An interesting set of posts in the past day or so about the ongoing breakdown of the old order.
Walter Russell Mead writes on his blog about the breakdown of the American political parties. The rise of various populist movements and the availability of outside money has lessened the influence of party structures. But he makes the larger point that,
"populism, plutocracy and dynasticism have traditionally been seen as signs that a republic is in trouble. The rise of populism means that a gap has opened up between the leadership elite of a society and ordinary voters. Alienated from a system that is no longer seen to be working, populist voters believe that the system and the establishment are the enemy. Clearly, an establishment which allows such a climate to flourish is an establishment without the skills or the character to lead."
At the Volokh Conspiracy (a legal industry blog), Kenneth Anderson writes about the "Fragmenting of the New Class Elites." The "New Class" refers to a society's Nomenklatura, the ruling political class, functionaries, and hangers on that view themselves as among the nation's elite. (I've written about the American nomenklatura before.)
Anderson makes the useful point that our political elite is splitting into two tiers:
"The upper tier, the bankers-government bankers-super credentialed elites. But also the lower tier, those who saw themselves entitled to a white collar job in the Virtue Industries of government and non-profits—the helping professions, the culture industry, the virtueocracies, the industries of therapeutic social control."
His theory is that the two tiers are now at war with each other. I love the close,
"The downward mobility is real, however, in both income and status. The Cal graduate started out wanting to do “sustainable conservation.” She is now engaged in something closer to subsistence farming."
Anderson is actually reacting to this post this post from Glenn Reynolds (the InstaPundit) back in 2003.
For his part, Reynolds links to several contemporary (2011) takes on our current situation [1], [2], and [3].
I hate to get all dialectical on everyone, but a breakdown of the old order is probably a needed pre-condition to rebuilding from the bottom up.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Creative Class Fail
More evidence of the failure of the "Creative Class" economic development strategy in the Twin Cities Metro area, this time from the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
The article focuses on the suburban city of Eagan, which led the metro area in job creation during the past decade, but has had a run of bad luck with its large employers, of late.
More interesting to me, was an accompanying graphic on relative job growth during the past ten years. It showed that the largest gainers in jobs were suburban communities, and the largest losers were the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, with the area's largest suburb, Bloomington, the third largest loser.
After spending billions of tax dollars on building attractions--like sports stadia and theaters--to lure employers and employees to the core cities, the result was job losses, not gains for these core communities. Outlying communities were the gainers, flying the face of what we are constantly told, that suburbia is dying.
As I note in my essay "Creative Class Fail," Minneapolis-St. Paul--following the Creative Class economic development strategy--ranks a disappointing 46th out of 65 large cities in 2011 job growth. What the Pioneer Press data show is that the strategy has failed further to attract jobs to the core cities.
The article focuses on the suburban city of Eagan, which led the metro area in job creation during the past decade, but has had a run of bad luck with its large employers, of late.
More interesting to me, was an accompanying graphic on relative job growth during the past ten years. It showed that the largest gainers in jobs were suburban communities, and the largest losers were the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, with the area's largest suburb, Bloomington, the third largest loser.
After spending billions of tax dollars on building attractions--like sports stadia and theaters--to lure employers and employees to the core cities, the result was job losses, not gains for these core communities. Outlying communities were the gainers, flying the face of what we are constantly told, that suburbia is dying.
As I note in my essay "Creative Class Fail," Minneapolis-St. Paul--following the Creative Class economic development strategy--ranks a disappointing 46th out of 65 large cities in 2011 job growth. What the Pioneer Press data show is that the strategy has failed further to attract jobs to the core cities.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Forget the “Creative Class,” Try Attracting Young Families, Instead
The main, above-the-fold headline on page one of Saturday’s Minneapolis Star Tribune is a self-congratulatory piece on the success of the Twin Cities area in attracting young professionals from elsewhere. (“Young, educated flock to the Twin Cities”)
I have previously written about the misguided emphasis that Minneapolis puts on its status as a “cool city” and the attraction it holds for the “creative class” and “knowledge workers.” But here I want to dig a little deeper on why that approach to economic development is ultimately self-defeating for a community.
In explaining why this focus on the “creative class” of twenty-something college grads represents a bad long-term economic development strategy, it will help to give you some of my personal biography.
Mr. Glahn Goes to Washington
In the late-1980’s I found myself as a newly-minted college graduate, lured from the hills of Virginia to the bright lights of the imperial capital across the river in Washington , DC
In enjoyed my sojourn on the banks of the Potomac , but I can’t say that I, on net, contributed to the social capital of the Washington-Baltimore Metroplex. (More likely, I helped dissipate it.) I did meet my future wife, though, and concluded that the fetid swampland of the Chesapeake Bay watershed region was no place to raise a family. As it happened, neither I nor my roommate nor any of my friends stayed in the area for more than a few years.
So, Minneapolis
But Minneapolis
Flawed Theory of Economic Development
The idea seems to be that to succeed as a community, we need to prevail in attracting “creative-class young people” because, “We can't attract or help companies expand here in our region if we don't have workers.”
Surly this isn’t about merely collecting drones to populate the corporate/non-profit/public sector cube farms.
Don’t worry, the Star Tribune assures us that the stakes are much higher, “it's about maintaining youthfulness, period, at a time when the number of over-45 Americans is climbing 18 times faster than is the number of those under 45.”
By targeting the “Creative Class” the Star Tribune tells us that,
“Just one quirky nerd with a concept for a website can create multibillion-dollar firms these days, and one survey suggested that educated young people are twice as likely to choose a city for its quality of life than just go any old place as long as it has a job. To that end, Minnesota
But has the Star Tribune and our civic leadership gotten the model right? Is lavishing billions on “amenities” for the “affluent young” really the best bet for future growth? Are the cities that we see ourselves in competition with actually succeeding in the “youthfulness game”?
Let’s be more specific. Minnesota may have “lavished billions” on these amenities, but for the most part, these attractions have been built in the core cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul Minneapolis
The Star Tribune includes a table with the article comparing Minneapolis-St. Paul with the other Kiplinger.com’s “Ten Great Cities for Young Adults.” Those other nine include Atlanta , Baton Rouge , Chicago , Cincinnati , Colorado Springs, Washington DC , Madison , New York , and Seattle San Francisco , Boston , and Los Angeles as “more happening” and Portland and Denver
The Baby Bust Takes a Toll
No one is more youthful than a newborn. Demographers calculate that a fertility rate of 2.1 per woman is needed to sustain a given population level. Across the U.S.
Here are the birth rates (births per 1,000 people, pre-recession 2006 data) for the 15 metro areas mentioned in the article, including Minneapolis-St. Paul. For selected cities, I include the (2004) number for the core county,
Compared to the usual suspects of “cool cities” (Boston , New York , Portland , San Francisco , and Seattle
Another Model: Focus on Job Growth
For a different take, Forbes columnist Joel Kotkin produces an annual list of “The Best Cities for Job Growth.” His 2011 Large Cities Rankings produces a very different set of rankings than those focused on “hip cities” or young adults. His top 5 large cities include four Texas cities, plus New Orleans Washington , DC New York ranks 9th, Boston 13th, Denver 24th, Seattle 32nd, San Francisco 33rd, Portland 35th, Chicago 41st, Minneapolis-St. Paul 46th, Cincinnati 49th, Atlanta 52nd, and Los Angeles stands 60th of the 65 ranked.
In his Midsized Cities Rankings, three of the top four are found in Texas Madison ranks 15th, Baton Rouge 45th, and Colorado Springs
In reference to the stunning success of uncool Texas
Whatever they are drinking in Texas California California officials, led by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, recently trekked to the Lone Star State to learn possible lessons about what drives job creation.
How do these top job growth cities compare in birth rates? Here are the figures for the top five from each of Kotkin’s Large and Mid-Sized cities lists,
Minneapolis-St. Paul betters only New Orleans
Just so we are clear that it’s not all about the oil, here are birth rates for a few other top job growth cities.
Nashville, No. 8 in job growth (and with lots of entertainment options), 15.1 births per 1,000 population in 2006
And it’s not just about the Sun Belt. Here are some northern and mid-western cities that do well in both job growth and natural population growth,
So there are models out there of communities that can produce both job growth and “youthfulness”, without relying on the constant importation of new, young adults from other states.
Needed: Job Growth and Young Families
Merely having lots of smart, twenty-something adults around does not guarantee the future. Joel Kotkin and his colleague, demographer Wendell Cox, recently studied top cities for growth in families. Not surprisingly, their list correlates highly with Kotkin’s list of top job growth cities. The Texas cities are on the list, as are the Sun Belt destinations of Raleigh and Charlotte , NC
Digging deeper, though, Kotkin and Cox find that,
“Overall, the places with the absolute fewest kids ages 5 to 17 tend to be dense core cities. Children constitute barely 1 in 10 residents in the city of Seattle San Francisco , Washington and Boston
Kotkin adds, regarding his rankings of family growth,
“Other areas losing youngsters included the nation’s three legitimate megacities—Los Angeles (No. 44), New York (No. 38) and Chicago (No. 35)—as well as areas long associated with the migration of the “young and restless,” including Boston (No. 37) and San Francisco
Here are how our 15 “Young Adult” competitor cities rank on family growth,
(Baton Rouge , Colorado Springs, and Madison
If the young, educated professionals that we are attracting are not likely to hang around and form families, then “youthfulness” will not be served, in the long run. Further still, if the young are not sticking around the core cities, but are moving to the suburbs and exurbs, than those expensive investments in downtown sports stadia, art palaces, and bike paths would have been for naught.
In fact, Kotkin and Cox have found evidence in the latest census data for just such a conclusion. They found that young people are not opting for the big city as they get older,
“Cox looked at where 25- to 34-year-olds were living in 2000 and compared this to where they were living by 2010, now aged 35 to 44. The results were surprising: In the past 10 years, this cohort’s presence grew 12% in suburban areas while dropping 22.7% in the core cities. Overall, this demographic expanded by roughly 1.8 million in the suburbs while losing 1.3 million in the core cities.”
The hip cities fared even worse,
“More intriguing, and perhaps counter-intuitive, “hip and cool” core cities like San Francisco , New York and Boston New York City
From looking at the data that Kotkin and Cox have assembled, Minneapolis and St. Paul
“These findings should inform the actions of those who run cities. Cities may still appeal to the “young and restless,” but they can’t hold millennials [today’s 25 to 34 year olds] captive forever. Even relatively successful cities have turned into giant college towns and “post-graduate” havens—temporary way stations before people migrate somewhere else. This process redefines cities from enduring places to temporary resorts.”
It’s not about the best restaurants, or nightclubs, but boring old social capital, which holds the key to future prosperity. Robert D. Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, for example, notes the importance of social capital, not just to economic growth, but to the health of a democracy.
Let’s face it, 25-year-old law associates are not the ones coaching youth soccer or presiding at Rotary Club meetings. We need to foster policies that promote family formation and encourage people to plant deep roots in the community. A focus on the “creative class” and the “young affluent” will not get us there.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Updated: Follow the Money: Red Rock Commuter Rail
In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune, we are told that a new commuter rail project for the southeastern Twin Cities Metro area is "gaining ground."
It has a name: "Red Rock Corridor." It would connect downtown St. Paul with the downriver town of Hastings, Minnesota, 30 miles away. The project has its own website.
But what would it cost? We are not told. The only dollar figure given is a $69,350 number for a planning grant from the regional government Metropolitan Council. The state's first commuter rail project, the Northstar line, cost $320 million to construct. [See below for more cost information.]
What problem would it solve? We are told that the project "is envisioned as the heart of Newport's redevelopment, with a blend of housing, retail and commercial building." Newport is a commuter city of 3,850 people.
We are told that U.S. Highway 61 is "an increasingly congested north-south route." How about fixing bottlenecks on Hwy 61? No information is provided.
We are told that Hastings "has no transit links to downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis." How about adding bus service to Hastings?
We are told that park-and-ride bus lots along the proposed route "are already filled to capacity." How about expanding the parking capacity or add new bus lots?
Rest easy, this is a "both/and" solution. "To build ridership, rapid bus service to the southeast metro will be expanded next year, park-and-ride lots will be built, and by 2020, commuter rail should be running."
We are also told that these "plans come as Minnesota communities look for ways to recover from dwindling state aid and an ailing economy."
Who gets the final word? In the newspaper article, the improbably-named Sam Zimbabwe is quoted, saying,
"It is something that we've seen around the country taking hold as the real estate market demands a new type of development."
Ignoring the question of "what development?", the more interesting question is "Who is Sam Zimbabwe?" The paper lists him as the "director of the nonprofit Center for Transit-Oriented Development at Reconnecting America." Reconnecting America is a Washington, DC,-based group partnering with Smart Growth America to improve your life through expanding public transportation.
Where does Reconnecting America get its funding to apply its tender mercies in Minnesota? Ah, the Minneapolis-based McKnight Foundation, which has provided the group with $1.4 million since 2004 "to expand local knowledge, build capacity, and support leadership for equitable transit-oriented development in the Twin Cities region."
Update I: The story is accompanied by a timeline for the project, which I reproduce below,
Source: Red Rock Corridor Commission, October 2011
Notice what's missing? No determination of how much it will cost or who will pay for it. In 2012-13, we'll figure out how to divvy up the cost, whatever that may turn out to be.
Update II: I found this article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, from early last year, which cites a 2007 study estimating the commuter rail portion of the Red Rock project at $550 million. The article also contains some estimates on the bus service portions of the project.
It has a name: "Red Rock Corridor." It would connect downtown St. Paul with the downriver town of Hastings, Minnesota, 30 miles away. The project has its own website.
But what would it cost? We are not told. The only dollar figure given is a $69,350 number for a planning grant from the regional government Metropolitan Council. The state's first commuter rail project, the Northstar line, cost $320 million to construct. [See below for more cost information.]
What problem would it solve? We are told that the project "is envisioned as the heart of Newport's redevelopment, with a blend of housing, retail and commercial building." Newport is a commuter city of 3,850 people.
We are told that U.S. Highway 61 is "an increasingly congested north-south route." How about fixing bottlenecks on Hwy 61? No information is provided.
We are told that Hastings "has no transit links to downtown St. Paul or Minneapolis." How about adding bus service to Hastings?
We are told that park-and-ride bus lots along the proposed route "are already filled to capacity." How about expanding the parking capacity or add new bus lots?
Rest easy, this is a "both/and" solution. "To build ridership, rapid bus service to the southeast metro will be expanded next year, park-and-ride lots will be built, and by 2020, commuter rail should be running."
We are also told that these "plans come as Minnesota communities look for ways to recover from dwindling state aid and an ailing economy."
Who gets the final word? In the newspaper article, the improbably-named Sam Zimbabwe is quoted, saying,
"It is something that we've seen around the country taking hold as the real estate market demands a new type of development."
Ignoring the question of "what development?", the more interesting question is "Who is Sam Zimbabwe?" The paper lists him as the "director of the nonprofit Center for Transit-Oriented Development at Reconnecting America." Reconnecting America is a Washington, DC,-based group partnering with Smart Growth America to improve your life through expanding public transportation.
Where does Reconnecting America get its funding to apply its tender mercies in Minnesota? Ah, the Minneapolis-based McKnight Foundation, which has provided the group with $1.4 million since 2004 "to expand local knowledge, build capacity, and support leadership for equitable transit-oriented development in the Twin Cities region."
Update I: The story is accompanied by a timeline for the project, which I reproduce below,
2011: Station area and site study completed on building transit stations in St. Paul (Lower Afton Road), Newport, Cottage Grove and Hastings.
2012: Expanded express bus service to build ridership.
2012-13: Analysis of cost allocations and ridership projections.
2014-16: Final design and engineering for the commuter rail line.
2016-18: Commuter rail construction begins.
2019: Commuter service begins to St. Paul.
2022: Commuter service extends to Minneapolis.
Notice what's missing? No determination of how much it will cost or who will pay for it. In 2012-13, we'll figure out how to divvy up the cost, whatever that may turn out to be.
Update II: I found this article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, from early last year, which cites a 2007 study estimating the commuter rail portion of the Red Rock project at $550 million. The article also contains some estimates on the bus service portions of the project.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
In Search of: The Island of Misfit Toys or How to Get Our Economy Moving Again
Although I was not able to attend, I read with great interest the various media accounts of the “Jobs Summit” hosted this week by Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton in St. Paul. My takeaway is that a big opportunity was lost. According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, Minnesota has more than 205,000 unemployed workers. If ever we were in need of a “jobs summit,” now is the time.
Don’t misunderstand: the Jobs Summit was a sellout event, with more than 800 people in attendance for the day-long program, including 12 speakers, 15 breakout sessions, and a small trade show. All the usual ground was covered, clean energy, re-branding, the "Creative Class", infrastructure. Technology and Innovation were given their due. Calls to action were issued. Buzzwords were bandied. But in the end, I’m left with the nagging thought: every stone turned this week had already been turned by 2008 or even earlier. It is as if the past three years of the Great Recession have taught us nothing new about economic development.
After reading the media coverage and studying the summit's agenda, I have come to the conclusion that the most important people were the ones who weren’t there.
No, I’m not talking about the jobless themselves. I’m talking about the people with the ideas that no one has heard before. I call it the search for the Island of Misfit Toys St. Paul
Take, for example, the Summit
Media coverage of the Summit
Moreover, the skills gap is a perennial: it exists during boom times and busts. And I am old enough to recall the Reagan recession of the early 1980’s, when the observation was made regarding the pages of help wanted ads at a time of high unemployment.
Regardless of whether a few hundred high skills, high wage jobs have gone begging, with a fifth of a million unemployed people seeking work in Minnesota
The St. Paul
“For instance, Tina Smith, Dayton's chief of staff, said her panel on reducing government costs for businesses embraced the idea of an ‘unsession’ where state officials would identify the bureaucratic red tape, overlapping reporting requirements and other unnecessary hurdles and, in Smith's words, ‘stop doing them.’”
Again, a great idea. Like the skills gap, something that should be addressed. But, first, speaking as a former one, “state officials” are the last people who should be entrusted with the exercise. Second, “state officials” are already required to do this by law. Minnesota Statute § 14.05, subdivision 5 begins,“By December 1 of each year, an agency must submit to the governor, the Legislative Coordinating Commission, the policy and funding committees and divisions with jurisdiction over the agency, and the revisor of statutes, a list of any rules or portions of rules that are obsolete, unnecessary, or duplicative of other state or federal statutes or rules.”
Presenting as new ideas something already enshrined in law reinforces the idea that we really needed to hear from those who weren’t there. We need to hear from the entrepreneurs that don’t have job openings to fill, because they can’t justify the risk in hiring in Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota
For nearly a year now, I have tried to use this space to introduce audiences to those thinkers who have truly different approaches to our current dilemma. Although, they may be offended by being compared to misfit toys, I’d like to (re-) introduce a few worthies of a more (dare I say it?) Jeffersonian, bottom-up view:
From the “leftish” end of the political spectrum:
- Walter Russell Mead, who recently wrote about the role of energy efficiency in job creation, the subject of one of the
Summit - Joel Kotkin, whose New Geography website discusses the job boom in next-door
North Dakota - The Breakthrough Institute, home of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, and some new thinking on energy and the environment.
From the other side:
- Arthur Brooks, the think-tank leader who pushes the importance of “earned success”
- Daniel Hannan, the British politician who emphasizes the importance of direct democracy and local control
- Charter Cities, home of Paul Romer’s idea that, at some point, the best option is to start over with a new set of rules
Unfortunately, not one of those I mentioned lives in Minnesota
[Updated and Bumped] After Climate Change, Then What?
In the last day or so, a couple of several national voices have proclaimed the end of the global warming industry. Syndicated columnist Michael Barone weighs in with his take, "Cult of global warming is loving influence."
The Wall Street Journal editorial page contributes a lead editorial on Tuesday, "The Post-Global Warming World: Moving on from climate virtue" (subscription required). The Journal concludes,
"The question today is whether it makes sense to combat a potential climate threat by imposing economically destructive regulations and sinking billions into failure-prone technologies that have their own environmental costs."
Update: Columnist Victor Davis Hanson has added his take to the obituary of the global warming movement on the National Review homepage, "Global Warming--RIP?".
I hope that the Journal,and Barone, and Hanson are correct, that the world is "wearier and wiser" and the global warmists are losing influence. But the climate change industry is so vast and the funding streams so generous the charade may must continue for years more.
I would remind everyone that California and Australia have, just this month, started "cap and trade" programs in their respective jurisdictions.
Never underestimate the perseverance of even the most useless ideas, when jobs and careers are at stake. Just in Minnesota, we have a thriving global warming industry that supports hundreds of jobs in the non-profit, academic, utility, and government sectors. Millions of dollars in foundation and government grants support a network of media outlets, conferences and publications, and political candidates. Funders will continue to want results for their dollars.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page contributes a lead editorial on Tuesday, "The Post-Global Warming World: Moving on from climate virtue" (subscription required). The Journal concludes,
"The question today is whether it makes sense to combat a potential climate threat by imposing economically destructive regulations and sinking billions into failure-prone technologies that have their own environmental costs."
Update: Columnist Victor Davis Hanson has added his take to the obituary of the global warming movement on the National Review homepage, "Global Warming--RIP?".
I hope that the Journal,
I would remind everyone that California and Australia have, just this month, started "cap and trade" programs in their respective jurisdictions.
Never underestimate the perseverance of even the most useless ideas, when jobs and careers are at stake. Just in Minnesota, we have a thriving global warming industry that supports hundreds of jobs in the non-profit, academic, utility, and government sectors. Millions of dollars in foundation and government grants support a network of media outlets, conferences and publications, and political candidates. Funders will continue to want results for their dollars.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Boomerang by Michael Lewis: Read It!
Just finished reading Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World by Michael Lewis (Liars Poker, Moneyball, The Big Short).
Highly recommend it. Lewis travels to Iceland, Ireland, California and other places to show us the future that we can still avoid.
Highly recommend it. Lewis travels to Iceland, Ireland, California and other places to show us the future that we can still avoid.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Follow the Money: Trading Oil for Votes
The Minneapolis Star Tribune piece on Alida Rockefeller Messinger last Sunday deserves even more attention than it has been getting.
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton's former wife and Rockefeller heiress "has quietly given at least $10 million to [DFL] candidates and causes over the past decade," according to the Star Tribune. And now, "She is vowing to do all she can to help the DFL regain control of the Legislature and get President Obama re-elected."
John Hinderaker had an early reaction on the Power Line blog to the piece, making the point that the Star Tribune is fine with the liberal Messinger's use of her money to advance her political causes, but when it comes to conservatives, not so much. Let Freedom Ring blog connects a few more dots on the story.
But I want to make two points that I have not seen elsewhere.
One. As the great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller, she is the heiress to a fortune built on oil refining. According to the Star Tribune, someone spending millions of oil dollars on left wing politics is just "a woman passionate about issues." The paper is rather less kind to the current bogeymen of the left, the Koch Brothers. They too made a fortune in oil refining. But back when the Wisconsin legislature was considering some public union reforms, the Star Tribune wrote that Messinger's ex-husband Gov. Mark Dayton, "would 'not let right wing billionaires" [the Koch Brothers--who reportedly have helped finance Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker campaign] "control the debate in Minnesota." So, Gov. Dayton's ex-wife spends money on Minnesota politics and she is "passionate about issues" but the Koch's are trying to "control the debate."
Two. It isn't just through direct political donations that Messinger influences policy. As recently as 2006, she served on the board of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which gave grants to a host of policy-oriented environmental groups in that year. Her son, Eric Dayton, continues to serve on the Fund's board.
The New York City-born Messinger presumes to tell the rest of us in Minnesota how to organize our society. The Star Tribune quotes a former DLF official saying, "She has chosen, by virtue of her ability to support things, to have a very loud voice."
I, for one, choose not to listen.
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton's former wife and Rockefeller heiress "has quietly given at least $10 million to [DFL] candidates and causes over the past decade," according to the Star Tribune. And now, "She is vowing to do all she can to help the DFL regain control of the Legislature and get President Obama re-elected."
John Hinderaker had an early reaction on the Power Line blog to the piece, making the point that the Star Tribune is fine with the liberal Messinger's use of her money to advance her political causes, but when it comes to conservatives, not so much. Let Freedom Ring blog connects a few more dots on the story.
But I want to make two points that I have not seen elsewhere.
One. As the great-granddaughter of John D. Rockefeller, she is the heiress to a fortune built on oil refining. According to the Star Tribune, someone spending millions of oil dollars on left wing politics is just "a woman passionate about issues." The paper is rather less kind to the current bogeymen of the left, the Koch Brothers. They too made a fortune in oil refining. But back when the Wisconsin legislature was considering some public union reforms, the Star Tribune wrote that Messinger's ex-husband Gov. Mark Dayton, "would 'not let right wing billionaires" [the Koch Brothers--who reportedly have helped finance Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker campaign] "control the debate in Minnesota." So, Gov. Dayton's ex-wife spends money on Minnesota politics and she is "passionate about issues" but the Koch's are trying to "control the debate."
Two. It isn't just through direct political donations that Messinger influences policy. As recently as 2006, she served on the board of the Rockefeller Family Fund, which gave grants to a host of policy-oriented environmental groups in that year. Her son, Eric Dayton, continues to serve on the Fund's board.
The New York City-born Messinger presumes to tell the rest of us in Minnesota how to organize our society. The Star Tribune quotes a former DLF official saying, "She has chosen, by virtue of her ability to support things, to have a very loud voice."
I, for one, choose not to listen.
Rebirth of Detroit?
That's the hopeful headline in today's post from Walter Russell Mead. Some rebuilding from the bottom up is occurring. Writes Mead,
"It is interesting to note, however, that in one of the bluest of blue-model cities, the government is responsible for so few of these changes. Entrepreneurs and foundations seem to be stepping in where political institutions failed, just as charter schools and religious schools are filling the vacuum caused by a dysfunctional public education system."
"It is interesting to note, however, that in one of the bluest of blue-model cities, the government is responsible for so few of these changes. Entrepreneurs and foundations seem to be stepping in where political institutions failed, just as charter schools and religious schools are filling the vacuum caused by a dysfunctional public education system."
Solar Subsidies in Minnesota, Part 2
In Finance and Commerce, freelance writer Dan Haugen attempts to answer the question that I posed a couple of weeks ago. Dan phrases the question from the point of view of two local solar manufacturers, "How will Silicon Energy and TenKsolar manage in oversupplied solar panel market?"
Minnesota now has two companies trying to take advantage of the "made in Minnesota" solar panel subsidies. These subsidies were mandated by the state government but are paid for by utility ratepayers.
My question was how local companies will manage once the subsidies end in a few years. Dan quotes TenKsolar CEO Joel Cannon with an answer,
“This is why we think it’s so important to be geographically diverse, why we made such an emphasis on getting sales not only across the U.S. but outside of the U.S....The last thing we want to be is dependent on a local subsidy,” Cannon said. “That’s a recipe for business that can’t last.”
His local competitor, Silicon Energy, has a different approach. Dan writes,
"To make the product economical, the company successfully lobbied Iron Range legislators for a generous made-in-Minnesota solar rebate—something that Silicon Energy wouldn’t be in Minnesota without. Xcel Energy customers can now get rebates to cover up to 60 percent of the cost of a Silicon Energy or TenKsolar system. Silicon Energy’s sales efforts are focused on states where its customers receive made-local rebates.“
Time will tell which approach wins.
Minnesota now has two companies trying to take advantage of the "made in Minnesota" solar panel subsidies. These subsidies were mandated by the state government but are paid for by utility ratepayers.
My question was how local companies will manage once the subsidies end in a few years. Dan quotes TenKsolar CEO Joel Cannon with an answer,
“This is why we think it’s so important to be geographically diverse, why we made such an emphasis on getting sales not only across the U.S. but outside of the U.S....The last thing we want to be is dependent on a local subsidy,” Cannon said. “That’s a recipe for business that can’t last.”
His local competitor, Silicon Energy, has a different approach. Dan writes,
"To make the product economical, the company successfully lobbied Iron Range legislators for a generous made-in-Minnesota solar rebate—something that Silicon Energy wouldn’t be in Minnesota without. Xcel Energy customers can now get rebates to cover up to 60 percent of the cost of a Silicon Energy or TenKsolar system. Silicon Energy’s sales efforts are focused on states where its customers receive made-local rebates.“
Time will tell which approach wins.
An Update on St. Paul's Complete Streets Project
Minnesota Public Radio has an update on the Jefferson Ave. "complete streets" project in St. Paul. It seems that many local residents are still not happy and considering a lawsuit. MPR quotes a local resident,
"When we start talking about narrowing our roadways, putting up roadblocks, eliminating stop signs or lights, things that would make it unsafe for pedestrians or other cars just to accommodate this very small minority of bikers on essentially a roadway system that already exists from one end to the other, and to then put a million dollars into it and call it a bikeway, is insulting."
"When we start talking about narrowing our roadways, putting up roadblocks, eliminating stop signs or lights, things that would make it unsafe for pedestrians or other cars just to accommodate this very small minority of bikers on essentially a roadway system that already exists from one end to the other, and to then put a million dollars into it and call it a bikeway, is insulting."
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Brokest Nation in History Has Money for You
Catching up from last week. Mark Steyn, in his weekly syndicated column, uses as a starting point the visit by Vice President Joe Biden to the York, Pennsylvania, public schools to push for the latest stimulus bill. In another signature performance, the Vice President promised more federal money for local public schools to hire back laid-off teachers.
Which prompted Steyn to ask,
"So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to "give you some money" to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?
"No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes.
"Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pennsylvania. But they're out there somewhere. Who has "a lot of money"? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have "a lot of money." Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year."
Which prompted Steyn to ask,
"So how come the Brokest Jurisdiction in History is able to "give you some money" to hire back those teachers that had to be laid off?
"No problem, says the vice president. We're going to "ask" people who have "a lot of money" to "pay just a little bit more" in taxes.
"Where are these people? Evidently, not in York, Pennsylvania. But they're out there somewhere. Who has "a lot of money"? According to President Obama, if your combined household income is over $250,000 a year you have "a lot of money." Back in March, my National Review colleague Kevin Williamson pointed out that, in order to balance the budget of the United States, you would have to increase the taxes of people earning more than $250,000 a year by $500,000 a year."
Athens on Narragansett Bay
Walter Russell Mead has has a great essay on the public pension crisis on his blog. It's worth reading for the subject itself, but I loved this swipe at urban planning,
"Rhode Island planners, like their counterparts across the country, fell for white elephant concepts like convention centers, those cliched “new urbanism” pedestrian malls and downtown redevelopments that never seem to work, Solyndra style industrial policy and all the other failed nostrums that strike upper middle class social engineers as cool but that rarely make anything as vulgar and utilitarian as money. There was a lot of expensive churn, many consultants deposited checks, but the underlying economy never turned around."
"Rhode Island planners, like their counterparts across the country, fell for white elephant concepts like convention centers, those cliched “new urbanism” pedestrian malls and downtown redevelopments that never seem to work, Solyndra style industrial policy and all the other failed nostrums that strike upper middle class social engineers as cool but that rarely make anything as vulgar and utilitarian as money. There was a lot of expensive churn, many consultants deposited checks, but the underlying economy never turned around."
Friday, October 21, 2011
Early Warning Alert: The Coming War Against Free Parking
The next phase is coming down the road, the end of free parking.
California Suicide Watch: Cap and Trade Edition
Just as Australia did recently, California decided to go out of business by implementing a "cap-and-trade" scheme to reduce carbon emissions. Yesterday, California's Air Resource Board voted to begin cap and trade on January 1st.
Subsidize Speech, But Only Speech That I Like
On Minnesota Public Radio, the Rev. Gwin Pratt comments on Annette Meeks' commentary regarding Metro Transit's sponsorship of a recent rally against climate change. (How is it on MPR that the other side always gets the last word?)
Metro Transit can find funds to subsidize political rallies, but struggles to find funds to cover operating expenses for the new Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway.
No matter, for Rev. Pratt and most of the Commentary's commenters, the issue with taxpayer subsidy of speech is whether they agree with the speech. I am awaiting their support for the next Tea Party rally.
Metro Transit can find funds to subsidize political rallies, but struggles to find funds to cover operating expenses for the new Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transitway.
No matter, for Rev. Pratt and most of the Commentary's commenters, the issue with taxpayer subsidy of speech is whether they agree with the speech. I am awaiting their support for the next Tea Party rally.
Last Night on the Late Debate with Jack and Ben
Download the podcast at this site. We covered Federal loan guarantees, complete streets, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the improving imported oil situation.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Green Energy and Free Markets
Expanding on ideas related to my heirloom electricity concept, clean energy executive Sunil Sharan has an interesting essay on the Washington Post Innovations blog, "The lesson from Solyndra: It’s time to deregulate the energy market."
His conclusion,
"Deregulation will make U.S. utilities more efficient, consumer-friendly, and entrepreneurial—as they are in Europe. It will release pent-up market forces, incentivizing fleet-footed utilities to thrive, and forcing stragglers to either measure up or shut down. It will transform rate-payers into customers, who, if not treated well, would be free to take their business elsewhere. With such obvious benefits, why shouldn’t the U.S. shed its fear of deregulation? Europe and Texas have both proven that it can work."
His conclusion,
"Deregulation will make U.S. utilities more efficient, consumer-friendly, and entrepreneurial—as they are in Europe. It will release pent-up market forces, incentivizing fleet-footed utilities to thrive, and forcing stragglers to either measure up or shut down. It will transform rate-payers into customers, who, if not treated well, would be free to take their business elsewhere. With such obvious benefits, why shouldn’t the U.S. shed its fear of deregulation? Europe and Texas have both proven that it can work."
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Follow the Money: Crony Capitalist Edition
It's the Solyndras of the world that grab the headlines: a spectacular and colorful (Disney-singing robots) failure that takes a half-billion dollars of taxpayer money down with it.
But it's the drip-drip-drip of garden-variety crony capitalism that will prove the most corrosive to the foundations of the Republic.
Take this announcement from the U.S. Department of Energy as an example. As Director of Minnesota's Office of Energy Security, I would get these announcements emailed to my attention on what seemed like a daily basis: so often that I stopped bothering to even open the attachments.
It announces $156 million in grants for "groundbreaking energy research projects. With nearly $15 trillion in debt, another $156 million out the door hardly even merits a press release.
This announcement wasn't even the biggest of that day, September 29, 2011. That same day, the US DOE announced loan guarantees of $1.46 billion and $132 million to two renewable energy projects. These guarantees were part of a flurry of last-second deals done to beat the deadline marking the end of the program that had funded Solyndra.
But digging into the details of the $156 million in grants proved to be illuminating. On page 16 we find that DOE provided $799,958 to General Electric for nanomaterials research on electric cable insulation. A pittance to be sure. In 2010 General Electric made a profit of $14.2 billion, on which they allegedly paid no tax. Surely, this global company could have pulled together a mere $800,000 for some "groundbreaking" research. Instead, you and I and Chinese bondholders must pony up.
The $800,000 wasn't even the only money that GE received that day. The company was also part of a consortium with two universities which received about $4.5 million. And GE wasn't the only private company to received federal dollars in this announcement.
But why? What compelling public purpose is served by providing private companies with taxpayer money to fund research? GE is no "start-up" company looking for venture capital dollars. GE was founded by Thomas Edison in 1890.
Your tax dollars at work.
But it's the drip-drip-drip of garden-variety crony capitalism that will prove the most corrosive to the foundations of the Republic.
Take this announcement from the U.S. Department of Energy as an example. As Director of Minnesota's Office of Energy Security, I would get these announcements emailed to my attention on what seemed like a daily basis: so often that I stopped bothering to even open the attachments.
It announces $156 million in grants for "groundbreaking energy research projects. With nearly $15 trillion in debt, another $156 million out the door hardly even merits a press release.
This announcement wasn't even the biggest of that day, September 29, 2011. That same day, the US DOE announced loan guarantees of $1.46 billion and $132 million to two renewable energy projects. These guarantees were part of a flurry of last-second deals done to beat the deadline marking the end of the program that had funded Solyndra.
But digging into the details of the $156 million in grants proved to be illuminating. On page 16 we find that DOE provided $799,958 to General Electric for nanomaterials research on electric cable insulation. A pittance to be sure. In 2010 General Electric made a profit of $14.2 billion, on which they allegedly paid no tax. Surely, this global company could have pulled together a mere $800,000 for some "groundbreaking" research. Instead, you and I and Chinese bondholders must pony up.
The $800,000 wasn't even the only money that GE received that day. The company was also part of a consortium with two universities which received about $4.5 million. And GE wasn't the only private company to received federal dollars in this announcement.
But why? What compelling public purpose is served by providing private companies with taxpayer money to fund research? GE is no "start-up" company looking for venture capital dollars. GE was founded by Thomas Edison in 1890.
Your tax dollars at work.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Update: Newsweek Takes on Weatherization
Newsweek has has a story on the federal Weatherization program ("Obamas big green mess") that I explored in this post last week. It seems that other states were not as successful as Minnesota in implementing the program.
The $5 billion nationwide low-income home weatherization program has seen more than a few problems. Newsweek notes,
"In one review, Energy Department investigators found that 14 percent of weatherization projects surveyed, from Tennessee to West Virginia, failed to meet safety or quality standards."
The upshot?
"The administration is trying to change the narrative on its green record. But the appetite for another round of federal aid is waning, especially as pressures grow on Congress to cut the U.S. deficit."
(Via InstaPundit)
Update: my inside sources tell me that Minnesota indeed exceeded its goals on the Weatherization project. Congrats to all involved!
The $5 billion nationwide low-income home weatherization program has seen more than a few problems. Newsweek notes,
"In one review, Energy Department investigators found that 14 percent of weatherization projects surveyed, from Tennessee to West Virginia, failed to meet safety or quality standards."
The upshot?
"The administration is trying to change the narrative on its green record. But the appetite for another round of federal aid is waning, especially as pressures grow on Congress to cut the U.S. deficit."
(Via InstaPundit)
Update: my inside sources tell me that Minnesota indeed exceeded its goals on the Weatherization project. Congrats to all involved!
Monday, October 17, 2011
Update: Follow the Money: Keystone XL
As I documented in my last post, Canada's Vivian Krause has done yeowoman's work in following the money on the 2009 and 2010 investment by San Francisco's Tides Foundation against Canadian crude oil from Alberta.
Armed with her data, I can now read articles such as this one from the Washington Post and understand what is going on.
Last week the Post published the article "Obama allies’ interests collide over Keystone pipeline" about how our President is between a rock and a hard place over the Canadian crude oil pipeline project to move tar sands oil south.
The article opens with environmentalist Bill McKibben, making the whole campaign sound like a grassroots uprising,
"That was the moment when McKibben—who had already mobilized a global grass-roots climate movement from his home in Vermont—decided to join the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry heavy crude oil from Canada’s Alberta province to the Gulf Coast."
The Post goes back and recounts the 2008 start of the controversy, when, "Only one U.S. environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, had an anti-oil-sands project up and running." [NRDC received $1,036,947 from Tides in 2009/10].
The paper goes on to quote Corporate Ethics International [$2,200,000 in Tides money, 2009/10], who "targeted Keystone’s expansion because 'it’s an infrastructure linchpin for the expansion of the tar sands.' "
The Sierra Club [$946,754 in Tides money, 2009/10] "protests the pipeline."
Those three groups, all mentioned by name in the article, are the top three recipients from the Tides' anti-tar sands campaign.
Update: Walter Russell Mead posts his thoughts on the Washington Post piece over on this blog. Mead focuses on the political aspects of the story, as did the story itself,
"For a Democratic president, a green vs. union fight is the worst confrontation you can have. It pits upper middle class liberals against what is left of the blue collar base that in former times was the core of the Democratic Party."
Armed with her data, I can now read articles such as this one from the Washington Post and understand what is going on.
Last week the Post published the article "Obama allies’ interests collide over Keystone pipeline" about how our President is between a rock and a hard place over the Canadian crude oil pipeline project to move tar sands oil south.
The article opens with environmentalist Bill McKibben, making the whole campaign sound like a grassroots uprising,
"That was the moment when McKibben—who had already mobilized a global grass-roots climate movement from his home in Vermont—decided to join the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry heavy crude oil from Canada’s Alberta province to the Gulf Coast."
The Post goes back and recounts the 2008 start of the controversy, when, "Only one U.S. environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, had an anti-oil-sands project up and running." [NRDC received $1,036,947 from Tides in 2009/10].
The paper goes on to quote Corporate Ethics International [$2,200,000 in Tides money, 2009/10], who "targeted Keystone’s expansion because 'it’s an infrastructure linchpin for the expansion of the tar sands.' "
The Sierra Club [$946,754 in Tides money, 2009/10] "protests the pipeline."
Those three groups, all mentioned by name in the article, are the top three recipients from the Tides' anti-tar sands campaign.
Update: Walter Russell Mead posts his thoughts on the Washington Post piece over on this blog. Mead focuses on the political aspects of the story, as did the story itself,
"For a Democratic president, a green vs. union fight is the worst confrontation you can have. It pits upper middle class liberals against what is left of the blue collar base that in former times was the core of the Democratic Party."
Follow the Money: Tar Sands Edition
Vivian Krause, a Canadian blogger, has been following the money on the well-funded campaign against Canadian oil sands production and export. On this side of the border, we see the campaign as the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline, a project designed to take Canadian crude to U.S. markets as far south as the Gulf Coast.
Ms. Krause has traced more than $10 million in funds from the Tides Foundation of San Francisco over a two-year period (2009 and 2010) to more than 40 groups opposed to Canadian oil. Popping out on her list of recipients are two Minnesota groups: No. 17, Fresh Energy, received $110,000 in 2009 and No. 21, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), received a total of $60,000 over the two years.
Ms. Krause documented some of her earlier findings in Canada's Financial Post. Of course, you don't have to take her word for it, Tides documents all of their 2009 and 2010 (and other years) grantees on their website.
Let no one say that the folks behind Tides have not received value for money. Fresh Energy features the campaign against the Keystone pipeline and Canadian oil prominently on its website and in coverage on its affiliated Midwest Energy News website. Here is an example. Midwest Energy News links to this article on Inside Climate News which quotes Friends of the Earth ($160,000 Tides recipient). Par for the course, I guess. MCEA has been doing its bit, too, featuring the Keystone controversy on its blog.
(Via Ezra Levant)
Ms. Krause has traced more than $10 million in funds from the Tides Foundation of San Francisco over a two-year period (2009 and 2010) to more than 40 groups opposed to Canadian oil. Popping out on her list of recipients are two Minnesota groups: No. 17, Fresh Energy, received $110,000 in 2009 and No. 21, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), received a total of $60,000 over the two years.
Ms. Krause documented some of her earlier findings in Canada's Financial Post. Of course, you don't have to take her word for it, Tides documents all of their 2009 and 2010 (and other years) grantees on their website.
Let no one say that the folks behind Tides have not received value for money. Fresh Energy features the campaign against the Keystone pipeline and Canadian oil prominently on its website and in coverage on its affiliated Midwest Energy News website. Here is an example. Midwest Energy News links to this article on Inside Climate News which quotes Friends of the Earth ($160,000 Tides recipient). Par for the course, I guess. MCEA has been doing its bit, too, featuring the Keystone controversy on its blog.
(Via Ezra Levant)
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Updated: Steyn and The American Autumn 2
In his syndicated column this week, Mark Steyn returns to the "America in Decline" theme with a piece about the Occupy Wall Street gang.
Update: The Monday Wall Street Journal carries an excerpt from Steyn's column in the "Notable and Quotable" corner of the Opinion page (subscription required).
The Journal highlights Steyn's thinking about permanence being the illusion of every age. In particular, he spotlights the moment in the 1950's when America stood alone as an economic superpower, an era we thought was the new normal, at the time.
Update: The Monday Wall Street Journal carries an excerpt from Steyn's column in the "Notable and Quotable" corner of the Opinion page (subscription required).
The Journal highlights Steyn's thinking about permanence being the illusion of every age. In particular, he spotlights the moment in the 1950's when America stood alone as an economic superpower, an era we thought was the new normal, at the time.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Let There Be Light
And there was light. The Michigan House of Representatives has passed "Right to Light" legislation to reinstate the incandescent (Edison) light bulb. On a vote of 62-46, the bill moves on to the state senate.
The bill would allow Edison bulbs to be sold in Michigan if manufactured there.
The bill would allow Edison bulbs to be sold in Michigan if manufactured there.
Coal Finds its Own Market
An interesting story from the Duluth News Tribune. It concerns a coal terminal in the nearby port of Superior, Wisconsin. The terminal, Midwest Energy Resources, seems non-plussed by news that a large customer, a Michigan coal-fired power plant, may switch to natural gas some time in the future. Tonnage through the terminal has dropped in recent years as Ontario, Canada, switches away from coal.
Quoting the terminal's President, Fred Shusterich,
“We are exporting 350,000 metric tons to Spain and Rotterdam (in the Netherlands) this year,” Shusterich said. “And we just signed a deal for three years for close to 2 million tons a year to Rotterdam.” “In fact, I am going to Spain on Friday to meet with a bunch of potential buyers at a world coal conference,” he said. “That’s where we see the growth market in the next five years – off shore.”
Interesting. We in North America are becoming too squeamish to use coal, but Europe, which has cap and trade and signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, wants to burn more.
So the idea that banning coal in the U.S. and Canada will result in less American coal being burned turns out not to be true, it just gets shipped on diesel-fueled vessels overseas. I'm not sure how the global climate-change balance comes out ahead in this exchange.
Quoting the terminal's President, Fred Shusterich,
“We are exporting 350,000 metric tons to Spain and Rotterdam (in the Netherlands) this year,” Shusterich said. “And we just signed a deal for three years for close to 2 million tons a year to Rotterdam.” “In fact, I am going to Spain on Friday to meet with a bunch of potential buyers at a world coal conference,” he said. “That’s where we see the growth market in the next five years – off shore.”
Interesting. We in North America are becoming too squeamish to use coal, but Europe, which has cap and trade and signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, wants to burn more.
So the idea that banning coal in the U.S. and Canada will result in less American coal being burned turns out not to be true, it just gets shipped on diesel-fueled vessels overseas. I'm not sure how the global climate-change balance comes out ahead in this exchange.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
What Can Save America? How About Natural Resources
That's the case Joel Kotkin lays out in a recent Forbes column ("Silicon Valley Can No Longer Save California -- Or The U.S.")
Joel writes,
"California boasts some of the nation’s richest deposits of oil and gas, not only on its sensitive and politically nettlesome coast but along the coastal plains and in the Central Valley. The most recent estimates of the state’s reserves, according to the Energy Information Agency, include nearly 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than three billion barrels of oil, roughly the same as Alaska and more than booming North Dakota."
Joel writes,
"California boasts some of the nation’s richest deposits of oil and gas, not only on its sensitive and politically nettlesome coast but along the coastal plains and in the Central Valley. The most recent estimates of the state’s reserves, according to the Energy Information Agency, include nearly 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than three billion barrels of oil, roughly the same as Alaska and more than booming North Dakota."
Chicago: Bike Friendly City for the Rich
This was always going to happen. As the progressive agenda advances one agenda, it must slam into another.
New Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to spend $150 million to make Chicago (yes, Chicago!) America's most bike-friendly city.
Criticism of this move comes not from the excess spending at a time of double-digit unemployment and a $640 million budget deficit, but where the investment is to be made.
You see, the Mayor wants to invest bike money in the Loop and the North Side, neglecting the City's poorer areas. Says one critic,
“My concern is that the lion’s share of the resources are going to go downtown and to the North Side – the South and West will only see a sprinkling.”
That's the concern?
New Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to spend $150 million to make Chicago (yes, Chicago!) America's most bike-friendly city.
Criticism of this move comes not from the excess spending at a time of double-digit unemployment and a $640 million budget deficit, but where the investment is to be made.
You see, the Mayor wants to invest bike money in the Loop and the North Side, neglecting the City's poorer areas. Says one critic,
“My concern is that the lion’s share of the resources are going to go downtown and to the North Side – the South and West will only see a sprinkling.”
That's the concern?
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Minnesota Complete Streets Update
Since my first post on the subject, a number of developments have occurred in Minnesota's "Complete Streets" scene.
Most notably, the City Council of North St. Paul voted (4-1) to kill the controversial 15th Avenue complete streets project. Coverage from the St. Paul Pioneer Press before and after the vote. Look for another project to take its place as, "City officials have said they still believe in the Living Streets plan and will consider using it for future street projects."
Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune carries a commentary on another complete streets project: the Bryant Avenue bike boulevard ("Finding room for bike-car coexistence"). It describes a novel complete street project with the bike lane running down the center of the road. Of course, that will slow down cars trying to use the same lane, but no matter, as "people who want to move fast should be over on Lyndale Avenue, according to defenders of the new lanes."
That's the real problem, isn't it? The cars aren't going away, they are finding a different route. So what may be good for Bryant Ave. will be bad for Lyndale Ave., as traffic, like water, finds its own level. Supporters who want a quiet, bike-friendly street are just inflicting more traffic on the next road over.
Not new, but here (from Minnesota Public Radio) is a photo of my least favorite complete streets application:
It is First Avenue in Minneapolis, near the Target Center/Target Field sports stadia complex. What was curb side, metered parking is now a dedicated bike lane. Parking has now moved to what was a driving lane, so we have parked cars in the middle of the street. How does this promote safety?
Most notably, the City Council of North St. Paul voted (4-1) to kill the controversial 15th Avenue complete streets project. Coverage from the St. Paul Pioneer Press before and after the vote. Look for another project to take its place as, "City officials have said they still believe in the Living Streets plan and will consider using it for future street projects."
Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune carries a commentary on another complete streets project: the Bryant Avenue bike boulevard ("Finding room for bike-car coexistence"). It describes a novel complete street project with the bike lane running down the center of the road. Of course, that will slow down cars trying to use the same lane, but no matter, as "people who want to move fast should be over on Lyndale Avenue, according to defenders of the new lanes."
That's the real problem, isn't it? The cars aren't going away, they are finding a different route. So what may be good for Bryant Ave. will be bad for Lyndale Ave., as traffic, like water, finds its own level. Supporters who want a quiet, bike-friendly street are just inflicting more traffic on the next road over.
Not new, but here (from Minnesota Public Radio) is a photo of my least favorite complete streets application:
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Updated: Green Jobs and the Perils of Central Planning
See Update Below
The Wall Street Journal has a useful editorial today on a "green jobs" training debacle. The feds allocated $500 million (that's half a billion) to train 125,000 individuals for careers in "green jobs."
So far only 53,000 have been trained. Of those, only 8,035 have found work. Of those, only 1,033 were still on the job after six months.
Meanwhile, The Grand Forks Herald is reporting that Minnesota-based Arctic Cat "said the company’s Thief River Falls plant is not operating at full capacity because of a shortage of workers."
What's the connection? The difference between market forces and central planning. The market, represented by Arctic Cat, is indicating that more snow-mobile workers are needed. Central planners would rather provide "green" workers.
As it happens, I have some first-hand experience with this phenomenon. As head of Minnesota's Office of Energy Security, we were the recipients of $138 million for the state's Weatherization Assistance Program from the federal stimulus monies. The state had run a successful Weatherization program since the 1970's, insulating the homes of low-income residents throughout Minnesota. The $138 million represented about 13 times the usual annual allocation, creating the classic "pig-in-a-python" problem. The $138 million also represented the bulk of the approximately $200 million in "green energy" federal stimulus funds we received in 2009.
Outside boosters thought that this was just the start of a green jobs revolution. A typical quote from the time,
"I think the demand for those skills is going to continue to grow, I think that the more energy conscious and more energy technical skills that people acquire, there's going to be a need from here on out for the next century."
Events would prove otherwise. One year down range, we had weatherized only 2,700 homes, 16 percent of the goal (from the stimulus funds, the regular program continued to produce as usual). You won't believe the reason why,
"Weatherization work was delayed because it took a long time for the federal government to determine what wages weatherization workers needed to be paid to meet stimulus requirements," reported Minnesota Public Radio.
That's right. The feds gave us $138 million, but needed sixth months to determine how much these "green jobs" should be paid. The feds first needed to create a new job category of "weatherization worker" and then determine the proper "Davis-Bacon" (union equivalent) wage for all 87 Minnesota counties.
Another year down range, and the Weatherization program had completed 13,000 homes, 76 percent of the goal. But as the extra money is used up, what will be the future of all the new workers taken on? Will the government, with all the red-tape baggage, have guessed correctly? Early returns are not so good,
especially, when actual jobs (like those in Thief River Falls) go begging.
The government estimates that in two years, the $138 million pledged has "created or retained 570 direct jobs." That works out to around $240,000 per job. Perhaps, as the remaining work is completed, a few more jobs will be created or retained. To be sure, Minnesota has produced much better results than other states.
People's livelihoods are at stake. Who do we trust to make the right decisions?
Update: As predictable as day following night, as the Weatherization money runs out, the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.
From the Winona Daily News: "Weatherization program funding much lower, may be cut altogether"
From Minnesota Public Radio: "Supporters want to continue funding to weatherize low-income and rental homes"
The Wall Street Journal has a useful editorial today on a "green jobs" training debacle. The feds allocated $500 million (that's half a billion) to train 125,000 individuals for careers in "green jobs."
So far only 53,000 have been trained. Of those, only 8,035 have found work. Of those, only 1,033 were still on the job after six months.
Meanwhile, The Grand Forks Herald is reporting that Minnesota-based Arctic Cat "said the company’s Thief River Falls plant is not operating at full capacity because of a shortage of workers."
What's the connection? The difference between market forces and central planning. The market, represented by Arctic Cat, is indicating that more snow-mobile workers are needed. Central planners would rather provide "green" workers.
As it happens, I have some first-hand experience with this phenomenon. As head of Minnesota's Office of Energy Security, we were the recipients of $138 million for the state's Weatherization Assistance Program from the federal stimulus monies. The state had run a successful Weatherization program since the 1970's, insulating the homes of low-income residents throughout Minnesota. The $138 million represented about 13 times the usual annual allocation, creating the classic "pig-in-a-python" problem. The $138 million also represented the bulk of the approximately $200 million in "green energy" federal stimulus funds we received in 2009.
Outside boosters thought that this was just the start of a green jobs revolution. A typical quote from the time,
"I think the demand for those skills is going to continue to grow, I think that the more energy conscious and more energy technical skills that people acquire, there's going to be a need from here on out for the next century."
Events would prove otherwise. One year down range, we had weatherized only 2,700 homes, 16 percent of the goal (from the stimulus funds, the regular program continued to produce as usual). You won't believe the reason why,
"Weatherization work was delayed because it took a long time for the federal government to determine what wages weatherization workers needed to be paid to meet stimulus requirements," reported Minnesota Public Radio.
That's right. The feds gave us $138 million, but needed sixth months to determine how much these "green jobs" should be paid. The feds first needed to create a new job category of "weatherization worker" and then determine the proper "Davis-Bacon" (union equivalent) wage for all 87 Minnesota counties.
Another year down range, and the Weatherization program had completed 13,000 homes, 76 percent of the goal. But as the extra money is used up, what will be the future of all the new workers taken on? Will the government, with all the red-tape baggage, have guessed correctly? Early returns are not so good,
especially, when actual jobs (like those in Thief River Falls) go begging.
The government estimates that in two years, the $138 million pledged has "created or retained 570 direct jobs." That works out to around $240,000 per job. Perhaps, as the remaining work is completed, a few more jobs will be created or retained. To be sure, Minnesota has produced much better results than other states.
People's livelihoods are at stake. Who do we trust to make the right decisions?
Update: As predictable as day following night, as the Weatherization money runs out, the wailing and gnashing of teeth begins.
From the Winona Daily News: "Weatherization program funding much lower, may be cut altogether"
From Minnesota Public Radio: "Supporters want to continue funding to weatherize low-income and rental homes"
Solar Subsidies in Minnesota, Part 1
With the Solyndra solar scandal still in the news, we should keep in mind that solar subsidies are not limited to the federal government or to California.
Here in Minnesota a new solar panel manufacturing plant has opened. The four-year-old company, Silicon Energy, chose the northern Minnesota town of Mountain Iron "because of a state incentive program encouraging purchase of solar panels made in-state, said company president Gary Shaver."
The state incentive program consists of a mandated utility rebate program that will provide $5 million a year for the next three years (2012-2014). Funds for 2011 are already sold out. Of course, Silicon Energy is not the only plant in Minnesota that qualifies for the rebate, so there is no guarantee that they will get all of the $5 million a year. And there is no guarantee that the state legislature will continue the mandated rebate beyond 2014.
In addition to the utilty rebate (paid for by ratepayers), the state government provided a $1.5 million loan for the plant to buy equipment, through the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB), an agency funded with taxes on the state's iron mining industry.
Further, the plant occupies a building owned by the local Mountain Iron Economic Development Authority (a city-owned agency), built with a second $3.6 million loan from the state government's IRRRB. The $5.1 million in state loans represents most of the $6.85 million project's costs.
So far, the plant has hired 15 people, with plans to hire 10 more.
As a taxpayer and a utility ratepayer, I wish them luck. Hopefully, by the time the utility subsidy ends, they will be able to complete, unsubsidized in the market.
Here in Minnesota a new solar panel manufacturing plant has opened. The four-year-old company, Silicon Energy, chose the northern Minnesota town of Mountain Iron "because of a state incentive program encouraging purchase of solar panels made in-state, said company president Gary Shaver."
The state incentive program consists of a mandated utility rebate program that will provide $5 million a year for the next three years (2012-2014). Funds for 2011 are already sold out. Of course, Silicon Energy is not the only plant in Minnesota that qualifies for the rebate, so there is no guarantee that they will get all of the $5 million a year. And there is no guarantee that the state legislature will continue the mandated rebate beyond 2014.
In addition to the utilty rebate (paid for by ratepayers), the state government provided a $1.5 million loan for the plant to buy equipment, through the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB), an agency funded with taxes on the state's iron mining industry.
Further, the plant occupies a building owned by the local Mountain Iron Economic Development Authority (a city-owned agency), built with a second $3.6 million loan from the state government's IRRRB. The $5.1 million in state loans represents most of the $6.85 million project's costs.
So far, the plant has hired 15 people, with plans to hire 10 more.
As a taxpayer and a utility ratepayer, I wish them luck. Hopefully, by the time the utility subsidy ends, they will be able to complete, unsubsidized in the market.
Metro Transit and the Anti-Oil Protests
Annette Meeks of the Freedom Foundation writes at the Minnesota Public Radio website about Metro Transit's sponsorship of MN 350.Org's anti-oil rally on Sept. 24.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)