Radical Green – Page 28

12 Visions for One Maryland

After going through the Smart Growth Listening Session we had locally last night, tonight I turn my attention to what all the hubbub was about. Let me begin as they did with their description of Smart Growth:

“Growth is smart when it gives us great communities, with more choices and personal freedom, good return on public investment, greater opportunity across the community, a thriving natural environment, and a legacy we can be proud to leave our children and grandchildren.” (Emphasis mine.)

This passage comes from a pamphlet called “This Is Smart Growth” which can be downloaded here. Unfortunately, knowing that it’s the state of Maryland who is planning this I doubt we’ll actually get the more choices or personal freedom. And it’s worth pointing out that the Smart Growth folks talk about a good return on public investment, but no mention is made of whether they’ll encourage private investment. It goes without saying that too much restriction on land use will naturally discourage innovation and capital investment. While the perception in these parts is that things are too developer-friendly my fear is that the pendulum will swing too far in the other direction with this new statewide plan. It might just take the “One Maryland” concept espoused by Annapolis liberals too far. (I despise it because there’s at least three Marylands insofar as I can tell, split by Chesapeake Bay and that very thin strip where Virginia and Pennsylvania nearly touch.)

However, here are the 12 Visions that the Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development has drafted up thus far:

Quality of Life and Sustainability – A high quality of life is achieved through universal stewardship of the land, water, and air resulting in sustainable communities and protection of the environment.
Public Participation – Citizens are active partners in the planning and implementation of community initiatives and are sensitive to their responsibilities in achieving community goals.
Growth Areas – Growth is concentrated in existing population and business centers, growth areas adjacent to those centers, or strategically selected new centers.
Community Design – Compact, mixed-use, walkable design consistent with existing community character and located near transit options is encouraged to ensure efficient use of land and transportation resources and preservation and enhancement of natural systems, open spaces, recreational areas, and historical, cultural, and archeological resources.
Infrastructure – Growth areas have the water resources and infrastructure to accommodate population and business expansion in an orderly, efficient, and environmentally sound manner.
Transportation – A well-maintained, multimodal transportation system facilitates the safe, convenient, affordable, and efficient movement of people, goods and services within and between population and business centers.
Housing – A range of housing densities, types, and sizes provide residential options for citizens of all ages and incomes.
Economic Development – Economic development that promotes employment opportunities for all income levels within the capacity of the State’s natural resources, public services, and public facilities is encouraged.
Environmental Protection – Land and water resources are carefully managed to restore and maintain healthy air and water, natural systems and living resources.
Resource Conservation – Waterways, open space, natural systems, scenic areas, forests, and agricultural areas are conserved.
Stewardship – Government, business entities, and residents are responsible for the creation of sustainable communities by collaborating to balance efficient growth with resource protection.
Implementation – Strategies, policies, programs and funding for growth and development, resource conservation, infrastructure, and transportation are integrated across the local, regional, State, and interstate levels to achieve these visions.

Oh my gosh, this is wrong on so many levels it’s not even funny. But I’m going to go through these one at a time anyway.

The very first point describes “universal stewardship.” The way I read this fits right in with the topdown concern I had about the whole state planning process. In other words, you’re just an individual who may think he or she can be the steward of one’s own property but in reality you must do what we determine is for the common good. Maryland has had sustainable communities for over 300 years, but apparently these bright folks think they can handle them better by placing themselves in charge of all – they know what’s good for you.

The next topic of public participation is nice, but the trick in that is having a well-informed, well-educated public and I’m not so sure that we have that at the moment. Sure, there are a few but the majority of people have no desire to be leaders or to make many of their own decisions – a sad commentary, but true. Besides, my responsibility should be to my own self and my family first, well before the responsibility in achieving community goals. That’s not to say I should shirk my tasks there, but the order this places responsibility is out of whack.

Number three is lofty in principle, but restricting growth to certain areas makes both the land outside those areas less valuable and the land inside those areas too pricey. This is why California, one of the largest states in the country, has the highest home prices – they restrict land usage to a great degree. I believe in the concept of highest and best use, which is inverse to restricting growth.

Let me define the terms in number four:

Compact – multifamily dwellings where you share walls, or homes with little to no private yard space. Playtime activities are limited to what you can do in a small area or using community parkland.

Mixed-use – essentially what it says, but limiting in terms of retail.

Walkable – discouraging the use of personal transport in favor of public modes of transportation (hence “located near transit options”). Certainly there’s benefits to walkable neighborhoods, but the option of having a car should be encouraged too.

“preservation and enhancement” – see number one under “universal stewardship.”

I guess the other question is whether all historical, cultural, and archeological resources are worth preserving, and who decides?

Regarding infrastructure (#5), the way I saw this was that if growth areas had these attributes, to heck with the rest of you who choose to live outside of them. Eventually it could lead to the whittling away of that population outside growth areas and the radical environmentalists’ dreams of large green corridors for wildlife restored and safe from nasty human interaction.

Sixth, we have a long way to go to achieve a well-maintained transportation system, particularly in some of those multi modes. Personally I’d like U.S. 13 to be upgraded to an interstate highway from Wilmington to Norfolk and another bay crossing closer to home, but I suspect these planners are thinking more along the lines of public transportation (the term “affordable” gives that away).

As for the seventh point, housing, don’t we already have this range in the market as it is? I can buy a 3,000 square foot house with a large yard, a 700 square foot house in town, a condominium, and so on and so forth. Or I could live cheek-by-jowl next to someone in an apartment. Something tells me that these folks with the bright ideas in Annapolis all live in the former situation but want the rest of us commoners to live in the latter. The market has shown people want bigger and better but that contributes to sprawl and sprawl must be banned, according to the Smart Growth folks.

Number 8 is economic development. (I’d place it number one myself, but that’s just me.) The key phrases in this passage are “public” services and “public” facilities. One can certainly read that to mean that private enterprise in those areas is discouraged. Also troubling is the concept of employment opportunities for all income levels. Is this to say that there’s going to be a quota of lower-skilled jobs which has to be met? Maybe they need to clarify that one some more.

Number nine needs no more explanation than to say that things will be regulated to the nth degree. Hell, Maryland’s almost there now when they already dictate the new cars which can be sold and the soap your dishwasher uses, among many other things.

To me, resource conservation (number 10) means no growth. One can maximize efficiency of resources to a degree and achieve a little bit of growth, but real growth by necessity means using more resources. I could use 10% less steel in a car and increase production from 1 million cars to 1.1 million, but I couldn’t ramp up to 2 million if the market dictated it without needing more steel.

Number 11 offends me because the order is exactly backwards. It should be up to residents to take the lead, not be led by the nose by a power-hungry government. And it’s more evidence of a topdown process.

As far as the final point, implementation, goes they actually have the order of items correct in some cases; however, the rest of these points belie the listing of the local level first. But as I noted in number 10 above the concepts of “growth and development” and “resource conservation” are pretty much mutually exclusive.

There’s no doubt that I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who will react to my piece. And I know I have a LOT of education to do when they polled the opinion on these twelve visions at the Listening Session. I wrote down the results on the question of whether you strongly agreed, agreed, were unsure, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the 12 Visions.

Strongly agree – 35%
Agree – 23%
Not sure – 13%
Disagree – 7%
Strongly disagree – 1%

It doesn’t add up to 100% because not everyone clicked in, so I gather that 21% had no opinion or were afraid to be politically incorrect like I am. But I doubt there were more than 100 people in the room so that would mean exactly ONE person strongly disagreed. Any guesses as to who that was?

The educated one, apparently.

Fans of a plan

Tonight I made it out to Wicomico High School and said my piece in front of about 90 or so people. I honestly suspect this would be a monumentally long post if I tried to do it as one article, so tonight I’ll talk about the meeting itself and tomorrow I’ll look into what the state wants to accomplish with these listening sessions.

Once they got the issues with showing the PowerPoint presentation corrected (I told you we were guinea pigs), the meeting actually went pretty smoothly and lasted about 2 hours. I can give those after us in line a bit of a heads-up on how the meeting itself goes. We first had some introductory remarks by Jon Laria, who is the Chair of the Task Force on the Future of Growth and Development. This is yet another task force created by the General Assembly in 2006, with some revision in scope occurring last year and the first meeting of the 21-member group occurring earlier this year. They have a report that’s due to be delivered in December so these meetings are a bid to solicit public input on the state’s planning process, since growth is a “critical, defining (and) generational” issue for the state of Maryland.

Laria turned things over to the Maryland Secretary of Planning, Richard Eberhart Hall. He was the one who had the issues with the equipment, but once things got in order the audience used their own remote devices to answer a series of poll questions which were placed on the screen. (I’ll be interested to see if this becomes part of the report or if these results are posted beforehand.) But while the nonperforming projector was being replaced, Hall noted that it was Governor O’Malley’s charge to “instill” sustainable growth for the state, in part by highlighting the best practices through studying which incentives and ordinances were successful in that aim.

There were two slides that Hall showed which I assumed were supposed to have impact, but I picked out something which brought me to think about them further. The first of these two was a graph which showed three categories: population, number of households, and number of jobs for the Eastern Shore. Slowest to grow amongst them was the number of jobs, which I feel is truly unsustainable growth. Undoubtedly there’s a factor of retirees moving here from more urban areas but they should create service jobs at the very least. Having that job number growing the slowest would mean the local economy would stagnate compared to other areas and that definitely needs to be addressed.

The other slide was inserted to show the developed area on the Eastern Shore in 2002 and two projections for 2030: developed areas under current regulations and developed areas with Smart Growth, which supposedly would take up about 1/4 of the acreage. The prediction using current law is an additional 90,000 acres developed, and using my handy-dandy calculator I worked that out to roughly 140 square miles. It sounds like a lot if you look at it as a 14 mile x 10 mile area, but spread out among nine counties it’s not all that much.

Hall also alerted the gathering that the average lot size for a residential home was increasing while the share of growth in designated growth areas was decreasing. He opined that growth should be funneled as much as possible into Priority Funding Areas, areas the state deems to need an economic boost. (Perhaps making the state more business-friendly would help, but that’s a post for another time.) One other item I’m sure 98% of those in the auditorium were unaware of was that Maryland has been by law supposed to have a state development plan in place since the 1970’s but has never undertaken one until now.

The survey itself was conducted by our third scheduled speaker, Vienna Mayor Russ Brinsfield. One thing I found out is that I have some education to do because I was in a small minority on some issues, but the questions were sometimes those which led themselves to a politically correct answer and I ain’t politically correct (just right.) That’s part of my topic for tomorrow, but we got to the public input portion of the program after the survey.

As I expected, a number of speakers came up representing various environmental groups. But out of 17 speakers, they were not the majority. Friends of the Nanticoke, Wicomico Environmental Trust, Assateague Coastal Trust, and Heart of the Chesapeake (part of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation) all had someone say their piece. They spoke about “strong measures to protect an agricultural-based economy”, “green infrastructure”, “enhancing smart growth”, a “lack of will” among local officials to change cluster zoning regulations, and of course eliminating the subsidies for development, just to pick out a few general principles. One speaker not affiliated with these groups even managed to bring up the global warming aspect which I found disappointing because, as everyone should know, the earth’s temperatures have been steady or slightly cooling for the last ten years.

We also had other speakers who weren’t necessarily affiliated with the more radical environmentalists, but wished to preserve the status quo. One quoted Jim Perdue as saying that “sprawl represented the biggest threat to agriculture” in the region, while another stated that “the Eastern Shore doesn’t need to be Long Island”, suggesting that the money which would be used to build another Bay Bridge would better serve the Eastern Shore in creating jobs. Yet another came back to that theme of preserving agriculture, speaking about other states wanting our poultry industry to relocate there. He also talked about Salisbury as a “donut city” with the development on the outside and empty in the middle.

There were also a few elected officials who took to the microphone. Probably the best of them was Wicomico County Councilman John Cannon, who called on the planners to maintain a respect for private property rights and just compensation for transferable development rights, or TDR’s for short. Mayor Brinsfield also echoed the need for TDR’s, saying they have to be part of a planning solution. Sheree Sample-Hughes, who also sits on Wicomico County Council, took issue with the comment about a “lack of will” from County Council, a comment that “(did) not sit well” with her. She pointed out the county had “dissected” the issue and was moving forward with it to the county’s Planning Commission and eventually a public hearing. And Delegate Rudy Cane, who serves on the growth and development task force, felt he had to “stand in defense of the state of Maryland” when it was suggested that this planning may be too much of a “top-down approach”, contending this meeting was among the ways the state was making this a bottom-up process. Above all, the state has an “obligation to protect you.” (I wonder who would make the suggestion that the state was trying to impose its will? By the way, Rudy, I’d rather assume the obligation to protect myself than allow the state to do it for me.)

Two other officials looked at the perspective of costs. Former Worcester County Commissioner Sonny Bloxom decried a lack of staffing for his county as a hindrance and suggested the state possibly assist by assigning planners to individual counties. And a young lady who works for the town of Hurlock in their planning and zoning department gave several examples of their assistance to a particular developer and then asked who would pay and share the cost of placing growth in growth areas, and who pays to subsidize projects? Russ Brinsfield added that “you can’t assume growth pays its own way.”

As you probably figured by now, I did say my piece. I was the thirteenth of 17 speakers so as promised I let a bunch have their say first. The main points I wanted to stress were echoing John Cannon’s concern for private property rights (which drew commentary afterward from Mike Pretl, the speaker accusing the county of a “lack of will” – we generally have some disagreement when he and I meet), the idea of local control over planning rather than the topdown approach (which is what Delegate Cane took offense to), and not forgetting about economic development. I had to mention that the jobs line grew the slowest of all three, and we could not let the local economy stagnate in the quest for perfection in growth. (Hey, no one argued with that one!)

On the whole it’s going to be interesting to see what the task force comes up with, but if you look at the “12 Visions” that the MDP has drafted up, I can see a lot to object to already. That will be the topic on my second part tomorrow evening. I also saw G.A. Harrison there so I suspect Delmarva Dealings may be on this subject too.

We’ll see how much listening they do!

If you have the chance to make it to Wicomico High School this evening, you can share your opinions on growth in Maryland. (I’m all for it; however, we could use friendlier policies in order to make it happen.) This is how the Maryland Department of Planning put it:

The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) and the Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland are hosting a series of public forums across the State for residents to share their thoughts and ideas on future growth in the state.

Six Smart Growth Listening Sessions, planned for September, will take place in Maryland’s regions (Baltimore Metropolitan, Washington Suburban, Southern Maryland, Lower Eastern Shore, Upper Eastern Shore and Western Maryland) and are open to all citizens.

The Listening Sessions will begin at 6:30 p.m. to accommodate diverse public input on a variety of growth-related topics including, smart sustainable growth; growth and a healthy environment; regional development; historic preservation; transportation and growth; and growth and schools. Moderated by community leaders, these sessions are designed like town hall meetings with open discussion on these important matters.

It just so happens that we on the Lower Shore bat leadoff in the lineup, so we can set the tone for future events. (Or be the guinea pig, as is sometimes the case.) What wasn’t revealed in the notice that I received was who our local host(s) would be, but I have a sneaking hunch it may be many of the same people who are on the Wicomico Neighborhood Congress and/or Wicomico Environmental Trust. Seeing that it’s a town hall meeting on “Smart Growth” sort of clues me in on the agenda, so naturally I’m going to be there to represent sanity. I have my own agenda for “smart growth”:

Respecting private property rights over government regulation and intrusion
Having the state sell off their surplus land in order to make it taxpaying and productive once again
Favoring job creation over radical environmentalism
Reestablishing local control over Coastal Bay areas
Allowing Transferable Development Rights to have a sunset date rather than be permanent, much like an option on purchasing land. I’d suggest a 10 to 20 year term, that way each generation of landowners can decide if they’d like to open their properties up for development.

We’ll see if the fur goes flying tonight. I’ll allow them to say their piece, but I’m going to attempt to get my two cents in as well. It should be fun.

Contributing to the problem

While doing my Friday afternoon road work I thought about more I wanted to say on the subject, so if you’ve already read this it may bear re-reading.

In Washington today it seems there’s an advocacy group to represent each and every voter in America personally. Because I’m a registered architect, I receive items pushing the agenda of the American Institute of Architects; needless to say there’s not much I agree with when they have a stated agenda of making buildings “carbon-neutral” by 2030 to combat “climate change.”

Today I received their wish list for the final four-week Congressional term before the election and naturally much of it was focused on the supposed need for “green” buildings. But they shrewdly couched it as “members of Congress will consider a number of proposals that could potentially result in more work for you and your firm.” Perhaps that’s true, but as I’ll explain later this shouldn’t be the aim of government.

For the record, here’s the two main items the AIA is pushing Congress to adopt.

Incentives for “green” commercial construction
Funding for school construction and renovation

The incentive for climate-friendly construction the AIA advocates is yet more tinkering with the tax code, a tinkering that would extend the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings tax incentive beyond the end of the year. (As it stands, developers can qualify for a $1.80 per square foot tax deduction if they build in a certain manner.) And while the organization argues that this would appease developers who worry about the expiration of the tax provision and create more work for the architectural industry, my contention is that eliminating the complexity of the tax code would create a far better economic climate than yet another comparatively minor tax change. Besides, energy efficiency should be a goal which pays for itself and thus needs no other incentive. It’s yet another carrot placed in the tax code to regulate behavior and extending it for whatever amount of time Congress eventually would pick out will just assure that the lobbyists who favor this will have something to keep them busy for years to come.

On the second point, it goes without saying that I’m dead-set against federal regulations on school building in construction, simply because I don’t recall seeing anything about a federal role in education in my copy of the Constitution. Yet again Beltway bureaucrats would be telling local schools how to do their work if they accept the Faustian bargain of federal assistance for constructing or renovating schools.

I’ll concede right here that for the most part the American Institute of Architects is pushing for this legislation as a way of making more work for architects, and that’s fine – they have every right to do so. They operate under the mistaken belief that the money being placed into these programs and tax changes doesn’t cost the economy anything, but reality is that both provisions make more permanent work for the lobbyists and special interests who swarm like locusts inside the Beltway and throughout each state capital. Sure, a local school district may receive federal funds or some developer gets a tax credit as a temporary boost to their coffers but I believe neither truly advance the interests of the architectural profession in the long run as much as streamlining the maze of federal bureaucracy and simplifying the tax codes would by putting more money in the hands of those who would be much better clients than Fedzilla would be.

The most recent tagline from the AIA regarding green construction is that they “walk the walk.” Unfortunately, they’re leading those of us in the profession down a primrose path to ever-expanding government influence where soon we’ll be told where and how to practice our craft to an even greater degree than that which we already labor. By giving in to the consensus of scientists more interested in bringing an end to capitalist society and punishing the one nation which has led the world in building innovation over the last century and a half, the organization which purportedly has our interests at heart is instead letting our collective selves down.

I’ve singled out the American Institute of Architects for two reasons – one is that it does affect my profession (the real one which actually brings me a paycheck) in advocating particular policy, and secondly because it’s one where I can understand their political aims in real terms. I’m familiar with the jargon and can break it down for those outside the profession to understand. Now imagine this group multiplied by the thousands who work in and around Washington and you understand why our nation is in the shape it’s in. It would not surprise me in the least if there were 200 lobbyists inside the Beltway for each member of Congress; in fact, I’m not certain that I’m not underestimating the figure. Each lobbyist has his or her agenda and, while I’m sure I agree with some of their aims, there are few who want to eventually put themselves out of a job by getting rid of the agency or department which they deal with the most.

Without reading a history of lobbying, I imagine it went something like this. A group of like-minded people decided it was time to hire someone to speak with members of Congress to address their concerns because they were too busy or too numerous to do it themselves. Naturally, once this happened a group who held the opposite viewpoint became alarmed and decided it was time to hire their own person, then others who had diverse aims saw the successes the first groups were having and decided to jump in. Each of them also came with big-money donors who could establish the offices and staffing required to buttonhole those in Congress full-time. It follows that the members of Congress, who only have so many hours in a day to deal with the issues on the table, began hiring their own staffers to meet with the increasing number of lobbyists and eventually the whole ball of wax has evolved to the situation we have now, despite numerous attempts at “reform” in Washington.

It has continually been my contention that true reform doesn’t occur unless two things take place: taking the money away from the black hole that exists along the Potomac and not allowing those who are elected to serve there to get too comfortable in the lifestyle by routinely sending them back every two to six years. Twelve years in each body seems to me a good lifetime limit for anyone. If it’s good enough to limit our Chief Executive to two four-year terms, then term limits are good enough for Congress too.

Instead of tying the hands of those who want to contribute to politicians with so-called campaign finance reform, let’s attack the root of the problem and starve the big-government beast. Then the AIA can go back to doing what it does best, providing sound contractual documents which are fair to owner and contractor interests alike.

Time for refutations

It took him awhile, but ShoreIndie decided to take issue with my argument about oil supplies and needing more exploration to both help reduce the per-barrel price and potentially create thousands of energy-related jobs.

The straw man argument that is provided to prove that there’s a “lack of reason” among conservative bloggers relates in part to two posts I recently did, Overtime inside the Beltway and Response to comment #94462. Well, ShoreIndie wanted a source to confirm that the oil leases which are off-limits have more oil than the areas currently leased by oil companies. The Democrats who sponsored H.R. 6251 claimed that areas leased but not currently explored could produce 4.8 million barrels a day but there’s no total provided. Meanwhile, spokespeople for the oil companies claim that much of the leased area is already “tapped out.”

Even if I were to take the Democrats at their word, figures from the federal government’s Mineral Management Service show that there’s 18.9 billion recoverable barrels unavailable to extraction on just the Outer Continental Shelf alone. According to my public school math, areas unavailable would provide that 4.8 million barrels a day the Democrats claim would result from recovering oil on already-leased land for 3,938 days (or 10.7 years). This doesn’t count the billions of barrels available in ANWR or the 1.8 trillion barrels of oil shale on land which is 73% under the control of the federal government but barely leased under research and development leases.

Even worse, in telling me that I “can’t have it both ways” in talking about my post hoc argument regarding the do-nothing Democratic Congress (when it comes to productive energy legislation), he cites a bill which was signed by President Bush on December 20, 2006 – the problem there is that Congress was still in GOP hands at that point. Pelosi and company didn’t start ruining the country until January of 2007. Additionally, even if you take the 30 million or so acres that ShoreIndie cites as recently opened for oil development in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, it’s a small fraction of the 611 million acres off-limits based on the report I cited above. Granted, it’s progress but scant progress compared to the favoritism granted to a number of “alternative” energy sources and regulation overkill in just this bill (all 310 pages of it.)

It’s unfortunate that ShoreIndie doesn’t get the point that it’s not just about oil, it’s about more and better jobs for Americans and maintaining both our high standard of living and our security should there be another energy crisis. And the argument that we’re years away from extracting all of this new oil can be answered by noting that we’re also years away from, as a local example, the Bluewater Wind offshore wind farm (scheduled to go online in 2012) or most other examples of renewable energy. Neither solution is immediate, but already having the economy that’s oil-driven means that we should strive to eventually change over with as little impact on the market and as little government interference as possible.

Using plastic to pay for plastic

Or you can write a check, too. But I ran across a post on an engineering magazine blog (of all places) that has found perhaps the most mundane of problems (at least when compared to warfare, starvation, and the like) while advocating the same old left-wing solution to assist in solving it.

The blog is called Critical Path and the writer in this case is William Angelo. I’ll reprise the phrase that pays:

You can always appeal to people’s sense of outrage – and many people take environmental degradation seriously. But the people that do aren’t the problem and they have many other fights. And you know the old saying, out of sight, out of mind. We’ll worry about it tomorrow. So how about the best incentive of all – economic? We can use a carrot and stick approach. We could make plastic substitutes socially responsible by rewarding firms that do not produce or use plastic products. Perhaps tax or regulatory breaks that help the corporate bottom-line. Then we could also mandate a user tax on all plastic products at every transaction point – starting with the manufacturer to the merchant to the consumer – and use the proceeds to pay for a global cleanup. Money is the universal language – make users pay and perhaps give a refund for recycling. Even some dolt litterbug can understand that. (Emphasis mine.)

I probably should have left this slide just in case Martin O’Malley or one of his minions is reading monoblogue, but they’ve probably already thought about this tax themselves. Angelo’s complaint is about the tons of plastic which finds its way to our oceans and is harmful to marine life. Yes, it is shameful but for centuries mankind has used waterways as a conveyance to get rid of waste products, so this is nothing new.

However, Angelo’s approach is already law in a number of states where, in an effort to cut down on litter, deposits are required to purchase various products which are packaged in disposable bottles or cans, with the deposit ranging anywhere from a couple pennies to a dime. But there’s still plenty of litter strewn across the landscape despite the fines states could collect from scofflaws if they’re caught. And while the heaps of trash we Americans toss out has created a cottage industry for some who endeavor to pick up the recyclable portions in order to make a few dollars at the recycling center, a lot of garbage eventually finds its way to storm drains, ditches, and other waterways. Thus you have Angelo’s complaint, where he compares parts of the Pacific Ocean to a “giant non-flushing toilet bowl.”

On a personal level, I’ve probably tossed out a fortune’s worth of aluminum cans in my life but I otherwise tend to take advantage of the county’s recycling center just down the road from me. I’m sure that some portion of my tax bill goes to subsidize the effort since most of what they collect isn’t worth a whole lot unless you measure the waste in tons. What’s sort of sad is the amount of trash I walk by to take my recycling items there, much of which isn’t in a category the county will take. This is where we all can improve our efforts and be a little more conscious of what we use and use up.

Leaving aside another argument retailers have about the bottle and can collection areas which some states require for return of items being a draw for bugs and rodents to their stores, the case I make against a tax such as Angelo suggests is to ask who collects it? He envisions a “global clean-up” but to me the only group with such worldwide governmental scope is the United Nations, and the last thing we Americans need is to enact a tax for their benefit given the black hole the billions we already donate to the UN seems to end up in.

Once again, I think common sense should prevail. Just don’t litter – take a little pride in your surroundings, people. Simply being a little more sensitive to what you toss out where will go a great distance in solving the problem. Obviously one can’t eliminate the problem in full (accidents do happen, like the plastic cup at the lakeside picnic being blown into the water by a gust of wind) but using common sense is a lot cheaper than yet another tax that government can raise at will.

The slippery slope has a solar panel on it

While this isn’t the newest story, the New York Times and writer Nicholas Kulish recently told the tale of the small German city of Marburg and their efforts at greening the town through government regulation. I read it and thought to myself, “gee, this is something like Maryland would do” – definitely the story piqued my interest.

Probably the most intriguing parallel between the city of 80,000 and our state is that people tend to be in favor of the principles behind the ordinance, but think it goes too far because this is a dictate on what people can and cannot do with their private property. Witness the example of the homeowner who already has a small solar panel on his roof but would be forced to place a newer and larger one there as part of reinsulating his home. His point is that the regulation may discourage him from redoing his insulation (and it is a valid argument) but then again he could go ahead and pay the 1,000 euro fine, factoring it into the payback cost of the insulation. (However, at that point the city may amend the law as Maryland has with its new Critical Areas laws, making each day a nonconforming situation exists a separate offense.)

While the object in question isn’t solar panels the Marburg regulation reminds me of an idea, some form of which has been attempted in at least the last two General Assembly sessions, of charging homeowners who wish to improve their sites an impervious surface fee. (As I’ve blogged about several times before, the state of Maryland already subsidizes solar panel installation with grants and a sales tax waiver.) Not only does it satisfy the fringe environmentalists’ ideas about limiting development, it also satiates the liberal thirst for more dollars to redistribute because at one point the idea was floated as an annual fee on homeowners. Look for it to rear its ugly head once again in 2009.

As is generally the case with legislation which breaks new ground into usurping personal rights, there’s unintended consequences that I like to bring into the light. In the Marburg case, the regulations would prevent one homeowner from making the investment in reinsulating his house (and having a fairly short payback period on his investment) because he’d also have to pay for a solar panel which would be of dubious benefit to him because he already has similar technology in a smaller panel. Akin to this, all of the Critical Areas legislation and money invested in cleaning up Chesapeake Bay hasn’t shown itself in results which would satisfy the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other similar environmental groups because they’re not going to be happy until the Bay is restored to its pristine state circa 1600, when the only pollution in the Bay was from natural causes (read: poo from the few people and plentiful wild animals which were here then.) Those of us in Maryland are still paying plenty for the near-impossibility of trying to get the Bay back to that state in both money and personal freedom.

Fortunately for Marburg residents, it appears that the next level of government (equivalent to our state) will turn thumbs-down on the solar panel proposal, citing that it’s poorly written. In our case, I happen to think a self-imposed moratorium on new environmental regulations (and revenue generation) in Maryland is in order, this to give those regulations in force right now an opportunity to be studied to gauge their effectiveness. If Chesapeake Bay isn’t getting cleaner in five years’ time under the maze of regulations we already have in effect, then perhaps it’s time to see what can be done at that time in concert with the other states in its watershed. But we all need a breather – it took decades to place the Bay in its state, so how can we expect instant results?

Crossposted on Red Maryland.

Promise made, promise broken

I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning, and I think the wind’s emanating from Government House today:

On Wednesday, Governor Martin O’Malley was the lead presenter in a Washington D.C. press conference attacking John McCain’s position on energy independence. Apparently, O’Malley is going to be one of Barack Obama’s key energy policy surrogates.

“I have a hard time understanding where O’Malley gets the nerve to attack John McCain on energy policy,” said MDGOP Chairman Jim Pelura. “Electricity rates have risen exponentially during O’Malley’s governorship, despite his campaign promise to ‘take on BGE and stop the rate hikes’. This broken promise is just one of many examples of the failed leadership that Marylanders have grown accustomed to under O’Malley. Now it looks like O’Malley is on the road wholeheartedly backing Barack Obama’s energy plan,” Pelura continued.

“John McCain’s plan is to combine careful, domestic drilling with research and development of renewable energies like solar, wind, and biofuel. It’s a comprehensive plan that will give relief to working families now while securing our long-term energy future.”

“If Obama isn’t bothered by Martin O’Malley’s broken promises on energy, voters have to wonder if they can trust any of Obama’s promises on energy independence,” concluded Pelura.

Remember this O’Malley ad?

Yeah, Martin O’Malley was going to ride in on his white horse and save Maryland from those greedy utilities and their monster rate hikes. Too bad he failed at that and increased our taxes at the same time. Somehow that didn’t make it into the ad!

Like most Democrats, Governor O’Malley has continued to demonstrate that he has little grasp of market economics. Had deregulation been done properly, perhaps it would have attained the goals of increasing competition and lowering prices for all Maryland consumers as it was supposed to. I don’t think the answer is in reregulation, nor is it in the renewable portfolio mandates, grants for solar and geothermal power which warp the home heating market, or any of the other measures which were supposed to save the planet or Chesapeake Bay. But the O’Malley Administration is going to try all these and more to solve a problem that proper planning beforehand may have avoided.

I just hope that if it comes to pass, the McCain Administration doesn’t reach across the aisle to solve our energy problems – with examples like Martin O’Malley $4 a gallon gas and 10 cent per kilowatt electricity may be fond memories in the not-too-distant future.

Another redistribution I question

A regular reader of monoblogue sent me a tip about Maryland’s grant program for solar and geothermal energy programs – while the fiscal year just began on July 1st, he noticed on the WBOC website an AP story out of Annapolis which stated the entire $591,000 devoted to this year’s grant allocation has already been spoken for.

While J.M. surmised that I should “burn the O’Malley Administration a new asshole,” personally I think that in a time of budget shortfalls that these programs of dubious benefit need to be among the first to be axed. I question the value of these subsidies and why they should be required to make solar or geothermal more competitive with conventional heating sources – both of these systems should be able to sell themselves on their own merits if they’re the best thing since sliced bread; thus, no grants should be necessary. Obviously the state of Maryland, in its haste to consume as much of the green Kool-Aid as possible, feels otherwise.

According to the story, interest in the systems has been piqued because the state raised the maximum amount of each grant. HB377 pegged the grant figures thusly:

The lesser of $2,500 per kilowatt or $10,000 for newly installed electrical generation capacity (up from $3,000 or 20% of installed cost);
The lesser of $3,000 or 30% of installed cost for solar water heating (up from $2,000 and 20%);
The lesser of $1,000 per ton or $3,000 for a geothermal system on residential properties (up from $1,000);
The lesser of $1,000 per ton or $10,000 for a system on commercial properties.

Two major changes in existing law were the addition of commercial properties to grant eligibility and a sales tax exemption for solar and geothermal equipment (again, regulating behavior through the tax code.) So not only did $591,000 go to this grant program, the state made no sales tax on the thousands of dollars of equipment that was sold – if all of the $591,000 was sold as equipment that’s a loss of about $35,000.

I’d also be interested in knowing just who got these grants, and where their political contributions were made. While I’m sure many were on the up and up, something tells me a few friends of O’Malley managed to have their homes redone with solar or geothermal heating on the state. In fact, if the state of Maryland continues to insist on skewing the home heating market with grants like these, part of the deal should be a nice large sign placed in public view at the property in question detailing exactly how many tax dollars were given to the property owner.

This was one of the bills I considered for my Accountability Project but opted not to use – probably because the House votes were near-unanimous (137-0 and 140-0) and the Senate vote was 42-5 (Vote #1168). I already had 35 Senate votes so the bill wasn’t deemed as high of a priority as others making the cut. (By the way, Senator Andy Harris’s “environmental” record would be enhanced by this vote since he was in the majority – one of the few votes I would have disagreed with him on. The five voting properly against were Senators Della, Exum, Greenip, Mooney, and Pipkin.)

Of course, because the money ran out so quickly the state is sure to increase the pot for FY2010. In the meantime, look for utilities to pay for supplying more grant money as the AP story mentions the possibility of funding from an upcoming greenhouse gas allowance auction (yep, cap and trade rears its ugly head on September 25th.) Meanwhile, the home heating market becomes more tilted in favor of so-called renewable technology, a subsidy we’re going to pay for in more ways than one.

Gas price relief? Not likely

You can tell what the pet issues are at any time by the names of bills placed in the Congressional hopper. Witness the recently introduced H.R. 6495, (it’s a 40 page .pdf file, just so you know) better known as the “Transportation and Housing Choices for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008.” The lead sponsor is Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and 4 of the 5 co-sponsors are Democrats, with the reliably liberal RINO Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut added to make the measure “bipartisan.” (Blumenauer is a favorite of my cohorts at the AIA because he also sponsors a large portion of the “green” building legislation circulating through the House.)

But the bill is quite the reach if you look at cause and effect, because I’m not quite sure where the impact on gas prices will come given some of the topics the bill covers:

Grants to state and local governments and other entities with priority given to, “proposals that will have the biggest impact on reducing single occupancy vehicle trips,” to the tune of $50 million.
$850 million of grants and subsidies to mass transit.
Making urban density a factor in community transit grants.
$10 million in grants over each of the next three years to market “transportation alternatives” to single occupancy vehicles.
Tinkering with the tax code yet again to reward behavior like teleworking, commuting by bicycle, an increase in allowable deductions for “transportation fringe benefits”, parking cash-out programs, and vanpooling.
Encouraging federal agencies to participate in local transportation management associations.
Incorporate transportation costs and transit accessibility into the index which determines low-income housing tax credits and possibly into the Multiple Listing Service which realtors use – that’s another $3 million.
“Location-efficient” mortgage goals for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (That in particular sounds like an invitation to a much larger bailout.) There’s also $2.5 million in grants set aside for each state to construct or acquire “location-efficient” housing, that being defined as within 1/2 mile of a transit stop.
Adding high schools to those schools covered under the existing SAFETEA-LU transportation bill, in order to create “safe routes to school”. By the way, that’s another $2.7 billion through 2013.

I’m not seeing any new fuel supply out of these bullet points, are you?

I know those far to my left will argue that many of these provisions will reduce the need for gasoline in the long run, and for the moment I’ll accept the premise for sake of argument. At $4 a gallon, we would need to save 939,500,000 gallons of gasoline to make up the $3.758 billion my public school math figured out that this program would cost. However, that doesn’t count the energy used for all the studies and creating all of the regulations that will go along with enacting some of the bill’s finer points. It’s going to have a pretty large carbon footprint for dubious benefit – just looking at one portion of the bill, transit routes are subject to change based on ridership and a house that’s close to the bus stop one day may be a mile away the next.

In sum, what this bill is attempting to do is not to lower gas prices, for that would defeat the many nebulous purposes this bill would place the federal government out to achieve. Instead, it’s another attempt to regulate behavior by placing more carrots in the tax code and beating with the sticks those who may desire low- to moderate-income housing in areas which may be nice neighborhoods but which don’t happen to be near a bus route or train station.

However, the main point I’m bringing out is that, much like telling Americans that a bill is good because it’s “for the children” – or its corollary, telling Marylanders that a proposal is ideal because it’s “for the Bay” – placing those magic words “gas price relief” in the title belies that same old liberal claptrap which various members of Congress have been trying to enact for years but haven’t been able to get out of committee most of the time.

You can’t make a Corvette out of a Prius and you can’t bring gas price relief through regulating behavior. But Democrats in Congress keep trying, while ignoring the plain truth that the best way to achieve gas price relief is by increasing our domestic oil supply and refining capability. Bills advocating that approach languish in Congress, while this turkey of a bill may just see a vote before the end of this session.

1.3 million down, 298 million to go

You know, this sounds like a lot of signatures, but compared to our whole population or even an average week’s American Idol viewership, this isn’t much more than a drop in the bucket. From American Solutions’ Dave Ryan:

We are pleased to announce that at a press conference on Tuesday at the U.S. Capitol, we presented the House and Senate Republican leadership 1.3 million petition signatures on your behalf.

Accepting the petitions, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and other congressional leaders spoke about the need to produce more American energy as part of a larger American energy plan.

Among the petition signers in attendance were Fred Hughes, a Vietnam veteran and small business owner; Tara Bowman, who owns a cattle company with her husband Daryl; Barbara Windsor, who runs a trucking company that has been in her family for 75 years; and Laura Ramirez Drain, a teacher and proud new American citizen. As representatives of over 1.3 million Democrats, Republicans, and independents, we sincerely appreciate their time and effort.

The campaign for a 21st century secure energy plan is about more than the price of filling our gas tanks. It’s about protecting America by cutting off the flow of our dollars to the foreign dictators that control so much of our oil suppy. It’s about coming together to flex our national muscles to make life better for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

Understanding the importance and enormity of this challenge, our effort at American Solutions has only just begun. As the momentum builds, we will present millions more petition signatures to the Democratic and Republican Conventions later this summer to urge both parties to take action.

As Senator John Cornyn said at the event, you are doing “what every citizen of America has a right to do, and that is to petition their government. To petition for change.”

With your help, we can continue to shape this debate, win the argument, and affect real change.

While I’m glad Newt has undergone this effort (and developed one hell of an e-mail list in the process) the problem with many such efforts is keeping the ball rolling. Obviously a number of factors could affect how effectively this process continues; in particular a downward turn in gas prices. On the other hand, an increase in the gas tax like one I alluded to in passing last night would embitter more people toward the federal government regardless of whether those extra lanes are built on the freeway or not. (You don’t have to go very far to make people who think like me mad, but some are more tolerant.)

Much will also depend on who wins the November elections. While Newt and American Solutions have painted this as a “red, white, and blue” issue that’s gathered support from voters of all stripes, my gut feeling is that at least a plurality of signers were Republican, with lesser numbers being independents and still fewer Democrats. The two main parties have staked out their sides on the issue, with Republicans being on the side of more domestic oil and gas exploration done by oil companies operating in a more free market with limited government interference; meanwhile Democrats are dead-set against drilling, believing that economic growth is achievable by conservation and reliance on the government choosing winners among renewable sources that have sprung up in the last few decades (just try operating your car with switchgrass, Frank Kratovil.)

But it’s going to take that 1.3 million some effort to become 13 million, and still more to become the 130 million who would be required to bring about a complete political sea change (after all, between the two major-party Presidential candidates in 2004 they split about 115 million votes.) In the last several election cycles the biggest winner has been apathy, and unfortunately there’s not a lot of promise that 2008 will be different.

I do owe you a video though, so to close I’ll link to the video of a proud American Solutions moment. The embed wasn’t working out for some odd reason. Maybe next time.

Is it really a wiser choice?

One article that I allocated last week when I hosted Carnival of Maryland 37 was from the local blog Lost On The Shore, and it argued for investing more into mass transit as oil prices show no sign of subsiding in the near future. Obviously the investment Tom argued for would be from our already-bloated state government in concert with other East Coast states along the I-95 corridor and would ideally result in a high-speed rail system similar to those found in Europe or Japan.

I’ll give him credit for having enough sense to realize that this would be almost by necessity a system limited in geographic scope because, even at 150 miles per hour, train travel is nowhere near as timely as air travel on a coast-to-coast basis. However, there already is one large obstacle to bringing in a high-speed rail system and it’s not really the cost for infrastructure – the roadblock is called Amtrak. While Tom brings up the fact that Amtrak trains are sold out far in advance, having a heavily subsidized entity already in the rail market all but prohibits the sort of private investment that could make such a enterprise worthwhile. Unlike the freight business, passenger rail became too much of a burden after the advent of the interstate system made auto travel easier and faster so by the early 1970’s no large-scale railroad player remained in the intercity passenger rail business. (Thinking about passenger trains also brings to mind one of my favorite books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. But I digress.) In stepped the federal government and Amtrak was created.

Unfortunately, each time Congress has mentioned slashing the huge subsidies for train travel – particularly during the heady days of the Contract With America – Democrats and the rail unions (but I repeat myself) have mustered up the votes and the sympathy to continue Amtrak’s gravy train for another budget year. In the meantime, the condition of the tracks slowly deteriorates and obsolete labor rules are kept in force so that anyone who wanted to compete on a level playing field with our national train service could probably clean their clock in little to no time. But that taxpayer subsidy slants the board in such a way to discourage competition.

(It’s definitely an aside, but over the weekend I had the opportunity to ride on Baltimore’s light rail system. While it was convenient enough, taking my friend and I to the gates of Camden Yards, the quality of service left something to be desired – in particular the dearth of trains at a time schedulers should know will be quite busy.)

I also wanted to talk a little bit about bus service and local transit options. I have no idea what the fare is to ride Shore Transit, only that I see a bus go by my house every so often when I’m home and paying attention. And perhaps with the price of gas what it is right now, a more full bus may mean that the service actually comes closer than ever to breaking even. However, my experience is that transit services of that type (particularly paratransit) operate at a loss. In Ohio, where such items are allowed by state law, every few years there would be placed on the ballot a property tax levy or renewal to support Toledo’s regional transit system and it would always pass despite my objections. Here in Maryland, a portion of the state gasoline tax helps defray costs – of course with fewer people driving that shortfall in gasoline tax collection is eating away anything gained by increased ridership. It’s a typical Catch-22 in government; when the people do what’s asked of them they lose in the long run anyway. As a matter of fact, this AP story yesterday by Jim Abrams warns of a possible gas tax increase due to – you guessed it – people using fewer gallons of gasoline because they’ve cut back on driving.

To me, “Fedzilla” (I told you I liked that term) is presenting far too many obstacles to more efficient, cost-effective transportation. By subsidizing an overhead-heavy railroad with our tax dollars it’s discouraging someone who may want to come in make the investment in infrastructure necessary to build the rail system Tom desires. By not allowing and encouraging oil exploration domestically they’re leaving gasoline prices higher than they could be if they simply got out of the way, and the price of diesel fuel is crippling the trucking industry – especially small independent operators. And by threatening to increase taxes even more on each gallon, they’re perpetuating a scam that sends money to states to build bike paths or further subsidize modes of transport which simply aren’t cost-effective or useful to many workers, some who, like myself, need to have their car available for field work or other job-related items.

Given the choice, I’d prefer to allow the market to decide how best to move people around. Oh yes, it already has, which is why practically every household in America has a driveway with a car on it. With rare exceptions, that car is the most convenient mode of transportation to get from Point A to Point B and it’s only because the price of oil has reached intolerable levels that much discussion of the mass transit issue has ensued. Being the kind of guy who likes free choice, I think our best approach to mass transit is to let it sink or swim on its own merits, and something tells me that the call wouldn’t be made for a bus on every corner if gas prices return to more appropriate levels.

Crossposted on Red Maryland and That’s Elbert With An E.