New Geography

Tag: Financial Crisis

  • Beyond the Stimulus: Time to Get Real

    In remarks on Friday following a meeting with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Sheila Bair, Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, President Obama pointed to some “glimmers of hope” in the economy, and indeed a few green shoots – rising mortgage refinancings and a slight uptick in durable goods orders – have appeared in recent weeks.

    But the economy is still in trouble. Don’t bet what remains of your 401K on the White House’s optimistic growth forecasts of the economy rebounding to 3.2 percent to 2010 and then improving to more than 4 percent on average for the next three years. Given the damage the housing and credit bubbles have done to the economy and the inadequacies of the administration’s economic recovery program, these growth assumptions are unrealistic. If anything, we will eventually need another better directed stimulus package before we see the kind of sustained economic growth the White House is predicting for the years beyond 2010.

    With its growth forecasts, the President’s economic team is betting on a sustainable V-shaped recovery typical of a normal business-cycle downturn. But as his team knows, this was not a normal business-cycle recession. For one thing, consumer spending is unlikely to return to its bubble-year levels given high household debt levels, slumping home prices, and constraints on credit expansion. In addition, unemployment is not expected to peak well in double digits until later in 2010, and thus it will put downward pressure on wages and incomes for some time to come. There are also serious impediments to increased business investment, not least of which is the fact that businesses have little incentive to invest given weak demand and excess capacity in many sectors.

    To be sure, Obama’s economic recovery program will help soften the economy’s fall as households and the financial system deleverage and rebuild their balance sheets. But it fails tragically to put the economy on a new more sustainable growth path. First, the $787 economic recovery program passed by Congress in February is too unfocused, too scattered over many areas, and too concerned with social spending to create a big new source of economic growth given likely lower levels of consumption in the future.
    The administration’s much-hyped green investment agenda comes to about $17 billion a year, far short of what is needed to create a new driver of investment and job creation.

    Indeed, on balance, the White House’s green energy agenda could actually become a drag on any economic recovery. The administration’s proposals for doubling the contribution of renewable energy by 2012 will make at best a modest contribution to energy supply. (Together, wind and solar sources produce only 1.1 percent of America’s electricity consumption and a far smaller percentage of all energy use.)

    Meanwhile, the cut-back in the domestic exploration of oil and gas, caused by falling prices and by Obama’s withdrawal of incentives for exploration, seems likely to reduce the domestic supply of energy by as much or even more. This a prescription for a new spike in energy prices that could snuff out any recovery just as it gets going. In the short term the administration’s green investment agenda may actually cost the economy jobs in the energy sector and lead to higher imports of foreign oil.

    Second, the economic recovery program is too concerned with short-term consumption as opposed to long-term investments in our public infrastructure that can create jobs and improve U.S. productivity. The White House estimates that the economic recovery program will create or save at most 3.5 million jobs over two years. Private forecasters are less optimistic and put the number at less than three million. But given the scale of job losses (now running at more than 600,000 per month) created by this recession, the economy will need to create 9 million more jobs to return the economy to something approaching full employment. Wages therefore are not likely to show any significant improvement any time soon, thereby eliminating the possibility of wage and income-led growth in the short-term. At the same time, weak private and public investment will undercut future gains in productivity, eroding the foundation for long-term income gains.

    Third, a sustainable economic recovery depends upon a strengthened tradable goods sector and a sustainable improvement in our trade balance. In order to work our way out of the debt accumulated during this crisis and, at the same time, improve American living standards, we will need to export more and import less. But the Obama economic recovery program will at best provide only a modest boost to America’s manufacturing sector. The most important help will come from the increased infrastructure spending included in the economic recovery program and the 2010 budget. Good basic infrastructure is critical to the success of American-based manufacturing companies, and the program will create some improvements in this area and relieve some bottlenecks that are now preventing increased investment.

    There are, however, other aspects of the Obama program that are much less favorable to the strengthening of manufacturing. As suggested earlier, the Obama green energy strategy will raise the cost of energy to American producers, and thus create new disincentives to business investment. In recent days, the White House has backed away from the president’s ambitious proposals for cap-and-trade, but some Congressional members of the President’s party are determined to push forward with this misguided policy.

    An improved trade balance also depends upon stronger global demand, critical if the exports are to increase in the months ahead. The president understands the importance of rebalancing the global economy with the large current account surplus economies consuming more and saving less. But even though the president received high marks for his recent European trip, he gave up more than he received in this area. Large current-account economies like China and Germany need to increase their fiscal stimulus to encourage more consumption. But in face of resistance from Germany and France, the administration quietly dropped its call for G-20 countries to commit to a modest 2 percent of GDP target for fiscal expansion. At the same time, the administration pledged to resist Buy America provisions and other measures that would ensure that the US stimulus does not leak out of the economy and help economies free-riding off world demand. As a result, once again the U.S. economy will bear a disproportionate burden in pulling the world economy out of a deep recession.

    The basic point here: The administration’s program is not properly structured to create a bridge to a new healthy pattern of economic growth. It is too reliant on the Federal Reserve and its program of quantative easing. At best, this will create a pale version of the debt-financed consumption-led economic growth that we experienced over the last five years – with a new bubble forming in commodities and energy that will act as a drag on a sustained economic recovery. The economy may experience a short recovery that will peter out into a prolonged slow-growth recession with high unemployment as stimulus dries up and energy prices begin to rise

    So how do we avoid this prospect? We need a second economic recovery program, one that focuses on the economic basics of encouraging real investment and demand creation. This economic recovery program would be more strategically focused on creating jobs with more emphasis on investment in America’s tradable goods sector. It would include the following features:

    • A temporary payroll tax cut to help restore the purchasing power of working families and to reduce the cost to employers of retaining or hiring new workers.
    • A greatly expanded long-term public infrastructure investment program that would commit the country to spend 1 percent of GDP beyond current spending to build the infrastructure needed for the 21st century
    • A crash oil and gas exploration energy program, combined with a program to convert part of our transportation fleet to natural gas by 2012, to complement Obama’s renewable energy initiative.
    • A cut in the corporate income tax to draw capital back to the United States and help spur onshoring of investment and jobs.
    • A jobs training program that would provide paid apprenticeships in fields and industries reporting shortages before the economic recession.

    This economic recovery plan should be accompanied by a new global diplomatic initiative that would push for new rules of trade and investment that would force chronic current account surplus economies to expand domestic demand and increase support for international development. If successful, such a global rebalancing plan would increase demand for U.S. good and services. This together with the domestic measures above would enable us to reduce America’s trade deficit and to stimulate private investment and job creation in our tradable goods sector.

    This program would represent a real sustainable economic stimulus for the country because it would create a new pattern of economic growth – one that no longer relies on debt-financed consumption but focuses instead on raising real wages and incomes through investment and job creation in America’s productive economy.

    Sherle Schwenninger directs the New America Foundation’s Economic Growth Program and the Global Middle Class Initiative. He is also the former director of the Bernard L. Schwartz Fellows Program.

  • Where are the Best Cities for Job Growth?

    Over the past five years, Michael Shires, associate professor in public policy at Pepperdine University, and I have been compiling a list of the best places to do business. The list, based on job growth in regions across the U.S. over the long, middle and short term, has changed over the years–but the employment landscape has never looked like this.

    In past iterations, we saw many fast-growing economies–some adding jobs at annual rates of 3% to 5%. Meanwhile, some grew more slowly, and others actually lost jobs. This year, however, you can barely find a fast-growing economy anywhere in this vast, diverse country. In 2008, 2% growth made a city a veritable boom town, and anything approaching 1% growth is, oddly, better than merely respectable.

    So this year perhaps we should call the rankings not the “best” places for jobs, but the “least worst.” But the least worst economies in America today largely mirror those that topped the list last year, even if these regions have recently experienced less growth than in prior years. Our No.1-ranked big city, Austin, for example, enjoyed growth of 1% in 2008–less than a third of its average since 2003.

    The study is based on job growth in 333 regions–called Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provided the data–across the U.S. Our analysis looked not only at job growth in the last year but also at how employment figures have changed since 1996. This is because we are wary of overemphasizing recent data and strive to give a more complete picture of the potential a region has for job-seekers. (For the complete methodology, click here.)

    The top of the complete ranking–which, for ease, we have broken down into the two smaller lists, of the best big and small cities for jobs–is dominated by one state: Texas. The Lone Star State may have lost a powerful advocate in Washington, but it’s home to a remarkable eight of the top 20 cities on our list–including No. 1-ranked Odessa, a small city in the state’s northwestern region. Further, the top five large metropolitan areas for job growth–Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Ft. Worth and Dallas–are all in Texas’ “urban triangle.”

    The reasons for the state’s relative success are varied. A healthy energy industry is certainly one cause. Many Texas high-fliers, including Odessa, Longview, Dallas and Houston, are home to energy companies that employ hordes of people–and usually at fairly high salaries for both blue- and white-collar workers. In some places, these spurts represent a huge reversal from the late 1990s. Take Odessa’s remarkable 5.5% job growth in 2008, which followed a period of growth well under 1% from 1998 to 2002.

    Of course, not all the nation’s energy jobs are located in Texas, even if the state does play host to most of our major oil companies. The surge in energy prices in 2007 also boosted the performance of several other top-ranked locales such as Grand Junction, Colo., Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodoux, La., Tulsa, Okla., Lafayette, La., and Bismarck, N.D.

    Looking at the energy sector’s hotbeds, however, doesn’t tell the whole story. Another major factor behind a city’s job offerings is how severely it experienced the housing crisis. There’s a “zone of sanity” across the middle of the country, including Kansas City, Mo., that largely avoided the real estate bubble and the subsequent foreclosure crisis.

    Still other factors correlating with job growth–as evidenced by Shires‘ and my current and past studies–are lower costs and taxes. For example, the area around Kennewick, Wash., is far less expensive than coastal communities in that same state, and residents and businesses there also enjoy cheap hydroelectric power. Compared with high-tech centers in California and the Northeast, such as San José and Boston, places like Austin offer both tax and housing-cost bargains, as do Fargo, N.D. and Durham-Chapel Hill, N.C.

    College towns also did well on our list, particularly those in states that are both less expensive and outside the Great Lakes. Although universities–and their endowments–are feeling the recession’s pinch, they continue to attract students. In fact, colleges saw a bumper crop of applicants this year, as members of the huge millennial generation, encompassing those born after 1983, reach that stage of life. More recently, college towns have emerged as incubators for new companies and as attractive places for retirees.

    Specifically, the college town winners include not only well-known places like Austin and Chapel Hill, but also less-hyped places like Athens, Ga., home of the University of Georgia; College Station, Texas, where 48,000-student Texas A&M University is located; Morgantown, W.Va., site of the University of West Virginia; and Fargo, the hub of North Dakota State University.

    Democratic states are glaringly absent from the top of the list. You don’t get to a traditionally blue state–in a departure from past years, Obama won North Carolina–until you get to Olympia, Wash., and Seattle, which ranked No. 6 among the large cities.

    But political changes afoot could affect the trajectory of many of our fast-growing communities–and not always in positive ways. It’s possible that the Obama administration’s new energy policies, which may discourage domestic fossil fuel production,could put a considerable damper on the still-robust parts of Texas and elsewhere where coal, oil and natural gas industries are still cornerstones of economic success.

    By contrast, the wind- and solar-power industries seem to be, as of now, relatively small job generators, and with energy prices low, endeavors in these areas are sustainable only with massive subsidies from Washington. But still, if these sectors grow in size and profitability, other locales that have not typically been seen as energy hubs over the past few decades may benefit–notably parts of California, although Texas and the Great Plains also seem positioned to profit from these developments.

    Another critical concern for some communities is the potential for major cutbacks on big-ticket defense spending. This would be of particular interest to communities in places like Texas, Oklahoma and Georgia where new aircraft are currently assembled. Over the years, blue states like California have seen their defense industry shrivel as the once-potent Texas Congressional delegation and the two Bushes tilted toward Lone Star State contractors.

    These days it’s big-city mayors and big blue-state governors who are looking for financial support from Obama. Northeast boosters are convinced more money on mass transit, inter-city rail lines and scientific research will rev up their economies. Boston–No. 16 on the list of large cities and a leading medical and scientific research center–could be a beneficiary of the new federal spending.

    The most obvious winner from the recent power shift should be Washington, D.C. The Obama-led stimulus, including the massive Treasury bailout, has transformed the town from merely the political capital into the de facto center of regular capital as well. Watch for D.C. and its environs to move up our list over the next year or two. Already the area boasts one of the few strong apartment markets among the big metropolitan areas in the country, which will only improve as job-seekers flock to the new Rome.

    Yet Washington is an anomaly, because most of the places that stand to benefit from this unforgiving economy are ones that are affordable and therefore friendly to business, reinforcing a key trend of the last decade. It also helps regions to have ties to core industries like energy and agriculture, a sector that has remained relatively strong and will strengthen again when global demand for food increases.

    Some areas have attracted new residents readily and continue to do so, albeit at a somewhat slower pace. Over time this migration could be good news for a handful of metropolitan areas like Salt Lake City, which ranks seventh among the big cities for job growth, and Raleigh-Cary, N.C., which was No. 1 among large cities last year and No. 8 this year. Over the last few years, these places have consistently appeared at the top of our rankings and are emerging as preferred sites for cutting-edge technology and manufacturing firms.

    Below these winners are a cluster of other promising places that have already managed to withstand the current downturn in decent shape and seem certain to rebound along with the overall economy. These include the largely suburban area around Kansas City, Kan., perennial high-flyer Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and Greeley, Colo.–in part due to their ability to attract workers and businesses from bigger metropolitan centers nearby–as well as Huntsville, Ala., which has a strong concentration of workers in the government and high-tech sectors.

    In the end, most of the cities at the top of the lists–whether they are small, medium or large–have shown they have what it takes to survive in tough times. Less-stressed local governments will be able to construct needed infrastructure and attract new investors so that job growth can rise to the levels of past years. If better days are in the offing, these areas seem best positioned to be the next drivers of the economic expansion this nation sorely needs.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    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.

  • Millennials’ First Recession

    Each generation has been affected differently by the deepening global recession. Baby boomers have witnessed their retirement savings evaporate into oblivion. Generation X families who finally saved enough for a down payment on their first house find themselves deep underwater without SCUBA gear. And earnest Millennials fresh out of college are wondering where all those high-paying jobs promised by duplicitous corporate recruiters went.

    No doubt the economic collapse is most palpable for the Boomer generation. Closing in on retirement, many are now holding off on purchasing that winter home in Florida. Moreover, many Boomers have no other choice but to delay retirement (provided they have managed to keep a job) in order to maintain current lifestyles.

    Ironically, this may not be too much of a stretch for the ‘forever young’ generation who has come to define themselves by their occupations. Yet this does pose a problem from those who are actually young and currently entering the workforce.

    Over the past few months I have witnessed many of my 20-something peers lose their jobs – not to mention me as well. This contradicts the popular, yet flawed notion that ‘technologically savvy’ Millennials are rendering older workers obsolete. It is clear now that upper management at corporations across the country have opted for a more conservative approach to hunkering down. This includes letting go of those with less experience (low on the company ladder) and closing the door completely to new hires out of college.

    Justin Pope of the Associated Press has confirmed that college graduates face the worst job market in years. As is indicated in Pope’s article, employers plan to hire 22% fewer graduates this spring – an alarming statistic reported from a survey conducted by the National Association of Colleges and Employers.

    Perhaps one of the more unnerving new realities spawned by the recession is what appears to be the diminishing returns to education. Even those graduating with J.D. or M.B.A. degrees find themselves in panic mode. Traditionally, these prestigious degrees meant relatively high salaries right out of grad school. Yet with law firms laying off in droves and corporations slashing entry-level positions, not only do graduates with fresh Master’s degrees find themselves without any job prospects, many are stuck with exorbitantly high student loan bills.

    So what are Millennials doing to ride out the storm? Those who do have jobs are hanging on for dear life. Some are applying to graduate school with the hopes that the economic climate will be better by the time they graduate. Others, like 26 year-old Michael Kaainoni have opted to move back home.

    After graduating from Columbia University with a Masters in Architecture degree last year, Michael landed a job at a large international architecture firm in Manhattan. Only months later, he found himself caught in a wave of corporate downsizing. Rather than scrape by and continue to pay ridiculous New York City rents, Michael opted to move back to his hometown of Kailua, Hawaii. Now living back in Hawaii, he works for a local architecture office that gets steady commissions from the government.

    Michael’s story is not uncommon for young people these days. The Millennial generation does not share the same horror about moving back home as the rabidly ‘independent’ Boomers or Gen Xers. Rather than seeing a retreat back to the nest as taboo, many Millennials will tell you that this is just smart financial planning.

    In many ways the Millennials may be following not the boomers but the experience of immigrants. For decades strong family networks have allowed immigrants to the U.S. to become ‘upwardly mobile’ despite all sorts of disadvantages from lack of English fluency to discrimination. Now that this secret is out into the mainstream consciousness, the ‘going it alone’ mentality is rapidly disappearing. Familial and community support networks are making a strong comeback out of financial necessity – and probably for the better.

    Writer Tamara Draut focuses on the financial plight facing young people today in the book “Strapped: Why America’s 20- and 30-Somethings Can’t Get Ahead”. In her book, Draut explains why young people in the workforce might seem too eager to get ahead:

    “If today’s young adults can be accused of wanting it all too soon, the ‘it’ isn’t riches, gadgets, or luxury cars. The elusive ‘it’ that today’s twenty-somethings are after is financial independence, and then hopefully, financial security.”

    Derided as the ‘everyone gets a medal’ generation by cultural commentators who believe that young people today have a bloated sense of self-esteem, most Millennials just want to live secure, modest lifestyles. This observation goes against everything that civic boosters and urban real estate speculators have hoped for during the recent boom years.

    With the notion that lifestyle trumps employment, urban planners have been deluded into thinking that by turning cities into expensive playgrounds, they will attract the best and the brightest young workers. This was an idea touted by urban theorist Richard Florida in his highly influential book “The Rise of the Creative Class”. Florida claims that, according to his focus groups, young creative people do not want to live in places that “do not afford a variety of ‘scenes’”.

    The idea that young people can choose their city at will based on lifestyle preference does not make much sense given the current economic circumstances. Job opportunity and affordability, not to mention family ties, are more likely to dictate where young people end up settling now and in the immediate future.

    Furthermore, many of the ‘lifestyle amenities’ – such as cool coffee shops, farmer’s markets, and culturally diverse restaurants – desired by these young creatives can now be found in more affordable environments outside of the traditional urban core.

    By the time this recession is over, Millennials may have passed their ‘city phase’. This spells bad news for places that have banked on spurring a renaissance driven by young people who often like urban settings but can no longer afford the luxury. Neighborhoods like San Francisco’s SoMa or downtown Los Angeles could be the losers. Cities completely missed the boat by allowing greedy real estate developers to build expensive condos for a largely ephemeral surge of Boomer empty nesters while ignoring basic issues like quality of life, safety and affordability.

    Millennials will bounce back. As the youngest generation in the workforce, they will be defined by the experience of the current economic slump and take its lessons with them throughout their lives. Instead of greed and selfishness, which is likely to define the Boomer legacy, Millennials will more likely resemble that of their grandparents’ generation – one where family and frugality is valued over individuality and self-interest.

    Adam Nathaniel Mayer is a native of the San Francisco Bay Area. Raised in the town of Los Gatos, on the edge of Silicon Valley, Adam developed a keen interest in the importance of place within the framework of a highly globalized economy. He currently lives in San Francisco where he works in the architecture profession.

  • Mortgage-Backed Securities: 1/3 not backed!

    On April 3, 2009, R. Glen Ayers spoke at the American Bankruptcy Institute in Washington, D.C. Mr. Ayers is a former bankruptcy judge, now with the law firm Langley & Banack in San Antonio, Texas. He spoke on a subject I covered here on March 4 – not all mortgage backed securities are actually backed by mortgages. The rush to write more mortgages and to issue more bonds meant that mistakes were made in the paperwork.

    The Ayers speech is connected to an article he wrote with Judge Samuel L. Bufford, who had the California case I mentioned last month where the mortgage note disappeared after being transferred to Freddie Mac. In the article, “Where’s the Note, Who’s the Holder”, they drop this bombshell: “A lawyer sophisticated in this area has speculated to one of the authors that perhaps a third of the notes ‘securitized’ have been lost or destroyed.” Meaning that 1/3 of the mortgage-backed securities are not backed by mortgages!

    This is the junk that Treasury Secretary Geithner wants to finance the hedge funds to purchase. As of the end of 2008, there was $6,838.7 billion worth of government-backed mortgage bonds outstanding. An additional $178 billion were issued in the first two months of 2009.

    Scary stuff. No wonder the hedge funds are giving Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Partnership “two thumbs-down.”

  • Can Sacred Space Revive the American City?

    By Richard Reep

    During most business downturns, nimble private business owners search for countercyclical industries to which they adapt. During this business downturn, the construction industry finds itself frantically looking for anything countercyclical. Private construction, almost completely driven by the credit market, has stopped, and public construction, driven by tax revenue, has also stalled. Religious institutions, however, seem to be continuing incremental growth and building programs, giving evidence to some people’s answers to spiritual questions being asked today.

    Christian congregations surged in the 1990s, building megachurches in mostly suburban neighborhoods throughout the country. In some cities, mostly in the South, the urban megachurch also became common. Fundraising for these followed patterns that made lending a fairly straightforward risk; many were financed by a combination of patron contributions and lending from local or regional banks. By the early part of this decade, the growth of megachurches was a well-established pattern, and had become a sophisticated niche within the booming development and construction industry, as reported by Forbes Magazine in 2003.

    Churches seem to remain one of the few work sectors for construction firms, architects and planners. This comes at a time when there appears to be very little new development, either private or public in Central Florida. Even small private projects that were funded by cash or private equity have been postponed or cancelled, as the money sits on the sidelines. Yet Christian churches continue to expand, forcing them to accommodate the needs of their worshippers.

    Unlike in the past decade, much of this expansion is taking place in smaller congregations, and is funded mostly by donations, pledges, and bequests. “Our church task force is looking at creative ways to raise money for facility expansion,” commented Scott Fetterhoff, President of Salem Lutheran Church. “We have to have faith however that our congregation, and those looking for spiritual growth in a society with eroding values, will support worthwhile causes.”

    Fetterhoff also displays a very worldly sense of pragmatism. ”Our expansion and outreach program will simply adjust to fit the available budget,” he adds. “On the bright side with a construction industry looking for work, that might allow us to do more for less.”

    This is one example of several recent interviews with local church leaders who are considering a construction project, and all are echoing similar themes. Salem’s expansion includes new classroom space which seems part of a growing interest to provide flexible multi-purpose space for church-based education and community use – largely in lieu of public education. No one in Florida can ignore the continuous stream of news reports of its legislature’s continued reduction of funds for Florida’s public education system, and many in Florida are trying to find alternatives for their children.

    Salem’s decision to expand is emblematic of other stories in the region. This incremental growth may signal a consolidation of sacred space into people’s lives, as we cope with the changes in our secular, consumer-driven culture. Salem Lutheran, and others like it, use the general uncertainty of our economic times to re-focus on faith based relationships. This is a true grass-roots trend.

    On a larger scale, the evangelical movement continues to encourage church construction on a more global, top-led basis, in what is termed “church planting” by its leadership. The surge of interest in nontraditional forms of churches in the Western Hemisphere is well-documented and remarkable, as this Christian movement is supplanting traditional denominations, particularly Catholicism. Religion remains formidable in America, but much of it reflects more of a shift from one form of Christianity to another.

    One organization, Capernaum Ministries, is developing a retreat for Christian pastors and ministers to provide leadership training to church leaders. Its founder, Jim Way, sees his mission as creating “a laboratory for building effective relationships between leaders of various denominations and independent ministries.” Way, a minister and founder of Capernaum Ministries, has affiliations with over 3,000 churches. “I see this as an opportunity to study, and solve, the problem of how the decline of the denominational church influence is affecting American culture”.

    As cities have grown in the past several decades, the well-documented lack of sacred space has been notable as governments meticulously avoid any tangible form of religious expression, and mainstream religions find themselves in retreat. While public space in American cities has always been constitutionally secular, sacred space usually evolved with the development of cities, towns and neighborhoods.

    Sadly, this has been missing from private development for some time. Church growth in the suburbs usually occurs after the fact, not as part of a planned community, for developers are loathe to forfeit profits on a choice parcel of land.

    Church building has historically been a narrow niche market avoided by most design and construction professionals who have preferred more lucrative building types, like hotels or hospitals. If one believes in the organic model of city growth and development, this has been a serious deficiency.

    But now, amidst lower costs for construction and more need for their services, some congregations seem to be taking stock, making plans, and acting. Salem Lutheran, like many, has members who come from the design and construction industries. These congregants know how to efficiently deliver a building, and are offering these skills to their congregations, while their regular businesses sit idle.

    Whether global or grass-roots, the development of sacred space will need to overcome the substantial obstacle of financing, difficult in the best of times, using new means and methods. Nontraditional means including volunteer labor, outright donations, in-kind donations, and bartering will bring costs down to more affordable levels. As projects are realized, alternative practices to achieve affordability could result in interesting innovations.

    If the current economic crisis begs some larger spiritual questions in people, then there may be a countercyclical trend towards investment in sacred space. Faced with lowered expectations and a lost sense of prosperity, people naturally long for some aspect of their lives that transcends the material. Church building, however incremental and small, demonstrates that sacred space is important to enough people to do something about it. Their actions speak loudly in these uncertain economic times.

    Richard Reep is an Architect and artist living in Winter Park, Florida. His practice has centered around hospitality-driven mixed use, and has contributed in various capacities to urban mixed-use projects, both nationally and internationally, for the last 25 years.

  • Catching on to Buffett

    More of the so-called “mainstream press,” like the Sacramento Bee, are catching up to what we wrote here about Warren Buffett back on March 16. He supported the bailout because his investments benefited from the handouts.

    It seems obvious that Washington takes policy advice from Buffett because he has lots of money. Newsweek reporter Mark Hirsch uncovered evidence, in fact, that Buffett may have been the one that came up with the original proposal for Treasury to buy the junk bonds off the banks’ balance sheets. Given the direction that Berkshire Hathaway’s own credit rating is going, Buffett may have even more reason to support this plan – his companies will be able to invest in the junk at discounted prices after they sell the junk to the government’s partnership funds at inflated prices!

    Some of the comments at Newsweek.com believe that the article is unfair to Buffett – after all, what company doesn’t support policies that will benefit them? But to the tune of $11.6 trillion, which is what the U.S. government has committed to this bailout? We bet even Karl Marx would find that excessive. We agree with the title of a book by William Black, an economist whose work we referred to in our own research on the Savings & Loan crisis – “The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.” Professor Black discussed the financial crisis with Bill Moyers on April 3, 2009.

    Berkshire Hathaway has significant ownership stakes in more than one bank. This brings us to an article at the Mises Institute, the libertarian think-tank. The article contains a link to an article from 1948 written by Warren’s dad when he was the U.S. Congressman from Nebraska – “Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money.” The younger Buffett has a preference for the freshly printed stuff that Treasury is doling out.

  • The Rogue Treasury

    The U.S. Treasury took enormous powers for itself last fall by telling Congress they would use it to “ensure the economic well-being of Americans.” Six months after passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 Americans are worse off. Since it was signed into law on October 3, 2008, here are the changes in a few measures of our economic well-being:

     

    Before TARP

    So Far

    National Unemployment

    7%

    8%

        Lowest state unemployment

    3.3% (WY)

    3.9% (WY)

        Highest state unemployment

    9.3% (MI)

    12% (MI)

    National Foreclosure rate (per 5,000 homes)

    11

    11

        Lowest state foreclosure rate

    < 1 in 7 states

    < 1 in 6 states

        Highest state foreclosure rate        

    68 (NV)

    71 (NV)

    Dow Jones Industrial Average

    10,325

    7,762

    “Before TARP” figures are as close to October 3, 2008 as possible; “So Far” figures are most recent available, which varies by category from February through April. Unemployment and foreclosure rates by state are available at Stateline.org

    The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was sold to Congress and the American public as an absolute necessity to save the American Dream of homeownership. Once the legislation was passed and the funds were released, however, Treasury decided to give the money to banks with no restrictions on its use – no monitoring, no reporting requirements, no nothing. We are worse off today than we were when the legislation was signed – and are likely to remain so when TARP has its first year birthday later this year.

    Yet, the U.S. government has already paid out $2.9 trillion, with further commitments to raise the total to over $7 trillion – a number that Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) said “is mind-boggling, indeed it is surreal. It’s like having a second government.” The money Treasury is passing out is more than all government spending in 2008. The Senate Finance Committee, of which Baucus is chair, held a hearing on March 31 (TARP Oversight: A Six Month Update). The three parties established as monitors in the 2008 legislation were there to testify. Without exception they “are deeply troubled by the direction in which Treasury has gone.”

    Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) suggested [referring to former-Secretary Paulson] that Congress “was awed by a person who comes off of Wall Street, making tens of millions of dollars. … You think he knows all the answers and when it’s all said and done you realize he didn’t know anything more about it than you did.”

    As soon as Treasury got the money they decided to bailout big banks instead of helping homeowners with mortgages bigger than the market value of their homes. Since then, Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke have refused to comply with demands to produce documents about the TARP recipients’ use of funds.

    Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General and the one monitor with authority to pursue criminal investigations, directly solicited information from the recipients of TARP funds – all over Treasury’s objections that it couldn’t be done. Barofsky received responses from all 532 recipients. He will be summarizing the findings, but so far knows that some banks used TARP funds to pay off their own debt (including at least one bank that used TARP funds to pay off a loan to another bank that also received TARP funds); some banks made loans they couldn’t otherwise have done. Some banks monitored the funds separately from their other assets; some co-mingled the money with no effort to separate, monitor or control what they did with the TARP bailout money.

    Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, brought up the central issue: once Treasury decided not to bailout homeowners, what was the plan? “What is the strategy that Treasury is pursuing?” she asked. “We have asked this question over and over, with the notion that without a clearly articulated plan and methods to measure progress to goals, we cannot have good oversight.” Warren is still waiting for an answer. She also added that there is no bank in this country that would lend with a policy of “take the money and do what you want with it” – which is exactly what Treasury has done.

    Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) put it bluntly: auto manufacturers get reorganization (through bankruptcy) while banks get subsidization. One side is being held accountable for their past bad decisions and the other side has a total lack of accountability. Her bottom line: “If we don’t make things in this country, we won’t have an economy.”

    Warren laid some of the blame with Congress, who “gave treasury significant discretion” but is unable to get real-time explanations for what is being done with the bailout money. There is no transparency when it comes to Treasury. “Without it, I’m afraid …. Congress and the American people have been cut out of the conversation”, she says. One group in Michigan is being asked to bear enormous pain and another group in New York is not – that’s the way Stabenow sees it and Warren agreed. The alternative offered by Warren is that either Congress manages to “get Treasury to get some religion and put standards in place” or Congress has to step in with new legislation.

    Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.

  • The American Suburb Is Bouncing Back

    From the very inception of the current downturn, sprawling places like southeast California’s Inland Empire have been widely portrayed as the heart of darkness. Located on the vast flatlands east of Los Angeles, the region of roughly 3 million people has suffered one of the highest rates of foreclosures and surges in unemployment in the nation.

    Yet now George Guerrero, a top agent at Advantage Real Estate in Chino Hills, says he can see the light, with sales picking up and inventories finally beginning to drop. “There’s been a real surge in sales,” Guerrero says. “The market has come back to where it should be. I think we are ahead of the curve here of the overall recovery.”

    Of course, for the moment, much of this growth is concentrated in foreclosure sales. However, even developers of new properties, such as Brookfield Homes , also report a strong uptick in sales. In his new developments in the Inland Empire, notes Adrian Foley, head of Brookfield’s Los Angeles area office, sales are up 150% since six months ago.

    Although the economy is still hurting, the housing trend has become much more positive. Statewide, existing home sales have jumped 30% over the past year, taking the inventory from an estimated 16.7 months to less than seven months. In Chino Hills, it is down to six months.

    Most encouraging, this activity is taking place exactly where the market was hit hardest in the beginning – in the suburbs and at the lower end of the market, which in the Inland Empire means between $150,00 to $300,000. This could presage the resurgence of the suburbs and the prospects for the middle and working classes once again to purchase their piece of the American dream.

    Nor is this merely a Californian phenomenon. Nationwide, existing home sales – predominately in the suburbs – have been on the rise for the last few months. The strongest growth is occurring in Sunbelt markets in Arizona, Nevada and Florida, as well as in California. These places experienced some of the greatest surges in prices, which forced many buyers to turn to subprime and interest-only loans.

    These loans are largely not available today, Guerrero notes. Instead of financial quackery, lower prices – sometimes as much as 50% below peak – are allowing new buyers to buy affordably. In 2007, Inland Empire median house prices were roughly seven to 10 times the average annual income of potential buyers. Now they are settling close to the historic norm of three times.

    But not everyone will be happy to see life return to the suburban housing tracts. Indeed, for some self-proclaimed urbanists, planners and pundits, this development might seem almost nightmarish.

    Long the Rodney Dangerfield of American geographies, suburbs have never been popular with the country’s intellectuals, academics and planners. The destruction of community, racial segregation, expanding waistlines and a host of environmental sins – from consuming too much gas to helping create global warming – all have been blamed on the suburbs.

    When the mortgage crisis first hit, some urbanists, not surprisingly, were quick to blame the suburbs – instead of Wall Street – for the financial meltdown. With energy prices on the rise, they persuaded themselves and the ever-gullible mainstream media that the long-awaited “back to the city” jubilee was imminent.

    In contrast, the suburbs and exurbs, crowed Brookings’ Chris Leinberger, were soon to become “the new slums.” As the middle classes trudged their way back to Boston and other suitably dense big cities, James Howard Kunstler – the “shock jock” of the new urbanist movement and a leading apostle of the “peak oil” thesis – happily proclaimed, “Let the gloating begin.”

    Yet as George Guerrero could tell them, a dream is not a thing so easily destroyed. The American landscape continues to change, but perhaps not entirely in the ways so eagerly projected by urban boosters and their media claque.

    For one thing, even with the higher energy prices of last year, there seems to be, in fact, no notable shift of population to the urban core. Instead, as demographer Wendell Cox has pointed out, the recession may have slowed migration, but the trend toward the suburbs and sprawling Sunbelt cities has not ended or reversed.

    At the same time, the once-widely ballyhooed market for dense urban living has unraveled. The “gospel of urbanism” may be accepted as such by most of the mainstream press, most notably The New York Times and Atlantic Monthly, but on closer examination the new religion has limited numbers of converts. In many locales – from Massachusetts to Los Angeles – inner-city condominium projects are losing value at least as much or more than suburban single-family houses. In San Diego, for example, condo prices have dropped in some developments by 70% since 2007, twice the decline in the overall market.

    The problem has much to do with timing. In many areas, urban condominium developers continued to build even as the economy soured, largely due to the longer lead times and financing arrangements around such projects. Yet as the prices of houses have dropped many potential condominium dwellers have opted to purchase single-family homes – or are sitting anxiously on the sidelines waiting for prices to drop further.

    As a result, foreclosure rates for condominiums, according to the Federal Deposit Insurace Corp., are on average one-third higher than for single-family residences. You do not have to travel to the outer exurbs to find zones of foreclosures, bankruptcies and the turning of ownership properties to rentals. Towers are either unoccupied or have gone to rental in markets as diverse as Miami, central Atlanta and downtown L.A. Even Chicago, the poster child for urban gentrification, now suffers from abandoned “condo ghost towns.”

    Manhattan, too, which long saw itself as immune to the housing downturn, is now experiencing the most precipitous price decline since 1980. Big urban developers across North America are filing for bankruptcy, including the largest private landowner in downtown Los Angeles, just like suburban builders were last year.

    As someone who lives in – if you consider L.A. a city – and likes cities, I do not greet the urbanization of the housing crisis as an unalloyed positive. Yet one can hope that lower prices and interest rates – as well as the administration’s tax credits for up to $8,000 for first-time buyers – could allow more people to consider an urban option, if that’s what they want.

    However, this will not be where the bulk of the action will take place. Surveys consistently show that between 10% and 20% of people want to live in dense cities. In a country that will gain 100 million people over the next four decades, that’s 20 million, not exactly what you’d call chopped liver.

    But the bulk of growth will continue to be in the ‘burbs. The main reason is simple enough for almost anyone but a planning professor, architect or pundit to comprehend: preference. Virtually every survey reveals that the vast majority of Americans – and around 80% of Californians – prefer single-family homes that generally are affordable only in suburban areas. The fact that jobs have also continued to move inexorably to the periphery – as a newly released Brookings report demonstrates to liberal think tanks’ own undisguised horror – makes living in the ‘burbs even more attractive.

    These trends lead developers like Randall Lewis in Upland, Calif., who has suffered the downturn in the Inland Empire, not to dismiss the suburban future. He takes note of a recent 10% to 20% surge in sales among the 18 projects his company is now working on, all in suburban projects in California and neighboring states.

    “The basics of the suburbs are still there,” Lewis suggests. “Schools are important, but also people like the sense of place. But the basic amenities are children, grandchildren, where people go to church, where their work networks and friends are.”

    Lewis also rightly adds that a somewhat different suburbia will emerge from the crash. It will be a “melting pot,” he suggests, “not just by race, but by ages and lifestyle.” You will see more singles, empty-nesters and retirees as people choose to “age in place” close to where they have settled. There likely will be more smaller-lot, townhouse and other mixed-density developments closer to burgeoning suburban job centers.

    But even as they change, the allure of suburbs – and the single-family house – will not fade and could even grow as they develop more city-like amenities. The fundamental desire to own a place of your own, to possess some private space and a relatively quiet environment has not died. Nor is it likely to without the imposition of a draconian planning regime.

    For right now, it’s all enough to make George Guerrero a born-again optimist. “There’s something healthy just beginning to happen out here,” he says. “This time people with good credit are getting good deals at good prices. It’s a wonderful thing to see.”

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    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.

  • Baby Boomers: The Generation That Lost America

    Tom Brokaw named our parents The Greatest Generation. They came of age during The Great Depression and defeated Fascism, Nazism and Communism. They built the Interstate Highway System and landed a man on the moon. They built the great American middle class with safe communities and public schools that were the envy of the world. They deserve the title of The Greatest Generation. One of their few criticisms is that they spoiled us boomers, adhering to the teaching of Dr. Benjamin Spock.

    I am 59 years old and a child of perhaps the most indulged and impatient generation in history. I fear we may also become known as the generation that lost the American Dream. The Baby Boomers have rejected personal responsibility and exhibited a lack of mental discipline that could have enormous implications for the future.

    The United States House of Representatives, now overwhelmingly controlled by the Boomers, signed a $787 billion legislative “stimulus” package comprised of 1,071 pages and a hefty 8 pounds. Not one legislator read the bill before signing it. Months later, the same House members publicly screamed at the corrupt executives of AIG who received bonuses in 2008 – bonuses specifically allowed in the very legislation they passed without reading.

    This abandonment of personal responsibilities by the Lost Generation took on historic significance on January 20, 1993. That’s when the first President Bush, a member of the Greatest Generation, was replaced with President William Jefferson Clinton, the first Baby-Boomer to reach the Presidency. The Clinton presidency was notorious for its personal indulgence – and not just by introducing oral sex to the Oval Office. During Clinton’s watch, 100,000 Islamic terrorists were trained in camps in Afghanistan while terrorist strikes against American interests went unanswered. Clinton failed to respond to the attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 servicemen. Our enemies grew emboldened believing that America did not take their deadly threats seriously. On September 11th 2,996 American civilians died in part because the government did not see its first priority to be protecting them.

    Also under President Clinton, the Federal Government in 1999 relaxed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s requirements of home mortgages. The decades old formula of 20% down and a 30 year fixed mortgage that allowed the Greatest Generation to lift home ownership to more than 60% was replaced with an array of instruments including sub-prime loans, “no-doc” applications where income was not verified, and teaser rates of 1%. Such tinkering led to unqualified purchasers with 100% financing pushing home values up at 20% per year. The bubble burst in 2007 with disastrous consequences. The heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made tens of millions in annual salary. Despite the calamitous consequences of their stewardship, no one was fired.

    Another Boomer, George W. Bush followed Clinton and continued the Lost Generation’s abdication of personal responsibility. He also failed to comprehend the extremist Islamic threat. Again, no one was fired. On December 12, 2002, George Tenet, fellow Baby-Boomer and Director of the CIA assured President Bush the case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was a “slam dunk”. President Bush authorized the invasion of a sovereign nation based on that intelligence. No weapons of mass destruction were found. America’s soldiers inherited a broken country and hundreds of billions of responsibilities. No one, including George Tenet, lost their job. In fact, on December 14, 2004, President Bush awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed into Louisiana and Mississippi as a Category 3 hurricane. The result was catastrophic. The levees were breached and 1,836 Americans lost their lives. Americans watched in horror as police abandoned their positions, and the National Guard struggled to protect the trapped citizens who could not evacuate. Dead bodies lay uncollected in the streets. No one will forget the scene of 60,000 American refugees at the Louisiana Superdome without food, water or medical care for days. On national television, President Bush proclaimed, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” Although three days later, FEMA Director, Michael D. Brown was forced to resign, no one else at FEMA was fired.

    In July 2008, gasoline prices hit a national average of more than $4.00 per gallon as demand outstripped supply pushing oil to $147 barrel. The Lost Generation howled in protest at the oil companies who were profiting from the pain of American citizens. This came as no surprise. The environmental movement had stopped production on both nuclear power plants and gasoline refineries. Congress banned oil exploration off America’s coastline. Congress decided that ANWAR, a barren strip of coastal Alaska the size of Logan Airport in Boston, was off-limits to oil exploration. At $147 barrel, the Western economies were shipping more than $1 trillion dollars per year to the Persian Gulf to nations whose interests were simply not aligned with ours. Once again, our elected officials, dominated by boomers, abdicated their responsibility to keep America safe. Their inaction allowed our nation to become even more vulnerable to the oil weapon.

    In 1973, under President Carter, when the OPEC nations first used oil as a political weapon, America imported 30% of its daily oil quota. Yet not a word is mentioned by the Lost Generation expanding American production of oil to reduce this dependency. Yes, they talk of wind and solar energy – which collectively generate less than one percent of our energy – but no one has yet figured out how to power a car with wind or solar energy. After falling to $30 a barrel, oil has slowly crept back up over $50 a barrel – in a deep recession. When the recovery arrives, does anyone believe oil will not return to $100 barrel? Yet the Lost Generation sleeps with no energy policy in place and once again abdicates its responsibilities to a future generation.

    The same is true of Social Security. The Baby-Boomers are retiring now. The system is broken and there are not enough workers to make the transfers to the retirees. Do you hear anyone in Washington raising the red flag of warning? Once again, the Lost Generation has abdicated its responsibilities and kicked the can down the road.

    In the waning months of the Bush Administration, Treasury Secretary Paulson informed Congress that a $700 billion bail-out of the financial sector was needed to avoid a melt-down of our banking system. TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program was passed by the Congress in a matter of days. Only $350 billion was committed, banks were forced to accept TARP funds, and little of those funds made their way to acquire troubled assets. GM and Chrysler received $17 billion even though they had no “troubled assets.” Another $8 billion went to Sheik Mohammed in Dubai. He had no troubled assets either, and $1.6 billion was paid out in bank bonuses. AIG received $165 billion of TARP money and paid out $286 million in bonuses. No one in Congress anticipated the AIG bonuses when they signed the legislation that specifically allowed the payments. It does not end there.

    Franklin Raines, chief executive of Fannie Mae received $91.1 million in compensation from 1998 to 2004. In 1998, Fannie Mae stock was $75 per share. Today, Fannie Mae shares are worth 67 cents. Mr. Raines was not fired – he was simply hired as an economic advisor to President Elect Obama. Raines recently settled a civil lawsuit alleging fraud and stock manipulation for $31.4 million.

    Postmaster General John Potter received compensation of $800,000 in 2008 while the United States Post Office lost $2.8 billion. It is possible his $135,000 bonus was based on future performance. The USPS is projected to loss $6 billion in 2009. Postmaster Potter did not lose his job either.

    Our congressional representatives earn $174,000 per year for this fiscal oversight. Their congressional staff earns another $1.3 million per year plus too many perks to mention like free cars, airfare, and postage stamps.

    The very things that we took for granted as children of the Greatest Generation are now challenged. Home values have fallen dramatically. Our retirement accounts have been decimated. Our public schools are not working. Traditional allies no longer stand with America. Not surprisingly, most Americans fear their children will not be better off. The approval numbers for Congress are at an all-time low. Despite the vast number of problems facing our country in 2009, when Congress passed a Continuing Resolution in March 2009, it contained 8,500 earmarks of pork barrel spending confirming that this Congress is going to maintain business as usual.

    Dr. Spock wrote that our parents should not spank us and they should always bolster our self-esteem. That misguided advice led to the today’s climate of political correctness where the ideal of self-esteem outweighs the importance of performance, success or accomplishment.

    Consequently, the Lost Generation measures itself by its good intentions rather than by its accomplishments. Its good intentions led to policies that prohibited oil exploration off the coastlines. The result was $4.00 gasoline. Its good intentions of teaching all children in their native tongue was a good idea but the cost to do so weakened the overall education system in America. Its good intentions of helping poor families buy homes led to the sub-prime mess that has cost American families trillions in lost equity. In the last twelve months, under the dominant control of the Baby-Boom generation, America has witnessed $11 trillion of home and stock equities disappear.

    The Baby-Boomer’s move into retirement comes none too soon. Let the boomers in Congress retire at 65. We’ll even let them retire on the fat retirement plans they voted for themselves. But let’s get rid of them. The next generation can’t do much worse.

    Robert J. Cristiano Ph.D. has more than 25 years experience in real estate development in Southern California. He is a resident of Newport Beach, CA.

  • Geithner’s Toxic Recycling Plan Nixed by Big Fund

    The success of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s Public-Private Investment Partnership Program depends on getting private investors interested in buying junk bonds off the banks’ balance sheets. Now it seems that at least one hedge fund is giving the plan “two thumbs-down.”

    The New York Post is reporting that Bridgewater Associates, one of the few that might qualify for Treasury’s program, decided that “the numbers just don’t add up.” Besides being a bad investment, the fund’s founder raised questions about conflicts of interest – something we find surprising. Hedge fund managers are supposed to be those free-wheeling, unregulated, we’ll-buy-anything investors – always willing to take a risk and suffer the consequences of the market outcomes.

    Bridgewater’s concern is that Geithner’s junk bond plan includes hiring asset managers – who will also be investors. There are clear conflicts of interest because these managers will “have both the government and the investors to please and because they will get their fees regardless of how these investments turn out,” wrote Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio. Imagine, a hedge fund worried about collusion among asset managers? Maybe it takes one to know one?

    The real question is why Geithner would set up a program putting US taxpayer money in the hands of unregulated hedge funds and then go to Europe a few days later and blame the global financial crisis (at least in part) on hedge funds and their lack of regulation? Dalio is right: it just doesn’t add up.