Out of Control

Take away commuters' coffee. That’s what’s happened in New York.

Daniel Koffler points to this story:

Moving between cars - as well as resting one's feet on the seats, sipping from an open container (even a cup of coffee) and straddling a bicycle while riding the subway - will be prohibited under a new set of passenger rules adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's transit committee yesterday, the first such rule changes since 1994.

While riding between cars is already forbidden, managers at the authority said they wanted to make clear that even quickly darting from one car to another while the train is in motion is dangerous.

And let's pause to consider all the possible unintended consequences. This is what happened when New York banned smoking in bars and restaurants.

Competition is great, but let’s not forget about property rights. And the Supremes haven’t done so well on the property rights front lately.

But here’s some good news:

Proponents of "open access" suffered a major setback on Monday in the so-called Brand X case, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the cable industry doesn't have to let competitive ISPs onto its wires.

The fight moves next to Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, where telephone companies are expected to seek similar exemptions from line-sharing rules.
…

The case decided Monday pitted the National Cable & Telecommunications Association and the FCC against internet service provider Brand X internet of Santa Monica, California.

Brand X -- supported by the wider ISP community and consumer groups -- had asked the Supreme Court to affirm an October 2003 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court favored Brand X when it found that cable-modem service is partly a "telecommunications" service and therefore should be subject to the same line-sharing rules that govern broadband DSL services run by telephone companies.

In 2002, the FCC had classified cable-modem service as an "information" service not subject to traditional telephone rules that would require leasing lines to competitors.

The decision in National Cable Telecommunications Assoc. v. Brand X Internet Services, was a victory for technological progress, and for property rights. For nearly a decade, some Internet predators (including, for a while, AOL) claimed that the government should give them the right to sell ISP services delivered on a broadband network which was built by someone else. In other words, if A builds a restaurant, then B claims that he has the right to sell food in A's restaurant, as long as B pays A a "reasonable" fee for access to the restaurant. In a broadband context, the government-abetted piracy was called "Open Access", and claimed as giving consumers more choice. But the more accurate term was Forced Access, since B would use government force in order to intrude B's business onto A's property. In the long run, Forced Access would have drastically reduced consumer choice, since Internet companies would be reluctant to innovate and take risks to build infrastructure, if the government might force an innovative company to share the infrastructure with another company that did not innovate technologically, but did exercise political clout.

The Court's decision today did not address the merits of Forced Access, but instead deferred to the judgment of the Federal Communications Commission in interpreting an ambiguous statute. (Whether broadband is an "information service" or a "telecommunications service.") The F.C.C. did act on a policy basis. Back in 1999, I wrote a lengthy Policy Study for the Heartland Institute warning that a policy of Forced Access could harm the rapid development of broadband connectivity. Fortunately, the covetous companies that demanded Forced Access enjoyed only mild success in their preferred forum (city councils) and their schemes were defeated when the Federal Communications Commission intervened.

See also Kyle Dixon from the Progress & Freedom Foundation.

And here are some thoughts on Grokster.

On Monday I posted a link to federal legislation introduced by Sen. Cornyn that would limit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes when federal funds are involved. My initial reaction was that Eugene Volokh was right: this bill would mainly serve a symbolic purpose, since it only applies to situations in which federal funds are used in the exercise of the eminent domain power. It likely wouldn't put much of a dent in the rampant state and local abuse of eminent domain.

And if passed, I think that the symbolic effect of the legislation could possibly be counterproductive, as many people currently aghast at the Kelo decision may feel satisfied that Congress has "done something" and subsequently think that the issue has been adequately addressed. Hence, a "take your eyes off the ball" effect, which could potentially diminish public enthusiasm for state-level legislative efforts to address eminent domain abuse.

But for those of us that aren't lawyers, the legal - rather than political and social - ramifications of such a bill can be somewhat esoteric, so it is always helpful when legal experts weigh in with their opinions. What follows are a handful worth considering.

According to Hillel Levin on Prawfsblawg, the bill is evidence of democracy in action:

Yesterday, I argued that Kelo was fully consistent with precedent and democratic majoritarianism--a two-fer for the committed conservative. I also suggested that those offended by the decision should move to pass a law at the local, state, and/or federal level...It turns out that Congress is listening!

. . . .

As a policy matter, this may or may not be a good idea--I make no claims. But it is democracy in action, and it is precisely the kind of conversation we want between the branches of government.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog suggests that the bill may run afoul of the Constitution (read the whole thing for details):

Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, moved swiftly on Monday to narrow the effects of the Supreme Court’s decision last Thursday that upheld broad government power to seize private property to turn over for profit-making economic development. Cornyn’s new bill, S. 1313, would lay down a congressional definition of “public use,” far narrower than the Court’s constitutional interpretation in [Kelo]. The measure raises immediately the question of Congress’ power to write its own definition, and put it into effect.

Blogger Will Baude at Crescat Sententia offers a counterargument:

Cornyn's bill restricts federal eminent domain power quite severely, but this is constitutional if the eminent domain power is permissible in the first place-- just as Congress can repeal or partially repeal statutes, and just as RFRA (establishment and severability challenges aside) could still be applied to the U.S. Code. Cornyn's bill also restricts state/local governments but only to the extent they directly use government money-- this is spending clause power that even Justice Thomas would uphold.

However bold the bill may be politically, it is surely one of the most constitutionally unassuming things to come out of the 109th Congress.

Setting aside constitutionality issues, lawblogger KipEsquire from A Stitch in Haste is wary of the bill:

Um, gee thanks, but I wonder whether this bill could actually be detrimental from a libertarian perspective.

. . . .

Here's yet another example of myopic, consequentialist libertarians seeing only the ends and completely ignoring the atrocious means by which we get there. It's the Internet wine cases all over again: what's a little lost textualism among "libertarians" when there's Internet wine to buy?

But how are these same libertarians going to feel, after cheering the federal government bullying the states with the threat of withheld funding, when it comes time to argue against the federal government doing the very same thing in Rumsfeld v. FAIR (the Solomon Amendment case)?

Libertarians should be aghast at this part of the Cornyn bill -- it is nothing more than yet another potential abuse of federal power and yet another betrayal of fiscal federalism, which is a far greater threat to libertarian ideals than even the Kelo travesty.

(Fighting all federal subsidization of state and local government programs, as a blanket policy, is of course a fundamental libertarian principle. But cherry-picking which funding threats to rally behind and which to let quietly slide by will only lead to claims of inconsistency and hypocrisy later.)

When it comes to bad policies, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a dead end that will only result in libertarians losing on both fronts. Intellectual consistency is vital, and the funding-threat prong of the Cornyn bill is not consistent with libertarianism.

Be careful what anti-Kelo legislation you wish for -- you might get it.

The far better way to fight Kelo is at the state level: limit, by state constitutional amendment if necessary, the ability of municipalities to authorize private-for-private takings. The federal Constitution always represents only the floor on individual rights; state laws and constitutions can always afford more rights. And, since the private-for-private outrages are happening at the state and local level reather than at the federal level, clearly it makes more sense to fight the battles there, in the state houses

Not sure yet where I come down on this one, and I'm probably not alone, so I offer the above perspectives just as food for thought.

(Hat tip to Volokh for getting the ball rolling on this one.)

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors may hand over Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center to a private company after nearly two years of failed attempts to correct patient care lapses and mismanagement at the beleaguered public hospital.

County supervisors, who ordered a study of the idea last month, now are giving it new urgency after yet another federal government inspection found medical errors, misconduct and a troubling death at the 33-year-old hospital south of Watts. A vote could take place as early as August, and at least three of the five supervisors — Mike Antonovich, Don Knabe and Zev Yaroslavsky — express some support for the idea.

Sadly, examples like these are rather common at King/Drew:

In the latest inspection, which was completed Friday, federal officials cited several major medical errors, including a patient who waited to be seen in King/Drew's emergency room for more than 13 hours in January without a medical screening. He later died of a dissecting aneurysm — a tear in a weakened blood vessel.

The aneurysm had been visible on an X-ray taken by King/Drew staff two years ago, but it was never diagnosed by them, according to a memo to supervisors from Fred Leaf, the health department's chief operating officer.

The Times obtained a copy of the memo.

The inspectors also faulted two nurses who gave a narcotic by epidural to a 9-month-old baby. Not only were the nurses not allowed to perform such a procedure, which is typically performed by an anesthesiologist or specially trained nurse, but they never obtained consent to do it and falsified patient records, Leaf's memo said.

The nurses were removed in May. The hospital's pediatric intensive care unit was closed after the incident because King/Drew could not find other qualified nurses to step in, health department officials said.

In addition, the inspectors found there were "still too many pharmacy errors and too many cases of drugs being administered late," Leaf's memo said. Those same problems have been noted in several previous reports from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Whole story is here.

For more on the troubles at King/Drew, go here.

And for more on why more public hospitals are turning private, see this recent Privatization Watch cover story.

If this is true, it's just priceless:

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) -- Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

Link here.

Though I share many of author Steven Greenhut's opinions on modern urban planning and the need to curb the rampant abuse of eminent domain, I have been mildly critical of his recent writings on New Urbanism (see here). In short, I think that he has shown a tendency to blur the distinction between New Urbanism (a movement advocating a return to traditional urban forms and architecture styles) and Smart Growth (a movement aimed at using all manner of intrusive, anti-market, and often counterproductive policy mechanisms to produce radical changes in development patterns and, ultimately, human behavior).

While there are common goals between the two movements, New Urbanists tend to be at least marginally more receptive to the use of markets to achieve their goals. Smart growth advocates, by contrast, may support a cherry-picked set of specific market-based policies, but then augment them with all sorts of coercive, anti-market policy prescriptions, such as urban growth boundaries and open space preservation schemes. In my opinion, Smart Growthers distrust markets because they wrongly perceive that the urban sprawl they abhor is the result of unfettered market forces, rather than the inevitable by-product of a market constrained by outdated, Euclidian zoning ordinances and poor planning policies and frameworks.

Anyway, with this (arguably subtle) distinction in mind, it was welcome to see Steven Greenhut clarify his sentiments on New Urbanism in Sunday's Orange County Register:

So are the New Urbanists for more freedom or less freedom? My conclusion: They are for more freedom when it suits their design goals and less freedom when it suits their design goals. No one at the panel talked about property rights, freedom, individualism, etc. Their guiding principles are communitarian.

. . . .

To the degree New Urbanism is a design movement operating in the free market, I'm for it. No writer has been more vocal in his support for efforts by the city of Anaheim, for instance, to reduce zoning restrictions to allow higher-density construction in the Platinum Triangle. To the degree New Urbanism is defined by subsidies, growth controls and a new regimen of government planning, I'm against it.

Beyond the debate over public policy, I question some of the underlying assumptions of the New Urbanists. They say suburbia destroys a sense of community. But I live an interconnected life with work, friends, school, church, family, neighbors, local merchants ... in suburbia.

Really, New Urbanism is about an aesthetic, and an aesthetic preferred by a high-income academic-minded elite. The [recent Congress of] New Urbanism conference, despite its blather about diversity, had the approximate diversity of the architecture faculty at a major university.

. . . .

By all means, let's remove the barriers to New Urbanism so developers can build these types of projects, but let's not create new barriers that make it harder to build the suburban houses needed to shelter the millions of new residents heading to (or being born in) America in the next 50 years.

Kudos to Greenhut...whether you agree or disagree with his opinion of the philosophical foundation of New Urbanism, he certainly hits the nail on the head with regard to policy.

(Via Planetizen)

As a follow-up to Adrian's Kelo-related post on Friday, Texas Senator Jon Cornyn has introduced legislation to ban eminent domain for economic development purposes, at least in projects that involve federal funding. Here's the link: S. 1313, "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005"

See this Volokh Conspiracy post for more info on Cornyn's bill.

The Supreme Court's decision to support eminent domain to increase tax revenue leaves many people wondering what next? How do we prevent our land being taken and given to any yahoo with an idea to use it that will pay more taxes to local government?

(see posts here, here, here, here, and here)

I think there is going to be a concerted effort to get state and local governments to put in place restrictions on the use of eminent domain for purposes that are not clearly things like roads. There will likely be a push in Congress, too, but I doubt it wil get anywhere.

A Rocky Mountain News editorial shares my opinion:

If there's any bright side to this lamentable decision, it's that even the majority opinion specifically said states could enact tighter restrictions on when property can be condemned, as Colorado did in the 2004 legislative session. But once officials get dollar signs in their eyes, it's an uphill battle to regain rights the Supreme Court should never have taken away.

And this article on reactions to the Court's decision in Colorado closes with an opinion similar to mine.

Denver real estate attorney Howard Gelt said he thinks the Supreme Court made the correct decision. But he said the issue is far from over. "I think it will have a substantial effect on local communities and people going back to city council and legislators asking for more restrictions on condemnations," Gelt said.

Utah has already moved the right direction with legislation that limits the use of eminent domain for redevelopment.

The dust has barely settled and public officials are already starting up their bulldozers! Washington DC mayor Anthony Williams, along with council members could barely hide their glee at yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.

D.C. officials want to acquire 14 acres near the Anacostia waterfront by the end of the year to build a stadium for the Nationals. In addition, they are trying to buy the 1950s-era Skyland strip mall in Southeast to build a larger, upscale retail complex.

D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said that the ruling should give the city a powerful hand during negotiations with the 33 property owners at the ballpark site.

"It puts to rest the issue of whether the city has legal rights to take the properties," Evans said. "This strengthens our hand to get control of the property. Hopefully, it will encourage owners to settle with the District...and move on."

Property owners will have 30 to 45 days to negotiate with the city, Mitten said. If a deal is not reached, the city will seize the land, and a court will decide the sale price.

Maybe this isn't too far fetched afterall.

The city of Orlando was paying $1800/month to provide free wireless internet access around the downtown area. But after months of only an average of 27 people/day using the system, they pulled the plug.

There are a lot of other communities that need to heed this lesson. With the explosion of people having their own broadband access, and commercial hot spots, even a tourist mecca like Orlando doesn't find much demand for taxpayer provided interenet access.

The Kelo decision (see previous post) is rippling through the blogosphere today. Here are some items worth checking out:

• Susette Kelo (plantiff in the case): Even in defeat, and soon to have her home handed to Pfizer, Ms. Kelo holds her head high..."I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the rights of working class homeowners throughout the country. I am very disappointed that the Court sided with powerful government and business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to preserve the Constitution."
• Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit), via MSNBC: "If you doubted that we're seen mostly as sources of revenue to be milked for the benefit of Big Government and its constituency groups, today's Supreme Court decision in the Kelo case, essentially holding that state and local governments can condemn your property and turn it over to private businesses for private purposes so long as they expect the turnover to produce higher property tax revenues, should settle things.

  It used to be that tax revenues were to be spent promoting the public good. Now, apparently, they're a public good in and of themselves."



• Arguing With Signposts: "The main problem I have with this ruling is that it represents a further encroachment by government on the rights of the individual (never thought you’d hear me saying that, eh?). The same side of the court that is so bent on “a woman’s right to choose” is content to trample on the home ownership rights of citizens in the name of nebulous concepts like 'economic development.'

  My prediction? Abuse. Abuse. And more Abuse. Can anyone say 'new athletic stadiums'? 'New Wal-Marts'? 'New strip malls'?"



• Instapundit: the first line says it all..."OUR STATIST SUPREME COURT STRIKES AGAIN: They've had quite a run lately."


• Instapundit II: "I suspect that this decision -- somewhat like Bowers -- will cause a lot of activists to shift their focus to state legislatures and state courts. One difference: State legislatures, and sometimes state courts, are in the pockets of real estate developers and corrupt local politicians in a way that they weren't beholden to anti-gay-rights activists. So it'll be a lot harder. This may also lead to a greater focus on local politics by political activists (and bloggers!) of all stripes. That, at least, would probably be a good thing."


• Andrew Sullivan: "If you grow pot in your attic solely to help you survive chemotherapy, you can be prosecuted by the feds under the "inter-state commerce" rationale. Now you can have your property stolen by Walmart and be unable to get any recompense either, as long as your local representatives, financed by the real estate lobby, go along. Is this an unfree country or what? And, of course, none of this breaks new ground. That's the really depressing part. It seems to me that the most inspired pick for the Supreme Court would be a thoroughgoing economic and social libertarian. The freedom-loving part of the Republican coalition has already been alienated in so many ways by this administration. A libertarian SCOTUS pick would go some way to winning them back."


• ProfessorBainbridge.com: "So much for private property rights. Kennedy and Souter voted with the majority, proving once again just how essential it is that Bush pick somebody reliably - and permanently - conservative when there's an opening."


• NashvilleFiles.com: "Congress should forget about a useless flag burning amendment (or even a gay marriage amendment) and start looking at passing an amendment immediately that would clarify just what the 5th amendment means...and they might as well throw in a clarification on the Commerce Clause."


• Will Collier (aka VodkaPundit): "The localities are still required to pay 'a just price' when one of these takings occurs, but the price even a willing seller would be able to get from his property just took a huge hit. All a developer has to do now is make a lowball offer and threaten to involve a bought-and-paid-for politician to take the property away if the owner doesn't acquiesce.

  Disgraceful."



• SCOTUSBlog discussion forum: Just check it out...lots of opinions rolling in on this one.


• Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters: "I recall the words of Mark Twain, who famously lost a copyright case involving a bootleg publication of one of his novels despite having the law clearly on his side...Upon his loss, he remarked that since the judge was so cavalier with Twain's property, Twain planned to offer the Judge's house up for sale -- and if he got a good enough offer, he might let the buyer take the contents as well.

  Can anyone come up with a good use for Justice Stevens' house? A bowling alley or a Bennigans, anything that improves the tax base for his community? We could urge its confiscation under eminent domain and perhaps put in a Mark Twain Museum instead. Now that would be justice."

There's certainly more feedback to come on this decision...

The Supreme Court released their widely anticipated decision in the Kelo vs. New London case today. The decision was 5-4 in favor of the City of New London, supporting the expansive view of the power of eminent domain that has led to an erosion of private property rights nationwide. The notion that cities can use eminent domain for economic development purposes -- taking private property just because they can make more money by giving it to someone else -- is now safe.

From the WaPo:

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.

Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including _ but by no means limited to _ new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.


He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

. . . .

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

You can read the opinions here.

Check back later for more on this developing story. For background, visit Reason's Eminent Domain Resource Center.

Also be sure to check out SCOTUSBlog and The Volokh Conspiracy throughout the day for legal analysis.

Tom Bell has an interesting take on my recent interview with space entrepreneur Burt Rutan. (Go to Agoraphilia or The Technology Liberation Front). Basically, Bell worries that Rutan has cozied up to the regulatory state.

While I certainly agree with Bell on how space policy ought to proceed, I’m more optimistic that Rutan is—and will continue to be—a champion for market-based private space flight.

My interview didn’t show Rutan at his most laissez faire, but elsewhere he has been adamant about how government has sapped the innovative spirit out of space exploration. He wants private space flight to return to the early days of aviation, when bottom-up experimentation led to great progress.

Rutan has taken it to NASA and the FAA on many occasions (see here and here for example). And U.S. licensing requirements have frustrated Rutan even more.

BTW, make sure to check out the Air and Space Privatization Watch.

From Fairfax County, VA, a clinic in planning micromanagement:

Fairfax County planners last night offered a vision for a mini-city at their westernmost Metro station that would begin to transform how people live and commute in Washington's largest suburb.

In a place where cars and growth have always gone together, the county wants to offer incentives to the residents and workers in the planned MetroWest development at the Vienna station to not even own a car -- let alone drive one.

From high-priced parking spaces to cash rewards for riding Metro, a consultant laid out a series of carrots and sticks for developer Pulte Homes to reduce by almost half the number of car trips that otherwise would be generated by 13 residential and office towers planned next to the Metro station.

If the county approves the strategies, Fairfax's controversial experiment with dense, transit-oriented development would become a laboratory for a movement in the fight against sprawl and traffic as well as a blueprint for the county's future of urban-style growth that rises up rather than out.

So far, so good...incentives, rather than mandates, are the no-brainer way to go in trying to influence behavior. Oh wait...they said carrots AND sticks...

If Pulte cannot reduce the possible car trips generated by the 2,250 townhouses and condominiums, stores and offices planned on 56 acres, the developer could even risk fines, transportation officials said, although any possible penalties are still under negotiation.

Many critics of MetroWest have focused on the traffic such a project would bring, even though trains will roll by its doorstep. Still, county officials acknowledge that getting people onto trains and buses will require drastic changes in behavior in a suburban car culture.

Duh...ya think?! This is Northern Virginia we're talking about here!

UrbanTrans, a District-based transportation management firm and the county's consultant, offered several options at a public meeting last night, including showers in offices for bike riders, personalized traffic troubleshooters for residents, handy Zipcars on the site for planned or unplanned errands, cash rewards for employees who show that they are using transit, free Smartcards and even company cars for workers to do errands at lunch.

The consultant assumes that if a project the size of MetroWest were built far from a Metro station, it would generate 1,356 new trips during the typical rush hour. According to the plan, Pulte must reduce the residential trips by 47 percent and the business trips by 25 percent.

Personalized traffic troubleshooters? Uhhhh..OK... Handy Zipcars? Now THAT's enticing...

County officials would return regularly to monitor whether the car-trip numbers are where they should be. If they aren't, Pulte could be required to pay out of a fund it negotiates with the county, a technique used in Montgomery County.

Pulte would pay for the incentives and other strategies. Eventually, they would be passed on to MetroWest's homeowners' association, which would assess fees for owners and renters.

. . . .

But Alan Pisarski, a transportation consultant who lives in Falls Church, questioned whether it is possible to force people who cherish the convenience of their cars to stop using them.

"Anytime you put in a system that requires somebody to permanently change their behavior means the government has to monitor people to make sure they behave properly," Pisarski said. The idea is well-intentioned, but over the years it will fall apart, he added.

Ahhh...finally, in the very last paragraph, a welcome dose of sanity...

Clever tactic by the planners here, though. Instead of directly penalizing people for their "undesirable" behavior, why not just pass it off to the developer and force upon them the burden of getting residents and workers to step into line. Devious, but clever nonetheless...

And what about the really simple, obvious question here...isn't it unrealistic to think that you can achieve some massive shift to transit in this area when you're likely to have tons of folks either (1) commuting further westward to their jobs, or (2) coming to work at the new offices from Loudoun County or other westward locations? This is the last rail stop on the Orange line (see map)!

For more on the smart growth nuttiness like this going on in NOVA, see here, here, and here.

Today Reason released a new study -- Rail Disasters 2005 -- by economist Randal O'Toole that finds that, over the past two decades, transit ridership has declined, or at best remained stagnant, in more than two out of three urban areas with rail transit, while it grew in numerous regions with bus-only transit.

Here's a summary:

Over the past two decades, transit ridership has declined in nearly two out of three regions with rail transit. By comparison, numerous regions that rely on bus transit have seen huge increases in transit ridership at a relatively low cost. Additionally, the cost of starting a rail transit line can be 50 to 100 times greater than the cost of starting comparable bus service. This new report, "Rail Disasters 2005," scrutinizes transit records in 23 urban areas with rail transit and assigns each a letter grade based on whether transit ridership has grown faster than driving, grown slower than driving, or declined.

The full study is here (3Mb PDF).

BTW, this is an update to Randal's 2004 study, Great Rail Disasters, which can be found here.

Enjoy!

Russiaeconomy.org reports:

In April Russia's President Vladimir Putin called for an end to inheritance tax. On June 15, 2005, Russia eliminated this source of double taxation. The State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, by an overwhelming vote of 414 to 2 passed the draft law abolishing inheritance tax in the third reading required for passage. It eliminated current taxation of estates at rates ranging from 5–40%.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2006, also abolishes gift tax to close relatives, including spouses, parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, and step-siblings. It eliminates current taxation of gifts to close family members at rates of 3–15%, and for non-family members at 10–40%, replacing the latter with the flat rate of 13%.

Can the US learn from Russia (which has also instituted a flat tax)? The American Family Business Institute is a great resource for more information.

Forget global warming and water pollution...it seems that some New York environmentalists have found a new ecothreat worthy of their ire: the Segway scooter!

A bill that would define the Segway Human Transporter as an "electric personal assistive mobility device," rather than a motorized vehicle, is advancing swiftly through the State Legislature, a place that has historically loved to dabble in even the most arcane local matters.

. . . .

The measure in Albany would permit disabled people to use Segways on sidewalks all over the state. It would give local governments outside New York City a choice to ban or restrict their use by others on its streets, bicycle lanes and other pathways, but would give the city the choice of whether to permit the use of Segways along those corridors. In a legislative session distinguished by promises not kept, the bill appears greased for easy passage. The proposal is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor and has advanced to the Assembly's Codes Committee, and has moved further than some bills meant to tackle such core state issues as health care financing, environmental protection and ethics reform.

Opponents, including New York City officials, are trying to kill it.

In a twist, environmentalists are vigorously opposed to the bill. While the Segway may appear eco-friendly at first blush - it is futuristic in aesthetic detail and a self-balancing people mover powered by batteries - clean air proponents say the bill, if signed into law, would do harm by making life harder for pedestrians.

Walkers may be forced into cars, said Peter M. Iwanowicz, of the American Lung Association. Or, those who trade walking for Segways would contribute to pollution, he said, since they would have to plug the batteries the Segway used into the wider electric grid to charge them.

What's the world coming to when enviros are "vigorously opposed" to something like the Segway? Can most people count on more than one hand the number of times they've ever even seen a Segway in public? Is it really a pollution threat?!

And geez, aren't these the same people that are all in favor of hydrogen and electric cars? Guess they haven't done the math on how much energy is needed to create the hydrogen fuel or how much energy it takes to charge an electric car battery. Maybe we should just go back to horse-and-buggy (though the enviros won't like those pesky horse emissions)...

From the exciting field of private sector space innovation:

A privately funded and experimental spacecraft blasted off on Tuesday from a Russian submarine in a venture funded by space enthusiasts who see their solar-driven orbiter as a way to reinvigorate a race to the stars.

Cosmos 1, the world's first solar sail spacecraft, launched in the tip of a converted Russian intercontinental ballistic missile from the Barents Sea for the start of a mission that cost just $4 million.

Its Planetary Society sponsors hope the craft, which will deploy a petal-shaped solar sail to power its planned orbit around Earth, will show that sunlight could power interplanetary space travel.

More here and here.

it would be far more interesting and valuable to the climate debate if major figures in the climate change debate would negotiate a bet about the future of global temperature trends.

See why Ron argues this here.

Rumor around Washington has Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) introducing a bill to stop the raid on social security later this week.

The bills goals are simple:
1. provide a first step toward a permanent solution
2. forces Congress to recognize future obligations ("stops the raid" presumably on the "lockbox")
3. gives workers a legal right to their account benefits (which, by the way, you are not entitled to now...thanks Supreme Court)
4. with ownership, retirement nest eggs can be passed on to family members

Good luck Senator, we're rooting for you!

For more information on social security reform visit the Free Enterprise Fund

Some American soldiers who used to guard Saddam Hussein found him to be a friendly, talkative “clean freak” who loved Raisin Bran for breakfast. He can also apparently scarf down a whole bag of Doritos in 10 minutes.

Here’s the article.

Maybe it should be filed under “cheesy” instead of banal, but we’ve long known that Saddam is also a romance novelist whose titles include The Fortified Castle and Zabidah and the King, which tells the tale of a lonely king who falls in love with a beautiful peasant woman who reminds him that his subjects need his strict laws.

And there’s also that musical drama critic, Kim Jong Il, author of—among other titles—On the Art of Opera: Talk to Creative Workers in the Field of Art and Literature.

Jacob Sullum looks at the latest government survey on mental health. The opening paragraphs are entertaining and to the point.

According to a new government-sponsored survey, most Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives. Trying to explain how so many of us became mentally ill, The New York Times offered a history lesson that reminded me of an old "Saturday Night Live" sketch.

This is the sort of progress that might impress Theodoric of York, but does it bring us any closer to the truth?

This review in Reason by Jacob further explores the issue of defining mental illness.

Last Wednesday the Senate approved a provision to dramatically increase requirements to use ethanol.

"We must take steps to reduce our dependence on foreign countries," said Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

I'd laugh if I wasn't crying. The EPA long ago repudiated ethanol as a means of cleaning the air, so the corn-state lobbyist don't try to play that card too much anymore. So we are left with the idea that ethanol helps reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

But, manufacturing, transporting, and burning ethanol consumes nearly as much gasoline as it saves in our car fuel tanks, and it costs a heck of a lot more. See the full analysis here or a summary of it here.

Defenders of the public school monopoly fight charter schools, often with a viciousness only exceeded by that leveled at vouchers. But just as vicious are the attacks by non-profit charter schools on those dastardly for-profit charter schools. Latest round in the battle is via federal funding, and Arizona, which has the most charter schools per capita in the nation, is up in arms about it.

Last October, New York City officials held a special auction of 27 heavily discounted taxi medallions that could be used only with cabs powered by natural gas or by a combination of gasoline and electricity.

Eighteen of the licenses were sold, at an average price of $222,743, one-third less than the cost of a regular medallion. The Taxi and Limousine Commission praised the program as a first step toward the reduction of harmful emissions.

One problem: The commission never got around to approving any alternative-fuel vehicles for use as taxicabs.

Whole story is here.

To find out what happens when enviro- consciousness collides with nanny-statism, go here.

Indian reservations are the poorest places in America. Unemployment is high and life expectancies are low. A bizarre regulatory regime stifles economic activity and trust fund bungling by the Bureau of Indian Affairs hasn’t helped improve relations between Native Americans and the U.S. Government.

You’d think lawmakers would stay far away from anything that might replicate the reservation experience.

But now this:

[The Native Hawaiian recognition bill, A.K.A the Akaka Bill] would grant Native Hawaiians the same rights of self-government enjoyed by American Indians and Native Alaskans. The measure also would allow Hawaiians to form a native government.

Seems like this sort of segregation would make Hawaiian race relations, which are already rather sticky, even stickier. And at first whiff, this might smell like the concoction of some fringe movement.

But the bill has widespread support, from Hawaii’s Republican governor to the state’s all-Democrat congressional delegation, which claims to have the blessings of all 44 Senate Dems. Bush has been quiet on the issue, which supporters take as a sign that he wouldn’t whip out his unused veto pen to stop the bill.

And if the bill does become law it would form a separate government without a popular vote, which as this letter points out, is very different than the process that produced statehood:

Over 40 years ago, in keeping with the principle that a government should be created only with the consent of the governed, the citizens of Hawaii chose American statehood by an overwhelming margin. (Over 94 percent voted Yes to Statehood in 1959). The same choice would doubtless be made today.

Hawaii’s Grassroot Institute on this issue. Go there for updates.

And if a special Hawaiians-only government is formed, I suppose we’ll have to figure out who qualifies for admission.

The Wall Street Journal weighs in on the growing interest in state Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) laws, which require states to cap spending and rebate surplus taxes back to citizens:

Politicians and their spending beneficiaries in state capitals are about as fond of these Tabor laws as an alley cat is of a bell around its collar. Government employee unions and corporate lobbyists are expected to spend some $10 million to neuter Tabor in Colorado and even more to defeat Governor Schwarzenegger's "Live Within Our Means" budget initiative in California. Their hostility is all the more reason to think these ballot measures have real benefit.

A Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a long overdue addition to the architecture of state constitutions. Proposition 13 halted the aggressive encroachment of state government more than 25 years ago, but only temporarily: Even after adjusting for inflation, most state tax collections are two to three times fatter than they were then. The painful experience since is that only hard and fast constitutional limits can rein in the powerful spending interests that live off the government.

Read the whole thing.

Outforcing hits San Diego:

For the first time in nearly a decade, more people moved out of San Diego County last year than moved here from other U.S. locales and economists say the trend could continue as local workers find it harder to cope with stagnant salaries, a high cost of living and skyrocketing home prices.

In the past week, several major employers, including Intel and Capital One Auto Finance, announced plans to transfer hundreds of workers out of the region.

Although each company had its own reasons for moving, some – most recently the 135-employee kelp harvester International Specialty Products – cited the growing cost of operating in San Diego County as a reason for leaving the area.

Also, corporate relocation specialists say the area's high costs are making it increasingly hard to find newcomers to replace the companies that are departing.

"Employees, especially if they're not executives, are finding it harder to move here when a company relocates," said Barbara Brokaw, director of relocation services at ERA Eagle Associates Realty in Carmel Valley. "We deal with people who come to San Diego to interview for a job, but when we tell them about the area, they often find that their salaries are not commensurate with what they're looking for in a house."

Same story in LA. Imagine trying to recruit businesses or new employees:

First, where would the employees live? Our tight land-use policies function as an indirect tax, driving up the cost of housing. The median price of a home across the entire state is now more than a half a million dollars. Not long ago, people were fleeing Los Angeles for the cheap houses in Santa Clarita. Now, even the median price in Santa Clarita is above $500,000. The median housing price throughout Los Angeles County recently hit $485,000, with Ventura County up more than $649,000.

In order to attract and retain good workers, businesses must pay significantly higher salaries so their employees can afford to live here.

The story is the same—probably worse—in the Bay Area.

Flashback: Buck Knives leaves San Diego for Idaho.

Apple Computer Inc.'s CEO Steve Jobs told Stanford University graduates Sunday that dropping out of college was one of the best decisions he ever made because it forced him to be innovative, even when it came to finding enough money for dinner …

Jobs, 50, said he attended Reed College in Portland, Ore., but dropped out after only eight months because it was too expensive for his working-class family. He said his real education started when he "dropped in" on whatever classes interested him, including calligraphy.

Whole article is here.

And for more on the innovation-wary climate of higher education, check out Dan Klein’s take on the incestuous world of academic economics.

Related to the previous post by Adrian, is Intel's list of the most “unwired” cities in America:

Seattle is now the most unwired city in America, according to Intel Corporation's third annual "Most Unwired Cities" survey …

This year's survey sheds more light on what previous Intel Unwired Cities surveys were indicating - that connecting to wireless Internet access points with laptop PCs and other wireless-enabled devices in public places is becoming part of everyday life in America …

Following the Seattle-Bellevue-Everett-Tacoma, Wash. area on the list of top 10 unwired regions are San Francisco-San Jose-Oakland, Calif. (No. 2); Austin, Texas (No. 3); Portland, Ore.-Vancouver, Wash. (No. 4); Toledo, Ohio (No. 5); Atlanta (No. 6); Denver (N o. 7); Raleigh-Durham, N.C. (No. 8); Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. (No. 9) and Orange County, Calif. (No.10).

Here’s the press release and here’s the complete list.

I bet plenty of local leaders are already waving this list around, going on and on about how important it is to move up it. Meanwhile their schools are probably awful, traffic congestion is probably mounting, infrastructure is probably crumbling, etc …

I've written before about the issue of municpal governments getting into the business of providing broadband internet access. I neglected to mention that time the nice blog on the issue by Progress and Freedom Foundation.

Some of the more interesting recent posts look at the problems cities have had with "spammers, illegal file-swappers and people launching virus attacks" from free municipal wireless systems, and given those problems, the potential for liability for the city governments than own the wireless system.

Story here. NJ's transportation funding, like that of so many other states, is in the toilet.

Governor Richard Codey says he wants to avoid any increase in the state gasoline (and diesel) taxes, but the state's transportation trust fund is so heavily burdened by debt service on non-revenue generating projects (light rail etc) that it will run out of money for new projects next June. All the fuel tax and other revenues will go to debt service.

The Orange County Register opines on new urbanism, and as usual, is right on target:

New Urbanists claim that they are only suggesting a design alternative, and want to work within the market. But we've seen too many instances of New Urbanist ideas being imposed by government in the form of growth controls that undermine property rights, debt spending to build new downtowns and the abuse of eminent domain to clear away properties for the new plans. We also fear that New Urbanists want to use government to expand low-income housing and to create new zoning requirements that make it untenable to build the single-family homes most people prefer.

. . . .

Nevertheless, New Urbanists make some reasonable points. They complain about zoning requirements that restrict the ability to build high-rises. They complain about the abuse of eminent domain to build big-box stores. They support school vouchers as a way to encourage families to move back into central cities. We agree with all of those points.

To the degree to which New Urbanists promote market alternatives to current designs and deregulation of land use, we'll defend them. To the extent that they promote subsidies, growth controls and other coercive features, we'll oppose.

More on markets and New Urbanism here, here, and here.

Last week, the Oakland-based company SustainLane released the results of their research attempting to rank 25 U.S. cities with regard to their "sustainability." According to their website, "the peer-reviewed study is the first and most comprehensive US city sustainability performance benchmark." Not surprisingly, we see Smart Growth vanguards like Portland, Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Austin among those at the top of the list, while the much-maligned, "sprawl" poster children Detroit and Houston reside at the bottom.

But this sustainability ranking unfortunately seems to be based more on intent and commitment to the progressive agenda than any objective basis of measurement or coherent definition of sustainability.

This leads to a natural starting point: how do they define sustainability?

The SustainLane US City Rankings focus on healthy regional economic development, vibrant communities and quality of life measurements. Our viewpoint of sustainable practices is weighted toward ideas borrowed from our natural systems and implemented in our cities, particularly those geared toward the revitalization of our economy and public health.

That sounds nice, but what does it mean? Sustainability discussions usually revolve around balancing the 3E's (environment, economy, and social equity). But SustainLane's definition -- which one would assume would be clearly stated given the attempt to construct a meaningful ranking system from it -- is full of style and devoid of substance.

For example, it's reasonable to assume that an index based on "healthy regional economic development" might include some measure of the sectoral diversity of the economy (e.g., is the economy broad-based or overly reliant on one sector?). But a glance at the methodology reveals the complete omission of any local or regional economic indicators. Similarly, social equity appears to be absent in the index. You'd think that a sustainability index that truly considered the equity component would include such basic factors as income, educational attainment, housing affordability, rents, and community health, for example.

The narrow range of data inputs they do include are puzzling indeed. One-third of the index is devoted solely to qualitative survey results that basically measure a city's intent to plan for a number of sustainability-related factors. This leads to the natural question, does the mere existence of a sustainability, bike, or mixed use development plan have any real bearing on the actual performance of a city in these areas? We all know that planning and implementation are two entirely different things.

There also seem to be some basic omissions. For example, they include solid waste diversion rates in their index, but ignore the total solid waste generation (either in total or per-capita). Similarly, they include a measure of tap water quality, but exclude the total volume of water use.

And the number of farmer's markets and community gardens as an indicator of Food & Agriculture? Personally, I love browsing farmer's markets and think they add a lot of community value, but is it conceivable that any significant portion of a city's food would ever be purchased there? The commute-to-work numbers are similarly insubstantial (probably < 10% for most cities), as well as the percentage of alternative-fuel vehicles in the city fleet. Even if every city vehicle was switched to non-polluting, alternative fuels, would it really have any remotely identifiable impact on pollution or energy usage relative to the total number of vehicles on the road?

And commitment to the Kyoto Protocol? Frankly, that's just laughable as an evaluation criteria. The European Union - great champion of the Kyoto Protocol - also enthusiastically committed to Kyoto's greenhouse gas reductions, but most of member countries have had to concede that they are nowhere close to meeting their emissions reduction targets. The lesson there is that good intentions don't necessarily translate into desired, real-world outcomes.

As for objectivity, the non-governmental data sources used in the rankings include Smart Growth America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Trust for Public Land, and the Environmental Working Group. With all due respect to these organizations, is it not apparent that these might not be the most objective data sources?

What I really get a kick out of is that Houston -- the bottom of the list (imagine that) -- actually ranked higher (#10) in ZONING than the top four cities on their list! Hmmmm...a city with no zoning rates higher than Portland or Berkeley in zoning (which they proxy using scores from Smart Growth America's 2002 Mixed Use Development index).

The obvious implication to me is that they've inadvertently validated the idea that the market can indeed provide mixed use development without planning and micromanagement from above. That's an argument for market-oriented planning if I've ever heard one. Funny that SustainLane conveniently left a discussion of that metric out in their slam on Houston and in their fawning praise of Portland in their individual city descriptions.

Back to the bigger picture, it seems to me that SustainLane does a disservice to the concept of sustainability and to the cities evaluated by cherrypicking a very limited set of indicators that tell us next to nothing about how these cities balance the 3E's in any tangible, real world sense. This shortchanges the debate and misleads the public as to what "sustainability" really implies, particularly as it relates to the important role of market forces in coordinating human activities.

The often interesting column by Otis White in Governing recently had this nice bit on the soon to explode costs of government retiree health care costs.

It’s a problem so great that Fortune magazine recently described it as “a time bomb quietly ticking away in the netherlands of state and local government, and it is set to blow up in the next few years. When it detonates, the damage will easily run into the hundreds of billions of dollars — forcing tax hikes and public service cuts that will affect the lives of millions of Americans unless dramatic action is taken soon.”

. . .

Some governments are preparing for the accounting change by hiring actuaries to estimate the size of their benefits liabilities. One expert who has been running the numbers told Fortune that, when he shares the results with clients, they are “shocked, simply shocked.”

As my colleague Geoff Segal noted last week, OMB recently released its Report on Competitive Sourcing Results, Fiscal Year 2004 (press release | full report). He noted that every dollar spent on competitive sourcing during fiscal 2004 will produce $20 in savings. Here are some other highlights from the report:

• Public-private competitions completed in FY 2004 are expected to yield $1.4 billion in savings over the next five years, a 27 percent cost reduction for commercial activities (activities that could be done by the private sector) performed in government agencies compared to pre-competition costs.
• In-house government sources won more than 90 percent of the positions competed.
• Taxpayers save $22,000 annually for every job examined through competition (regardless of the ultimate provider), an 85 percent improvement from FY 2003 competition results. Some activities, including IT, maintenance and property management, logistics, human resources, and finance and accounting, saw significantly higher savings, ranging from $25,000 to $37,000 in annual per-job savings.
• Agencies saved over $32,000 per job in competitions with two or more private sector bidders, while they only saved $18,000 per job in competitions when the private sector chose not to bid.

Sounds like good news to me. But apparently some aren't happy:

To John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the 90 percent win rate by federal employees means the government is wasting money to review jobs for privatization, only to keep them in-house. "It’s time for OMB to stop frivolously spending hardworking American’s money, and own up to its mistakes,” he said.

Both Gage and Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said OMB overestimates savings.

“Hundreds and sometimes thousands of federal employees are immediately and adversely impacted by the decision to conduct a competitive sourcing study,” Kelley said. “Employees whose jobs are part of the study often opt for reassignments and early retirements, rather than wait for the outcome of the study. So even if the employees retain the work, many talented and experienced federal workers are no longer at their jobs.”

If I were in a leadership position in a federal employee's union, I might take the alternative view that this report validates the competitive success of the membership. And if I were a union member, I might find it odd that my leaders were effectively downplaying my ability to compete and work in the taxpayers' best interest.

Last week I posted a roundup of global warming news, which seemed to spike as (1) Tony Blair visited the White House to lobby the Bush administration to sign on to a new global warming action plan at the upcoming G8 summit; and (2) the national science academies of all the G8 countries issued a statement urging immediate action to fight global warming. Here are a few more timely articles of interest:

(1) Blair: US set for new climate change treaty (The Scotsman)

Politics is always a fascinating sport, particularly when world leaders can herald a multilateral agreement in which the signitories basically agree to disagree. Kyoto advocates won't be happy with this one:

Tony Blair is negotiating a "Gleneagles Declaration" on climate change that would sign the United States up to a new world plan of action on global warming.

The statement would accept that the US will never sign the Kyoto Treaty, which commits signatories to reducing greenhouse gases. Instead, it would recognise US efforts to fight global warming in its own way, with extensive investment in new fuel technology.

(2) Forget global warming. Let's make a real difference (Telegraph)

Skeptical Environmentalist author and Copenhagen Consensus organizer Bjorn Lomborg urges world leaders to get their priorities straight:

Surely we can all agree that the G8 meeting should do the most good possible, but we already know that this does not mean dealing with just climate change. The national academies must stop playing politics and start providing their part of the necessary input to tackle the most urgent issues first.

The urgent problem of the poor majority of this world is not climate change. Their problems are truly very basic: not dying from easily preventable diseases; not being malnourished from lack of simple nutrients; not being prevented from exploiting opportunities in the global economy by lack of free trade.

So please, let us do the right things first.

(3) The Pickett's Charge of Climate Alarmism (Tech Central Station)

CEI's Iain Murray takes a dim view of the joint national academies' statement:

The statement, co-signed by the national academies of the G8 nations plus China, Brazil and India, not only lays out uncontroversial scientific findings such the increase in carbon dioxide levels since 1750 and the warming of the earth by 0.6°C over the last century, but goes beyond that to demand urgent policy action. This is an unfortunate development. By urging political action the scientists are either attempting to assert that their knowledge of this issue trumps other political considerations and dictates that certain actions must be taken -- a view that is incompatible with democracy -- or are knowingly engaging in the democratic political process as policy advocates. Either view speaks badly of the academies' judgment.

(4) Global warming cyclical, says climate expert (The Age)

Some wisdom from Down Under:

Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas and has helped produce the "green" world agricultural revolution, according to [Australian climate expert Rob Carter].

. . . .

He said the Kyoto Protocol would cost billions, even trillions, of dollars and would have a devastating effect on the economies of countries that signed it. "It will deliver no significant cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050," he said.

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body."

Carbon dioxide was a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for 3.6 per cent of the total greenhouse effect, he said. Of this, only 0.12 per cent, or 0.036 degrees Celsius, could be attributed to human activity.

Climate had always changed and "always will", he said. "The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it."

(5) Warmer, wetter and better (or the good news that the climate change lobby doesn't want you to hear) (Telegraph)

Yet, just as the clamour for action grows in anticipation of next month's G8 meeting in Scotland, another group of academics has begun fighting to have its voice heard. It includes experts in fields ranging from agriculture to medicine, and most of them agree that something strange is happening to the Earth's climate.

Where they part company with [British scientist] Lord May is in their assessment of the threat it poses. After studying the likely consequences for everything from crop yields to human health, their results are anything but apocalyptic. They have found that a hotter planet brings with it many benefits, and that humans can adapt perfectly well to it.

Indeed, far from joining the calls for action, some now warn that trying to prevent climate change could prove far more catastrophic than learning to live with it. Nor is this cheery vision based solely on questionable computer models. Analysis of past episodes of dramatic - but entirely natural - climate change repeatedly shows the benefits of a warmer world.

(6) Betting on Climate Change (Reason Online)

Reason's own Ron Bailey suggests an Erlich/Simon-esque bet among climate scientists:

[...] it would be far more interesting and valuable to the climate debate if major figures in the climate change debate would negotiate a bet about the future of global temperature trends. James Hansen or Stephen Schneider could represent those worried about dangerous global warming, and John Christy or Patrick Michaels could pony up for the skeptics. It's time to put up or shut up.

(7) Space measurements of carbon offer clearer view of Earth's climate future (European Space Agency)

With the constant bombardment of talk about the 'urgent' need to limit carbon dioxide emissions, you'd think that the science was pretty solid. Not so fast, according to the European Space Agency:

The fact that human activities are pumping extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, by burning carbon that has been locked up in the Earth, is well known – the overall concentration of this leading greenhouse gas has increased by a third since the Industrial Revolution.

However, only around half of the extra carbon dioxide human activity sends into the atmosphere stays there, unidentified 'sinks' on the land or ocean surface absorb the rest. The rate of climate change would be much greater without this absorption, but as long as its distribution, strength and variability remains uncertain, the continuation of this effect cannot be taken for granted. In future, global warming may shut it off, or even throw it into reverse.

Scientists create intricate numerical models to try and improve their understanding of various segments of the carbon cycle within the Earth system, but significant knowledge gaps remain, especially concerning the exchange of carbon or 'flux' between the land surface and atmosphere.

(hat tip: JunkScience.com)

Here's a proposal to sell CA's excess state owned property, but not to offset the terrible budget crunch and borrowing to pay current expenses. Oh no. Instead, our trusty Treasurer proposes to create a new program, one that will surely have to be funded out of tax dollars once the property proceeds run out.

This is how we get ourselves into these budget messes.

A better idea for selling CA excess assets here.

Light rail transit is bust in every justification used for it (see here). An interesting sidebar is that it is cheaper to give everyone riding a typical light rail line a BMW SUV than it is to provide the light rail system.

For proof of the proposition, start by looking in almost any daily newspaper. The Newark Star-Ledger, for example, recentlycarried an advertisement for a new BMW X-5 luxury SUV, available for lease at an annual cost of less than $6,300.

Then compare that to the cost of rail. For example, the Federal Transit Administration reported in 2000 that each new trip on the Hiawatha light rail line in Minneapolis would cost a projected $18.57—and this was before the cost of the line escalated more than 50 percent. Using the pre-escalation number, the cost for each new annual commuter using the line two ways each work day (for 450 trips each year) would be approximately $8,400—or about $2,100 more than the cost to lease a BMW luxury SUV for the year. If that’s not clear enough, see Chart 1 for a graphical comparison.

Former Gov. Gray Davis acknowledged Friday that he was unprepared for the California energy crisis that sent consumers' utility rates soaring and his political fortunes tumbling.

Actually, Davis weasel's expertly in the article admitting blame in one small part of the fiasco and deflecting blame for his many other mistakes at the root of the crisis and exacerbating it.

From the Brownsville Herald:

Former Sheriff Conrado Cantu faces drug trafficking, money laundering, extortion and other charges listed in a federal indictment unsealed Thursday.

Cantu and four others, including a former captain and a former jail vendor, are accused of using the Cameron County sheriff’s office to protect drug traffickers in exchange for payments.

Read on, here.

(Via Governing.)

Journalists give loads of attention to jobs lost from offshore outsourcing, yet, as I note in the previous post, robots steal many more jobs than foreigners.

Maybe journalists have focused on outsourcing partly because the think it could cost them their jobs. Maybe they figure a robot could never do what they do.

Maybe those media types just haven’t met Actroid Repliee, the newscaster robot.

She’s female, but I’m sure they could make a male version to compete for Lou Dobbs’ chair. I bet the DobbsBot-3000 would work cheap—much cheaper than Lou.

Maybe now we’ll get more coverage of the robot threat, perhaps there will even be a list of companies that have given American jobs to robots.

But it would be a lot easier to get mad at those buckets of bolts if they weren’t so damn cute!

Then you should really be afraid of job-stealing robots:

Their developers say it will be several years before robots that are designed to be part of everyday lives take their place helping the sick, rescuing disaster victims and entertaining families.

The Japan Robot Association, a trade group, expects the Japanese market for next-generation robots to reach $14 billion by 2010 and more than $37 billion by 2025.

But all the robots on display were test models, and several had obvious glitches.

Cooper, a mechanical portrait artist developed by a candy maker, draws the faces of visitors on large cookies with a laser pen. It has a program that translates images from a digital camera into line-drawing instructions, but sometimes the robot delivered only a mishmash of scribbles.

Stupid robot.

Here’s the whole article (via Sploid).

For more on the coming war against the robots, see this article of mine.

And if you’re still not lathered up go watch I, Robot and remember this prediction:

[Gartner analyst Frances] Karamouzis says more IT jobs in the West are at risk of disappearing because of automation and productivity gains than from offshore outsourcing. The effect of those factors on IT job displacement will, by 2015, be six times greater than the impact of offshoring.”

This survey seems to offer some evidence that Americans fear foreigners more than robots. When asked about the long-term effects of “new technology, competition from foreign countries, and downsizing” a plurality (43 percent) said the effect would be good.

But when asked about the effect of trade agreements between the U.S. and other nations, a majority (54 percent) said they cost American jobs.

The lesson for corporate PR departments: less outsourcing, more robots.

New Haven became the fourth city in the U-S tonight, and the only in CT, to pass an ordinance allowing free metered parking for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicle cars. Only San Jose, CA; Los Angeles, CA; and Albuquerque, NM have passed similar legislation.

Said the mayor:

"This isn't about parking, it's about public health. Eighteen percent of our kids suffer from asthma, and statewide the number is 10%.”

Stay tuned for an upcoming Privatization Watch which examines the popularly held notion that air pollution causes asthma.

Again from the mayor:

“This ordinance sends a powerful message to not only New Haven residents but the rest of the state and even the country that the smallest measures can make a difference. Tonight's vote is part of a larger effort in New Haven to reduce toxic emissions. This includes converting the city fleet to hybrids, retrofitting school buses with diesel emissions reducing technology, and building two hydrogen fuel cell buses. New Haven is the hybrid capital of Connecticut."

Here’s the whole article (via The Newspaper).

Here’s my take on why it’s good for consumers to love hybrids, but not good for politicians to express their love of hybrids through policy.

UPDATE: The Grassroot Institute’s Don Newman points out that Honolulu offers free metered parking for electric cars.

From Glen Whitman:

I made some harsh (perhaps too harsh) criticisms of this study from the UC Berkeley Labor Center, which purports to show Wal-Mart causes taxpayers to carry a greater public welfare burden. My fundamental criticism of the study is that it seriously confuses correlation and causation. It finds that Wal-Mart employees and their families rely disproportionately on public assistance, as compared to other retail employees and their families, and therefore concludes that Wal-Mart causes the difference in public assistance costs. All that statistic really shows is that Wal-Mart hires disproportionately from segments of the population more likely to rely on public assistance – specifically, people with few skills, people without education, single moms, immigrants with limited knowledge of the language, and so on. Nothing I could find in the study showed that Wal-Mart increased the number of such people (say, by pushing down wages) or caused them to rely more on public assistance than they otherwise would.

Go here for more.

And go here for links to studies that examine the effects of living wage laws.

Here's the bottom line of an NBER analysis:

Living wage campaigns have succeeded in about 100 jurisdictions in the United States but have also been unsuccessful in numerous cities. These unsuccessful campaigns provide a better control group or counterfactual for estimating the effects of living wage laws than the broader set of all cities without a law, and also permit the separate estimation of the effects of living wage laws and living wage campaigns. We find that living wage laws raise wages of low-wage workers but reduce employment among the least-skilled, especially when the laws cover business assistance recipients or are accompanied by similar laws in nearby cities.

In other words, these laws aren’t so much “pro-worker” as they are “pro-some-workers at the expense of other workers.”

The Primary Sources section of the July/August 2005 issue of The Atlantic looks at a study of how Florida suspended more low-scoring students than high-scoring students during testing periods--even when the students committed similar school crimes.

From The Atlantic:

Since 2001, when the No Child Left Behind Act tied federal school funding to performance on annual tests for students in grades three through eight, critics have charged that the law encourages schools to boost their test scores artificially. A new study of one potential score-padding maneuver—suspending probable low scorers to prevent them from taking the test—provides grist for this argument. Researchers examined more than 40,000 disciplinary cases in Florida schools from the 1996-1997 school year (when Florida instituted its own mandatory testing) to the 1999-2000 school year. They found that when two students were suspended for involvement in the same incident, the student with the higher test score tended to have a shorter suspension. This isn't in itself surprising: high achievers are often cut some slack. But the gap was significantly wider during the period when the tests were administered, and it was wider only between students in grades being tested that year.

The full study —"Testing, Crime and Punishment," David N. Figlio, National Bureau of Economic Research, is here.

You can read all about potential score-padding maneuvers in my Reason, June 2005, How Schools Cheat story.

Julian Sanchez over at Reason's Hit and Run, has a round up of the various Head Start headlines.

Interesting to see the different spins on a new report gauging the effectiveness of Head Start:

That last one's particularly telling—a kind of scrambling preemptive strike that reeks of desparation—but it's probably necessary to read the full report before jumping to conclusions. I do wonder, though, whether if the negative assessment is borne out, Head Start will stop being this sort of exemplar of what's wrong with libertarians and small-government conservatives (i.e. "These people even would repeal Head Start! It's puppies in blenders next!").

Unfortunately, spending billions on universal preschool is on the docket next and the libertarians and small-government conservatives who have reservations about turning a mixed preschool market over to the state will continue to be portrayed as the puppies in blender camp.

Matt Welch explains.

The good news is that markets improve living standards.

But as Peter Gordon points out:

The bad news is that as people get richer, they are more likely to be rationally ignorant -- and more inclined to take up unexamined views, which are often the romantic tales and postures that [Dan] Klein writes about.

We get the stock of Popular Unexamined Propositions (PUPs), many of them taught in our schools and universities. Fewer than ever believe that the Moon is made of blue cheese but most accept that the Great Depression forever indicted market economics and that the New Deal forever vindicated top-down economic planning for the democracies.

See also this example of ignorance.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, every dollar spent on competitive sourcing during fiscal 2004 will produce $20 in savings!

Agencies conducted 217 competitions, involving 12,573 full-time equivalents, in the last fiscal year, generating savings of $1.4 billion during the next five years, the report states--and $2.5 billion if previous years savings competitions are included.

Competitions were yielding savings of 27 percent!

My colleague Jeff Taylor writes in Reason Express:

It is almost a running joke that public mass transit systems across the county, particularly ones with a light rail component, lament that they would be a much better deal for taxpayers if only more people would ride them. Get ridership up and great things will happen for the community: The air will be cleaner, the kids smarter, and life just better overall. The corollary is that, absent those riders, it is just going to cost more money upfront from taxpayers to run the systems.

And then along comes D.C. Metro to blow that all to hell. Metro officials lament that their system is beset by too many riders and that funding must increase to cope with them all. And this is a $10 billion modern system, the oldest parts of which are only a few decades old, one that has been lavished with federal subsidies since its inception, one that has benefited from a good design and the necessary development density to make light rail function. And yet Metro wants its own dedicated regional sales tax to keep the system running.

Cities contemplating pumping tens or hundreds of millions into light rail systems need to ask themselves how they would avoid the problems Metro now grapples with. Absent a good answer, maybe the best idea is to pass on the projects and avoid the whole too few/too many dilemma.

A new report examining the performance of charter schools in CA found,

California’s classroom-based charter schools were 33 percent more likely to meet student performance goals in 2004 than were regular public schools. . .

This is particularly notable since charter schools often get the short end of the funding stick.

State and local governments are racking up huge pension obligation deficits and for many it looks like tax increases are the most likely outcome. Business Week has a very good, if scary, look at the issue this week.

Understanding the depth of these retiree problems seems especially important for state and local governments because of their limited financial options. Unlike the federal government, which can always print money, and private companies, which might sell more widgets and make more profits to fund their pensions, and whose pensions are guaranteed by a government-backed insurer, local government basically has only one way of meeting those promises: your taxes.

Next week Reason is releasing a major report on this issue.

Global warming is a hot news item today, as the issue was on the front burner during Tony Blair's White House visit yesterday (sorry, bad puns). Below is Part One of a roundup of some items worth noting. There's a theme here, which I'll comment on in a bit:

(1) Bush seeks 'to know more' about global warming (Financial Times)

At the White House after talks with Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, Mr Bush said the US would continue to lead the world on investment in technology to diversify away from the use of fossil fuels.

However, in remarks that will disappoint environmentalists, Mr Bush appeared to suggest he still had doubts about the scientific evidence behind global warning. “We need to know more about it,” he said. “It's a lot easier to solve when you know more about it.”

(2) Nations told 'curb greenhouse gas to fight warming' (The Times)

THE national science academies of all the G8 countries issued an unprecedented challenge to their governments yesterday, urging immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming.

Scientific evidence about the causes and impacts of climate change is now so clear that effective measures to address them can no longer be delayed, the elite institutions said.

(3) Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming (New York Times)

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved...The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

As usual in the climate change debate, the key theme here is the so-called "scientific consensus" on global warming. Despite the loud claims of the environmental community and their media allies, this "consensus" is a mirage and pops like a pin-pricked balloon when subjected to deeper analysis. See here, here, here, and here for more on this.

The wise Philip Stott of EnviroSpinWatch nails it today on the difficulty of communicating global warming skepticism to the public:

But to be a "mitigated" sceptic - like me - is even more problematic. The "mitigated" sceptic has first to distinguish 'global warming' from 'climate change'. Secondly, 'climate change' itself has to be broken down into three component and separate questions: "Is climate changing and in what direction?" "Are humans influencing climate change and to what degree?" And: "Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two variables, or factors, out of the thousands involved?" Imagine trying to unravel these threads in the shoddy warp and weft of a three minute radio interview, or a five minute television debate between three people. There is no air space for the "just reasoner". Yet, as [philosopher David] Hume was at pains to stress, when we are shown the "infirmities" of human understanding, we should naturally acknowledge "... a degree of doubt and caution, and modesty, which, in all kinds of scrutiny, ought ever to accompany a just reasoner."

What is more deeply depressing, however, is the failure of the media, not the failure of the politicians, nor of the scientists. A critical media is vital for a functioning democracy. The media, nevertheless, can become dangerous when it 'crusades' uncritically, siding too readily with the establishment and government of the day. In such circumstances, the debate never achieves the depths of "just reasoning", but becomes ensnared by the slogans of 'the faithful', or worse, of the spin doctor and activist.

And JunkScience.com's Steven Milloy has a brilliant response to the NYT article, the intellectual equivalent of the "talk to the hand" gesture:

If only a lot more government aides and bureaucrats were as diligent in damping unfounded hysteria and ridiculous overstatement the world just might be focussed on real issues rather than this ridiculous sideshow.

At least a couple of times a week people write to me on the topic of global warming, either abusing me as some kind of Earth-toasting global conspirator (usually following some slur and innuendo laden article by advocates of Big Warming) or wondering why I'm less than excited by claims of looming heated catastrophe. Let me see if I can very briefly explain:

1. We think we can figure out the global mean temperature to within a range of about 1.5 °C (about 2.5 °F)
2. We think Earth may have warmed between one-third and one-half that range over the last century or so
3. We think there might be a recent warming trend in near-surface measures but don't know if that's purely an artefact of sampling in and around cities and urban environs
4. Neither balloon-sonde nor satellite-mounted MSU measures of the lower troposphere indicate alarming warming
5. Our ability to model the complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear system we call the atmosphere is in its infancy and our understanding of climate woefully insufficient to make predictions. Of 9 broad inputs the IPCC classifies our level of scientific understanding as "Very Low" for 5 of them, incredibly including solar and land use (albedo) [don't take my word for it, see table 6.12 of the Third Assessment Report]. You'd expect, given Sol is the source of planetary warmth, that very low understanding of Sol's role in driving the planet's climate, coupled with equally poor understanding of albedo (that is how much solar radiation is reflected and how much actually absorbed by the planet), would give people pause before pontificating on climatic trends - at least I so expect.
6. Climate change is inevitable, that's what it does.
7. We should hope that said inevitable change is for the warmer - cold is very hard on humanity and the biosphere.

So, we don't know the planet's temperature, we think it's likely warming but not by very much, we have no useful agreement between methods of deriving the planet's temperature except those that show no significant warming and we don't understand the system well enough to make useful predictions. Oh, and on the strength of this we are supposed to spend trillions of (1990 US) dollars to 'fix' it (see IPCC's 'correcting figure 73' down-revising cost estimates by two orders of magnitude).

I think that about covers it.

A bit lengthier than the "if they can't predict the weather five days from now, why should we trust their 100-year climate change predictions" argument, but still nicely put.

Glen has more on the debate we participated in, including this very telling anecdote:

I sat in on a presentation about the evils of Wal-Mart around the world – in Canada, Mexico, China, etc. Most of the speakers were union reps, and I can say without hyperbole that the event played like a union rally.

The speaker from Mexico told a story that nicely illustrated how different the same facts can look when viewed through divergent lenses. He held up a Mexican Wal-Mart employee’s pay stub and pointed out the shockingly low (by American standards) wages. Then he observed that the pay period was only 12 days long. Why only 12, when the standard pay period is 14 or 15 days long? Because, he said, under Mexican law a worker becomes a “permanent employee” after 28 days of work. So Wal-Mart officially fires people after 26 or 27 days, and then rehires them a couple of days later under a new contract. To my astonishment, this was presented as evidence of the perfidy of Wal-Mart, rather than the stupidity of Mexican labor law!

One aspect where the press has not come through as well as it should is really digging into why Mexico is poor. Even people in border states and even those obsessed with immigration usually can’t point to much, except for perhaps a vague reference to corruption.

Corruption is indeed a big problem, but Glen shows that the problem runs much deeper.

Desktops for $100?

And how about laptops? They continue to improve in quality and drop in price:

In a sure sign that the era of mobile computing has arrived, notebooks have for the first time outsold desktops in the United States in a calendar month, the research firm Current Analysis says.

After tracking sales from a sampling of electronics retailers, Current Analysis says notebook sales accounted for 53 percent of the total personal computer market last month, up from 46 percent during the same period last year.
San Diego-based Current Analysis does not follow worldwide personal computer sales.

Spurring demand for notebooks is their overall price drop as quality has improved, says Sam Bhavnani, senior analyst for Current Analysis. "Just a few years ago, the performance of notebooks was nowhere near where it is today," he said.

Notebook prices fell 17 percent during the past year while desktop prices dipped only 4 percent. Some of the features common in most notebooks are longer-lasting batteries, CD burners and wireless capability.

The computing crowd is increasingly requiring mobility.

Good new in general, but especially good for the future of telecommuting.

I have an oped on outforcing in today’s LA Daily News:

California's lawmakers, already the best-paid in the nation, recently got a 12 percent raise.

This sort of thing always makes for a tough public-relations sell, but Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez defended the raise by saying that it will help attract good people to politics. Maybe so, but wouldn't it be nice if the Legislature focused on bringing new business, not new politicians, to California?

Read on, here.

For more on outforcing, see this recent study by Adrian and me—especially the discussion beginning on p.33.

After how the Raich case went, it’d be nice to have a bit of good news.

Here are two bits.

First from New York:

[A] powerful state board rejected critical public funding for a $2 billion stadium on Manhattan's West side.

The st