Category: Government

Taxpayer Funded Stadiums Fail to Bring Promised Economic Development

(p. C14) The Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have been an epicenter of the U.S. stadium-and-arena boom, rolling out five major sports facilities since 1990 that together cost more than $2 billion.
Now, the neighboring cities are readying for a sixth: a 20,000-seat, $150 million Major League Soccer stadium to be built by 2018 in St. Paul about halfway between the two downtowns.
. . .
But taken with the other facilities that have a combined seat count of nearly 200,000, this latest project illustrates how the Twin Cities are an acute example of the rapid increase in stadiums and arenas in U.S. cities. These developments come despite a growing chorus of warnings from economists who say the stadiums are almost always poor drivers of economic development. Even when these facilities do spur nearby investment, economists and critics say the cost to the public is typically far higher than with traditional economic-development programs.
“I’ve lived in the Twin Cities since 1976, and have seen this proliferation of new sports stadia,” said Jane Prince, a St. Paul city council member who voted against the soccer stadium aid package. “I just don’t see the promised economic development occurring in conjunction with all of these.”
. . .
“There’s not one group that makes these decisions–it was two city governments, it was a legislature, it was sports owners,” said R.T. Rybak, the mayor of Minneapolis from 2002 to 2014. Mr. Rybak said he had long been critical of sports subsidies but he grudgingly helped craft the aid package for the Vikings stadium after the team was poised to move elsewhere.
That deal, and the others, he said, were “also driven by the increasingly crazy politics of sports economics,” in which teams want their own facilities, custom designed for their ideal crowd sizes.

For the full story, see:
ELIOT BROWN. “Twin Cities to Get Yet Another Stadium.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., March 23, 2016): C14.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 22, 2016, and has the title “In Twin Cities, How Many Stadiums Are Enough?”)

Government Elephant Ivory Bans Endanger Rare Helmeted Hornbills

Another unintended consequence of well-intentioned government policy.

(p. A3) BEIJING — Even as China, the world’s leading market for illegal ivory, promises to help safeguard elephants in Africa, a rare bird in Southeast Asia is in danger because its skull is being sold in China as an ivory alternative, conservationists say.
. . .
More than 2,000 helmeted hornbill skulls, or casques, were seized by the authorities in Indonesia and China in the past five years, according to a new report by the Environmental Investigation Agency, a nongovernmental organization based in London. In some cases, Chinese citizens were caught trying to leave Indonesia with casques in their luggage.
. . .
China has joined the world in taking a stand against the trade in elephant and rhinoceros products. In September, during his state visit to the United States, President Xi Jinping pledged to “enact nearly complete bans on ivory import and export.”
But some conservationists worry that less celebrated but also threatened animals, including the helmeted hornbill, are being overlooked, becoming easy picks to meet the demand.
“Shifting to hornbill ivory is like grabbing a low-hanging fruit,” Yokyok Hadiprakarsa, the director of the Indonesian Hornbill Conservation Society, wrote in an email.

For the full story, see:
SHAOJIE HUANG. “Chinese Demand for Ivory Alternative Threatens Rare Hornbill Bird.” The New York Times (Weds., MARCH 23, 2016): A3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date MARCH 22, 2016, and has the title “Chinese Demand for Ivory Alternative Threatens Rare Bird.”)

Suburbs Solved City Over-Crowding and Allowed Child Rearing

(p. C7) . . . , Adna Ferrin Weber, writing in 1899, had it right. “The ‘rise of the suburbs’ it is,” he wrote, “which furnishes the solid basis of a hope that the evils of city life, so far as they result from overcrowding, may be in large part removed.”
. . .
Joel Kotkin, in “The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us,” presents the most cogent, evidence-based and clear-headed exposition of the pro-suburban argument. In Mr. Kotkin’s view, there is a war against suburbia, an unjust war launched by intellectuals, environmentalists and central-city enthusiasts. In pithy, readable sections, each addressing a single issue, he debunks one attack on the suburbs after another. But he does more than that. He weaves an impressive array of original observations about cities into his arguments, enriching our understanding of what cities are about and what they can and must become, with sections reflecting on such topics as “housing inflation,” “the rise of the home-based economy,” “the organic expansion of cities” and “forces undermining the middle class in global cities.”
The essence of Mr. Kotkin’s defense of suburban expansion in the United States–with which he is most familiar and where the opposition to his views is better organized and much more formidable than elsewhere–is that suburbs now contain the great majority of residences as well as jobs. Suburban neighborhoods, he suggests, are as conducive to community living and as “green” as central-city ones. But his critique of conventional urban-planning wisdom goes further. He argues that central-city living is largely unaffordable by the middle class, let alone the poor; that central cities are becoming the abodes of the global rich, encouraging glamorous consumption rather than providing middle-class jobs; and that dense urban living in small, expensive quarters discourages child rearing, a critical concern for policy makers in many industrialized countries today.

For the full review, see:
SHLOMO ANGEL. “In Praise of Urban Sprawl; Dense urban living discourages child rearing. It is no surprise that there are 80,000 more dogs than children in San Francisco.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 21, 2016): C5-C6.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 20, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Kotkin, Joel. The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us. Chicago: Agate B2 Books, 2016.

Imperial Passivity of the Holy Roman Empire Allowed Liberty and Diversity

(p. C7) On Aug. 6, 1806, an imperial herald decked out in full court regalia galloped purposefully through the streets of Vienna to a magnificent medieval church at the center of the city. Once there, he ascended to the balcony, blew his silver trumpet and declared that the Holy Roman Empire, an institution that had lasted for more than 1,000 years, was no more.
. . .
But because the empire never evolved into a viable nation-state, many scholars and politicians regarded it as a failure. The Germans in particular (including the great 19th-century historian Leopold von Ranke) blamed the empire for the fact that Germany remained a “delayed nation” that was only unified (through Prussian machinations) in 1871.
Yet it was precisely this lack of political centralization, Mr. Wilson argues, that provided the empire with its greatest strength. Imperial passivity meant that individual rulers and states were largely left alone to govern as they wished. And all subjects had the right to appeal to the emperor if they believed their rights had been trammeled upon. Jews, for example, were given imperial protection as early as 1090; and though forced to live as second-class citizens during much of the empire’s history, many viewed its dissolution as a catastrophe.
Political fragmentation also had cultural benefits. Unlike France and England, with their single capital and monarch, the Holy Roman Empire had numerous kings, courts and centers of patronage. The result was a remarkably wide distribution of educational and cultural institutions, one that is still observable in the former imperial lands. It was probably also no coincidence that both the printing press and Europe’s first mail service were launched within the fragmented empire or that the imperial territories experienced higher levels of economic growth than regions of Europe with more centralized control.
. . .
Though far from perfect, the empire lasted for as long as it did because it strove to provide the two things most hoped for in a state: liberty and security.

For the full review, see:
MARK MOLESKY. “The Strength of a Weak State; In the Holy Roman Empire, individual rulers and states were largely left to govern as they wished.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 21, 2016): C7.
(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 20, 2016.)

The book under review, is:
Wilson, Peter H. Heart of Europe: A History of the Holy Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2016.

Feds Spend Over $500 Million to Aid Barges Shipping Coal

(p. B1) CHARLEROI, Pa.–A few years ago, coal barges lined up 20 or 30 deep, waiting their turn for a towboat to shuttle them through the locks near this town along the Monongahela River.
These days it is the towboats that often sit idle. Cheap natural gas, stricter power-plant-emissions rules and a weak steel market have gutted coal demand, and with it traffic on the rivers that have served as the industry’s commercial arteries for over a century.
Nevertheless, river infrastructure is about to be flooded with federal cash. In December, Congress authorized $405 million to improve river locks and dams over the next fiscal year, the most since 2008.
The money follows a multimillion-dollar lobbying effort spearheaded by the Waterways Council Inc., which represents an array of companies including coal producer Murray Energy Corp., utility FirstEnergy Corp., agricultural-commodities trader Cargill Inc. and Marathon Petroleum Corp.
. . .
“It’s kind of ironic–we’re spending even more to update and modernize this system when the value and volume of the commodities is diminishing, and coal is something that we as a country are moving away from,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a conservative-leaning advocacy group that analyzes infrastructure spending.

For the full story, see:
ROBBIE WHELAN. “Barges Get a Boost, Even as Demand Sinks.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., Feb. 4, 2016): B1 & B7.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 2, 2016, and has the title “U.S. Opens Spigot for Lock-and-Dam Fixes, Even as Coal Traffic Dwindles.”)

A Rooftop Farm Is “a Foolish Endeavor” Due to High Costs and Government Regulations

(p. B1) BrightFarms Inc. last year pulled the plug on a planned greenhouse in Washington, D.C., 10 months into the process of getting permits, and earlier exited an effort to develop a rooftop farm in Brooklyn, New York. FarmedHere LLC, which operates a farm in a former box factory outside Chicago, shut down for six months last August to revamp its strategy.
Building farms on city rooftops is “a foolish endeavor” because of the higher costs and the additional time for permitting, said Paul Lightfoot, chief executive of BrightFarms.

For the full story, see:
Ruth Simon. “Farming Startups Have Tough Row to Hoe.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., April 14, 2016): B1 & B6.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date April 13, 2016, and has the title “Farming Gets High Tech in Bid to Offer Locally Grown Produce.”)

Contrary to Earlier White House Denials, Obama Admits to Banishing Bust of Winston Churchill

(p. A7) HANOVER, Germany — It has been, perhaps, one of the most enduring mysteries of President Obama’s tenure: What really happened to the bust of Winston Churchill that was once displayed in the Oval Office?
. . .
The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, the onetime Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a current Republican presidential candidate, are among those who have chastised Mr. Obama over the years for returning the bust to the British.
. . .
Dan Pfeiffer, the president’s communications director at the time, blasted Mr. Krauthammer, calling his charge about the disappearing bust “100 percent false” and saying that “news outlets have debunked this claim time and again.”
. . .
But late last week, Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, renewed the charge, writing in a British tabloid that the Oval Office bust had been “banished” . . .
Countering such charges is typically left to a president’s aides. But asked at a news conference Friday about the mayor’s comments, Mr. Obama seemed to relish the chance to set everyone straight, once and for all, about the fate of the Churchill bust.
. . .
. . . Mr. Obama went on to explain what had happened to the bust lent by Mr. Blair, the one that critics had accused him of summarily sending back to the British. It was, Mr. Obama said, his decision to return that Churchill to his native land, because he wanted to replace it with a bust of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
. . .
That appears to contradict the longstanding denials by White House officials, including Mr. Pfeiffer, that neither Mr. Obama nor anyone else in his administration had chosen to dispatch Churchill’s likeness in favor of someone else’s. By Mr. Obama’s admission, he made the decision to replace the Churchill bust with one of Dr. King.

For the full story, see:
MICHAEL D. SHEAR. “White House Letter; No Need for Holmes; Obama Sheds Light on a Churchill Mystery.” The New York Times (Mon., April 25, 2016): A7.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date April 24, 2016, and has the title “White House Letter; No Need for Holmes; Obama Sheds Light on a Winston Churchill Mystery.”)

Feds Encourage Costly, Intrusive, Confusing Title IX Bureaucracies

(p. A1) CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — In a brightly lit classroom here at Harvard, Mia Karvonides was trying to explain to a group of bemused student leaders the difference between a romantic encounter and “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” as the university’s relatively new code of sexual misconduct defines it.
She tried to leaven the legalistic atmosphere at the town-hall-style meeting with realistic-sounding examples, defying gender stereotypes. Jose and Lisa, chemistry students, are working late at night in the lab, she began, when Lisa comes up from behind and kisses Jose on the neck.
Such a surprise move, she suggested, could be the beginning of a sexual misconduct complaint.
. . .
Ms. Karvonides is Harvard’s first Title IX officer, leading a new bureaucracy that oversees how the institution responds to complaints of sexual violence under Title IX, the federal law that governs gender equity in education. She is one of a rapidly growing number of Title IX employees on campuses nationwide, as colleges spend millions to hire law-(p. A3)yers, investigators, case workers, survivor advocates, peer counselors, workshop leaders and other officials to deal with increasing numbers of these complaints.
. . .
The expansion of Title IX bureaucracies — often at great expense — is driven in part by pressure from the federal government, which recently put out a series of policy directives on sexual misconduct on campus. More than 200 colleges and universities are under federal investigation for the way they have handled complaints of sexual misconduct, up from 55 two years ago.
. . .
. . . in a report last week, a national association of professors said that the Title IX bureaucracy had started to infringe on academic freedom, by beginning investigations into faculty members’ lectures and essays.
. . .
At a minimum, federal rules require colleges to designate one Title IX coordinator, at least part time.
Many colleges have gone far beyond that, at a cost ranging from thousands to millions of dollars.
. . .
At the University of California, Berkeley, officials said, Title IX spending has risen by at least $2 million since 2013, though they declined to give the total.
“Certainly, colleges are spending more related to Title IX than ever in history, both preventatively and responsively,” Mr. Sokolow said. He estimated that dealing with an inquiry could cost “six figures,” and that responding to a lawsuit “can run into the high six or even seven figures, not counting a settlement or verdict.”
. . .
Some campuses have adopted “affirmative consent” rules, in effect a written or unwritten contract, requiring a yes before the first kiss and at every step along the way. Harvard has opted instead for what Ms. Karvonides called a more nuanced standard of “unwelcome conduct.”
This has led to criticism by some that the policy is not strong enough, and by others that it could punish behavior as mild as flirting.
“This is ubiquitously on the mind of everyone at Harvard,” said Daniel Banks, the undergraduate council vice president, who helped organize the recent town-hall-style meeting on the subject. Many students have concluded that the best solution is not so much compliance as avoidance.
“You either don’t date at all,” said Daniel Levine, another student leader, “or you’re like a married couple.”

For the full story, see:
ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS. “In Battling Sexual Misconduct, Colleges Build a Bureaucracy.” The New York Times (Weds., MARCH 30, 2016): A1 & A3.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date MARCH 29, 2016, and has the title “Colleges Spending Millions to Deal With Sexual Misconduct Complaints.”)

The AAUP report expressing concerns about how Title IX bureaucracies violate academic freedom and due process, is:
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). “The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX.” Draft Report, March 24, 2016.

Tesla Direct Sales Thwarted by Laws that Protect Dealers Instead of Consumers

(p. B3) Tesla Motors Inc. hopes to capture mainstream auto buyers with its Model 3, an electric car it plans to unveil this week at a price about the same as the average gasoline-powered vehicle, but it may need a federal court ruling to succeed.
The Palo Alto, Calif., auto maker’s direct-to-consumer sales are prohibited by law in six states that represent about 18% of the U.S. new-car market. Barring a change of heart by those states, Tesla is preparing to make a federal case out of the direct-sales bans.
The auto maker’s legal staff has been studying a 2013 federal appeals court ruling in New Orleans that determined St. Joseph Abbey could sell monk-made coffins to customers without having a funeral director’s license. The case emerged amid a casket shortage after Hurricane Katrina. The abbey had tried to sell coffins, only to find state laws restricted such sales to those licensed by the Louisiana Board of Funeral Directors.
For now, Tesla is banking on a combination of new legislation, pending dealer applications and other factors to open doors to selling directly in Arizona, Michigan, Texas, Connecticut, Utah and West Virginia. But the company said it is ready to argue in federal court using the coffin case if necessary.
“It is widely accepted that laws that have a protectionist motivation or effect are not proper,” Todd Maron, the auto maker’s chief counsel, said in an interview. “Tesla is committed to not being foreclosed from operating in the states it desires to operate in, and all options are on the table.”
. . .
“There is no legitimate competitive interest in having consumers purchase cars through an independent dealership,” Greg Reed, an attorney with Washington D.C.-based Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning law firm, said. He calls Michigan’s laws “anti-competitive protectionism.”

For the full story, see:
MIKE RAMSEY. “Tesla Weighs Legal Fight.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., March 29, 2016): B3.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 28, 2016, and has the title “Tesla Weighs New Challenge to State Direct-Sales Bans.”)

Government: “One Vast Honey Pot with Thousands of Ants Lined Up Around the Rim”

(p. A21) Ms. Tolchin hit on the subject of patronage when Mr. Tolchin, then a reporter in the metropolitan news department of The New York Times, wrote a series of articles on the topic that several publishers urged him to turn into a book. Daunted, he turned to his wife for help.
“The political-science literature had an enormous hole on the subject,” she told The Washingtonian in 2011. “It’s such a critical part of the political process — it was wonderful virgin territory.”
Their combined efforts — he provided the reporting, she provided the scholarship — resulted in “To the Victor…: Political Patronage From the Clubhouse to the White House,” published in 1971.
In lively fashion, the book surveyed the history and examined the mechanisms of a system the authors described as “one of the occupational hazards of democracy.” They traced its influence, for good and ill, in city halls, statehouses, courthouses and, onward and upward, Congress and the White House.
The picture it painted was often bleak, presenting government at all levels as “one vast honey pot with thousands of ants lined up around the rim to get at the sweetener inside,” according to a review in The Times.
It was a rich subject to which the authors returned in “Pinstripe Patronage: Political Favoritism From the Clubhouse to the White House … and Beyond,” published in 2011. Patronage is “the major reason people go into politics,” Ms. Tolchin told The Washingtonian.”

For the full obituary, see:
WILLIAM GRIMES. “Susan Tolchin, Scholar and Author, Is Dead at 75.” The New York Times (Fri., May 20, 2016): A21.
(Note: ellipses in original.)
(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date May 19, 2016, and has the title “Susan Tolchin, Political Scientist Who Foresaw Voter Anger, Dies at 75.”)

The two books on government patronage that are mentioned above, are:
Tolchin, Martin, and Susan Tolchin. To the Victor: Political Patronage from the Clubhouse to the White House. New York: Random House, 1971.
Tolchin, Martin, and Susan Tolchin. Pinstripe Patronage: Political Favoritism from the Clubhouse to the White House and Beyond. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2011.

Trump Threatens Antitrust Action Against Innovative Amazon Entrepreneur Bezos

(p. A11) Donald Trump, an innovator in all things, is now in the process of changing the rules in America with his threat to bring legal action against Amazon on antitrust grounds and, if we hear him correctly, on tax grounds as well.
Mr. Trump couldn’t have been clearer about his motivation. He complained about Washington Post reporters calling up and “asking ridiculous questions,” “all false stuff,” apparently related to Mr. Trump’s tax returns, which in defiance of all tradition he has refused to release, as well as Mr. Trump’s real-estate dealings.
Mr. Trump says the Post was purchased as “a toy” by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (who bought the paper with his personal funds in 2013). Mr. Trump says the paper now is being used to attack Mr. Trump in order to protect Amazon’s alleged tax-dodging practices even though Amazon, after long resistance, has begun in recent years to collect state sales tax.
All this seems to arise because the Post, the dominant newspaper in the nation’s capital, has assigned reporters to investigate the business career of the candidate who champions his credibility to be president by referring to his business career.

For the full commentary, see:
HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. “BUSINESS WORLD; Donald Trump’s Amazon Adventure; Does he really want to be president–or is his attack on entrepreneur Jeff Bezos a cry for help?” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 14, 2016): A11.
(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date May 13, 2016.)