My colleague Catie Burke is coming to my class on Monday to discuss podcars. Now, I”m not sure how I feel about PRT. But this little buglike city zoomer from General Motors strikes me as being pretty darn cute.
The County of Los Angeles has partnered with the Urban Land Institute to conduct an intensive one-day study of the Green Line Vermont Station and surrounding community by a panel of experts and to make recommendations for enhancing the Vermont Station Transit Oriented District.
You are invited to attend the Urban Land Institute’s Community Presentation relating to their recommendations, to be held on:
Friday, March 26, 2010 – 4:30 PM
Lennox Sheriff’s Station
Audrey & Sydney Irmas Youth Activity Center
11911 Vermont Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90044
Free parking available at the Youth Activity Center
Please feel free to distribute this email and attached flyers to any person or group that would be interested. Contact me with any questions you may have.
Transit Operations Community Relations
Office 213 922 1341 or 310 354-1645
Fax 310 354-1611
The meeting location is well served by Metro Bus Lines: 204, 206, 209, 754, and Gardena Line 2
NYTimes.com has a story on the tough choices ahead to figure out how to disperse homeowner relief in Arizona. Here’s the story: Microcosm of the Housing Crisis on an Arizona Street
I am trying to be convinced that foreclosure relief is a good idea. I have enormous respect for the real estate economists in my school, and in general, they support foreclosure relief based on the externality argument: ie, that foreclosures cause home values to fall in the neighborhood, and thus are an externality. There is some empirical work out there measuring the externality, but I am often unconvinced by externality arguments that don’t actually involve physical environmental problems. External costs and benefits get bandied around too often in the public sphere as code for “this is something I want/don’t want, so it will benefit/cost everybody” instead of really reflecting the downstream phenomenon the concept should.
Here’s why I can’t get on board.
1. People tell me that the reason I shouldn’t fret about poor people is that housing filters down to them as houses age and prices fall. But if we are keeping people in their houses and making housing a can’t-lose investment, which will increase or at least stabilize house prices, how does that filtering happen?
2. Nobody was complaining about externalities when their neighbor’s inappropriately high housing sale value was inflating their own home prices. Is this really a market failure, or is this just a painful reversal of neighborhood effects?
3. How is it that we are in housing crisis now but not when housing prices were higher?
It seems to me that the means test for justice here is that we can and should help out struggling homeowners, but that the program should be more like guaranteed student loans than operating subsidies to households. I mean, hell, Section 8 housing doesn’t get this kind of love. The government ponies up the money to help out the owner and keep them in their house, but that money has to be paid back. Just like student loans, you can apply for a forbearance on the repayment if you remain unemployed or fall ill. But it’s to be at a subsidized rate after a certain amount of time.
Why isn’t that enough?
The one place I don’t see such a plan working is for elder housing. There I can see a rationale for a straight compensation.
Wired.com has a photo essay up on how we are already geoengineering the earth, which should prompt the valid question of if it’s acceptable to people to allow the existing geo-hacks go on, at least in the mainstream, why are people so wound up about geo-hacking to prevent climate change?
However, we should note that none of the we currently do under as geo-engineering here is a smart thing to do. So? One does not legitimize the other; it is instead big list of things we should knock off.
The Institute for Policy and Governance | Virginia Tech has a new, extremely good blog. Go take a look!
via Slashdot this morning, this BBC News Story on Bill Gates and Toshiba discussions to create a different mode for nuclear energy, based on mini-reactors. They would use spent uranium and create energy, completely changing the model envisioned for a nuclear future. Nuclear is usually envisioned on a large-scale, run by experts. This is distributed energy.
What do you think?