Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economics

Wichita personal income growth benchmark
When Visioneering Wichita recently presented its annual report to the Wichita City Council, Wichita City Council members received benchmark documents. Whether the mayor and council members actually looked at and considered these measurements is unknown.
We do know that Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, as memorialized in the official meeting minutes, praised Visioneering: “Mayor Brewer stated this is one of the smartest moves that the City of Wichita has done because it was the primary catalyst that pulled the public and the private together and laid out a vision for our City.”
Other council members also expressed enthusiastic approval for Visioneering.
As shown in Wichita job growth and Visioneering peers, the benchmark data for Wichita as compared to its peer cities shows poor relative performance of the Wichita economy. That article looked at job growth, which is one of the areas Visioneering is benchmarking.
Another area Visioneering benchmarks is per capita income. The chart provided by Visioneering is difficult to read and recognize emerging trends. I’ve prepared an interactive visualization of Wichita and the peer areas that Visioneering uses.
To the left is a chart of Wichita and peer personal income per capita, from 1969 to 1989. (Click for a larger version.) During this time period, Wichita compares well to the peer metropolitan areas that Visioneering uses.
To the left is a chart of of the same data, but from 1990 to 2011. (Click for a larger version.) It’s during this stretch that Wichita starts to fall behind its peers in per capita income, until finally Wichita ranks last in this measure, as it also does in job growth.
Soon Visioneering will make a presentation to members of the Sedgwick County Commission. Perhaps commissioners will ask a few questions about these benchmarks. If I were a commissioner, I might ask these questions:
Is Visioneering satisfied with the performance of Wichita, as measured by these benchmarks?
Is Wichita’s trend in these benchmarks moving in the right direction, or is Wichita falling farther behind?
Are these the correct benchmarks we should be using?
Is it possible that Visioneering is in fact making the Wichita economy better than it would be without Visioneering?
Does Visioneering need additional resources to fulfill its mission?
On the Visioneering website, why are no future events listed? Are none planned?
On the Visioneering website, under the “News” section, is it true that there has been no news to post since August 2011 or September 2012 (there are two streams of news)?
Citizens might also wonder why no members of the Wichita City Council asked any questions like these.
Explore the data yourself by using the visualization below, or click here to open it in a new window, which may work better for some people. Use Ctrl+Click to highlight metropolitan areas for comparison. Data is from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Visualization created by myself using Tableau Public.
Learn About Tableau
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 5, 2013
Wichita water, a few thoughts
“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” — Thomas Sowell
As Wichita grapples with water issues, it’s important that the city realize that abundance is better than austerity and punishment. Life in Wichita is nicer and more attractive to outsiders when we are able to use a lot of water at a reasonable price. Under an austerity program, for example, our $3.5 million investment in Waltzing Waters sits idle. With abundance, we have “liquid fireworks” and “a significant public improvement intended to encourage further WaterWalk development and give people another reason to come downtown,” according to Wichita city officials.
The strategy we need, therefore, is to increase supply rather than restrict usage. But when officials asked for citizen input, according to city documents, “The public strongly supported water restrictions.” So city officials are likely to implement austerity programs that will be expensive and do little good compared to their costs.
As an example, tomorrow city staff will recommend that the council approve a rebate program for those who install clothes washers, dish washers, and toilets that use less water. Smart irrigation controls are included in the recommendation. The rebate, according to city documents, is “anticipated” to be $100, with a total of $1,000,000 allocated to the rebate program. This means that up to 10,000 appliance purchases could receive the rebate.
How much water will this save, and at what cost? According to Energy Star, a program of the Environmental Protection Agency, a new clothes washer saves eight gallons of water per load compared to an older washer. The same article also says the average family washes 300 loads of laundry per year. Based on these figures, switching to the new washer saves 2,400 gallons per year.
To place this number in context, 2,400 gallons of Wichita water costs: 2,400 gallons times $1.63 per thousand gallons water purchase price, plus 2,400 gallons times $2.88 per thousand gallons sewer usage price, equals $10.82.
(We’re not really concerned with sewer plant capacity at this time, so perhaps we shouldn’t consider that cost. The water cost for 2,400 gallons is $3.91.) With this in mind, the city is considering paying someone $100 to save a resource valued less than $4 per year. This assumes, of course, that the city prices water what it is actually worth.
Another context: If 10,000 of these washers were purchased, the savings would be 24,000,000 gallons of water per year. This is about one-half of Wichita’s average daily usage. This program, then, would save a inconsequentially small amount of water, at the large cost of $1 million. A single extra-hot day in the summer would cancel this entire year’s savings.
Remember too that this cost will not be paid voluntarily. Who wants to pay taxes so that someone else can get a discount on a new washing machine? Those who want their money used for this purpose may do so charitably. A government program is not needed.
Past city initiatives
When Bob Knight spoke to Pachyderm last week, he told the audience that experts told him that we had water for 50 years.
In 1998, the Wichita Eagle reported: “By the end of 1999, the city will have spent $7.6 million trying to determine whether excess flow from the Little Arkansas River can be diverted into the underground aquifer northwest of Wichita. If it works as planned, the city will build the recharge system for $7.2 million, completing the work in 2005 — a year, it estimates, after it will begin experiencing water shortages during extended dry periods.”
The recharge system described in the article is the ASR program, described on its website as “The city of Wichita’s Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program is designed to restore the invaluable Equus Beds aquifer and ensure that it remains a bountiful and clean source of water for future generations.”
Phase I of the ASR was completed for $27 million. Phase II was completed for $220 million. So far the city has spent a quarter billion dollars on this project, and we rarely hear it mentioned as a solution to the current water shortage. Citizens ought to insist the city explain the status of the ASR project and why it is not playing a prominent role in solving our water supply problems.
Recognize economic behavior
In discussions on issues like this, people are susceptible to disregarding economic behavior, that is human nature and how people react to the world. As example is this remark gathered during citizen participation: “Restrict watering, but not through rates or watering bans.”
I wonder: How else do we influence behavior? Persuasion? Here’s how well that works, according to another citizen snippet of wisdom: “People love the idea of conservation, as long as it does not affect them.”
Many of the comments lambasted those who waste water, with lawn irrigation mentioned frequently: “People water their yards every day. And they water way too much. Most of the water runs off into the gutters. More water wasted on yards than showers or toilets by far.”
But if these people who water their yard every day are acting with any rationality, we have to conclude that they don’t think they’re wasting water. Someone else may call it waste, but the every-day irrigator is making a trade off as to the value of a nice lawn, the water bill, the cost or hassle of conservation measures, the effort it takes to learn to conserve, and other factors. Each of us does this many times every day in our economic lives. It’s important that the city price water properly so that people are motivated — through their own self-interest — to use water wisely. The decision as to wise use of water needs to be left to each person and family.
Some comments seem to be at cross-purposes: “Clamp down on private outdoor users. We can get through this by appealing to the community spirit.” Which is it this this writer recommends: the carrot or the stick?
Finally, we need to be on the watch for those who want to control the behavior of others in the name of saving the earth through soft environmental terrorism. An example comment of this type: “Control urban sprawl — builders and developers are interested in expansion only — their income. Encourage leveling of population growth an judicious use of resources.”
I wonder if it has occurred to this person that builders and developers can earn income only if they build what people want to buy. Furthermore, warnings of overpopulation have been issued for decades. The desire to control the production of new people is anti-human. And as we’ve seen, “judicious use” is in the eye of the beholder.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
June 3, 2013
Spending and taxing in the states
In the current policy debate in Kansas, we often compare our state with Texas. The prevailing themes sounded by Democrats and other spenders include that because Texas has no income tax, its other taxes (sales and property) are higher. We also hear that Texas is “atop a sea of oil” from which the state collects a gusher of tax revenue.
But what are the facts? Regarding taxation: In 2011 Kansas state government collected $2,378 in taxes for each person. Texas collected $1,682. We see that Texas collects far less tax per person than does Kansas. Texas may have higher sales or property taxes than Kansas, but the total tax burden in Texas is lower.
Spending follows the same pattern. In 2011 Kansas state government spent $5,115 per person in total, with $1,974 in general fund spending and $130 in bond spending. For Texas the total was $3,718 spent per person in total, with $1,654 in general fund spending and $50 in bond spending.
The lower level of spending means Texas has a less burdensome state government, which allows more money to remain in the productive private sector. In Kansas, we spend more on government.
The “sea of oil” and bountiful severance tax revenue: In 2011 Kansas, which has a severance tax of its own, collected $42.54 in this form of tax for each person. How much did Texas collect from its severance tax? $104.29 per person. The difference between the two — $61.75 per person per year — is only a small portion of the difference between Kansas and Texas taxation.
To see how your state compares with others in spending, use the interactive visualization below. To use the visualization, click the check boxes to add or remove states and years from the chart. Use the visualization below, or click here to open it in a new window. Data is from National Association of State Budget Officers and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); visualization created by myself using Tableau Public.
Powered by Tableau

(alternate link to the above table)

(alternate link to the above table)
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
May 31, 2013
Wichita job growth and Visioneering peers
Wichita has set ambitious goals in job growth, but it doesn’t seem that the Visioneering program has produced results. But apparently Wichita government officials are satisfied.
In 2004 Wichita leaders created Visioneering Wichita. The self-described goals of Visioneering are “To provide citizen input in developing our future, to facilitate communications so reality and perceptions are aligned, and to create a strategic plan that ensures a quality of life and encourages our young people to live, learn, work and play in our regional community.”
One of the benchmarks of Visioneering is “Exceed the highest of the annual percentage job growth rate of the U.S., Omaha, Tulsa, Kansas City and Oklahoma City.”
In May, Suzie Ahlstrand of the Wichita Chamber of Commerce presented Wichita City Council members with the benchmark documents, but didn’t elaborate on these in her presentation.
I can understand her reluctance to focus on these numbers. They’re not good.
We don’t know what the Wichita economy would look like in the absence of Visioneering. There’s no way to rewind and watch what would have happened had Visioneering not been created.
What we do know, however, is that the Wichita-area economy is not performing well. Consider job growth, since that is the first of Visioneering’s benchmarks. The chart Visioneering presented to council members is available here. It’s a difficult chart to read, and doesn’t lend to ready comparison of how Wichita is doing compared to our peers.
Following are charts I created from similar data. These charts are different from Visioneering’s in that they show the cumulative change in job growth from a starting point. My data goes back to 2001, and since the visualization is interactive, you may adjust the range of years.
Here is a static chart of job growth, considering all jobs. (Click for a larger version.)
Here is a static chart of job growth, this time considering only government jobs. (Click for a larger version.)
Can we be satisfied with this performance? Considering all jobs types, Wichita is in last place. There are those who might take comfort that when including government jobs, Wichita does better. But as growth in the government sector outpaces growth in the private sector, Wichita becomes less prosperous than if we were creating private sector jobs.
In the light of this, consider the reaction of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer, as presented in the official minutes: “Mayor Brewer stated this is one of the smartest moves that the City of Wichita has done because it was the primary catalyst that pulled the public and the private together and laid out a vision for our City.”
Other council members also expressed enthusiastic approval for Visioneering. (For coverage of all council members’ reactions, see Wichita city council reacts to Visioneering presentation.)
We need to ask, however, these questions: First, were the mayor and council members aware of these job creation numbers? Second, if they were aware, are they satisfied with this performance?
Explore the data yourself by using the visualization below, or click here to open it in a new window, which may work better for some people. Use Ctrl+Click to highlight metropolitan areas for comparison. Data is from Bureau of Economic Analysis by way of U.S. Department of Labor. Visualization created by myself using Tableau Public.
Learn About Tableau
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
May 31, 2013
Kansas looks better in Rich States, Poor States report
A new edition of Rich States, Poor States signals a brighter future for Kansas.
Last week American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released the sixth edition of Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.
ALEC is a nationwide organization of state legislators, the center-right counterpart of the center-left National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).
In the forward-looking economic outlook ranking, Kansas moves up to eleventh place. That’s ahead of Texas (12), Colorado (16), Oklahoma (19), Missouri (23), Iowa (25), and Nebraska (37).
The report praises tax reform legislation Kansas passed in 2012. In a section headed “The Kansas Uprising”:
Gov. Sam Brownback campaigned in 2010 promising a tax cut to make the Kansas economy more competitive. But his plan to reduce tax rates and close loopholes ran into trouble in the Senate, which had been controlled by opponents of tax reform. The governor managed to pass his tax cut, but the Left-leaning Senate coalition refused to cut loopholes and pork spending projects. … The most outside of the box section of the plan is the “Small Business Accelerator,” which exempts all non-wage income from taxation for all pass-through entities. This means that the vast majority of small businesses in Kansas are now not subject to an income tax on their business earnings. This includes all sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and limited liability companies (LLCs). … While the Kansas tax reform plan has received criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, the resulting economic growth in Kansas speaks for itself. The plan is not perfect, but it is a bold step toward pro-growth tax reform that will certainly continue to unlock more of Kansas’ economic potential.
No praise, however, for public pension reform. Commenting on lack of progress in converting to defined-contribution plan and a proposal to borrow additional money for fund KPERS, the report concludes:
The result was a double loss for pension reform advocates in Kansas. There would be no structural reform, and the Kansas retirement system and taxpayers would take on $1.5 billion in additional debt. While the proposal for fundamental pension reform failed this session, fiscally conservative legislators and Gov. Brownback are optimistic that real reform will have a good chance of passing in the future.
The bill to issue the KPERS bonds is still pending in the legislature.
An important chapter in this year’s report is titled “There They Go Again: A New Dose of Junk Economics.” This chapter addresses critics of Rich States, Poor States. In particular, this chapter explains the caution required when using per-capita statistics.
Kansas among the states
Rich States, Poor States evaluates state economies two ways. The “Economic Outlook Ranking” is a forecast looking forward. It is based on factors that are under control of the states. The “Economic Performance Ranking” is a backward-looking rating that measures state performance, again using variables under control of each state.
The Economic Performance Rank considers a state’s gross domestic product, absolute domestic migration, and nonfarm payroll employment. This ranking details states’ individual performances over the past ten years based on the economic data.
For Economic Performance Ranking, Kansas is ranked 35th among the states. In previous years, Kansas was ranked 39th, 40th, and 34th. Kansas has made some progress in this area.
The second measure, the Economic Outlook Rank, is a “forecast based on a state’s current standing in 15 state policy variables. Each of these factors is influenced directly by state lawmakers through the legislative process. Generally speaking, states that spend less — especially on income transfer programs, and states that tax less — particularly on productive activities such as working or investing — experience higher growth rates than states that tax and spend more.”
It’s in this ranking that Kansas made most progress. Kansas is ranked 11th, up from 26th the year before. In previous years, Kansas averaged around 26th place.
Notable areas where Kansas ranks better than average in Top Marginal Personal Income Tax Rate (15), Recently Legislated Tax Changes (6), State Liability System Survey (5), State Minimum Wage (1), and being a right-to-work states.
Kansas scores low in Property Tax Burden (29), Sales Tax Burden (35), Debt Service as a Share of Tax Revenue (41), Public Employees Per 10,000 of Population (48), and having a low number of tax expenditure limitations.
Read the report at Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
May 28, 2013
Kansas freedom scorecard released
To help Kansans understand how legislators vote, Kansas Policy Institute has produced the Kansas Freedom Index for 2013.
Legislative scorecards like this are important as they let citizens know how legislators have actually voted, which is sometimes different from their campaign rhetoric, and even different from their current proclamations. Generally, scorecards include a large sampling of votes, so that no single issue paints a member into a corner.
[powerpress url=”http://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/james-franko-kansas-policy-institute-joseph-ashby-show-2013-05-17-excerpt.mp3″]James Franko of Kansas Policy Institute joins Bob Weeks on the Joseph Ashby Show to discuss the Kansas Freedom Index. Then, Bob runs down the scores for Wichita-area legislators.
The Kansas Freedom Index, as produced by KPI this year, is important and significant because it focuses on issues of economic freedom along with education freedom, which was added this year. So far, 45 bills have been included in the scorecard, and as the legislature is still in session and has at least two important bills to pass, there may be additions to the scorecard.
This year’s index is a continuation of the construction of indexes for past years, many of which may be found at Kansas Economic Freedom Index.
In a press release KPI president Dave Trabert said “An informed citizenry is an essential element of maintaining a free society. Having a deeper understanding of how legislation impacts education freedom, economic freedom and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and limited government allows citizens to better understand the known and often unknown consequences of legislative issues.”
He added, “Our 2012 index made clear that support of economic freedom isn’t an issue of political affiliation — the highest and lowest score in the Senate were both held by Republicans. The 2013 results bear out the same as a wide range of scores exists within both parties. Too often votes come down to parochial or personal issues and the idea of freedom is left on the legislature’s cutting room floor. Hopefully, the Kansas Freedom Index can start to recalibrate citizens and legislators towards supporting the freedoms of everyday Kansans and not be driven by politics.”
The importance of economic freedom
Why is economic freedom important? Here’s what Milton Friedman had to say in the opening chapter of his monumental work Capitalism and Freedom some 50 years ago:
The Relation between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom
It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of “democratic socialism” by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individual freedom imposed by “totalitarian socialism” in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
For more about Friedman and his thoughts on economic freedom, see Milton Friedman, the Father of Economic Freedom.
Economic freedom is the most important factor in determining the well-being of people across the world. Where economic freedom exists, countries become wealthy. In introducing the Economic Freedom of the World report, its authors write: “Economic freedom has been shown in numerous peer-reviewed studies to promote prosperity and other positive outcomes. It is a necessary condition for democratic development. It liberates people from dependence on government in a planned economy, and allows them to make their own economic and political choices.”
One of the authors of the Economic Freedom of the World report, Robert Lawson, expands on the importance of economic freedom: “The big question is: Do countries that exhibit greater degrees of economic freedom perform better than those that do not? Much scholarly research has been and continues to be done to see if the index [of economic freedom] correlates with various measures of the good society: higher incomes, economic growth, income equality, gender equality, life expectancy, and so on. While there is scholarly debate about the exact nature of these relationships, the results are uniform: measures of economic freedom relate positively with these factors.”
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
May 20, 2013
Sales tax increase isn’t necessary
By Dave Trabert, Kansas Policy Institute.
What a difference a year makes. Last May, Governor Brownback signed historic tax reform legislation that would reduce state income taxes by roughly $800 million in its first full year. As the legislature returns this week, the debate is about how much of the last year’s tax reform will be wiped out. Instead of reducing the cost of government to implement tax reform this year, Governor Brownback and the Senate want to make the 6.3 percent sales tax permanent and eliminate the income tax deduction for home mortgage interest; they also propose 0.5 percent reduction in the income tax on the first $15,000 of taxable income in 2014 and a reduction in all marginal rates beginning in 2017 (after a billion dollar increase in sales taxes) with revenue growth above 4 percent being used to reduce rates thereafter and eventually eliminate income taxes.
The House plan isn’t perfect but it’s better. It allows the sales tax rate to drop to 5.7 percent as promised, proportionally reduces income tax deductions, has more spending reductions and a formula that gradually eliminates the income tax altogether, using annual revenue growth above 2 percent to buy down rates.
The goal of tax reform is to reduce the overall tax burden, not shift it. Consumption taxes are better than income taxes, but taxes will still be too high (and economic growth impaired) until we deal with the real problem of excess spending. But even some self-identified fiscal conservatives don’t want to reduce spending.
Part of their resistance is that many people equate spending less with service cuts, but that doesn’t have to be the case. Per-resident spending varies greatly across all fifty states. Yet, every state has schools, highways, social programs, etc.; some simply do so more efficiently. States with an income tax spend 44 percent more per-resident than those without an income tax. States that spend less, tax less (and grow more). Done well, states can spend less and actually deliver the same or better services.
In fact, Kansas would have spent $2.9 billion less last year if spending were at the same level as the average state without an income tax.
Our “Legislator’s Guide to Delivering Better Service at a Better Price” shows legislators how to use existing cash reserves to ‘buy time’ and implement thoughtful efficiency measures to reduce costs over time. It can be done and it can be done now.
The problem with implementing income tax reductions is one of politics, not economics. As Thomas Sowell says, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
Here’s hoping legislators make taxpayer-focused decisions based on sound economics when they return to Topeka this week.
A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.
photo credit: 401(K) 2013 via photopin cc
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
May 8, 2013
Government planning, itself, is dangerous
The very existence of a government plan is dangerous, as its construction creates powerful constituencies that have shaped it to fit their needs and are highly motivated to see it implemented.
In Sunday’s Wichita Eagle, Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton defended the regional community planning initiative underway in south-central Kansas. (Tim Norton: Planning effort helps shape region’s future)
Much of the Commissioner’s article simply described the program and the need for it in vague generalities that are neither correct or incorrect, and which do little to advance understanding of what is really likely to happen.
But Norton did write something useful when he attempted to deflect the fact that this is a government plan, backed by the ability of government to compel compliance (or make it very expensive to avoid). He wrote: “This is not about any one governing body or level of government imposing or mandating what we should do. It is about what we decide collectively is best for our region and then choosing to make it happen.”
When the Sedgwick County Commission voted to participate in this HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant, some commissioners justified their votes in favor of the plan because “it’s only a plan.” If we develop a plan, and then we find we don’t like it, we can shelve it. Problem solved.
This meme of “it’s only a plan” that can be shelved is likely to be repeated. Watch for it.
Except: By shelving time, millions will have been invested in the plan. Reputations like Norton’s will depend on adopting the plan. Bureaucratic jobs will be at stake (See Sedgwick County considers a planning grant for an explanation of how planning helps make work for bureaucrats and academics.)
Besides boosting the interests of politicians and bureaucrats, the government planning process started in south-central Kansas will likely be captured by special interest groups that see ways to benefit from the plan. The public choice school of economics and political science has taught us how special interest groups seek favors from government at enormous costs to society, and we will see this at play again over the next years.
Once the planning process begins, special interests plot to benefit themselves at the expense of the general public. We saw this at work in the first project to emerge after the Wichita downtown planning process (Project Downtown), where public policy was shaped on the fly to meet the needs of politically-connected special interests, at detriment to the public.
Most importantly: The very existence of a government plan is dangerous, as the plan itself becomes a reason to proceed, contrary to reason and harm to liberty and economic freedom.
An example of how much reverence is given to government plans comes right from the U.S. Supreme Court in the decision Kelo v. New London, in which the Court decided that government could use the power of eminent domain to take one person’s property and transfer it to someone else for the purposes of economic development. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Stevens cited the plan: “The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community.” Here we see the importance of the plan and due reverence given to it.
Stevens followed up, giving even more weight to the plan: “To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. Given the comprehensive character of the plan, the thorough deliberation that preceded its adoption, and the limited scope of our review, it is appropriate for us, as it was in Berman, to resolve the challenges of the individual owners, not on a piecemeal basis, but rather in light of the entire plan. Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment.”
To Stevens, the fact that the plan was comprehensive was a factor in favor of its upholding. The sustainable communities plan, likewise, is nothing but comprehensive, as described by county manager Bill Buchanan in a letter to commissioners: “[the plan will] consist of multi-jurisdictional planning efforts that integrate housing, land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments in a manner that empowers jurisdictions to consider the interdependent challenges of economic prosperity, social equity, energy use and climate change, and public health and environmental impact.”
That pretty much covers it all. When you’re charged with promoting economic prosperity, defending earth against climate change, and promoting public health, there is no limit to the types of laws you might consider. This likely to be the argument to follow whatever emerges from Commissioner Norton’s planning process.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
April 30, 2013
Recycling debate short on reason
Responses to a news story on recycling indicate that the issue is driven more by emotion and misinformation than reason.
Recently I was interviewed by Carla Eckels of KMUW radio for a story titled Recycling: Is It Really Necessary? (Audio is available at that link.)
The story was based on my research and opinion that in some cases, recycling is an economically beneficial activity. But for the household setting, it is not.
(One point I meant to make, but forgot to, was that how wonderful it is that we have enough wealth that we don’t have to recycle household waste. We are free to recycle if we want, but also free to make a personal decision to spend time on activities other than recycling.)
Comments left to the story illustrate just how difficult it is to think about and debate issues of public policy. Here’s one example:
It takes absolutely no extra water to rinse cans for recycling. Just rinse them in your dishwater after washing your last dish. After all, if one is truly concerned about water conservation, handwashing uses less water than a dishwasher. As for the abundant landfill space, I suggest we open a landfill in Mr. Weeks’ backyard. Most people would object to a landfill next door, but apparently Mr. Weeks would welcome it.
This writer has a good idea — if you want to wash dishes by hand. For me, a dishwashing machine is a sign of tremendous progress by civilization, reducing drudgery and producing cleaner dishes. And, it’s a machine that nearly everyone can afford.
After that, the writer makes a ridiculous argument about landfill space. I note that this writer uses a profile name that is anonymous. While anonymous speech is important, it leads to people making patently ridiculous statements that they probably wouldn’t make if their friends and neighbors knew they said that.
Here’s another comment:
I would have to disagree with Mr Weeks. The benefits far outweigh the “costs” he was mentioning. It only take a moment to look up evidence that recycling is not only beneficial for our planet but also as a business model. Single stream recycling has made this process very easy.
A point I made in the article is that households have to pay for people to collect their recyclables. Using scare quotes around “costs” is inappropriate, as the costs are real and large. This is a clue as to the economic value of recycling, which is that it works in certain instances, but not for households.
Part of another comment is this:
And Mr. Weeks’ comments this morning on the air regarding having plenty of landfill space in places like Kansas just made me angry. Landfills the size of Sedgwick County? —- Seriously.
In the article, I mentioned that someone calculated that a landfill 100 yards tall and 30 miles on a side could hold all trash for the entire country for the next 1,000 years. How someone makes a leap from that to multiple landfills the size of Sedgwick County shows that people just aren’t thinking closely.
Share this:
Facebook
X
Email
Print
Like this:
Like Loading…
April 26, 2013