My Endorsements 2006

Here's the Garlynn Woodsong ticket. I'm registered to vote in Multnomah County, Oregon, but I'll start at the top so that people in other jurisdictions will be able to read the most relevant races first. Note that I may have ommitted some races that I'm either not eligible to vote in myself, that have only one candidate running, or which just rall beneath my radar.

Also, because I'm hip to some of the issues there, I will provide a couple of endorsements for California (most notably -- NO on 90!!).

So, without further ado -- ENDORSEMENTS 2006 (summary sheet to follow in separate post):

OREGON

Measure 39

Prohibits Public Body From Condemning Private Real Property If Intends To Convey To Private Party

Recommended Vote: NO

Rationale/Dicussion: People are all up in arms across the nation about the issue right now. Ignore the hyperbole, and ask yourself where the problem is that so desperately needs to be solved. ...I'm waiting? No response? Fine. Don't approve this measure -- it will unnecessarily restrict the activities of local governments, it's poorly written, and it goes too far.


Measure 40

Amends Constitution: Requires Oregon Supreme Court Judges And Court Of Appeals Judges To Be Elected By District

Recommended Vote: NO

Rationale/Discussion: Please read this post if you'd like to become more informed on this issue. Basically, this is a stealth measure by national conservatives to try to load the court system with less-liberal judges, Federalist Society judges like Antonin Scalia. The Federalist types think that they are more likely to get conservative justices elected by district than by statewide election. Don't let them. Oregon's current court system actually works quite well (just check out the link at the beginning of this paragraph if you're not so sure). In fact, this is the problem -- judges in Oregon tend to judge by the letter of the law, rather than taking into account idealogy. This pisses conservatives off to no end. Let them stay pissed. Also, Oregon voters already shot down this scheme in 200. Why are they being asked about it again? Let's vote ABSOLUTELY NOT on this measure in 2006!

Measure 41

Allows Income Tax Deduction Equal To Federal Exemptions Deduction To Substitute For State Exemption Credit

Recommended Vote: NO

Rationale/Discussion: Basically, the greedy penny-pinchers who wrote this measure figure hell, they're already paying taxes to the feds, why should they also pay taxes to the state? Why can't they deduct their federal taxes from their state taxes? Well, screw those tax-dodgers, because they're trying to screw all of us. The State of Oregon provides the most essential services to Oregon residents, and it does so because it receives tax revenue to fund its operations. The Federal Government goes around invading other countries and giving pork to Halliburton. Why would anybody in their right mind want to starve the state government because they were already feeding the federal government? Now, if this measure somehow were to be the reverse -- that you could deduct state taxes from your federal tax return -- I might be more convinced (of course, that couldn't happen, because there is no national initiative system, and the national tax code can only be re-written by the Federal Congress). But, this measure seeks to screw the state government, and uses the federal tax system as the vehicle to do so. Evil, I tell you. Evil. Just say no.

Measure 42

Prohibits Insurance Companies From Using Credit Score or "Credit Worthiness" In Calculating Rates or Premiums

Recommended Vote: NO

Rationale/Discussion: OK, I'll admit that this issue is a bit Vague. You know why I'm recommending a NO vote? Because this measure is sponsored by Bill Sizemore, and I just don't trust that slimy creep. I can't remember a single example of something that he's sponsored that has actually turned out to be a net good thing for the State of Oregon. Not one. Screw him. Plus, this insurance actuary, who claims to not do much business in Oregon, says that this measure will likely just lead to rate increases (perhaps on the order of 20%, but it's hard to say) for the 60-70% of Oregon insurance consumers who already have healthy insurance scores.

Measure 43

Requires 48-Hour Notice to Unemancipated Minor's Parent Before Providing Abortion; Authorizes Lawsuits, Physician Discipline.

Recommended vote: NO

Rationale/Discussion: This is pretty basic stuff. I'm pro-choice, no matter what the age of the woman involved. If she's pregnant and 15 and she doesn't have a good relationship with her parents, this isn't the time for bridge-building. Let the poor woman make up her own mind.

Measure 44

Allows Any Oregon Resident Without Prescription Drug Coverage To Participate In Oregon Prescription Drug Program

Recommended vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: It's a small step forward towards overall health care reform. Basically, this just expands the safety net slightly to help people without health insurance to meet their care needs.

Measure 45

Amends Constitution: Limits State Legislators: Six Years As Representative, Eight Years As Senator. Fourteen Years In Legislature.

Recommended vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: Here's what this vote comes down to: Oregon is supposed to have a citizen legislature, which means a legislature composed of ordinary citizens, not career politicians. If a politician wants to make a career out of politics, they must prove themselves in the legislature, then move on to a higher office. "Four years ago, responding to a lawsuit dreamed up by legislators themselves, the courts struck down the most popular initiative amendment in state history. In 1992, term limits had earned 70% approval and 1,005,706 YES votes, but the politicians didn't care about that." (from http://www.oregontermlimits.org/) So, Oregonians have already chosen term limits, but politicians chose to ignore the will of the voters and remove those limits. It's time for the voters to say "stop f'ing with us" and vote again for term limits for the Oregon Legislature.

Measure 46

Amends Constitution: Allows Laws Regulating Election Contributions, Expenditures Adopted By Initiative Or 3/4 Of Both Legislative Houses

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: All this measure does is to amend the Oregon Constitution to make campaign finance limitations legal. Currently, the Constitution forbids such limitations. This measure does not actually enact such limitations, it just authorizes them.

Measure 47

Revises Campaign Finance Laws: Limits Or Prohibits Contributions And Expenditures; Adds Disclosure, New Reporting Requirements

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: In short? GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. Measure 47 is the companion measure to Measure 46. 46 makes campaign finance reform legal in the State of Oregon; 47 enacts such reform.

Measure 48

Amends Constitution: Limits Biennial Percentage Increase In State Spending To Percentage Increase In State Population, Plus Inflation

Recommended Vote: NO

Rationale/Discussion: Actually, we're hoping that people will vote HELL NO on this measure by overwhelmingly disapproving it. This is really awful policy. In the first year, it would mandate billions of cuts to state government, only to be followed by more cuts later. And what is it that the state government does that is so bad that it needs to be cut and have its growth limited? Educate Children? Protect the Environment? Maintain the road system? No thanks -- I want the State of Oregon to remain strong, competitive and healthy. This measure stinks of sabotage to the Oregon political system by out-of-state political players.

Statewide/National Office:

United States Representative in Congress, 3rd District

Recommended Vote: Earl Blumenauer

Rationale/Discussion: The only problem with re-electing Earl to Congress is that we're not electing Earl to the Senate yet to replace that jackarse Gordon Smith. Earl's been our man ever since he was on the Portland City Council. He single-handedly started the Washington D.C. Bicycle Caucus, for representatives who ride their bikes to work and/or generally support the cause. Need we say more? He more or less created the Small Starts program, to help new, small, efficient transit lines like the Portland Streetcar and the Eugene/Springfield BRT project get off the ground. He's just an all-around great guy.

Governor of the Great State of Oregon

Recommended Vote: Ted Kulongoski

Rationale/Discussion: (See separate endorsement post here. Ted's just a great guy. He's holding the line, he's keeping Oregon green, he may even be a hero. Don't let the Republicans get any victories in 06, they don't deserve it. Vote Ted in 2006.

Nonpartisan State Judiciary, Position Six

Recommended Vote: Virginia Linder

Rationale/Discussion: Jack Roberts was the former GOP candidate for Governor, who then redrew his application in the face of low poll results, and submitted one for the State Supreme Court instead. Tell him to just go home and, say, retire or something. Vote for Virginia Linder -- she's already a judge, she knows what she's doing, and let's keep women on the bench, rather than replacing them with men, shall we?

MULTNOMAH COUNTY MEASURE

26-81

Referred to the People by the Board of County Commissioners
Renew Five-Year Local Option Levy to Continue Library Services

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: Multnomah County has one of the finest library systems anywhere, bar none. This is because the voters of the county consistently back the library with their wallets. Portlanders value knowledge, books, education and community. This measure is a litmus test for whether you are a true Portlander or whether you should just move (back?) to Orange County.

METRO MEASURE

26-80

Referred to the People by the Metro Council
Bonds to Preserve Natural Areas, Clean Water, Protect Fish, Wildlife

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: This measure will also help fund the build-out of a regional bicycle/pedestrian trail system. I can't wait to ride my bike all around the region on the finished product, and observe the local flora and fauna close-hand in the habitat that is preserved as a result of this measure. See above -- this measure is another litmus test for whether you are a true Portlander or whether you should just move (back?) to Orange County.

Portland School District No. 1JT

26-84

Portland Schools Levy for Teachers, Classrooms, Educational Programs, Learning Materials

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: OK, so there seems to be some tax increases on the ballot this fall. You know why? Because Bill Sizemore and other anti-tax types managed to hoodwink the voters into passing Measure 5, way back at the beginning of the 1990s, and the state, at all levels, has never found a suitable replacement funding mechanism. So, you know what? The state now has to come back to the voters, over and over again, cap in hand, in order to fund those basic services which we take for granted. This is a third measure that is a litmus test for whether you are a true Portlander or whether you should just move (back?) to Orange County.

City of Portland

Measure 26-86

Amends Charter: Changes Fire and Police Disability and Retirement System

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: This measure claims to fix the fire/police retirement system in Portland, which if left unfixed, will grow to include billions in unfunded liability over the coming decades (according to this. Virtually nobody is opposed to this measure. It's a needed fix to a broken system, not a referendum on anything.

CALIFORNIA

Measure 90

Bars state/local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Limits government's authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental, workplace laws/regulations. Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Recommended Vote: NO

Rationale/Discussion: This is just bad policy. Bankrupt government so that private property owners can maximize profit on their investment? Hell no. If you're such a bad real estate investor/developer that your only recourse to make a profit is to sue the government, you should just quit now. Get out of the game and let the professionals take over. If you can't win by playing by the rules, don't play. Don't make everybody else pony up out of pocket so that you can still make a profit. Government is for the citizens, by the citizens. Which means that it represents all of our money. I don't want any individual to be able to take all of our money just because they disagree with the rule of law, with particular planning decisions, or with land use and zoning in general.

Marin/Sonoma Counties

Measure R

Funds the establishment of a commuter rail system from the Larkspur Ferry Terminal in Marin County to the most Northernmost Sonoma County city, CLoverdale; also fund a companion bicycle trail along the entire length of the alignment.

Recommended Vote: YES

Rationale/Discussion: Have you ever driven in rush hour on Highway 101 in Marin/Sonoma Counties? I have. They *need* this train, just so those people who aren't already insane, can save their peace of mind by riding the train rather than going nuts in freeway traffic. On a more personal note, I can't wait to ride my bike on the bike path that will be created.

Is Ford leading the way?

Ford has apparently heard the criticism that they manufacture the least fuel-efficient fleet of any automaker in America -- and they're trying to do something about it.

I have previously blogged the specifications for my ideal all-purpose hybrid vehicle, and sent copies/links to this blog post to all of the major automakers, in hopes of either a response, or the production of a vehicle meeting most (if not all of) the specifications.

As you might imagine, I received no direct responses.

However, some of the images in this video lead me to believe that Ford may be leaning in the right direction:

http://www.fordboldmoves.com/episode.aspx?episode=6

I saw images of a "Ford Diesel Hybrid" and heard mention of plug-in electric vehicles. If Ford managed to put both of these features together into a small SUV, and could use them to get to the 45mpg mark, I think they would then be 90% towards meeting my specifications. Just add some solar panels on the roof and the hood, and pretty much the rest of my specifications are just a question of add-ons at that point (and they are even feasible after-market add-ons).

Which other automakers may also be contending to meet these goals?

Time will tell. I had hoped that Toyota might be, but now I'm not positive, as their Highlander Hybrid vehicle doesn't even break the 35mpg mark.

The customers are waiting. When will the automakers step up to the plate and deliver? Which will be the first to score a real hit, much less a home run?

Endorsement: Ted Kulongoski for Oregon Governor, 2006

I've got one really good reason to vote for Teddy Kulongoski: He can hold the line.

Hasn't anybody learned anything from the past 6 years? Republicans try to make it seem like there is very little difference between them and the Democrat -- like Bush did to Gore in 2000 -- in order to get their foot in the door and get elected. Then, once they're in office, they demonstrate exactly how much difference there really is (do I really need to make a list here?).

I see Saxton following the same playbook. He tries to portray Teddy K as a do-nothing Dem who doesn't offer proposals, get anything done or really even vary too greatly from Saxton himself. This is just his strategy to weasel into office. DON'T BUY IT.

Teddy K., as the Governor of Oregon, really just needs to do his best to hold the line. He needs to protect the land use system, protect the environment, keep the schools open, keep the police force staffed, and balance the budget. Anything else is gravy.

Sure, we would all love to see a progressive reformer in the statehouse, one with real vision, charisma, and the ability to make Oregon into an even better state. Don't be fooled, however -- this man is most definitely NOT Ron Saxton. At least with Kulongoski, if such a character were to come along and dominate the legislature such that it were to produce some good bills, he would sign them.

So, why will I be voting for Kulongoski, even if he's not my dream candidate?

Because he'll hold the line. He'll keep the state from sliding backwards. He'll at least carry the torch for all the accomplishments which have been made thus far.

And who's to say that he won't, like Clinton in his second term, manage to pull off some rather impressive accomplishments that just can't be predicted yet? I'm willing to take the gamble that he might.

Kulongoski -- good enough for me.

Portland is the city of civility and transportation

A visitor from South Africa recently came to Portland and, upon his return to his home country, penned this article to describe his impressions.

It's such an interesting viewpoint, to have Portland described from the viewpoint of an outsider, that I just had to re-print it here in its entirety. It reminds me of descriptions that I've read of Curitiba, Brazil, or even of some of the passages from the book Ecotopia that describe that fictional Pacific Northwest (Cascadia) country/society.

So, without further ado, here it is.

cheers,
~Garlynn

begin article:

Portland is the city of civility and transportation

The Oregon city is leading the way when it comes to civil society and an environmentally friendly way of life. It is clean, green and a pleasant place to live, writes Neil Fraser.

October 16, 2006

By Neil Fraser

I WAS in Portland, in the United States, last week attending the annual International Downtown Association (IDA) conference. Portland, with a population of 550 000, is known locally as both "The City of Roses" and "The City that Works". I would offer another – "The Green City of Civility and Transportation".

Stephen Goldsmith, a former mayor of Indianapolis, in his book, Putting Faith in Neighbourhoods, wrote: "The late University of Chicago sociologist Edward Shils has written, 'In civility lies the difference between a well-ordered and disordered liberal democracy.' Civility is the virtue that makes civil society – that collection of voluntary associations, neighbourhood groups and other non-governmental institutions such as congregations and families – work. And a strong civil society sets the foundation for effective markets, economic opportunity and a genuine sense of empowerment and community …"

Portland resonates with a strong civil society. It is apparent in the high level of communication that takes place from the city council to its citizens; in the high level of resultant dialogue that takes place between its citizens and its council; in the pride that its citizens have in its achievements and in the mutual respect and courtesy that citizens have for one another. This latter attribute was demonstrated to me when a local resident, a family friend, took me for a drive through the suburbs. If a pedestrian steps off a pavement, the traffic stops, irrespective of whether it is a formal pedestrian crossing or not; and no-one hoots. Bicycle riders, some 2 000 enter the downtown daily, are provided with hundreds of kilometres of dedicated lanes throughout the city and are given right of way by vehicle drivers. Drivers are courteous to one another – I can't remember hearing any hooting at all. Maybe that is because there is a small taxi population; the public transport is so good that taxis are almost rendered redundant. There is a palpable lack of aggression on the roads.

The city and its citizens are the most environmentally aware of any city that I have visited. The city goes out of its way to encourage cycling and walking and provides the amenities to do so. Apart from encouraging "greening" through appropriate rates rebates, many people collect used cooking oil from restaurants which they clean and process to produce a replacement or top-up for diesel, because this is a cleaner, less polluting form of energy for their cars.

Rates rebates

There is quite a high rainfall, and Portland experienced a problem with polluted stormwater runoff into their rivers, and so offers a rates rebate to properties that have taken positive action to overcome the problem. One mixed-use building that I visited, an industrial warehouse in a previous life, had a "green roof" consisting of a soil-cover planted with a particular type of succulent. The plants absorb a great deal of water and the balance is fed into bio-sumps for other uses. Only environmentally friendly businesses may become tenants – ranging from small banks that provide financial support to environmental projects and a sports shop whose entire staff bicycle to work to a pizza-place whose extractor fans from its pizza ovens provide the hot air to warm water. The parking lot has place for electric cars to plug into. And this isn't just an isolated example; Portlanders think this way.

A former industrial area is being entirely redeveloped into a residential precinct with the old brick warehouses being converted into lofts and flats. In order to provide green lungs in the area, which will house 5 000 people, the city has done special deals with the previous developer-owners. When I visited one such new park on Sunday morning, city parks officials were working – voluntarily – side-by-side with local citizens cleaning, weeding and planting the park. In this precinct are four such new parks, each an acre in size and designed with a common theme, yet each vastly different from the others.

But it is the approach that the city has adopted towards public transport that is really refreshing. Right from its initial transport initiatives some three decades ago, the underlying philosophy has not, in fact, been one of transport for the sake of getting from A to B, but rather one of economic development. Recognising the mess most American cities have made by encouraging car access to cities and by isolating the city centres from their waterfronts with elevated freeways and so forth, Portland demolished a freeway edging its riverside and introduced a transit mall for buses through the centre of the downtown, then a light rail system and finally a tram system.

The light rail now connects the airport to the downtown. The 30-minute ride that starts almost in the airport terminal took me to within about a hundred metres of my hotel and cost $1,73, or about R14 at today's exchange rate. Had I read the instructions on the automatic ticketing machine more carefully, I would have paid less than half that as an "honorary passenger" – because of my advancing years. I like the "honorary" tag instead of the usual "senior citizen". A taxi ride from the airport to the city, by comparison, is $40, or more than R300. Stops are frequent and connect a whole series of specific precincts, introducing strong economic revival.

Streetcars

Other areas of the city centre are covered by "Portland streetcars" – electric single-decker trams that are smaller than the light rail tram (the light rail tram is designed to fit a city block, which is about 200 foot square). Within the greater part of the city centre, in fact over a 330-block area, light rail and streetcar transport is free. That means that if you work and live in the city centre you can get anywhere by public transport at no cost. With the city centre containing museums, markets, parks and auditoriums, getting to cultural and sporting events is encouraged and easy. While the city's convention centre is not in the city centre – it is across one of the rivers that edge the centre city – it too is connected through the light rail system and is in a no-fare zone, allowing easy access for any convention delegates who might be staying in the city's many downtown hotels.

Following a massive communication process with its citizens, Portland is about to embark on a complete facelift of its original bus transit mall, introducing other forms of transport, including allowing cars back into the mall. The objectives of this "Portland Mall Revitalisation Project" are "to make an extraordinary place through enhanced transit service, mall stewardship (which is the provision of private sector management), and vibrant streets and healthy businesses poised for new investment".

But what happens if you need to go from your office to somewhere outside the city centre that is not connected to the public transport system? Well, to encourage you not to bring your own vehicle into the city, all you need to do is to book a "Flexcar". Flexcars are dotted throughout certain precincts in special parking spots. You join the Flexcar organisation and are provided with a smart card; then you can book a vehicle online for anything from one hour upwards. Your smart card gives you access to the vehicle and the rate you pay covers the use of the vehicle, petrol, insurance, parking and so on. You simply walk up to the unattended car and your card does the rest. I understand that its use by companies for employees who may need to go to meetings and such has led to individual families going back to a one-car system.

Oh, and the parking meters are solar powered. The solar energy powers a telephone, so when you pay for your parking with your credit card, it automatically phones to get clearance for the payment. And the ticket that you buy can be used anywhere in the city, not just where it was purchased.

Internet connection

A free, city-wide wireless internet network is busy being installed. Some 2 000 antenna, about 46 centimetres high, are being erected on light poles throughout the city with service expected to begin by the end of the year. The contractor building the network will provide internet access to 95 percent of the entire city progressively by 2008, and is providing the service free to the city in exchange for advertising income generated from "1 inch (25mm) banner ads that appear across the top of web browsers". Download speeds will be one megabit per second – "slower than most cable and DSL connections, but much faster than dial up".

As I mentioned earlier, the enlightened approach that Portland has adopted by providing an incredible transport network while also encouraging walking and biking focuses on creating an environment built around and for people. As a result, it is known as one of the healthiest and most environmentally conscious cities in the world. We can learn a great deal from their approach.

Regards Neil

---

Permission to use web site material
Publishers may use material from this site free of charge, as long as:

• Credit is given to either the "City of Johannesburg website (www.joburg.org.za)" or to "Johannesburg News Agency (www.joburg.org.za)";
• If the article is used online, a link is provided to the original article on this website;
• The name of the article's author is acknowledged;
• The webmaster is informed of how and where the material is used (fill in this brief online form).

Johannesburg News Agency is operated by BIG Media at 011-484-1400

Take It Back!

So, there's this great video that you should check out:

http://www.truemajorityaction.org/takeback

...and help to take back Congress, The Secretary of State offices, and ultimately the White House! Let's restore our democracy to the people!

Variable-Rate Financing and the Bubble

A recent article in the Chron mentioned that mortgage loan defaults are in the rise in the San Francisco Bay Area and California, home of the biggest real estate bubble on the West Coast (that is, if you believe that there is a bubble). There has been much speculation that variable-rate financing is partly to cause.

As one friend of mine put it, "Any book will tell you what a bad idea a adj. rate mortgage is in the short term. They all say keep it steady for as long as you intend to live in the house." This is from somebody who doesn't even own property. Obviously, shouldn't everybody know this?

From what I understand, there were two schools of thought (in addition to the one mentioned above) related to variable-interest rates:

1) "Savvy" investors during the low-interest boom years thought that they could save on monthly payments by buying variable-rate loans, then switching out of them once rates started to rise too high. This allowed them to get bigger loans for the same cash down.
2) Home buyers who wanted more house than they could really afford would go in for near-100% financing schemes, known as 80/20 splits. They would get a mortgage to cover 80% of the cost of the house at a fixed rate, then a second mortgage to cover the remaining (up to 20%) at a variable rate. When you're talking about a $500k property, 20% can be a cool 100k. That's a lot of loan to be variable, and you can see how easy it might be to get into trouble - -especially if the property fails to appreciate significantly in comparison to interest rates. For these buyers, however, it would have been difficult to purchase that property for that price without that particular finance mechanism.

So, the variable rate loan really allowed a lot of buyers to get into the market for properties at prices that they otherwise might not have been able to afford. In essence, variable rate financing allowed the bubble to expand faster and get bigger than it might have otherwise.

...and now, it does have the potential to allow it to pop faster, too...

source article on defaults:

The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/03/BUG8IKA1D81.DTL
------------------------------

---------------------------------------
Thursday, August 3, 2006 (SF Chronicle)
Mortgage defaults increase
David Tong, Chronicle Staff Writer


A growing number of homeowners in the Bay Area and throughout California
fell behind on their mortgage payments in the second quarter.
In the Bay Area, 2,910 homeowners received default notices from their
lenders for the April-to-June quarter, up 37.1 percent from 2,123 notices
in the same quarter a year ago, according to DataQuick, a La Jolla (San
Diego County) real estate research company. That increase is the highest
since the first quarter of 2001, when there was a 46.5 percent rise.
The swell was bigger statewide as 20,752 default notices were sent out --
up 67.2 percent from the same quarter in 2005 and the highest increase for
any quarter since DataQuick began tracking foreclosures 14 years ago.
The default notices, filed by lenders with county recorder offices, mark
the first step in the foreclosure process, which usually takes about nine
months to complete.
Defaults have risen as home sales slow. The steady decline in price
appreciation has left financially struggling homeowners insufficient
equity to either sell or refinance their homes to pay off their mortgages.
"We hear a lot of talk about rising payments on adjustable-rate loans
triggering borrower distress," said DataQuick President Marshall Prentice.
"While there's no doubt some of that is going on, as far as we can tell
the spike in defaults is mainly the result of slowing price appreciation.
It makes it harder for people behind on their mortgage to sell their homes
and pay off the lender."
DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage said the current foreclosure figures are
still below the historical norm. On average, lenders have filed 32,762
notices each quarter for the past 14 years, according to the research
firm.
Some of the highest increases in default notices in the past quarter were
in the Central Valley, where household incomes are lower and unemployment
higher, LePage said. Sutter County saw a 229 percent rise in default
notices, while notices in Placer County jumped 126 percent.

E-mail David Tong at dtong@sfchronicle.com. Home default notices on the rise

Second
quarter
County 2006 2005 Change
Alameda 649 458 41.7 %
Contra Costa 725 531 36.5
Marin 58 64 -9.4
Napa 47 27 74.1
San Francisco 127 89 42.7
San Mateo 222 147 51.0
Santa Clara 530 463 14.5
Solano 350 212 65.1
Sonoma 202 132 53.0
Bay Area 2,910 2,123 37.1
California 20,752 12,408 67.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle

The cost of transportation construction is going up

In yesterday's Oregonian issue, there was an article on how the cost of transportation construction is going up, which will limit how far each transportation (and bond) dollar goes in terms of fixing bridges, building and re-building roads, etc.

You know, I've seen this same sort of story repeated across the country. The reasons why transportation construction costs are going up are mainly related to two things:

1) The cost of oil is going up, and oil is used to make asphalt, which is used to make most roads, and

2) The cost of steel is going up (due in large part to a massive construction boom -- skyscrapers, roads, bridges, dams -- in China), and steel is used for rebar, bridges, etc.

...and here's my proposed solution:

While bike lanes are still a bargain (unless, of course, you want that lane re-paved when it gets striped), there should be a fundamental re-examination of the economics of transportation construction.

Perhaps we rely too much on low-grade asphalt roads? Many of our asphalt roads are designed with only a 10-20 year lifespan per paving cycle. The Romans built some roads which are still going, 2000 years later, with the original pavement, and heavy traffic! Perhaps asphalt is just not the most sustainable solution for every street or other pavement need?

Some of Portland's original cement/concrete streets have never been re-paved... and are still mostly useable 100 years later. I think it's quite possible that, given modern engineering and materials science advances, we can come up with a concrete, fly-ash, cement or other stone-based solution for paving that will last much, much longer than asphalt, without the need for continual re-paving. We might even be able to figure out how to make it semi-permeable, as with the latest asphalt/rubber hybrid surfaces that allow the rain to soak through rather than puddle up on top!

Finally, there should be a bigger focus on maintaining existing roads (and maintaining them to a higher standard, that is, putting slightly more effort into each re-paving with the goal of extending the time between paving cycles to... let's shoot big ... a century), rather than constructing new ones. Further, the state really lacks a statewide passenger rail system... wouldn't building one to tie together a statewide bicycle network be a much more sustainable use of state funds?

The Decline of Friendship in America

Is friendship in decline in America? New reports indicate that the answer is yes. As more Americans drive more cars more often to more homes in the suburbs, to relax in front of more big-screen televisions in more supersized living rooms, or drive to more suburban shopping centers where the chances of real social interaction are reduced more and more... they're finding that they have less of one thing: friends. More materialism, it appears, produces fewer valuable social interactions, fewer true friends, certainly fewer soulmates. You can be materially rich while spiritually, morally, and socially poor.

I can definitely trace the connections here: Fewer friends, more republicans. Friends don't let friends vote Republican -- but what about those people who don't have any friends? Yup, hard to stop them from going to the dark side. More computers, more computer programmers, more 16-hour days -- fewer social opportunities, fewer relationships, fewer friends. More republicans.

How to reverse this decline? I could think of a thousand ways, and most of them are nothing new. Stop building isolating suburbs that construct a friend-free antiseptic, antisocial environment. Stop building communities for cars. Start building communities for people. Start investing more in transit, in transit-oriented development, in tree plantings, in pubs, in coffee houses, in plazas, in squares, in parks... in concerts, concert halls and band practice areas. Stop the war on culture, and start the rennaissance of community.

Is beer the answer? Do people make friends when they walk to their neighborhood pub a couple of times a week and drink a locally-brewed ale or lager? Sure, beer is a social lubricant -- but can it also assist with creating more meaningful, lasting friendships, rather than just aid in finding drinking buddies? Perhaps yes. Or, perhaps it just creates the environment, the setting, where friends can meet to maintain their friendship, which is certainly more important, and really gets down to what we're talking about here. Americans probably already know plenty of people who should be their friends, but they just haven't talked to them in years. If they would just ask them to meet at the pub for a pint a little more often, perhaps the situation could be remedied... especially if it's within walking distance of home!!!

See below for the full original story from the SacBee. Note that, while carpooling may make you happy, I think it's just a neat little band-aid solution, and I fully stand by what I say above as the more effective long-term remedy!! So, move to a walkable neighborhood, buy a building in a nice, accessible location where other people nearby can also walk to it, and start up a microbrewpub. It could help us save America from ourselves!

cheers,
~Garlynn

***
begin newspaper article:

Sebastian Mallaby: The decline of friendship

Story appeared in Web section, The Sacramento Bee

WASHINGTON — The question about loneliness is: Why do people do this to themselves? Why do Americans, who reported an average of nearly three close friends in 1985, now report an average of just over two? And why does one in four have nobody with whom to discuss personal issues?

This is the age of Oprah and MySpace, of public emoting on television and the Web. Apparently people watch "Friends" but don't actually have many.

When the new loneliness numbers appeared Friday in the American Sociological Review, some experts cautioned that the problem can be overstated. Americans say they feel close to an average of 15 others, according to Barry Wellman and Jeffrey Boase of the University of Toronto.

But there's a difference between extensive networks and deep ones.

If you get sick, stressed or just plain sad, you are going to want the sort of friend you can rely on. Maybe you'll be able to convert an acquaintance into a soul mate when you discover you need one.

But this just-in-time approach to emotional crises isn't always going to work. Look at the way the slow decline of friendship has been mirrored by the rise of emotional problems. Over the past half-century, the prevalence of unipolar depression in affluent countries has jumped tenfold.

People's myopia on friendship is like their myopia on saving. They know that jobs are insecure, that a health problem can cause bankruptcy, that retirement is fabulously expensive; but the household savings rate has fallen below zero.

Equally, people know that spouses aren't immortal and that divorce is common. But nearly one in 10 — a much higher share than in 1985 — reports that their husband or wife is the only person they confide in.

People are taking these financial and emotional risks even as they neurotically avoid other risks. Today's consumers buy bike helmets and ski helmets and antibacterial soap; they fret about partially hydrogenated fats and consume less tobacco than their parents. But by some reckonings social isolation is as big a risk factor for premature death as smoking.

You can see how this American isolationism sets in. Modern society creates the tools that allow you not to save — if you have to pay for the kids' college, you can refinance your home — while doing little to change the basic need to save for old age and misfortune. In the same way, modern society creates tools that extend your casual networks — e-mail, instant messaging, social-networking Web sites — while doing nothing to remove the basic need for soul mates.

Meanwhile, people work more hours. They commute longer because they've moved to the exurbs in search of larger homes; they've got spacious entertainment rooms but no mental space for entertaining.

And then there's the subtle effect of the culture. "Family time" is endlessly extolled, and lovers emit poetry and song about every facet of their relationships. But when was the last time a rock singer or a new man waxed lyrical about friendship?

Yet the biggest reason for American loneliness, and perhaps the clue to some kind of cure, lies in path dependency. People know that tending to friendship is important, but their behavior follows the path created by countless other decisions — and friendship is neglected. Social science experiments reveal lots of behavior of this kind. People who agree with their doctors that they need hip replacements seldom get around to having the procedure. There are ways to beat path dependency, however. Another experiment has shown how undergraduates who agree to get a tetanus shot seldom actually do so, but if you make them an appointment and hand them a map to the clinic, the odds that they'll comply leap tenfold. Savings habits are equally sensitive to slight tweaks in incentives. Invite workers to sign up for 401(k) pensions and many will procrastinate. Tell workers they are part of the program unless they opt out and the participation rate rockets.

Can Americans be prodded to invest more in friendships? It's hard to imagine American companies organizing regular Japanese-style drinking sessions for the staff; it's hard to believe that a French-style cap on working hours would do more than encourage yet more lonely Web surfing. Twenty years ago, remarks Princeton's Eldar Shafir, a concerned European might have prescribed an emergency program of cafe construction: a reverse Marshall Plan for cappuccinos.

But now Starbucks has run that experiment for us. American caffeine addicts demand lattes to go — or to sip as they enjoy the company of Wi-Fi-enabled laptops.

But there's one antidote to loneliness that is at least intriguing. In an experiment in Austin, Princeton's Daniel Kahneman found that commuting — generally alone, and generally by car — is rated the least enjoyable daily activity, but commuting by car pool is reasonably pleasant. Measures that promote car pooling could make Americans less isolated and healthier.

So here's my slogan for 2008: Gas taxes make you happy.

** end of newspaper article ***

endnote from Garlynn:

OK, I can go with that slogan, but we'd better use those gas taxes to build transit, build transit oriented communities, and encourage more pubs and microbrews in this country! More small businesses and more town centers, fewer chain stores, less driving and fewer "suburbs" that lack a sense of place. That's how we're all get our friends back. And it could cut down on the sheer numbers of those pesky republicans, too!!!

Pedestrian Scrambles and Signal Timing

Over at www.portlandtransport.com, we've been having a discussion about the relative merits of adding a flashing yellow cycle to left-turn signals. The yellow cycle would allow cars to make a left turn fromt he left-turn lane to the extent permitted by oncoming traffic; if traffic was too heavy, they would still get the normal left-turn-green arrow. Frank Dufay raised the issue, however, that the blinking yellow arrow, while it might be good for drivers, could raise the issue of additional pedestrian/vehicle conflicts in the crosswalk that vehicles turning on the blinking yellow would cross.

I didn't want to to muddy the issue too much, but I did want to ask how the pedestrian scramble (all-pedestrian light cycle period) might fit into the blinking-left-turn scenario.

For a while now, I've been of the belief that downtown Portland should re-time all of their traffic signals. I see two options:

One: Green lights would be for cars only, to allow for faster clearing of intersections and turn traffic. However, the green period would be shortened slightly, and a pedestrian scramble cycle inserted, during which no automobile movement would be allowed, but pedestrians could cross any direction they pleased.

Two: half of every green light period would give the OK to pedestrians. The other half would give a RED hand to pedestrians, to allow for turning movements of cars. There would then be an additional cycle, the pedestrian scramble, during which no automobile movement would be allowed, but pedestrians could cross any direction they pleased.

Perhaps downtown might not be the best first place to try this, (Broadway/Weidler or another basically stand-alone couplet might be more appropriate), but the reasons that I suggest it are these:

1. Pedestrian scrambles would seem to be the safest way to get pedestrians across the street. There are no turns on red allowed during the scramble cycle, so there is no potential for ped/vehicle conflict as long as everybody plays by the rules.
2. Initiating the scramble cycle at every intersection in a grid would allow for the entire grid to be re-timed at once. This would mean that, as you were driving along, you would still get greens as you progressed from one intersection to the next (assuming, of course, that you drove at the proper speed and congestion was not an issue). However, following behind the green cycle for cars would be an all-red cycle for cars -- the scramble cycle, when pedestrians would go for it.

I think there are two potential variations on this theme:

a) The lights cycle green for cars heading north/south, green for cars heading east/west, then the pedestrian scramble cycle.

b) The lights cycle green for cars heading north/south, then pedestrian scramble, then green for cars heading east west, then a second pedestrian scramble cycle!!

I've only ever seen the first option used in the real world. I'd love to see the second option tested in a high-pedestrian-volume area like downtown Portland!

Finally... bicycles. As I see it, bikes could go on either the appropriate green cycle for cars, or, if they were careful and slowed down, they could also traverse the intersection during the pedestrian cycle, if they did so at pedestrian speeds.

If pedestrian scrambles became the norm at every signalized intersection, then I think the blinking yellow light left-turning issue would become a moot pedestrian safety consideration. I think it's a great idea to reduce motorist dwell time and reduce congestion at left-turn signals.

Barring the pedestrian scramble, however, Frank does raise a good point about the added potential for ped/vehicle conflict.

The Dangers of Fluoride in Toothpaste?

OK, so let me just get one thing straight: The reason that I'm writing this article is that I've been confused by the proliferation of non-fluoride toothpastes on my natural supermarket shelves lately. I thought that fluoride prevented cavities and was good for the teeth?

...and then my favorite flavor of Tom's toothpaste, which used to come in both fluoride and non-fluoride versions, now only comes in a non-fluoride version.

That was the last straw. I could no longer keep myself in the dark about fluoride. I had to have answers. I vaguely understood that fluoridated water was a BAD THING, but the dentists have been waxing poetic about the wonders of fluoride for my whole life, so surely I should keep seeking out fluoride toothpaste in order to keep my dentists happy (or, paradoxically, at least keep my dental bills down)?

So, I decided to try and figure out why people dislike fluoride and say you shouldn't use it in toothpaste.

Apparently, fluoride is slightly more toxic than lead. It's a by-product of the aluminum manufacturing process, and is produced in rather large quantities. The attempt to market it as a health-improving product began in the 1930s/40s. In larger doses, it can actually produce tooth and bone decay, as it is non-biodegradable, and in excess can produce a condition called fluorosis, which is basically the reaction of the body to the toxin. Most experts agree that drinking fluoride in water is a very bad idea, and that fluoridated water should *not* be consumed. Living in cities (like Portland, OR) that do not fluoridate their water is, then, a GOOD THING.

However, the evidence as to whether the amount of fluoride contained in toothpaste is enough to be harmful seems to be inconclusive, as long as you don't swallow your toothpaste. Most web sites, when addressing that particular question, quickly change the topic to talk about the dangers of water fluoridation. Fluoride in toothpaste (very small amounts) can cause the teeth to better resist the acidity of the mouth, prolonging their resistance to tooth decay.

Fluorine is a gas, and in nature it will be found bonded with other substances, forming compounds such as calcium fluoride. Fluoride is a compound (a salt) that occurs when fluorine ion bonds with another agent. Calcium fluoride is the most-common naturally-occurring form of fluoride, and in small amounts it is not toxic. To the extent that calcium fluoride is the compound used in toothpaste, then, that toothpaste is probably not harmful if not swallowed.

Howers, the salts used in the fluoridation of water supplies, and potentially in some commercial toothpastes, include sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid. These are industrial by-products from manufacturing operations, and until the dental benefits of fluoride were popularized in the mid-20th century, their primary uses were in rat poision and insecticides.

OK, so here's where it gets interesting. I would expect Tom's of Maine to use Calcium Fluoride in their toothpaste, since it is the aknowledged least-toxic variety of the stuff.

However, when I look on the back of my Tom's Gingermint toothpaste, I see that it actually contains Sodium monofluorophosphate, 0.15% w/v fluoride ion.

That sounds a lot more like sodium fluoride combined with phosphate (soap) than it does calcium fluoride.

Hmm... so, perhaps there is something to this fluoridated-toothpaste-is-bad nonsense after all.

The remaining question is, what alternatives to fluoride exist that can successfully counter the effects of plaque acids on the teeth?

One potential answer is the amino acid arginine. In conjunction with calcium carbonate and bicarbonate, it is being marketed as CaviStat, an anti-cavity alternative to fluoride.

Another is... get ready for this one... the ionic activity produced by the reaction of two differing metals in combination with the saliva in the mouth. A toothbrush impregnated with two separate discs of magnesium and copper will generate an electrical current in the mouth between the two nodes.

"The magnesium copper metal combination generates a voltage of 0.8 – 1.8 and an electric current of 2 – 1200 mA in water, in addition to H 3 O 2 - negative ions. Bacteria in the mouth may be sterilized by voltage over 1.3, which creates an electric sterilization effect. This electron activity helps remove dental plaque from areas where conventional toothbrushes cannot reach.

"Stains and discoloring can be reduced by the Hydroxyl (H 3 O 2 ) negative ion’s surface-active effect."

(From http://www.protontoothbrush.com/)

The sweetener Xylitol can apparently also be used to reduce plaque and fight cavities. It is a sweetener, not a toxin. However, due to its unusual chemical structure, it attracts micro-organisms with its "sweetnesss," and then actually starves them, allowing the mouth to remineralize damaged teeth with less interruption (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol).

The bottom line is that fluoride is a poison that helps to kill off all the bacteria in your mouth when you brush your teeth, both the beneficial bacteria and the harmful ones that promote tooth decay. To the extent that a small amount of poision may be good for promoting dental health (and to the extent that it already occurs naturally), this may be OK.

However, there's no good reason to ever ingest fluoride, as its only benefits are when it is applied topically. Allowing it to pass the throat/mouth barrier is just inviting your kidneys to be over-worked by processing this toxin.

As to which toothpaste to purchase? That's your own decision. I don't see any easy answers, but at least we may know which questions to ask, and at least at this point, the marketplace is providing many non-fluoride toothpaste and dental health options for us. Our job is to pick the one that is best suited to keeping our dental bills low, without harmful side effects.

cheers,
~Garlynn