AntiRust

Obesity, Public Health and a Ban On... Women in the Workplace?

Trans-fats are not the only thing making our children chubby. Nosiree. And if we are going to ban things that make people fat, well... get a load of this:

[The theory about advertising leading to obesity] is all very interesting, but it does beg the question of why things are getting worse. Another trio of economists—Patricia Anderson, Kristin Butcher, and Phillip Levine—has suggested that two-income families may be producing the problem. They find that children are fatter if their mothers work longer hours. This is true even within families: The sibling who spent more time as a latchkey child will tend to be the fatter one, perhaps because the mother is less able to supervise outdoor play or has less time to cook and therefore buys more fast food. Unfortunately for working mothers who are already struck by guilt, the effects are pretty substantial. A mere 10 hours at work raises the chance of childhood obesity by 1.3 percentage points, which is about 10 percent.

You oppose my plan to force women out of the boardroom? Perhaps you should stop kissing the feet of Big Working Women and start thinking about the children.

THE CHILDREN!

This file from Dr. Nelson sums up my theory on this matter quite nicely:

Download obesity_theory.mp3

More on Trans-Fats, Smoking and Slippery Slopes

People who support smoking bans typically deride opponents for using "slippery slope" arguments. It's not about what "could happen" or where the logic "might lead," they argue. It's simply about smoking.

But it's not. It's about public health versus personal choice. And this New York Times editorial about the proposal to ban trans-fats points to some real concerns:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently been accused of nanny tendencies in pursuing laws to control behavior, like the ban on smoking in public places. That runs contrary to the anything-goes traditions of the city, but with epidemic rates of heart disease, obesity and diabetes, New Yorkers could use more pressure toward healthy behavior.

You know, when you put it that way, it's hard to argue. Who could be against "more pressure toward healthy behavior"?

But what do you mean by "pressure"? The beginning of the editorial is extremely revealing in that regard:

A year ago, New York’s health commissioner, Thomas Frieden, asked city restaurants to voluntarily stop using artificial trans fatty acids, a recognized menace to arteries. At the time, about half the restaurants that the city surveyed had already done so. It’s a year later, and nothing has changed. So no more Dr. Nice Guy. Now he wants to require the city’s more than 20,000 restaurants to phase out trans fats from their kitchens over 18 months.

So it turns out that half of the city's restaurants already ban the stuff. But for the health brigade, that ain't enough. Nope. Only 100 percent compliance will do. In my mind, that's scary stuff.

The parallels to smoking are striking. Take Pittsburgh, for instance. A few months ago, I checked around and discovered that there were at least 171 bars and restaurants in the Pittsburgh area that banned smoking. Voluntarily. And that tally did not include some fast-food restaurants and other national chains. So the number is substantially higher. But let's stick with 171.

If there are 171 smoke-free establishments, that means you can eat out at a different restaurant every night from January 1 through June 18 and never eat at the same place twice.

Got that? January 1 through June 18.

But again, that's not enough. Ban proponents want to be able to eat at EVERY bar and restaurant. That seems selfish to me. Especially when there are other alternatives. Back to NYC and the trans-fats editorial:

At minimum, restaurants should give their customers enough information to make their own decisions. The city could require them to post notices indicating which items have more than trace elements of trans fat, on menus or in other places where they are easy to see. Many prepared-food makers switched to healthier fats when they were required to include that information on labels. Restaurants might follow suit. Many New York eating places — even the famed Carnegie Deli and Sylvia’s, a soul food mainstay — have already set the pace by banishing the use of trans fat.

So half the restaurants had already gotten rid of trans-fats. Labels and notices would likely convince others to do so. And several iconic establishments have added credibility to the cause by signing up voluntarily.

And still they propose a ban. A proposal that calls for the use of force. When even supporters admit that there are other options.

Isn't that a problem? Isn't that scary? After all, everyone does something that doctors consider "bad." And it seems like more and more, any and all such things are becoming subject to government bans.

When the whole smoking thing started, libertarian types warned about the slippery slope. If the argument makes sense for smoking, it makes sense for food. And for a whole host of other things. Ban supporters mocked that claim. It's just about smoking.

Some of those people were lying. Others were just plain wrong.

I'm a New Urbanist, and I Didn't Even Know It!

The Post-Gazette reports that Bloomfield is getting in-filled. With people. Who want to live in urban environments:

The movement back to cities nationwide coincides in Bloomfield with a calculated plan merchants have spent three years hatching. Several small developers have come forth to help the plan along.

Marcia Deaktor bought two buildings in the 4700 block with fallow upper floors, one the former Plaza Theater building. She rents the basement to Leon the Florist and the street level to Starbucks and W.g. Grinders. She turned each of the top two floors into 1,660 square feet of open lofts lined with windows. She is marketing them to one tenant each.

... Karla Owen, president of the Bloomfield Business Association, said the group's plan "emphasizes multi-use developments" -- commercial space at street level and lofts and apartments above. "People are living above stores Downtown," she said. "Why not in Bloomfield?"

With a tight-knit Italian identity and traditions, Bloomfield has toughed out the anti-urban policies of past decades better than many neighborhoods.

Little Italy Days are this weekend, by the way. And next weekend is the Columbus Day parade. I'll be the guy gumming up both events with a double stroller.

In the meantime, I have asked it of downtown, so I should probably ask it of Bloomfield: If people are moving here, where are they moving from? I am sure there are many answers. But here's one:

"I'm leaning toward new construction," he said, "but I want to keep it looking like Bloomfield. I want us to keep working-class people here, and maybe some people from places like Shadyside will move here. I see the area as ready to take it up a notch."

And the other question: How much is the city pitching in for these projects? Anyone know?

Last, isn't this all impossible? Doesn't everyone know that developers won't redevelop in piecemeal fashion? Come on. You remember. So why didn't the city have to buy ALL of the available Bloomfield properties, seize a few properties in between, and choose a developer with a "vision" for the whole place? Hmmm...

Thoughts on Cities, Tourists and Parking

When is enough enough? People are discussing the issue in Baltimore:

Twelve thousand parking spaces within three blocks of the Inner Harbor are enough, especially if they were managed through a smart parking system guiding drivers to available spaces. It is time for Baltimore to say goodbye to this massive use of public money for garages and fund better transit instead. The most visited parts of our city (aside from the Inner Harbor) are those where the car-friendly plans were defeated (as in Fells Point) and the historic buildings remained. Some of the most visited cities in America (New York, San Francisco, Boston) are those that have lively streets, are easy to walk and have good transit.

Interesting. I suppose parking advocates could turn this around and note that the "most visited" part of the city has 12,000 parking spaces around it. Moreover, are we still fretting over "visitors"? Seems to me that if tourism really is your concern, you probably should add parking. Do people really visit NYC because they are cuckoo to see it's subway? In my experience, most tourists in NYC take cabs. I could be wrong about that, though. And cabs don't require parking garages, as far as I know. Still, does it makes sense to let tourists guide policy?

(This of course brings up the age-old question: Can you compare issues across cities? Can you judge parking in Baltimore by studying San Francisco? Pittsburgh/NYC?)

Either way, I thought I would link to the article because the first two words are, "Jane Jacobs..."

And I know a few people are interested to see her work applied more broadly.

Smoking Ban: Real Motivations Out in the Open At Last

I think this bit sums up the real motivations behind the smoking ban quite nicely. Turns out that it's not enough for hospitals to ban it indoors, or even within 15 feet of the entrance. Nope. They are going to be responsible for making sure no one smokes anywhere on the property (emphasis mine):

In the case of hospitals, Mr. Robinson said, "15 feet was insufficient, [and] we needed to say that health care providers need to carry the majority of the burden."

Many of the ban's proponents were from the medical community, he noted, and their arguments about the dangers of secondhand smoke were powerful. So health care providers must set a higher standard to avoid hypocrisy, explained Mr. Robinson, who doesn't smoke.

"It's sometime embarrassing and awkward to have employees, visitors and vendors standing outside of cancer facilities, knowing full well what's going on inside, and be puffing away," he said. "I've seen this myself and it's always disturbed me personally that this goes on."

Got that? This portion of the bill has NOTHING to do with the health of workers or patrons. Because not even the most ardent anti-smoking activist can argue that one person smoking one cigarette 500 feet away from an RN--separated by a hospital wall--is going to hurt anyone but the smoker.

So what's it about? Well, Mr. Robinson doesn't like feeling awkward, embarrassed or disturbed. And he feels that way when he sees people smoking near hospitals. It's not that he feels endangered. He just doesn't like it.

Allow me to repeat that: It's not that he feels endangered. He just doesn't like it.

At least he's honest.

Straub Brewery: One of Five Best Places in America to Drink American Beer

My buddy just sent me this sweet link. Fodor's finally gets hip to what we hillbillies have known all along: Straub is top shelf stuff.

Seriously. It made the top five.

For the itinerant beer lover, a trip to St Mary's, Pennsylvania has the childlike appeal on par with winning the "Golden Ticket" to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory -- only there, instead of finding the Everlasting Gobstopper, you will find the "Everlasting Tap," where drinkers 21 and older can sample what seems like an infinite amount of ice-cold, delicious Straub beer.

Although I think it's called the "Eternal Tap." Or at least it used to be.

Either way, it's pretty cool.

Drink Straub.

Smoking Bans and What's Next (Told-You-So Edition)

Geez! Who cares about a stupid smoking ban? We all know it's a filthy, disgusting habit. And come on, what if I want to take my toddler to a night club at 1:30 am so he can have some french fries? Should the boy really have to flirt with death, risk contracting asthma?

Besides, all those paranoid "libertarians" are talking nonsense about the slippery slope. You know, they say that the "health nannies" are going to come after what we eat. Yeah, right. Like the board of health is really going to swoop in and dictate menu choises, tell people what to eat.

Ha ha!

The New York City Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to move forward with plans to prohibit the city’s 20,000 restaurants from serving food that contains more than a minute amount of artificial trans fats, the chemically modified ingredients considered by doctors and nutritionists to increase the risk of heart disease.

The board, which is authorized to adopt the plan without the consent of any other agency, did not take that step yesterday, but it set in motion a period for written public comments, leading up a public hearing on Oct. 30 and a final vote in December.

The logic is inescapable. If the smoking ban makes sense, so does this. And so does banning booze. Premarital sex. Breastfeeding (or not breastfeeding, depending on which is considered a threat at the time.) Lots of things affect public health. And they are all in the crosshairs.

This is when we could really use an open and honest newspaper to dissect these trends and see how they will really impact our lives and liberties.

Too bad the Post-Gazette has already squandered its credibility on these issues.

Really. It is a horrible, horrible thing that the Post-Gazette has surrendered its credibility.

More on Defining Downtown: A House With a Garden in the Suburbs

Speaking of the New York Observer, here's an interesting article about the migration out of Manhattan towards more affordable environs. That's nothing new in and of itself, but it seems that it's not just the starving artists anymore.

In a world where young actors establish their highbrow bona fides by working with New York directors and live on New York stages, one young, expectant couple has the boldness to make its home an F-train ride away from the footlights and photographers.

Following in the footsteps of the young Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams into a Park Slope brownstone near you, actors Maggie Gyllenhaal and fiancé Peter Sarsgaard have just signed a contract for a vintage 3,600-square-foot brownstone in north Park Slope.

So why move? This couple can afford Manhattan. So why not live there and take advantage of all that density has to offer? They point to a preference for something that sounds downright suburban:

Besides those niceties, what attracts starlets and their star husbands to this outer borough? In a letter protesting the Atlantic Yards development, Ms. Williams wrote: “My husband Heath and I moved to Brooklyn for light and space and air.

“If Mr. Ratner lived here,” continued Ms. Williams, “he would understand what we love about it and why we want to preserve our open skies.” (She means developer Bruce Ratner.)

Ms. Gyllenhaal and Mr. Sarsgaard can soak up their light and air in a leafy rear garden. What kinds of plants are there? Charming ones, well-established ones, delightful ones, according to that Corcoran listing.

As always, it is important to note that Pittsburgh is not NYC. And Park Slope is not an exurb. But this does raise an interesting question: If the creative types all move to Brooklyn, does that make Brooklyn "downtown"? And would it be better if this couple and others like them moved to new condos on Wall Street? Why?

I already know that this is going to rub some people the wrong way. But again, I do think it is worth asking what we mean when we say "downtown." Especially in relation to what we used to mean by it, and what people in other places mean by it. I also know that NYC makes this all possible through transit, etc. And I am not saying this means that nobody shouold want to live in Pittsburgh's Cultural District. That being said... have at it.

OMG! This Post-Gazette Editorial Is Hella Strange, Dude.

You have to feel for parents who struggle to "connect" with their kids by dabbling in the current liz-ingo... I mean, lingo. They usually just end up sounding goofy--if not outright pathetic. It's just never as rad or killer as the parents intend it. In fact, it's usually, like, totally bogus.

And dude, seriously. I think that cities can come across as equally weak when they try too hard to be cool. Ahem. Ahem!

And yes, even newspapers.

I am going to run this editorial past my students in a lesson about vernacular. Does this make Pittsburgh seem really cool? How might it? How might it not? Does the NY Observer run editorials like this? If so, does it do so ironically? Or in earnest? Is the PG editorial earnest or ironic? And most importantly, is this really aimed at teenagers and young adults? Or is it more indicative of the parental tone that the PG takes regarding its readers. (Watch what you eat, children! Don't smoke! We know what's best!)

Either way, this is bizarre. If my mom would have talked to me like this when I was a teenager I would have slathered my underoos in maple syrup and crushed glass, lit my hair on fire and gone immediately into the crystal meth trade.

Demand for Downtown Housing Explodes: No Word on Fate of Unnecessary Subsidies

Great news. There is a huge demand for high end condos downtown. Lucas Piatt is ecstatic:

The Golden Triangle's newest condominium building, 151 First Side, has commitments on 43 of 80 units, with prices ranging from $250,000 to $500,000. Piatt Place at the former Lazarus-Macy's building has lined up buyers on 10 of 65 condos, with prices running from $335,400 to $634,500, in the four months the sales office has been open.

"It exceeds our expectations. We're excited about it," said Jack Piatt, chairman of Millcraft Industries Inc., the developer.

And the news keeps getting better:

It's a whole lot of housing to add to the 1,290 rental and condo units available in the Golden Triangle. But several studies over the past five years have indicated the demand is there to match it.

They suggest the Downtown market can absorb 100 to 250 units a year, at rental levels below $1.60 a square foot (the current level is $1.34) and at sales prices of $200 a square foot, translating into a monthly rent of $1,742 for a 1,300-square-foot apartment or $260,000 for a condo of the same size.

And a recent Carnegie Mellon University study found that demand for Downtown housing among young professionals far exceeds the supply. For that category of buyer or renter, it estimated there is a need for at least 162 more units, up to as many as 2,061.

So tell me again: Why are we subsidizing these projects? And ultimately, what's happening with that money? Are the developers keeping it to increase their profits? Or are they passing the savings along to people who can afford $600,000 condos? In either case, is that a good use of scarce resources? In a city that is basically in receivership?

If, as Piatt says, the market "exceeds our expectations," why don't the developers give the subsidies back? Why don't they have to? Remember, they got the subsidies because they said the market could not sustain the projects. Well, they were wrong about that, apparently. So, you know. Give the money back.

Seriously. Let's say my family applies for a house from the city, or from Habitat for Humanity. And on the way to rent a U-Haul on moving day I buy a lottery ticket and win $30 million. Would it be right for me to move into the house anyway? Or to accept it, sell it and keep the profits?

I don't think so.

So the news about the housing market is great across the board. Great news for people who want to live downtown and now can. Great news for people like the Piatts who think downtown residential is important to their larger plans for the city.

And great news for the city and the state. Because it turns out that the millions they pumped into these projects wasn't necessary.

Now go get it back.

Or, you know... give them more money. Any chance of that happening? Oh yes...

Perhaps the biggest unfulfilled need Downtown is for more moderately priced housing. Ms. Burk said studies have found a very high demand for such housing Downtown. The CMU study found that young professionals are willing to pay $900 to $1,100 a month to live Downtown.

As a result, a group of business, civic, political and foundation officials have begun meeting to try to find ways to entice developers to build more moderately priced "workforce" housing. ...

"The difficulty in most cities is that it is too expensive to develop market rate housing to make it affordable for young people or teachers or government workers without some kind of city subsidies or assistance," said John McIlwain, senior fellow for housing at the Washington D.C.-based Urban Land Institute.

Without incentives, developers tend to gravitate toward building more expensive units Downtown because it is the only way they can make money.

Well, um... Who's operating without incentives?