I attended a meeting last Tuesday night at The Rees where there was discussion of possible renovations to the downtown streetscape. They were mainly looking at the area from the railroad viaduct on the south end to Jefferson Street on the north end. Updating the streetscape is one of the initiatives of City of Plymouth‘s new Mayor, Robert Listenberger. Several concepts were presented and there was time for public input on those concepts. There was also the opportunity to put forth other ideas. There was a fairly diverse crowd of around 50 people there for the presentation.
The last streetscape was created around 40 years ago. Many aspects of downtown Plymouth have changed since then, not least of which include the turnover in businesses and the shift towards making the downtown more of an entertainment district. This began with the Wild Rose Moon and has continued with River Park Square, The Rees and the new Yellow River Brewery planned just south of The Rees. A fairly recent State Law allows for the creation of districts like this which would make it easier to have street festivals. The main change here would be the ability to have “open container” alcohol use throughout the district. Right now, alcohol served outside of licensed venues can only be done in “beer gardens”, which usually amount to snow fence pens containing those who choose to imbibe.
As always the parking issue was front and center. Very few people there would say there was too much parking downtown, and most were very concerned about reducing the number of street spaces. Some were concerned that new development downtown was being encouraged without adding parking. The counterpoint to that are two traffic studies that have been completed, one by Andrews University and one by MACOG. MACOG’s is the most recent, which showed a surplus of 500+ spaces. Shopkeepers were mainly concerned about the number of street parking spaces directly adjacent to their business.
Several interesting concept drawings were presented showing various traffic calming measures for Michigan Street. There were also opportunities to provide additional green space along the sidewalks, outdoor dining for restaurant patrons and overall improved traffic controls. There was a lot of initial skepticism, but some minds were won over with the possibilities that could be unlocked.
There was also a concept changing the first block of Garro Street west of Michigan Street to an intermittent street festival site. This section is currently used this way, but with saw horse barricades. The revised concept would enhance this, with decorative pavement patterns and decorative removable bollards. The Garro Street enhancement received nearly 100% positive feedback.
A major stumbling block remains, with this area of Michigan Street existing as an extension of S.R. 17, thus the R.O.W. belongs to the State of Indiana. Any negotiation would require accommodations between INDOT and Plymouth. This would include any changes to curbs, sidewalks, speed limits and traffic control measures such as stop lights. That brought up a side conversation of relocating S.R. 17. The consensus was that it made the most sense to relocate it to Pine Road, but I had to bring up the Culver’s Sycamore Road initiative. (Previously mentioned in a post here.)
The conversation was similar to what has been discussed in Culver (Previously mentioned in a post here.) with some of the same conflicting arguments. Culver’s Town Council somewhat surprised the downtown merchants with the street improvements. They won a grant for the work that they really didn’t expect to get. They didn’t do their standard education ahead of the project, leading some to feel left out of the loop. In this case, Plymouth seems to be taking the correct tact, by gathering input before the project proceeds too far into planning.
I think the goals are laudable and I hope Mayor Listenberger is successful with the revitalization changes he would like to make. He is approaching it as a businessman, which gives him more empathy in why the change will be hard, but ultimately will be a change for the better. I look forward to more discussion on how this can be moved forward.
For the TL;DR crowd, I am not a fan of Daylight Savings Time and more specifically the silliness of changing clocks all the time. Here’s a new video that explains it and tells why it’s antiquated.
Even Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ridiculous now (below), and “No One Gives A Rat’s Ass”. We invented electricity. Duh!
A recent article from Kiplinger.com, “Will a Supreme Court Case About Fishing Water Down the IRS?”, intrigued me. The case has to do with the IRS. Kiplinger is a financial website, so their article concentrated on the obvious tax implications of IRS interpretations of obscure laws. The following two paragraphs caught my eye:
“The IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury are responsible for implementing tax regulations. Due to the complexity of tax law, they often have to fill gaps in tax legislation passed by Congress.
This is especially true when Congress drafts complex tax legislation at the last minute or amidst challenges on Capitol Hill, as is happening now with a bipartisan tax compromise proposed just weeks before tax season begins. In those and other instances, experts at the IRS and Treasury make interpretations and create rules to provide clarity to taxpayers.”
The implications of the rethinking the Chevron Deference, will have implications for a myriad of government agencies and their control over citizens. Our system of governance is based on compromise. Unfortunately, that often results in Congress passing compromised Laws, written in a manor that allows both sides to somewhat legitimately say, “I voted for this Law because I understood it to mean <blank>.” Under the Chevron Deference, this results in a bureaucratic agency effort to divine the meaning and write rules based on their interpretation.
In a perfect world, the agencies would do this even-handedly, with the rules being interpreted through an impartial lens. In reality, the agencies are controlled by the President’s Administration, leading to wild swings in policy based on the political party in office. This negates all of the compromise required to create the original Law.
Example #1 – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): This one hits hard for the construction industry. From their website, “The National Labor Relations Board is an independent federal agency vested with the power to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and unions.” In reality, board members are rotated and appointed by the President’s Administration. Because there is a general Democrat Union bias and a Republican Non-Union (Free Enterprise) bias, this board’s rulings swing wildly based on the political party in the White House and the appointments they make to this board.
Example #2 – Waters of the United States (WOTUS): For decades there have been rules protecting wetlands. All States have rules regarding wetlands, with varying degrees of protection, in attempts to balance property rights vs perceived public good. With theoretically good intentions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded the definition of WOTUS to include even minor wetlands, woodland wetlands, intermittent streams etc. bringing them under EPA control. In many cases this impeded or stopped development, and at times went so far as to deter existing farming practices. Currently, the courts have reigned this in, putting much of this control back in the hands of the States. In some cases this has caused a pendulum swing resulting in not only the repeal of current regulations, but even some long standing and accepted regulations on wetland protection Nationally and at the State level.
I could easily cite a half dozen more of which I’m aware. Suffice to say, that there could be big changes on the horizon… some good and some bad.
In theory, I’m very much in favor of a requirement that laws be clear. Jingoistic names for Bills should be ditched in favor of either a name that reflects what is included or just a number and no name at all. I’m also in favor of ending Christmas Tree Bills that have ridiculously unrelated items lumped together, under a name that often implies something completely different. (The Washington politicians that can say the Inflation Reduction Act did anything to reduce inflation with a straight face are truly scary!) For this reason I’d be in favor of the Line Item Veto, no matter which party is in office, as it would eliminate at least half the graft… (The Line Item Veto has been deemed unconstitutional, but it still seems like a good idea!)
Bureaucracies are a somewhat necessary evil, but they are never accused of expediting anything or being efficient. It would seem their main function is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. (Read up on the March of Dimes… They still around despite successfully completing their mission in 1949.) If the Chevron Deference is overturned, it will cause some serious shake-up. Some good could come of it though. Honesty and completeness in the crafting of Laws would be a good thing.
I was amused by a blurb from Anita Boetsma’s article on the Argos Reflector.
I just finished serving on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committees in Culver and Plymouth right now. This is my 4th and 5th times through this process and housing is always an issue. I know Argos has been struggling with housing issues and according to this article, that struggle has been going on for 140 years!
As is also typical today, the commentator in the Reflector was happy to suggest what others do with their money. “Money invested in this way (housing) would pay a good percent to the investor.” Uh, huh. Other people’s money is easy to spend. I’m sure there would have been further commentary if the writer thought the “good percent” was too good…
I’m reminded of some of the grief I received from the then Culver Town Manager, Street Superintendent and Building Commissioner, who all thought I should be spending more on Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks when they were under construction. While their comments were disheartening, it was nice the few times, then Town Council President, Ginny Munroe, publicly reminded them that with all the projects being completed due to Stellar, I was the only one with upfront skin in the game, i.e. making investments and with the potential for losses if things didn’t go well.
Currently, another developer is trying to wind their way through a housing development project in Culver. His project is to be partially funded through a READI grant. As Culver found out when initially looking for a housing developer, there aren’t as many out there as you might think. Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC was created to fill that void. While working on Sand Hill Farm Apartments and The Paddocks, we endured a lot of pushback. Culver’s unofficial motto, “Change is Bad, Even When It’s Change for the Better!” was the theme of many public meetings. The current developer is hearing it all again: The project is too big. The units should be built in a different order. The entrance should be somewhere else. There should be a direct connection to Town. There should NOT be a direct connection to Town. The houses are all going to look the same (stated as bad). The houses should all look the same. There are too many houses and not enough apartments. There are too many apartments and not enough houses. At 300 units, it is a small Town of its own and should provide some services accordingly… and on and on… While the injections of public funds gives the public some say, it still has to be understood that the developer is a for-profit entity and has to make the best decisions for a profitable outcome. Otherwise, why is he doing this? (A question that gets asked at Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC often…)
Housing remains a big issue in both Comprehensive Plans. Plymouth’s was adopted last year. Culver’s is still pending rewrites. In both cases, housing remains front and center, though slightly different approaches have been outlined. Housing is still considered part of the American Dream, but even with that shared vision, everyone has their own ideas about how to achieve that dream and what it looks like.
It’s not too late to make the current developer see the folly of these fights and watch him walk away. Culver Sand Hill Farm LLC sold 12 acres planned for future housing, rather than go through that process again. It’s now going to be a mini-storage facility. Culver Investment Corp. let their PUD expire and have their property for sale. Finding someone else to step up to the Culver’s housing challenge may be hard to do.
Inflation Allegory
April 22, 2024
Kevin Berger
Commentary, Politics, Rants
government, Rants, Trends
I just heard another sound bite with President (and candidate) Biden touting his administration’s success in bringing inflation down. The 2019 inflation rate was 1.81%, a decrease of 0.63% from 2018. The inflation rate for 2020 was 1.23%, despite or because of Covid. The 2021 inflation rate was 4.7%. The inflation rate for 2022 was 8.0%. The inflation rate for 2023 was 3.4%. As of today, the 12 month rate of inflation is 3.5%… While there is no denying that going from 8.0% to 3.5% is better, it does not make the 8.0% rate (that occurred two years after he took office) go away.
So, here’s my favorite explanatory allegory… explained in pounds. Fat pounds, not British pounds…
Lets say your heathy weight is 160 lb. You’ve maintained that weight for years, but at your annual check-up in 2021, your doctor notes, “You’ve put on 4.7 lb. You need to keep an eye on that.” You note it. You watch your weight, but at your 2022 check-up, your Doctor’s not happy. “You’ve put on another 8 lb since your last visit. Here’s some diet and exercise suggestions to get this under control.” You make an effort. You weigh yourself before going to your 2023 check-up. You’ve gained another 3.4 lb. What do you think the chances are that the Doctor congratulates you on ONLY gaining another 3.4 lb? Hmmmm… Zilch. Nada. Not gonna happen. He’s going to tell you to get your ass to the gym and get a lock for the refrigerator because in the last three years, you’ve gained 4.7 + 8.0 + 3.4 = 16.1 pounds! You now weigh 176 lb!
Inflation accumulates in a similar matter. Even at the Fed’s target 2.0%, that means things are 2% more expensive every year, so what costs $1.00 this year would cost $1.02 next year and $1.04 the next year.
Inflation is equivalent to a regressive tax, as in the less net worth you have, the harder you’re hit by it. If you have $10 to your name and inflation is 8%, you have to spend it for whatever you can afford at the inflated rate. If you have $1,000,000, your spending money is affected in the same way, but inflation increases the value of your house, stock portfolio and provides a higher interest rate for you at the bank. All the things you have when you’re worth $1,000,000 that you didn’t have when you were worth $10. Makes it damn hard to get from $10 to $1,000,000!
0 comments