Out of Control

The [San Diego] City Council voted 5-3 to ban stores [i.e. Wal-Mart] with more than 90,000 square feet that use 10 percent of their space to sell groceries and other merchandise not subject to sales tax.

The promised mayoral veto won’t matter because the council has enough votes to override it. But hey, just because they banned it, it doesn’t mean councilmembers have anything against WM:

Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who supported the ban, emphasized that the city has nothing against Wal-Mart but wanted to limit how its stores affected neighborhoods and small businesses.

“This policy is not going to affect negatively people's ability to choose where they want to shop. If they want to shop at Wal-Mart, please do,” Atkins said.

Um, but you kinda just banned the grocery-selling variety of WM. I guess San Diegans are still free to travel 150 miles to the Supercenter in Rosemead.

And don’t talk to former Councilwoman Valerie Stallings about chipper employees in blue vests:

“It's true that the big boxes may be less expensive and they do offer affordable prices to many families, but they do not provide the kind of friendly and individual service that a smaller business can,” she said.

Art Castanares, who served as [Councilman] Hueso's election campaign manager, has long advocated for the ban.

“The issues haven't changed. It's still about visual blight of the large unattractive boxes,” he said. “It's still about the lack of landscaping and open space and acres of parking and the devastation of the local economy when you build these huge stores.”

Methinks this might have a little more to do with it:

A group of labor leaders and grocers proposed the ban three years ago …

Good ol’ competition-stifling incumbents strike again!

Article here.

Related: How civilized societies (e.g. South Korea and Germany) ban the box

Or at least it would have had a county executive not "prohibited the county from privatizing a jail" -- now residents faces a 1 mill tax increase, says Beaver County (PA) Commissioners Chairman Dan Donatella. That equates to slightly more than $2 million -- "That's exactly what we lost from privatization, and it's all based on the judge's opinion and ruling," said Donatella. "It's a sad day for the taxpayers of this county."

Nonstop bus routes that used to take commuters to downtown Denver have been nixed in favor of shuttles to light-rail stations. The result: longer commutes.

The local transit agency has taken note, but who knows if the proposed “tweaking” will help:

RTD also plans to tweak bus and train schedules to try to fix the long commutes some riders have faced since their bus service was replaced by light rail.

"If we're going to cause our loyal riders to spend another 20 to 40 minutes a day commuting, that's a policy decision that's just not right," said RTD board member O'Neill Quinlan.

Article here.

Environmental Defense summarizes how LA politicos favored rail at the expense of bus service:

MTA discriminated against low-income people of color through vast overspending on its rail projects, which disproportionately benefited white communities, and through its funding for suburban buses and for MTA's own buses which served a primarily white ridership.

For example, while 94 percent of its ridership are bus riders, MTA customarily spends 70 percent of its budget on the six percent of its ridership that are rail passengers. Despite increasing demand, MTA reduced its peak hour bus fleet from 2200 to 1750 buses in the last decade. 1992 data reveal a $1.17 subsidy per boarding for an MTA bus rider. The subsidy for a Metrolink commuter rail rider was 18 times higher ($21.02); for a suburban Blue Line light rail passenger, more than nine times higher ($11.34); and for a Red Line subway passenger, two-and-a-half times higher ($2.92).

MTA customarily tolerated overcrowding levels of 140 percent of capacity on its buses. In contrast, there is no overcrowding of riders on Metrolink and MTA-operated rail lines.

MTA documents show huge disparities in spending for the personal security of its riders. While only three cents was spent for the security of each bus passenger in fiscal year 1993, 43 times as much ($1.29) was spent for the security of each passenger of Metrolink and the MTA Blue Line and 19 times as much (57 cents) for each passenger on the MTA Red Line subway.

More here.

Related: Similar stuff from the Bay Area

In many cases, what the experts have to say has a big effect on public opinion. Think about global warming. Most people think it’s real because climate scientists say it’s real.

But, as Bryan Caplan has pointed out, the public is less willing to defer to the experts in economic matters. He discovers four big econ error biases: anti-foreign bias, anti-market bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias.

In each case, what economists think is much different than what everyone else thinks. Take the last of the four biases. Economists generally think that things are getting better, while the man-on-the-street is far more likely to think things are getting worse.

Robin Hanson expands on the theme:

Consider how differently the public treats physics and economics. Physicists can say that this week they think the universe has eleven dimensions, three of which are purple, and two of which are twisted clockwise, and reporters will quote them unskeptically, saying "Isn't that cool!" But if economists say, as they have for centuries, that a minimum wage raises unemployment, reporters treat them skeptically and feel they need to find a contrary quote to "balance" their story.

Part of this has to do with the inherent differences between the physical and social sciences. Part has to do with the fact that most people will freely admit that they don’t know a damn thing about physics. Yet everyone lives in the midst of economic activity, so folks are more likely to think they know a thing or two about economics.

Related: Economists don’t like rail transit, but city council members do

That broadband users in Japan, South Korea and elsewhere get 100 Mb/s downloads has become a mantra of those who say we need government intervention if the U.S. is ever to catch-up. Last month’s PBS report by Bill Moyers that generally lamented the state of U.S. telecom policy was only the latest to invoke the Japanese.

But wait a minute! Has anyone ever verified these claims? Well, a new report from the respected firm Anaylys Consulting debunks much of the claim that Europe and Asia have moved substantially ahead of the U.S. by comparing the actual speeds consumers in those countries get, which are actually much lower and much closer to the U.S. norm.

Trouble is, all those broadband doomsayers have been relying on advertised claims. What the AT&T-funded study found is that the actual average download speeds for incumbents is 19 Mb/s in Japan and South Korea and 10 Mb/s in Sweden. This compares to 8 Mb/s available via cable modems in the U.S.

Analysis adds:

This disparity holds true of the non-incumbent providers as well. In France and Italy, the alternate xDSL providers advertise similar speeds to the incumbents and actually deliver roughly the same percentage of this speed as the incumbents. In Sweden and Japan, the alternate fiber carriers advertise speeds that are roughly two to four times as fast as the incumbents (100Mbit/s in each country), but deliver only 60% of that speed in Sweden and 35% in Japan.

The full report can be found here.

A tip of the hat to Scott Wallsten at the PFF blog for the heads-up.

I first heard about this from the CA Political News and Views and thought I smelled an urban legend.

But the Fox News story looks legit--PETA beefing a church over its "living nativity". Oh, the horror that could befal those poor animals. Except, wait, they are actually people in costumes!

Best (worst) part of the story is the PETA clown talking about all the terrible things that have happened to animals in nativity scenes, including "they've been raped"! Really!? He lists examples of the other bad things, but not that one. I am thinking if someone is determined to partake of sheep love they can find a way around a lack of living nativities.

When PETA just focuses on fighting real and cruel abuses of animals they are usually doing good. But when they insist on attacking every conceivable situation in which an animal might accidentally get hurt no matter how benign the intent of the people involved they become clowns and undermine what should be their real mission.

Security at airports sucks. As a frequent traveler I could live with the security process and delays if it actually made us safer, but it does not. The system keeps getting Fs.

One of the fragile reeds that keeps the system from being worse is that the federalized airport security workforce is not allowed to unionize and bargain for hundreds of policies to benefit the workers and make things worse for the traveling public. No the least continuing the process of diverting more security dollars into screeners pockets rather than into real security measures. But under the Democrat leadership in Congress, that may well change.

Screeners Central gives a fascinating look into the minds and world of airport security screeners--their T-shirt selection tells you what they really care about!

We need to overhaul aviation security to a system that focuses on real risks and actually provides security. Won't happen until people get fed up with do-nothing security measures that just make us "feel safer." This speech from FAA Jane F. Garvey just after 9/11 is a nice window--few of the real security measures she lists remain, but her closer emphasis on making flyers "feel safer" remains the touchstone of policy.

A new study finds that:

Using data from 15,000 Americans living in various places across the country, researchers found that residents of sprawling suburban spaces actually have more friends, more contact with neighbors and greater involvement in community organizations than citydwellers who live in very close proximity to each other.

A short article about the study here. Full study here.

When the CA legislature voted itself a hefty pay raise earlier this year, a number of legislators loudly proclaimed they would not take the raise. Then, once the stink died down, they went back and accepted the raise. My favorites are the weasels who did it after it could not effect the election.

With the FCC set to hold hearings in Seattle (Nov. 30) and Nashville, Tenn. (Dec. 11), media ownership controversy is once again in the news. Advocates of ownership limits are once again raising the specter of media monopoly and control, despite much evidence that media today, reviewed in this National Law Journal piece by Randy May of the Free State Foundation, is far more diverse and accessible than ever.

In the meantime, a new film about the country-western group The Dixie Chicks addresses the issue of how media concentration might suppress both free speech and artistic freedom.

I have not seen “Shut Up and Sing,” so I won’t attempt to review the film. But do wish to address the three-year creative odyssey of The Dixie Chicks that it documents. And these facts speak for themselves. For those outside the music scene, The Dixie Chicks are the highest-selling female recording group in any genre. During a 2003 concert in the U.K. that took place shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the band’s lead signer, Texas native Natalie Maines, ad-libbed that she was “ashamed” that President George W. Bush was from the Lone Star State. While Maines certainly has the right to speak her mind, the remark did offend many listeners that made up the core of Dixie Chick fandom and, from a commercial perspective, ran counter to the carefully crafted patriotic, all-American image the group and its managers cultivated. So it is no surprise then, that the comment landed the trio in trouble.

But were the Dixie Chicks, as some say, a victim of political censorship brought on by media consolidation? Or, did in the end, their experience validate the resiliency of the free market to bring producers and consumers together, one way or another? Three years after that controversial comment in London, it seems market forces have won again. One reason, perhaps, the Dixie Chicks are rarely brought up in the media consolidation debate anymore.

Back to 2003, only one company, Cumulous Broadcast Group, actually banned the Dixie Chicks, which it did for a month from its 270 stations.

Although some stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a favorite poster boy for ownership regulation, also pulled the group from it playlists, many other Clear Channel properties did not. But putting aside the question as to who banned the group and where, there is no denying that the Dixie Chicks suffered commercially in terms of CD sales, sponsorships and concert bookings from what Maines said.

But the loss of air time, sponsors, and even the support of the country music establishment, was also liberating, an irony that I understand “Shut Up and Sing” explores. Suddenly freed from an image created more by their marketing than their music, the Dixie Chicks were able to explore new creative avenues, find a smaller, yet more sophisticated and appreciative audience, and in general grow as artists. This, by itself pokes holes in the media monopoly argument.

Instead, the free market offered the Dixie Chicks a choice rarely given talented, but mainstream, entertainers at the peak of their popularity—a chance to take a real artistic risk. That they did, and succeeded, is testament to the exaggeration and hyperbole we hear about media consolidation. In the end, the Dixie Chicks weren’t silenced or run out of the business—they triumphed! They found new outlets to distribute their work. Their music can still be heard and easily purchased. They appeared on the American Music Awards on Nov. 23. They are on tour and will play concerts Atlanta, Dallas and Austin, Tex.—hotbeds of "former" fandom--in early December. They’ve released a new album, knowingly titled "Taking the Long Way." In reinforcing their new, edgier approach, their web site groups their material from 2003 and earlier as “historical Dixie Chicks.”

As a result of the reaction from so-called “big media,” the Dixie Chicks have become better artists, rewarding the fans and sponsors who stuck with them with an energized level of talent. Their experience shows that media consolidation does not equate with the power to control the airwaves, political speech, or the habits of the buying public.

That’s LA Mayor Antonio “Subway to the Sea” Villaraigosa on why he rarely uses transit. Yet he still says this:

"You've got to use public transit," Villaraigosa said just last week while unveiling an automated signal system to help unclog busy intersections. "You can't keep on pointing to someone else and saying it's their responsibility."

The mayor prefers to take a GMC Yukon to work even though ...

Unlike many others in Los Angeles, Villaraigosa has easy access to public transportation.

He lives just one block from Wilshire Boulevard, one of the city's most accessible and heavily traveled public transit corridors …

Councilman Herb Wesson is a Transportation Committee member and could score major PR points if he took transit, but:

"Given the type of work I do, it just doesn't work for me to take public transportation," said Wesson, who noted that he does ride the subway when he visits New York because it is so convenient. "I've taken the Red Line once that I can remember, maybe twice."

Article here

We hear these refrains all the time.

Flashback:

From a transit board member in DC:

“My travel, my destinations and my time frame make it very difficult for me to use the system,” she said. “I would have to take two trains and two buses.... It just makes it very inconvenient for me to depend on the system on a regular basis.”

Turns out, when asked by the Washington Post, only five out of 10 board members said they rode the system regularly (two others refused to talk, so it’s probably safe to file them under "infrequent transit user"). Not one is a daily user, and most have either never ridden a Metro bus or can't remember the last time they did.

The Philadelphia Inquirer found similar results after questions SEPTA board members: Only four of 14 members interviewed use the system at least twice a week.

Related: Marion Barry and Mitt Romney probably won’t be on your bus

Just got back from Oahu where a new statewide law protects folks from the imaginary health risks of second hand smoke:

The Smoke-Free Hawaii Law makes Hawaii the 14th state to enact wide-ranging laws against smoking in public. The law bans smoking in all public places including restaurants, bowling alleys, malls, and from curb to cabin at airports. It also updates strict county no-smoking policies by making it illegal to light up in partially enclosed areas, bars and less than 20 feet from doorways and windows.

The bad ideas don’t stop there. Honolulu’s politicos are pretty giddy about plans for a hugely expensive rail line. Sure these projects are always pricey, but on a per capita cost basis this one is off the charts.

For the latest developments, check out Honolulutraffic and the Grassroot Institute.

I was there speaking on various mobility-related themes and plugging The Road More Traveled. Speaking of plugging, I found out that Instapundit had some nice things to say about the book:

Ted Balaker and Sam Staley's The Road More Traveled: Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think, and What We Can Do About It. They argue that traffic congestion does much more harm than is generally appreciated, and that municipalities' programs aimed at making traffic worse in order to encourage people to use mass transit are deeply mistaken. They also argue that fixing traffic problems is easier and cheaper than is popularly thought. I've read the first several chapters and it's very interesting; I hope it gets a broad readership.

Me too!

Check out the Global Rich List. You’re probably wealthier than you thought.

New technology is not always the answer to our traffic woes, as at this humorous case from Japan shows!

These are excerpts from a column by Amy Chavez, a columnist for the Japan Times.

Big news for our island: They've put in a traffic light! Now, I've always been under the impression that there must be oncoming traffic to justify a traffic light. But hey, this is Japan, maybe they drive differently here.

In fact, on our island most people don't drive at all. With a
population of just 700 and only one road that goes around the
perimeter of the island, just a few dozen people drive and those
people are the ones with businesses who have goods to transport to the
ferry port and back.

Another reason people don't have cars here is that most of the houses
on the island aren't accessible by car. The houses are linked by a
network of footpaths that not even the smallest car could get through.

Besides, who wants a car anyway? There's no place to drive to, except
the other side of the island, which is only a 15-minute walk.

+++

But I was also relieved to see that it was just a construction traffic
light with a temporary, two-month long installment.

The purpose of the light is to prevent two cars, traveling in opposite
directions, from trying to pass this construction area at the same time.

Yet the likelihood of two people on the island driving at the same
time is practically nil, especially when most people arrive at their
destination within 30 seconds. Before they put this light in, that is.
Now it is possible to be stopped at a red light for longer than your
entire journey would take.

Which is why no one stops at the traffic light. As a matter of fact,
I'm pretty sure this traffic light has created more turmoil than safety.

****

A few people wait patiently because they've got small children in the
car and feel they need to teach them to always obey traffic signals.
But still, no one understands why there is a traffic light.

Here are some possible answers:

1. Road favoritism.....Despite the fact that much of the 5-km road on our island is only wide
enough for one car anyway, and is adorned with two-way mirrors at
bends, the construction crew is showing favoritism to this part of the
road.

*****

2. It's a good neighbor campaign. Figuring that if we passed each
other on the road, we'd have to wave hello to each other, the traffic
light could have been put in to foster good relations.

*****

3. The local policeman has to reach his quota on traffic violations
and is trying to ticket those who run red lights.

*****

4. It's an eye test to check for colorblindness. Highly possible. And
if it's true, they've proved one thing: Almost everyone on the island
is colorblind.

See a photo of someone running the red light at the Japan Times Online.

The Japan Times can be accessed here.

The full article can be found at here.

An article of mine from TCS Daily:

To many, George W. Bush is a dimwit who stands in the way of progress. Take the gas tax. Many smart people want to raise it. Even former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, a man of the right whose every utterance commands the world's attention, recently added himself to the list. But W. folds his arms and refuses to budge. It may look like obstinence, but this time the cowboy president may be on to something.

Whole thing here.

I read Capitalism and Freedom sometime during my sophomore year in college—1977—when any proposition of permitting telecom competition, let-alone private sanitation services and privately-managed toll roads, would get you laughed out of your economics class.

It’s hard to believe that Friedman, who died today at 94, came of age in the late 1920s and early 1930s, when capitalism and market economics were highly suspect. Instead, people around the world were turning to totalitarian governments, and many of Friedman’s intellectual contemporaries believed that true freedom lay in socialism.

While the U.S. never embraced the collectivist extremes of fascism or communism, two collectivist-derived ideas filtered into our political consciousness. The first notion was there are certain aspects of the economy – including banking and money supply – where central planning was necessary; second, that interests of commerce and the interests of the common man were forever in opposition.

Friedman’s lifelong work challenged both. His critique of the central planning model was validated as early as the Carter administration, when the “stagflation” of the late seventies—high inflation and high interest rates accompanied by high unemployment—confounded the Keynesians that had been directing U.S. economic policy for the preceding generation. Yet it came as no surprise to Friedman and his associates at the University of Chicago, who had warned of the consequences of high taxes, deficit spending and near-profligate pumping of the money supply for years.

The second notion, that commercial and public interests are natural enemies, still underpins policy debate today. Capitalism and Freedom lays out the fundamental libertarian argument that a political environment that permits and encourages voluntary transactions between consenting parties is not only the best way to maximize the common economic good, but that it creates a more just and free society in the long term.

Friedman always cautioned that the coercive power of the state, even a democratic one, is a danger to very freedoms it aims to protect. In the citizen’s personal and commercial affairs, government intervention, he argued, should be a last resort, with a high bar of justification, not a simple matter of course. In the area I cover, telecommunications, it’s a battle we see reflected in the calls for network neutrality, limits on media ownership and cable and Internet content regulations. But it applies as much to the debate over the environment, energy, health care and education.

Friedman’s legacy will be his assertion that personal freedom and economic freedom are inseparable, and that any restraint on one is as much as restraint on the other. As libertarians we honor that legacy by working for a nation and society where individual choice is respected, coercion is minimal, and men and women are allowed the responsibility and opportunity to reach their fullest potential.

Public debates on smoking bans usually involve some confusing definition of terms—the first statewide smoking bans involved public schools, hospitals, administrative buildings, and the like. Then the definition of “public places” was re-written to include private restaurants and businesses, and finally, outdoor areas like sidewalks, parks, and restaurant patios where wafting smoke can cause offense. In many cases, local ordinances have become so nuanced smokers would be wise to carry a tape measure at all times to ensure that they are within the law. The city of Belmont, CA (pop. 25K) has finally clarified the definition of “public” with its newly proposed anti-smoking ordinance. The Alameda Times-Star reports today:

The council's request to ban smoking in all public places and multiunit dwellings is now in the hands of the city attorney, who will draft an ordinance that the council will be asked to approve. If passed, residents will be allowed to smoke only inside detached, single-unit homes. The ordinance is expected to become law in January or February, said City Councilman Dave Warden.
Belmont's move follows other city ordinances in California that tightly restrict smoking, including new laws in Dublin and Calabasas declaring smoking a public nuisance.

The nation’s most severe smoking ordinance now effectively defines apartments, townhouses, and other private residences “public places.” On the plus side, it is more convenient to cause a public nuisance from the comfort of your own home, anyway.

There's an interesting piece in the LA Times today on Wal Mart's move to incorporate environmental and energy-efficiency initiatives into its business model. Certainly, they are poised to be a corporate pioneer in this field, which is a huge positive for those of us that appreciate private sector environmental innovation. But I get a real kick out of the cognitive dissonance an article like this must produce among the "Wal Mart is evil" crowd, particularly when Wal Mart gets props from none other than the Sierra Club and CERES.

Wind turbines, rows of tall windows, a 200-foot-long dimpled-metal wall and shiny rooftop solar panels are just hints of what's to come.

Here, next to a busy freeway in suburban Denver, is tomorrow's Wal-Mart today. And it's getting a lot of attention.

For the last year, this experimental Wal-Mart Supercenter has been testing ways to be more environmentally sensitive in everything it does.

What works here won't stay in Aurora. The world's largest retailer wants ideas it can use in all of its more than 6,600 stores around the globe.

. . . .

Wal-Mart's sustainability efforts, unlike some of its other initiatives, also have won the company something more elusive: approval from critics and others not predisposed to Wal-Mart fandom.

A recent New York gala dinner hosted by movie producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein honored Wal-Mart Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr. for "his commitment to environmental sustainability." Co-hosts included talk-show star Charlie Rose, NBC Universal CEO Bob Wright, MTV creator Robert Pittman and investment banker Steven Rattner.

. . . .

Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, declined to work with Wal-Mart on environmental matters because the company wouldn't agree also to talk about labor, healthcare and other issues.

Nonetheless, Pope said that after examining Wal-Mart's initiatives, he was convinced the company was making a sincere and significant commitment, even if he was skeptical that some goals could be reached.

"None of this is 'greenstanding,' " said Pope, who also serves on Wal-Mart Watch's board. "Their metrics are impressive; they're not modest.

"They deserve the chance to show that their business model is compatible with high standards, not just low prices."

It’s 11 days until Thanksgiving and neither Time Warner Cable nor Cablevision Systems, representing some 49 million homes, have signed deals to carry the NFL Network. The Wall Street Journal today has an article about the ticking clock, as the fledgling network, owned by the National Football League, will launch a series of weekly live game broadcasts beginning Turkey Day.

That means unless the NFL and cable companies come to terms, fans in cities like San Antonio, a Time Warner market, or the New York City area, Cablevision territory, won’t get to watch the Denver Broncos battle the Kansas City Chiefs over a second piece of pumpkin pie. Or will they?

Reports the Journal, “Indeed, the league will be counting on those regional fans, those in NFL-less cities as large as Los Angeles and gambling and fantasy aficionados….Much will depend on how angry those fans get, and how much that anger translates into calls to congressional representatives and attorneys general.”

But the author forgets that in San Antonio, thanks to statewide video franchise reform in Texas, NFL fans have a choice. So do customers in Cablevision’s New York City markets, where Verizon competes with its FiOS service (not in every suburban municipality, however, because New York State has yet to take up franchising reform). Quick visits over to AT&T’s U-Verse and Verizon’s FiOS sites confirm that the NFL Network is available as part of lower-end channel packages. So consumers in these markets don’t have to spend time navigating the government’s complaint bureaucracy; they can simply change providers. Ain’t that grand?

In the past, negotiations between programmers and cable companies could go on at length, as was the case when George Steinbrenner moved his New York Yankees to the Yes Network and then sought a higher fee from Cablevision. My gut tells me that the presence of competition, the cable companies will settle a lot faster, maybe not by Thanksgiving, but before the end of the current season. That’s good for consumers everywhere and another example of how competition and franchise reform improves cable service and value.

It turns out, the industry that pollutes more than any other in Southern California than perhaps petroleum refineries is--Hollywood! According to a recent UCLA report from the Institute of the Environment:

The industry tops hotels, aerospace, and apparel and semiconductor manufacturing in traditional air pollutant emissions in Southern California, according to the study, initially prepared for the Integrated Waste Management Board, and is probably second only to petroleum refineries, for which comparable data were not available. The entertainment industry ranks third in greenhouse gas emissions.

The full report from UCLA can be found here.

I suppose one should be grateful that network neutrality did not make the “first 100 hours” list of action items set by House Speaker-presumptive Nancy Pelosi.

I will let my colleagues on this site comment on the dubious economic benefits of a minimum wage hike, prohibitions on directed investment of Social Security contributions, the picking and choosing of winners in energy technology, and allowing the federal government to negotiate prescription drug prices.

For now, the loudest and most misunderstood of current Internet policy controversies—network neutrality—seems to be on the back burner.

For some reason, maybe because of the way lobbying dollars have fallen, the network neutrality debate, at least in Congress, has broken along partisan lines – Democrats favor it, Republicans oppose. But let’s not reduce it completely to an issue of money.

Network neutrality means an unprecedented level of government regulation of the Internet, and this carries consequences.

To be sure, many proponents of network neutrality say that what they seek is a “return” to the neutrality rules that existed in the narrowband telecom era. This is somewhat disingenuous. In that era, network technology was, by definition, neutral. All traffic was, by necessity, treated the same. It’s the technology and intelligence within newer broadband networks that gives carriers the capability to create definable service tiers. For the first time, they can derive revenue from furnishing different levels of network quality and reliability. The network neutrality question is whether there should be a law preventing them from doing so.

The pros and cons have been debated here and all over the tech blogosphere, but no one denies the fact that it is, at the core, a layer of Internet regulation that has not existed before. And that worries some Democrats who have seen first hand how regulation in general can distort markets and raise prices.

No less an eminence-gris than Alfred E. Kahn, the former Carter administration heavyweight who played a leadership role in deregulating airlines and interstate trucking, cautions against a rush to regulate. Describing himself as a “good liberal Democrat,” he strikes a note of skepticism in a short policy paper published by the Progress & Freedom Foundation site.

“Why all the hysteria? There is nothing "liberal" about the government rushing in to regulate these wonderfully promising turbulent developments. Liberals of both 18th and 20th--and I hope 21st--century varieties should and will put their trust in competition, reinforced by the antitrust laws--and direct regulation only when those institutions prove inadequate to protect the public.”

Kahn’s thoughts follow those of another leading Democrat—William Kennard, chairman of the FCC under Bill Clinton—who in a New York Times op-ed urged Congress to move beyond network neutrality to issues that he sees as more relevant to consumer experience—reform of cable TV franchising and reform of universal service.

While the Democrats have set plans for the first 100 hours of the next Congress, we don’t know what to expect in the 101st. Chances are network neutrality will be on the agenda again. But perhaps with the reality check of Democratic policymakers who have a sound respect for market forces and competition, cooler heads will prevail.

Loudly, according to the Senate races. Republicans won just one Senate race, the open race in Tennessee, and it was close. Democrat incumbents won eveyr race. No Republican incumbents won their races. Voters, in essence, "threw the bums out".

The Senate winners In races where:

the incumbent won:

Liebermann (D)
Menendez (D)
Clinton (D)
Cantwell (D)

the incumbent lost:

Stabenow (D)
McCaskill (D)
Tester (D)
Brown (D)
Casey (D)
Whitehouse (D)
Webb (D)

Open races:

Cardin (D)
Klobucher (D)
Corker (R)

Just wanted to pass along an interesting statistic on Tuesday's election...in the 12 states that had property rights measures on the ballot (eminent domain reform, regulatory takings reform, or a combination thereof), over 14.2 million voters cast their ballot to support property rights, compared to just over 8 million against. That's a 64-46% margin.

When you take out the votes from California's Prop 90 and the Idaho and Washington measures that didn't pass, the combined totals for the 9 successful measures are 10.6 million (74%) for and 3.6 million (26%) against. Similarly, combining the totals for the 3 unsuccessful measures yields 3.7 million (45%) for and 4.4 million (55%) against...of course, that figure is weighted heavily by California.

I'd argue that the biggest victory for property rights last night goes to the 65-35% win of Prop 207 in Arizona -- a "Kelo-Plus" eminent domain and regulatory takings measure. Arizonans woke up today to what are probably the strongest property rights protections in the country, although Oregonians could justifiably make the same claim after passing their eminent domain measure yesterday (Measure 39) to complement their 2004 regulatory takings measure, Measure 37.

Clearly, the election confirms that property rights--and the need to protect them--is an issue many Americans still care very deeply about. That's the central point I made in my roundup of the election outcomes, available here.

Voters in South Dakota turned down a proposition that would have eliminated the state’s 4 percent gross receipts tax on cell phone service. Initiated Measure 8, was defeated by a margin of 61 to 39 percent.

Opponents raised concerns that loss of the tax would cut off revenues to local governments and would result in tax increases elsewhere, even though the tax itself raised only $8.5 million last year, of which just 40 percent ($3.4 million) gets passed through to local governments, according to www.votesmart.org, a non-partisan voter information Web site. Given that South Dakota’s total state budget for 2005 was $2.35 billion, and its proposed budget for 2006 was $2.57 billion, a hike of some $220 million, you think that with a little work, someone could have found way to cut a measly $8.5 million, which represents less than 4 percent of the 2006 increase and three-tenths of 1 percent of the overall state budget.

Consider this lit review conducted by David Neumark, William Wascher:

Clearly, no consensus now exists about the overall effects on low-skilled employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that this recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-skilled workers is clearly incorrect. The overwhelming majority of the studies surveyed in this paper give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects. Moreover, the evidence tends to point to disemployment effects of minimum wages in the United States as well as many other countries. Two potentially more important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few - if any - cases where a study provides convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from studies that focus on broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, when researchers focus on the least-skilled groups most likely to be adversely affected by minimum wages, we regard the evidence as relatively overwhelming that there are stronger disemployment effects for these groups.

More on NBER Working Paper No. 12663 here.

Related: When Unions do the “exploiting”

The “working” class or the “idle” rich?

[T]here has been a reversal in the relationship between wages and hours. In 1983, the most poorly paid 20 percent of workers were more likely to put in long work hours than the top paid 20 percent. By 2002, the best-paid 20 percent were twice as likely to work long hours as the bottom 20 percent. In other words, the prosperous are more likely to be at work more than those earning little. This trend has been a puzzle for some economists.

More on the new study by Peter Kuhn and Fernando Lozano here.

Related: Worker Satisfaction and Long Hours

Related: Charles Murray Searches for the Working Poor

A recent email exchange asked the question about whether growth pays for itself, and thought some people visiting the blog might be interested in some slightly edited thoughts and references on the isue.

Whether growth pays for itself is a highly localized question. Over the long run, and in a regional context, it does. In fact, it has to. I"m not aware of many cities (in fact I'm not aware of *any*) that went bankrupt because of growth. Several have gone bankrupt for lack of growth, but not because they had too much growth.

More to the point, the National Homebuilders Association has several pretty robust econometric models that show that over time growth pays for itself. The property tax and sales tax revenues generate surpluses after 2-5 years. So, there is an immediate cash outflow, but over time the revenues more than make up for it. A nice and sophisticated example of this effect is estimated in a report produced for the Home Builders Association of Greater Cincinnati by the NAHB. .

While growth pays for itself on a regional level, it may not pay for itself on the local level. A critique of the cost of growth literature can be found in the Reason Foundation's "Sprawling of America" report. While a bit dated, the conclusions are still relevant.

Most critics of the cost of growth rely on so-called "Cost of Community Service" reports. These are highly unreliable sources and inevitably show that residential development doesn't pay for its. Interestingly, the better studies show that residential development often pays for itself on basic infrastructure, but the balance sheet becomes "negative" when school costs are added. For more on whether schools costs should be included in this calculation, see my testimony on school impact fees.

In some cases, however, growth doesn't pay for itself. Whether the community should make growth pay for itself is a policy question. A strong argument can be made that forcing growth to pay for itself is contrary to sound public policy. Cross subsidization has always been part of the public good argument for providing public services. One reason property taxes for schools are so low is that commercial and industrial property pay for schools too. There are classic public good arguments for continuing this.

After my earlier post, I read this Grist blog post that further perpetuates the regulatory takings "conspiracy theory." At least the author, Eric de Place, is up-front about it, helpfully titling the post, "The takings conspiracy."

I get a kick out of reading this stuff...since the X-Files went off the air, we just haven't had a lot of good outlets for conspiracy theories. Thanks to Mr. de Place and Grist for providing some quality entertainment. Yet, two things did rub me the wrong way.

First, they've tried to confuse the central issue by talking about eminent domain -- an entirely different subject. The strategy of confusion was laid out in a Reason Foundation paper helpfully subtitled "Exporting Measure 37 To Other States." The paper effectively set the movement's marching orders.

Wow! Marching orders! I guess that I'm a general and didn't know it. But seriously, there's nothing to confuse here. Eminent domain and regulatory takings are not separate issues; they're fundamentally interrelated. Go back to my previous post on the blurring of the line between the eminent domain & police powers. If they were unrelated, then why would regulatory takings also be known as "inverse condemnation?"

As I mentioned earlier, they are two sides of the same coin, and the fundamental argument is that the instances of regulation in question are not those that fall under the traditional police power justification of preventing harm. Rather, the regulations that are objected to are most properly viewed as falling under the category of conferring benefits to the public-at-large (a la eminent domain), and the key problem with regulatory takings is that impacted landowners are not compensated for their losses as they would be in a "traditional" eminent domain action.

If you're painting a conspiracy theory, the facts and legal intricacies are irrelevant. But the least Mr. de Place could do would be to reference my report accurately:

Somewhat ironically, the Reason Foundation's marching orders accidentally make clear that many of the 2006 ballot measures may be unconstitutional, at least in states that permit initiatives to contain only a single subject. Eminent domain and regulatory takings are two separate issues, according to Reason (they're right about that), and they propose using one to run interference for the other.

Perhaps Mr. de Place assumes that his readers are too lazy to actually read my report, but if they did, what they'd find is this:

It is also important for measure drafters to examine the “single subject” or “separate votes” provisions in the state Constitution to ensure that a proposed regulatory takings measure would not violate them. Most states prohibit logrolling (bundling popular bills with unpopular ones) through “single subject” requirements mandating that a legislative bill only address one subject. In states with the citizen initiative process, these rules generally apply to both the initiative and to legislative bills. Similarly, “separate votes” requirements prevent any constitutional amendment that involves two or more changes to the Constitution that are substantive and that are not closely related. The Oregon Supreme Court invalidated Measure 7 (Measure 37’s predecessor) on “separate votes” grounds. Each state has a different view and different body of case law on when a measure or amendment constitutes more than one subject.

If you read the whole section in context, it becomes clear that when I discussed the single-subject rules, it wasn't in reference to combining eminent domain and regulatory takings. It was referenced as good practice for ANY ballot measure. Why would I say that? Because Measure 7, the precursor to Measure 37, was struck down on...yes, you guessed it...single-subject grounds. Did Measure 7 or Measure 37 cover eminent domain abuse? No. The whole point of that section was to tell drafters that they need to be very familiar with the state jurisprudence and judicial temperament before they draft anything or else they could risk the fate of Measure 7.

For Mr. de Place to try and reference my report out of context and make the implication that I actually suggested Kelo-Plus measures would run afoul of single subject rules is just bogus.

And BTW, again, as I've said over and over, I don't view eminent domain abuse & regulatory takings as separate issues. They're two variants of the same kind of property rights abuse, they're based on the same conceptual legal foundation, and they are rooted in the same clause of the 5th Amendment. They're like Red Delicious and Granny Smith apples...they may different colors and slightly different textures, but they're both sweet and they are fundamentally just apples.

Policy wonks and property rights advocates have something to look forward to next summer: Begging for Billionaire$, a Limelight Cinemas Group documentary about eminent domain abuse in Kansas City. Here's a trailer:

See their website for additional clips and other info on the documentary.

(hat tip: PLF on Eminent Domain)

The Federal Communications Commission again delayed approval of the AT&T-BellSouth merger. Republican and Democratic commissioners remain deadlocked at 2-2. The fifth commissioner, a Republican, has recused himself from the vote because of past lobbying work on behalf of AT&T.

Given that the Department of Justice and the nine state public service commissions in BellSouth’s region have all approved the merger without conditions, opponents of the merger appear to have found in this stalemate an opportunity to drag out the merger process for no other reason than that they can.

This is unfortunate because together, AT&T and BellSouth would be better positioned as a broadband competitor, and its customers, current and prospective, would be that much better off. Opponents remain hung up on the idea that the former Bell companies that are re-forming their old monopoly. But the AT&T that was broken up by 1984 divestiture agreement is not the same company today. Nor is it operating in the same environment.

True, AT&T once monopolized voice service through a government-sanctioned monopoly. That was before the emergence of the Internet, cell phones, cable telephony and WiFi. This latest FCC objection seems rooted in a narrow, flawed report that merger opponents submitted last week.

I’m neither and engineer nor an academic, but I have spent a good part of my career translating thoughts and ideas from both circles into readable prose. Frankly, the paper submitted by a team led by Sumit K. Majumdar, Professor of Technology Strategy at the School of Management of the University of Texas at Dallas, is gobbledygook. When I first read it I thought no one at the FCC would take it seriously.

The 22-page paper, which purports to be a scholarly analysis on the state of U.S. telecom competition, focuses completely on local exchange services, arbitrarily deeming them the most important service the companies offer. It ignores the effect of the Internet and wireless on traditional voice service, and the vibrant market for integrated phone, high-speed Internet and cable services. The terms “Internet” and “cable TV” do not even appear in the 22-page document. It even has the audacity to cut off its competition data at 2001—the year Vonage was founded and commercialized voice over Internet calling and wireline revenues began their steady year-to-year decline.

The 2001 cutoff also allows the authors to get away with stating that network investment has declined following consolidaton. Since then, however, Verizon has begin its $18-bilion fiber-to-the-home deployment as AT&T has moved ahead with its $4-billion Project Lightspeed.

If all I did was step outside my house, look in all directions, I’d conclude the world is flat. The authors used a similar approach. Stepped off campus long enough to note local phone service providers are consolidating, then concluded that AT&T-BellSouth must then be reconstructing a monopoly.

But they fail to grasp the obvious. Local exchange services are declining in favor of wireless and broadband. Consumers want integrated broadband services. That market is teeming with national companies--Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, EarthLink, Sprint and Verizon—just to name six. Add Google, Yahoo and eBay, all of which are developing telecom businesses from a Web perspective, and it becomes more absurd to insist the U.S. telecom industry remain geographically divided.

It is my pleasure to announce that my membership in the vast right-wing conspiracy has recently been made official...my study advancing the concept of regulatory takings reform been singled out by none other than Ralph Nader's Public Citizen as part of a "stealth campaign against taxpayers and the environment." Will the cigar-smoking, back room power brokers be sending me my membership card soon? Or perhaps the instructions for the secret handshake?

In a 16-page propaganda piece designed to undermine the property rights measures on the ballot in Arizona, California, Idaho, and Washington, PC writes:

In April 2006, the far-right Reason Foundation, which promotes libertarian principles and ideas, published a playbook promoting ballot initiatives clothed as a response to the Kelo decision, but that, it planned, would do much more to roll back environmental and land use rules than needed to remedy the harmful effects of the opinion.

In a 64-page report, the foundation began promoting a strategy in which a “Kelo-plus” ballot initiative would offer cover for more insidious “takings” measures. A “Kelo-plus initiative,” the report said, “offers a single vehicle to address both physical and regulatory takings at the same time, effectively ‘killing two birds with one stone.’” It also capitalizes on the tremendous public and political momentum generated in the aftermath of the Kelo ruling,” the report said.

Never mind that I actually framed Kelo-Plus as an option that may or may not be appropriate, depending on the state; the title of that section of my report was actually, "Measure 37 or Kelo-Plus." I'm not exactly sure how that translates to promoting Kelo-Plus as a "cover for more insidious takings measures" (unless you're a statist progressive bent on concocting goofy conspiracy theories, that is).

Let's get the facts straight. The appeal for tying the two issues together rests on several things:

• The whole "killing two birds with one stone" is exactly that -- the truth is that eminent domain abuse and regulatory takings are THE two biggest reasons for the erosion of private property rights over the last century. If you're truly interested in protecting private property rights in a comprehensive way, then Kelo-Plus makes total sense.
• Eminent domain abuse and regulatory takings aren't really separate issues; they're two sides of the same coin. The use of the government's police power to adopt regulations not intended to prevent harm, but to confer public benefits (such as open space ordinances, agricultural zoning, etc.), is more appropriately viewed as an exercise of the eminent domain power. The difference, of course, that landowners are not compensated for the impacts of actions taken under the police power, which is the core of the issue. So the real problem is that the distinction between the police power and eminent domain power has become blurred. For a more detailed explanation, see Tim Sandefur's summary of this concept in his recent Goldwater Institute report.
• The outrage over Kelo opened the door for property rights advocates to bring the issue of regulatory takings -- the far more pervasive threat than eminent domain abuse, but also far more hidden -- to the public's attention. So far from being a "cover," a Kelo-Plus measure is a way to highlight and bring attention to regulatory takings, not cover up the issue. Anyone who knows me knows that I scream about regulatory takings to whomever will listen...why on Earth would I suggest a strategy of concealing the issue? That's just silly.

I really expect no less of Public Citizen though. They need some boogeymen to scare voters and try and taint the ballot measures, as their intellectual defense against them is vapid. That's why practically all of the measure opponents' advertisements and arguments rely on falsehoods and distortions. Once you peel away the layers of deception, their argument basically boils down to one thing: if government actually got a bill for the enormous costs it imposes landowners through regulation, it would be so large that they couldn't pay it. They'd rather have a credit card with no limit and have the bill sent elsewhere.

Contrast this with the position on the other side. The driving concept of a regulatory takings measure is that it is fundamentally unfair to force a minority of private landowners to bear the costs of providing a public benefit. If the public benefits of land use regulation are as worthy as supporters claim, then paying compensation to property owners is merely acknowledging the public value of such benefits and not shifting the cost burden onto a minority. Nothing under these measures would prevent government from regulating; rather, they would merely require government to account for the associated costs. The public should share the costs of providing the things that everyone benefits from rather than forcing a small group to pay for them. It's a simple concept.

But the special interests lined up against these measures have no problem with the status quo. They can't implement their agenda without the aid of government theft and bullying.

The Founding Fathers would be horrified to see the state of property rights in America today. They held property rights as sacred, the foundation of human freedom and dignity. To see them eroded to the point where they are regarded by officials and regulators as priviledges to be dispensed selectively at their whim would be the ultimate insult indeed.

If there’s more to your melancholy mood than the concern that your side won’t do well tomorrow, you’re not alone.

Here’s Bryan Caplan on voter irrationality:

Like moths to the flame, voters gravitate to the same mistakes. They do not cancel each other out; they compound.

Caplan’s no O’Reilly/Dobbs populist. He argues that the average voter usually gets it wrong and that the experts usually get it right:

Economists and the public hold radically different beliefs about the economy. Compared to the experts, laymen are much more skeptical of markets, especially international and labor markets, and much more pessimistic about the past, present, and future of the economy. When laymen see business conspiracies, economists see supply-and-demand. When laymen see ruinous competition from foreigners, economists see the wonder of comparative advantage. When laymen see dangerous downsizing, economists see wealth-enhancing reallocation of labor. When laymen see decline, economists see progress.
…
So what remedies for voter irrationality would I propose? Above all, relying less on democracy and more on private choice and free markets. By and large, we don't even ask voters whether we should allow unpopular speech or religion, and this "elitist" practice has saved us a world of trouble. Why not take more issues off the agenda? Even if the free market does a mediocre job, the relevant question is not whether smart, well-meaning regulation would be better. The relevant question is whether the kind of regulation that appeals to the majority would be better.

Interesting stuff. Read the whole essay here.

It was only a matter of time before it happened, but a candidate for office in the upscale Westchester County, N.Y., community of Lewisboro has called for the creation of a municipal utility to offer residents cellular phone service.

Local conservative columnist J.D. Piro, writing in the local weekly, The Lewisboro Ledger, reported statements by Tom Herzog, the nominal Republican candidate for town supervisor, during a debate last week, and took them to their logical conclusion.

“Saying that cell phone service is now a 'necessity,' Mr. Herzog suggested, in all apparent seriousness, that cell phone service should be a public utility, reasoning that people would then treat cell towers like telephone poles.

”Now there are really only two ways to make cell phone service into a public utility. One is for the government to seize the local assets of the commercial wireless service providers in the area. Perhaps Mr. Herzog, who claims to be a fiscal conservative, can consult with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on the cheapest way to do that. The second way is to spend several million dollars developing a local operation to compete with companies that have a national service footprint and 20 years of experience.

”Since Lewisboro is not Venezuela, it’s doubtful the first option will get out of the box. The second option represents a significant budget expenditure, since Lewisboro — a town that can’t even expand its library — would have to build a functional digital cellular system from scratch. Not even the fiscally questionable wireless initiatives being considered by a number of U.S. municipalities attempt to do that.”

It’s a classic example of how even at the lowest levels, governments never shy away from finding more ways to increase size and interference. Herzog’s proposal came as a suggestion as a way to solve a dispute over placement of a cell tower that would greatly improve coverage of the area. The irony, of course, is that tower dispute stems from restrictive zoning laws that regulate where companies can build place towers to begin with.

Herzog also raises all sorts of issues when he equates cell phone towers with telephone poles. Telephone poles can be easily erected on town right-of-way, i.e., alongside public roadways. Cell towers have to be placed more strategically and comprise a lot more than just a stick in the ground. Radio cabinets and controlled environment vaults are usually part of the package--hence the zoning battles in Lewisboro and elsewhere. Is Herzog implying he would declare cell service a utility in order to use eminent domain to force cellular tower placement on private property? He never goes as far to say so, but that’s a real concern whenever a government official uses terms “utility” and “necessity” close together. While the idea is doubtful to ever come to fruition, Lewisboro recent past shows an affinity for regulatory takings, namely in the form of an overreaching wetlands law that allows the town to block modification or development of any piece of property where any standing water is found. .

If I lived there, I’d be a little discomfited.

Jared M. Diamond became the darling of PBS with his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, and his thesis that the secret to economic development could be found in factors like geography and the availability of domesticated animals.

Tyler Cowen reviews a book with a different take:

In “A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World” (forthcoming, Princeton University Press,) Gregory Clark, an economics professor at the University of California, Davis, identifies the quality of labor as the fundamental factor behind economic growth. Poor labor quality discourages capital from flowing into a country, which means that poverty persists. Good institutions never have a chance to develop.

…
A simple example from Professor Clark shows the importance of labor in economic development. As early as the 19th century, textile factories in the West and in India had essentially the same machinery, and it was not hard to transport the final product. Yet the difference in cultures could be seen on the factory floor. Although Indian labor costs were many times lower, Indian labor was far less efficient at many basic tasks.

For instance, when it came to “doffing” (periodically removing spindles of yarn from machines), American workers were often six or more times as productive as their Indian counterparts, according to measures from the early to mid-20th century. Importing Western managers did not in general narrow these gaps. As a result, India failed to attract comparable capital investment.

Professor Clark’s argument implies that the current outsourcing trend is a small blip in a larger historical pattern of diverging productivity and living standards across nations. Wealthy countries face the most serious competitive challenges from other wealthy regions, or from nations on the cusp of development, and not from places with the lowest wages. Shortages of quality labor, for instance, are already holding back India in international competition.

More here.

Related: Ron Bailey on Diamond

The Die Hard movies are well known for their scenes of chaos. Now Team Die Hard is gearing up for another sequel, which involves unleashing some real-world chaos.

Seems Willis and company have gotten El Segundo to agree to let them close a highway in the nation’s most congested city (LA) at the worst possible time (around Thanksgiving) in the worst possible place (right by LAX).

Stay tuned for one hellacious traffic mess.

Related: Another giant planned jam

Remember when a man’s home was his castle?

Now we've got eminent domain abuse, regulatory takings, landscaping-related nanny-statism, anti-“McMansion” ordinances, and yet another frightening development:

MASSILLON, Ohio -- A man appearing naked in his own home was arrested Monday, Massillon police said.

The 43-year-old man was charged with two counts of public indecency.

Officers arrested the Charles Avenue S.E. resident when he was observed naked in an open window.

Funny, I thought indoor smoking would be outlawed before indoor nudity.

Massillon’s Puritanism could spell trouble for area telecommuters.

This evening I'm supposed to be on Life & Times discussing California’s Prop 90 (eminent domain and regulatory takings).

Tune in to KCET (LA). Show starts at 6:30pm and there’ll be some online chatting afterward. If you’re so moved, sound off here.

I see stuff like this as more evidence that managers should rethink their in-the-desk-from-9-to-5 mentality:

Psychology researchers performed a study with 16 subjects, each restricted to 5 hours of sleep at night. The subjects were split into 4 groups — no nap, 30-s nap, 90-s nap, and 10-min nap. Subjects that took naps for 90 seconds or less were not found to perform any better on alertness and cognitive tasks. However, subjects that took a 10 minute nap significantly improve performance in multiple post-nap tests. This seems to suggest that only stage 2 sleep helps you recuperate from lack of nocturnal sleep.

Study here; via Tasty Research.

I think one of the reasons telecommuters often work longer and more productively than office workers is because they’re better able to fit in recuperative activities. Even just creating a more comfortable environment—working outdoors from a reclining chair as I recall one design engineer doing, going tie-less (or even less)—helps workers’ brains stay fresh.

Related: Telecommuters Prove More Productive (with comments from yours truly)

Forget "livable communities," "sustainability," and "quality of life"...it's only a matter of time before the time-tested "let's do it for the kids" argument comes full force to the land use planning realm. According to some Australian activists, modern development patterns are bad for the kids, and even though they don't explicity say so, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to conclude that the activists see sprawl as the problem and would like to see "smart growth" as a remedy:

Fast-forward to today, where the notion of city children playing unsupervised in an untamed public space, or even wandering up to the local shops, is often too frightening for parents to contemplate. Not that there is the available public land to run around in, given skyrocketing property values.

Just how much the urban planning decisions we are now taking will affect children is yet to be fully understood, but depression, criminal behaviour and even obesity were some of the possibilities canvassed yesterday at a Sydney conference on creating more child-friendly cities.

"Too often, the built environment works against healthy child development in terms of the design and positioning of housing, parkland and transport systems," child welfare advocate Fiona Stanley said.

"We need to put children at the centre of the (planning) process if we want to make an impact in reducing problems such as behavioural issues, rising rates of juvenile crime, domestic violence, child abuse and even the obesity epidemic."

So one might say that the activists didn't mention sprawl or smart growth, so why are my feathers ruffled? My response is that it's a simple leap of logic. Notice this comment:

She said money had to be urgently spent on recreating the child-friendly communities of the past.

I interpret this as a call for "neo-traditional development," a concept routinely promoted within the smart growth movement. Since "smart growth" is the political response to "urban sprawl," then you're left with sprawl=bad for kids/smart growth=good for kids.

Since we've already seen the bogus "sprawl causes obesity" claim go down in flames, the smart growth movement is probably just waiting for the next marketing gimmick, and here it is. As we all know from Politics 101, "let's do it for the kids" provides a great marketing scheme to inoculate yourself from the inevitable criticisms that will follow questionable policy ideas. I hope that I'm wrong, but I'd imagine we'll start seeing a flow of "research" in the future claiming that the problems ailing modern children are directly linked to the built environment, rather than the more logical sources--parenting, changing family structures, etc. We'll see...

Oakland's attempt to pass an inclusionary zoning ordinance--which would mandate that developers set aside a portion of their projects at below-market rates--was shot down by Mayor Jerry Brown last night. Given his strong comments, the Mayor deserves some kudos for his skeptical stance:

Mayor Jerry Brown Tuesday night called for a blue-ribbon commission to study whether developers should be required to set aside at least 15 percent of their projects for low income residents, dramatically casting a tie-breaking vote.

Brown's decision, which prompted howls of anger from the audience in the council chambers, ends any chance that supporters of inclusionary zoning will get the measure on the books before voters go to the polls and decide the fate of Proposition 90, which will severely curtail the council's authority to act.

Brown, who is running for state attorney general and has only two months left in office, said the inclusionary zoning measure would do little to help the 30,000 families living below the poverty line in Oakland, while driving developers — and private investment — out of the city.

"It will not make even a small dent," Brown said.

Brown said the measure would create what he called a "lottery" for the 100 affordable homes and apartments he estimated would be built in a single year, if the measure were implemented, while taxing market rate homes.

"There is no Santa Claus," Brown said. "Someone has to pay."

Sounds like Mayor Brown has been reading Reason's work on IZ in California, which found that IZ produces few affordable units relative to overall need, drives down local construction and pushes development to other communities, and contributes to increased local housing prices as consumers subsize the affordable units by paying higher prices on the market rate units. See our studies here, here, and here.

And a personal thanks to the Mayor, as I will probably be borrowing the "Santa Claus" line for future talks on IZ!