New Geography

Tag: Energy

  • Make Sure All That Infrastructure Spending Is Well Supported

    It’s the new buzzword: infrastructure.

    President-elect Barack Obama has promised billions in infrastructure spending as part of a public works program bigger than any since the interstate highway system was built in the 1950s. Though it was greeted with hosannas, his proposal is only tapping into a clamor for such spending that’s been rising ever since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005 and a major bridge collapsed in Minneapolis last year. With the economy now officially in recession, the rage for new brick and mortar is reaching a fever pitch.

    But before we commit hundreds of billions to new construction projects, we should focus on just what kind of infrastructure investment we should – and shouldn’t – be making. More important, we should think beyond temporary stimulus and make-work jobs and about investments that will propel the economy well into this century.

    After all, it’s not that we stopped spending on infrastructure over the past decade. It’s that mostly, we haven’t spent on the right things.

    New York City, for example, has wasted billions on its bloated bureaucracy and on constructing new sports stadiums and other ephemera deemed necessary to maintain Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “luxury city.” Meanwhile, many of its subway and rail lines have deteriorated. Over the decades, brownouts and blackouts, caused in part by underinvestment in energy infrastructure, have become common during periods of high energy use in the summer.

    Similarly, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has extolled the Golden State as “the cutting-edge state . . . a model not just for 21st-century American society but the world.” Yet California’s once envied water-delivery systems, roadways, airports and schools are in serious disrepair. Many even more hard-pressed communities – Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans – have similarly wasted limited treasure on spectacular new convention centers, sports arenas, arts and entertainment facilities and hotels while allowing schools, roads, ports and other critical sinews of economic life to fray.

    Convention centers and other tourist attractions create reasonably high-paying construction jobs in the short term, but over time, they create an economy dominated by lower-wage service jobs. Take New Orleans. It was once one of the nation’s great industrial and commercial centers. But then the city turned its back for decades on its diverse economic base and invested not in levees, port development and basic infrastructure but in the arts, culture and tourism. The tourism and convention business surged, but the result was a low-wage economy. Nearly 40 percent of New Orleans households, or twice the national average, earned less than $20,000 a year in 2000.

    Other places have followed a similar trajectory of folly, heavily subsidizing luxury condominiums, restaurants and other amenities to help lure the so-called creative class. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s 2003 plan to turn her state around focused on creating “cool cities” aimed at attracting hip, educated workers to Detroit and other failing urban centers. Instead of sparking an economic revival, Granholm has presided over a mass exodus of younger workers who can’t find jobs in her state.

    Perhaps no place epitomizes misplaced priorities better than Pittsburgh. Widely hailed in the media as a poster child for the urban “renaissance,” Pittsburgh has suffered a precipitous decline in population: Its 310,000 residents are less than half its 1950 peak. It now shares with parts of the former East Germany the gloomy demographic of having more residents die each year than are born.

    Like other cities, Pittsburgh has sought to revive itself with billions in new stadiums, arenas and cultural facilities. Meanwhile, its roads and bridges are in a constant state of disrepair. Most recently, the city embarked on a scheme to create a 1.2-mile, $435 million transit tunnel under the Allegheny River to connect downtown’s heavily subsidized towers with taxpayer-funded pro sports stadiums and a new casino. This “tunnel to nowhere,” derided by a local columnist as the nation’s “premier transit boondoggle,” will no doubt be the sort of thing many states and localities will seek federal infrastructure funds for, justifying them on the basis of both short-term economic stimulus and some kind of “green” agenda.

    Although some new spending on efforts such as developing alternative fuels could improve efficiencies, many “green” projects seem destined to devolve into little more than expensive boondoggles. A recent program passed by the Los Angeles City Council, for example, calls on the city-owned utility’s ratepayers to subsidize installing solar panels on office buildings. This plan, heavily promoted by labor lobbyists, mandates that the project be carried out by the Department of Water and Power, whose employees are among the most well-paid public workers in the nation. By some estimates, it would raise the price of electricity by as much as 8 percent. But it will do nothing to slow the continued flight of industrial and other employment from Los Angeles or its suburbs.

    A “red-green” tilt to infrastructure programs – essentially marrying the labor and environmental lobbies – also seems sure to raise spending on public mass-transit projects. Some transit or rail spending can, of course, promote efficiency and productivity. A significant incentive to increase rail freight, for example, could boost productivity in the critical manufacturing, agriculture and energy industries because rail can generally carry far more goods on less fuel than long-haul trucking.

    Spending on upkeep of transit systems in older centralized cities such as New York, Washington and Chicago also seems logical. But with few exceptions – the heavily traveled corridor between downtown Houston and the Texas Medical Center, for instance – ridership on most new rail systems outside the traditional cities has remained paltry, accounting for barely 1 or 2 percent of all commuters. Such projects are almost absurdly expensive on a per-capita basis; the Allegheny Institute, a Pennsylvania think tank that pursues free-market solutions to local questions, estimates that the cost to the taxpayer of each trip through the new Pittsburgh tunnel could be as much as $15.

    Infrastructure investment requires a strong litmus test. Where the cash goes should be determined chiefly on the basis of how the spending will enhance the nation’s productive capacity and raise incomes across the board. This also means looking beyond traditional brick and mortar investments to critical skills shortages. Businesspeople nationwide complain repeatedly of a chronic shortage of skilled blue-collar workers and technicians. More than 80 percent of 800 U.S. manufacturing firms surveyed in 2005 reported “a shortage of qualified workers overall.” Nine in 10 firms said that they faced a “moderate-to-severe shortfall” in qualified technicians.

    In sharp contrast to sports stadiums and convention centers, programs in skills training for U.S.-based industries such as aerospace, energy, machine tools and agricultural equipment tend to create high-wage jobs, which have expanded over the past decade even as the overall number of industrial positions has declined. Many industrial companies are increasingly desperate for skilled workers and often consider locating wherever they can be found. These companies also produce many jobs that, though not located on the factory floor, are critical to the nation’s competitive edge. For example, the Manufacturing Institute estimates that manufacturers employ one-fourth of all scientists and 40 percent of engineers.

    A forward-looking infrastructure program would also target places that would most benefit from new roads, bridges, ports and other critical facilities, including underperforming regions such as the Great Plains, Appalachia and rural Pennsylvania, as well as the depressed Great Lakes area. These areas offer cheaper labor and housing, prime locations and access to natural resources. Making them more accessible to markets and more energy efficient could replicate the great New Deal success in modernizing much of the South and West.

    Perhaps most critical, we need to look at how to combine new physical investments with new initiatives in skills training, incubating small companies and promoting better ties with local universities and research facilities. This “infrasystems” approach has been implemented successfully in places as diverse as North Dakota’s Red River Valley, the area around Wenatchee, Wash., and in various Southern locales such as Charleston and Savannah.

    The call for more spending on infrastructure represents a unique opportunity to rebuild our productive economy and create long-term middle-class jobs. But if the effects are going to last, the trick is to concentrate on the basics and forget the flashy, feel-good kinds of projects that have characterized many “infrastructure” investments in recent years.

    This article originally appeared at Washington Post.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

  • New Zealand Voters Swing Right: John Key’s Shower Power

    Reason magazine’s Jesse Walker opens his commentary on the New Zealand election by saying: “At least one country is responding to the financial crisis by moving to the right, not left.” This is factually correct but may overstate the case.

    Certainly, New Zealanders elected a conservative National-led coalition government and removed from office a Labour-led coalition which had served three terms of three years. While it is appealing to contrast this move to the right with America’s move to the left, it is probably unwise to claim that these were contrasting responses to the international financial crisis. Indeed, I suspect the analysis of both the New Zealand and American elections is equally flawed.

    The key mood in the New Zealand electorate was simply that it was “Time for a Change”. And given that the incumbent Government was a left-of-centre Government, the change could only be to the right of centre. In this regard, there is a strong parallel with the American Presidential race where the mood was equally that it was “Time for a Change.” In the US this meant a move from the Republican right to the Democratic left.

    The mood for change was probably stronger in New Zealand because for a three-term government (nine years) to win a fourth term is most uncommon here; Helen Clark’s nine years as leader of that Government was a record, and had she won a fourth term as a Labour Prime Minister it would have been unprecedented. The historical odds were against her. On the other hand, all US Presidents must move aside after two terms, so change is thrust upon them.

    Now that both elections are over, the new US president and the new National Government, led by John Key, must face up to the harsh reality of the inevitable recession or depression resulting from the collapse of the housing and financial bubbles that dominated both economies during the last decade. This focus may encourage analysts to believe that the financial crisis was the cause of the electoral outcomes, even if the ideological swings were opposite.

    However, I believe that Barack Obama would have won the Presidential race had there been no financial crisis, and that John Key would also now be Prime Minister of New Zealand. But both their victories might have been less emphatic.

    In both countries voters were faced with a generational change. Obama is a young man in his early prime; McCain is an old man whose mortality worked against him. Helen Clark is younger than McCain (58 vs 72), but because she entered Parliament in 1981, became Deputy Prime Minister in 1989, and has been Prime Minister since 1999, she was seen as one of the old guard. She has stepped down as leader of the Labour Party as part of conceding defeat on election night. John Key is a young man of 47 who has been in parliament only since 2002, and Leader of the Opposition only since 2006.

    The role of the financial crisis in this New Zealand election was an ambivalent one. By law, our full-on election campaign is brief – only three months – compared to US campaigns, and Parliament goes into recess during the whole of the campaign. As it happened, the full impact of the financial crisis on the NZ economy became apparent at about the same time as campaigning began, although the collapse of the housing market had begun somewhat earlier. The campaigning politicians had little time to develop solid policies in response to the threat and, given that Parliament was in recess, could do nothing about it anyhow.

    Helen Clark argued that her Labour Government had successfully managed the economy for nine years and her team had the experience to manage the New Zealand economy through the next three years. John Key argued that his party had more skills in the field, and that the Labour party benches were full of academics and trade unionists, most of whom had never run a business.

    Clark’s response was that the National Party, and John Key in particular, were part of the problem. Her trade union base saw Key as a Wall Street banker and a cause of the problem. Key’s business base saw him as a man who understood the industry and had the skills and know-how to deal with the problem.

    National Party heavyweights included Don Brash, who had stepped aside as Leader of the Opposition to allow John Key to take over. Brash had been Governor of the Reserve Bank for 14 years; since resigning from Parliament in 2007 he had served as an adjunct professor of Banking at the Auckland University of Technology (and Chairman of the Centre for Resource Management Studies). John Key began working as a foreign exchange dealer at Elders Finance in Wellington, then moved to Auckland-based Bankers Trust. In 1995, he joined Merrill Lynch as head of Asian foreign exchange in Singapore. He was promoted to Merrill’s global head of foreign exchange, based in London, and was a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1999 to 2001.

    On election night Key’s Centrist but Conservative National Party, (combined with the soft, somewhat libertarian Act Party as a coalition partner) scored a decisive victory – probably about as decisive a victory as is possible, given our system of Mixed Member Proportional representation (MMP).

    There is widespread agreement, at least among the supporters of the new regime, that Labour’s massive defeat was primarily caused by New Zealanders’ rejection of the “Nanny State,” which has increasingly interfered in our daily lives. And here may lie the real lesson for the new President of the USA.

    While the US is a genuine Super Power, and New Zealand is a mere pimple on the global body politic, we always aspire to punch above our weight, and frequently do. Helen Clark had decided that New Zealand would be a world leader in fighting climate change (anthropogenic global warming), and that we would become the world’s most sustainable economy with a carbon neutral footprint. So, for some time, New Zealanders responded with some enthusiasm to this new challenge of leadership on the world stage. We were proud to be Clean and Green, and of our Tourism Board’s promotion of New Zealand as 100% Pure – presumably we are free of even impure thoughts.

    However, as commentators as diverse as the late Aaron Wildavsky and Vaclav Klaus have warned, Global Warming is the mother of all scares because it enables Government to interfere in every aspect of our lives – to claim that no price is too high if necessary to save the planet for our grandchildren. Inevitably, the High Priests of “Sustainability” began to demand that we break our “addiction” to private automobiles and learn to love public transport; that we learn to love high-density apartments and abandon our home gardens; and that we stop doing anything which consumed fossil fuel. It soon became clear to many that the main concern of these New Puritans was that someone, somewhere, might just be enjoying themselves.

    Our unsubsidized grass farmers who pay most of our way in the world began to wonder why our belching cattle should be penalized by Kyoto rules, when subsidized European cattle were not. After all, cows have been belching since the first ruminants walked the earth, and they don’t run on fossil fuel.

    Rodney Hide, leader of the Act Party, began to argue that we should dump the Emissions Trading Scheme and withdraw from Kyoto because the whole Global Warming fear was a massive scam. This was supposed to be political suicide, but the polls showed that Act’s support suddenly increased. Act is now part of the new government, and their extra five seats consolidate John Key’s comfortable majority in the 120 seat Parliament.

    If President-Elect Obama becomes a High Priest of Climate Change, he too may find that 95% of Americans, just like New Zealanders, believe that other people should use public transport so that there will be more room on the road for them. He may also find that while the costs of Kyoto are scary and may drive even more energy intensive industries offshore to non-complying countries like China and India, it is the minor interventions in daily life which are the real irritants that could turn the electorate against him and make him a one term President.

    Because when it comes down to it, John Key’s majority may have been cemented in place by New Zealanders’ affection for taking a shower.

    A few weeks before the election, the Labour Government, largely at the behest of the Green Party on whose support they depended to maintain their majority in Parliament, proposed regulations which would limit the flow of water through a shower head to about 1.5 gallons per minute. The aim was to save both water and energy and thus make our houses more “sustainable”. The standard “low flow” rose in most showers at the time delivered about 3.5 gallons per minute.

    This proved to be the last straw. The grumblings about the proposed mandatory replacement of incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents, similar to the rumblings in the US, exploded into a furor on blog sites, talk-back radio and letters to the editor. A popular blogger drew up a list of 85 things the Greens want to ban. People recalled how a Green Party official had endorsed a petition calling for the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide…which just happens to be water.

    The proposal was not just irksome; it soon became evident that it probably would not even achieve its objective. People would stay in the shower longer or alternatively run a nice deep hot bath. As is so often the case in political campaigns, this single minor proposal came to symbolize a whole range of discontents, and people could use it as a focus for their latent rage and fury against the Nanny State.

    So Jesse Walker’s comment that triggered the request for this commentary on the New Zealand election might more properly have read, “At least one country is responding to global warming alarmism by moving to the right, not the left.”

    Our recent experience in New Zealand should give Barack Obama reason to pause. A stance against Global Warming is popular, right up until it starts to bite. Then the American public too, might just bite back.

    Owen McShane is a Resource Management Consultant based in New Zealand

  • The Transmission Infrastructure Dilemma

    Last week, Bismarck, ND was host to the second annual Great Plains Energy Expo and Showcase. Hosted by Bismarck State College and Senator Byron Dorgan, the conference focused on North Dakota’s growing energy industry, including the wind energy sector, with presenters such as T. Boone Pickens discussing the opportunities and challenges facing the industry.

    Wind is a readily available resource on the plains of North Dakota, which have been referred to as the “Saudi Arabia of wind”. According to David Hadley of the Midwest ISO, a transmission coordination agency, North Dakota is the top state in the nation for wind energy potential. At 40% capacity, the state would have over 345,000 MW of potential generation capacity.

    Current generating capacity is a minuscule fraction of this potential output. However, North Dakota has seen a major increase in investment in wind energy projects over the past several years. In 2005, there was only 80 MW of wind generation in the state. As of June, 2008, that number stands at “716 MW either in service or under construction, plus another 807.5 MW that has either been site permitted or is in some stage of the siting process.” According to the Midwest ISO, potential North Dakota projects being discussed or currently under way add up to 7656 MW of potential generation. One major project under discussion would include 2000 MW of generation, costing around 4 billion dollars. The development is, in the words of one elected official interviewed by the Bismarck Tribune, “truly eye-popping.”

    Standing in the way of exploiting the Great Plains’ wind bonanza is a major challenge- transmission capacity. North Dakota currently has a transmission export limit of 1950 MW, which is fully subscribed by current power producers. While several upgrades to the system are in the works, they will fall far short of the massive build up in transmission infrastructure needed to allow for continued rapid expansion of generation capacity. As one presenter at the Great Plains Expo put it, the region is “a victim of [its] own location.”

    In August the New York Times discussed the challenge posed by transmission limitations, noting that “North Dakota and South Dakota, could in principle generate half the nation’s electricity from turbines. But the way the national grid is configured, half the country would have to move to the Dakotas in order to use the power.” If unaddressed, the inadequacy of the electric grid will serve as a check on energy driven economic development on the Great Plains. Rick Sergel, President of the North American Electricity Reliability Corp. (NERC), argues that “Without new transmission development needed to support these resources,” it is likely “only a fraction,” of currently proposed wind projects will be built. Speaking to Reuters, Sergel called for serious consideration of “comprehensive plans that cross state lines and international borders to build the clean-energy superhighway that will provide everyone equally with access to carbon-free generation”.

    It appears that expansion and modernization of transmission infrastructure will receive significant attention from the incoming administration. President-elect Obama stated in an interview on MSNBC that “the most important infrastructure projects that we need is a whole new electricity grid,” and that he wants such projects “to be able to get wind power from North Dakota to population centers, like Chicago.” With the current economic slowdown increasing calls for an economic stimulus package, investment in infrastructure, including grid expansion and modernization, appears set to take a central role in policy discussions in the coming year.

  • Up Next: The War of the Regions?

    By Joel Kotkin and Mark Schill

    It’s time to throw away red, blue and purple, left and right, and get to the real and traditional crux of American politics: the battle for resources between the country’s many diverse regions. How President-elect Barack Obama balances these divergent geographic interests may have more to do with his long-term success than his ideological stance or media image. Personal charm is transitory; the struggle for money and jobs has a more permanent character.

    To succeed as president, Obama must find a way to transcend his own very specific geography – university dominated, liberal de-industrialized Chicago – and address the needs of regions whose economies still depend on agriculture, energy and industry. In the primaries, most of these went to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    The geographic concentration of manufacturing prepared by Praxis Strategy Group presents a particular complex roadmap for the new president. Although Indiana and Wisconsin top our list of states most dependant on manufacturing employment, the next four are either in the Great Plains, Iowa, or in the south, Arkansas, Alabama and Mississippi. In fact eight of the top 13 industrial states on a per capita basis are located in the South; only one of these manufacturing hotbeds, North Carolina, supported the new president.

    In terms of industry, the auto industry represents the most difficult challenge. Great Lakes political leaders, like Michigan’s clueless Gov. Jennifer Granholm, now a top Obama advisor, will twist the new president’s arm to bail out the crippled U.S.-based auto manufacturers, essentially socializing the industry. Yet in bailing out Detroit, Obama could undermine a thriving, growing auto complex developing in the old Confederacy and along the southern rim of Midwest.

    Although also hit by the recession, companies like Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes and BMW have brought unprecedented prosperity to these areas, which include some of historically poorest regions of the country. This is also where many of the most fuel-efficient “green” vehicles in America are being produced. The workers they employ may not belong to the unions so influential among liberals, but their interests matter mightily to Democrats as well as Republicans who represent them.

    Energy issues may be even more challenging from a regional perspective. The nation’s fossil fuel resources are heavily concentrated in the west and South, led by Wyoming, Alaska, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, Texas, Montana, North Dakota and Kentucky. Sen. Obama only took one of these states, New Mexico. The new president’s statements against coal and other fossil fuels were not popular in areas where these provide not only reliable low cost energy but also well-paying jobs.

    Not just oil-riggers, heartland miners and coal companies have an interest in an expansive approach to energy policy. If enacted, Obama’s “cap and trade” proposals could raise the cost of Midwestern energy, largely coal-based, by between 20 to 40 percent, according to a recent study by Bernstein Research. This would create yet another disadvantage for U.S. manufacturers, particularly against largely unregulated competitors in developing countries.

    In contrast, reliable and affordable domestic energy supplies from all sources – including from nuclear facilities – would be a major boon manufacturers across the country. Obama must recognize that many states with coal and oil reserves also possess strong wind and bioenergy potential. He should favor expansion of both. The resulting lower cost electrical power could boost an incipient electric car industry that may be the last, best hope for hard-pressed General Motors.

    Here’s another case where regional politics could prove sticky for Obama. Any attempt to boost non-renewable energy supplies would run into opposition from the largely coastally-centered green lobby. These groups generally oppose virtually any fossil fuel development, and most remain hostile to nuclear power. While well-intentioned, increasingly restrictive environmental regulations on manufacturing could push production to parts of the world with dirtier industries and over reliance on shipping long distances. The net reduction in carbon emissions, as a result would seem somewhat ephemeral.

    The current recession and falling energy prices could provide political cover for Obama to shift his energy policies. Hard times have already eroded support for strict curbs on greenhouse gases in Europe and strong advocacy for carbon taxes clearly hurt the Liberals in the recent Canadian elections. A similar reaction could also emerge in this country, excepting the deepest blue coastal enclaves.

    Finally there remains one other regional constituency that must be addressed, that of the financial community. Our analysis shows securities and commodity trading industries to be regionally concentrated, with the largest clusters in greater New York, vice President-elect Biden’s home state of Delaware, followed by New Hampshire and Illinois. They are all now bedrock “blue states” and backed Obama generally by large margins.

    Yet this presents yet another regional dilemma. Simply put, the rest of the country detests Wall Street. They see the bailout benefiting big players in cities like New York or Chicago, but doing little for smaller banks who do much of the lending outside the big money centers. This sentiment cuts across party lines, particularly in the West and South, as the initial anti-bailout votes in the House show.

    All presidents face such regional challenges in governing this vast and diverse country. The weak politicians, like George W. Bush, tend to fall back on an ever-narrower band of regional alliances that, once threatened, easily break apart.

    Transformative leaders, like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, learn to extend their appeal to as many industries and regions as possible. In the next four years, we will get to see what kind of leader Barack Obama intends to be.

    This article originally appeared at Politico.com

    Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University and executive editor of NewGeography.com. Mark Schill, a strategy consultant at the Praxis Strategy Group, is the site’s managing editor.

  • The Change We Need – Part II: Will We Sustain The Current Economy, Or Create A Sustainable Economy?

    Yesterday, Rick Cole discussed the theoretical basis for the most effective kinds of economic change. Today, he provides specific suggestions. – The Editors

    No brief outline can do justice to weaving together the potentially convergent strands that compose the key elements of the remaking of the American economy. None of the policy prescriptions here are original, but it is important to see them as complimentary parts of a larger whole:

    •GREEN BUSINESS: This means shifting from thinking of “green jobs” as being generated by alternative energy to an understanding that, in the decade ahead, every single job in the American economy will be “green”, as we ruthlessly pursue less wasteful, more sustainable and more productive business practices. This is primarily the domain of the private sector, but Federal policies that deal with taxes, regulations, research, purchasing and grant-making must all be tweaked to actively promote green practices, rather than inadvertently hinder them.

    •SMART GROWTH: The suburban, auto-dominated landscape of the past fifty years is not only unsustainable on a world-scale, it won’t work for a post peak oil, post carbon America. Alternate fuels are not enough, nor will public transit work in sprawled suburbs. Chicago is the headquarters for the Congress for the New Urbanism, a largely apolitical movement of architects, planners, developers and activists promoting a revival of traditional town and city building that emphasizes mixed-use, transit-oriented design at every scale of development from neighborhood to metropolis. While catching on in cities and states across the country, the movement remains largely marginalized in Washington. One exception is Congressman Earl Blumenauer, an early Obama backer from Portland, Oregon. Former Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist has also laid out a program for reversing the Federal government’s half century of counter-productive policies.

    •REGIONALISM: Obama’s speech to the US Conference of Mayors embraced this powerful focus on metro regions as the engines of global growth. Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution has been one of its leading theoreticians, and former HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros one of its most eloquent champions. Denver, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Portland, Chattanooga and St. Louis have emerged as models for metro/suburban collaboration to promote infrastructure investment, economic development and land use planning. Europe has pioneered this kind of regional collaboration to stay competitive in the global economy. There is also a powerful social equity dimension to this movement, which ensures that inner cities will not be left of out the regional efforts to improve education, reinvest in older communities, and focus on the creation of high-wage, high-value jobs.

    •TRANSPORTATION: In 1991, Senator Pat Moynihan spearheaded the least-heralded major domestic policy shift of that decade, the landmark ISTEA omnibus transportation bill. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration failed to follow up on it, and left highway expansion as the continuing Federal policy direction, instead of investing in matching the investment by all other advanced economies in both high-speed rail and public transit. This has been compounded by the Bush Administration’s embrace of libertarian market mechanisms for funding future transportation investment. This failure has fueled sprawl and its appetite for oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The new administration will need to start where ISTEA left off to rebuild our goods- and people-moving capacity 0n an environmentally and economically sustainable model.

    •HUMAN CAPITAL: Obama’s education program needs to be place-based in a way that directly ties into the drive to restore American competitiveness. Mayors around the country have followed the lead of Chicago’s Richard Daly in seeing the revival of K-12 schools as fundamental to restoring America’s great cities as engines of new wealth creation, and not just gentrified havens for young professionals amongst crime-ridden slums. One of Obama’s successes as an organizer was to establish a job training program in the projects. But without a national commitment to human capital, we won’t reduce the underclass, assimilate immigrants, and provide the workforce that can outperform the hard-working offshore workforce clamoring for what were once American jobs.

    •INNOVATION: Obama’s popularity in Silicon Valley mirrors his embrace of venture capital investment in American jobs. The Japanese failed to shake off their decade-long slump because they remained tied to “pork barrel” public works stimulation of their economy. Harnessing private investment and entrepreneurship to rebuild America’s cities, older suburbs and essential infrastructure is essential not only to economic success, but to political success as well. We must find a way to redeploy the huge brainpower and speculative investment that has gone into financing consumer debt and exotic credit mechanisms into rebuilding America’s cities and productive economy.

    •NEW ORLEANS: Of all of George Bush’s public relations stunts and policy failures, none is crueler than his broken promise to rebuild that city. Nothing would be a more powerful counter-point to those wasted years than to use the New Orleans region as a model for a rebuilt, muscular economy that puts people back to work in high-wage, high-value jobs. Of course, the default choice is tourism, gambling, and decay. But great cities are not primarily sinkholes for consumption. They’re centers of enterprise, trade and the generation of wealth.

    This is simply a superficial survey of the shape of a fundamental reshaping of the American landscape and economy that could emerge from the wrenching changes ahead. “Change we can believe in” will need to look beyond Washington and its sound bite pre-occupations and stale wedge issues. It will need to harness local movements, as well as Mayors, Council members, Governors, and State Legislators to experiment with and implement a new model throughout our federalist system. Obama carries the unique advantage of having been a community organizer and a state legislator. He can be the model and the inspiration for a broad-based movement for change that is not solely reliant on Washington politics or policy.

    The first 100 and the first 1000 days of the new administration will be a time of harsh testing, for Washington, and for the country. We are too big and complex a nation for any administration to chart a single course for our gargantuan economy and our diverse geography.

    But a clear course that favors investment in capacity over spending on consumption, and a commitment to sustainability over business as usual could have a profound impact on the shape of American metropolitan regions and the communities they contain. That is “the change we need”.

    Read: The Change We Need: Will We Sustain The Current Economy, Or Create A Sustainable Economy? Part I

    Rick Cole is the City Manager in Ventura, California, where he has championed smart growth strategies and revitalization of the historic downtown. He previously spent six years as the City Manager of Azusa, where he was credited by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune with helping make it “the most improved city in the San Gabriel Valley.” He earlier served as mayor of Pasadena and has been called “one of Southern California’s most visionary planning thinkers by the LA Times.” He was honored by Governing Magazine as one of their “2006 Public Officials of the Year.”

  • The Change We Need: Will We Sustain The Current Economy, Or Create A Sustainable Economy? Part I

    The Change We Need will run in two parts. In Part I, Rick Cole lays out the kinds of changes we need, and why. Part II outlines his specific policy prescriptions.- The Editors

    Will this historic election alter the American physical landscape as well as the electoral one? Much will depend on whether the Obama Administration will focus on trying to revive the economy or move to reshape it.

    Bold leadership sounds great in the abstract, but embarking on profound changes in the economy is both politically risky and economically daunting. Government, especially the one the new president will inherit, is severely limited in its competence and capacity to reshape the American share of the global economy.

    The easier option is to minimize the “change we need,” and aim for a “kinder, gentler, greener and more regulated” version of the Enron economy bequeathed by President Bush. We may be facing the most profound economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office, but so far, instead of investing in a more sustainable economy, the Democrats seem to be focused on a “stimulus” response to boost spending.

    This is essentially the path followed over the past two decades without success by Japan’s ruling Liberal Democrats. In reaction to the Japanese real estate and financial meltdown in 1989, the party essentially opted to “bail-out” the status quo. The cost has been nearly twenty years of economic anemia and political gridlock.

    As Japan found, a broken economy can’t be successfully “stimulated.” A patchwork of single-issue nostrums (alternative energy, public works spending, health care reform) will not put Americans back to work and America back on track.

    Why not? Why isn’t it possible to revive the Clinton formula for a soaring stock market, nearly full employment and low interest rates? The answer, of course, is that neither the global economic crisis nor America’s vulnerability are sudden or surprising. The problems are deep-seated and structural, and both Clinton and Bush steered around them by postponing difficult, but necessary sacrifices.

    The Republicans, of course, are most immediately and egregiously culpable. Their foreign wars, their reckless deficit spending, their unconscionable tax cuts, their laissez faire dismantling of so much of the middle class safety net, their disastrous energy policies, and their injection of cheap money into a housing/consumer spending bubble are all proximate causes of the stunning decline of American economic prowess. But the long-term, Democratic failure to chart a different course leaves the next president unprepared to offer a comprehensive alternative that makes sense in the global economy in which we now find ourselves.

    The inescapable mathematics of our situation is that America runs on $2 billion a day of money borrowed from abroad. That long-running profligacy has made us into the world’s largest debtor nation by far. For the first time in our history, we are in a position where we cannot reflate our way back to prosperity.

    The retooling of America we face will require a president with an approach as bold and flexible as the New Deal, and a re-investment in real places , instead of the exotic and deracinated instruments that Warren Buffett has derided as “financial weapons of mass destruction.”

    The magnitude of the unfolding crisis offers glaring dangers and remarkable opportunities for embarking on a long-term rebuilding of our economy on a far more solid and sustainable foundation.

    One quickly forgotten episode in the campaign gives particular “hope” that Obama may ultimately choose the more difficult, but more promising, path. At a crucial juncture during his primary battle with Hillary Clinton, he bucked both her and John McCain and their blatant pander of a “gas tax holiday” to offset skyrocketing prices at the pump.

    “This is what passes for leadership in Washington,” he responded right before the important Indiana primary. “Phony ideas, calculated to win elections instead of actually solving problems.”

    He went on to acknowledge, “I wish I could stand up here and tell you that we could fix our energy problems with a holiday. I wish I could tell you that we can take a time-out from trade and bring back the jobs that have gone overseas. I wish I could promise that on day one of my presidency, I could pass every plan and proposal I’ve outlined in this campaign. But my guess is that you’ve heard those promises before. You hear them every year, in every election.”

    Such courageous “straight talk” must also acknowledge that we can’t work our way out of unprecedented levels of consumer and public debt by borrowing money. That way lies Argentina. President Obama is going to have to deliver big time on the somewhat hazy promise of rebuilding our economy with green jobs, but at a scale and scope that few have dared even suggest so far. He is going to have to do that in the face of almost irresistible political clamor to go the other direction: to somehow keep the casino economy going by cutting taxes, propping up banks, stimulating consumer spending, and keeping the American people on the job doing things that make our problems worse, from building freeways to financing more suburban subdivisions so we can continue to export a trillion dollars a year to oil exporting nations.

    Building a sustainable economy is such a huge, complicated, politically challenging endeavor, that it will take every bit of Obama’s personal charisma, and leadership abilities, and the backing of an unprecedented movement of support.

    Fortunately, however, there is a vast untapped source of innovative and promising ideas and practitioners working off the radar screen of the national political class in Washington and its small-minded media annex. They have laid out a framework for restoring American competitiveness that is based on investment rather than consumption – on sustainability rather than short-term fixes.

    Read: The Change We Need – Part II: Will We Sustain The Current Economy, Or Create A Sustainable Economy?

    Rick Cole is the City Manager in Ventura, California, where he has championed smart growth strategies and revitalization of the historic downtown. He previously spent six years as the City Manager of Azusa, where he was credited by the San Gabriel Valley Tribune with helping make it “the most improved city in the San Gabriel Valley.” He earlier served as mayor of Pasadena and has been called “one of Southern California’s most visionary planning thinkers by the LA Times.” He was honored by Governing Magazine as one of their “2006 Public Officials of the Year.”

  • Two-Timing Telecommute Taxes

    Telecommuting — or telework — is a critical tool that can help employees, businesses and communities weather the current financial crisis, and thrive afterward. However, right now, the nation is burdened with a powerful threat to the growth of telework: the telecommuter tax. This tax is a state penalty imposed on Americans who work for employers outside their home states and sometimes telecommute.

    Proposed bi-partisan federal legislation called the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would abolish the telecommuter tax. To help assure that the nation can take full advantage of the economic relief telework offers, Congress must pass this bill – either as stand-alone legislation or as part of a new economic stimulus package.

    Relief for Employees

    Working from home (or alternative sites close to home) can save struggling families money on gasoline, parking, train and bus fares, dry cleaning, business wardrobes and work-week meals. They can save on dependent care by providing some of the necessary care themselves during the time they previously spent commuting.

    Telework can also relieve the considerable strain on Americans nearing retirement who have unexpectedly lost their pensions and must now continue working. Working indefinitely may be a hardship for many older employees. Some may not be able, physically, to continue making a daily round-trip commute. Some may need to move closer to their adult children who live out-of-state, either to receive physical help from them, or to help them with child-care costs by baby-sitting. If Americans who have been robbed of their retirements can work from home at least some of the time, they can stay on the job without having to travel as often or live as close to their offices.

    Relief for Employers

    Employers (both public and private) can use telework to slash real estate and energy expenses. When fewer employees work on-site every day, employers need to rent, heat, cool and light less office space.

    Implementing telework can also reduce recruitment and turnover costs: Employers offering flexibility can attract top-tier candidates from a wide geographic area, and generate loyalty among valued employees.

    Telework can reduce business interruption costs when an emergency or other major disruption occurs near the main office. If, for example, a severe storm, fire, bomb threat or transit strike affects the employer’s area, a staff trained to work remotely can keep operations running smoothly.

    And organizations adopting telework can become more productive. Employees can replace commute time with work time; concentrate better because they are less exposed to the frequent interruptions typical in busy offices; reduce absenteeism by completing tasks at home instead of taking whole days off when they have to meet non-work responsibilities, like caring for sick children, and reduce “presenteeism”, the phenomenon of employees showing up at the office when they are too sick to be productive and are likely to compromise the health and productivity of co-workers.

    Relief for Communities

    Telework can bring new Internet-based jobs to rural areas with sagging economies. It can also bring new home buyers to such regions: Americans who want to maintain their high paced, big-city careers in a slower paced, more scenic environment. A significant growth in the population of home-based workers in these communities can also produce growth in businesses catering to their needs, such as home office supply stores and business service providers.

    The Telecommuter Penalty Tax

    Despite the important help telework can provide during and after the financial meltdown, states may punish nonresident teleworkers by subjecting them to a telecommuter tax. New York has been particularly aggressive on this front.

    Under the “convenience of the employer” rule, when a nonresident of New York and his New York employer agree that the employee may sometimes work from home, New York will tax him on his entire income, both the income he earns when he works in New York, and the income he earns when he works at home, in a different state. Because telecommuters’ home states can also tax the wages telecommuters earn at home, they are taxed twice on those wages.

    In some cases, a telecommuter’s home state may give him a credit for the taxes he pays New York on the income he earns at home. However, even in such cases, the employee may be penalized for telecommuting. When New York taxes income at a higher rate than the home state, the telecommuter must pay taxes on his home state income at the higher rate.

    By subjecting nonresident employees to double or excessive taxation if they telecommute, a state like New York needlessly limits the strategies available for coping with our ailing economy.

    Harm to Employers

    By deterring telework, the telecommuter tax frustrates businesses trying to decentralize their workers and prevents them from exploiting telework’s business benefits.

    In addition, the hefty payroll obligations the telecommuter tax imposes on businesses can force companies to relocate. Indeed, The New York Times reported this year on a small business that planned to leave New York because tackling the state’s claims under the convenience of the employer rule proved too draining. (See David S. Joachim, “Telecommuters Cry ‘Ouch’ to the Tax Gods,” The New York Times, Special Section on Small Business, Feb. 20, 2008.)

    Further, by thwarting the growth of telework, the telecommuter tax encourages traffic congestion, a menace to productivity. Excessive traffic can, for example, cause employees to arrive late for work and delay customer deliveries.

    Harm to States

    In addition to employees and employers, telecommuters’ states of residence also suffer under the telecommuter tax. Consider a Virginia resident who telecommutes most of the time to his New York employer. If Virginia grants the telecommuter a credit for taxes paid to New York on his home state income, Virginia forfeits its tax revenue to New York. In so doing, Virginia effectively subsidizes public services in New York (like transportation, police, fire and other emergency services) while it makes the same services available to its resident who is working in Virginia. States currently struggling with steep budgetary shortfalls cannot afford to cede their own revenue to other states. The employee who telecommutes, meanwhile, suffers under a reduced budget for home state spending.

    Even the state imposing the tax loses. In addition to driving business away, New York’s telework tax policy can drive part-time telecommuters away. Because the convenience of the employer rule applies only to nonresidents who spend time working in New York, nonresidents can avoid the rule by avoiding the state: They can increase their telecommuting from part-time to full-time, or take jobs in their home states. When nonresidents stop traveling to New York for work, New York gives up the opportunity to tax any of their wages, and New York restaurants, hotels and other businesses lose the income these teleworkers would have generated on their commuting days.

    The Remedy

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would eliminate these ills, prohibiting states like New York from taxing the income nonresidents earn at home in other states.

    The bill has bi-partisan support in both Houses of Congress, including the support of lawmakers from Connecticut, Maine, Mississippi and Virginia. Outside Congress, the measure has been endorsed by advocates for telecommuters, taxpayers, homeowners and small businesses.

    To help assure that the greatest number of employees and businesses can maximize telework’s economic benefits – during the current crisis and afterward – Congress should pass the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act. Whether as an addition to a new stimulus package or in a separate measure, Washington must see to it that telecommuter tax fairness becomes the law.

  • Appalachia and Energy

    When I think of the energy crisis, I cannot help but think of the poignant story of Martin Toler. A victim of the Sago Mine disaster, he was found sitting alongside his 12 fellow miners in darkness. Deep in the heart of the earth he wrote a note to his family as air and time was running out: “Tell all that I’ll see them on the other side,” read the note found lying beside his body. “It wasn’t bad. I just went to sleep. I love you.”

    Toler’s incredible courage to care for family first in the face of certain death reflects some of the Appalachian culture. Yet the region has struggled from the beginning of its settlement. It has almost always been poor. The world of small towns in Appalachia stands light years from the “flat” world of Friedman or the green certainties of elite urbanites.

    Not surprisingly, we find it hard to simply dismiss coal and other fossil fuels with such aplomb. Inez, Kentucky, the birthplace of LBJ’s War on Poverty in 1964, has struggled over the years with the boom and bust of the coal business. And, despite the news media insistence that it isn’t doing well, its unemployment rate is well below that of other more “successful” communities.

    We look at the revival of coal as a potential source of economic sustenance for our communities. This does not mean we have to abandon the environment or the strict safety standards that might have saved Martin Toler. But neither do people there want to abandon their towns and the ability to make a good living for their families.

    Marvin Toler and his fellow miners lived through the boom and bust of the energy cycles. They lived through bitter debates over mine safety, unscrupulous and/or absentee owners, black lung, mine disasters brought on by lax standards, slurry spills and mountaintop removal. Yet mining has also provided a good living for people and a way to keep the towns we love alive.

    Our hope is that energy could revive our communities. Perhaps we can rewrite the story of coal through standards that make mining safer and technology that can make it cleaner. Our greatest hope is that, with American ingenuity and Appalachian persistence, we can think up new and alternative sources of energy right in the heart of the Appalachian Mountains.

    Marvin Toler didn’t have to go far to convince me of the strong stock and strength of him and his forebears. As the American dream undergoes renovation, I need go no further than Toler’s last words, scribbled in darkness but full of hope, strength, resilience and love – all qualities that remain true even in our bewildering world. His words transcend the YouTube culture and go to the heart of the matter. Perhaps that mountain fortitude of his is the perfect quality for starting a new energy revolution.

    Appalachia will always be about the rugged sorts who settled there. Those who worked the mines and tilled the soil did not ask for much. They worked hard and didn’t count the cost or avoid taking risks. Coal could be part of that future, but the spirit of this place could also extend to other tasks that need smart, tough and risk-taking folks. We don’t need to become more dependent on the coal mines, but we think they can be part of creating a new wave of opportunity for our communities – if we can find the will.

    Sylvia L. Lovely is the Executive Director/CEO of the Kentucky League of Cities and president of the NewCities Institute. She currently serves as chair of the Morehead State University Board of Regents.

  • Regulating People or Regulating Greenhouse Gases?

    It seems very likely that a national greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction standard will be established by legislation in the next year. Interest groups are lining up with various proposals, some fairly benign and others potentially devastating.

    One of the most frequently mentioned strategies – mandatory vehicle miles reductions – is also among the most destructive. It is predictably supported by the same interests that have pushed the anti-automobile (and anti-suburban) agenda for years, often under the moniker of “smart growth.”

    Regrettably, these interests have never understood the economic importance of rapid travel – mobility – throughout the nation’s urban areas. Indeed, one of the factors that makes American metropolitan areas so competitive is that, judging by work trips, travel times are the best in the world for their population. The secret to that success is the ubiquitous mobility of the automobile, which allows people to travel from virtually any point to any other in an urban area in a relatively short period of time. It also helps that automobile travel has become so inexpensive that it is available to more than 90 percent of the nation’s households. Restrictions on driving would change that.

    At this point, it is unclear exactly how any attempt to restrict driving might be implemented. It is clear, however, that the consequences will weigh most heavily on the nation’s lower-income, disproportionately-minority households. Any price mechanism would put limits first on the low income households who cannot afford the higher prices. At the same time, attempts to reduce the demand for automobile use by forcing more new development into existing urban footprints (urban areas) would make traffic congestion more severe, increase travel times and intensify air pollution. This approach would fall more harshly on low income households simply because housing prices (and rents) would rise disproportionately in urban areas as the option of opening new suburban developments on inexpensive land is removed or severely restricted.

    Mobility is crucial to the economic viability of urban areas and to their citizens, rich and poor. It does no good to claim that alternative transit services will be provided, because they generally cannot compete. According to data from the 2007 American Community Survey, the average transit work trip takes twice as long as the average single-occupant automobile work trip. This means that the average commuter would spend at least an additional eight hours traveling to and from work in a week.

    For low income households, this could mean the difference between employment and unemployment. How will a low-income single parent, for example, drop children off at day care centers and continue to work by transit? It might be considered a fortunate case if this could be accomplished in triple the time of the automobile commute.

    These dynamics were further demonstrated when University of California Berkeley researchers concluded that African-American unemployment could be substantially reduced if cars were available to non-car households. Brookings researchers put it more directly: “Given the strong connection between cars and employment outcomes, auto ownership programs may be one of the more promising options.” Or, as a Progressive Policy Institute report suggested, “In most cases, the shortest distance between a poor person and a job is along a line driven in a car.”

    There is good reason to believe that technological solutions will make it possible for us – including low income households – to continue to live our lives as we do now while substantially reducing GHG emissions. People are already driving less and shifting to more fuel-efficient cars. Volkswagen plans to market 1,000 prototype 235 mile per gallon cars in 2010. They are only two-seaters but could be used for a large share of travel. If, in 2030, one-quarter of US car travel was by such cars, the average fuel economy would be about 75 miles per gallon and concern about cars as a source of GHG emissions would be a thing of the past. And this does not even consider the alternative fuel advances – electric cars, natural gas, hydrogen – that are on the horizon.

    There is a broader problem with the idea of restricting driving. This strategy is less about the environment and more about regulating people’s behavior. It is not people that require regulation, it is GHG emissions. There is a subtle but important difference.

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris and the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

  • Recalibrating Destination Marketing

    In the dark days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., when traveler anxiety hit previously unknown levels, there developed among tourism marketers a new emphasis on targeting what was then called the “drive” market. During a time when formerly fearless flyers were concerned that airport delays could add hours to their trip or that there might be another attack on the nation’s air passenger system, a new sort of traveler’s calculus evolved: Would it be quicker to make a trip of 500 miles or less by simply driving to the destination rather than allowing the extra two to three hours for airport security that the airlines and the FAA recommended?

    Today, with the unpleasantness of air travel at what’s perceived to be an all-time high, many of the post-9/11 circumstances seem to be upon us once again. Now, though, with gasoline prices also setting historic highs, it is no longer advisable to refer to something called the “drive” market. Instead, the term of the moment in the travel and tourism industry is the “in-state” market, the idea that people are less likely to travel by air and would prefer vacationing closer to home, giving us this past summer’s buzziest buzz word in travel, the “staycation.” For harried destination marketing professionals, anxious to keep the hotel rooms in their cities occupied, giving some thought as to whether this trend is one that will pass quickly or not is certainly worthwhile. Here are some things to consider:

    • A recent poll commissioned by the Travel Industry Association (TIA) indicated that 41 million airline trips were avoided during the past year by passengers not because the fares were too high, but because air travel has become too inconvenient. The TIA estimated that the trips that were avoided represent a $26 billion loss in consumer spending, including $4.21 billion in federal, state and local taxes that would have been collected. Most observers agree that the airlines’ current proclivity toward nickel and diming passengers with nuisance fees to compensate for higher jet fuel prices is unlikely to make passengers more inclined to fly to their destinations.
    • At the annual meeting of Destination Marketing Association International in late July, several sessions touched on the necessity of destinations to work with local attractions not typically considered tourist attractions—such as farmers’ markets, central business districts and seasonal and cultural festivals—in a way that will prompt locals to spend what would normally be their travel budgets in their own hometowns. Interestingly, the most recent TIA/Ypartnership TravelHorizons survey indicated that among travelers expecting to take vacations in or near their hometowns, 22 percent planned to stay in a hotel, motel or resort.
    • These developments fit with what urban policy expert Joel Kotkin calls the “new localism,” the trend toward people becoming less geographically mobile than at any time since the advent of commercial aviation. According to Kotkin, high energy prices and an increased concern regarding environmental impact are causing more people to seek recreational and cultural experiences that are closer to home. And Kotkin, who’s writing a book on the subject, believes this is a long-term trend that will continue to grow between now and the year 2050.

    While no one is predicting the immediate demise of long-haul domestic or international air travel, it does make sense for destination marketing professionals to consider recalibrating their marketing efforts with these new realities in mind. As always, the best advice is to maintain an approach that balances a destination’s marketing efforts between the most sought-after visitors and the visitors that the destination is most likely to attract.

    This is an approach that assures a destination that even if the city-wide conventions they covet do not materialize, hotel rooms and convention centers can still be filled with the multitude of meetings and events organized by groups that are local, state and regional in scope. For the majority of cities that can only dream of hosting a once-in-a-lifetime Super Bowl or the Olympic Games, there are countless youth and amateur sporting events that generate millions of hotel room nights year in and year out. Setting a course that is mindful of the healthy volume of business available in a destination’s own backyard is the natural hedge against the larger phenomena that seem to be developing and over which the typical destination marketing executive has very little control.

    Timothy Schneider is the president & CEO of Schneider Publishing, the Los Angeles-based company that publishes Association News and SportsTravel magazines and organizes the world’s largest conference for the sports-event industry called TEAMS: Travel, Events And Management in Sports. TEAMS 2008 will be held October 21-25 in Pittsburgh. The group travel markets served by Schneider Publishing generate 106 million hotel room nights annually. For additional information, please visit www.SchneiderPublishing.com or call toll-free (877) 577-3700.