FREE WHITEWATER

Free Markets

Planning Challenges Small and Big

by  • 

Government planning is susceptible to two interesting of challenges, one for small projects, one for big ones.

In small efforts, there is the tendency to expect a role or say in the modest, readily comprehensible effort.

For example, suppose a restaurant wanted to put a sign up. It’s not hard to understand a project like that, and because everyone can understand a sign, so suddenly everyone wants a say in it. How big, what color, how many colors, what design?

A small public project that requires official approval is a prime target for everyone’s petty say. Did you want blue for the lettering on your sign? What shade of blue, exactly? It’s tempting to ask a question like that, and expect an answer, from the owner and designer of the sign. It’s tempting because it’s easy to comprehend and question the project.

There’s an expression for that sort of question: “What color is the bike shed?” from C.N. Parkinson, author of Parkinson’s Law.

Many are tempted to meddle in a small project like a bike shed. (One odd aspect of the bike shed problem – Parkinson described the meddlesome tendency, but never addressed color in his original example.)

In big projects, like vast hydroelectric plants, the scale and complexity is intimidating, so public officials initially avoid trying to direct the details of design. Instead, they cooperate with special interests with knowledge of ways to benefit from the intricacies of funding a large public project. No one asks about small details; legislators and lobbyists unite covertly to make sure that their interests are protected in funding the public effort. Shades of blue don’t matter, so long as the painting contract goes to someone in Legislator X’s district.

Over time, that may change, as maintenance funding of the project may present opportunities for new hordes of lobbyists, who may seek to expand the original design for their own benefit.

In private projects, the risks of these tendencies are less. A society that doesn’t regulate a small restaurant’s sign specifications is a less meddlesome one. The restaurateur creates his own sign, and no one pesters him.

A company that funds a large project privately without legislative interference is better shielded from legislators and lobbyists who see the public project as a common, public trough from which they will be gorge themselves.

Discussions like this are available at the Cato Institute’s blog, and over at the Volokh Conspiracy, a group blog of law professors, economists, and others.

Blog names may sound odd, but that shouldn’t put you off – plunge in and swim around.

City, Development, Economy, Free Markets

Zoning and Housing Prices

by  • 

Readers may recall that I have criticized politician-dentist Roy Nosek for his advocacy of limitations on student housing. Here are some of my posts on the subject:

On Nosek on Student Housing, Part 1 (Economics)

On Nosek on Student Housing, Part 2 (Culture)

Student Housing in Whitewater

One of the points that I have made is that Nosek’s views are ill-presented and jumbled; they’re cultural as much as economic. My best guess is that Nosek’s advocacy of zoning restrictions, followed with code enforcement efforts, and preferences for young couples over other buyers, would both increase housing prices and later lead to a collapse in prices in then-stagnant neighborhoods.

There’s ample, readily available information to support this assessment. Randal O’Toole of Cato has a post with links to well-researched studies confirming that land use planning increases housing prices, entitled “Land Use Regulation and the Credit Crisis.”

What’s telling, though, is that O’Toole also cites research from economist Edward Glaeser that land-use regulations also make housing prices more prone to crashes.

Nosek evidences not slightest understanding of economics, and thus not the faintest awareness that the restrictions he favors increase housing costs and shortages throughout the city.

City

On Primary Election Day, 19 February 2008

by  • 

A few quick thoughts on the primary in Whitewater:

Predictions. At the beginning of the year, I offered predictions for 2008. After the Whitewater primary, I’m probably 1-1. Sen. Obama likely will win Whitewater in November, and our incumbent municipal judge will probably be elected in his own right in April. (I have a preferred candidate in neither race.)

I expected Sen. Obama to do well, and well he did – winning each of our districts. Municipal Judge Kelly won about half the votes cast in a four-way race, and it will be hard for all Kelly’s opponents’ votes to coalesce to his remaining opponent, Art Coleman. I was wrong before, though, and it may be possible; there were a lot of votes cast for someone other than the incumbent.

It says much, though, that Kelly in the 2008 primary received more votes than Spear in the 2007 general election. Spear would be unable to win citywide: he’s finished here, no matter how often a few people insist (outrageously) that he’s somehow a victim.

New Polling Place. We were right to establish a new polling place, and it was the destination for just over 800 voters. Well-done, Whitewater.

I know, and you know, how disconcerting this polling place was to the most hidebound among us. Inconveniencing campus voters is the last refuge of a declining, stodgy town faction. Too late now – someone championing that anti-market, anti-expression clique will not be able to win in a city with fair, convenient access to the polls for all voters.

The Waning District. Over in the Third Aldermanic District, home of Common Council member and dentist Dr. Roy Nosek, voting was less than in any other district in the city. For all the talk about representing the ‘community,’ Dr. Nosek barely won his seat in the last Third District election – a two vote margin, I think – in a district that cast fewer votes than any other this election.

It’s hard to be a tribune of the people when, in fact, you represent few active voters, and you have won even fewer votes.

Obama and Whitewater. Although I have no current preference for a presidential candidate in November, Obama’s success in the primary (and that of Kerry and Gore city-wide before him) suggests the limits of the identity-theft crowd’s reach. They’re a loud, self-important clique, in an echo chamber. They have each other, a desire to abandon principle to bolster themselves, and a thin, poorly written local paper, but that’s about all.

They are a loud, but distinct minority, within town. The idea that they’re people of influence grows less true each day. (It was never true the way they want it to be; these are people who spend too much time looking in the mirror.) They place their own interest ahead of American principles of expression and liberty, and so it is no surprise that American trends leave them bitter and confused.

Poll Workers. Any number of citizens were at the polls, supporting our elections at two different polling places. They deserve our thanks and praise.

Inbox Reader Mail, School District

Inbox: Reader Mail (Multiple School Delays)

by  • 

A reader wrote me with a concern about a proposed change to delay the time that school might start on some days, to accommodate meetings of school staff. Her email appears below, with my reply in blue thereafter:

Reader: I feel the public should know what the school board is tiring to pass basically under the table. They would want school to start one hour later every Thursday so the teachers can discuss what has been going on. What are parents with smaller children in school supposed to do as many of them have jobs to go to. I feel the public should be aware of this matter as it will greatly affect some people.

Adams: My views, simply described, on our schools can be found in my post entitled, “On Public Education.” Most especially, I am interested in the ways that a spontaneous order — rather than a engineered solution — can advance substantive learning though interesting, creative possibilities.

The author of this proposal does not matter to me; it’s a bad idea in any event.

The proposal to delay school hours is a poor idea for two principal reasons. First, it visits the effects of administrative and internal workings of the district onto parents. That’s a poor practice — internal needs of an organization should not be visited on customers, clients, or patients. What those within an organization want is sometimes different from what a customer wants or needs. That’s a sign of a poorly focused organization, out of alignment with its customers’ needs.

Second — and far more important — is the stress that a delay like this places on working parents. It’s foolish to think that an employer would be indifferent between a full day off, and eight delays of one hour. I may have control over my schedule, but most people don’t, and they fell the stress of an impatient employer who expects workers to arrive on time, each and every time. A day off is easier to arrange than any number of one-hour delays — and this should be intuitive to those who run our district.

I urge the district to abandon this stress-creating proposal.

Holiday

Lincoln’s Birthday

by  • 

It’s Lincoln’s birthday today, and it offers us the moment to consider that singularly great man. The true advocate of freedom respects and admires Lincoln. (See, for example, Timothy Sandefur’s Liberty and Union, Now and Forever.)

Lincoln visited Wisconsin, and delivered a speech before our agricultural society in September of 1859. The speech addressed particular topics of interest to its audience, but ended with an observation that’s both haunting and hopeful:

It is said an Eastern monarch once charged his wise men to invent him a sentence, to be ever in view, and which should be true and appropriate in all times and situations. They presented him the words: “And this, too, shall pass away.” How much it expresses! How chastening in the hour of pride! — how consoling in the depths of affliction! “And this, too, shall pass away.”

And yet let us hope it is not quite true. Let us hope, rather, that by the best cultivation of the physical world, beneath and around us; and the intellectual and moral world within us, we shall secure an individual, social, and political prosperity and happiness, whose course shall be onward and upward, and which, while the earth endures, shall not pass away.

Libertarians

The Citizen’s Life

by  • 

Longtime readers know that I am from a libertarian background (affectionately called being ‘in the movement,’ in such families). I am the fortunate inheritor of a proud tradition. Some have asked me my thoughts on free expression in the face of hostility or opposition, and I’ll offer my perspective.

First and foremost, officials in most communities accept criticism as part of their public lives, and are consequently respectful of America’s legal and political tradition of free expression. Most places are fair and well-ordered.

Rarely, a person may live in a place where officials are disrespectful of the American guarantees of free expression. It’s unfortunate if you live in a place where public officials or officers try to intimidate and cow ordinary citizens into silence, either through the use of their office, or with the help of their idle, private supporters.

The worst cases of public officials’ attempts to shame and coerce citizens into silence for exercise of their rights happened in segregation states decades ago — but it still happens in disordered, troubled communities today.

Wherever you live, you have the right as a citizen to live out American promise of free expression. Here are some observations that you may find useful.

Know Your Tradition. No matter how knowledgeable or educated you may be, it’s always a good idea to carry with you books and documents that remind you of your tradition. Take time to read a few words each day, to remind yourself of who you are, and where you live. In my own case, I carry in my briefcase a small Bible, a book of prayer, and a copy of the U.S. Constitution. In my wallet, I carry a small plate inscribed with the Bill of Rights. I have read each fully, far more than once, but I always learn something new in reflection.

Some people may tease you when they first see that you carry these books, but if you take a moment and explain what they mean to you, you’ll be surprised how many people respond positively. In reply, they’ll tell you what matters to them. Listen carefully to what they have to say; that’s the beginning of a great conversation.

(The Bill of Rights edition that I carry is available from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the copy of the Constitution from the Cato Institute. Our law is more than one document, but this is its foundation.)

Know Your Rights. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a troubled, disordered place where police leaders or officials try to coerce citizens into silence, then you must review your specific rights carefully. Remember: if police or officials confront your for exercising your rights, they will be do so at a time of their choosing, their preparation, and your greatest surprise.

They do this because they are too weak or self-absorbed to respond to you on the merits of your lawful, political speech. They will try to shift the ground, to scare you into silence. They are bullies, and all bullies undertake an emotional line of attack.

If you have carefully reflected on your faith and on your political tradition, you will be better composed to face the adversaries of free speech. They may be ferocious, but you will be composed.

Maintain the Harmony of Your Home. Very rarely, a public official will disgrace himself, and violate our political tradition, by going to a citizen’s home, and trying to ‘shame,’ ‘scare,’ or ‘intimidate,’ the citizen into silence. Your political speech is a constitutional right, for which you need never be ashamed. Still, they may try to pressure or scare you.

Ask them to leave — you owe them no audience on your property. They are uninvited; send them away without discussion. They may try to cajole you into a discussion on your own doorstep. Ignore them: They are weak and detestable. If they were respectful of the American political tradition, they would have answered you through political speech. As they show no respect for our political heritage, they deserve only a reminder to leave your property.

Never Respond with Anger. It’s a garden-variety trick of bad policing, for example, to try to provoke a person to anger, and then contend that the person was violent, hostile, etc. They may say all sorts of threatening things to you (about which they will lie), but you must never respond in kind, no matter what they say. This is, of course, another reason to avoid discussions where they try to confront you on your own property: their sheer audacity and arrogance is likely to be infuriating to an ordinary person.

They understand this, and they may use it as a way to provoke you. Never respond to threats; never make threats. Stay calm, always.

Reporters. In big cities (usually) and in well-ordered places (often), reporters are well-trained, and most maintain an independent position from public officials. Sometimes in smaller places, reporters are easily manipulated, captivated, or overly-supportive of public officials. It may be that they are pressured to maintain municipal ad revenue for their small papers, told they cannot have access unless they are positive, are ‘star-struck,’ or just third rate-hacks.

It doesn’t matter — be wary of them. They will help self-interested officials before they will serve their communities.

Recordings and Photographs. Some people ask what they should do if an official confronts a citizen about political speech, and asks to photograph or tape record a conversation with a citizen. Never allow this without a lawyer present — ever. The whole idea is crazy — and an official or officer has nothing good in mind by asking for something like this.

I have been asked if a citizen should carry a camera and dictaphone with him, in case of an encounter with hostile officials. Always remember that officials who confront you for your political speech, on your property or elsewhere, never have your constitutional interests in mind. Avoid talking with them at that time, no matter how insistent they are. They must never set your agenda by ‘ambushing’ you, or insisting they ‘need to talk.’ Their supposed needs are not constitutional rights — never forget this.

Officials who are upset over political speech are in the wrong line of work; let them go see a therapist or a priest. What they ‘need’ you cannot give them, in any event.

Be careful producing either a camera or voice recorder: (1) it may encourage abusive officials to linger, and (2) they may try to take your possessions from you, in the process possibly destroying your property or injuring you. If they’re so angry that they don’t respect your speech rights, then they likely won’t respect your property rights, either.

I carry both a camera (with video capabilities) and a voice recorder, because I like to take photographs of interesting natural scenes, and because I sometimes dictate memos. (Older iPods used to have voice memo capability, but I do not think that the iPod that I have now does.) I have been in all sorts of political debates in my life, and have a knack for staying calm, but I still would not encourage others to do anything except asking officials to leave the property, or walk away.

The True Friends. Most importantly, always remember that you are never alone in our free society. There are many people, of all political views — conservatives, moderates, progressives, and libertarians — who believe in free speech just as you do.

Be happy! It’s fun to live out a citizen’s life.

Ignore people who place social connection or office ahead of principle, and make friends with those who believe in speech rights as you do. You will find that they will be among the best friends anyone could ever have.

City, Libertarians, Public Records 1

The Public Records Law

by  • 

We are fortunate to live in Wisconsin, as our state is committed to good and open government. Part of our law includes the Public Records Law, found at Wis. Stat. §§ 19.31 – 19.39. About a week ago, I contacted our city manager, in reference to the administration of the law.

I have now submitted my first request under the Public Records Law.

I was happy to hear that our most recent Common Council meeting, from Tuesday, February 5th, included a discussion of the Public Records Law. It is a statewide requirement, and more importantly, an expression and commitment to good government. (I will post more about that council meeting separately.)

In every case, there may be the temptation, based on self-interest, to shirk the law, defeat its purposes, or hide and conceal information.

(To see how government may disregard good government, and fall into the temptation of breaking the promises that it makes to its citizens, see my post entitled William Schaefer and Whitewater, in particular, paragraph four.)

We must not allow that to happen in Whitewater.

City, Police

The Upside Down Commission

by  • 

A reader wrote me, and observed that there would be no response to my Police Commission Series, or my follow-up post, because PFC members would be asked to step down if they acted independently. That’s turning the roles and responsibilities of those on the commission, and those under its authority, upside down.

That’s likely true, but if so, it shows how empty and hollow our Police and Fire Commission truly is. Anyone – official or citizen – could ask someone to step down; they have no power to compel it.

Consider what Wisconsin law says about the clear authority of the Police and Fire Commission, from Wis. Stat. § 62.13(3):

CHIEFS. The board shall appoint the chief of police and the chief of the fire department, who shall hold their offices during good behavior, subject to suspension or removal by the board for cause.

That’s an impressive and significant responsibility. It is what the law itself authorizes.

It’s sad and embarrassing that our PFC falls so far short of what I believe Wisconsin expects. Imagine a mature man or woman, who takes on a statutory responsibility, and behaves only compliantly, subserviently, and obediently. Those who hold the office can and should exercise its authority fairly and independently. If that duty is too much for these volunteers to bear, they should ask other citizens to help them to rise to this necessary task.

This is no dissipated, gilded aristocracy; we are a free and robust people.

It was a German philosopher who correctly observed that it is not enough to have the courage of one’s convictions – it is also necessary to have the courage to resist the contrary convictions of others. If we do not have at least as much – so that we cannot be cowed, silenced, or shamed into obedience – then we are not the people most useful to our free society.

A normal, mature man or woman should not fall silent because of the views of public officials (especially insecure or incompetent ones), laughable small-town aristocrats, or any number of self-important people. It is impossible for a serious person to be impressed by ordinary people ‘acting big.’

A person may act as though he were Yertle the Turtle, with all those self-important notions, but he would be a turtle, nonetheless. Mack the Turtle knew the truth of the American promise: “I know, up on top you are seeing great sights, but down here at the bottom we, too, should have rights.”

There is an odd, but persistent, notion that a few people in this rural town can silence those they dislike through community pressure. A dissipated, enervated, calcified town clique will resort to this approach. It will not, however, succeed. In this regard, it is true that they have not been paying attention to what I have been saying.

I am a true believer in the rights America affords all citizens. I do not doubt that it is difficult to exercise these rights; I will not fail to do so.

There’s much more to write, and so I will continue.

School District

School Board Meeting for January 28th

by  • 

Like most school board meetings, in districts across Wisconsin, budgets, finances, headcounts, and enrollment (all related, of course) occupied most of the meeting. Two topics, though, stood out.

The first was our 4-K program. Whitewater did not originate the program, but few cities in Wisconsin need it more than we do. We are, for so many, a hard-scrabble town, with poverty above the state and local average. The option of earlier programming is more useful to us than to a wealthier community.

Our schooling is closer to a safe harbor, for example, than a community like Williams Bay.

There’s a related point, and it concerns the preoccupation of education as budgeting: all the talk about finances begins to obscure the work of public education as instruction in substance. Different, more creative, and inspiring teaching need not always cost more, or be encumbered with endless talk of budgets, etc.

More time emphasizing, at each and every meeting, the substantive work of eduction, enumerating a few teaching successes, would be a good practice.

Finally, as I mentioned once before, an endowment — although a matter of money — is a good idea, if managed well, and directed toward advancing a core teaching mission.

City

Expand Our Library

by  • 

We have a beautiful public library, and it serves our community well. It is one of the unalloyed good things of Whitewater.

The Irvin L. Young Memorial library offers all the community what knowledge offers: enrichment, adventure, and opportunity. As a young man, I would often walk to the library in the evening, and there a world awaited.

We who are comfortable are made more so in a library — there’s always something new to find or discover.

We have any number of people — seldom discussed, but our neighbors nonetheless — who are in poverty or otherwise challenged. They are neither poor nor challenged in a library: they are there what we are in the library. This is as it should be, and through a library, might always be.

There is a committee working to expand our library so that it might be more helpful and of greater use. I wish them the very best in their effort; their work is the good work of our community.

City, Police

Police & Fire Commission: Reasonable Procedures Update

by  • 

Readers may recall that I posted a series in December on the Whitewater Police and Fire Commission. I set out reasonable suggestions for a sound police policy based in part on a U.S. Justice Department white paper, entitled, “Principles for Promoting Police Integrity”

Below I have reproduced a table that lists reasonable suggestions, and progress made toward better – and normal — practices since my original posts.

No meeting since my series to see if content is now effectively more than merely a shallow, unquestioning, official-led session.
Meeting Notice: Generous notice for meetings No progress – last announcement of meeting had no more than the minimum statutory two days’ notice. Many committees in Whitewater have meeting notice over weeks ahead based on a regular schedule
Meeting Content
Thorough Minutes: Useful, detailed notice of minutes No meeting since my series to see if minutes are now more than merely regurgitated agendas.
Citizen Complaints Process: Complaints Form No change – no available, online complaint form
Citizen Complaints Process: Designated, identified person to handle
complaints 		No change – no single, publicly-designated official
Citizen Complaints Process:
Spanish Language Translation Copies 		No change – no translation tools online.

Some additional remarks –

On the idea of refusing to respond to anonymous or pseudonymous criticism:

There may be some who can credibly and consistently contend that anonymous or pseudonymous criticism does not merit a response – but police leaders would not be among them.

The leadership of the Whitewater Police Department would almost surely respond to an anonymous tip, when they thought it in the community interest. Anonymous tip lines exist almost everywhere – would they not take a tip like that? If someone reported anonymously on a potential crime, would the leadership of our force ignore it? (Here I mean, of course, ignore it on principle, not by error, accident, etc.)

The idea of refusing to respond to anonymity or pseudonymity is not a credible refusal on principle – it’s a refusal based on self-interest.

Let’s be clear though — there is always a response: to change, to stay the same, or to act indirectly. Everyone knows this, and from the first instances of political criticism in America – or anywhere else – these three responses have always been available, and at least one has always been taken.

Whitewater is no exception. Quite the contrary – it’s likely a case type of the third response.

On the idea of using social pressure to silence criticism:

Consider something else that I wrote in December:

There are, however, two groups who argue against truly free speech, for different reasons. The first group comprises those in this town who like the position that they have, and feel that they’re entitled to special consideration. There’s a belief some people have here, that position justifies, excuses, and entitles. They think and act situationally — if they are so-and-so, then they should be trusted, and they are entitled. I reject this view. They are justified, excused, and entitled only through law and morality, not based on an appeal to their status. When the town faction acts, they act first and foremost based on status — they ask and expect trust based on who they are, or what they claim to be.

Their status is unimpressive to me. It should be unimpressive to any resident and citizen: they are just people, neither more nor less. I can be neither smooth-talked nor cajoled into support for what I oppose. I could never be co-opted onto a board, commission, etc. I lack for nothing that those I criticize could give me; the tradition of which I am a grateful inheritor gives me more than they could take. They ask that speech be curbed, but they would never curb their actions in return. In any event, my speech — and yours — is a right, yet their actions are often in disregard of others’ rights. We could never have a fair trade: some would sacrifice what liberty allows in exchange for others’ ceasing a disregard of their fellow residents’ rights. That’s the worst possible bargain.

They stand on local status as entitlement, and that’s why the exercise of speech rights is so disturbing to them. One would think that Whitewater were a small, corrupt island in the middle of nowhere, for all the difference it makes to those who oppose mere speech on the basis of their inflated sense of local self-importance. They don’t have a meritorious position; they have a mistaken view of themselves and of the rights of others in our city.

I meant what I said then, but a few critics perhaps aren’t so sure, so it’s worth repeating. more >>