AntiRust

Is wood an "alternative energy source"?

Interesting question: does wood count as an "alternative energy source"? What if you are using it to heat, say, a school, to save money on natural gas? Well, that's what someone is hoping to do in Kane, PA.

Does this count as environmentally friendly? Does it matter if that wood is coming off a national forest? And what if that national forest is already the setting for a nasty timber dispute? One that has already veered towards the radical?

This is intriguing for a lot of reasons. The Allegheny National Forest is home to one of the most valuable stands of hardwood in the world, largely because of the black cherry trees that sprung up after widespread clearcutting in the late 1800s and early 1900s. No place has black cherry like Kane, PA, either in quality or quantity.

One of the primary ways foresters have tried to perpetuate that bounty over the years is by occasionally culling less-valuable trees. The fact that there was a paper mill in Johnsonburg willing to pay for those "lower-quality" trees made that culling more financially feasible. Now, the paper mill is still running, but its future is by no means certain.  A huge mill in Erie shut down a few years back. So what to do with the culled trees if there is no use for them? Cutting them and letting them lay on the forest floor is a disaster politically.

But using them to keep kiddies warm in the winter? And save money versus natural gas?

Interesting...

Fun (to me) facts about Pennsylvania oil

Anyone ever been to Bradford? It is (and has been) the site of northwestern Pennsylvania's largest oil cleanup. Really it is. Check it out.

But pay special attention to the facts and figures. There is some fascinating stuff. Bradford was the original Saudi Arabia. Tons of money there in the original oil boom. What a lot of people don't realize is that the oil is still pumping.  In fact, the refinery there is pretty impressive, if that's the word. From the story:

The oldest continuously operating refinery in the country occupies 131 acres between the City of Bradford and Foster Township, stretching 1 1/2 miles along the Tunungwant Creek.

Jeez. A mile and a half. Not surprising, though. There is an operating oil well at the drive-thru of the McDonald's in town. This town is all about oil. Or at least it was.

Bradford is also home to Zippo and Case Knives. Yes. Lighters, petroleum and knives. Now if that's not fueling American culture, I don't know what is.

Sweet mix, that.

Yeah, but what about the Iron Sheik?

Ever wonder what happened to Nikolai Volkoff, professional wrestler, villain extraordinaire and Cold War icon of my youth?

Come on. You can admit it.

Well, take a look. He's running for office. Or at least I hope so.

This is a great little profile. Bam Bam Bigelow for comptroller!

The Casino License Two-Step

This casino licensing process is beginning to look more and more like a disaster. It clearly should have been opened up to an auction, as the folks at the Allegheny Institute have pointed out. (You might have to scroll down for it, but it's worth it.) It's just common sense. When the government has valuable timber, for instance, it does not give it to the company that offers to build a nice coffee shop in the woods. No. The government takes bids. Sells to the highest qualified bidder. And then puts the money to some (hopefully worthwhile) use.

In this case, however, it appears that the government realizes that the use it is after is not all that politically viable. That is, it looks like some of these companies that want to build a casino are planning to spend a couple hundred million on a flashy slots parlor, then sweetening the deal with a few hundred million for condos and other "development." In one case, that development includes a new home for the Pittsburgh Penguins.

Now, just think what would happen if instead of accepting development in return for the license, the government demanded money. Our fearless leaders would then be stuck with a few hundred million dollars that they might spend on schools, roads or, in the case of Pittsburgh, servicing debt incurred in previous development projects. I say "stuck" because, in reality, the leaders in question do not want to spend money on those things. They want more glitz. More condos. More arenas. The kind of things that they know pesky voters might resist even in the best of times, but would almost certainly oppose given the city's current financial situation. Solution? Bypass that hassle by basically giving the license away, but only to a development firm that comes closest to promising the redevelopment projects city leaders can't afford.

Now, the people in charge would certainly object to this notion. And they have. Check this story in today's Post-Gazette, in which one developer claims to be holding out hope that the government will support his slots plan even though it promises only about half as much for development. My favorite part comes here:

Gaming Board spokesman Nick Hays said three main factors would be considered in awarding the stand alone license.

One is safety -- whether the operator is qualified to operate a casino, has a clean criminal record, has run a business properly and is current on taxes. Another is whether the bidder has the financial wherewithal to operate a casino. The third involves how customer-friendly the facility would be, including issues such as access.

Other factors to be considered are diversity and public reaction.

Strange. When I hear leaders talking which plan they prefer (or avoiding the question, presumably in hopes of strong arming more out of developers) I hardly ever hear them talking about which one is the most customer friendly. Or clean criminal records. But I do hear an awful lot about retail development, restaurants, "new neighborhoods" and junkets to Columbus to see hockey arenas. What do YOU think they are really after?

So let us be clear. This decision is going to be based on which company connects with the right politicians. And offers to build something that those politicians want but cannot muster the votes to build with traditional public dollars. That is, they are going to use an immensely valuable public resource (the slots license) to pay for that "revitalization" and hope that no one notices the switcheroo.

And you know what? It's probably a pretty effective plan. Too bad.

Heavy Industry in Western PA: A $450 Million Project is Afoot

You want heavy industry? I got your heavy industry right here. Four hundred and fifty million dollars worth of the stuff.

That's right, $450 million. That is how much United Refining is spending to upgrade its refinery right here in western Pennsylvania. Warren, to be exact. Check out the story in today's Erie Times-News. (I think registration might be required.)

This is more than a local construction story. Part of the reason gas prices are so high is that the U.S. does not have enough refining capacity to keep up with demand. And the environmental problems associated with refining make it very difficult to add new refineries. So United is plowing a whole bunch of its recent windfall profits into expanding an existing facility.

Good news? Depends. I know that part of the addition is a coker. Local environmental groups opposed it. Some of that opposition was sincere and rational. A lot of people live right in the refinery's shadow. And it's directly on the banks of the Allegheny River. (Any spills are coming your way, Pittsburgh.) Not to mention on the border of a national forest. So yeah, some discussion is certainly in order. On the other hand, some of the opposition was being directed by people who oppose everything, no matter what.

Either way, it appears that those people lost and $450 million is going to be pouring into Warren, PA. I hope they make good use of it. I also wonder what this means for the excellent Northwest Savings Bank, which has its headquarters (newly expanded!) in Warren. Another financial juggernaut in the making? Or a prime target for a larger bank? Who knows.

At any rate, I think it is interesting to see what these companies are doing with the extra money they are making of late. Whether you approve of the expansion or not, it seems clear that not all of the cash is going into dividends for fat-cat investors. In this case, that makes sense because United is a private company. (That is, it is not a publicly traded corporation). That's right. Zoinks. A private company embarking on a $450 million project. The linked story indicates that this might change sooner rather than later. Hmm...

So yes, we are in a post-industrial age and all that. And we are now a nation of doctors and lawyers rather than miners and factory workers. There's no denying it. Still, somebody has to make the gas that gets everyone to their shiny offices. And they're making it in Warren. Lots of it.

Radical Pennsylvania, and a Forgotten Forest

It always seems to make the news when environmental activists burn things down out west. Despite the fact that the Earth Liberation Front made its most aggressive maneuver to date right here in western Pennsylvania, where they threatened to make good on the "terrorist" in "eco-terrorist." And no one seems to be paying attention. Still.

Want more info? Certainly. (Warning: shameless self-promotion)

Random griping. And look, I'm a hippie.

I think it is fair to say that my track record paints me as something other than a knee-jerk, authoritarian right-winger. Take a look and see for yourself. Conservative scribe James Taranto, who runs the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJounal.com, was so incensed by my libertarian shenanigans that he fumed:

MacDonald's central argument, though, seems to be that the Rainbow hippies are heroes because they refuse to apply to the U.S. Forest Service for a permit to use federal land. This makes no sense at all. We understand that libertarians oppose public ownership of land, but how does it follow from this position that if land is publicly owned, it is commendable to defy the rules governing its use? It's as if MacDonald were saying he's against welfare and therefore in favor of welfare fraud. Frankly, we don't understand how such flawed logic could have found its way into a magazine called Reason.

And now, with my hippie credentials firmly established, I would like to address yet another editorial in the Post-Gazette. It covers a topic AntiRust does not normally address--Supreme Court politics--but I think this deserves attention. To wit, the editorial argues that the Senate should refuse to confirm Samuel Alito to the bench. Why? Because he is out of the mainstream? Well, no. According to the editorial, during recent hearings Alito "didn't say anything that would categorize him as being out of the mainstream. Sadly, in the time of Mr. Bush, he is the mainstream."

So he's a mainstream candidate. But maybe he's unqualified? Inexperienced? Ill-tempered? Unknowledgable? Well, no, no, no and no. According to the editorial:

To be sure, it's not a matter of Judge Alito being unqualified -- he has the experience, temperament and legal knowledge to sit on the Supreme Court. Nor is it that he lacks integrity. He has support of many in the legal profession -- many of them Democrats -- who know him personally.

The problem appears to be that the judge is--gasp!--conservative. Uh, I might be mistaken, but I am not aware of any regulations barring conservatives from the bench. The editorial does try to justify itself by mentioning a single case that might raise concerns, but offers no specifics in that regard.

Of course, it did not stop him from thinking that police could not be sued for damages after the strip-search of a 10-year-old, because his inherent conservatism trumped other considerations. That is his real heart. If only Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter could see the truth and change his mind about this nominee.

Was the decision overturned? By whom? For what reason? And are we certain that his "conservatism," inherent or otherwise, was the only factor in the decision? There were no points of law involved? No precedent? Surely such a knee-jerk reactionary with such a long career on the bench must have put this bias on display in other cases. But the paper doesn't mention any. Hmm...

But more important... Wow. His "real heart." Thanks, Post-Gazette, for the psychoanalysis. Seeing that we appear to be allowing such wild extrapolation today, maybe we can talk about the paper's "real heart." The heart that is so concerned with Pittsburgh's "image" that it continually argues for huge public subsidies to highly profitable corporations who promise to "fix" the cash-strapped city. Just today, PNC reported a 16 percent increase in profits, according to the Post-Gazette. Annual revenue at the banking giant is up to more than $6 billion. And the Post-Gazette just cannot wait to take $18 million out of taxpayers' pockets to build a skyscraper that will serve the bank, a bunch of lawyers and people who can afford $600,000 apiece for the condos that are part of the project. Awesome.

Talk about "inherent conservatism." Isn't it Republicans who are supposed to be in favor of corprorate welfare?

And don't even get me started about the paper's inherent--meaning completely unquestioning and uncritical--support for a smoking ban across the state. Remember a few months ago when the paper based its support on claims that people working in smokey bars were being forced by their employers to "flirt with death"? I asked them to justify that claim. Instead of doing so, they have simply changed their argument. Now they argue that we should ban smoking because other people have and, you know, we wouldn't want to be different than other people.

Who's a knee-jerk reactionary now? Who follows the herd? Who bases decisions on prior bias trather than a cold, hard look at the facts?

Look, I don't know if Alito will be a good addition to the court or not. I am probably inclined to think the latter. But for the Post-Gazette to criticize the man for committing the sin of allegiance to a political ideology seems strange. It's journalists who are supposed to be objective, right? But it's clear that in issues big and small--from huge things like urban redevelopment to tiny thinks like smoking--our faithful editors are no better than the people they criticize. That's why they oppose Alito. Not because he is unqualified, but because they disagree with him. Just like they don't like smoking. In their eyes, the only thing to do is ban it. Don't like the suburbs? Force people to spend millions on the city.

Oof

Gun Control. The Hard Way.

I like guns. I like heavy industry.

So this hurts. And in the shadow of the alma mater, no less.

Oof!

Why Cities Should Stay Out of Redevelopment Schemes: Baltimore Exhibit #2764

AntiRust has always been skeptical of glowing reports about the success of city-sponsored redevelopment ventures. That is especially true of Baltimore, where the Inner Harbor, Camden Yards, a convention center, numerous hotels and other pricey schemes have failed to draw the private investment planners keep promising. Well, add another failure to the list.

Check out this story in yesterday's Baltimore Sun. It's about Pier Six, a city-owned concert pavilion adjacent to the vaunted Inner Harbor. Built in 1981 when the entire Inner Harbor project was in its infancy, it was supposed to be a premier destination for national groups. And I suppose it might have been for a while. But like so many other projects, it quickly became a bit dated in planners' eyes. Yep. In 1991 the multi-million facility got a face lift. That would do the trick, right? Make it, once and for all, a premier facility?

Well, no. Now the city is shopping around another refurb plan. Why? The story in the Sun calls the venue "moribund":

In recent years, city officials have been disappointed by the summertime concert site, feeling it has underperformed. BDC officials hope that the management team will finance more than $2 million in renovations - expanding seating which could then attract more acts.

Gosh. It's right next to the Inner Harbor and the aquarium. It's within walking distance of Camden Yards, Ravens Stadium, Fells Point, etc. And it still can't make a go at it? It still doesn't interest private investors? To be honest, I lived in Baltimore for five years. When I was in my 20s. I never went there. In fact, I never knew any of my friends to have gone there. Oy.

But maybe this next renovation will finally do the trick. Any reason to doubt that? How about the fact that the project stinks of local politics? Imagine that. In this case, the city has given the contract to a local developer who has teamed up with a minority church. What does a church know about concert venues? Absolutely nothing. But the church leader is incredibly well connected. And an election is on the horizon. Check out this account from today's Sun. (If you are offended by the stench of municipal BS, I suggest you hold your nose):

Baltimore development officials announced this week that a partnership of David S. Cordish and Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church won rights to redevelop downtown's Pier Six Concert Pavilion.

The church would reap 10 percent of the venue's yearly profits but would put no equity into the deal.

State minority business leaders criticized the arrangement yesterday, calling it a sham, one that would set an "extraordinarily bad precedent."

Wayne Frazier, president of the Maryland-Washington Minority Contractors Association, said that the selection of a development team that includes the church, a city institution led by the Rev. Frank M. Reid III, is "all about votes" in an election year for Mayor Martin O'Malley, who is running for governor.

Click here for AntiRust's response.

More Downtown Development Nonsense, and a Voice of Reason from 1848

This editorial in today's Post-Gazette is almost unbelievable. It is aimed at telling us all what a good idea it is for the city to pitch in $18 million to support PNC's latest skyscraper boondoggle. I suppose someone might be able to make an intelligent argument in support of the subsidy, but this ain't it. Check this out:

It's hard to imagine a project more suited to such help from future taxes it will generate. That the proposed site is "blighted" is depressingly obvious. It also will be tough to develop without public help, and Pittsburgh is fortunate to have PNC investing $122 million of its own money in the package.

Well, we've been trying these top-down schemes since the 1940s. If the area is still blighted, maybe it's time to think of a different strategy. Moreover, the Post-Gazette appears to support a bevy of other projects in the Forbes-Fifth corridor. If those projects are going to work, why will the PNC site be "tough to develop without public help"? The definition of success in those other projects is to attract private investment, right? Why not wait to see if it happens? Or why not tell PNC to go ahead with their project but cut back on some of the bells and whistles--you know, tell them to build what they can actually afford.

The paper goes on to slam the use of TIF for a shopping center in Ohio Township:

The same argument was made for Mount Nebo Pointe, the TIF-assisted plaza that is bringing Target, Sam's Club and the already-open Sportsmen's Warehouse to Ohio Township. But that site is not far from similar shopping, including some of the same merchants -- which will compete for the same North Hills shoppers.

Well, the proposed PNC skyscraper is not far from vacant office space downtown. And the condos proposed will not be far from ones slated for the Lazarus building, etc. And the proposed shops will not be far from... oh, to hell with it.

I think the Post-Gazette can be a pretty good newspaper. But its incessant cheerleading in this regard is completely out of control. I mean, does the presence of a few retail shops, many of which already operate elsewhere in the region--or a law firm moving from one city location to another--really count as "revitalization"?

I say no. But I'm not all that smart. Perhaps the editorialists at the P-G will be more convinced by the most underrated economist of the past few hundred years. A Frenchman, no less:

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Read the whole thing. At least through "The Broken Window Theory." Please P-G editorialists.

Please.