Gates and Warren Buffett often sing the same tune. What do these rich guys know about economics that many of the rest of us don’t?

IMO: The New Deal, the GI Bill and war spending put people to work during the depression and created the middle class (many happy consumers). Best things that ever happened to American capitalism during the 20th Century.

“Economic stimulus packages” and temporary spark-plugs are not enough. Investing in infrastructure (better than war spending) puts people to work (and unlike war spending, leaves us with more lasting value instead of bone-yards of outdated war-planes and warehouses of unused weapons). Taxing the rich to accomplish it is OK, and in fact, in the best interests of the rich, and of corporate America.

But they have to be willing to delay gratification enough to work for sustainable economic gains.

If Adam Smith were alive today, I think he’d agree. But because he’s not, I have to talk to a guy in New Orleans (middle name of “Voodoo”) who claims to converse with him now and then….

If you have a cite, I would like to see what he says.

Are you still out there?

Did you see the Wall Street Journal this morning (Thursday, January 24th)?

There was an article (”Bill Gates Issues Call for Kinder Capitalism”) that referenced your favorite author, Adam Smith.

In a discussion about either using capitalism to solve the problems of poverty or tweaking capitalism so it is more aware of the opportunities of poverty, the piece says that Gates cites not only Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”, but an earlier work called “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”.

Gates argues that capitalism, and capitalists, can both pursue profits and take an interest in the “fortunes of others”.

Maybe the Coen brothers can bring together both volumes in a movie…

…shot in Northfield.

- Ross

The consultants, Planning Commission, and City staff had been discussing these principles off an on for many weeks, and the principles had undergone several tweaks before the draft was released. The nature of distilling ongoing discussions makes it likely that something might be missed. In this case, there were certain things implicit and “understood” in the draft principles which were not at all clear to anyone reading the draft for the first time, i.e. anyone who hadn’t been a part of the ongoing conversations prior to their formation.

The Chamber’s suggestions highlighted the issue, and their suggested language for making certain points explicit rather than implicit was necessary and helpful. We have a better document for that.

Seriously, although it took eight weeks of back-and-forth, the Chamber did produce extensive comments that clarified their concerns and, in my opinion, helped to fine-tune the document sent on to the Council.

I also think that Commissioner Ron Griffith deserves recognition for the work that he performed in “word-smithing” some of the Chamber’s ideas into the Principles.

David and I agree, the document has been significantly improved by this process.

On Tuesday, the Planning Commission reviewed and essentially approved a final Development Principles document.

In my opinion, and based upon the Chamber’s Development Principles, the revised document is a significantly improved document. The values represented are stated in more objective terms; there is more aspirational, and less mandatory, language dictating how to achieve results; a broader segment of the community, especially the business community is included; and many social values will be removed and inserted in other portions of the community building process.

Also, the Planning Commission took a significant, albeit contentious, step forward in establishing an advisory group to make comments on the practicalities of implementing the principles and the Comp Plan. This group, composed of those who deal continuously with the land use regulations, will add the wisdom of experience to the Planning Commission’ vision, if used in a positive manner by the PC.

The new Principles address many of the concerns of the Chamber. Some concerns were accomplished with minor wordsmithing. Other concerns remain outstanding; but, capable of compromise at a future date when vision and reality meet.

The new document is one that I would recommend that the Board approve. It represents a fair compromise of competing values. Hopefully, we can move forward with the Moravians’ motto - Unity in the essentials, liberty in our differences. (Or something like that.)

The short answer is - You can’t have them yet. The long answer is listed below.

First, staff from the City requested that the Chamber work within the confines of the existing document to promote moving forward with one document. Rather than creating a Chamber document, we created, what we hoped, would be a document acceptable to the entire community.

The proposed modifications were made and approved by the Chamber Board. In speaking with staff at the City, we requested the opportunity to formally present these principles to the Planning Commission. Staff advised that the consultants were preparing a revised document. This document was going to be included in the Planning Commission packet. I understand that the Planning Commission packet may also include the Chamber’s copy.

Staff’s point, if I understand correctly, is that they need to be able to manage the process if it is going to go forward. If other organizations drafted their own priniciples, and the Chamber was already given an agenda slot, then everyone else would want equal time.

I told staff that I would respect their judgment in the presentation of our viewpoint. I trust that our principles will get a fair hearing, whether as principles in and of themselves (unlikely) or a as critique of the ones now drafted.

I have no objection to publishing them here for public debate. But, someone else needs to get them and present them if I am to honor my commitment to staff.

Could you email them to me so we can put them up here for discussion?

1. You say in 115 that good is “fair.” But it seems you want the invisible hand to determine where businesses can locate, which means something like free a free market approach — don’t restrict business (but that doesn’t sound fair to those citizens who don’t own businesses). You comment that the quaint downtown that many value was a sort of haphazard development (we agree on that point). So you’re asking that it be haphazard again, and that will be fair? And the process so far has not been fair to business owners because so many non-business-owning citizens had so much input so far? In the end, the position you advocate just doesn’t sound fair.

2. In 118 you assume that “subdivisions where all houses look alike are cheaper.” Not necessarily. Some here have been talking about higher density, smaller lots, and this brings the price down.

3. Also in 118, you speak of balance. You say “Favoring greenspace without imposing the economic cost on the residents who want it is not balanced.” But higher density can bring costs down, and green space (a park?) doesn’t need all the costly infrastructure that a developed area. You seem to assume too much about the cost of green space. There are high costs associated with sprawl, too; more use of cars, which put more wear on roads (than sidewalks and bikes). It seems sprawl imposes economic costs too.

4. In 118 you speak of honesty and admitting the truth, but your vision of the truth seems somewhat one-sided in light of the above, and therefore imbalanced. You seem to refuse to consider the practical benefits of some of the views you oppose (your third point).

5. In 111 you recommend, “Whatever we do, let’s try to keep the politics out of the equation.” I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” — anyone’s views that disagree with your own? It seems you’re conducting quite a campaign here in the name of the chamber, and that certainly could be seen as politics. And your own libertarian-leaning, free market views certainly may represent some of the views of chamber members, but not all. What is “politics” in the context of your recommendation?

Although from my experience in the field of transportation planning, it makes perfect sense. First, set a vision, than work out a way to get there, with all the subjective and objective issues in the mix. Perhaps, the idea of blending visions is also important. For example, it’s very hard to work with someone when they do not have a vision of what they want, just what they don’t want.

To a certain extent, the form based codes do lay out a vision based on design, rather than land use. However, it would seem that they try and correlate the design to a certain design. The danger is the issues related to design code vs the economic realities and choices you speak about. There needs to be a balance with regards to the type of land uses, where they go and how they are sequenced. By the way, is it fair to move public uses out to the urban expansion boundary to those that do not have cars, or who can not drive, or cannot afford to have cars, or perhaps would rather walk if given the choice? Is not choice a measure of fairness? (I especially like your comment related sidewalks. Do not sidewalks offer a neighborhood and community benefit rather than an individual preference?)

Even though we may not totally agree on outcomes, the ability to agree on something allows the framework (comp plan, ordinance, codes etc) to be developed to ensure that the vision (on a map) can be measured against a development. SO the real benefit is that the comp plan, ordinance, codes etc, become the measure. Hang on…I thought we already do that or tried to that, (read posts 99, 100, 107 and of course the honest but misguided comment in 98.)

By honesty, we have to admit of the truth of what is or will happen. For example, subdivisions where all the houses look alike are cheaper. There are economies of scale. Some people would prefer a less expensive house even though it looks like the neighbor’s house.

By balanced, I mean principles that don’t favor one subjective value over another. Looking nice or like Old Northfield is a subjective value. Favoring greenspace without imposing the economic cost on the residents who want it is not balanced.

By practical, I mean that it is actually going to work. People aren’t going to walk more because we identify sidewalks as a value. They will walk more when cars are taken away.

Outcomes are the objective measure of whether we have achieved our goals. In that sense, I like the idea of working backwards from land use maps to our values. At least we can discuss some tangible thing rather than discussing hard to define values or philosophies to planning.

Without identifying what we intend to achieve, I think that we are going to have a difficult time identifying the ends, let alone the means to get there.

If fairness is a measure of “good”, then shouldn’t the playing field where the issue of fairness is determined demonstrate the application of fairness to all? Has the PC or CC demonstrated they are fair to all?

I think the playing field has been discussed in this thread and obviously some think that the playing field is not fair.

Would fairness be a better measure of justice more than planning? Although, the idea is appealing in a libertarian sort of way.

I would describe “good” as being “fair”. If all of the components of the development of the system are fair, then the result should be one that everyone would recognize as good.

From a Chamber perspective, the question to the PC is, “If you were a business owner, what would be fair to you?”.

Griff, Tracy and I praised and thanked you on our podcast yesterday and publicly expressed our hope that you’ll continue to participate (and speak out) as we move through the Comp Plan (and Zoning Ordinances) process.

Ross

Can we dicuss good planning techniques with good planning principles with good planning process?
Knowing your experience professionally and your role at the Chamber, I am curious about how you measure or define “Good”?

For me it’s a measure of an outcome.