Whoops! My Bad.

On February 27th, 2007, United States Congressman Steve Cohen introduced a bill that called for an official apology for slavery and the Jim Crow laws.
No one can deny that the institution of slavery and the subsequent Jim Crow laws helped to create the social, economic, and political environment of the country, particularly with respect to the conditions of African-Americans.
But really, what good will an apology do? Will it have an impact of the future of the African-American community? Is it intended to provide closure to those who have felt the repercussions of these institutions and practices? I would say not. Instead, it is just an excuse to clear the federal government from its unappealing past. This is a passive response that does not address the current situations, just the past. Cohen did mention that the affects of slavery and Jim Crow laws are "still lingering." Well, why not address these lingering effects instead? The federal government should stop trying to find ways to pat themselves on the back and instead explore opportunities to enhance the welfare of the African-American community. Racial segregation and discrimination have led to inequities across the board: housing, education, economic opportunity, public service allocation, access to resources, etc. If the United States government wants to apologize for their past, don't just say "Oh yeah, about that whole slavery/discrimination thing... sorry about that. My bad." It's time to look forward and find ways to alleviate these gross inequities and ensure opportunity and access to those still feeling these lingering effects.

Bottom line: actions speak louder than words... but that won't stop the United States government from ensuring that this self-indulgent flatulence will be heard around the world.

The "Field of Dreams" Theory

According to a report on Morning Addition (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7599105) , a controversy is brewing in South Dakota over a proposed highway that would link rural towns in western South Dakota to a NAFTA expressway that will terminate in Denver. The hope is that traffic from the Heartland Expressway (http://www.heartlandexpressway.com/) will spill over and cause development throughout the southwestern portion of the state in what many people are labeling a “Field of Dreams” theory. The plan would cost an estimated $90 million and would bring a major 4-lane expressway to areas that are currently inhabited by mostly cattle and grass. While the effects that interstate expansion can have on development patterns have been largely affirmed since the first interstates opened up in the 1950’s, the sustainability of this type growth has proven to be nonexistent. Politicians seem quite adept at handing out band aids for bullet wounds, using short term, two-dimensional approaches to remedy problems whose roots spread across generations and draw from several different societal issues. It’s true that building a major highway will create a number of new jobs, and it’s also probably true that it will open up a corridor for new growth, but these benefits will probably only last for one or two generations. Hot Springs, South Dakota is facing the same problem that many small towns across the nation deal with, declining population and stagnating economies. The nature of the national economy is changing, and has been changing for well over a decade, and it is within this context that small towns should begin to formulate their solutions. We are finding that the nature of work is shifting, and location is becoming less of a consideration for many businesses, take India or China for example. These towns, it seems, should begin looking at how they can create an infrastructure that will be supportive of the future of business, instead of trying to jump on the tail end of a trade agreement.

Sin Tax: Devil Sticks and Cash Flow

Below is an article that looks at the effects of a Sin Tax. Cigarettes are taxed heavily and are a great source of income for state governments but with recent increase in health awareness, smoking bans and some guilt/shame associated with firing up a square the sales of cigarettes are declining.

Great... This is a good thing right? less smokers mean less health related illness and fewer second hand smoke casualties and less strain on state run/subsidized health care. Despite the positive effects of fewer smokers there is one huge negative... Fewer tax dollars for education and other desperately needed programs.

My take on it is that sin taxes are great. The fact that this article is written is evidence that sin taxes work they discourage a behavior that is harmful to society and the individual and at the same time raise a little money for the state. The fact that tax revenues are decreasing because there are fewer smokers is a positive not a negative all it means is that another sin tax should take its place why not tax development on environmentally sensitive areas or better yet cell phone use in restaurants. In TN Gov. Bredesen is advocating for a higher tax on cigarettes to replace the sales tax on groceries. While there is not much of an argument for Sin Taxes being the primary form of state revenue I'm all for it as a secondary tax.

The article below sums up the debate pretty well so read it if your interested.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17170991/

...and give us all the change in your couch cushions, too!

If you live in Oregon, the state wants to take the money you forgot you had and give it to schools. Not the change in your couch, but the unused balance on the gift card sitting in your junk drawer. Currently, many gift cards expire after three years. A proposed new law would ban those expiration dates and require stores to turn over to the state any money left unused on a gift card for more than three years. That's just nuts!

Don't get me wrong, I like schools -- and I hate gift cards. From an economist's perspective a gift card is a horrible gift. If you don't know what to get your new boss or new mother in-law or new girlfriend, give her cash. (She might call you thoughtless at first, but she'll thank you once you explain it to her.) The giftee will spend a $20 bill wherever she wants, on whatever will give her the greatest utility -- maybe that means a round of drinks, or a bag groceries -- but that $20 Target card is only good for cheap, mass-produced Cherokee chinos or Mossimo jeans and the like. Worse yet, the gift card acts as a short term, interest free loan to the retailer. You give Target $20 today for a gift card in exchange for them giving your girlfriend $20 worth of merchandise in the future. And when she only spends $17.98, that gift card becomes a loan with a negative interest rate! A pretty evil scheme pulled off by greedy and conniving retailers. (And your girlfriend can't be mad at you for railing against the forces of evil, right?)

So I 'm in favor of actions that erode the appeal of the gift card. But if the gift card is bad because it distorts individual spending decisions, clearly this scheme is even worse. Not that I think we should let the retailers keep the unused balanced after three years either. Instead, I say let's just ban the gift card outright. Give people back the ability to maximize their utility through their own decisions -- to spend their money, or their friend's money, however they want. Who knows, that might even include making donations to the schools.

Decline is the New Growth (?)

In an earlier post, I linked to stories about "shrinking cities" or "smart decline" covered in Governing magazine and USA Today (as posted on Smart City Memphis). The shrinking cities movement seems to be growing, garnering more coverage on last Sunday's Smart City Radio show. Click here to listen to the show, which includes an interview with Youngstown, Ohio Mayor, Jay Williams.

I can see how such a paradigm could be appealing to a lot of people: In my former role as a planner for a city with a declining population, I was often frustrated with the planning profession's seemingly endless focus on dealing with growth. A focus on dealing with decline would be refreshing.

But, I wonder whether a shrinking cities movement really is the next big thing. In fact, I wonder whether the movement really is something new, or just a new package for old ideas. Mostly, I wonder whether shrinking cities strategies (accepting a smaller population as inevitable/irreversible and adjusting accordingly) could work in cities where the real decline has been confined to the central city, while the suburbs have continued to grow. There are many cities that have lost population in recent decades, but almost all of them are surrounding by growing suburban counties. Youngstown is in rare company as a city who's broader metropoliation area experieneced overall population loss between 1990 and 2000. (Of the 280 MSAs, only 24 lost population between 1990 and 2000.) Can a struggling city surrounding by more vibrant counties really adopt a strategy of accepting it's populaiton decline, or are these strategies only appropriate for Youngstown and the 23 other shrinking MSAs?

By the way, for an international perspective on shrinking cities, check out www.shrinkingcities.com. Interesting stuff. This is a project of the Federal Cultural Foundation, the Leipzig Gallery of Contemporary Art, the Bauhaus Dessau Foundation, and the magazine archplus. It's very German.