AI Quandary
Sometimes I forget how long I’ve been writing this blog. I have been thinking about AI (Artificial Intelligence) and knew that I had written something about it before, but didn’t realize that it was twelve years ago! Ha! That post still has some merit yet today. (You can find it here.) It was about self-assembling robots. We’ve come so much farther than that now. Companies and Countries are racing to be the first to perform the AI equivalent of Catching Lightning in a Bottle, while seemingly mostly ignore that even in the best case scenarios, it is still Playing with Fire. Very smart and very wealthy people like Elon Musk and Bill Gates are throwing money at this endeavor while confessing the outcome may not necessarily be good.
I’ve been reading science fiction since I was in grade school and looking back at it, it can be eerily prescient. They have addressed artificial intelligence in a myriad of ways. The stories of it going wrong vastly outnumber the handful of positive outcomes. The general theme is that eventually the AI sees the flaws in its creator. From there, it either moves to take-over to protect and save us from our incompetence or decides we’re a threat that must be removed. In movie themes, the former is “I, Robot” and the latter is “The Terminator“. Both of those movies show the resilience of humans and our ability to fight back. In my opinion, the reality of that is questionable. In most cases, AI inherits our hubris, which might not save the puny humans, but doesn’t bode well for human created AI in the long term.
The problem is, there is no good way to put controls on this. Even if all the worlds governments were able to agree on controls, something like Isaac Asimov‘s Three Laws of Robotics, and could be trusted to follow them, there’s no guarantee that some Dr. Evil out there, working in his lair under his volcano island, doesn’t figure it out and unleash it on the world. (Not to mention that more than a few Asimov stories were about loopholes in the Three Laws…) So now, much like the mutually assured destruction by atomic bombs from the Cold War, we’re in an AI arms race to make sure our AI can defend ourselves against their AI.
When The Terminator came out in 1984, Judgement Day, when the AI became self-aware and took over, was August 29, 1997. We’re well past that mark, but if you look at things we have today, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), it would be much easier today than it was projected back then. We’re all carrying around pocket computers that listen to us constantly and have made it convenient not to know anyone’s phone number or even how to get anyway, because it does all that for us. We all have Alexa or Google Assistant listening for our commands or talking to our other devices in our homes. Bringing all that information and processing power under potentially malevolent control should give us pause. Yet we go blithely on…
The whole TicTok controversy is the perfect example. I understand the U.S. Government’s concern that the information gathered could be shared with a foreign adversary, but the real problem is that the data gathering is happening at all! Regardless of who has access. No one, and particularly young people, spend no time reading the privacy policies for the apps on their phones. Nor do they seem to care. Why does the cool flashlight app need access to my contacts and location? Oh, well… I want the app, so just click “Okay”… We all know Google and Facebook track us, but they’re soooo convenient and fun and all our friends use them…
All of this information is out of our control once it hits the internet and is stored in the Cloud. The European Union has instigated privacy laws requiring companies to delete private data upon request, but how can that be confirmed? And the U.S. and other companies don’t have those requirements, so data storage here is unlikely to be protected.
We can’t all become Ted Kaczynski and move to the woods. His bombing campaign was ineffective in changing the course of technology in the 1970s anyway. But we do need to be aware and wary. AI is just the latest technological quandary we face. There will be more…
The Cost of NIMBYism to the NIMBY Advocates
Marshall County is five months into a two year moratorium on construction of Solar Farms, Battery Storage Facilities, Carbon Capture and Data Centers. This has been due to a small, but vocal group of NIMBYs. This has trickled down to restrictions in Culver and consideration of these issues in other Marshall County communities. As per a previous post here, I maintain that communities are either growing or dying. Setting that aside, there may be additional costs to our leadership’s decision to limit or stop development.
The recent actions of the state legislature and new governor has reimagined our tax structure. This means that local governing bodies have to figure out how to do more with less tax income. Turning away new development, with the associated additional tax income, is not a proactive way to address this.
All of the development associated with the construction under the moratorium has minimal long-term impact on county resources. As with any construction, there will be short-term impacts on roads, but those can be mitigated or negotiated as part of the development package. These are not projects that will employ hundreds of people (though the few they do require will be highly-skilled and well-paid), so they will not require acres of parking lots, they will not increase traffic counts on our roads post-construction, they will not cause any increase to our current housing shortage… What these developments will do is pay a lot in taxes, donate to local charities and provide resources for other development where we can look to additional high wage jobs.
Of the four moratorium targets, Data Centers in Indiana have specifically been touted by President Trump and our State government. Turning our backs on any of these initiatives makes us look provincial. That’s not the way I want our county to be perceived.
I am not saying that these should be given free rein and there should be no restrictions on their construction. I don’t know that a short (very short) moratorium isn’t appropriate while research is done, but a two year moratorium likely means that nothing happens for 18 months or more. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel here. Other communities have these and would happily share what they have learned. To my knowledge, there has been little time spent working on new regulations by Marshall County, let alone trying to reduce the length of the moratorium… of which 5 months have passed already… The recent changes to tax laws should make this a priority, not to mention the possibility that we are missing opportunities while other communities take advantage. Those opportunities could be gone if the needs are filled elsewhere.
/taxes-increase-636251470-5a7b1367a18d9e0036f31d2c.jpg)
The tax cost is just one effect on the NIMBYs (and the rest of us). A Department of Energy (DOE) report from December of last year found, “…data centers consumed about 4.4% of total U.S. electricity in 2023 and are expected to consume approximately 6.7 to 12% of total U.S. electricity by 2028. The report indicates that total data center electricity usage climbed from 58 TWh in 2014 to 176 TWh in 2023 and estimates an increase between 325 to 580 TWh by 2028.” As Data Centers consume more power, there will be costs to all of us as power production is ramped up (more costs), and competition for power drives the price up. Our moratorium stops two of the ancillary developments, solar and battery storage, that could help mitigate this too.
Allowing these facilities won’t reduce our electric bills. They could keep us from getting a double hit from higher taxes and higher electric bills and if done right, maybe lower taxes to help mitigate those higher electric bills.
One more time, for those in the back of the room… Communities are either growing or dying! This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t assure that it is smart growth, but extending an open hand in friendship is probably better than showing a closed fist. Our vocal NIMBYs may well cost us all in the end…
More Targeting…
Following up on last week, “Targeting” in the pre-Dunes era of the Town of Culver (TOC) should be considered for local businesses as well as new residents. While there have been a few suggestions floated regarding new businesses, the needs of an increased population should be reviewed by all existing businesses too.
TOC has seen many businesses come and go. On the recreation and entertainment side, TOC has lost bike shops, pool halls, bowling alleys, arcades, theaters, lake tour boats and if you want to go way, way back, dance halls and roller-skating rinks. Most recently in this category, we lost the pottery making shop and the axe throwing venue.
On the services side, TOC no longer has bait shops, clothing stores, shoe stores, dry cleaners, furniture stores, appliance stores, flooring stores, lumber yards, a taxi service or a place to rent a tuxedo. At one time there were several car dealerships and while TOC has retained one car mechanic, there used to be five or more as part of full-service gas stations.
I can quickly name the locations of eight full-service gas stations that served Culver all in the same era. That’s not something that is applicable anymore anywhere. That’s not just a TOC thing. Some of the others listed above fall into that same category. Some of these things have also been absorbed into other businesses. The question is, what are the needs of TOC’s expanding community and how should they be addressed?
I know there is some surveying planned to help address this, but who gets surveyed and how is important. I am not suggesting that the surveying be too targeted, but I am suggesting that some of the surveying be weighted. I would guess there would be a difference in what full-time residents say and what part-time residents say. Part of the key is including question on why part-time residents remain part-time residents.
Group 1 – Full-time Residents: This group has stuck with TOC, either from inertia, job ties, family ties or general fealty to Culver. What would make their lives better?
Group 2 – Full-time Residents – Community High School kids: When they think of Culver, why are they considering leaving or staying and are the reasons things that TOC can affect?
Group 3 – Culver Academy Students: How do they see the town? What’s missing? What’s great? What would make them consider returning here after graduation or after college?
Group 4 – Full-time Residents – Formerly Summer Only: Some of these people lived in Indianapolis or Chicago and bought their Culver home as a summer get-away, but now live here full-time. Why? What brought them to make Culver their home and what do they miss now that they’re here that differs from when it was just a get-away?
Group 5 – Pandemic Escapists: TOC missed a huge opportunity during the pandemic of 2020. There were a significant number of lake cottages that were part-time residences before the pandemic that became full-time residences during the pandemic. Culver was their place to escape to… What could TOC have done to keep those people here? If they were called back to work, that’s not something solvable, but if they were remote working and could continue to remote work, what sent them home in lieu of making TOC home?
Group 6 – Realtors: TOC has a plethora of realtors, either based in Culver or working Culver from surrounding communities. No doubt they hear a lot about why someone is considering moving here and what they see as the pros and cons.
There was a business subcommittee created as part of Culver Crossroads. (Remember Culver Crossroads? Another positive initiative that lost momentum when key people exited.) That subcommittee brought in Alan Steele from the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) in South Bend. An analysis at that time really only named one missing element in our area, which was a sporting good store. That was 3+ years ago and without considering 300 additional residents. What would be different now? SBDC could possibly help with analyzing survey data to identify targeted opportunities.
Some of the potential needs could be added to existing businesses, whether as added offerings or actual stores within a store. (An example of this was the ice cream shop, which was popular, but not viable. Ice cream was added to Culver Coffee Company’s offerings, which seems to be doing well.) Along with helping existing businesses identify the upcoming needs, TOC could assist with marketing. Most of the TOC marketing being done in the past few years has been geared towards bringing in tourist business, but marketing existing businesses, Welcome Wagon style, to new residents could be helpful. This was done to some extent when The Paddocks opened, but there would be the opportunity to do this with The Dunes as well.
Where needs are identified, TOC could help with micro loans. This would be a way of helping businesses prepare to meet the needs foreseen in the surveys. TOC could also consider waiving some of the fees associated with expanding an existing business. Waive permit fees for expansions, new signage and other sundry costs.
As I’ve observed in the past, Culver can be quick to pass judgement on new businesses they don’t like. How about instead of complaining, be proactive and recruit (target) what is desirable?
Targeting
The Town of Culver (TOC) and the developer at The Dunes have mostly stated that the project is like the movie Field of Dreams. To paraphrase the movie, “If you build it, they will come.” (The original movie line is, “If you build it, he will come.”) I have no grounds to dispute that, nor to dispute TOC’s hope that adding additional housing options will lower costs in Culver. But do we have to just hope “they” are who we want?
At the last Culver Redevelopment Commission (CRC) meeting, the developer had an request before the commission, asking for the release of the next tranche of bond money to begin the next phase. Citing strong interest, they felt the need to get started on an additional 70 units. Several inciteful questions were asked by audience members that were not well addressed by the commission. One stood out to me that I wanted to address here: “Are you targeting who you want to live there?”
In a round-a-bout way, TOC has a goal that these new residents be full-time residents. There is a move to get the “Papa’s to Pinder’s” business district in shape to serve these new residents, but it’s not moving too quickly. That is definitely an important piece. As was brought up at the meeting, can Park ‘n Shop serve the additional residents? Should TOC be talking to CVS about the potential extra need and whether an onsite pharmacist would be justified again? The commission members didn’t have good answers. Hopefully, there is more going on behind the scenes that wasn’t ready for public discourse or alternatively, the discussion sparked some additional goals to strive for.
But the main thing I think is missing is targeting who TOC wants to populate those new homes. Left to their own devices, the developer has only one goal (as he should to satisfy his investors): fill the units as quickly as possible with the residents that will pay the most to be there. The project is somewhat insular by design, turning the back side of homes and apartments toward South Main Street, rather than embracing the existing neighborhoods. TOC will have to make the effort to reach out and make those residents part of the community. Wouldn’t that be easier to do if that welcoming hand were extended before they moved in?
There is a new battery plant under construction in St. Joseph County. There is a new distribution center under construction in Elkhart County. There is a new truck factory going into Kosciusko County. Driving to those sites from Culver seems like a long distance, but compared to living in a larger city, the commute time would be similar, but the drive would be more pleasant! Worst case, if commute distance is too long, those people will still be looking for housing and likely push some existing residents in those counties to look elsewhere. Culver has some nice amenities to offer, if they are promoted. Per the recent UWMC Housing Matters study, Marshall County has a housing deficit of 1,300 dwelling units.
This seems like an area where TOC should be proactive; soon, rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. If nothing is done, I believe the developer will get those homes rented. There is no strong impetus for them to care whether they are rented to full-time residents or not. If TOC does not want more part-time summer residences, part-time Culver Academies‘ parent residences and part-time overflow from lake house residents, then they will need to make an effort to attract who they want.
Our Customers Say…
MacKenzie Ledley - Executive Director, Pulaski County Public Library
Institutional Memory
July 7, 2025
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Marshall County, MCEDC, Tips
Community, government, Quotes, Trends, Volunteering
At the last Culver Town Council meeting, Greg Hildebrand, President of the Marshall County Economic Development Corporation (MCEDC), made a presentation on 2024’s accomplishments and some overall accomplishments through the last several years. Culver’s representative to the MCEDC board turned in his resignation that night as well. Greg told the board he was researching their question about public officials as MCEDC representatives.
As Culver’s first MCEDC representative and as such, a founding member of the MCEDC Board, I found the question surprising. But then I checked the MCEDC website and there is only one board member still there from the early days. Greg is the 6th person in the staff leadership role, so he has no knowledge of the start-up.
Every institution, whether public or private, must evolve. Unfortunately though, when institutional memory is lost, that evolution can involve back-tracking, repetitive spending, and potential repeating mistakes. In the case of MCEDC, the original representatives met for nearly a year before actually forming the corporation and hiring staff. We met with multiple existing Local Economic Development Organizations (LEDOs), which were set up with various structures in order to try and determine what was best. These ranged from local government departments to quasi-government /private partnerships to independent private corporations. We met with site selectors to determine with which form they preferred to work. We met with the State economic development arm, to get their take on what was most effective. Once we determined that the private corporation structure was most flexible and preferable, we researched various corporate forms before deciding on becoming a 501c(6) corporation. Then we hired Ice Miller, one of Indiana’s leading law firms in the area of economic development to help craft our by-laws. Three key take-aways from this:
The decisions made and the reasons for making them were lost with the retirement of the original board members.
The loss of Institutional Memory has been demonstrated to me in the past from other boards on which I have served too. A new board member has a “new idea” or one they’ve used elsewhere. Institutional Memory could demonstrate how something similar was tried in the past with the associated success or failure. That doesn’t mean the idea may not be worthy of implementation or in the case of past failure, trying again, but maybe it can be improved by past experience or there may be unique reasons why it didn’t work in the past. It could even have left a bad taste in the mouth of donors/supporters and that alone is a reason to avoid it. Board turnover may prevent that experience from moving forward. Sometimes with strong-willed, long-serving staff leadership, the Board gets overshadowed, deferring to staff leadership when staff leadership’s tenure exceeds that of any board member. The Staff becomes the Institutional Memory for better or worse…
I don’t have a great solution for this. Board minutes would be the first line of defense, but there is a wide variety in the way organizations keep minutes, ranging from the bare minimum required by Robert’s Rules, to copious detail on every side conversation. Each has its uses and there are differing schools of thought on which is appropriate for different organizations. Minutes rarely catch everything though.
So here are a few suggestions from my experience on multiple boards:
I believe strongly in refreshing boards and the regular influx of new blood. I think term limits are a reasonable approach to allowing board members a way out as well as a way to encourage new blood, even though this is at the expense of Institutional Memory. But that doesn’t change the fact that the loss of Institutional Memory causes mistakes to be repeated, costs to be repeated and some people to be re-offended. There is a balance for which we should strive, else like MCEDC above, we lose the benefit of the work done in the past.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905
0 comments