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.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
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"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
