Policy Matters

January 2, 2013

Combating Sexual Assault on Public Transit

The recent fatal bus rape in India has opened many people’s eyes to the problem of sexual assault on public transit. This article delves into the problem of sexual assault on public transit in the U.S. and other countries. Contrary to what one may think, it appears that such assault is all too common, illustrating this is a problem that must be immediately addressed.

The article noted above discusses several examples of sexual assaults on public transit. The most alarming aspect of these examples is that no bystanders intervened to stop the assaults. This phenomenon has a variety of potential explanations: people on public transit keep themselves occupied with books/iPods/phones and may not notice surrounding behaviors, people are timid, people may be unsure of what is occurring and don’t feel it is their place to intervene, or the bystander effect may be at work. Regardless of the driving force behind people not intervening, we must incentivize them to do so.

Leveraging regular citizens appears to be the most feasible strategy for combating sexual assault on public transit. Other options are likely too expensive for cities to realistically pursue or simply won’t be effective. For example, placing cameras in buses and subways may seem like a viable approach. However, doing so would be extremely costly and the cameras may not increase detection because of difficult angles and victims not reporting assaults. Another strategy would be to place undercover officers randomly in public transit - this would allow police to intervene to stop attacks and raise the threat of detection, thereby helping to deter potential offenders. But, this would also be a very costly endeavor, especially for cities with already understaffed police departments.

Unlike cameras and undercover officers, incentivizing citizens to intervene to stop an assault could be done relatively inexpensively. Cities could offer rewards to citizens or groups of citizens that intervene to stop an assault (this could mean calling 911, telling the transit operators, or directly intervening) where such intervention leads to an arrest or police report. Such rewards would need to be widely advertised to ensure citizens are aware of them and to help send the message that our society will not tolerate these assaults. In addition, cities could run campaigns that encourage people to say something when they see an assault occurring. More intervention on the part of regular citizens would increase the risks of committing assault as offenders would more likely be caught, which would help deter such individuals.

Of course, there are many drawbacks to regular people intervening to stop violent attacks - the violence may escalate and more innocent people could be hurt. However, cities could emphasize citizens quickly notifying authorities rather than directly intervening when a more violent assault is occurring, such as rape. When an individual is being grabbed or harassed, the potential for a violent altercation following a bystander intervening seems slim. Another issue with this approach would be getting victims to file police reports, which would be necessary for distributing rewards and ensuring an incident actually occurred. But, this may not be a major issue as victims may be more willing to file reports out of gratitude to bystanders.

No one should have to fear using public transit - maybe regular citizens are the key to putting an end to such fear.

7:56pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvapZh9h

January 1, 2013

blogut:

Untitled by Santi Navarro

6:56pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvajkUjL

(Notes: 41)

December 26, 2012

A City-Owned Movie Theater? Yes, y’all.

In Jackson, MS, the state’s capital city, there are no movie theaters. The lack of a movie theater in the city is perplexing - the city boasts a population of more than 175,000 people (surely, there is enough of a demand for at least a small cinema) and city leaders would love for Jackson to have a theater (leaders are discussing using grants or tax incentives to attract a theater). In Sarah Goodyear’s recent Atlantic Cities article, “Mississippi’s Capital City Doesn’t Have a Movie Theater. Will That Ever Change?,” historian Jerry Dallas puts forth an explanation for this paradox: a continuing fear of crime in Jackson, white flight to the suburbs, and the convenience of suburban theaters in surrounding counties.

Mr. Dallas’ explanations for Jackson’s movie theater situation (or lack thereof) suggest market failure may be to blame. Dallas hints that Jackson is perceived as a crime infested urban locale that is incapable of sustaining a movie theater. Such a perspective would appear to be the result of an information gap; in Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter’s “New Strategies for Inner-City Economic Development,” he cites information gaps about the purchasing power and crime rates of inner-cities stemming from social biases about inner-cities as a key barrier to attracting investment to such areas. In Jackson, the median income is $34,567, which, when combined with a population of over 175,000, demonstrates the city has a large pool of purchasing power. In addition, although parts of Jackson, like most cities, do have alarmingly high crime rates, the city also has areas that are very safe.

Assuming an information gap is indeed to blame for Jackson not being able to attract a movie theater, the city should step in - the role of government is to intervene in precisely such a situation, when a market failure is occurring. Some would assert that this intervention should take the form of tax incentives but such an approach has been met with large opposition (see Richard Florida and others) as it is seen as subsidizing companies without achieving a lasting impact for a locality. Others would suggest correcting the information gap by taking steps to foster a better business environment in Jackson (see Porter). While this approach sounds great, in a place like Jackson, with deep-rooted biases at play, it may not be feasible to simply build a vision of the city as having an attractive business environment. Rather than tax incentives or pursuing a better business environment, Jackson might be better off doing the unthinkable - running its own movie theater.

If city leaders truly believe that a movie theater can turn a profit in Jackson, why shouldn’t the city realize such profit and provide a service that its population values? Cities across the nation engage in enterprising endeavors - Phoenix, AZ sells methane gas, San Bruno, CA has its own cable television company, and the Milwaukee Sewage District transforms sludge to fertilizer and sells it. But, the simple fact that other cities have developed and operated businesses does not alleviate the concerns about government engaging in such efforts and, specifically, a city operating a movie theater. With the city’s access to taxes, it will have an unfair advantage over other theaters - they will have to respond to market pressures, whereas the city’s theater will be able to offer lower ticket prices since it is “subsidized” by the people. In addition, the pursuit of profit opens up the door to corruption among public officials. Lastly, movie theaters are very risky business endeavors, creating the risk of tax payer dollars being wasted.

These concerns about a city operating a movie theater can be allayed relatively easily. After start-up assistance (say, an amount close to what the city would offer to a potential theater via tax incentives), the theater can be required to be self-sustaining, thus preventing the theater from being continually subsidized and possessing an unfair market advantage. A private third party can be left in charge of theater operations to prevent manipulations by public officials attempting to extract funds or resources from the theater. Lastly, to mitigate the risk of operating a theater, the city could run a small-scale trial period to determine whether investing the full amount a theater would require would be prudent.

In addition to overcoming opponents of such substantial government intervention into the market, Jackson would likely face major legal barriers to establishing its own movie theater. Local government law greatly restricts the ability of cities to engage in efforts to raise money, such as operating a business. But, in our current economic climate in which localities across the country are starving for revenues, the city may be able to convince the state legislature to allow them to pursue this creative revenue stream.

While this post has focused on Jackson’s movie theater woes, the idea of localities operating businesses is something states and cities across the country should begin to consider. As mentioned above, our localities are extremely limited in how they can raise revenues and many are experiencing economic crises as a result of declining tax bases and rising costs. We must pursue innovative, creative ways to sustain our towns and cities - allowing them access to profits that we reserve solely for the private sector is an example of such an approach.

3:17pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvaDzGLl

Filed under: Jackson Mississippi movies Porter RichardFlorida taxincentives econdev AtlanticCities

December 22, 2012

Economics & The NRA Proposal for Armed Guards

Today, the NRA put forth its proposal for preventing tragedies like Sandy Hook: placing armed guards, both police and private volunteers, in schools. From an economic perspective, this proposal is irrational.

Presumably, the NRA believes that armed guards will prevent shootings in schools by 1) deterring potential shooters from engaging in the act and 2) quickly disarming a shooter once a shooting begins. The shooters involved in Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook each committed suicide after their rampages; these individuals were not afraid of death, they embraced it. Deterring someone with such a mindset from committing mass murder is futile. They may be averse to prison but, as demonstrated by the Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook shooters, such individuals can ensure that their own death is the final outcome of their acts. An armed security guard would not alter this expected outcome: shooters would either avoid the guard and kill themselves or be shot by the guard during a confrontation. Hence, adopting the NRA’s proposal would lead to huge costs (i.e. paying for armed guards) but offer no benefits in the form of deterrence of the acts the proposal is responding to - an extremely inefficient result.

History shows us that armed guards are also ineffective when it comes to intervening in a school shooting. There were two armed guards at Columbine yet fifteen innocent lives were still taken. Such a result is expected given the size of schools and the speed with which shootings occur. A few seconds in a classroom or hallway is all it takes for a large number of lives to be lost. Shooters can easily plan to enter a school away from a few armed guards, giving them enough time to execute an attack. Thus, the large costs associated with placing armed guards in schools is not justified by the potential for such guards to intervene in shootings.

Rather than placing armed guards in schools, economics would suggest a form of incapacitation to address tragedies like Sandy Hook. When an individual cannot be deterred from causing grave harm, it is efficient to disable their ability to commit such harm. For example, if law enforcement knew with certainty that an individual was going to crash an airplane into a building and no threat of sanctions could prevent the individual from doing so, law enforcement should either incarcerate the person or take steps to ensure they cannot get inside a plane. Given we do not know who is going to commit a school shooting, we cannot incapacitate attackers before a shooting occurs. However, we can disable their ability to commit a shooting by taking steps to ensure they do not get access to guns. You can find a serious, tangible plan to achieve this here.

12:40am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvZuH1n1

Filed under: NRA SandyHook GunControl Columbine VirginiaTech economics

December 9, 2012

The Mortgage Interest Deduction: A Better Way Forward

The Mortgage Interest Deduction (MID) should be drastically reformed. It is flawed in three major ways: 1) it does not significantly impact homeownership, 2) the amount of resources it allocates towards homeownership appears unjustified, and 3) it disrupts the accumulation of affordable housing by encouraging larger than needed homes. Hence, the MID is failing to effectively achieve its apparent goals of stimulating asset-accumulation and strengthening communities through homeownership, it is detracting from such aims by inefficiently allocating resources towards homeownership, and it is acting as a barrier to widely available affordable housing. To correct these flaws, the scope of the MID should be reduced, its structure altered, and savings obtained from such reforms should be allocated towards strategies that facilitate family savings and a greater supply of quality affordable housing.

The MID does not significantly impact home ownership.

A variety of empirical studies have found that the MID has little impact on homeownership. See Toder (2010). This result is no surprise given the MID’s structure – it primarily benefits wealthy individuals, who would likely purchase a home without the deduction. Only those that itemize their taxes can obtain the MID, and while 98% of those earning above $125,000 itemize, only 23% of those making less than $40,000 do so. Id. Furthermore, “the average value of the MID rises steadily with income from $91 for those with annual incomes less than $40,000 to $5,459 for those making more than $250,000.” Id.

The amount of resources the MID allocates towards homeownership does not appear to be justified.

In 2012, the MID will cost the federal Treasury about $131 billion – nearly three times the total annual expenditures of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Id. Until recently, few questioned the wisdom of such an aggressive government strategy to encourage homeownership. Homeownership is often viewed as an effective means of asset-accumulation – it lifts people out of poverty and economic insecurity. However, our recent economic crisis has shown that, like most investments, housing is a risky investment. Of course, overall, housing may be less susceptible to losses than other forms of investment, such as the stock market or a business. But, investment in housing also prevents many families from being able to diversify, which limits their ability to shield themselves from risk. Furthermore, our recent crisis has illustrated that poor housing investments can paralyze the entire economy, compounding the risk of housing as an asset-accumulation strategy.

Many also cite various studies that have found correlations between homeownership and good citizenship to justify extensive government resources being allocated towards homeownership. However, such studies should be approached cautiously; they find correlation between good citizenship and homeownership, not causation. Homeownership might simply be correlated with good citizenship because wealthier people buy homes and such individuals have more time to devote towards their communities. Additionally, according to Glaeser (2011), homeownership may have deleterious effects on citizenship because homeowners typically live in single-family detached homes, which create distance between neighbors and higher costs of connecting with a community.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the soundness of housing as an asset-accumulation strategy and the mixed perspectives on the relationship between homeownership and citizenship, investing billions of dollars into homeownership through the MID appears unjustified.

The MID disrupts the accumulation of affordable housing by encouraging larger than needed housing units.

According to Glaeser (2011), the MID encourages excessively large housing units because people typically receive a bigger deduction when they buy a larger home. Because the MID mainly benefits the wealthy, these individuals in particular are being driven to purchase larger than needed homes. This has important implications for our nation’s supply of affordable housing.

As noted by Rosenfeld (2007), housing stock is usually passed down from the wealthy to those with lower incomes. Today’s luxurious homes are tomorrow’s affordable housing stock. But, if the wealthy are being encouraged to buy extremely large homes, this transition is less likely to occur. Large homes are expensive to maintain in terms of electricity, heating, and repair costs. In addition, home size is correlated with price so larger homes will likely always be more costly than similarly situated smaller homes. Thus, by encouraging larger homes, the MID is limiting the future supply of affordable housing.

Reforming the MID

Transform the MID into a refundable mortgage interest credit

The MID should be turned into a refundable mortgage interest credit that is only available to individuals earning less than $100,000 annually. The maximum credit allowable should be $1,490. A mortgage interest credit up to a maximum of $1,490 available to all individuals buying a home would cost the government the same amount as the current MID. Toder (2010). Hence, limiting the availability of the credit to those earning less than $100,000 will significantly decrease the costs of the MID. In addition, altering the deduction in this way will make it a more effective tool with respect to homeownership because its benefits will accrue to those on the margins between renting and owning rather to individuals that already have the desire and ability to buy a home. The MID will be transformed from a blunt instrument into a precise and efficient tool.

By turning the MID into a refundable mortgage interest credit for people earning less than $100,000, people “on the fence” about buying a home will have greater access to the financial benefits it provides. For example, someone making $30,000 who only pays a few hundred dollars a year in income taxes will be able to receive cash amounting to over a thousand dollars each year, depending on their mortgage interest payments, when they purchase a home. In contrast, under the current MID, they would receive at most, if they itemize, a few hundred dollars in tax breaks. Under this proposal, buying a home will be more financially feasible for such an individual and, therefore, she will be more likely to make the leap to homeownership.

In addition, adopting this reform would greatly mitigate the tendency of the MID to encourage excessively large housing units because the scope of benefits a homeowner could receive would be capped at a lower level and a much smaller segment of the population would have access to the MID.

Use savings from the restructuring of the MID to incentivize localities to make affordable housing more widely available and to develop programs that facilitate family savings

The federal government should use funds saved from the reform of the MID to award grant money to localities that alter their zoning regulations to allow more multi-family dwellings, see Glaeser (2011). In localities across the U.S., zoning regulations prevent the development of multi-family dwellings – housing that can accommodate middle and low-income individuals. This leads to the artificial limiting of the supply of affordable housing. In addition, such regulations contribute to the concentration of poverty, which poses an enormous obstacle to building strong communities. Hence, by incentivizing localities to alter their zoning regulations, the federal government can both strengthen communities and increase access to affordable housing.

The money saved from reforming the MID can also be used to create programs that facilitate family saving. For example, matching savings funds programs can be established for families below a certain income level. Such programs will help families accumulate assets, thus providing families with a viable option, other than investing in housing, for achieving financial stability.

________________________________

Realtors, mortgage bankers, and homebuilders will likely react defensively to the this proposal because such individuals believe they greatly benefit from the present structure of the MID. Furthermore, many homeowners will be unhappy with the prospect of losing some of their current tax benefits. However, the first group’s opposition can be quelled by demonstrating to them that their client bases will be enhanced as a result of the proposals’ likely effect on homeownership, and the current disdain for massive government intervention into the housing market will limit the effectiveness of homeowner opposition.

5:35pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvZ0Vgvk

Filed under: housing MID inequality homeownership

October 18, 2012

Philly Tax Credit - A Reason to be Skeptical

Philadelphia is receiving the greatest form of flattery - mimicry. Massachusetts is adopting a tax credit program that the city pioneered in 2002. According to this article, “Philadelphia’s original program allowed private companies to commit to a 10-year partnership that would parlay $100,000 of their annual business tax obligation into funding for a community development corporation to execute commercial development or housing projects.”

Undoubtedly, Philly’s model is extremely promising - local community development organizations are provided a consistent stream of money. Furthermore, it is important for programs to exist that place such an emphasis on local development. However, as with all programs, we must see both sides of the coin.

The program furthers the privatization of our local governments. Rather than tax revenues being allocated to the public to be put through the democratic process, the revenues are moved from one private actor to a quasi public/private actor. Community Development Corporations are great but they are a step away from our public government and process. Rather than “the people” deciding how revenues will be spent, executive directors and CEO’s will be making such decision. This may be a good thing or a bad thing - we just need to recognize that this is the case.

10:05am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvVWlwSH

Filed under: Philadelphia taxcredits

September 12, 2012

Miss this place - Newark is beautiful.

10:29pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvTH-82E

(Notes: 1)

Filed under: Newark

August 14, 2012

Is this what cities are really about?

j5d:

““What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured.””

— Kurt Vonnegut

11:15pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvRRjH8G

(Notes: 6)

Filed under: Vonnegut

August 14, 2012

The Next Step for Infrastructure Banks

Infrastructure banks are all the rage. Rahm Emanuel’s infrastructure bank in Chicago received national attention and praise for its innovative approach to Chicago’s infrastructure needs. Governor Cuomo of New York has also been in the national spotlight as a result of his creation of an infrastructure bank.

These banks are viewed as being on the cutting-edge of public finance because they allow state and local governments to circumvent the limitations that accompany the budget crises governments across the nation are experiencing. They do so by attracting private capital. Private capital is drawn to infrastructure banks because such banks present an opportunity for investors to reap a profit. In addition, infrastructure banks can help cities and states leverage federal funding because, as demonstrated by Emanuel’s and Cuomo’s banks, they send a message to federal officials that a government entity has an innovative plan in place that will effectively use federal funds. However, many have raised questions about infrastructure banks, specifically Chicago’s, because of the potential for public assets to be controlled by private actors.

Given the financial benefits to infrastructure banks, its model should be expanded to less conventional forms of infrastructure, specifically human capital. One way to describe infrastructure is that it is anything that makes society operate more effectively. Human capital, without too much of a stretch, can be seen as infrastructure - it makes places more productive and effective.

Like Emanuel’s infrastructure bank, a human capital-focused infrastructure bank would present an opportunity for private investors to make a profit and help attract federal dollars because it would send a similar message as Emanuel’s bank, but it would not involve the risks of private control of public assets. A state or local government would allocate some capital to the bank, some of which would be used for a worker training program geared at a certain company’s needs. The goal of the program would be to attract the specific company to the city or state (developing company specific training programs has proven to be an extremely successful strategy for attracting companies to an area - check out this article). Then, a private actor would invest money into the bank that would be put towards bolstering the training program. The bank would be set up to allow the private actor to receive returns on this investment that would be based on the economic benefits that attracting the company provides the city or state, such as increased property tax revenues. Thus, the private actor does not control public assets, it just receives a stake on future revenues.

A response to this idea may be that the city or state could simply give a tax incentive to the private company, after all, the end outcome is the same: the city or state is foregoing tax revenues to attract a company. But, under this approach, the infrastructure of the city or state is being strengthened, and therefore this approach presents a less risky investment than simply giving away tax incentives. Ten years after receiving tax incentives, a company could relocate, taking the city or state’s investments with it. However, using a human capital-focused infrastructure bank, if a company relocates, the city or state retains its investment: a more skilled population. Even if those skills were tailored to a specific company, those who received the training still will have developed general, transferable skills.

12:52pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvRPITNg

Filed under: infrastructure Chicago NewYork business finance jobs

August 6, 2012

Entrepreneurism: An Ideal Econ Dev Strategy for Poor Communities?

This week, NextAmCity’s feature article focuses on small-scale entrepreneurship as a tool to revitalize our cities. The article neatly illustrates why for-profit entrepreneurial endeavors on the part of city residents is good for cities. When residents start businesses, jobs and wealth are created. In addition, when residents see their neighbors become successful, they believe they can have success through entrepreneurship as well. This leads them to follow their neighbors’ lead by creating their own businesses. The article also cites places like Newark, NJ where such an entrepreneur focus is helping once-forgotten communities reinvent themselves.

Overall, the article makes a strong case for using entrepreneurship to revive cities, but it could be stronger. Not only is entrepreneurism well-suited for revitalizing cities, but the residents of these cities that need “revitalization” are well-suited for entrepreneurism.

When we talk about cities that need to be revitalized, what we are really talking about are places with large low-income communities, places where people have been trapped in poverty. These places are filled with people that have the skills to succeed as entrepreneurs - they’ve been honing their entrepreneurial skills their whole lives.

To survive poverty, you must be an entrepreneur. You often don’t have access to traditional jobs or networks that can support you, so you must be creative and realize market failures and opportunities - you have to hustle. Sudhir Venkatesh’s “Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor” illustrates this point. The book follows people living in poverty that create their own income streams through entrepreneurial endeavors, such as car repair businesses, drug sales, and selling home-cooked meals, and highlights how the isolating conditions of poverty force people to learn how to identify and tap into profitable markets.

Not only are people in poverty forced to become entrepreneurs, they must do so in an extremely competitive environment. In impoverished communities, there are, by definition, few resources to go around. Furthermore, there are few employment opportunities and most people are unable to go outside of their community to earn money because of stigma, lack of transportation, or other systemic restraints. Thus, a large number of people are often competing as entrepreneurs in a compact community for very scarce resources. This dynamic could be seen as Donald Trump’s “The Apprentice” on steroids - a top-notch “school” for entrepreneurs.

When analyzing potential economic development strategies, we should evaluate a community’s strengths. If a community has human capital and potential with respect to a certain type of growth, we should pursue such growth because doing so will maximize the community’s human capital resources.

Because of the circumstances of poverty, in the world of entrepreneurism, a life in poverty is an asset. By pursuing entrepreneurism as an economic development strategy in low-income communities, we can fully leverage the skills that these communities possess, thereby increasing their chances of being revitalized.

9:59pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvQvHdi-

(Notes: 1)

Filed under: poverty Newark entrepreneurism econdev

August 5, 2012

Social Impact Bonds: The Other Side

One of the biggest pieces of news in the policy wonk world this week was Goldman Sach’s announcement that it has agreed to invest $9.6M in an NYC program addressing recidivism as part of a social impact bond.

Social impact bonds work like this: a private actor, such as Goldman, invests money in a program that has the potential to create savings for a government entity; if the program results in a certain amount of savings, the private actor receives its money back from the government entity; if the program exceeds a certain amount of savings, the private actor receives a profit; if the program results in no savings, the government pays nothing to the private actor.

According to this NYTimes article,

The Goldman money will be used to pay MDRC, a social services provider, to design and oversee the program. If the program reduces recidivism by 10 percent, Goldman would be repaid the full $9.6 million; if recidivism drops more, Goldman could make as much as $2.1 million in profit.

This arrangement has been widely celebrated and has inspired several articles and lots of commentary praising the social impact bond model. Social impact bonds are seen as a solution to the budget woes that city and state governments across the country are facing - private resources are being leveraged to further the public good. What’s not to like?

While social impact bonds no doubt have many positive characteristics and, from a practical perspective, cities may need them right now, there are downsides to these financing mechanisms that must be considered.

In the case of Goldman Sach’s bond, public services are essentially being privatized. A nonprofit is being given the responsibility to run a program to enhance the criminal justice system’s success. In addition, it is getting funding for the program from a private actor whose organizational mission is to make profit off of investments. As with any form of privatization, this dynamic poses some skewed incentives. For example, given the profit motive that can be seen to be driving Goldman’s investment, Goldman may pressure the nonprofit to make decisions that help it reach its goal even though the approach taken could result in substantial negative externalities.

The social impact bond model also may have the effect of the profit motive determining which services will be provided rather than the public good. It is reasonable to assume that private actors will only invest in a program or services that they think will realize a reasonably-sized profit - Goldman Sachs didn’t become Goldman Sachs by investing in programs that yield small returns. And, private investment may create a moral hazard situation for governments. With the private sector focusing on an area of public concern, such as recidivism, governments may feel they do not need allocate resources towards addressing this area of concern. Hence, the profit motive could essentially become the main driver of which services are provided even if, as a result of externalities, another approach may be better for the public good.

This last argument foreshadows an even bigger concern that can be applied to any form of privatization. The social impact bond model boils down to an entity with individualistic concerns, the profit motive, being given the responsibility to address public issues. A more community-driven approach may be necessary to ensure all of the public is considered. Sure, we can assert that the contracts involved with privatization align the incentives of the private and the public, but this is a difficult task, especially when one party is extremely desperate as cities often are when they turn to private actors for assistance.

It would be foolish to say that the social impact bond model should be abandoned because of the concerns raised here - the model is a creative, pragmatic solution to an important problem. But, as with all policy approaches, we should make sure we consider the other side.

1:42pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvQp6hK4

(Notes: 2)

Filed under: GoldmanSachs NYC criminaljustice recidivism socialimpactbond privatization business

July 17, 2012

townsandcities:

What a great use of rural roads! More context below.

Via schlossb:

“The car lane is only wide enough for one vehicle, although it is a two way road. When vehicles approach each other, they must yield to each other and any cyclists present.”

10:51pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvPaRWCU

(Notes: 2)

Filed under: transportation

July 17, 2012

Growing up in the South with rain, unrelenting heat, and no access to a gym, this would have been amazing. Photo Credit: Tom Ryaboi

9:11pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvPa0zaC

Filed under: basketball parks

July 13, 2012

The False Divide

The city/suburb distinction is an often referred to dichotomy in the world of local policy enthusiasts. For example, today in the Atlantic Cities, Eric Jaffe published an article critiquing a recent report showing faster growth rates in cities than in suburbs. While this distinction is widely accepted, it should be re-examined in light of the current state of localities.

Last spring, in my Local Government Law class, my professor asked the class, how many of you grew up in the suburbs? After thinking about this question, I could not come up with an answer. I lived in Jacksonville, FL for much of my childhood. My apartments were within the city’s boundaries but not in downtown. However, the part of town I grew up in was heavily populated. In fact, it was more densely populated than Jacksonville’s downtown at the time. Given these characteristics, did I live in the city or the suburbs when I lived in Jacksonville?

I also spent a substantial amount of time living in Phoenix, AZ. I lived near the Tempe/Phoenix border. The area I lived in had many multi-family housing buildings, access to public transportation, and large building complexes. It looked and felt like nearly every part of Phoenix I visited, except for the downtown core (which was mainly a business district). Furthermore, right across the border in Tempe, I noticed the same community features. Was Tempe and where I lived the city or the suburbs?

Currently, I live in Somerville, MA. Many people I talk to consider Somerville to be a part of Boston - a part of the city. In contrast, Waltham (a town 10 minutes away from Somerville) is often viewed as a suburb. However, Somerville and Waltham do not appear different. Somerville is slightly bigger in population (76,000 vs. 61,000) but it has similar style buildings, similar traffic, and similar public spaces. So, can Waltham really be labeled a suburb and Somerville be seen as the city?

My difficulty in answering these questions leads me to question the validity of the city/suburb distinction. It is true that in the U.S. there are some places that are inarguably cities and others that are definitely suburbs. But, for the most part, it seems difficult to separately identify these conceptions of the local.

The city/suburb distinction may hold if we narrowly define the city. Many indeed do this, asserting that the “city center” (i.e. downtown) is the city. However, my experiences in Somerville, Jacksonville, and Phoenix illustrate that many places outside of city centers have characteristics that are city-like, even if they don’t have a plethora of high-rises. It seems odd to label these dense places with substantial infrastructure as suburbs simply because they are not downtown.

It may be more accurate to view our localities through the lens of a metropolitan area rather than the city/suburb distinction. Cities are spilling out to surrounding areas. Areas that were formerly suburbs are more city-like and many downtowns are more suburb-like with respect to residential density, a key indicator of what is a city.

In addition to being an invalid distinction, the city/suburb divide may be harmful. These labels come with certain stereotypes and assumptions that could undermine efforts to strengthen and revitalize our localities. For example, we think of the suburb as a place filled with wealthy White people, but many places considered suburbs have a growing population of impoverished minorities (See Weir, Challenging Inequality in the New Metropolis). Stereotypes about who lives in suburbs may cause policymakers and non-profits to neglect this trend.

For the sake of our localities, I hope we re-examine this seemingly false divide.

2:20pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvPHRqd_

Filed under: suburbs localgovt Jacksonville Phoenix Boston

July 13, 2012

An aesthetically pleasing and value-adding parking structure. Photo Credit: Pomona College.

12:21pm | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZLPyLvPH1Zl_

Filed under: econdev PomonaCollege parking

RSS feed: http://policymatters12.tumblr.com/rss

1 of 4 Next page