Latest Lefty Fad: Buy Local

The latest fad from the left involves something that sounds sensible: Buy local, sustainable produce and meat. The link is to an organization that supports this idea.

This is in my head for two reasons. First, I was in a conversation last night where someone was talking about it, and I could not challenge the speaker on the issue due to circumstances. Next, I read this morning that famed chef Gordon Ramsay jumped on this bandwagon, and then had to go into hiding due to embarrassing hypocrisy.

In short, the idea is (from the above link):

The concept of buying local is simply to buy food (or any good or service) produced, grown, or raised as close to your home as possible.

Sounds simple I guess. Why should we do this?

With industrialization, our food is now grown and processed in fewer and fewer locations, meaning it has to travel further to reach the average consumer's refrigerator. Although this method of production is considered efficient and economically profitable for large agribusiness corporations, it is harmful to the environment, consumers and rural communities.

There had to be large corporations in there somewhere. Corporations, especially large ones with big adjectives like agribusiness or pharmaceutical, always seem to be the bad guy in the leftist mantra. There have to be profits in there somewhere too, because profits are bad. But let's make it worse by calling it "economically profitable." And of course, blame ultimately lies with industrialization. I'm surprised globalization didn't get in there.

Before I get more into my own rant against this silliness, I'll point to a good article that debunks it by Gillian Bowditch in the Times Online. Also there's a research article from New Zealand about food miles. The latter brings to mind who loses if locally grown becomes common. Small countries that are distant from large populations. It's actually much tougher on poor countries, but don't forget about those Kiwis!

It sounds persuasive. Locally grown food only has to travel maybe 20 miles to get to your grocery store or restaurant. Some produce in the stores may come from thousands of miles away. Think of all the fossil fuels that were burned to get it here. I can do that. As the first site mentions, it may have come on freighter ships over oceans. Hmm.

So a freighter ship carrying 100,000 tons of stuff burns maybe a hundred thousand gallons of fuel on its way across the ocean (I'm totally guessing here, but I hope commenters will do their research and give more accurate numbers). So there's one gallon of fuel for a ton of stuff. A ton of stuff is 2000 pounds. So my one pound of broccoli required all of 1/2000 of a gallon of fuel to be shipped across the ocean. Maybe I'm off by a factor of 10 - it's still only 1/200 of a gallon. If I eat 200 pounds of broccoli a year that's only 1 gallon of gas at the worst. Some people use that much gas driving to the grocery store. Not me though - I live about 2 miles away and drive a 4-cylinder with a stickshift. But I still go through probably 500 gallons a year driving to work and stuff.

More of the bunkum from the left:
Aside from the environmental harm that can result from processing, packaging and transporting long-distance foods, the industrial farms on which these foods are often produced are major sources of air and water pollution. Small, local farms tend to be run by farmers who live on their land and work hard to preserve it. Buying local means you can talk directly to the farmer growing your food and find out what they do and how they do it.

Actually, industrial farms tend to be more environmentally efficient than small local farms. Economies of scale work that way. It may be that some small farmers try to harm the environment less, but some of them are worse than the big corporations. Maybe I can talk to my local farmer about how he does it, but he could lie and I don't understand his business well enough to know the difference. Oh, and by the way, all farms are local where they are.

My experience last night catches one of the problems with this notion. I was in New York City. The person I mentioned was complaining that New York City restaurants don't use locally grown produce.

How can all the New York City restaurants get locally grown produce? Take a look at a map! There aren't enough farms within 100 miles to supply food for a population that size. Try Tokyo and you'll see an even bigger problem - more people and a lot less arable land. The whole country is the size of California, and something like 90% mountainous.

Oh, and I shouldn't forget that buying local also helps those struggling local farmers. You know, the ones who own hundreds of acres of land worth millions of dollars, getting thousands of our tax dollars in subsidies, and making huge money off the current increase in prices of agricultural commodities. See, I can use big words too. :-)

Sam Brownback and Washington Half-Asses

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), formerly known as a half-assed presidential candidate, showed himself to be a half-assed policy wonk yesterday. He co-authored an opinion piece (with David Blankenhorn) called "End the Welfare Marriage Penalty." Titled End the Welfare Marriage Penalty they make the entirely sensible argument that current welfare rules discourage marriage among the poor. If you get married you lose benefits.

Some time ago there was an effort to reduce taxes on married couples, as in some situations the fact that a couple is married caused them to pay higher taxes than if they were not married. I actually have clients who divorced for this reason but stayed together, then remarried recently when their situation changed so that marriage did not cause a big tax hit. So that was and/or is a real consequence of our tax policy.

Brownback explains how the welfare system imposes similarly bad incentives on those getting welfare, and further how bad that is for the poor and for society. Again, this was a well-reasoned argument.

But then he says this:
Our proposal is simple: ... We should allow newly married couples to continue to receive all of their benefits for the first three years of marriage, thus mitigating the marriage penalty currently paid by lower-income couples. ... When that day comes, the government's message to low-income Americans will have changed dramatically. We will be saying: Your marriage matters – for you and for all of us.

Sam Brownback has been in Washington so long he probably doesn't see how half-assed this is. He wants to end the marriage penalty by putting it off for three years. You see Senator, if you want to end something, you end it. You don't delay it.

Sam Brownback is really saying this: My message to low-income Americans has changed slightly ... I'm saying: Your marriage matters - for three years. After that we don't care any more.

When they "ended" the marriage tax penalties, did they just end them for three years after marriage? Certainly not. How does Brownback's proposal discourage divorce? It doesn't. It does nothing for those who are already married and on welfare.

Maybe this is Brownback's stab at becoming the VP nominee for John McCain. Or maybe he's trying to establish some policy credentials for his 2012 run for President after McCain gets trounced by Obama. What it shows is how years inside the Beltway can warp your thinking. In the good old days they did one term and got out as fast as they could.

FLDS, Teen Pregnancy and Due Process

I must be missing the whole FLDS story. If I understand correctly, the state of Texas has taken nearly 500 children away from their families. The main concern underlying all of this is that young girls, as young as 13, are being "spiritually married" to older men and they're getting pregnant. There may be other kinds of alleged abuse, but the teens getting pregnant appears to be the big one.

So why are they taking infants away from their mothers? I'm reading stories about women with six kids having to deal with their children being spread all over a rather large state.

Under substantive due process, a state infringing fundamental rights must be advancing a compelling state interest in a narrowly tailored manner. To put that in a potentially relevant way, you can't use a shotgun approach - you have to use a sniper rifle.

Taking away infants from their mothers has little to do with preventing teen pregnancy. Taking away girls from the ages of 10-14 would have made more sense - it would have looked more like the narrow tailoring required by the Constitution.

There's a bunch of questions in all this:

Is our society any good at preventing teen pregnancy in the first place? Who are we "normal people" to tell these people about sexuality and teenagers? How old was Cher when she ran off with Sonny Bono (and he later became a congressman).

I do recognize that part of this is a valid concern about these girls being forcibly raped. But let's not forget that this happens in supposedly normal communities too. Are these girls going to be safer in a regular high school?

How about procedural due process? Was there some imminent danger that required removal of all these kids with no advance hearings? Procedural due process is supposed to involve notice and an opportunity to be heard, and this is generally before the state infringes our rights.

There's the religious freedom issue. What if the state decided to cart off all the Jewish kids because Jewish families give wine to 13-year-old boys at their Bar Mitzvahs? I suggest that states not try this one, because we have better access to lawyers than our FLDS friends.

Best Miley Cyrus Quote

With all the hubbub about the "racy" Miley Cyrus photos, the best quote was from an actor named Johnny Galecki:

I saw all this news coverage and I figure this is a great day. The war must be over.

From the Toronto Globe and Mail.

That hit the nail on the head. I can understand some people being upset about the photos. But I just don't see why it's such a big story. Imagine a teenage girl looking sexy. Does anyone remember Brooke Shields in The Blue Lagoon, and Pretty Baby? I don't remember the latter movie (I was probably too young), but I remember all the criticism about Blue Lagoon. Shields had nude scenes and she was younger than Miley Cyrus is now.

The story also hits on how Puritanism is still so prevalent in America. The greatest love interest in the history of romance is at least arguably Juliet from Romeo and Juliet. Juliet was 13 years old. For some reason females become fertile in their early teens and peak before the age of 18. You would think those who believe in the theory of evolution would see this as the design of the species. And in an interesting alliance with Darwin, shouldn't religious people (and not just those in cults) believe teenage girls should be sexually active (in marriage of course), as that would appear to be the intent of the intelligent design? Instead both groups appear to be together on the opposite side.

Another take is the notion that men who find teenage girls attractive are perverts. If you look at literature like Shakespeare, and at some historical figures like Sir William Johnson (a prominent pre-revolutionary leader in New York), you get the impression that it used to be normal for men, even much older men, to be interested in teenage girls.

Of course I have to balance this with the fact that I have two daughters. They're young now, but someday they'll become teenagers. They'll probably want to wear bikinis and do other things I won't like because they're my daughters. I'm going to need a shotgun or two. :-)

Guilderland: Glass Works Village and Traffic

Do people in Guilderland care about traffic on Route 20 (Western Avenue)?

The biggest item on tonight's Town Board agenda involved Glass Works Village. This proposed development would increase traffic. It seems like a good project. Where's the balance for the Town? So far I have yet to hear a single resident express concern about this. If the residents stay quiet, the board may have to assume that traffic is not a reason to stop this project.

Some background: A company, Platform Realty Group, proposes to develop a 50+ acre parcel of land near the Guilderland YMCA and Guilderland Elementary School. The proposed development (named Glass Works Village) would add roughly 300 homes and 200,000 square feet of commercial space (offices and retail). The current zoning would allow maybe 50 houses, so this is a far more intense use than the zoning currently allows. The idea behind the development is that the nature of it - a mixed use - will lead to people using their cars less because they will live close enough to certain things that they will be able to walk easily. If your office is in the development, you can walk to work. You can walk to the library, the YMCA, and the school. It's not a huge walk to 20 Mall (though I suspect not many people will walk that far for groceries).

Tonight we reviewed the "Environmental Impact Statement" (EIS) and made our "Findings" regarding environmental impact. I had a number of concerns with these documents, but the biggest has to do with traffic on Western Avenue (Route 20). Some relevant documents are on the Town website at: Guilderland Planning Department. Regarding traffic, the most important document is the (a large PDF document) Glass Works Village Traffic Study - Appendix C1.

Essentially, this project will increase traffic on Route 20, especially at the intersection with Route 155. I think the most important impact is on eastbound (toward Albany) traffic in the morning rush hour, but there are other big impacts. Platform's initial proposed findings ignored most traffic issues, including at 155 and 20. I sent a proposed revision and tonight we agreed on a final set of findings that acknowledged the traffic issue.

Right now morning traffic heading toward Albany on Western backs up to Winding Brook Drive (where the YMCA and the school are) on occasion. If this project goes through those backups will be more frequent, and I think it may even push back all the way to Willow Street, and more often. The intersection will also be worse going northbound on Route 155 in the morning. In the afternoon things will get worse westbound on Route 20 and southbound on 155.

Within a month or two, we will be making a decision on whether to approve this project. As I see it this sets a precedent for more projects like it in the future, meaning even more of an impact on traffic. To quote from the "Guilderland Hamlet Neighborhood Plan:"

Proposals ... currently under review (Glass Works Village PUD) will alter the existing character of this area .... While the Central Hamlet will become more intensely developed on the south side of Route 20, these projects present an excellent opportunity to tie together the various community amenities and establish a model for “hamlet-style” development for the Guilderland Hamlet Neighborhood and other areas of town.

We are talking about a model for future development. So if Gade Farms decides to turn their 200+ acres into a project like this, it will mean over 1000 new homes and nearly one million square feet of commercial space. And Route 20 will become a parking lot.

In the long term something more drastic needs to be done with Route 20, like roundabouts at 20 and 155, 20 and 146 (by the Stewarts), and maybe elsewhere. The so-called Comprehensive Plan (I say so-called because it's not comprehensive and not really a plan either) is inadequate because it fails to address the intersection of 155 and 20. The Guilderland Hamlet document talks about a roundabout for 146 and 20 (a good idea) but that hasn't been implemented yet. Is a roundabout at 155 and 20 an option? The Hamlet study talked about Glass Works Village having 200 or so residences. They're now talking about 300.

Another concern that really bothers me about this project is the concept of spot zoning. There was a recent case, Baumgarten v. Town of Northampton, 35 A.D.3d 1081, decided by the area's appellate court in 2007. The critical language from that case (citations omitted) is (geeky lawyer stuff in italics):

Petitioners allege that the Town Board engaged in illegal spot zoning, which is "[d]efined as the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners". While numerous factors are taken into account in evaluating such a claim, the ultimate inquiry is whether the challenged zoning "is other than part of a well-considered and comprehensive plan calculated to serve the general welfare of the community". Here, as noted, the Town Board engaged in an extensive review of the proposed project. The parameters of the project fell well within the guidelines for a planned unit development district, the parcel is located in an area where there is a mix of residential, commercial and recreational properties and no adverse impact to these surrounding properties was substantiated. Moreover, while there is no doubt that the zoning amendment benefitted the owners of the subject parcel, it also benefitted the general welfare of the community by creating seasonal housing to accommodate tourism in the area. In short, the record discloses that sufficient forethought was given to the challenged determinations, and petitioners failed to overcome the strong presumption of validity that attached to them. Finally, the record before us contains sufficient proof that the Town Board complied with all statutory posting and publication requirements.

Some more key language, from earlier in the decision:

a planned unit development district is permitted under the Town's zoning ordinance provided numerous criteria are met, including minimum area requirements (i.e., not less than 10 acres), specified use requirements (including seasonal, residential developments), density requirements (not less than one half of an acre per dwelling unit) and coverage and open space requirements (building coverage cannot exceed 20% of the land area)

Notably missing from our zoning code (§280-17) are building coverage and density requirements. We do have open space requirements (at least 25%), minimum area (15 acres) and use requirements (residential and some limited business uses). I also don't see how this project benefits the general welfare of the community. It benefits the developers and the future residents.

In the above case, the person challenging the proposed development was represented by Peter Barber on the appeal. Barber is the Guilderland zoning chair. Northampton was represented by Michael Poulin, a friend of mine from law school. (Yes, it really is a small world.) Barber argued that the development in that case was "illegal spot zoning." I'm very concerned that the Town's role in rezoning for the Glass Works Village project looks a lot like spot zoning too. I don't think this is resolved by saying nice things about the project in the so-called Comprehensive Plan documents. It's not comprehensive to say "we like this project." Our zoning code needs clearer rules about where such developments will be allowed, and what the requirements for them will be. I'm not sure our current zoning code is sufficient to avoid the spot zoning problem.

Frankly, I agree with Barber on his appeal. This is not what zoning is supposed to be. Doing things this way leads to a "kiss the ring" approach and we see that here. Part of the proposal is that they'll pay a $1 million in "mitigation fees" to the Town to make up for the impact of the project. If it's a good project and its benefits outweigh the costs, they shouldn't have to pay mitigation fees. If the benefits aren't enough, they shouldn't be able to buy their way out of that. Maybe that $1 million should go toward fixing Route 20?

With all that said, Glass Works Village really does look like a great project. The people at Platform Realty have done a lot of work and have a vision that seems good. I hope Guilderland residents will take a careful look at it, and at the traffic impact, and let us know what they think.

David Mamet: A Conservative? Kinda sorta ...

I've seen two articles about this in the papers and had to read it.

David Mamet in the Village Voice

Mamet writes a lengthy discourse on politics. Sort of a "how I figured out I'm not really a liberal but a conservative in stead." Well, that's how some are interpreting it. I'm not sure he's really a conservative just yet, but it was a great read. I hope Mamet keeps writing on politics. He'd make a great columnist.

Politics Can Be Frustrating

Running for office has its advantages and disadvantages. Mostly it's the latter. If you win there are some advantages, but winning is difficult for non-incumbents and even when you do win it's not as rosy as you might think.

One example of the frustration is how you can get attacked. Sometimes it comes from the opposition. Depending on the nature of these attacks, it's usually not so bad. You see that coming.

But sometimes you get blindsided. You might get sandbagged by someone you thought was a close ally. Usually this is more of a private matter. On the public side, you might get flamed by a wingnut. One friend of mine has been accused of all sorts of things by a guy who seems mentally unbalanced to me. When you see everything he does together, you know he's nuts. But someone might read one thing he says somewhere and not know the full story.

I'll say this: Politics is hard enough. If you've got a problem with a candidate, then it's okay not to support that candidate. It's also okay to criticize your opponent, as long as you stay within reasonable bounds. To quote a good friend, "it's what they do, not who they are." Translating ... criticize them for their actions, but don't call them names.

But if your problem is with a candidate and you don't have a horse in the race, then stay out of that one. Find a candidate you like and support that candidate. We need more positive in politics and less negative. Or heck, run as a candidate yourself. Run once and you'll understand how hard it is, and you might not be so quick to go after someone else.

Steven Vasquez for Congress: Tech Savvy for Tech Valley

I'm very excited. My friend Steven Vasquez announced today that he's running for Congress: See the Steven Vasquez press release.

Steven really understands the Stop Wasting Money philosophy. He was very active and demonstrated great leadership in the local Ron Paul movement.

The coolest thing is the guy's got real tech savvy. He's got engineering degrees from RPI, plus an MBA, and he started up a company in the area. Who better to lead Tech Valley than a guy with that kind of background.

Steven Vasquez

Go Steven!

Ron Paul Republicans

Now that Ron Paul is essentially out of the presidential race, what will happen to the moment? One sentiment I've seen repeatedly is that Ron Paul supporters will leave the Republican Party and do something else - the libertarians, some other 3rd party, or just withdrawing from politics entirely.

I hope, instead, that most will stay with the Republican Party. This "Revolution" has created the potential for a Ron Paul faction within the GOP. If it's only 5% of the party, that's not huge but it can be meaningful. But if we do it right then maybe we can build the faction to maybe 25%, and that can not only be meaningful but in many cases controlling.

Please understand that I'm not a big fan of political parties, and I'm not alone. George Washington's farewell address was quite critical of partisanship as well, going on for several paragraphs. Consistent with those concerns, I am not suggesting that Ron Paul supporters become "rah-rah" Republicans who blindly support the GOP candidate in every race. A good Republican can work within the party to promote the kind of candidates he supports, and then vote for someone outside the party in the general election - and the same goes for Democrats.

Especially now where the establishment of the Republican Party has strayed so far from its moorings (as Ron Paul frequently points out), a Republican voting for "other" is perfectly sensible. Republicans used to be against big government. Under the current President Bush, and especially when Republicans controlled Congress, spending went through the roof. A Ron Paul faction within the GOP can push for small government, lower spending, and so on. This is true not only in presidential elections, but at every level of government.

I understand dissatisfaction with the Republican Party. I have dabbled myself in the Libertarian Party. In the end, the third party or independent route is less likely to accomplish meaningful change. If we want to restore small government, respect for the Constitution, and avoid foolish wars like the current one in Iraq, our best odds of doing so are by building a Ron Paul wing of the GOP.

The Ron Paul Revolution: Hope for the Future

In the wake of Super Tuesday, it seems like a number of Ron Paul supporters are disappointed. They shouldn't be. The campaign so far has invigorated my faith in the American people.

Sure, I would have liked to see Ron Paul win the nomination, and I admit that doesn't look likely at the moment. But that would have been an unrealistic expectation. Of course we're not giving up, but the odds look awful long at this point.

I'm excited because he did so well despite a pretty amateurish campaign. Don't get me wrong on this. Ron Paul and the campaign staff are heroes in my eyes, and the message worked for me. It worked for the base in general, which turned out to be a lot bigger than anyone in the MSM were predicting. Forget about the states where he came in 2nd or broke 20% for a minute. He got 7% in New York State - a bastion of socialist thinking even within Republican circles - without spending any money. Jim Ostrowski was begging them for $50K and they wisely said no. The money was better spent elsewhere, especially in states where it's not winner-take-all. But the campaign never found a soundbite that reached beyond the base.

Consider all the hurdles that were thrown in front of the Ron Paul campaign. In just about every state the establishment of the GOP lined up behind someone else. Here in NY they lined up behind Giuliani, then switched to McCain when Rudy dropped out. Having the establishment behind you makes a lot of things easier, including getting on the ballot. Even though he got on the ballot everywhere, a lot of work was required and this took away from campaign efforts.

Maybe the biggest hurdle has been bias in the mainstream media. Early on they dismissed him as a flake. After the money bombs they started to pay a little attention to him, but he still got far less coverage than the anointed ones. The media problem was more severe in local markets, as we saw here in Albany.

Rather than dwelling on the past, we need to look to the future. First of all, the nominating process is not over. I'd love to see Ron Paul get enough delegates to matter. Maybe it won't happen, but then again, maybe it will.

Second, and maybe more important, we have to focus on congressional races this fall. If the same fundraising efforts are devoted to a limited number of congressional campaigns, we can move from one Ron Paul in Congress to a Ron Paul faction in Congress. The movement raised $20M for Ron Paul in the 4th quarter. If the same amount is raised and spread over four or five candidates, that can be huge money in the right congressional districts.

I reviewed the candidates on the PaulCongress website. No one stands out too much, but my personal favorite is Tom Terbolizard. His issue positions are pretty much dead on with Ron Paul. And he's running for an open seat race in a GOP district, with disarray in the Republican primary. A $5M money bomb for Terbo would be huge in a race like that.

We have an open seat race here in Albany. The district leans Democrat but is winnable. The Dems are in disarray and there is no clear candidate on that side, while no one has stepped up for the GOP yet either. I can't run for a number of reasons, but I'd love to help a true Ron Paul supporter who is willing to do it.

The other big thing moving forward is finding a message that reaches out beyond the base. I love the Constitution as much as anyone, but I don't think it works in a soundbite. Like it or not, candidates are often defined by their soundbite. And when they don't have a clear soundbite, the media defines the candidate however it wants. They did this to Ron Paul in spades.

As should be obvious by the title of this blog, I prefer "Stop Wasting Money" as the centerpiece of any and all soundbites. I believe it worked for me in my 2004 campaign. I saw how it reached people in conversations with many voters. There can be many variations: "Stop wasting money overseas" was really big for me. You can do a lot with "Stop wasting money on X." But I'm open to other soundbites.

I'm hoping Trevor Lyman stays involved. He has the contact information for many contributors. He could start up a RP Revolution PAC, or some similar organization.

Revolutions usually aren't won overnight. I'm in this for the long haul. How about you?