If we want a less complicated system the solution is obvious: Reform property taxes, and allow them to pay for the things we want them to pay for. What purpose has been served by doing otherwise?
A collection of thoughts, reviews, and responses that don't fit well on Twitter or Facebook.
Monday, May 27, 2013
With respect to taxes, Oregonians are laying in a bed we made
If we want a less complicated system the solution is obvious: Reform property taxes, and allow them to pay for the things we want them to pay for. What purpose has been served by doing otherwise?
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Is the commission form of government responsible for problems with the Arts Tax?
On taking office Mayor Hales took control of all city bureaus. In effect Portland has not had a commission form of government in that time, it's had a strong mayor system.
The problems with implementing the arts tax can't be put on the commission form of government, they belong solely to Hales. By changing deadlines, monkeying with the definition of who was subject to the tax and generally badmouthing it he's given Portlanders every indication they should ignore the tax. That so many have paid anyway is a testament to how popular the idea of putting art teachers in schools is.
The "kinks" in the arts tax demonstrate the weakness of a strong mayor system, wherein a city's priorities can be totally re-written by the election of a single office. It encourages short term thinking and a focus on what one person can do in a four year term, rather than thinking about what a city should do in the long term. And it's impossible to adequately vet candidates. The arts tax drew more votes than did Charlie Hales, is it likely that people supported him knowing he'd undermine the tax?
Portland's problem isn't with the commission form of government, the problem is that we've abandoned it.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Pearl District and Housing
The Oregonian published a modest story highlighting the economic diversity of the Pearl District, a well known urban renewal project. I was surprised at how many negative comments the story drew. Apparently it tweaked some people's noses to learn that poor people can live in the Pearl.
There are a lot of reasons to like or dislike urban renewal, but let's look at the most basic consequence. Urban renewal added housing. Between 2000 and 2010 the two census tracts which most match the Pearl added more than 5,000 units of housing. And it didn't add it willy-nilly, it was concentrated within an area of 0.72 square miles, most of it reclaimed from industrial and commercial use.
Now consider what would happen without such concentrated development. 5,000 units equals 50 100-unit apartment buildings. Given the problems the east side has shown accepting multi-unit housing, how would nimby leaders feel about 50 additional big buildings heading their way? Or you could suppose that demand would have been met with suburban housing. Assuming the same housing density as Beaverton that would require developing over 1,500 acres of land.
There are only so many ways of dealing with a rising population and a corresponding demand for housing. Urban renewal has its flaws, but if you don't allow multi-family housing in existing neighborhoods and you don't want sprawl then reclaiming land from other uses (and the subsidies that go with it) is what is left.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Market structure matters
On the other hand it isn't plausible or desirable to say that insurers who want to lower their rates and who can bear the risk should be prevented from doing so.
I think the solution is to make such changes expensive. If a company fudges filed rates the "error" should be widely publicized so as to create reputational damage. Who wants to pay higher rates just because? There should also be a financial hit, perhaps by the state contracting out for third party review at the filing company's expense. Not only does it create a penalty to discourage such behavior, it's prudent since where there's one "error" there may be more.
And I have to add, I'm shocked... shocked that Providence had fat rates.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Great quote from Stephen Flynn
Flynn wrote this back when George W Bush was still in office and troops were still dying in Iraq, but it is no less meaningful. It might be even more meaningful now, looking at the dual tragedies of the Boston Marathon and the Texas fertilizer explosion, or the destruction wrought by Hurricane Sandy.Coming to grips with perils that can lead to catastrophic consequences is not about living in a perpetual state of fear. We become fearful only when a sense of imminent danger is coupled with a feeling of powerlessness. But there is no reason to doubt our ability to confront and manage these risks. Every American generation has had to confront serious dangers, and they have always passed the test. While we must be prepared to acknowledge that there are dark clouds on the horizon, it is vital that we not lose sight of our most important and endearing trait: our sense of optimism about the future and our conviction that we can change it for the better.
We can quantize information of all types as never before. With that data we can project risk. It isn't something to be afraid of, nor is it something to ignore. I think incorporating knowledge of risk, and deciding what warrants action and what does not, is a critical challenge for self government.