Cities and Development

It seems to me that cities, by and large just have it all wrong when they are doing development deals - or at leas the city I live in has it all wrong. If you are selling something you have one of then you are usually looking to maximize your gain in a one shot deal which means pick the highest price you can while ensuring there is still a least on customer. But if you are buying something then you are usually looking to minimize your outlay which means paying the lowest amount possible. How do you do that? Well by ensuring there are multiple sellers with product and let them compete.

But it seems to me that my City, and possibly others, always treat their real-estate like they are selling something (land) instead of buying something (development investment within their City walls). As such they are too often happy to enter into deals where there is only one developer involved. When others drop out because the cost is too high to make the deal that seems to be favorable. In the end they are left dealing with just one developer who can screw them over any number of ways because they are the only one at the table.

If they instead approach it as buying something they will have a vested interest in getting as many sellers out there and have them all compete to produce the best project for the least cost. This would also seem to indicate that development projects should have City investment involved - it is not a bad thing - and that community should have strong buy in to evaluate the best development proposal and what it brings the City. A developer who says "I don't need your investment" is saying "just give me the damn land already" and "I don't need your investment to help me figure out how to make the most money from your land". I.e. City's should find developers who will be partners in developing a city and have a vested interest in its improvement and the happiness of its people.

Furthermore I think that if a development project only gets one bid, or qualified bid, then it probably means the project was badly defined, or that the economic conditions are not suitable for pursuing that development. If either of those is the case then you probably shouldn't proceed - just wait. When there are multiple developers lining up to bid for your land and grants then that is when you'll get the highest and finest developments, and that is when you'll be able to extract the maximum leverage for improvements in the interests of we the people and not corporate profit making.

Remember that monocultures are almost always bad so a City that can only do a deal with a single developer is doing itself and its people a grave disservice. Free markets only work when there is an actual "market" - if there is only one seller then caveat emptor!

Monique Davis named "Worst person of the world"

No sooner did I jump on my high horse to bitch about Assembly woman Monique Davis (see previous post) than Keith Olbermann of MSNBC came to the rescue with some righteous retribution - naming her today's "worst person of the world". Would it be too ironic of me to say "Ahmen brother!" ???

Why Church and State need to stay separate

Listen to this sound bite (mp3 audio file) as Rep. Monique Davis, a Chicago Democrat and member of the Illinois legislature goes off the rails. She just can't help herself from a religious tirade tearing into atheist Rob Sherman who dared to point out that maybe spending $1 million in tax dollars on a Pilgrim Baptist Church might be unconstitutional.

The context is unclear from the sound bite so I've no idea if the argument was valid or not. It sounded like the church may actually no longer be a church any more, and hence perhaps just an historic building - in which case spending money may be just a pure historic preservation issue and I don't know if there is anything against preserving a building that is no longer used as a Church. Maybe they would just keep the exterior and put in a library or a restaurant or convert it to lofts...

Anyway what is more interesting is how Davis just goes completely off the rails spewing such venomous hatred and crap while Sherman keeps his cool with "thank you for sharing your point of view". Note how the chair never makes an attempt to shut down Davis as she screams at him to leave but then tells Sherman he must keep his response on subject. Just who was out of order here? To paraphrase what Austin Dacey likes to say: a religious fundamentalist says "I'm right you're wrong so go to hell" but if there was such a thing as an atheist fundamentalist they'd say "I'm right, you're wrong - can't we just talk about it some more?" That seems to be exactly the attitude Sherman is following but really he never gets a chance.

This illustrates beautifully the modus operandi of the religious fundamentalists - eliminate all competition to your memes by eliminating those who might question you and labeling everything they say a blasphemy and outlawing such speech. Austin Dacey points out that this is now a big problem because the secular world has fallen into the trap of labeling all beliefs - religious, secular, whatever as "private" and hence not only not to be part of government, but also beyond public criticism. To keep church out of state they lost the ability to critique any aspect of religion, or any "private" belief on even the most obvious ethical and moral principles. In fact we are rapidly losing any chance of holding anyone, even government to such principles or even talking about them.

It is my belief - and I am happy to make that a public belief - that Davis couldn't justify any of her beliefs against any objective moral or ethical basis, and that Sherman could probably demolish her rationale blow by blow. That is what is feared most and the easiest way is to literally remove all critical speech from public life because, as Davis so eloquently puts it, it is "dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists". Ms Davis - if atheism, secularism and the rest of our non-god fearing philosophies are just unfounded rubbish what have you to fear from a little spirited (no pun intended) debate? Never mind that the proposed expenditure that you are defending might actually be illegal, and that your proposed banning of someone from government for being an atheist is also illegal.

See RichardDawkins.net for more information about Davis' meltdown.

Obama get some balls!

Hopefully that title got your attention. I'll be the first to admit I'm an Obama supporter - I wish somehow Edwards had got the nomination but given the current field my choice is Obama. I actually think it is high time this country had a female President, a break in the long history of old white men running the world is clearly long overdue. But I just don't think Hillary is the woman for the job, I have a strong feeling she would be a bad president for future female candidates. So I just hope I live long enough to see some future woman candidate get the support of the nation, become President and do a great job.

Oh well, want I really wanted to blog about was Obama and this whole "scandal" about him being photographed in Muslim clothing. I was getting somewhat irritated that Obama in denying he was a Muslim never took the opportunity to denounce the idea that being a Muslim is a problem, and even being a Muslim President is a problem. But then I came across a column by Naomi Klein from The Nation that said exactly the same thing and I felt vindicated, I'm not the only person thinking Obama is copping out and treading a dangerous path towards sucking up to "special interests". Sure he's probably thinking this is a really bad time to be pissing off all those Christians and making Hillary happy, but face it - is there ever a good time to be controversial in American politics? Isn't it just a huge game of who can suck up to the most demographics the most, and piss off the fewest demographics the least? Never mind about "doing the right thing" any more...

Lets not forget that at one time the country was apparently having a hard time contemplating even a Catholic President (Kennedy), and that back then a black President would have been unthinkable. And not too much before that a woman president would also be unthinkable - long after they were actually allowed to vote. If someone were to fault Obama for being black would he not run to the bully pulpit to level their preposterous racist hate speech? And wouldn't Hillary or any right thinking Democrat do the same thing?

So why do a turnaround and tacitly accept vilification of Muslims or the notion that a Muslim might ever been President of this country? Surely it is only the severe erosion of the church and state separation by out current President that would ever make the religion of the President an issue - ever. Period. When religion, racism, sexism, hatred, bribes, corruption, money are all kept out of government then these things are just not a problem - any honest hardworking person is a potential candidate who can be weighed entirely on valid merits and not bogus ones dreamed up by FUD mongerers with nothing better to do than spend their lives pandering to their own favorite special interest - themselves.

So come on Obama, this is your chance to label racial, religious and other intolerance exactly that - intolerable! Tell those bigots that if they want to label religion a problem then they are part of the problem that is bringing this country down. You either accept all religions or you have to throw out all religions - even (and especially) in government. Otherwise one day we'll have Christians arguing about which particular brand of Christianity is the right one for a President (which arguably what they are doing already hence no President Romney)

If Obama can speak out about religious intolerance towards Muslims then where's he going to stand when the come for the blacks, the gays, and the atheists?