Foraker

You've been very helpful. But not very convincing.

I already noted that I was unable to find it. Maybe it doesn't exist.

Long article, but good discussion of nationalization of rail in the US and the different ways it could be accomplished, with potential problems identified. Good reading for better understanding US rail system. https://inthesetimes.com/article/nationalize-the-railroads-workers-on-strike-biden-wages

New (?) advocacy group for improving US rail system, "Solutionary Rail" https://www.solutionaryrail.org/

I doubt it.

Got a link to the actual offer? I looked but can't find it. But as I recall it was a short-term "fix" that wasn't as "fair" as the Dems thought it should be. The point remains that a fairer system is needed. Republicans should want this too because eventually the state will flip again.

I have had jobs with far too many meetings, and unproductive meetings (a lot more facilitator training, please!) But not all meetings are "inherently" wasteful, particularly when the purpose of the meeting is interaction and vetting new ideas. Email and Zoom meetings tend to provide very limited interaction -- they're good for talking to/training/informing your employees, not so great for having a lot of conversation and interaction. I suspect that fewer (and better run) meetings are a good thing for manufacturing (as long as you're not looking for a lot of new ideas), but fewer in-person meetings probably would not be so great for a marketing company. I think we are in a transition period, where meetings that are educational or directional will continue (and more often by video rather than in-person), more people will work from home (ultimately for lower pay in some cases), and creatives and people who need to interact will still be working in the office at least a few days a week. New ways of seeking efficiencies will be found, the structure and function of office space will change, and probably decrease. But I don't think the "office" will entirely disappear.

I walked by last night and it looked like there was some demolition going on inside.

@KJP will know. My guess is "existing rails" on almost all of the proposed route, which minimizes start-up cost.

That is a really bad take. Is he five? Or does he think Republican supporters are five? How many cars would a high speed train take off the roads? Would taking cars off the roads make driving more pleasant for those who continue to do so? And would taking cars off the roads reduce wear and tear and thus future maintenance costs on those roads? Yes, yes, and yes. And I know -- you have to compare the cost savings in reduced maintenance on the roadways to the cost to maintain the rail lines, but it's also going to be much easier to charge rail passengers (actual users) a significant part of that cost (compared to the income tax everyone pays that bails out the highway trust fund).

Glad to hear that we've got good leadership in NOACA

I'm also surprised at how many vacant positions REMAIN in the budget that are yet to be filled -- in other words, there are a lot of vacant positions (beyond just in the police) and the city's head count could actually increase quite a bit under this budget proposal. And how about three cheers for fiscal responsibility and trying to work with the money you have? No big spending increases or requests for tax increases seem like a good thing.

Have fun! I don't know that there is that much to see in Osaka that rivals Tokyo. Osaka is *only* as big as NYC. I suggest spending more time in Kyoto if possible. (As I recall it's only about a 40minute train ride from Osaka.)

👏

Great idea -- a local historian could create a self-guided walking tour in connection with: https://www.takeahikecle.com

Maybe you have misunderstood and thought someone was suggesting that the federal government own and run the trains -- that's not it. Federal management of infrastructure that is used by private companies can work well -- truck traffic is booming on the federal interstate highway system. Imagine if RTA only managed the rails and a private company managed the trains running on them. Same idea -- federal ownership, management of the construction and maintenance of the routes, federal control of the scheduling, private operators run and maintain the trains. Also not too dissimilar from how the FAA regulates airlines and traffic controllers.

Student loan debt. Housing affordability. Healthcare affordability. Childcare affordability. Etc. (All the things that liberals are pushing for solutions for, while conservatives say "can't be done!" -- apparently meaning that there are no solutions to these problems, "deal with it.") Yet what you seem to be saying is that reducing those problems that delay couples' stability would encourage childbirth sooner and more frequently, boosting the birthrate. But that just circles us back to the issued mentioned above -- foreign countries have those things and also struggle with birthrates. So is this another "there is no solution to low birthrates - deal with it?" Maybe there is little that government can do to boost birthrates. Maybe we need to look elsewhere for population stability, like immigration.

As someone who was fairly well off, but without family living nearby, and with a working spouse, I can say that my experience was that finding quality childcare was very very difficult, but necessary for both of us to keep working. The available childcare facilities had long wait lists, and if a kid was sick, you had to pull your kid out for 24 hours (at a minimum). Even in-home childcare was challenging (but more affordable than outside childcare when we had multiple children at home). The costs of childcare made us question the value of my spouse continuing to work -- and we were both professionals with advanced degrees! I don't know how the "average" family can afford childcare. Admittedly, this is only one anecdote of my own experience some time ago. But after having gone through it, I can see how that struggle might cause anyone to think long and hard about having more than one kid. In a world of limited childcare options and high rates, capitalism is creating a barrier to having kids. The market does not seem to be working well -- which suggests that we need government intervention in the market to increase supply. That doesn't have to mean introducing government-run childcare to the market. It could mean government subsidies for training and hiring childcare workers or establishing childcare facilities in areas where needed (opportunity zones, perhaps). If childcare was easier to find and more affordable, it would make it easier to have kids. That probably would not make a dramatic difference by itself, but it would at least remove one struggle that new parents now have (which may discourage them from having another kid, and may discourage their friends from having a first kid). @Brutus_buckeye-- you've raised a lot of concerns about the US birth rate as a problem, and you've said that there are better ways to increase the birth rate -- what are your better solutions? Well said. We'll never get to 100% of women wanting children (and we shouldn't expect that to be a goal anyway), and we may never get to 100% of women wanting children to be able to give birth, and we shouldn't judge women for those decisions or physical limitations. I still say if we are concerned about birthrates, we should make childbirth -- including fertility medical care -- and childcare easier and less expensive so that we take concerns about those factors out of the equation for people trying to make that decision about whether and how many kids to have.

No. And I don't think F&C is going to be looking for another project before Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook is well underway. And don't forget WXZ's Taylor Tudors project (discussed above), which also will be transformative in that neighborhood. The city wants to see development in the north of the city, perhaps along Noble. But I don't think there is an obvious location for a big project at the moment. Personally, I think creating some density and redevelopment to form a business district around the Save-A-Lot just south of Nela Park would be good, but a very heavy lift. So that seems unlikely. Severance redevelopment will be huge, if and when Namdar can be dislodged. As cities around the country with dying malls have found, once Namdar gets their teeth into a property, they like to sit on it for decades, investing as little as possible. They are following that model with Severance. The mayor says he has a (secret) plan... so we wait and see. The Mayfield Triangle (Mayfield-Noble-Warrensville) needs redevelopment, and the city has taken the first steps -- applying for a grant for environmental remediation of the former Hillside Dairy fronting Warrensville. The next step will be to relocate the salt storage and clear the site. All of that will take several years before the city is ready to issue an RFP. Gaining control of the properties fronting Mayfield would be desirable as well, but probably not essential.

"Ascent" at Top of the Hill is wrapping up. Looks like apartments are leasing and all are expected to be available to be occupied by March 15 https://www.ascentapt.com/

The Party of Family Values ("the woman's place is in the home") generally, and Manly Men in particular, appear to be a major drag on birth rates. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/why-european-women-are-saying-no-having-more-babies

But that does not tell us whether Europe's birth rate would be even lower than it is without those programs. Northern European countries generally have higher birth rates than southern European countries -- and the northern European countries generally have more generous family leave and support programs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000017/ I'll grant you that those programs do not increase the birth rate above replacement value. On balance, it seems like early-childhood support programs are helpful but insufficient for getting a country to replacement-rate births. If you don't think offering more support for early childhood care makes a difference in birth rates, what would you suggest -- not doing those things because having children should be hard? (In my experience, even if I had had a LOT more help, raising kids would always have been hard.) Personally, I think we as a society should do more to protect and care for children and make sure as many children as possible get a good start on life. And yes, a lower birthrate will ultimately lead to a lower population. But with all the productivity gains in my lifetime I'm not convinced that we really need so many people to keep society going (a reduced population might not be the catastrophe than some are predicting). And the US continues to be a preferred migration destination -- and climate change and world conflicts look likely to provide a large population of potential immigrants for a long time to come, should the US come to some agreement on allowing larger numbers of immigrants to actually come. If we don't take those immigrants, some other countries with declining populations will.

Why are you such an outlier among American conservatives and libertarians and what would convince them to get rid of expensive for-profit insurance middlemen? Everyone who is concerned about barriers to people having kids should want to make it as easy as possible. Free healthcare for kids (other countries do it)? Paid maternity and paternity to cover the first two years (other countries do it)? Free childcare and preschool? Free after-school care? Housing and food assistance for low-income families? Some people do not make great parents, so we'll also need to adequately fund things like foster care programs and provide better parent education and support.

You missed my point. The opportunity cost of not taxing everyone at 90% rather than 100% is not "spending" the untaxed 10%. The tax break on storefronts for hat-makers-only would be spending, because everyone else with a storefront would have to pay the tax and it was only some particular group or activity that was carved out as exempt from the tax. (And yes, the government should hold more auctions, but if they auction off grazing rights on *some huge number of acres* blocks, not too many family farmers are going to be able to bid. So the existence of an auction by itself does not guarantee the highest price unless it is set up to attract a lot of bidders -- competition.) If there were a lot of empty condos downtown I would agree that people choose to live in the suburbs rather than downtown when they are ready to build equity. Since condos are very rare (and almost exclusively luxury units), I don't think we can conclude that it is only choice that is driving people to single family homes in the suburbs. I disagree that bank skittishness has that much to do with it. Shouldn't banks also be skittish about single family homes? Perhaps zoning and federal loan guarantees being more readily available for single-family homes make that kind of building preferable -- skewing the market, making condo construction more difficult and weighting the scale for single family construction. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/housing-market-needs-more-condos-why-are-so-few-being-built

I agree that anyone who says that "all money is the government's" or that "all money not taxed is government spending" has gone too far around the bend. If you misunderstood my point, let me try again. The "effectively equivalent spending" I'm talking about is the dollar you keep that others do not get to keep because of a tax incentive. Where the government did levy a tax, but exempted only certain persons/activities, that is effectively "spending" some of the government income that the tax would have generated but for the exemption. Your example fails that test. The 100% tax applied to everyone, and when the rates returned to "normal" that also applied to everyone. Even though everyone pays 100% on every dollar on the first day, and varying rates depending on income the second day -- the 1st, 100,000th, and 1,000,000th dollars are each taxed at the same rate each day. The 1,000,000th dollar is taxed at less than 100% on the second day, but changing the rate (the 10millionth-dollar taxed at only 90% instead of 100%) is not government spending just because the government decided to change the rate. But if the government said that the tax rate is 90%, but if you do this thing (buy a home and take a mortgage instead of paying rent, for example) then the rate is only 10% (or you can deduct X amount from the taxable income), then that reduction (in dollars) is hidden government "spending" that should be recognized as such, particularly when the time comes to consider spending cuts. When the government allows ranchers to graze their cattle on federal land at below-market rates, or to drill for oil on federal land at below-market rates, the difference from the market value also is a subsidy, and is a kind of "spending" that is not recognized as such. If the deficit really is a problem, and we do not want to increase tax rates, then why shouldn't reducing tax breaks be on the table along with reductions in more direct spending? This is getting away from the discussion of sprawl, but federal and state subsidies for roadways over transit, tax breaks for single-family mortgages and federal loan guarantees that favor single-family homes over midrise condos, etc., are all incentivizing sprawl. If we accept that continuing to build further and further from city centers and rely on cars for all transportation needs is fiscally unsustainable, then those government subsidies need to be changed as well.