Monthly Archives: February 2006

There’s a big debate brewing between the state Senate and the House of Delegates over what to do with sexual predators after they’ve served their jail time: Should they remain confined, in a process called civil commitment, or should some of them be returned to the community under heavy supervision including satellite tracking?

The House wants a 300-bed facility; the Senate wants 100 beds. Cost is a major factor. According to Newport News Daily News reporter Hugh Lessig: “The two sides are roughly $40 million apart in construction and operating costs for a civil commitment facility – the Senate around $36 million and the House around $76 million.”

I would lean toward’s the House position on this one, which errs on the side of public safety. But I don’t see it as a black-and-white issue. Cost is unavoidably a consideration — that $40 million could be used many other ways to improve public safety. So is the fact that sexual predators, having paid for their crime, do have rights.

Looks like Larry Sabato and the University of Virginia Center for Politics will be moving from their cramped quarters on the university grounds to the Birdwood estate near the Boar’s Head Inn and the Farmington Country Club — if $10 million can be found for renovations of the dilapidated old manor house, according to the Charlottesville Daily Progress.

Said Sabato: “It’s a gorgeous location and it looks back on an unspoiled view of the mountains Jefferson saw.”

Last year, Sabato gave $1 million to endow the Center’s programs.

Bad news from VDOT… The road-building agency spent $40 million more on maintenance in the first seven months of fiscal 2006 than it had planned. Now it’s trying to make up the deficit by cutting back on maintenance work and equipment purchases. Details at the Road to Ruin blog.

Here are the “Principles of Community” that will be enforced by the “SafeWatch” program in Virginia Tech (see previous post, “The Thought Police Have Arrived):

• We affirm the inherent dignity and value of every person and strive to maintain a climate for work and learning based on mutual respect and understanding.
• We affirm the right of each person to express thoughts and opinions freely. We encourage open expression within a climate of civility, sensitivity and mutual respect.
• We affirm the value of human diversity because it enriches our lives and the university. We acknowledge and respect our differences while affirming our common humanity.
• We reject all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including those based on age, color, disability, gender, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran status. We take individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and to increase our own understanding of these issues through education, training and interaction with others.
• We pledge our collective commitment to these principles in the spirit of the Virginia Tech motto of Ut Prosim (That I May Serve).

Most Virginians would share most of these sentiments. The problem isn’t the principles themselves, but how they are enforced, and who enforces them. A couple of red flags:

First: Everyone has the right to express themselves freely, but only “within a climate of civility, sensitivity and mutual respect.” Who defines what behavior falls within the acceptable parameters of “civility” and “sensitivity”? Who has the burden of proof when someone is offended by something someone else says — the person who took offense? Or the person who made the remark?

Second: “We take individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and to increase our own understanding of these issues through education, training and interaction with others.” Who’s in charge of the educating and training here? What form does that “education and training” take? And how much “diversity” of points of view is permitted?

Nervous yet? Now check the online “Incident Report Form.” If the political/philosophical orientation of this initiative doesn’t smack you over the head, here is all you need to know: People are asked to fill out “general information” about themselves. Under the “gender” category, there four (count ’em four!) choices: male, female, transgender, and questioning. Why not “neuter,” while we’re at it? We wouldn’t want to discriminate against castrati, would we?

Hmmm. I’m wondering… Could that last remark be construed as “insensitive”? Could I already be a candidate for “re-education”?

The Feb. 27, 2006, edition of Bacon’s Rebellion has been published. Columns include:

Seek the Intersection
Innovation can be managed, says Frans Johansson, author of “The Medici Effect.” And what individuals and enterprises can do, so can entire communities.
by James A. Bacon

What’s the Big Idea?
The people at Play don’t just talk creativity — they live it. When they advise clients to tear down “walls” and “boundaries,” they apply the nostrum to themselves — quite literally.
by James A. Bacon

The Special Session Is Now
The outline of a compromise on transportation funding is coming dimly into view: Some new funds now, a full-fledged plan later (maybe).
by Doug Koelemay

Legislation by Extortion
The state Senate is enacting spending programs predicated on taxes that haven’t been passed yet. Will Chichester & Co. get their way again by threatening another government shut-down?
by Patrick McSweeney

Standing up for Property Rights
The House of Delegates has passed legislation that will protect property owners from unjust takings. Unfortunately, the Senate’s version of the bill could do more harm than good.
by Patrick McSweeney

Goldman Silenced? I Doubt It
Paul Goldman hasn’t revealed his plans since resigning as Doug Wilder’s senior policy advisor. But you can count on one thing from the master political tactician: He’ll be back!
by Steven Sisson

$650 Million in Hiding
There is a lot more new money for transportation projects than commonly realized — if lawmakers would only count it!
by Michael Thompson

Red State Blues
Obsessed with raising taxes, Republican leaders in the state Senate risk transforming Virginia into a blue state — and losing their majority status in the bargain.
by Philip Rodokanakis

Stop Me Before I Tax Again
Not content with imposing a record tax increase in 2004, Virginia’s Imperial Senate proposes outdoing its meager effort with another, even bigger round.
by Jim Bowden

Little Boy Blue
Like the fabled farm boy who fell asleep while the farm animals ran wild, Virginia voters appear oblivious to out-of-control state spending — potentially 36 percent in just four years.
by Peter Ferrara

Nice & Curious Questions:
Branded Restrooms: What’s Next for Virginia’s Rest Stops?
by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs

I’m sorry, sometimes I forget: Are we living in the United States, circa 2006, or are we living in the People’s Republic of China, circa 1969? It’s hard to tell with news like this: Virginia Tech has just launched a “SafeWatch” program to promote “individual and collective responsibility among students, faculty, staff, and guests” to incorporate the Virginia Tech “Principles of Community” into their interpersonal and intergroup relationships.

Patterned after “neighborhood watch” programs, SafeWatch will “promote understanding” of university policies and community expectations related to harassment, discrimination, or similar behaviors, and provide a way to report instances when policies and expectations are not followed.

Central to the program is a new SafeWatch website that provides a means for community members to report occurrences of discrimination or harassment related to age, color, disability, gender, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veterans’ status.

Just wait, this is a disaster waiting to happen.

Now comes news that the General Assembly is pondering legislation that would make it a misdemeanor to sell halal food — the Muslim counterpart to kosher food — in Virginia under false pretenses. An estimated 350,000 Muslims live in the Commonwealth. In Northern Virginia alone, there are some 45 mosques.

Everybody’s “for” education, and everybody wants to pump more money into Virginia’s educational system. From what I can tell, it looks like the Dems want to increase educational spending a lot more than the GOP-dominated House of Delegates in the next biennial budget. But I’ve seen very little discussion on the topic.

According to documents maintained by the Department of Planning and Budget, here are the budget numbers of the Department of Education, including Fiscal 2007 and 2008 proposed by departing Gov. Mark R. Warner:

FY 2003…… $ 9.55 billion
FY 2004…… $ 9.97 billion (+4.4 percent)
FY 2005…… $11.2o billion (+12.4 percent)
FY 2006…… $12.05 billion (+7.6 percent)
FY 2007…… $13.70 billion (proposed) (+13.7 percent)
FY 2008…… $13.95 billion (proposed) (+1.8 percent)

As can be readily seen, after the “starving time” of the early Warner administration, spending on education has soared, and would continue to soar if Warner’s proposed budget were enacted. The proposed 2007/2008 budget represents a 16.4 percent biennial budget-to-biennial budget increase.

Now, here’s what Vincent F. Callahan, Jr., House appropriations chairman, says the House budget is doing for education:

The budget will provide approximately $11.5 billion in funding for public education over the next two years. This represents an increase of $1.5 billion over the current funding level or approximately 36 percent of the net new revenues available. … The budget will invest approximately $419 million in additional general fund support for higher education. This represents an increase of approximately 13 percent over base funding levels.

If I’m comparing apples to apples, in the House budget, educational spending would increase “only” 8 percent from one biennial budget to the next. Bottom line: The House would increase education spending at half the rate of the Warner plan. (If I’m comparing apples to oranges, I’d appreciate it if someone would let me know.)

The House plan is a bad thing if you think the only solution to Virginia’s educational woes is pouring more money into the existing system. It’s a good thing if you think there’s a limited amount that the system can usefully absorb, or if you think the system needs serious reform. So far, I’ve seen very little debate on this issue. Any observations?

I just can’t get agitated about the Danny LeBlanc controversy. It’s not as if Gov. Timothy M. Kaine wants to appoint LeBlanc, a former state AFL-CIO president who opposes the Right-to-Work law, to Secretary of Commerce and Trade, where he could do some damage. The Governor wants to make LeBlanc Secretary of the Commonwealth, where he’s in charge of appointments to sundry boards and commissions — in effect, Secretary of Patronage.

That’s what happens when you win the election. You appoint a party stalwart to hand out rewards to your supporters. If LeBlanc doesn’t fill the position, Kaine will find another partisan ally to do the job. My advice to House Republicans: Get over it. Act nice. Throw the Governor a bone.

I’ve seen a lot of loose numbers thrown around regarding the size and impact of the 2004 tax increase on the current budget surplus. (I’ve tossed some of ’em around myself.) Here are hard numbers from Del. Vincent F. Callahan, Jr., R-McLean, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. In a press release issued today, Callahan writes:

For those that were here during the 2004 Session, you may recall the General Assembly grappled with building a new two-year budget. At that time, it was expected that we would have approximately $1.8 billion in net new revenues available to meet our spending obligations. It was claimed that this was insufficient to meet the Commonwealth’s needs, and that additional revenue was needed. After a protracted debate and extended legislative Session, taxes were increased nearly $1.5 billion dollars. There was much self congratulation that Virginia’s fiscal house was back in order.

You may also recall that two months after that budget was adopted, Virginia received some surprising news, that the fiscal year would end with $325 million more than projected or perhaps predicted.

That happy news led to the first of several revisions to the revenue forecast during the current biennium. In fact, the most recent revision to the current fiscal year projects that general fund revenues are now forecast to generate an additional $1.4 billion over and above the revenues assumed when we left here last year.

Since that fateful day in May of 2004, the cumulative effect of Virginia’s growing economy means that what started out as $1.8 billion in new revenue growth now appears to be closer to $4.9 billion over the biennium, or 275% greater than the original biennial forecast.

The LiberalMSM (oneword) Daily Press (Feb 23,2006) on The Peninsula notes Del Waldrup (R- Va Beach) had a blog meeting on transportation. Catch how they say…

Waldrup “gathered with a collection of Internet acolytes on Tuesday night, saying on a Web blog, “the press doesn’t want to do their homework. Show me the money they say. They haven’t reported on a ton of legislation that is new and different. They just sit back and say that the House is paving the roads with school books, but what about all these increased revenues that we have accumulated from the surplus over the last two years?” Too bad they didn’t cite the blog addresses to let readers read all for themselves.

Then, the DP gave the first explanation I’ve seen for the buzzwords – sustainable, reliable, dedicated, permanent – revenues.

Apparently, dear Acolytes, they’re against borrowing money with bonds to pay for roads today. That’s odd. When we had the VA ballot referendum for huge bonds for the environment and higher education – they were all for those bonds. Also, they were terrified that VA would lose its AAA bond rating to keep borrowing – unless VA raised taxes in 04. Except, the report actually said VA could raise ONLY $800m in NEW bonds unless it spent less or raised more money.

The real rub is that the taxaholics (D and R) don’t want to use General Funds for Transportation. Ah, that is why we have the Transportation Trust Fund – the one regularly raided for General spending by Republicans and Democrats.

So, get this, using money from the General Fund or from the surplus in the General Fund or from bonds is wrong. The DP quotes His Lordship Sir John Chichester’s insight, “By its very definition, a surplus is inherently unpredictable and unreliable. We concluded this is not how we want to fund transportation in Virginia.”

Like the money for the General Fund, Transportation Fund, any bond issues and any other colored pot of money in Virginia Treasury comes from some sources that are subject to the economy going up and down and some that are not. LOL.

Earth to DP and Taxaholics: All revenues come from the economic health of the Commonwealth. If the economy goes down, revenues go down. If the economy goes up, revenues go up.

Let’s try it another way. If VA planned on spending $70b, but revenues after the Chicken-Little-the-Infrastructure-Is-Falling Tax hike, Bush’s tax cuts and massive Federal spending in VA – are $72b, then the $2b is a surplus. If the economy is expanding and the Gov and GA spend only $71b and taxes come in at $73b there will be another $2b ‘surplus’ the taxaholics can spend on anything – including transportation. It will continue that way IF spending dies NOT grow faster than inflation.

When the economy went down during the Clinton/9-11 recession of 00-02, the revenues flattened but still increased from $48 to $50b (or was it 50 to 52?) in VA because not every sector of the economy contracted – and not every household.

So, if our $72b revenues stayed flat at $72b for two years – if (IF almighty IF) the Gov and GA didn’t increase spending in other areas – the same money that was spent on transportation in one year would be available in the next – if they didn’t spend it on something else!

The business staff of the DP must be different from the editorial staff or they couldn’t make a profit. EC 201: The government gets its revenue from the same economy The People get their revenue from. The government gets their money from The People – including corporate taxes.

The distinction between these ‘sustainable, reliable, dedicated, permanent’ taxes for transportation and the ‘sustainable, reliable, dedicated, permanent ‘ of the 1985 transportation tax hike which would fix transportation forever is that these taxes are just new and additional taxes for 2006.

Last lesson from EC 201 (Department of Social Sciences, USMA)(or EC 10 at Harvard) is that every $150m in taxes kills 5000 jobs. The first to go are part time and minimum wage earners – the working poor.

Where is Jim Miller when we really need him?

The Danville Register & Bee has published some insight into to the thinking of two Republican delegates from Southside who supported the 2004 tax increase but oppose raising taxes in 2006.

Said Del. Danny Marshall, R-Danville, of the 2004 tax hike: “I thought it was the right thing to do.” He made his decision based on calls he received from teachers in his district who were worried about education spending and from Pittsylvania County sheriff’s deputies who were on food stamps. “That was then, this is now. … The difference to me is when I look at the needs of our region. … I’m not saying that transportation doesn’t need to be fixed in the state, but we are doing fine.”

Del. Robert Hurt, R-Chatham, also voted for the tax increase in 2004. “At the end of the day, I felt it was important to support a compromise that kept the state funded,” he said, citing concern about a possible government shutdown and the loss of Virginia’s AAA bond rating. “I just don’t see the need to do that in 2006. People in Southside Virginia are adamantly opposed to raising the gas tax.”

The editorial page of today’s Wall Street Journal singles out Virginia’s state Senate for well-deserved criticism. “If you think Republicans are Capitol Hill have trouble, take a look at Virginia,” the WSJ writes. The Senate rammed through $1.5 billion (biennial) tax increase in 2004, the state is running a $2 billion (biennial) surplus, property tax bills for median-priced homes in Northern Virginia have risen by $2,000 in six years, and now the Senate wants another $1 billion (per year)?

Last week the senators floated another tax plan that is so bizarre and complicated that it has made them a laughing stock. This scheme would raise the gas tax by 5%, but the sponsors insist that “no one would have to pay the tax if they didn’t want to,” because motorists could get a rebate at the end of the year if they keep shoeboxes full of tiny scraps of service station receipts. This would add immeasurably to the joys of April 15.

Good editorial in most respects. But it would have been better if the writer had gotten the details right. The WSJ referred to “state property tax bills.” The property tax is, of course, a local tax.

The WSJ also said: “Only 18 months ago this same senate gang rammed through a $1.5 billion sales tax incrase, even after 55% of the voters had defeated the same tax scheme when it was a ballot initative a year before.” Incorrect. Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads citizens voted in regional referenda against a sales tax hike to fund transportation. The sales tax rammed through by the Senate went into Virginia’s General Fund, mainly for education. The two tax schemes, though equally ill conceived, were very different.

There’s plenty to criticize with the real facts. No need to misconstrue facts to bolster the case.

The blogosphere strikes again, this time with an interview on Bearing Drift of Del. Leo Wardrup, R-Virginia Beach, on how the transportation debate is shaping up in the General Assembly.

A few highlights as transcribed in Bearing Drift:

Norman Leahy: Are you part of a “Rabid anti-tax wing”?
Delegate Wardrup: I’m part of the anti-tax wing, but I wouldn’t describe myself as rabid. Those that want more taxes are rabid.

A laundry list of projects ain’t gonna happen. Not enough money to do what everyone wants to do….

We simply cannot pave our way out of the problem; we could pave the potomac and we couldn’t solve the problem up there. hot lanes, medians, beltway use would be helpful. in NOVA, if we build it, they will come….

I found this interesting, Wardrup endorsing the concept of congestion pricing:

Virginia is not the only one facing transportation crisis. We’re going to have to come to the point where we pay for operating vehicles during the peak hours…such as in London. We’re going to end up doing the same types of things, I think, eventually… in the congested areas….

And a point that I’ve been hammering on the past couple of weeks, on the press coverage of the transportation debate as a pure tax-and-spending issue:

The press doesn’t want to do their homework. “Show me the money” they say. They haven’t reported on a ton of legislation that is new and different. They just sit back and say what is being proposed in dollars and say that the House is paving the roads with school books, but what about all these increased revenues that we have accumulated from the surplus over the last two years.

And this:

I’ve been around govn’t too long. there is never enough money to meet the needs of government and the needy. Thats why we send people to make these hard decisions. But we are elected to make those decisions. Heck, raising taxes is the easy way.

It is hard to have a rational dialogue on all important human settlement pattern issues when persistent commenters keep dumping rotten Red Herrings and irrelevant confusion on the thread.

Last year we published a column titled “Antidotes,” 9 May 2005 but that anti-virus has not helped as documented by posts to CAUSE AND EFFECT, HOODWINKED and VIRUS ALERT.

Let us look closely at the second comment posted on VIRUS ALERT. The comment cites a “Brookings Institute” (sic) study. The work was supported by The Brookings Institution and can be found on their web site but is a 1999 study by the Urban Institute. The report was written for a specific audience with a specific goal in mind. It is based on data (Bureau of Labor Statistics and a one year snapshot from D&B) that has since been proven not to provide reliable or comprehensive place-of-employment information.

There is useful information in the report but the study mixed up “inner suburbs” with “inside the Beltway.” Since Fairfax, Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties fall inside and outside the Beltway and are considered to be “outer suburbs” the some of the numbers make little sense.

This is a common problem with MSM coverage of job location data. Data confusion is exacerbated by the macro aggregation of data into large geographic areas (Counties). In some cases this distortion appears to be intentional for reasons noted below. S/PI relies on small scale data aggregated into radial bands which is how the private sector views spacial (sic) information.
The Red Herring post takes the outdated report and somehow finds a basis for stating that “as of 1998 two thirds (66.66%) of the jobs were located outside the Beltway.” In fact, based on much better data in 2000 close to 70% of the jobs were inside R=10 which is approximately at the Beltway. Over 90% of the jobs were within R=20. Further, future projections in 2002 have these ratios changing little over the next 25 years. We summarize all this in “Where the Jobs Are,” 24 May 2004.

Of course there are new jobs in R=20 to R=30 and the percentage of change seems high but that is because there were few jobs there in 2000. Between 2000 and 2025 the most jobs were projected to be added inside R=10 and almost all within R=20. Citing “declines” in the Federal District is a Red, Red Herring.

“Ok” you say, that was way back in 2004, what is happening right now in 2006? Here is a paraphrase of an e-mail sent by S/PI last week on the topic of future jobs locations in the Virginia Subregion:

“The 1 February 2006 VA Newswire item on Morgan Franklin caught my eye: “… the Herndon Location is simply too far outside the Beltway (aka, R=10) to offer convenience …” A general job boom suggesting a major Subregion shift to eastern Loudoun and western Prince William is a pipedream, a gross myth.

“Those who want to be where the action is in the National Capital Subregion find that R=20 + “is simply too far out…” Those that are looking for cheap space and those who think they are big enough fish to live in a remote pond do not achieve the critical mass needed to establish a freestanding subregional market.

“AOL may have survived if it could have attracted smarter folks to West Nowhere. There was a brain drain when AOL left Tysons Corner (within R=10) and moved to R=25. They also hatched an ill conceived scheme to make real estate speculation a profit center using their own office demand as the “market.”

“It was a sign of World Com’s core-rot that management ever thought the remote site up the road from Wal*Mar-in-the-Weeds which they acquired via the UUNet acquisition was a viable place to have a major employment facility.

“AOL and World Com / UUNet were / are the only really big non-Dulles-related, non-residential service and / or non-subsidized job generators outside the R=20 in the northern part of the R=20 to R=30 radius band. As Morgan Franklin noted in their press release, Herndon (which is inside R=20) is “too far out.”

Of course there are new jobs in West Prince William (the southern part of R=20 to R=30 radius band) but not many that are not subsidized by Prince William / GMU.

If one consults a map that portrays the value per square foot of employment space (published on a regular basis in the WaPo Business Section) they will see where the market wants to go. The amazing thing is that in spite of all the subsidies, that is where most of the jobs are in fact: Within R=10. See “Where the Jobs Are” 24 May 2004, “The Commuting Problem” 17 January 2005 and “Antidotes,” 5 September 2005 as well as the data in “Five Critical Realities That Shape the Future.”

If one doubts our portrayal of trends in subregional job location, or thinks that in spite of (or because of) the highest rents in the Subregion that jobs are fleeing the Federal District take a look at last Monday’s (13 February 2006) WaPo Business section. There is new / under construction / planned in NoMa (North of Massachusetts in the Federal District) almost exactly 1/2 as much office space as there has been constructed in Tysons Corner over the last 36 years.

Why has this area not been developed before? Municipal controls, no METRO station until the New York Ave Red Line station opened but mainly it is because of dog-in-the-manger land speculation. See our blog “ON TAKINGS AND OVERARCHING SOLUTIONS.”

Then there is the largely vacant and underutilized South Capitol Corridor plan which is much more that just the Stadium site and adjacent area. As I recall the NCPC Year 2050 Plan documents there is capacity for 136 million sq ft of new space there within existing height limitations. If one third was office space that would make it almost twice the size of Tysons Corner and with a balance of J / H / S / R / A.

Where the job market wants to go is inside, not outside and there are vast amounts of land waiting to be redeveloped. That is where we need to evolve Balanced Communities.
The Balanced Community that could evolve in the South Capital area would have the pattern and density (aka, human settlement pattern) that the market documents is in the most demand in contemporary urban agglomerations and New Urban Regions.

Back to the question of job location. S/PI’s analysis of job location is based on up to date, complete and comprehensive data published in May 2002 by the Council of Governments. “Where The Jobs Are,” 24 May 2004 provides all the details, sources and background on job locations as of that date. It also includes information on the level and location of projected employment.

The facts are not really in question. The data in “Where the Jobs Are” has been published for four years and no one has challenged it. Graphics and data are included in a PowerPoint that is on the new The Shape of the Future CD which will be available at Bacons Rebellion soon.

As Jim Bacon likes to ask: If those are the facts why is there so much confusion?

The answer lies in understanding who besides those who want to develop land in the Countryside and the Loudoun and Prince William County “economic development interests” have a stake in confusing the issue of job location?

Apparently this group includes the MSM business interests because they parrot the land speculator / developer line on the “news” pages and in editorials in spite of the fact that the data in the Business Section tells a different story.

Another question is why do the inner jurisdictions were the jobs are (Arlington, Alexandria and Fairfax) do not take action to make sure the facts are clear to everyone? The only reason we can discern is that if it was general knowledge what a huge imbalance of jobs existed, the pressure would rise to balance those jobs with housing and services in those jurisdictions. They are very content to have the misunderstands exist.

This misconception has the indirect impact of forcing houses to the fringes. Therein lies a root cause of the shelter crisis and the mobility and access crisis.

Now back to the Red Herring Post:

After citing the “Brookings Institute” study, the remainder of the second comment posted on VIRUS ALERT contains statements and conclusions with no more basis in fact. Some of which Jim challenged in a later comment. (We return to this in a moment.)

This brings up the question of what to do with Red Herring posts.

The most common advice is to just ignore them because no one bothers to read them and if they did they would find out they are unfounded. The post about the “Brookings Institute” study was wrong (VIRUS ALERT), the TAMU reference (as well as Bob Cervero’s quote) was wrong (HOODWINKED) and as someone e-mailed “When you do not know what you are taking about it is hard to know if someone you are trying to discredit changed topics” (CAUSE AND EFFECT).

There is a larger problem and that is highlighted by the supporting comments from other readers that the poster added to his Red Herring comment on VIRUS ALERT. These Red Herring posters support conventional wisdom and thus “Business-As-Usual.” There is no doubt this how these folks “feel” given what they understand of the dynamics of human settlement pattern and given that they do not have to pay (yet) for the location decisions that create dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

In a democracy with a market economy the only path to Funamental Change is citizens making better decisions in the voting booth and in the market place.

In addition, there is a compounding problem in the context of blogging. This particular poster got “atta boys” from other bloggers in the “any enemy of my enemy is a friend” tactic of political discourse. This makes creating citizen understanding ever more difficult.

This raises the question of whether Blogs are a contributor of beneficial Fundamental Change or just reinforce “Business-As-Usual.”

EMR