Each year the Minneapolis Star Tribune publishes its "Nonprofit 100" index, with statistics on the state's largest not-for-profit organizations. Medical outfits dominate the top of the list, with Blue Cross at No. 1 and the Mayo Clinic at No. 2. In fact, health care institutions occupy the top 16 spots. Educational institutions dominate much of the middle of the list, with the local private colleges and universities represented.
The only environmental nonprofit to scrape into the top 100 is Pheasants Forever, the St. Paul based group, whose mission is to protect and enhance pheasant populations and habitat. Pheasants Forever ranks 91st, with annual revenues of $33.8 million. Its CEO makes $219,200 a year, the Star Tribune reports.
In Minnesota, the cabinet-level Commissioner of the state's Department of Natural Resources makes $108,367, an amount set by state law. He oversees an executive department with a budget of more than $400 million a year.
Doing well by doing good.
Monday, December 19, 2011
"Bottom Up" Done from the Top Down
As the name of this blog suggests, my mission is rebuilding America (and Minnesota) from the bottom up, as I outline in my Town Hall Minnesota plan.
What I am not talking about is an approach described by Minnesota Public Radio about a recent "town hall" style meeting held in Brainerd, Minnesota. Funded by a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and led by a "sustainability organizer for the University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnership," locals spent the day being told what they think.
A list of the issues tells you everything you need to know: "land use, transportation, housing and economic development" were discussed as "organizers asked people's help in imagining potential economic, environmental and lifestyle futures." These are the issues that matter to the Inside the Beltway Elite, not regular people in rural America. Jobs, economic growth, and government spending are the big issues, not "lifestyle futures."
Nonetheless, the folks in central Minnesota dutifully parroted the talking points the organizers were looking for,
"Work groups identified key listed issues such as affordable housing, employment, public transit, national and social environments, land use planning, technology, infrastructure, walking and biking. Then the University of Minnesota assisted in creating scenarios using real data from current trends and incorporating information gathered from group sessions."
Again, whose issues do these sound like? Regular people do not utter the phrases "land use planning" or "social environments." Ah, but you get what you pay for. The Dispatch reports,
"Region Five was awarded an $825,050 grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Sustainable Communities Regional Planning program with four main work areas — housing, transportation, land use and economic development."
Sounds like the emphasis was on the first three items.
What we need is a real bottom up agenda. Let locals organize their own meetings, without any "sustainability organizers" on the scene. I'm sure the results would be starkly different.
What I am not talking about is an approach described by Minnesota Public Radio about a recent "town hall" style meeting held in Brainerd, Minnesota. Funded by a federal grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and led by a "sustainability organizer for the University of Minnesota Regional Sustainable Development Partnership," locals spent the day being told what they think.
A list of the issues tells you everything you need to know: "land use, transportation, housing and economic development" were discussed as "organizers asked people's help in imagining potential economic, environmental and lifestyle futures." These are the issues that matter to the Inside the Beltway Elite, not regular people in rural America. Jobs, economic growth, and government spending are the big issues, not "lifestyle futures."
Nonetheless, the folks in central Minnesota dutifully parroted the talking points the organizers were looking for,
- How much growth did people want to see? ...some growth but not rampant increases that might be prompted by a booming economy." Really? I'm willing to give 'booming economy' a try.
- "transportation? ...they preferred a vision that improved main rail and road lines but let some local streets go unmaintained." How did 'rail' get top billing?
- "Broadband? Yes, they said. Lots of connectivity is needed to make everything else run smoothly."
"Work groups identified key listed issues such as affordable housing, employment, public transit, national and social environments, land use planning, technology, infrastructure, walking and biking. Then the University of Minnesota assisted in creating scenarios using real data from current trends and incorporating information gathered from group sessions."
Again, whose issues do these sound like? Regular people do not utter the phrases "land use planning" or "social environments." Ah, but you get what you pay for. The Dispatch reports,
"Region Five was awarded an $825,050 grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a Sustainable Communities Regional Planning program with four main work areas — housing, transportation, land use and economic development."
Sounds like the emphasis was on the first three items.
What we need is a real bottom up agenda. Let locals organize their own meetings, without any "sustainability organizers" on the scene. I'm sure the results would be starkly different.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Bicyclists Are Better Than You Are
At least that is the subtext of this article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune ("A new attitude about biking in Minneapolis?"). The "new attitude"? Why the question mark? As it turns out, the new attitude is "smug satisfaction".
But we already new that, so why is this article in today's paper? It turns out that a local advocacy group ("Bike Walk Twin Cities," a program of Transit for Livable Communities) issued a press release, so the Star Tribune jumped into action to validate their biases. Actually, it turns out that while the group hadn't even bothered to issue the study yet, the newspaper was happy to provide the free, pre-publicity.
The article follows the standard form. It begins in the classic style with an unverifiable assertion, "...signaling that a decade-long cultural shift in transportation and urban design..." Next comes the first dubious statistic from the advocacy group. Followed by the quote from the expert from one of the coasts. In this instance it's from a Rutgers professor of "Urban Transportation." Us little folk in flyover country are not validated unless someone from the East or West Coast pronounces us good.
Once the preliminaries are out of the way, we get down to business: giving the hoi polloi their marching orders,
"The trend is also producing new attitudes toward commuting and--in case you hadn't noticed--a need to share the roads no matter what the weather."
So, 'in case you hadn't noticed,' your job while operating those primitive, gas guzzling autos is to get out of the way of the important people on two wheels.
Now we follow up with the soothing reassurances: that all of those millions spent on bike lanes are finally paying off, that soon everyone will be riding a bike (even you can do it), that all of this way made possible by the all-knowing Federal government.
Next comes the conversion story, how one brave Minnesotan (from Ohio) found biking and let go of the car.
Finally, more dubious statistics, a last, unfunny joke and we are done. You may now resume your unworthy lives.
But we already new that, so why is this article in today's paper? It turns out that a local advocacy group ("Bike Walk Twin Cities," a program of Transit for Livable Communities) issued a press release, so the Star Tribune jumped into action to validate their biases. Actually, it turns out that while the group hadn't even bothered to issue the study yet, the newspaper was happy to provide the free, pre-publicity.
The article follows the standard form. It begins in the classic style with an unverifiable assertion, "...signaling that a decade-long cultural shift in transportation and urban design..." Next comes the first dubious statistic from the advocacy group. Followed by the quote from the expert from one of the coasts. In this instance it's from a Rutgers professor of "Urban Transportation." Us little folk in flyover country are not validated unless someone from the East or West Coast pronounces us good.
Once the preliminaries are out of the way, we get down to business: giving the hoi polloi their marching orders,
"The trend is also producing new attitudes toward commuting and--in case you hadn't noticed--a need to share the roads no matter what the weather."
So, 'in case you hadn't noticed,' your job while operating those primitive, gas guzzling autos is to get out of the way of the important people on two wheels.
Now we follow up with the soothing reassurances: that all of those millions spent on bike lanes are finally paying off, that soon everyone will be riding a bike (even you can do it), that all of this way made possible by the all-knowing Federal government.
Next comes the conversion story, how one brave Minnesotan (from Ohio) found biking and let go of the car.
Finally, more dubious statistics, a last, unfunny joke and we are done. You may now resume your unworthy lives.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
The 1880's Transit Solution or "A Streetcar Named Delusion"
Under the heading of "questions no one is asking" MinnPost asks this week, "Are streetcars the answer to our transit and environmental needs?" Streetcars are that cutting edge (circa 1880) technology that moves the masses about the urban landscape at speeds rarely exceeding a brisk walk. MinnPost writes,
"Cities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use."
How dense? MinnPost informs,
"The key...is to achieve sufficient density—10 to 40 residential units per acre"
How dense are we today? MinnPost notes,
"In the Twin Cities, the typical urban neighborhood might have a density of seven to 10 units per acre, while the density in developing suburbs is more in the range of two to four units per acre."
How dense is 10-40 units an acre? It turns out, this level of density equals San Francisco at the low end (10 units/acre) and roughly approaching the density of the city of Paris, France (50 units/acre) at the high end.
Keep in mind, streetcars won't work if the occasional acre includes 40 housing units, we need to maintain this high density level for mile after mile after mile to build the ridership needed. It would transform the nature of the community.
Nonetheless, "Minneapolis landed a $900,000 federal grant to explore the idea. The city has embarked on a study of a possible nine-mile line along Nicollet and Central Avenues"
Let me off at the next stop.
"Cities could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent or more by linking streetcars and higher-density land use."
How dense? MinnPost informs,
"The key...is to achieve sufficient density—10 to 40 residential units per acre"
How dense are we today? MinnPost notes,
"In the Twin Cities, the typical urban neighborhood might have a density of seven to 10 units per acre, while the density in developing suburbs is more in the range of two to four units per acre."
How dense is 10-40 units an acre? It turns out, this level of density equals San Francisco at the low end (10 units/acre) and roughly approaching the density of the city of Paris, France (50 units/acre) at the high end.
Keep in mind, streetcars won't work if the occasional acre includes 40 housing units, we need to maintain this high density level for mile after mile after mile to build the ridership needed. It would transform the nature of the community.
Nonetheless, "Minneapolis landed a $900,000 federal grant to explore the idea. The city has embarked on a study of a possible nine-mile line along Nicollet and Central Avenues"
Let me off at the next stop.
The Suburbs are Not Dying, After All
In a happy convergence, the Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) interviews New Geography's Joel Kotkin at PJTV (registration required). They talk about the refusal of the suburbs to die off, the static viewpoint of Urban Planning, telecommuting, and the war on the middle class.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Reynolds' Law
Glenn Reynolds, a Tennessee law school professor best known for his blog Instapundit has promulgated Reynolds' law,
“The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits—self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc.—that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.”
Correlation does not equal causation. It's a form of the Cargo Cult problem, where Pacific islanders built ersatz airstrips in a deluded effort to encourage the "cargo" to return. Allies fighting the World War II brought in supplies and material that were shared with the islanders. When the Allies left, the islanders tried to draw them back building fake airplanes, control towers and the like. But the air traffic control tower was only an accessory to material wealth, it did not create it.
“The government decides to try to increase the middle class by subsidizing things that middle class people have: If middle-class people go to college and own homes, then surely if more people go to college and own homes, we’ll have more middle-class people. But homeownership and college aren’t causes of middle-class status, they’re markers for possessing the kinds of traits—self-discipline, the ability to defer gratification, etc.—that let you enter, and stay, in the middle class. Subsidizing the markers doesn’t produce the traits; if anything, it undermines them.”
Correlation does not equal causation. It's a form of the Cargo Cult problem, where Pacific islanders built ersatz airstrips in a deluded effort to encourage the "cargo" to return. Allies fighting the World War II brought in supplies and material that were shared with the islanders. When the Allies left, the islanders tried to draw them back building fake airplanes, control towers and the like. But the air traffic control tower was only an accessory to material wealth, it did not create it.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Durban Climate Conference Ends (Roundup)
The latest UN Climate Conference, held this year in Durban, South Africa, has come to an end, finally. It was always going to produce the dramatic, ground-breaking triumphal agreement that "saves tomorrow, today" while allowing delegates to claim, "We have made history."
Walter Russell Mead is less convinced, concluding that delegates merely agreed to keep getting paid by the global climate industry.
Wendell Cox comes to a similar conclusion, but focuses more on environmental improvement strategies that may actually do some good (hint, "Smart Growth" doesn't make the cut).
The big news made was the withdrawal of Canada from the process.
Don't worry, there is always next year, the 2012 Climate Conference will be held in the oil-rich Persian Gulf state of Qatar. It's a small country, so book your first-class plane ticket and 5-star hotel suite early, space is going fast.
Walter Russell Mead is less convinced, concluding that delegates merely agreed to keep getting paid by the global climate industry.
Wendell Cox comes to a similar conclusion, but focuses more on environmental improvement strategies that may actually do some good (hint, "Smart Growth" doesn't make the cut).
The big news made was the withdrawal of Canada from the process.
Don't worry, there is always next year, the 2012 Climate Conference will be held in the oil-rich Persian Gulf state of Qatar. It's a small country, so book your first-class plane ticket and 5-star hotel suite early, space is going fast.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Education and Money: International Edition
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an international organization that grew out of the post-WWII Marshall Plan in Europe. Today, among its other contributions, it provides a treasure trove of data on activity in developed and developing nations.
The group just came out with their latest (2011) edition of Education Indicators, with data through 2008. If you dig deep, it makes for interesting reading on the subject of primary and secondary education (think K-12).
Out of 34 developed nations, on a per pupil basis, the U.S. spends more money than all except tiny Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway for a ranking of 4th out of 34. We beat out Austria by $1 per pupil. (See Table B1.2, Column 3).
As for achievement, what did this extra spending buy us? In science the U.S. ranked (2006 data) 36th out of 57 countries studied (see Figure 2.11a). Free spending Switzerland ranked 18th, with Norway 31st and Luxembourg 33rd.
In more recent (2009) data, in Reading, the U.S. ranked a more respectable 17th, with free spending Norway at 12th, Switzerland at 14th and Luxembourg a distant 38th out of 65 studied.
News on Math was even worse, with the U.S. dropping down to 22nd.
Keep these figures in mind the next time someone calls for more spending on Education.
The group just came out with their latest (2011) edition of Education Indicators, with data through 2008. If you dig deep, it makes for interesting reading on the subject of primary and secondary education (think K-12).
Out of 34 developed nations, on a per pupil basis, the U.S. spends more money than all except tiny Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway for a ranking of 4th out of 34. We beat out Austria by $1 per pupil. (See Table B1.2, Column 3).
As for achievement, what did this extra spending buy us? In science the U.S. ranked (2006 data) 36th out of 57 countries studied (see Figure 2.11a). Free spending Switzerland ranked 18th, with Norway 31st and Luxembourg 33rd.
In more recent (2009) data, in Reading, the U.S. ranked a more respectable 17th, with free spending Norway at 12th, Switzerland at 14th and Luxembourg a distant 38th out of 65 studied.
News on Math was even worse, with the U.S. dropping down to 22nd.
Keep these figures in mind the next time someone calls for more spending on Education.
Discounts on Deck Chairs
Today's Minneapolis Star Tribune notes the efforts of Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton to cut waste in state government by employing consultants to review operations. Twenty-two firms have been approved for such work, promising total savings of $20 million or more.
However, on a two-year budget of $35 billion, even savings in the the tens of millions--however welcome--won't make a significant difference to the state's fiscal situation.
Having served recently in state government, I have no doubt that improvements could be made. Perhaps 1 to 2 percent of the budget (hundreds of millions) could be saved by simply adopting modern management techniques and information technology from the last twenty years.
To make a real dent in our structural deficit, we need to either stop doing some things entirely or to do many things in entirely new ways.
Over on the Star Tribune's Business page, Chuck Slocum writes in an opinion piece that "Businesses Support Government Redesign." That's good news, because we are going to need all the support we can get when we actually get around to redesigning state government. We will need to achieve savings of $ billions, not $ millions, and there are bound to be winners and losers in the process. You can bet we will hear from the losers.
So what are we talking about when we talk about "redesign." It's not about putting some government form on the Internet that now has to be filed in paper form. It will involve providers being compensated for results, not reimbursed for inputs. It will involve services being delivered by local non-profits and for-profits that are now delivered by government employees. It will involve introducing competition in areas where now only monopolies exist.
Change will be disruptive, but we need new thinking, not merely tinkering around the edges.
However, on a two-year budget of $35 billion, even savings in the the tens of millions--however welcome--won't make a significant difference to the state's fiscal situation.
Having served recently in state government, I have no doubt that improvements could be made. Perhaps 1 to 2 percent of the budget (hundreds of millions) could be saved by simply adopting modern management techniques and information technology from the last twenty years.
To make a real dent in our structural deficit, we need to either stop doing some things entirely or to do many things in entirely new ways.
Over on the Star Tribune's Business page, Chuck Slocum writes in an opinion piece that "Businesses Support Government Redesign." That's good news, because we are going to need all the support we can get when we actually get around to redesigning state government. We will need to achieve savings of $ billions, not $ millions, and there are bound to be winners and losers in the process. You can bet we will hear from the losers.
So what are we talking about when we talk about "redesign." It's not about putting some government form on the Internet that now has to be filed in paper form. It will involve providers being compensated for results, not reimbursed for inputs. It will involve services being delivered by local non-profits and for-profits that are now delivered by government employees. It will involve introducing competition in areas where now only monopolies exist.
Change will be disruptive, but we need new thinking, not merely tinkering around the edges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)