The Brezhnev Doctrine Applied to Local Government.
Once a week or so, I am going through my list of drafts. Some are so old that they have been overtaken by events. Others would require some work to complete a thought.

A few drafts--and this was one of them--are nothing but a title. Unfortunately, I no longer have any idea what I had in mind when I wrote the "The Brezhnev Doctrine Applied to Local Government." After all, that was nearly two years ago.

It probably had something to do with the unfortunate practice of cities and other local governments going into business in competition with the private sector. The Brezhnev twist would be that once a city assumes ownership of a golf course, elaborate water park, or some other venture, it is unlikely to relinquish it.

But I could be wrong. So dear readers--all two of you--have a little fun with this and think about how the Brezhnev Doctrine might apply to local governnment. (permalink)

Does Minneapolis Import Panhandlers?
A recent article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune about panhandling was notable in at least one way: both panhandlers interviewed for the story arrived from out of state.

"Tia Boxberger, 26, ... came to Minneapolis about a week ago from Portland, Ore.

'I'm not trying to hurt anybody,' said Boxberger, standing with others holding signs near Lake Street and Hennepin. 'We're trying to eat, maybe get some cigarettes. And stay away from the cops.'"

Further in the article, we read of Boxberger's "colleague" (yes, that's the word from the article; just like the office) who at 22 moved from Omaha.

To use a cliche from journalism, find a third person and you will have a trend.

The city may enact a law against "aggressive panhandling."

Of course, there are critics of the law. One says ""I think we're all on the same page that we want to see panhandling end. We have to figure out what's the best way to get there by doing a lot of things and being absolutely sure we're not penalizing people for being homeless."

If those two individuals mentioned in the article really are part of a trend, the homeless are certainly not being penalized in Minneapolis, at least in comparison with other locations. (permalink)

A Little Language in the Policy World.
Noted without much comment from the May 9 issue of Education Week:

"A major goal of Education Sector is to provide independent analysis of policy issues, while AEI takes conservative stands on issues, particularly in foreign policy." (Emphasis added)

From the article (Scholars: Equity, Competitiveness Agenda Can Be at Odds), we learn that the co-director of Education Sector (Andrew J. Rotherham) and the director of education policy studies for AEI (the American Enterprise Institute) have identified teacher unions as opponents of No Child Left Behind.

Sounds like "independent" analysis to me. So why is "conservative" in opposition to "independent"? (permalink)

Isn't Mass Murder Chic?
As music critic and political columnist Jay Nordlinger often points out, Che Guevara is uncomfortably fashionable. Nothing like honoring a "revolutionary" thug by plastering his visage over t-shirts, watches, and other stuff.

Fairly disgusting, considering Guevara's murderous life, no?

I thought of Chic Che when I was perusing the trail map for a ski resort. I normally expect to see names of wildlife (ptarmigan), laborers in the old west (gandy dancer), vegetation (northwoods, larkspur), geologic features (couloir), and so forth.

The other day I was looking at the tail map of Big Sky Resort, Montana. Yeah, it's close to Memorial Day, what can I say.

I came across a portion of the resort called "Dakota Territory of the South Face." What do we have here? "Hanging Valley," "Bavarian Forest," "Rockville Bowl." Nothing too unusual in trail names.

Then I see it. Or rather,them. Stacked side-by-side, several portions of the mountain, labeled as follows: Marx, Lenin, 1st Dictator, 2A Dictator, 2B Dictator, Castros.

What a delightful way to spend your ski vacation. "Hey guys, what don't you see we head over there and see how Marx and Lenin are doing?" Thoughts of mass murder, anyone?

On the other hand, just over the ridge from Marx, Lenin, Castro, and the dictators is Liberty Bowl. (permalink)

Psst! Wanna Buy a Library Card?
Municipal governments charge fees for golf courses, water parks, and other services. Why not libraries?

Think for a minute why governments charge fees for the recreational facilitites they run. Golf courses require regular (that is, daily) maintenance, and there's usually someone around to check receipts to see if a duffer has paid the greens fee. Given the nature of the game, specifying the "gate" is fairly easy: the first tee box.

Cities can apply the same logic to the municipal swimming pool: it requires daily maintenance (and for legal reasons, someone has to be there looking over people anyway), there's an easily identified entrance, and to a degree even greater than the golf course, it's possible to exclude people who don't pay.

Michigan applies the same logic to its state parks, many of which include Great Lakes beaches: walking on the beach is free, but if you want to enter the parking lot--a piece of land with a specific point of entry--you have to pay. The gate or guard house provides the opportunity to collect revenue. (The state may also ban on-street parking near the gate, if it wants to discourage those who would simply walk in without paying.)

So ... why don't we do the same thing for libraries? Like the fenced-in pool or the parking lot for the state beach, a library has a defined entrance. It requires maintenance. It always has staff on hand to collect fees.

Charge people an entrance fee to the library and the library becomes self-supporting--or at least it moves in that direction. Many libraries already charge for a card--that is, they may charge non-residents for a card that allows for borrowing privileges.

Is this move threaten democracy by restricting the distribution of news? One could make that case, but it's a difficult one to make. Information is freely available at home--many people, even the poor, have cable TV service with multiple news channels. Taxpayers support public radio programs, with a healthy dose of news, through taxes and voluntary donations. Use of the Internet is increasing in homes, and many people have access to it on the job. Of course there are also online booksellers, bricks-and-mortar booksellers, untold numbers of informative web sites, free newspapers, and so forth.

And if all this sounds like the poor are being neglected, consider that charities could readily form to offer "library scholarships." And with various public assistance programs in place (SSI, food stamps, housing vouchers, the earned income tax credit, etc.), it's not as if the poor (and in many cases, the non-poor as well) aren't receiving taxpayer support for life's needs and wants.

The public already offers those who receive taxpayer support ample discretion in its use of services, including (in the case of the EITC), the ability to purchase any product or service the recipient wants. Why not, then, make library access one of those services that is subsidized not by institutional allocations, but by the votes of consumers, whether they are subsidized or not. (permalink)

Taxpayers to Pay Others to Golf.
Taxes are serious business--don't pay them, and you go to jail or lose your property. Even so, voters in one Minnesota town have decided that the power of government should be applied so that some people are able to ... golf.

As the wealth and geographic scope of metropolitan areas expands, owners of golf courses often find it more desirable to trade lawn mowers, fertilizers, and sand trap rakes for cold hard cash from a real estate developer.

The usual reaction can be predicted. Golfers lament the loss of a favorite spot, neighbors get upset at the prospect of new housing blocking their views, and, and some people want to get other people to pay for their pleasures.

Mendota Heights is a southern suburb of Saint Paul. It is also home to the Mendota Heights Par 3 Golf Course, a par 3 golf course (1,277 yards).

The course has been the subject of a protracted legal dispute, with owners wanting to sell and the appropriators wanting city government to use private property for their own gain.

At last the matter was put to a vote. The result? Residents will pay $50 a year--for the next 15 years--to satisfy the pleasures of a few.

According to the Saint Paul Pioneer Press:

After a hard-fought, four-month campaign, golf course supporters won 53 percent of the vote - 1,865 to 1,611, a difference of 254 votes. About 42 percent of voters in the St. Paul suburb participated, "a phenomenal percentage for a special election," City Clerk Kathleen Swanson said.

[snip]

Robert Bonine, an opponent of the measure, said "This money is going to pay for a ragged golf course that's going to fail in three years."

Fail? Lose money, perhaps. As a government entity, it won't simply go out of business. On the other hand, residents could easily see their taxes go not only to pay for the golf course, but to subsidize its day-to-day operations.

John Huber, mayor of the city, supported the referrendum:

He thinks the golf course will turn a modest profit, as it has for much of the past decade. Between 1995 and 2005, the course ended only one year with a slight loss. In all other years, it was in the black. Its best year was 2001, with $253,689 in revenue and $167,410 in expenses, for a net operating profit of $86,279.

If the course is self-sustaining, it competes with other, privately owned courses. If it is not self-sustaining, it gains the demerit of becoming a government white elephant.

On the other hand, the mayor thinks there is an upside:

If the course fails to generate enough revenue, the mayor noted, the city could sell the land for a profit, citing its appraised value of $3.2 million.

Government arbitrage. Great. Another government speculating in business.

Mendota Heights / Voters OK city's purchase of golf course, Saint Paul Pioneer Press, April 25, 2007

Labels: Golf

(permalink)

Don't Governmentize Toddlerhood. (Updated)
Fresh from today's electrons in the Wichita Eagle.


Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Opinion

SCIENCE DOESN'T SUPPORT CLAIMS ABOUT PRESCHOOL
By John R. LaPlante

Should Kansans expand taxpayer-funded preschool? It's a favorite cause of Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, and a number of legislators are on board. The promised cost savings make the idea sound compelling, but is it?

Let's start with the research used by advocates, who claim that money spent on preschool will avoid later social spending.

A recent Eagle article cited studies from Chicago, Michigan and North Carolina ("Lessons start now," April 22 Eagle). These flawed studies, however, are no grounds for government parenting.

No study has produced as dramatic results as the Perry (Michigan) study. Ron Haskins, a consultant to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, reminds us that while the study looks promising, "its results have never been fully replicated." This suggests that there was something unique about the Perry circumstances.

Further, the results were in some ways not that impressive after all. By the time the 123 children had reached age 19, nearly a third had been arrested.

The (Abecedarian) North Carolina study, started in 1972, is an even less useful precedent. As with Perry, there are questions about how representative its sample was. Experts can't even agree on what caused its positive outcomes.

Haskins calls it "one step away from foster care," since it enrolled children in 40-hour-per-week, year-round day care when they were 4 months old. (Are Kansans willing to turn children this young over to a bureaucracy?) Because Abecedarian was a five-year experiment, it was extraordinarily expensive. Haskins estimates it would cost $100,000 per child if implemented today -- more costly than four years at the University of Kansas or Kansas State University.

The Chicago experiment, meanwhile, did not use random assignment, the gold standard for social research, meaning that its findings also are suspect.

Instead of putting even more money into the same old programs, the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy recommends that Kansas foster educational improvement by making schools compete for students. Funding the student would promote greater choice and accountability, and spur all schools to excel.

The merits of preschool versus competition among schools have already been tested. Matthew Ladner of the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute observed that the academic gains of preschool students in Arizona disappeared by the fifth grade. The schools that faced the greatest competition for students, on the other hand, achieved significant gains in student scores.

Arizona offers tax credits for private-school tuition. The state also makes it much easier for competent authorities to open a charter school than is the case in Kansas, and Arizona generally makes greater use of competition.

Rather than heed the siren call of expensive preschool programs based on uncertain science, Kansans who care about children ought to employ a competition-based approach to school funding.

Labels: Education

(permalink)

Writing About Policy and Politics.
One good thing about blogging: it has prompted a lot of people to write. One bad thing about blogging: they don't always write well.

So today I'll point you to two good sources of information about the English language.

The first is the style guide of The Economist.

There's no particular reason reason to pick one style guide over another--I use the AP book for another web site that I manage--but having something that you look to for guidance is itself valuable.

The Economist is a British periodical, so some points won't work well in the U.S. In fact, I'd say that you consult this reference at your own peril.

That's because, as the page on Americanisms points out, British and American English aren't the same. But reading through the differences will make you think about the proper use of words.

It argues "Gubernatorial is an ugly word that can almost always be avoided."

Sorry, but when you're writing about politics at the state level, you're going to have to throw in a gubernatorial now and then.

Well, out of time for today. More next time.

Labels: Writing

(permalink)