I am listening to this story in Chicago with rapt attention - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_re_us/workers_takeover . Why? Because it shows how little we have learned from this current economic mess.
This is what I mean. Government forced banks and mortgage institutions to lend to people who ultimately could not repay their loans. Even Barney Frank nearly admitted as much recently. So we get the mortgage/housing crisis and subsequent economic slow down we currently find ourselves in. Next up, banks receive funds from a government bailout program known as TARP. The big bailout that everyone was against but passed earlier this year. Bank of America partakes in this funding program. The idea was that these banks would lend money - to people who could pay it back, or so we thought.
Fast forward to this story. Company cannot repay its debt to Bank of America. Bank of America makes a sound business decision to stop lending to company. Company closes its doors. Workers are out in the cold. Company failed to notify workers, company failed to repay loans, company failed to communicate with anyone involved. Bank of America is blamed for said company's woes.
The lesson here is that we got into this mess due to fast money, easy credit, no money down, no income verification, no employment verification lending practices. And when the bank finally makes a smart business move, politicians and activists are all up in arms. If a company makes bad investments, how long do you think it will be around?
It is time for some common sense here folks. The kind that says if you can't repay your debts, you don't get more loans. The kind that says if you want to buy a house or finance a car, you better prove you have a job or income sufficient for the loan. I feel bad for the workers, they got the raw end of the deal, but the blame lies with the company that employed them, not the bank that cut off a credit line that could not be repaid. Where is the common sense?
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
On Comeback Cities
This was my favorite book of the semester. Sadly, as thoughtful and spot on for its time, the book seems out of place - more of an historical account due to the swiftly changing economic situation. This at least gives us the opportunity to reflect upon where we were heading, and to remain positive that once this crisis passes we may continue that work.
I found it beneficial to focus on some of the small positive changes occurring within our inner cities as the last reading for this course. While the author was dead wrong on the economic impact of things such as the CRA, banking failures and easy credit's impact on the nation, there was much to be hopeful for with regard to actual citizens, businesses, communities and indeed even governments on a micro scale having a macro impact.
The softening economy could potentially enhance these developments just as much as they could hinder them. If people are positive and forward thinking, they may realize that it is with the community that much of this change will come about. Improving education and economic opportunities within the Inner City as well as many other depressed regions will be a grass roots effort. There will be little financial assistance from the federal government for several years most likely, as it is dealing macro-economically with the challenges. States are much poorer, several in deep recessions with huge deficits. This poses and opportunity for citizen action, small scale development and improvement - and hopefully a return of personal responsibility in America. One can hope.
I of course wish the age of handouts and fast money and negative savings will end with this crisis, but the lack of responsibility for one's actions along with the sense of entitlement that has been fostered may hamper this effort. Learn to live within your means and teach that to your community. This will aid in returning much needed common sense to leaders and organizations that will be at the forefront of improving the lives of the citizenry.
Comeback Cities, along with many of our readings, has reinforced my own personal belief that to affect change in the Inner City and to foster growth and development, cooperation and a sense of community through regionalism, we must focus on the micro level - by recapturing the American spirit of compassion, civic involvement, individual effort, hard work, selflessness and respect. Once we learn that government is not always the answer and a quick handout will not resolve our problems, we as a society can finally look around and tackle the problems staring us in the face.
I would like to end this by saying thus far that this course was the most thought provoking and compelling course in the MPA program thus far. We could use more of these types of lessons with regard to Public Administration - the practical, thoughtful, realistic view of the polices and procedures and their very real impact on society.
I found it beneficial to focus on some of the small positive changes occurring within our inner cities as the last reading for this course. While the author was dead wrong on the economic impact of things such as the CRA, banking failures and easy credit's impact on the nation, there was much to be hopeful for with regard to actual citizens, businesses, communities and indeed even governments on a micro scale having a macro impact.
The softening economy could potentially enhance these developments just as much as they could hinder them. If people are positive and forward thinking, they may realize that it is with the community that much of this change will come about. Improving education and economic opportunities within the Inner City as well as many other depressed regions will be a grass roots effort. There will be little financial assistance from the federal government for several years most likely, as it is dealing macro-economically with the challenges. States are much poorer, several in deep recessions with huge deficits. This poses and opportunity for citizen action, small scale development and improvement - and hopefully a return of personal responsibility in America. One can hope.
I of course wish the age of handouts and fast money and negative savings will end with this crisis, but the lack of responsibility for one's actions along with the sense of entitlement that has been fostered may hamper this effort. Learn to live within your means and teach that to your community. This will aid in returning much needed common sense to leaders and organizations that will be at the forefront of improving the lives of the citizenry.
Comeback Cities, along with many of our readings, has reinforced my own personal belief that to affect change in the Inner City and to foster growth and development, cooperation and a sense of community through regionalism, we must focus on the micro level - by recapturing the American spirit of compassion, civic involvement, individual effort, hard work, selflessness and respect. Once we learn that government is not always the answer and a quick handout will not resolve our problems, we as a society can finally look around and tackle the problems staring us in the face.
I would like to end this by saying thus far that this course was the most thought provoking and compelling course in the MPA program thus far. We could use more of these types of lessons with regard to Public Administration - the practical, thoughtful, realistic view of the polices and procedures and their very real impact on society.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Chapter 8 - Place Matters, thoughts on 21st century metropolitics
After reading the litany of ideas they have on how to resolve the urban sprawl issue through political coalitions, it brings to mind the current presidential race and how a lot of their concerns seem to be moot with the direction the house, senate and white house will all end up after November 4th. It appears that an economic crisis could prove the deciding factor in granting the Democratic party a majority throughout government, regardless of where the district lines were drawn (in the book's opinion, in Republican favor).
The question I raise to this is will Obama govern as Clinton did? Or with this new super majority will he be able to do more (or less depending on who you are) to bring about urban change? We learned that Clinton governed with a suburban/urban coalition but found he was unable or unwilling to make considerable changes within urban centers. Obama will have an opportunity Clinton did not, one that allows him to propose solutions to the urban issues under his presidency with a democratic majority to carry them out.
I find their defense of the districts of Illinois and Texas as examples to be rather naive. How they continued to say that this representative would see the better way or the brighter light by adopting pro urban policy plans within their districts. Obviously they don't know politicians very well. The politician would be more concerned with keeping a base that would re-elect him or her. Many of these proposals could upset that balance of power within their own districts. While it is the right way, it is politically unfeasible and therein lies one of the darker sides of our political spectrum.
I would think a redistricting approach that cut across geographic boundaries would allow for solutions to play out - this idea was posited in the chapter. If for instance a congressperson represented portions of Birmingham proper but their district included sections of Mountain Brook and Hoover, they would be more inclined to assist the voting population within the city limits in order to maintain their political office. Of course that district would have to have a large chunk within Birmingham and the citizens would have to participate more fully. However, as the book mentioned, there is little incentive at this time for inner city residents to participate in the process as the outcome is basically decided.
The question I raise to this is will Obama govern as Clinton did? Or with this new super majority will he be able to do more (or less depending on who you are) to bring about urban change? We learned that Clinton governed with a suburban/urban coalition but found he was unable or unwilling to make considerable changes within urban centers. Obama will have an opportunity Clinton did not, one that allows him to propose solutions to the urban issues under his presidency with a democratic majority to carry them out.
I find their defense of the districts of Illinois and Texas as examples to be rather naive. How they continued to say that this representative would see the better way or the brighter light by adopting pro urban policy plans within their districts. Obviously they don't know politicians very well. The politician would be more concerned with keeping a base that would re-elect him or her. Many of these proposals could upset that balance of power within their own districts. While it is the right way, it is politically unfeasible and therein lies one of the darker sides of our political spectrum.
I would think a redistricting approach that cut across geographic boundaries would allow for solutions to play out - this idea was posited in the chapter. If for instance a congressperson represented portions of Birmingham proper but their district included sections of Mountain Brook and Hoover, they would be more inclined to assist the voting population within the city limits in order to maintain their political office. Of course that district would have to have a large chunk within Birmingham and the citizens would have to participate more fully. However, as the book mentioned, there is little incentive at this time for inner city residents to participate in the process as the outcome is basically decided.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Urban Sprawl
This topic is one of the more interesting to me in Public Admin - along with traffic patterns and how to overcome congestion. Weird I know, but something about traffic fascinates me. I digress, however.
The previous week we discussed urban sprawl from a public health perspective, one in which I never really focused on personally. I view urban sprawl from the wanton destruction of green space and poor land use policies that precede sprawl and proceed from expansion around a central city. Humans have a unique ability to build 'up' instead of 'out' in ways that were previously that of fantasy and fiction. We can go so far as to create impressive green space within and on top of buildings as we push upward. Yet we continue to waste space by building outward. This is unsustainable in the long term.
But this article we discussed concerning public health matters with regard to urban sprawl made me stop and ask myself one question - this was the one 'big' question I wanted to ask in class but we ran out of time. So I will posit the question here for now. Viewing the health implications of urban sprawl, would not the reverse be equally detrimental to the health of a population? That is, population density led to widespread epidemics historically; would this be a health related argument against centralization and for urban sprawl?
As an example, Philadelphia in the 1700's dealt with severe bouts of yellow fever - at the time of John Adams and the birth of the United States, Philadelphia was regularly evacuated for long stretches of the year in order to minimize the loss of life. This is quite an old example, but the idea holds some truth today. Should an epidemic break out within a large city, urban sprawl can act as a buffer for treatment and prevention prior to a complete outbreak in a region.
It is a tough topic either way, and I find myself arguing against that which I prefer of the two choices, but it is important to understand the problem from all sides in order to develop solutions that are effective and equitable.
The previous week we discussed urban sprawl from a public health perspective, one in which I never really focused on personally. I view urban sprawl from the wanton destruction of green space and poor land use policies that precede sprawl and proceed from expansion around a central city. Humans have a unique ability to build 'up' instead of 'out' in ways that were previously that of fantasy and fiction. We can go so far as to create impressive green space within and on top of buildings as we push upward. Yet we continue to waste space by building outward. This is unsustainable in the long term.
But this article we discussed concerning public health matters with regard to urban sprawl made me stop and ask myself one question - this was the one 'big' question I wanted to ask in class but we ran out of time. So I will posit the question here for now. Viewing the health implications of urban sprawl, would not the reverse be equally detrimental to the health of a population? That is, population density led to widespread epidemics historically; would this be a health related argument against centralization and for urban sprawl?
As an example, Philadelphia in the 1700's dealt with severe bouts of yellow fever - at the time of John Adams and the birth of the United States, Philadelphia was regularly evacuated for long stretches of the year in order to minimize the loss of life. This is quite an old example, but the idea holds some truth today. Should an epidemic break out within a large city, urban sprawl can act as a buffer for treatment and prevention prior to a complete outbreak in a region.
It is a tough topic either way, and I find myself arguing against that which I prefer of the two choices, but it is important to understand the problem from all sides in order to develop solutions that are effective and equitable.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Public Choice and Contemporary Public Administration
Our reading this week is on public choice as an approach to the study of public administration. I read the article three times and it took me a bit to wrap my mind around the general arguments and how this affects urban policy. What I have deduced so far from this particular article is as follows:
I generally feel the main argument is a "one size fits all" approach of public administration as posited by Woodrow Wilson is ineffective in supporting public choice and efficiency. His hierarchical organizational theories are argued against from the perspective of public choice - how the individual decides between options in the realm of public goods and services.
I would agree that overlapping agencies are necessary in many cases to provide sufficient public choice and public supply. The example of overlapping police and law enforcement agencies given in the article is a great example of this.
Being on the conservative side, I might argue against the view of public goods and services in an economic light as put forth in some of this article. It is difficult to compare the two. Also, the maximizing strategy in public service could be argued against as well. Economically I may wish to maximize my outcomes based on self-interest, but socially providing for another group is altruistic and many argue for this even though there is little benefit to themselves - indeed at great cost sometimes.
In regard to our current discussions, much of the choice has been removed from inner city residents. Many choices made by public administrators has had a spillover effect on the less fortunate populations with little recourse to avoid these effects. Pg. 206 and 207 illustrate the "dog-in-the-manger" issue, where benefits are maximized at little cost to yourself - pursuing your own advantage and disregarding the consequences of your actions upon others.
The article specifically mentions perpetuating ghettos on pg. 210. Raising costs on the consumer to induce savings for the producer. This producer efficiency impacts impoverished areas the most, which may have contributed to the impoverishment of ghettos.
I somewhat understand where we are going with this article with Urban Policy. I think the idea here is that having diverse organizations that fit the constituencies they support instead of a large single organization with only one leader will maximize public choice and benefit more of the population.
I generally feel the main argument is a "one size fits all" approach of public administration as posited by Woodrow Wilson is ineffective in supporting public choice and efficiency. His hierarchical organizational theories are argued against from the perspective of public choice - how the individual decides between options in the realm of public goods and services.
I would agree that overlapping agencies are necessary in many cases to provide sufficient public choice and public supply. The example of overlapping police and law enforcement agencies given in the article is a great example of this.
Being on the conservative side, I might argue against the view of public goods and services in an economic light as put forth in some of this article. It is difficult to compare the two. Also, the maximizing strategy in public service could be argued against as well. Economically I may wish to maximize my outcomes based on self-interest, but socially providing for another group is altruistic and many argue for this even though there is little benefit to themselves - indeed at great cost sometimes.
In regard to our current discussions, much of the choice has been removed from inner city residents. Many choices made by public administrators has had a spillover effect on the less fortunate populations with little recourse to avoid these effects. Pg. 206 and 207 illustrate the "dog-in-the-manger" issue, where benefits are maximized at little cost to yourself - pursuing your own advantage and disregarding the consequences of your actions upon others.
The article specifically mentions perpetuating ghettos on pg. 210. Raising costs on the consumer to induce savings for the producer. This producer efficiency impacts impoverished areas the most, which may have contributed to the impoverishment of ghettos.
I somewhat understand where we are going with this article with Urban Policy. I think the idea here is that having diverse organizations that fit the constituencies they support instead of a large single organization with only one leader will maximize public choice and benefit more of the population.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Contemporary Effects of the CRA
I am sitting here on a Saturday night, angry at the politicians and watching a great documentary on the crisis - explaining the effects of lending practices, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1978, and the subsequent policies used to push lenders into more and more subprime lending. Since I've already commented on the impact CRA has on inner city development, I thought I would talk about what this may mean going forward for the Inner City divide in metropolitan cities.
We will already see some issues with unemployment affecting people - meaning more foreclosures, more people with poor credit, less money to lend from failing banks. I fully expect that in the short term the CRA will be looked at. In the long term, we are going to see many fewer loans to inner city residents through these government entities. New policies and programs are going to have to be developed in order to meet reinvestment needs and have any sort of positive impact on the American Divide.
We could not ask for a more contemporary crisis in which to study these effects on Urban Policy and development. As terrible as this crisis is, we are at a point academically to capture the educational opportunity and use it to our advantage as we move into the workforce with NGO's, state and local government, and the federal government.
We will already see some issues with unemployment affecting people - meaning more foreclosures, more people with poor credit, less money to lend from failing banks. I fully expect that in the short term the CRA will be looked at. In the long term, we are going to see many fewer loans to inner city residents through these government entities. New policies and programs are going to have to be developed in order to meet reinvestment needs and have any sort of positive impact on the American Divide.
We could not ask for a more contemporary crisis in which to study these effects on Urban Policy and development. As terrible as this crisis is, we are at a point academically to capture the educational opportunity and use it to our advantage as we move into the workforce with NGO's, state and local government, and the federal government.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Bailout Bill of 2008
As emailed and sent to all of my friends and family, these are my thoughts on this plan:
"I feel compelled to write everyone that lives in my district regarding this bailout bill. Our representative is Joe Bonner, who voted for the bill and will do so again today even after 70-90% of Americans and Alabamians are against this bailout. I will be campaigning hard against Mr. Bonner for supporting this bailout come election time in November. It is time that we as Americans say NO to corporate irresponsibility.
I and many of my friends and coworkers understand that not passing this legislation will cause some pain for the average person. We get that, the politicians think that we balk at the price tag - we balk at the philosophy that this engenders. We do not think that rewarding irresponsibility by spending our tax dollars is sending the right message. The best form of regulation on Wall Street is failure. You make bad business decisions, and you change or fail. Now government is setting the precedent that if you make poor business decisions you can expect to walk away from your responsibilities. The age of personal responsibility will end with this bills passing.
I have been vehement in my opposition to this bailout plan from the beginning and have contacted all of my representatives and senators. Both of our senators voted against the amendment this week even though it passed in the senate. Remember that it is now 405 pages long, from the original 110 page bill. It includes $110 billion more spending and tax credits even at a time when we are committing $700 billion dollars to this bail out. Enough is enough. Please, stand with me against this terrible road we are traveling down.
Thank you,
Wesley Ross"
"I feel compelled to write everyone that lives in my district regarding this bailout bill. Our representative is Joe Bonner, who voted for the bill and will do so again today even after 70-90% of Americans and Alabamians are against this bailout. I will be campaigning hard against Mr. Bonner for supporting this bailout come election time in November. It is time that we as Americans say NO to corporate irresponsibility.
I and many of my friends and coworkers understand that not passing this legislation will cause some pain for the average person. We get that, the politicians think that we balk at the price tag - we balk at the philosophy that this engenders. We do not think that rewarding irresponsibility by spending our tax dollars is sending the right message. The best form of regulation on Wall Street is failure. You make bad business decisions, and you change or fail. Now government is setting the precedent that if you make poor business decisions you can expect to walk away from your responsibilities. The age of personal responsibility will end with this bills passing.
I have been vehement in my opposition to this bailout plan from the beginning and have contacted all of my representatives and senators. Both of our senators voted against the amendment this week even though it passed in the senate. Remember that it is now 405 pages long, from the original 110 page bill. It includes $110 billion more spending and tax credits even at a time when we are committing $700 billion dollars to this bail out. Enough is enough. Please, stand with me against this terrible road we are traveling down.
Thank you,
Wesley Ross"
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Inner City and Under Served Populations
I thought as a corollary to the current financial crisis to our reading of the past 2 weeks, I would throw out my feelings about how we got here. From what I gathered doing my own research, it would appear that back in the 90's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were basically 'ordered' to expand their mortgage lending into under served and inner city locales by the executive branch. In order to accomplish this Freddie and Fannie developed many exotic loan packages to get more people approved. These people took loans on the belief that housing values would continue to rise. Or they took the loans with teaser rates. Regardless many didn't read the fine print, and the lenders made it difficult to follow the lending terms. By lending so much money in this area, Freddie and Fannie set up the fall that is occurring now.
I would equate this to 'you cannot throw money at a problem and hope it goes away.' We need more creative ways of assisting in the development of low income and under served populations. Not just money.
I would equate this to 'you cannot throw money at a problem and hope it goes away.' We need more creative ways of assisting in the development of low income and under served populations. Not just money.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Inner City deterioration and personal responsibility
As could be seen during class last Thursday, I have a strong view on the responsibility of individuals and society as a whole with relation to assistance, aid, development and education. While I understand that the Inner Cities of the United States are in dire straights and it will take the help of many to overcome the problems that plague these areas, I am cognizant of the fact that personal responsibility is something that seriously needs to be nurtured.
By this I mean that we as a people must understand that times and culture change. We must make personal choices in our lives to adapt to our situation. I reject the idea that someone cannot overcome obstacles placed in the way simply because of the social structure around them. When things are terrible it lies with us to make the hard and right choices to move forward. By doing so, and leading by example, then society as a whole is much more able and willing to assist these depressed areas. Government has a place in all this, but it is not the final answer. Government should focus on the fundamentals and foster hard work and education in the inner city so that the social obstacles can be overcome.
I am a product of various obstacles. While I didn't live in the inner city, I faced many of the same familial and social roadblocks while growing up. I made the decisions to overcome this very early in my life - at the age of 12. While my situation may not exactly reflect that of inner city society, it is a very strong indicator of what one can do with the right attitude.
By this I mean that we as a people must understand that times and culture change. We must make personal choices in our lives to adapt to our situation. I reject the idea that someone cannot overcome obstacles placed in the way simply because of the social structure around them. When things are terrible it lies with us to make the hard and right choices to move forward. By doing so, and leading by example, then society as a whole is much more able and willing to assist these depressed areas. Government has a place in all this, but it is not the final answer. Government should focus on the fundamentals and foster hard work and education in the inner city so that the social obstacles can be overcome.
I am a product of various obstacles. While I didn't live in the inner city, I faced many of the same familial and social roadblocks while growing up. I made the decisions to overcome this very early in my life - at the age of 12. While my situation may not exactly reflect that of inner city society, it is a very strong indicator of what one can do with the right attitude.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
