayers money.

In practice, however, it leads to nonsense like New Orleans' traffic camera fiasco.*

In this case, an external entity has convinced a government officials to purchase their services in an effort to raise revenue for the government budget under the guise of increasing safety. This is an incredibly unpopular program that would likely be voted down if offered up on a referendum, and has been the subject of many lawsuits. To legally administer the program while protecting the city from litigation raised by the program requires measures that have led to the suspensions of high level police officials who were part of the "clean up corruption" regime.

This happens because the program is ripe for corruption, and even the most above-board administration appears dirty when you've got this much money made from a low political risk program that delivers nearly unchallengeable verdicts regarding an almost indefensible crime. (Disclaimer: I've been caught by one of these cameras.)

My problem is that the city shouldn't be making money in this way, and shouldn't be depending on revenue generated. As Mark points out:

Even if you buy into the idea that the cameras are more about safety than revenues, it still doesn’t make sense for a city to rely on revenues from scofflaws. If the cameras DO actually change driving behavior, as proponents suggest, then these traffic camera revenues will decline over time anyway, as people drive more safely. That creates an incentive for the city to install ever more cameras to overcome the decline in ticket funds.

If the program's big proponents are defending it because the city will lose money if it is terminated, then you see the only reason we have this program. And it ain't public safety. It is about a snake-oil solution to a problem no one wants to face politically.

The better idea, it seems to me, is for this city to fix its incredible revenue problems as well as the city's unbelievable spending problems. Because, like most governments, this city has both problems in abundance.

.

* Which is not to be confused with the non-revenue generating New Orleans crime camera fiasco. That wasn't about public safety, either.

.

No Drive List

I guess we now have the theme for Security Theater Season 2.

Anyone want to guess what Season 3 might have in store?

.

Keep 'em Separated

Since the 1950's, there has been a tremendous political movement to increase the use of private school vouchers - that is, sending students to private school on the public dime. The current reasoning is another of those common-sense-isms that seems rational on its face.

But all you have to do is dig a little deeper.

First of all, there is an inherent conflict of interest. The same people (state legislators) who are able to politically enact vouchers programs to "allow even poor people to escape the worst public schools" (their words) are the same people who politically affect policy for the state's worst public schools.

Meaning a politician who wants a voucher program can create the need for a voucher program by passively neglecting or actively kneecapping public education through his or her legislative perogatives.

This behavior is demonstrated very well, as Jay Bookman indicates, when political supporters of voucher programs refuse to require voucher recipients take standardized testing the state mandates for public school students.

I wonder what the explanation is for that?

Let me get this straight: a legislator will force education budgets to spend millions on standardized high-stakes testing infrastructure, to quantitatively evaluate the value of a public education and to "install accountability." This makes public schools cut extracurricular programs in favor of teaching the test, degrading the overall value of a public education. Then, in response to that degredation, that same legislator will say that students need to escape the mess that's been made, and offer to send them to private schools with public money. Finally, once the kid is in private school, the legislator does not want that student tested against one of the only metrics available to quantitatively evaluate the value difference between private and public education.

Where's your accountability now?

That's why I vote against every single politician who proposes a voucher program - it is, literally, a public and policy-based admission that the candidate is incapable or unwilling to do the job they were elected to do. Not only that, but such politicians are usually openly hostile to doing that job.

Now, I wouldn't vote for them if they just came out and admitted that they despised the idea of public schools and would rather that not be the government's responsibility. I think that position is terrible and has been demonstrably proven false. But I would at least respect the honesty. That's an improvement to the way they're going about things now.



.

Sound Familiar?

Atlanta has a problem with their city streets.

In Atlanta, like other major cities, utility companies — cable, telecommunications, power and gas — pay franchise fees to be able to do regular work beneath the city’s streets. Developers and contractors are granted work permits. All are supposed to restore the streets to their original conditions, or close to it.

In one of the most egregious acts, Ward said auditors identified 26 random street cuts on 10 streets. Nobody in the Department of Public Works could verify when the cuts were made, or by whom. She said in another instance, she and her staff found 22 plates on streets near City Hall, and none of them had an identifiable marker on them to say to whom they belonged.

So, when a private utility company, private contractor, or ineffective city department incorrectly repairs a street - and doesn't report it - the city ends up having to clean up after them. Taxpayers subsidize private business and ineffective government yet again, and it works because - who do you call if no one knows who made the hole? It creates a zero accountability system for those doing the damage.

How about this: rasie the hell out of the franchise fees, require everyone tearing up a street to report it to Public Works, and then use the increased franchise fees to support Public Works' budget to fix the streets. Any street cuts get made, Public Works fixes the street. That way, any time there is a street torn up somewhere, everyone knows who is responsible for it. Accountability.

Bet that could work in some other Southern cities who have pothole and street problems...

.

"Who Are You Giving Money To?"

Jeffrey posted a roundup before I did.

Gulf Coast residents were arrested while trying to shakedown a BP shareholder's meeting.

I mean, this is such a big shakedown, the Mississippi Attorney General is now gettin' in on the act. You all know about those liberal, anti-business Attorneys General in Mississippi? Just following orders from the Kenyan-Anti-Colonialist In Charge, really. Shaking down the companies that create jobs.

But to answer the serf's individual's question, "Who are you giving money to?" The answer is simple: the money went to the "spillionares."

Of course it did. After the Road Home and now this, disaster affected residents of Louisiana can rest easy knowing that the levees may leak, the oil platforms may explode, but the money-traps - located between the coffers and the residents in need of aid - are working just fine. But I bet the rest of the country is going to get mad at folks down in this part of the world because, even after $20Billion in shakedown money, people down here still have the nerve to complain.

As far as the environment, the water, and the food that comes out of the water, that isn't working so well at all. A lot of right-wingers call environmentalists "tree huggers" as if humans aren't affected by crap dumped into the air, water, or food.

.

The Problem with DNA Evidence

Is that examining the cases of the wrongly convicted are demonstrating the many innocuous investigation procedures that lead to false convictions.

Not that DNA evidence is a problem for the exonerated. Not that DNA evidence is a problem in that it requires investigators and prosecutors actually do their jobs. But it does present a tremendous problem with credibility.

For a justice system to work, the people must trust its authority. Just one overturned conviction is enough to shake the foundations of credibility. With so many convictions overturned, and the by-the-books tactics exposed as vulnerable, and now even confessions called into question of validity, how can we trust a justice system?

That's the problem.

.

No Excuses

"This is why you don't put your face on the cover of Time magazine with a broom." - A former New Orleans teacher, upon being shown these links.

Y'all remember the test score investigation in Atlanta? The one where they're planning on hanging Beverly Hall out to dry? The one where the state investigators and the APS are fighting over which teachers they get to intimidate into testifying or staying silent?

Kinda makes you wonder what they're going to do with Michelle Rhee.

.

Trails

Even as New Orleans gears up for another hike down our work-in-progress Lafitte Corridor Greenway, the greenways in Athens, Georgia have been so successfully implemented that the Clark County Leisure Services offices is considering dissolving the Natural Resources Division.

Because that's how you reward success in Georgia!

.

(False) School Choice

One of the biggest selling points for the "school choice" movement is that "schools will compete for your student." Basically, the theory behind the market approach to education is that schools will work to be better as they do whatever they can to attract the best, brightest, and most students. Without doing that, they don't get paid.

This is a fine concept in theory, that plays off the "common sense" of utopian libertarianism. The concept falls on its face when presented with reality. I present two examples where "school choice" places all the responsibility on the parent and the children to compete to get into schools.

College and Preschools.

One would think that with so many institutions "competing" for student participation at the preschool and collegiate levels, the application process would be much easier and less stressful.

But the application process is stressful because those schools know they are the best, have a large pool of applicants, and can pick and choose their students based on internal criteria to remain the best. Those who don't get in have to pick and choose between their second choices.

This works well at the college level, where you have a wealth of viable and excellent second choices - second choices that are also a lot of other folks' first choices. Colleges can also specialize - from small, private liberal arts teaching institutions to giant, State U research institutions attached to Division 1 Minor League Football Teams. There already exists a robust variety of college choices that take the "false" choice out of the equation.

Those choices DO NOT EXIST in many places the "school choice" model is being sold as a vehicle for education reform. In these places, like New Orleans, if you don't get into one of 8 functioning and accredited public schools, your remaining options are A) expensive parochial private schools, B) non-accredited charter schools, and C) non-accredited, underresourced public schools. With the exception of C), you have to compete to get into the other options as well. Even with those places that offer "open enrollment," there are specific requirements (forms, attendance requirements, behavior requirements, uniform requirements, transportation requirements, etc.) that come with participation and application.

The schools at the top of this food chain do not "compete" for the best students, the students and parents "compete" to get into these schools. The existence of non-functioning schools at the bottom of this chain keep the monopoly working. That is not an incentive to reform the local system.

The only way "school choice" works is if you are choosing between two places where your student is going to recieve a functioning, adequately-resourced education. The "choice" should be between the "art" school and the the "math & science" school, not between "functioning school" and "non-functioning security risk."

And this examination doesn't even touch the underserved exceptional students or socially maladjusted students, who are expensive to educate in the first place. When these students and their parents have to "compete" to recieve services, they are handed an additional, systematic level of disadvantage.

But, hey, it makes sense in political speeches that appeal to counterintuitive, utopian "common sense-ism."

.