|
There are 276 blog entries within the category of Blog Entry
If you're not familiar with this project yet, an ad agency called BBH has equipped 14 homeless people in Austin with 4G data-enabled devices. They've asked their participants to roam the South by Southwest festival offering free WiFi to people.
The stunt has attracted a host of negative publicity. People have been suggesting it is unethical, immoral, and exploitative. I even read one article claiming that the agency is essentially commoditizing (generally read as enslaving) the homeless. Unfortunately, these claims couldn't be further from the truth. In fact the only unethical component of this whole matter is how quick the media has been to present a new bandwagon for the uninformed to jump on.
A few points to consider:
Firstly, this is not a bad financial deal. All of the individuals are being paid a minimum stipend of $50 per day, $20 of which is up-front. If that number seems low, keep in mind that they're not exactly doing work, rather they're just instructed to go about their day; people will find them. The company is also suggesting that people provide donations for the service; the suggested rate seems to be about $2.00 for 15 minutes of access. In addition to their stipend, the homeless keep all of the donations that they're given. That adds up pretty quickly at a festival like SXSW.
Secondly, they're entrusted and invited to participate in a worldwide event. I'm not a social worker, but I have to assume that when you entrust somebody with an expensive piece of hardware (one they could easily run off with), provide them with a festival t-shirt bearing their name, and give them a legitimate reason to interact with the general population, this is possibly the greatest offer many have seen in some time. It provides a presumably disparaging person with opportunity, something we all hope for.
Thirdly, I also have to assume that the fourteen people selected for this project are fairly competent individuals. That is to say, there is a certain level of communication and responsibility necessary for this project to be successful, even if it is minimal. It seems that the ad agency would be somewhat selective in their process of choosing who was eligible to participate. This would suggest that the participants are of pretty sound mind.
Which brings me to my only real problem with the outcries. Where is the consistency with the argument? I see homeless individuals working all sorts of jobs around Austin and I've never read of people being lambasted for hiring them. I've watched them distribute leaflets, hold business signs, sell papers, work parking lots, and on, and on. So I'm curious where the outcries are for homeless people being paid to hold "Liquidation Sale" signs on street corners. Is there some sort of line in the sand that we cross once the job takes on a more technical nature?
Unfortunately we're seeing these sorts of baseless, and even counter-productive outcries occur all of the time through the internet. In my opinion, they're exactly what turn legitimate problems into fashionable blips. There are no doubt cases whereby homeless people have been exploited for their "services". For example, about a decade ago Indecline Films started putting out a series called 'Bumfights'. The clear difference is that they sought drunken and probably mentally unstable individuals and paid them to incite violence against one another. There is a clear common sense distinction between these types of cases, and it's just sad that people are so willing to rally against anything, even when there are numerous and obvious benefits.
If people really wanted to help the homeless, they could trivially forgo spending $1,395 on their SXSW badges and instead donate that directly to a homeless person or any number of local shelters. But of course we all know that's never going to happen.
My take of these matters is simple. If people are unwilling to put real action ahead of empty talk, then perhaps they should at very least stop speaking for others. Especially when those others are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
|
To my friends who intend to support the Republican party with Romney at the helm, I feel bad for you, truly I do. You have to know by now that if Governor Romney wins the nomination (which appears likely), President Obama is going to sweep the 2012 election. Don't get me wrong, I loathe President Obama as much as I loathed President Bush. I just wish I could understand why those of you who vote party-line are so blind to this reality.
It's a simple, two-fold problem. Firstly, the Republican party obviously has no clear favorite. This is probably because the three media-favored candidates are hardly distinguishable from the Democrats when it comes to most issues. Or on occasion, are so openly vile and off-topic that even many conservatives are dismissing their rhetoric. And secondly, the party has to contend with the reality that Ron Paul has an army of well-organized supporters. The latter of those is what I would like to address.
There's one thing that you need to know about the current primary process, and this is really important: the overwhelming majority of those voting for Ron Paul have NO INTEREST in supporting the Republican party outside of his nomination. I am certainly included in that subgroup. In fact, varying statistical analyses put the number around 1 in 4 right now. In other words, if it's Romney vs. Obama in November, then about 75% of those votes currently coming from Ron Paul Republicans will result in write-ins, independent 3rd party votes, or abstentions. They will NOT go to Romney. This is a huge problem for you. Not even the media knows quite how to spin it.
Let's be clear about this. Most Ron Paul supporters aren't so stubborn that they would never vote for another candidate. Rather, they're just not going to vote for a candidate who intends to wander down the same path of destructive policies that we've seen for almost 15 years. Unfortunately, most of you seem to be completely ignoring these much needed policy changes. Here's three off the top of my head.
- The majority of us couldn't care less about homosexuality and the myriad of subtopics you've created around it. The whole idea of small government is that the government doesn't get to run people's lives. We take this credo very seriously, whereas you only purport to take it seriously. If your personal beliefs encourage you to act in a selfish and bigoted manner, that's perfectly acceptable. But at least be objective enough to support legislation that embodies the diversity of our country, not the homogeneity of your personal faith.
- None of the other candidates have shown ANY interest whatsoever in addressing the severe financial mess this country is in. Occasionally one will offer some insignificant cut to a future budget proposal. This is meaningless to our current problems. Since some of you evidently don't fully grasp this concept, it means that if a department was intending to **expand** by say $100 billion in 2013, your candidate might be willing to cut that **expansion** down to $90 billion. Of course this completely ignores the fact that many departments need not exist in the first place and merely reducing their expansion does nothing to reverse our current level of debt. It's like going shopping because you received a coupon in the mail. You're still spending money you didn't need to spend in the first place!
We're interested in someone who wants to legitimately cut spending, who wants to substantially reform the tax system, and who doesn't support playing favorites with American corporations. And as a parallel to that, just because you don't like the Occupy Wall Street people, doesn't make them wrong. Stop acting like corporate lobbyists and financial bailouts are somehow to your benefit, they clearly are not.
- Stop trying to take over the world. It shouldn't be done, and more importantly, it can't be done. Nobody on our side of the table is suggesting war isn't sometimes necessary. However, the entire Muslim world is NOT your enemy, and certainly not our enemy. Even if they were, there are over 1.5 billion of them! The attack on Osama Bin Laden's compound was a small, covert, and successful mission. That single mission was more useful than years of occupation. We have ruined literally decades of progress and permanently scarred our nation's reputation, all on the quest to protect American corporate interests.
Ron Paul Republicans will not tolerate, much less support a candidate interested in waging these kinds of open militaristic conquests around the world. We have a Congress to make declarations of war so that the people can control the war. The President of the United States is not a military dictator contrary to what President Bush and President Obama may have led you to believe.
The recent Romney victory in Washington State pretty much showcased the general mentality of the party. Romney was hated by the Washington Caucus in 2008, placing last in almost every county. Now four years later he is miraculously the top pick by a substantial margin? It's pretty obvious that the majority of you are only interested in voting for the predicted nominee rather than who you believe is a good candidate. That's a pretty sad state for a democracy, especially considering it's only the primary process.
So having written all of that, and knowing how much I'd love to see a change in D.C. next year, I truly wish you'd wake up to the reality of this election. If you forcibly continue to exclude and ignore these people and ideas, you cannot win this election, period. Every one of the so-called swing states is going to be gift-wrapped and handed to the Democrats. If your only goal this November is to unseat Barack Obama, then it would seem that ignoring this population does your cause a grand disservice.
Please feel free to email me anytime with your questions on the topic; I'd be more than happy to respond. In the meantime, keep looking for that birth certificate, because that's sure to fix our problems.
|
 The 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states, respectfully, or to the people."
I come across these sorts of posts from time to time and am always disappointed at the short-sightedness of the analysis provided. I'm not sure if people are unable to wrap their heads around the scope of the 10th amendment, or are just unwilling to, but there are huge upsides embedded in our Constitutional fabric.
Firstly, let me concede that there would no doubt exist various social and fiscal injustices across the country if the federal government stopped usurping states rights. But in the absence of this, over 300 million people are essentially forced to accept homogenized points of view of whatever party happens to have congressional and executive control. That was certainly not the vision of the United States. Even more unfortunate is that in the long run, it essentially guarantees all walks of the political spectrum will endure measures they do not agree with, and may never agree with.
One of the reasons for this is that ignoring the 10th amendment generally requires that force be used in order to get most agendas passed. Keep in mind that the use of force is not limited to guns and bombs. A combination of divisive politics, fear tactics, and far-leaning partisan mandates tend to be the weapon of choice for American politicians. It's pretty easy to stir up fear in a country as large as the United States, especially in a time when politicians are no longer held to media scrutiny. Circumventing our most fundamental rule of law with lavish, empty promises of political solutions offers nothing but a dangerous and highly volatile band-aid to a potentially very serious issue.
The drive of a progressive, intellectual, and advancing society should be to win the hearts and minds of people through diplomacy and discussion, not through scare-tactics and force. Since it is the alleged plight of liberals, progressives, sensible conservatives, and libertarians to specifically not engage in forceful tactics in order to promote an agenda, opposing the 10th amendment seems to be counterproductive to ones own core belief system, provided one falls into that category. The 10th amendment provides the United States with an excellent method for developing and exploring varying ideologies without needing to forcibly impose those values on the entire country.
If you've ever entertained the idea of leaving the United States because you disagree with so many modern policies (perhaps global imperialism), you've no doubt pondered how difficult this would be to see through. The idea of permanently moving your entire life to a different culture, with a different government, with a different monetary system, where you would have to completely re-assimilate yourself seems overwhelming (and should incidentally give you some pause over what immigrants in our own country might endure). But this is one of the many reasons that the United States was designed with such an interesting and ingenious framework. It is well within most people's practical means to relocate to another city or state for any number of reasons, differences of political ideology certainly being one reason. This is what the model for a small government has to offer, many vastly differing opinions respected and housed within a national framework.
I know for a fact that I have no desire to become a resident of a state that collects a state income tax. I'm not opposed to taxation as a practical means, I just believe it's better to tax people on consumption, not on their output. The State of Texas provides me with a way to accomplish this by not taxing my income, and rather by taxing my property. If I live in a mansion, I will pay the state [through the county] dearly for it; if I live in a humble home, I will save. It's far from perfect, but this seems like a more reasonable approach to me. However, my personal preference is far from the point. The important distinction is that I am able to make a choice about this philosophical ideal and live my life accordingly. If the State of Texas were to impose a state income tax, I would naturally weigh my options, but would very likely move out of the state.
If we accepted that the Federal Government did not have the authority to control state actions (outside of the limited scope of the Constitution), and actually protected this liberty, it would be perfectly acceptable for a state to legalize marijuana, to openly develop stem-cell technologies, and to provide state healthcare benefits to all residents, even homosexual couples. This is a good thing! And if it turned out that same state required a 40% state income tax to meet those goals, I would probably still avoid that state, despite supporting the many progressive ideals the state had to offer. This is the trivial ideal of letting localities determine their own fates so that citizens (aka: "the people") can decide what works and what does not.
On the rare occasion that a philosophical shift occurs in the country and presents an issue requiring national attention, the Constitution was designed with a clear amendment process. This process has been used many times in the past to address wide-sweeping changes to the federal government. It should not be casually ignored simply because the modern generation is too impatient and intolerant of one another to seek compromise.
Yes, the process takes longer. But when fellow states adopt the ideals of one another as a result of this methodology, it is because they genuinely support whatever measure they're adopting, not because they're being forced to do so by a federal executive order. This is a hugely positive concept for creating a progressive society because it promotes change instead of dictating it.
Unfortunately, it is a sad state of affairs when self-proclaimed progressives are able to justify their use of force in the same way neo-conservatives have done for over a decade. As a country, I strongly believe we should strive to be more tolerant and accepting of our fellow citizens fears, bigotries, and levels of ignorance, not force them to see our own ways, even if history does prove those ways 'right'. This notion was well understood 236 years ago and is specifically why the 10th amendment was written. I hope we are someday able to remember that.
|
I discovered what I would describe as a new low for corporate America in bed with government. In this case the problem appears to be with either the New Jersey State Legislature or the Newark City Council, perhaps both. The newest wing of the Newark Liberty International Airport (gates C120 - C139) was built without a single water fountain in it. It does however, have about a dozen fast-food-esque restaurants nicely arranged in a circular design, all of whom sell bottles of water.
I know this might seem like a "first world problem" to some people, but that's not my angle; citing the absence of water is a far cry from citing a lack of mobile power stations or WiFi. Cynical as I am towards those in charge (and I believe justifiably), I remain hopeful that people will ultimately reject the outright commoditization of drinkable water, even if we do continue buying it at thousands of percent markup. But having written that, I have a hard time believing this was simply an architectural oversight for a major international airport.
That, dear home state, is just shameful.
|
After visiting my friend Marciano in Montreal this evening, Caroline and I headed south on CA15 (US IH-87) towards the American border. I've been hearing more and more stories about how frustrating and "un-American" this process has been getting and so it was interesting to experience it for myself.
I'd been telling Caroline for weeks that she was certainly free to say anything that she felt comfortable saying, but that I simply had no intention of answering questions regarding my life in the United States. Simply meaning that I wasn't trying to sway her to my way of thinking, but that I also had no real intention of altering my principles either.
We crossed around 9:40pm and the border was completely empty. We pulled up and handed Agent Goodine our passports. He started to ask a series of questions, none of which were particularly relevant to anything. Caroline was driving our rental car and did most of the talking. We declared a bottle of whiskey we'd just purchased at the duty free shop and told him we had nothing else. Eventually he asked me where I was born to which I responded "Am I required to provide that to you with that information?"
He acted a little surprised, though I doubt he really was. His initial response to me was that no, I didn't have to answer and instead could just go inside the booth so they could work it out. After some quick jabbing back and forth, I laughed and told him I was originally from New Jersey. He had a good sense of humor up until this point and asked me why I was ashamed to be from New Jersey.
But shortly after this he opted to look in our trunk. I wasn't sure what the law was on this and thus didn't try to argue it (though I am somewhat regretful about that in hindsight; I should have at least questioned the legality of it). I was put off by his statement that he was "going to search it", rather than asking us if he could search it.
Towards the tail end of his snooping, he did start asking some other questions to which we weren't answering. I think Caroline probably wasn't answering him because the questions didn't really make sense, but he took the lack of response to heart. He gave us a brief spiel about how in the past thousand cars he had seen, nobody had problems responding to his questions, so he naturally found suspicion with us that we didn't have good answers to his questions. He then started directing more questions specifically at me. One of the questions was why we had three new boxes of Converse shoes in the back seat. Caroline explained they were a gift, though he seemed reluctant to believe this. I didn't say a word about it, but Marciano is the VP of Marketing for Converse. Obviously I could have provided this as the simple answer, but the fact remains that it's none of the government's business.
He asked why we were having such trouble providing him with simple answers. Sensing that he was about to detain us and that Caroline was not going to be happy with that outcome, I told him our collective lack of response was likely my fault and that I just didn't believe in answering these types of questions. When he asked me why I felt this way, I told him it was because I had libertarian values and I didn't feel I should be questioned to enter the United States (as an American at least). Comically, he said he didn't know what being a libertarian meant. He said something to the effect of "...does that mean supporting liberty? Because I served in the armed forces to protect liberty".
Since my intent was not to inflame the situation, but rather to avoid answering ridiculous questions for entrance back into my own country (where I am a natural, legal and tax-paying citizen), I mostly just sat quiet from this point on. He did give us a brief lecture about how he didn't know us and if we refused to answer questions, then how was he to know that we didn't have drugs or weapons with us? I again sat silently.
After he finished this 30 - 45 second lecture, he concluded with "...but I don't believe you pose any threat, so you can go on". He handed us our passports and off we went. I guess a "welcome home" is not how the system works anymore. I guess we can chalk that up to the terrorists too?
The entire experience was just a big show and definitely confirmed what I already had read about. I believe very sincerely that the whole thing is just a conditioning experience. It's brutish intimidation aimed at forcing people to comply with American authorities at the expense of their basic American [and human] liberties. I know there are a lot of people who tell me that my reluctance to be openly complicit with American agents is unnecessary, but I hope those people are able to understand that no type of abuse wanes with complacency.
As we drove off, Caroline told me that she was actually surprised I didn't argue with the guy more. She said she didn't think I had said much at all, which was honestly my only intention. In hindsight I do wish I had discussed the notion of liberty a bit more with him, but I truly wasn't trying to get on a high-horse about politics, only to exercise my rights within the law. Perhaps next time across I will be a bit more direct about that.
|
 I found this parody slogan on the web and thought it was perfectly appropriate to my message
Firstly, let me state that I am NOT opposed to local regulations - at all. I think they are protective, generally well-intended, and necessary for society to function. But there is a line of reason that the City of Austin crossed long ago and is increasingly aiming to further surpass. Anyone who has spent any time trying to develop in the City of Austin knows that developers are notoriously at the mercy of city staff and neighborhood groups. No matter how many concessions are made, there always seems to be something else holding up development. This becomes a huge financial burden.
The problem stems from a mentality of collectivism gone awry. For whatever reason, Austin communities regularly feel entitled to dictate the specifics of new projects. They are willing to spare no expense when it comes to the already cumbersome design process, meanwhile enjoying the convenience of not having to pay the bills required to accomplish this. And the city allows it to happen. There often appears to be an engrained mentality that if the development exceeds a single-family bungalow, the developer(s) must be in cahoots with local officials and be extremely deep-pocketed. But in my development experience, this is rarely the case.
This would be a more understanding, perhaps even forgivable point of view if Austin took a more lenient attitude to zoning and development. But the unbelievably complicated set of City Ordinances in Chapter 25 (better known as the Land Development Code) make it virtually impossible to negatively impact neighboring properties. An application for a small commercial project will be reviewed by literally dozens of city staff and will likely take a minimum of a year to get city approval, assuming the application gets approved at all.
In my personal opinion, commercial development projects (and residential projects for that matter) should be governed on a case by case basis where common sense is applied to a common community goal. It's not hard to comprehend why we might want to prevent people from building a chemical supply store in the middle of a neighborhood, or a strip club next to an elementary school, but Austin's approach is to design a black and white playbook for any scenario, and this just doesn't work. Moreover it creates a hugely disproportionate fee to valuation ratio. This essentially means that a one-hundred thousand dollar project is subjected to the same level of scrutiny [and consequently cost] that a one million dollar project would be. This makes smaller projects very costly.
I strongly believe that this mentality will be the undoing of Austin within the next ten to fifteen years. I won't go into all of the details in this post, but the "Keep Austin Weird" mentality is a fading notion of the past; it is a marketing tool for the city, and increasingly just a hoax. Unless one is backed by huge corporate coffers, it is virtually impossible to surmount the sea of local development bureaucracy, and that makes it damn hard for 'weird' people to develop their visions.
The irony is that the very people in Austin who likely reject corporatism are the ones on the front-line demanding more costly and impassible bureaucratic regulations. Which brings me to my most recent experience on the subject.
2200 Tillery Street
I've sat on the East MLK Combined Neighborhood Planning Contact Team since 2007. It was a group I helped to reboot after it sat defunct for almost six years. Like all other planning contact teams, the contact team is responsible for creating a long-term vision of a planning area. It also oversees future land use cases (one half of Austin's zoning maze), and helps dictate Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs). The group has absolutely no legal authority and its rulings are never binding. But curiously, it is codified by the City (§25-1-805), and developers seeking to change future land use tables are still required to seek approval from the team.
For the past five or so months our team has heard and debated arguments over a commercial piece of property located at 2200 Tillery St. We have met with Richard Crank, the property's representative, at least two times since October of 2011. We have also met with representatives of the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association on several different occasions.
At our January meeting we heard again from the president of the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association. And once again the contact team was asked to support a measure that would postpone the planning commission hearing for another month. This would be the third consecutive postponement of the hearing and would bring the property owner(s) to the seventh month they have had their property tied up with City of Austin business.
The property is currently zoned commercially and has a future land designation of mixed-use. The previous property owner defaulted and the mortgage company now owns the property; the mortgage company wishes to sell the property. The property is not particularly viable in its current configuration, not because it's a useless building, but because the city's parking space calculator inhibits the type of use most suited for the structure. As an aside, street parking is not factored into these calculations despite it being overwhelmingly abundant in the area. The owner feels it would be difficult to sell the property for its current use, but a number of city ordinances prevent the owner from using the building for what it was originally intended.
I have asked on several occasions since October what the JJ Seabrook neighborhood association would ultimately like to see happen to the property. Unfortunately the only consistent response I receive is with respect to mixed-use and/or residential development. I even received an email from someone in the neighborhood association on September 28th, 2011 that stated, "I think that the bank/mortgage holder should demolish the building and devide [sic] the land into 4 lots (at least 10,000 sq ft--quarter acre--) to build single family detached homes." Sufficed to say I quickly wrote back the many reasons why this would not occur. Unfortunately the amount of money that would be required (especially within the city's complicated guidelines) would be financially devastating to the owner, and thus not reasonable.
Although my position on the matter has been consistent since October, I once again presented an economic case at our January hearing. According to TCAD, the property is valued at $834,857. At a 2.3% tax rate, this means the property owner pays over $19,000 a year in taxes alone. In the seven months that the property has been tied up in the Austin bureaucracy, they've paid over $11,000 in taxes - for a property they can't currently do anything with! This figure does not even factor the few thousand dollars of filing fees they've had to pay the City of Austin nor whatever fees their engineers and lawyers are collecting for handling the case (possibly tens of thousands of dollars).
But it does not stop there. Richard Crank has been completely transparent about the owner's intentions, has met with multiple neighborhood bodies numerous times, and has been willing to restrict a dozen uses from the property with a conditional zoning overlay. He has even been willing to enter into a private contract with the neighborhood outlining specifically desired improvements and limitations.
My argument is that unless the neighborhood association has a specific compromise that they're willing to consider, it is not fair for them to continue delaying the process while the property owner is left to front the bill. Thus far the immediate neighborhood has rejected my position. It was even suggested to me by a JJ Seabrook representative (after I presented my economic argument) that I should not be defending or sympathizing with the mortgage company.
I abhor banking and mortgage companies; I speak and write against them regularly. However, this should not, and legally does not change the fact that they have just as many rights to fair case management and expediency as everybody else. In fact, I am often left surprised that the City of Austin has not been hit with a class action suit for allowing this type of negligent behavior to hold up property cases.
I will be very curious to see what happens, but even more curious to try and learn what the total cost of doing business with the City of Austin works out to be for this developer. My guess is that they lose over $50,000 to the Austin bureaucracy (or more than 6% of their current valuation).
So my problem with the entire system is simple. There is far too much power granted to neighborhood associations and similar groups to raise problems that may not even exist while private entities are left to front the bill. In some cases the neighborhood groups do not even represent the true intentions of a community. Rather they represent the desires of a fractional segment of that community. Incidentally, the segment that is very vocal and interested in regulating everything not belonging to them. I know for a fact that our contact team in no way represents the greater community. We are essentially a group of twelve relatively young white people debating cases for a community of more than 17,000 people, most whom are minorities.
But my intent is not to condemn neighborhood associations (nor our own contact team); I participate in many and believe they serve a very good purpose. Rather my intent is to condemn a city that grants neighborhood groups the power to stop development while simultaneously forcing the developer to conform to thousands of regulations, all of which have already been designated by the community in the first place, and all while paying a premium to do so!
One of these systems has to give and until it does, I don't see how the problem is going to get any better. My personal preference is a simple five-fold approach:- Work to ensure that neighborhood associations are strong and well-represented
- Get rid of the one-size-fits-all development regulations, codes, and fees; every development is different and has unique challenges and obstacles
- Have a single individual case worker for each commercial development and require them to serve a the liaison between the active parties
- Have a legal appellate process set in place for cases that cannot be resolved
- Require that all development projects have a fixed time in which business is resolved
So then coming full circle, why would I tie this into corporatism? Because as the problems that I've described continue to worsen (and they are definitely worsening), the ability of small businesses to develop anything on their own trends towards being impossible. The average business cannot simply float tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of a year while attempting to stay financially afloat and be expected to meet the minute demands of community activists. A community might see a few light poles as nice-to-have, but the developer of a $200,000 project is required to see them as 10% of his or her budget. It is simply not possible to fulfill these demands, especially with the regulatory oversight costs (read: C.Y.A.) required by the city. This essentially means that as Austin continues to mature, more and more corporate interests will be served as they're the only ones with the time and money required to overcome these hurdles.
If the residents of Austin desire to see corporate interests take over the skyline, that's fine by me (though I personally don't support it). I only ask that the city stop toting itself as "weird", because in my opinion, there's nothing worse than turning a way of life into marketing ploy for corporate America.
|
|
