AntiRust

Environmental Activists: Going Batty in Pennsylvania?

The Post-Gazette is reporting on an intriguing development that is putting environmental activists in something of a bind--particularly Pennsylvania environmental activists. It seems that enormous electricity-producing windmills kill a lot of bats. Here's one of the windmill guys attempting to downplay the issue:

"Any sort of environmental impact that does come up, we need to take seriously and address," said Tom Gray, deputy executive director of the American Wind Energy Association, a trade organization.

The potential danger to birds has been known for more than a decade, when environmentalists discovered that thousands of raptors were being killed at a 5,400-turbine wind farm at Altamont Pass in California. The wind farm, which uses shorter, old-style windmills, was built along a migration route for birds of prey. A lawsuit filed against the wind farm by the Center for Biological Diversity is pending.

"This is not a perfect energy source," Gray acknowledged.

But, he continued, tens of thousands of birds killed annually by wind turbines is small when compared with the 1 billion birds that die annually in the United States after they crash into buildings, cars and power lines.

"I'm a numbers guy, and I keep saying, 'Gee, these numbers are really small,'" Gray said. "It's not a message with immediate appeal."

Yes. Those numbers are really small. But they are not nearly as small as, say, "one." Why does that matter? Because that is the exact number of endangered Indiana bats found on the Allegheny National Forest in northwestern Pennsylvania in the late 1990s. Even though the Allegheny is on the fringe of the species' range--and despite the fact that the one bat appeared to be doing pretty well--activists filed a lawsuit. That suit led to a total moratorium on logging that lasted six months while the Forest Service made changes that took the bat's presence into account. Read all about it here.

So if one bat is in fact that important, AntiRust wonders if activists are pressing for a study to see if any of the thousands of bats killed by the windmills are of the Indiana variety. And if so, whether they support a moratorium on the windmills' operation. Consistency would seem to demand that, wouldn't it?

Or does no one really care about the bat? That is, could it possibly have been a cynical use of an important law (The Endangered Species Act) aimed at making a short-term political statement? That's all fine and legal, I suppose, but the loggers and their families had to go without paychecks for six months. That's a pretty high price for a statement, especially when you are forcing someone else to pay it. 

Subsidizing Yuppies

The Post-Gazette is reporting that a Tennessee developer is considering  a plan to refurbish the Highland Building in East Liberty, a property that has gotten the best of six previous developers:

But Burch, president of Terminus Real Estate Inc. of Knoxville, is hoping to reverse that pattern. He is confident that he can turn the building into a meal ticket by converting offices into 84 condominiums with an average sales price of $167,000.

Terminus has purchased the building, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, from the city's Urban Redevelopment Authority for $1,000 as part of its $14 million plan to recycle the property at 121 S. Highland Avenue for residential living.

The URA, basically a public agency, has foregone asking for a reasonable price. That's how it operates, of course, but let's be clear about what that means.

If a market rate for the building would have been, say, $1 million, this proposal amounts to a public subsidy of almost $12,000 per condo. At an average asking price of $167,000 a pop, that in turn amounts to a 7 percent inducement per condo. Now, who exactly lives in a $167,000 condo? Aren't these the kinds of people we might ask to pay for their whole house on their own?

And what if the building was worth even more than $1 million? That means an even bigger subsidy. And what if it was only worth half as much: $500,000? In that case, the city would be contributing $6,000 per condo. Is that really enough to make the difference for the kind of people who would purchase such a thing? Are they that fickle or frugal? I mean, can't we expect the vaunted creative class to come up with an extra six grand on their own? Geez, they'll spend that much on cheese at the new Whole Foods. 

Ah well. Maybe the city can pay for the project with all its sweet new casino revenue.

Gun-Toting Pittsburghers

So the the City Paper runs a feature this week about Allegheny County's high rate of residents with concealed-carry permits. It quotes a lot of gun-control types, which is fair enough. For instance:

“It’s pretty troublesome that one in 25

Allegheny

 

County

residents have the right to carry a concealed weapon,” says Chad Ramsey, field director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I don’t care how careful anyone is, having that many guns on the streets when you have no discretion to deny the permits or any power to require training is asking for trouble.”

The obvious question for a journalist to ask, of course, is: Why? Why is it troublesome?

One assumes Ramsey is troubled because, in his mind, a spike in the mere existence of guns will lead, inexorably, to more violence. That's the whole point of the gun-control argument, right? More guns equal more crime. Or more directly, enacting laws that restrict guns will lead to less crime.

So isn't this a really good chance to analyze that claim and see if it's true? If having all those permits is "asking for trouble," shouldn't there be some evidence that some trouble has been delivered?

The article goes on to note Allegheny County's crime rate, but fails to put it in perspective. If more permits lead to more crime, shouldn't Alleghent County have more crime than any county in the nation? It has more permits. What, then, is the correlation between permits and violence? And what about over time? Many municipalities and states have made permits easier to get in recent years. Others have made it harder. What happened to crime in those places? Isn't that an obvious question to ask when researching this piece? (To be honest, I don't know the answers. I like guns, and the data might support more restriction. Either way, it seems like the CP could want to know.)

The only attempt at this seems to be to point out that one of the places with the highest concentrations of permits (a violent section of Indiana) is really high on the permit list. But what about other examples? Are their any counter examples, for instance? The article mentions Vermont's failure to enact almost any kind of gun control. Is Vermont a violent place? More violent than, say, Washington, DC, which has very strict gun-control laws?

The thing is, it's not as simple as all that. But it would need to be for the gun-control crowd to be making any sense. They ALWAYS argue for stricter laws, regardless of the cultutre of the place in question. That's why Mr. Ramsey can say, unequivocally, that Allegheny COunty's permit rate is "pretty troublesome," without explaining why. (As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty cool.)

Sure, the NRA always argues against restrictions, but isn't the onus on the folks who want to curtail rights? I mean, shouldn't they have to show that correlation? And shouldn' that be pretty easy if it's true?

Pennsylvania Loggers Win. Activists Lose. But Not Really. Weird.

There has to be a better way.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals just upheld a previous ruling that said, in effect, that the U.S. Forest Service can go ahead with a proposed logging project on the Allegheny National Forest. (It's in northwestern PA and obviously the most important thing ever. I read it all in a book.)

No matter what you think of logging, this process sucks. The lawsuit (filed by activists supported by free legal services from folks associated with the University of Pittsburgh's Environmental Law Clinic) got underway years and years ago. And in the end, the activists lost. Except that they delayed the project so long--and site conditions have changed so much--that the Forest Service has to start all over again. So no logging until the Forest Service comes up with a new plan. A new plan activists might, I don't know, litigate?

Why not? Even when they lose, they win. So you can see that the loggers are getting frustrated.

Oh yeah... Guess where the guy who filed the lawsuit in the first place lives now? (He's right in the middle of the city's recent TaserGate controversy.)

A Maglev Challenge: Join the Fray, Pittsburgh (Re-post)

[I tried to post this earlier, but TypePad lost it. Sorry for any misdirection.]

A reader has responded to the latest post concerning Maglev. To wit:

I'd like to invite Sam MacDonald and other maglev skeptics to duke it out on the Urban Maglev Interest Group (google it, then join it). It is fair to say the jury is still out on both the PA and the DC-MD maglev proposals. MacDonald, if he's interested, might learn something.

So I went to the Urban Maglev Interest Group’s site. And I will join when I get a chance. But for now, take a look at how the site defines Urban Maglev:

quiet lower-speed maglev trains designed for urban and suburban transit, with top service speeds usually under about 120mph.

I am sure I will learn the merits of such a system once I join the group. But I fail to see how it has anything at all to do with the federal demonstration project as proposed. Here’s what the Tribune-Review had to say about it the other day:

Gurney said the proposed route included in the draft study to be unveiled next month is identical to what was last pitched in 2003.

The proposed route would take high-speed trains traveling more than 240 mph from Pittsburgh International Airport, through towns on the western Ohio River bank to McKees Rocks and on to Station Square.

So say what you want about “Urban Maglev.” The federal version, as proposed, appears to be the same high-speed version considered three years ago.

Moreover, don’t we already have rail technology—tested rail technology—that can get us to 120 mph a lot cheaper than Maglev? And most importantly, doesn’t the very idea of “slower-speed” Maglev strike anyone as, well, odd? Kind of like non-alcoholic beer and smoke-free cigarettes. Kind of defeats the purpose, no?

That is, I stand firm in my conviction that the proposed federal demonstration project is a $3 billion Big Transit boondoggle—and fairly transparent attempt to saddle some region with an enormous white elephant. Link to the article I mention in the initial post. The ridership estimates are beyond ridiculous.

So maybe Urban Maglev has some merit. Highways are not without their own problems, after all. But this whole $3 billion project is a dangerous, dangerous thing at which PA residents should look askance.

Fells Point, Cigarettes and the Art of the Dive Bar

AntiRust considered the difficulties inherent in upscale development a while back. In particular, the post asked whether a wonderfully quirky neighborhood like Baltimore's Fells Point can survive the yuppie assault. Well, forget about that post (as if you haven't already): The Sun's Michael Olesker frames the question quite nicely in today's edition. Unfortunatley, the solution is just as elusive no matter how eloquently you ask the question.

And a question for all you anti-smoking zealots--in particular those who support a ban in all bars and restaurants: Is a place like Fells Point still Fells Point if the bars ain't smokey? That is, aren't things like danger and dirtiness part of the appeal? Now, I am not saying that you ought to be allowed to puff away in the elevator at Children's Hospital. But why should every bar owner in the city be forced--under penalty of law--to make his establishment rise to the same level of cleanliness and wholesomeness as that elevator? And isn't the drive for smoke-free bars part and parcel with the drive to turn every dive bar into an organic coffee shop that features open-mike night, every greasy spoon into a Outback Steakhouse and every thrift store into a Banana Republic?

Dive bars are good for society, I think. Why can't we just let them be dive bars, smoke and all?

Oh no: Maglev Lives

The Tribune-Review is reporting that Maglev talks are up and running again.They should not be. At least not as part of the proposed $3 billion white elephant.. I mean, federal demonstration project.

I was a reporter in the DC area when the idea was floating around down there. It still is, as Pennsylvania and MD/DC were the two locations named as finalists for the project. Kind of like being considered a "finalist" for a burglary or a root canal.

I am not sure what the projection are here in Pennsylvania, but in the DC corridor proponents were projecting a daily ridership of something like 30,000, many of them commuters. And a one-way ticket was something like $26. So a few thousand people were supposed to pay $52 to get to work every day. I know there is a lot of money in DC, but come on...

So why not take a walk down memory lane. How have huge transportation projects gone over here in Pittsburgh? The Parkways? Mon-Fayette? Anyone remember my favorite, Skybus? Please, read up on Skybus. It was before my time, but not really. Many of the promises associated with it are the same as the ones being made regarding Maglev.

Gambling on Gambling. And Elk.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has made much of tourism's potential to boost the state's lagging economy. This is especially important in the rural northern tier, which just so happens to be my original stomping grounds. The guv has rightly focused (scroll down to last item) on eco-tourism. With the Allegheny National Forest, the bulk of the state forests and, incredibly, one of if not the largest elk herd east of the Mississippi (that herd was barely a fifth of its current size a decade ago), the region has a lot to offer to outdoor types. (Ahem.)

But in light of the current quest to save PA through casino tourism, allow AntiRust to suggest a moment of sober assessment. A study done a few years ago by Penn State economist Chuck Strauss measured elk-watching's economic impact. It was significant, drawing approximately 70,000 visitors per yer. But which 70,000 visitors? Turns out 10 percent of those were from the immediate two-county region home to the elk. Another 82 percent were Pennsylvania residents from outside the immediate region. Only 8 percent were from outside the state.

Worse, each "visitor day" was not contributed by a discreet tourist. That is, some people stayed a day or two. Which is good for hotels. But it cuts into the numbers. Turns out there was a total of about 13,700 elk viewing tourists. You can do the math from there. Eight percent of 13,700 is something like 1,000 out-of-state tourists. They would have had to spend $1,000 each to raise their economic impact to $1 million. And exactly how much do you suppose the state spends to maintain the herd? I am looking into it. But I suspect it's a lot.

At any rate, my point is not all that creative or new: A lot of times, the money tourism "generates" is simply redistributed. Which makes you wonder how much of a windfall that $250 million from gambling will really be. That's not an argument against gambling. And it's not an argument against elk-watching either. It's just a suggestion: Sometimes these numbers deserve a closer look.

Casinos and Rodents: Pittsburgh's Struggles with Dirty Rats

City officials not only want to allow gambling in Pittsburgh. They want to control it. From today's Post-Gazette:

When Pittsburghers put their dollars into the coming army of one-armed bandits, the cash should flow directly into the city's coffers, City Council said yesterday.

In a unanimous vote, council members tentatively approved a resolution directing the mayor to apply for the one slot machine license slated for a facility within city limits.

Even if the resolution receives final approval Tuesday, it is far from a certainty that a civic casino will ever open. Even City Council members who voted for the measure expressed skepticism, as did Mayor Tom Murphy.

The city's five-year fiscal plan includes $17.7 million in tax revenue from a slots casino, beginning in 2007.

Council President Gene Ricciardi, who authored the resolution, said that's a small fraction of the $250 million a casino owner could reap.

"Why take $17 million when you could have $250 million?" he said.

Sweet. What could possible go wrong? Just look at what a great job the city does with its most basic obligations, and imagine the Shangri La that will emerge when city fathers transfer this kind of expertise to the ethically and economically treacherous concept of casino gambling:

A debate over rodent control funding revealed schisms in Pittsburgh City Council yesterday as members wrestle with overspending and prepare for the selection of a new president.

Councilman Doug Shields' proposal to shift $30,000 from the Police Bureau to rodent control tentatively passed, but not before he and Councilman Jim Motznik bared their teeth in a minutes-long shouting match.

Word.

Now substitute $250 million for $30,000 and do the math.

Forbes-Fifth Redevelopment Developments

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting that another development company is drawing up plans for the Forbes-Fifth corridor. Guess what they are proposing? Pretty much what the last two developers proposed:

The firm is working on a plan to redevelop the upper floors of buildings into apartments geared toward young professionals and empty nesters. Retail would occupy the ground floors and would include amenities such as a dry cleaning shop and a grocery market to supplement the housing.

... In response to questions about yesterday's meeting, Pittsburgh Task Force Chairman Herb Burger said Madison Marquette would be a "first-class partner" in the redevelopment of Downtown.

Madison Marquette is expected to report back to the task force by mid-November with a proposed plan for lower Fifth, architectural drawings and a budget, which would include private investment and any state or local support desired.

No cost estimate for the project has been finalized, but the total redevelopment is expected to be much lower than the $522 million Urban Retail plan. Murphy and Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato have approached Gov. Ed Rendell about possibly supplying state funding.

I know this is a bit atavistic, but remember when governments, generally speaking, were expected to try to concentrate on public goods? Like defense, park benches and public health?

The concept of a public good has obviously changed a bit, but step back and consider this for a minute. Madison Marquette obviously has some money. And doesn't mind spending it. Likely because it thinks it can make some more money by building a community for "young professionals and empty-nesters." Such corporations and the people they serve are not exactly the most down-trodden people on earth.

So what would happen if the funding didn't materialize? That would mean Madison Marquette would make a correspondingly lower profit on the development, or make the same profit by charging more for the retail and residential space it proposes to build. Does that strike anyone as fundamentally unjust?

Yeah, I know. Other cities are doing it, it raises the tax base, blah blah blah. (Or does it? Will each and every resident in the development be new? Or will a few of them simply move from Walnut Street?)It looks an awful lot to me like we have simply abandoned the discredited notion of "smokestack chasing" in favor of... what?... Whole Foods Chasing?

Does that seem like progress to anyone?