Tag: spending

Federal Government Invests in Sustainable Planning

  • Getting to work is now the second biggest expense for most Americans, after housing. (Photo courtesy of the Federal Highway Administration)

Planners say people are being forced to spend too much money to get to and from work. The government sees that problem in regions around the country and is ready to spend millions of dollars to plan improvements. Julie Grant reports.

Transcript

Planners say people are being forced to spend too much money to get to and from work. The government sees that problem in regions around the country and is ready to spend millions of dollars to plan improvements that put jobs and housing closer together… or at least give people more transportation options to get to work. Julie Grant reports.

Dwayne Marsh says for decades, the department of Housing and Urban Development has built housing in one part of a community, while the Department of Transportation invested in another — with no coordination.

“I THINK THAT BECAUSE THE RESPECTIVE AGENCIES WEREN’T IN TIGHT ALLIANCE, THERE OFTEN WOULD BE REGULATIONS THAT WERE AT CROSS PURPOSE.”

That’s one reason why highways often bypass rural communities entirely and split inner-city neighborhoods in two.

Marsh works in a new office within HUD that’s working to integrate housing planning with Department of Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.

“NOW WE’RE WORKING REALLY HARD TO ELIMINATE THOSE BARRIERS, SO WHEN COMMUNITIES GET FEDERAL DOLLARS THEY CAN BE USED IN A SYNCHRONOUS WAY.”

The three agencies have 140-million dollars in grants for local governments and regions around the country to do better planning.

And HUD has done something no one can remember it doing before: it’s gone on tour — to Seattle, Denver, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Before HUD starts doling out the planning money, Marsh says they want to hear the vision local communities have for sustainable development.

“YOU KNOW, I’M SNARKY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY.”

Ned Hill is Dean of the college of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. He says sustainability means so many different things to different people.

To him, sustainable goes beyond environmental effects.

“AT THE FOUNDATION OF ANY SORT OF SUSTAINABILITY IS HAVE AN ECONOMY THAT’S SUSTAINABLE. AND IN THE OLDER INDUSTRIAL CITIES, OUR FIRST CHALLENGE IS TO RELOAD THE ECONOMY.”

In many of those older cities, as people have moved farther into the suburbs, they’ve started new businesses close to where they live. Hill says that’s why in areas like Cleveland, the central city is no longer the central business district.

Highways have been built to connect the different suburbs – and people are driving all over the place to get to work in those suburbs.

But, getting to work is now the second biggest expense for most Americans, after housing.

Shelley Poticha doesn’t think that’s a sustainable model. She’s director of that new HUD sustainability office.

Poticha says the regions where people have to drive the farthest to get to work –and spend the most to get to work—also have the highest numbers of foreclosed homes.

“THE REGIONS THAT FARED THE BEST WERE THOSE THAT HAD A PATTERN OF LAND USE THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO GET TO WORK WITH OUT HAVING TO DRIVE.”

Poticha points to regions like Denver, where they plan a 100 miles of commuter rail, and bus rapid transit lanes, linking the 32 communities surrounding Denver proper. She says Denver wants to use this new federal grant money to design urban villages around those transit stations. So instead of acres of parking lots, there could be a grocery and other retail stores.

The idea is that people won’t have to drive to work and then drive to the store. Instead, they can take mass transit, and get their shopping done and not have to drive all around.

Poticha says that can help reduce pollution and help families to save money.

Dwayne Marsh says the Obama administration is sending a clear message: improving the economy is dependent on transportation options, housing affordability and a cleaner environment:

“AND BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLAYS A ROLE IN ALL OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, WE NEED TO BE FOSTERING INNOVATION COMING FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT CAN TAKE ON SOME OF OUR TOUGHEST NATIONAL PROBLEMS. AND WE CERTAINLY DON’T WANT TO BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO THAT CREATIVITY.”

Marsh says his HUD office will work with the Transportation Department and the EPA to help – instead of getting in the way – of local areas’ creative solutions.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: Travelers Tighten Budget

  • Triple-A reports that gas prices are affecting many Memorial Day weekend travelers (Photo by Ed Edahl, courtesy of FEMA)

Nearly 38-million people will travel during
the Memorial Day weekend according to a Triple-A
survey. But they’re not expected to go as far or stay
away as long. And many people are just going to stay
at home because of higher gas prices. Lester Graham
talked with Triple-A’s Nancy Cain about travel plans
this summer:

Transcript

Nearly 38-million people will travel during
the Memorial Day weekend according to a Triple-A
survey. But they’re not expected to go as far or stay
away as long. And many people are just going to stay
at home because of higher gas prices. Lester Graham
talked with Triple-A’s Nancy Cain about travel plans
this summer:

Nancy Cain: “Well, what we’re hearing from a lot of folks is that they’re still going to travel, but
they’re going to travel differently than they’ve done in the past. They’re much more economically
minded. They’re going to be looking for travel bargains, they’re going to be trying to camp out,
they’re going to travel in groups. They’re going to do anything they can to have an enjoyable
vacation while saving money at the same time.”

Lester Graham: “What about those big vacations that require a flight? Are fuel prices stopping
people from going places, far away places?”

Cain: “Triple-A is projecting that about 25 million Americans are going to travel over-seas this
summer. But they’re also going to try to be as economical as they can. Because, as you know,
the American dollar is pretty much at an all-time low. So people will still travel. We think the skies
will be fairly crowded this summer. But definitely much more of people’s discretionary income is
going towards these trips. They’ll have less for other things. And they’re less likely to buy
souvenirs once they get to their destinations. And they’re looking at, you know, perhaps
downgrading a room to a less expensive room, having a bigger meal at lunch versus at dinner
when dinner prices are more expensive. So any way they can, they’re going to be cutting costs.”

Graham: “Are people starting to look at other types of transportation, such as the train, you know,
Amtrak, to avoid the driving?”

Cain: “We think that Amtrak, certainly Triple-A, our surveys, have shown that people are showing
more of a willingness to take either Greyhound Bus, Amtrak, carpool with somebody else. You
know, the glory days of people taking a two-week vacation in July and heading out for two-weeks
to the beach, those days are pretty much gone.”

Graham: “I’m wondering, the hotel industry is a pretty mercenary industry, they’re really going after
travelers. I’m wondering what they’re doing to encourage people to travel, now, with this new
wrinkle in people’s budget.”

Cain: “A lot of the hotels, the big hotels, what they’re doing in many cases is offering, like, discount
cards, they’re offering, you know, gas cards. Everybody’s trying to do what they can to attract
tourists to come back, and go out there and spend. Even though gas prices are at record highs,
tourism is one of the backbones of the economy of this country. So, people want to get out, and,
also, they want to enjoy their vacation.”

Graham: “Trucking companies are starting to slow down to try to save a little fuel. And, I’ve heard
about it – although I haven’t actually seen – that some people are actually slowing down their cars
on the highway. Is that becoming a common trend?”

Cain: “You know, at Triple-A, we’re seeing that more and more. And this is advice we’ve been
giving for years. You know, slowing down on the highway, and even city driving, just five miles an
hour can really improve your fuel economy. And, we’ve said this for years, but now that gas prices
are looking at $4 a gallon, people are starting to follow this advice. Trying to ease up on the gas
pedal, avoiding those jack-rabbit starts and stops. And you can see, people are trying to be a little
more conservative, and thinking conservation when they’re driving.”

Graham: “So, Nancy, I want to ask you a personal question. What have you been doing differently
because of these higher gas prices?”

Cain: “You know, truly what I do, and I have been doing this, I have made a point of it – when I am
in line, like at the bank, I turn my engine off. It’s just those little things – turning your engine off.
And I do try to think conservatively. You know, plan your trips – so you can go around, and not go
out one place in the morning and somewhere else in the afternoon. And I really do make an effort
to do that, because you can reduce your gas costs. And also what I’ve been thinking about doing,
some of my colleagues have also thought this, you know, maybe we should start carpooling, even
one day a week. That would save some money.”

Related Links

Making Solar Power Mainstream

  • Chuck and Pam Wingo in the kitchen of their solar-powered home. (Photo by Tamara Keith)

Solar panel technology has been around for decades…but not many people have panels on their roofs. Solar energy is the ultimate clean power source, but it’s also expensive and that’s kept most people away. But regulators in one state are hoping to change that. The state’s Public Utilities Commission recently approved a 3-billion dollar fund to give homeowners and businesses hefty rebates if they install solar panels. It’s the first program of its kind and size in the nation. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamara Keith reports:

Transcript

Solar panel technology has been around for decades…but not many
people have panels on their roofs. Solar energy is the ultimate clean
power source, but it’s also expensive and that’s kept most people away.
But regulators in one state are hoping to change that. The state’s Public
Utilities Commission recently approved a 3-billion dollar fund to give
homeowners and businesses hefty rebates if they install solar panels. It’s
the first program of its kind and size in the nation. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Tamara Keith reports:


A little over a year ago, Chuck Wingo and his wife Pam moved into a
new house in an innovative housing development. Their house, like all
the others in the neighborhood, is equipped with bank solar panels, built
right into the roof like shingles.


“These are the 2 meters that are on the house. It’s simple. One uses for
our usage, what we use, and the other one is from the solar panels, what we
produce.”


Chuck says sometimes he walks to the side of his California house and
just watches the solar meter spin.


“We check it all the time, what’s even better is checking the bills. The
bills are great, we paid 16-dollars for our usage in August, the hottest
month in Sacramento. So, it’s kind of cool.”


The Wingo’s weren’t big environmentalists before moving into this
house, but Pam says when she heard about this development, something
clicked.


“The idea just sounded, if you’re going to move, do it right at least. Do
something pro-active about where you’re going to be living and spending
your money. It’s really good for everybody, for the country. We all
should be living like this so we’re not wasting out energy.”


And many more Californians will be living that way, if the California
Solar Initiative lives up to its promise. State energy regulators approved
the initiative, which will add a small fee to utility bills in order to create a
3-billion dollar fund. That fund is designed to make solar panels more
affordable.


It starts by offering rebates to consumers who buy them. Bernadette Del
Chiaro – a clean energy advocate with Environment California – says
once those panels get cheaper, the marketplace goes to work…


“The problem with solar power today is its cost. Most of us can’t afford
an extra 20-thousand dollars to equip our home with solar panels, and
what we’re doing in California is saying, we’re going to get the cost of
solar power down. By growing the market 30 fold in the next 10 years,
we’re going to be able to cut the cost of solar panels in half.”


Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to get the California
legislature to approve something similar. That plan got bogged down in
state politics … so he took it to the Public Utilities Commission. While
the commission can raise the money, there are some parts of this
revamped solar program that have to be legislated.


Democratic State Senator Kevin Murray has worked with the Republican
Governor on solar power issues. He says he plans to introduce a new bill
that would require solar panels be included as an option on all new
homes built in the state.


“Rather than some specialized left-wing alternative kind of thing, we want it to
be in the mainstream, so that when you go in to buy a new home, you
pick your tile and you pick your carpet and you pick your solar system.
So, that would have to be done legislatively and the other thing that would
have to be done legislatively is raise the net metering cap so that if you’re
selling energy back to the grid, you can get compensated for it.”


The new program would also target businesses, even farms. Public
Utilities Commissioner Dian Grueneich says she hopes this doesn’t stop
with California.


“I’m very, very excited. This is the largest program in the country
and I’m hoping that other states will look at this program as well, so that
it’s not just something in California but helping other states.”


And if the solar power initiative is a success in California, backers say
it’s good news for consumers all over the country. Much like the hybrid
car, made cool by Hollywood celebrities… California leaders hope they
can make solar trendy and more affordable for everyone.


For the GLRC, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Study: Wildlife Refuges Bring in Cash

A new report from the federal government says many of us are spending a lot of money at or near national wildlife refuges. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A new report from the federal government says many of us are
spending a lot of money at or near national wildlife refuges. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The Interior Department says 37 million people visited National
Wildlife Refuges last year, triggering 1.4 billion dollars
in economic activity. The Department says the spending created almost
25,000 private sector jobs. Larry Wargowsky manages one of the
refuges. He says it’s mainly tourist dollars, not local spending,
that’s fueling the growth.


“That’s very critical… local money doesn’t cycle as much as new money
coming in from visitors into the local economy. It multiplies and
helps everything from the retailers to the motels.”


Wargowsky says unlike some of the national parks, the wildlife refuges
are by and large not in danger of being loved to death. Travel industry
officials say the new report shows eco-tourism is big business.


The Sierra Club says the study provides more reasons not to drill for
oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Lobbying for a Second Carp Barrier

A new barrier is being constructed to prevent the Asian carp
from getting into the Great Lakes. But this year, a Congresswoman
will seek money to keep an existing barrier in operation, as well. The
Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A new barrier is being constructed to prevent the Asian carp
from getting into the Great Lakes. But this year, a Congresswoman
will seek money to keep an existing barrier in operation, as well. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The permanent underwater electronic barrier that’s being built in a canal near
Chicago is close to a temporary barrier that’s wearing out. But Illinois Republican
Judy Biggert
contends the new electronic fence will not be enough to keep out the voracious
invasive species
known as the Asian carp.


“Now I wish that I could say that with the construction of this permanent barrier
that our work
would be finished and the carp would never again threaten the Great Lakes, but I
cannot.”


Biggert wants to make the temporary barrier permanent, too. She also wants to make
sure there’s
federal money to operate and maintain both underwater fences over the long term.
So, Biggert is
seeking co-sponsors for a barrier bill that she says she plans to introduce early
this session of
Congress.


Her aides say she may also try to get the several million dollars needed for the
project put in the
budget for the Army Corps of Engineers. But many new domestic spending proposals
could face
a tough time in Congress, if conservatives try to reduce the federal budget deficit.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Army Corps to Expand Mississippi Locks

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with
recommendations to expand locks on the Mississippi River despite
an earlier report that found the Corps’ calculations in making a similar
plan were wrong. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with recommendations to expand
locks on
the Mississippi River despite an earlier report that found the Corps’ calculations
in making a
similar plan were wrong. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Corps of Engineers proposes spending 8.3 billion dollars to expand navigation
locks for
heavier barge traffic and restore the ecosystem of the upper Mississippi River. The
National
Research Council was highly critical of an earlier plan, saying the Corps’
projections of greater
traffic on the river were flawed. In a statement, the Corps says this new plan
balances the need
for economic growth and environmental sustainability.


Environmentalists say it’s still wrong. Melissa Samet is with the group American
Rivers.


“The Corps has done a great disservice to the nation by recommending this project.
We have
other needs. It’s a significant amount of money. The recommendation is based on
unsound
science and unsound economics. And that’s just not the way a federal agency should
be working.
It’s certainly not serving the American people.”


Critics say they expect the Corps of Engineers to lobby Congress hard for funding
the expansion
of the locks and not as hard for the environmental restoration.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

If You Build It… Will They Really Come?

  • Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, OH just before detonation in 2002. The 32 year-old stadium was demolished to make way for a new stadium paid for by a sales tax. (Photo by Eric Andrews)

In cities across the nation, taxpayers are finding themselves facing the same dilemma: cough up big bucks for a new sports stadium… or else. Right now it’s happening in Washington, D.C. as the capital city tries to lure a baseball team. It’s happening in New York where the city’s deciding whether to spend 600 million dollars on a new home for the Jets in Manhattan. The debate is over what the taxpayers get. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Richard Paul takes a look at whether sports stadiums really can hit a homerun for taxpayers:

Transcript

In cities across the nation, taxpayers are finding themselves facing the same dilemma:
cough up big bucks for a new sports stadium… or else. Right now it’s happening in
Washington, D.C. as the capital city tries to lure a baseball team. It’s happening in New
York where the city’s deciding whether to spend 600 million dollars on a new home for
the Jets in Manhattan. The debate is over what the taxpayers get. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Richard Paul takes a look at whether sports stadiums really can hit a
homerun for taxpayers:


It’s sort of funny when you think about it. The most hackneyed rationale you can think of
for building a ballpark is… it turns out… actually the primary motivation when cities sit
down to figure out whether to shell out for a stadium. You know what I’m talking
about…


(MOVIE CLIP – “FIELD OF DREAMS”: “If you build it they will come…”)


Just like in “Field of Dreams.” Put in a stadium. People will show up, see the game, eat
in the neighborhood, shop there, stay overnight in hotels, pay taxes on everything and
we’ll clean up!


(MOVIE CLIP – “FIELD OF DREAMS”: “They’ll pass over the money without even
thinking about it…”)


Here’s the thing though… it doesn’t work.


“In the vast majority of cases there was very little or no effect whatsoever on the local
economy.”


That’s economist Ron Utt. He’s talking about a study that looked at 48 different cities
that built stadiums from 1958 to 1989. Not only didn’t they improve things, he says in
some cases it even got worse.


“If you’re spending 250 million or 750 million or a billion dollars on something, that
means a whole bunch of other things that you’re not doing. Look at Veterans Stadium
and the Spectrum in South Philadelphia or the new state-of-the art Gateway Center in
Cleveland. The sponsors admitted that that created only half of the jobs that were
promised.”


But what about those numbers showing that stadiums bring the state money – all that
sales tax on tickets and hot dogs? Economists will tell you to look at it this way: If I
spend $100 taking my wife to a nice dinner in Napa Valley…


(sound of wine glasses clinking)


Or we spend $100 watching the Giants at Pac Bell Park…


(sound of ballpark and organ music)


…I’ve still only spent $100. The hundred dollars spent at the ballpark is not new money.
I just spent it one place instead of another.


In Washington right now, fans have been told they can keep the Washington Nationals, if
Major League Baseball gets a new stadium that the fans pay for. Washington is a place
was more professional activists, more advanced degrees and more lawyers than it has
restaurants, traffic lights or gas stations. And as a result, it’s practically impossible to get
anything big built. But the mayor’s trying. He wants the city to build a new stadium in
really awful part of town and use baseball as the lever to bring in economic activity. The
reaction so far? Turn on the local TV news…


NEWS REPORT – NEWS – CHANNEL 8
ANCHOR: “Baseball’s return to the District still isn’t sitting well with some folks. One
major issue is the proposal for a new stadium.”


ANGRY MAN GIVING A SPEECH: “Tell this mayor that his priorities are out of
order.”


Turns out that guy’s in the majority. A survey by The Washington Post shows
69% of the people in Washington don’t want city funds spent on a new baseball stadium.
We Americans weren’t always like this.


MOVIE CLIP – SAN FRANCISCO WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “You will want to see the Golden Gate international exposition again
and again in the time you have left to you…”


Today politicians need to couch this kind of spending in terms of economic development
because no one will support tax dollars for entertainment. But there was a time in
America when people were willing to squander multiple millions in public money for the
sake of a good time.


MOVIE CLIP – SAN FRANCISCO WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “Remember: Treasure Island – the world fair of the West closes forever
on September 29th.”


In 1939, in New York and San Francisco, and then again in New York in 1964. they
spent MILLIONS. And the purpose was never really clear. Here’s Robert Moses… the
man who made New York City what it is today… on the 1964 Fair.


REPORTER: “What is the overall purpose of the new Fair?”


MOSES: “Well, the overall stated purpose is education for brotherhood and brotherhood
through education.”


MOVIE CLIP – NEW YORK WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “Everyone is coming to the New York World’s Fair. Coming from the
four corners of the earth. And Five Corners, Idaho.”


Maybe those were simpler times. When people were a lot more willing to let rich men in
charge tell them what was right and wrong. Today, a politician looking to build himself a
monument is going to have to convince people it’s for their own good – and economic
development is the most popular selling point. Looking around these days – more often
than not – it seems voters are willing to rely on a quick fix. Taken together, that’s a
recipe for this kind of thing continuing. After all, when you’re a politician building a
legacy for yourself, a sports stadium is a lot sexier than filling pot holes or fixing school
roofs.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Richard Paul.

Related Links

Politician Retaliates Against Amtrak Supporters

  • A Member of Congress retaliated against his colleagues when they supported Amtrak. (Photo by Michael Sloneker)

A Republican leader in the House of Representatives is retaliating against members of Congress who support Amtrak. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charlie Schlenker reports:


(According to a news report, the Member of Congress who took
the action, Rep. Istook from Oklahoma, has since apologized and has said that he will do everything in his power to rectify the situation. You can read the report by following this link)

Transcript

A Republican leader in the House of Representatives is retaliating aganst members of Congress who support Amtrak. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charlie Schlenker reports:


Ernest Istook is a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma. He opposes Amtrak, and he chairs a key subcommittee that controls some transportation funding. Some Republican members of Congress signed a letter asking for additional spending on Amtrak. In the recently passed omnibus spending bill, Istook made cuts in transportation projects in the districts of members who signed the letter. Tim Johnson is a Republican congressman from Illinois and one of the members who spoke up for Amtrak. Johnson says the effort to squelch Amtrak support is petty.


“Well, I am outraged. I think it is unacceptable in a system where the free expression of ideas and particularly advocacy for one’s district is punished.”


Johnson and some of the other rebuked Republicans say they will continue to speak out for Amtrak. Last year, though, 32 House Republicans signed the Amtrak support letter. This year, there were only 21.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Charlie Schlenker.


(According to a news report, the Member of Congress who took
the action, Rep. Istook from Oklahoma, has since apologized and has said that he will do everything in his power to rectify the situation. You can read the report by following this link)

Related Links

Part 2: Selling the Right to Develop Farmland

  • Farm museums like this one are sometimes the only remnant of the agricultural life that has been overrun by development. However, some communities are buying farmers' development rights in an effort to save the rural landscape. (Photo by Lester Graham)

One way to keep farms from becoming subdivisions is to pay the farmers to never build on their land. This has been happening on the east and west coasts for decades. But it’s just now beginning to catch on in the Great Lakes region. In the second of a two part series on farmers and the decisions they make about their land, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette takes us to a place where local government is paying to keep land in agriculture:

Transcript

One way to keep farms from becoming subdivisions is to pay the farmers to never
build on their land. This has been happening on the east and west coasts for
decades. But it’s just now beginning to catch on in the Great Lakes region. In
the second of a two part series on farmers and the decisions they make about
their land, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette takes us to a place
where local government is paying to keep land in agriculture:


Whitney Lyon’s farm has been in his family for more than a century. He has 100
acres of cherry and apple trees. The orchards are on a peninsula that stretches
fourteen miles across a bay in Northern Lake Michigan. His farm is about a half
mile from the clear blue water that attracts thousands of tourists here every
year.


Lyon says real estate agents love his property.


“We run clean back to the bay on the north side… that’s view property. It’s
worth 30, 40,000 bucks an acre.”


But it’s not worth that much anymore. The rights to build houses on the Lyon farm have
been sold. The way this works is this: the Lyon’s keep the land, but they get paid
for the real estate value they give up to keep the land as a farm instead of house
sites.


(sound of apple picking)


There’s a thick fog across the peninsula today. Whitney Lyon is picking apples. His
wife Mary is inside watching kids. Mary says the day they sold the development
rights was the best day in their thirty years of farm life. She says she knew they’d
be able to stay on the land. And because of the money they made, she downsized her
daycare business.


“The big change, especially the last two or three years, I no longer just buy stuff
from just garage sales. I have actually been spending money on purchasing things for
the house. Which previously, everything came from garage sales.”


Many of the Lyon’s neighbors have sold their development rights as well. For ten
years, the township government has raised money to buy those rights with an additional
property tax. Almost no other community in the Midwest has a program like this. But,
if approved by voters, five more townships in this area might also start programs after
the November elections. Each township is separately asking voters to approve a property tax.


The American Farmland Trust has helped the townships design the program. The group is
excited because this would provide an example of local governments joining together to
protect farmland. Farmland Trust’s President Ralph Grossie flew in for a campaign event.
In a speech, Grossie told a crowd of about 100 people there’s a disconnect between farmers
and their communities. He says the community benefits from the farms while the farmers
struggle to make ends meet.


“We believe there is a middle ground here, there is a way to strike a deal between those
who manage our landscape – private farmers and ranchers, landowners – and those who
appreciate and benefit from that well-managed landscape. If you think about it, that’s
the heart of the property rights debate. Almost all those conflicts over property rights
are really about who pays for achieving a public goal on private land.”


Grossie says paying farmers with public money is the best option if a community wants to
keep farms. Otherwise, he says government forces farmers to pay when they give up profitable
uses of their land because of zoning laws. But a few in this crowd weren’t buying.


Some are opposed to more taxes on their homes or businesses so the township government can
write big checks to farmers. Others question if younger generations even want to farm.


(sound of noise from crowd)


And some are just plain suspicious of government. Roger Booth is talking to another
opponent of the propposal after the speech. Booth is explaining that when the right
to develop a piece of land is purchased, it’s gone forever. But he points out there
is one exception.


“Eminent domain. And who’s going to decide eminent domain has the right to take it? The
people in power of government at the time. Not today. Thirty years from now.”


Government also has an image problem because prominent local farmers often sit on the
town boards. It’s hard not to notice they could be the ones cashing in on the public treasury.
Critics also point out these programs tax farms to save farmland. And they say buying the
deveolopment rights does nothing to improve the business of farming. Supporters admit this
doesn’t guarantee future success for farms. But they say at least it gives the farmers a
chance to keep farming instead of selling to developers.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Survey: Parents Missing Important Asthma Triggers

New research suggests that while parents of children who have asthma try to protect their youngsters from the things that trigger attacks, those measures often aren’t very helpful. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland reports:

Transcript

New research suggests that while parents of children who have asthma
try to protect their youngsters from the things that trigger attacks,
those measures often aren’t very helpful. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Michael Leland reports:


Researchers at the University of Michigan found 80 percent of the
parents they surveyed were doing something to prevent attacks, but
often missed important measures. For example, a quarter of the parents
said a smoker lived in the same house as a child with asthma, but they
hadn’t done anything about it.


In one case, the parent of a child with pollen-triggered asthma bought
a new mattress cover, but didn’t close windows to keep pollen out of
the house.


Dr. Michael Cabana is a U of M pediatrician who led the study. He says
many parents also needlessly buy products they think will lessen asthma
symptoms.


“A lot of times, parents may get more information from other commercial
sources more often than the time they have to spend with either their
primary care doctor or their doctor who might be a sub-specialist in
asthma. So I think physicians have to do a better job putting that
information into perspective.”


Dr. Cabana suggests parents talk to their child’s doctor about asthma
triggers before spending money on asthma-related products.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links