Policy Recommendations:
As stated previously in this Blog, the two “urban” issues that I planned to cover this semester was urban/suburban planning, its effects on inner-city residents, and how legislation and public policies have a negative effect on “socially excluded groups” such as the poor and individuals of minority status.
The first government policy concerns the use of “eminent domain” to seize private property for “public use”. Initially this provision under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution required any use of eminent domain to be strictly for the public good. For example, a railroad station, hospital, or a school. However, in 1954 in Berman vs. Parker the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a private concern to build a department store on privately owned property and this precedent setting case opened the door to the use of eminent domain for private instead of public concerns. Most recently in a highly publicized case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut (2005) ruled in favor of a private concern to create a so-called “economic redevelopment project” and this further eroded the definition of “public use”.
The problem for many urban areas with this type of “eminent domain” usage is that low-income, minority residents are the ones who are typically displaced in favor of corporations or wealthy individuals. As we have seen over and over again this semester, many inner-city neighborhoods do not have the social, economic, or the political power needed to compete with major corporations to protect their civil rights.
In my opinion, it would be perfectly acceptable if “eminent domain” was used to create living-wage employment opportunities for these residents but this is not typically the case. For example, creating another Wal-Mart will not provide the type of jobs that can lift an urban neighborhood out of poverty. It will benefit a few upper management people who probably will not reside within the inner-city.
Another type of policy that tends to have negative consequences for urban residents is “recapitalization.” The theory is that by reducing taxes on corporations and decreasing government regulations on businesses that more employment opportunities in the private sector will occur. However, this lowering of corporate taxes and regulations has had just the opposite affect for many inner-cities. As more American based industries and corporations move to other countries in search of slave-waged labor and lower construction costs, this de-regulation of American businesses has only exacerbated the plight of many urban areas. N.A.F.T.A. (North American Free Trade Alliance) alone cost this country several million industrial living-waged jobs. As for lowering or doing away with corporate taxes in order to attract these business to move to your city this policy has also had a negative impact on urban areas. Many corporations when moving to a new area bring with them most of their upper management and high-waged laborers. Typically, the initial construction and service oriented employment are the only benefits to a local community. Without the tax revenues to support the urban infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, etc.) these corporations actually use more local services without providing needed financial resources to maintain them. In addition many corporations leave one city for another when their tax breaks expire.
With these types of public policies obviously of little help in solving the rampant poverty, homelessness, and loss of middle-class employment opportunities in many urban areas, I find that the creation of “Community Development Corporations” as a viable alternative (pg. 280).
With the goal of this type of corporate entity to provide employment, services, and reinvestment within the local community they seem to offer the greatest hope in alleviating inner-city poverty. In my opinion, most privately owned corporations have little concern for developing and maintain urban infrastructures. Profit is the main concern for these entities.
A community based organization will have the best interests of the local community as its primary function. If corporate management and their families actually live in the urban area where their businesses are located and not in some far off suburbia, they will have a personal stake in the growth and development of these areas. By investing in local residents and developing their economic, social, and cultural capital this type of community based concern seem to offer the best chance of overcoming the severe poverty that is associated with many inner-cities throughout America.
Final Comment: I was unaware of the existence of Community Based Corporations until our readings this semester. After my pursuit for higher learning and my quest for a college degree are accomplished, I will either actively search for or look into creating such an organization. It is obvious that our government is not going to solve the problems that we face here in America. Both parties talk a lot about solving social issues but little in the way of actual results comes from their bantering. I guess the bottom line is that if you want something done, you better do it yourself! Have a great summer!
Sincerely as always, Mark
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sat. April 28, 2007
1. Gasoline-cost analysis omitted major aspect
2. Supreme Court votes against women's rights
3. Better policing is more effective than prison
4. Remark blurs the truth about Arab nations
To access these articles please use the Statesmanjournal "link" provided in the "Link's" section of this Blog.
Annexation Bill (HB3303) would give local residents the right to vote on any possible annexation of property by the city of Salem. The thing that I found interesting about this article was that as Salem expands its “urban boundaries”, residents that live in these so-called “islands” will not have the right to vote on these proposals under current state law. This is another example of how public policies for urban development and transition can overshadow an individual’s rights. As we have seen throughout this semester wherever urban to suburban migration occurs both regions usually suffer. The urban areas lose tax revenues needed to maintain their infrastructure (usually to the detriment of the poor) and the suburbs become the victim of “urban sprawl” as these areas become more congested.
The second article on “Sub Prime Home Lenders” offered something to which I was not aware of concerning this issue. The people who provide these services often work on a “commission” basis. Since they have no real stake (as a loan officer at a bank would) in whether or not these loans ever get paid off, they can collect their commission check and move on the next victim. I use the term “victim” here because these unethical individuals have preyed on people who cannot typically acquire the average home loan from most lending institutions. When the “victims” mortgage payment increases (under this type of loan) to the point where they can no longer make the monthly payment they will lose their home. Since the purchase of a home is usually the biggest investment and the greatest source of most people’s tangible wealth, I am glad to see that the Oregon legislature is trying to make these lenders more accountable and transparent. I hope that more states will address this growing concern also.
Mark
Sat. April 28, 2007
1. Gasoline-cost analysis omitted major aspect
2. Supreme Court votes against women's rights
3. Better policing is more effective than prison
4. Remark blurs the truth about Arab nations
To access these articles please use the Statesmanjournal "link" provided in the "Link's" section of this Blog.
Annexation Bill (HB3303) would give local residents the right to vote on any possible annexation of property by the city of Salem. The thing that I found interesting about this article was that as Salem expands its “urban boundaries”, residents that live in these so-called “islands” will not have the right to vote on these proposals under current state law. This is another example of how public policies for urban development and transition can overshadow an individual’s rights. As we have seen throughout this semester wherever urban to suburban migration occurs both regions usually suffer. The urban areas lose tax revenues needed to maintain their infrastructure (usually to the detriment of the poor) and the suburbs become the victim of “urban sprawl” as these areas become more congested.
The second article on “Sub Prime Home Lenders” offered something to which I was not aware of concerning this issue. The people who provide these services often work on a “commission” basis. Since they have no real stake (as a loan officer at a bank would) in whether or not these loans ever get paid off, they can collect their commission check and move on the next victim. I use the term “victim” here because these unethical individuals have preyed on people who cannot typically acquire the average home loan from most lending institutions. When the “victims” mortgage payment increases (under this type of loan) to the point where they can no longer make the monthly payment they will lose their home. Since the purchase of a home is usually the biggest investment and the greatest source of most people’s tangible wealth, I am glad to see that the Oregon legislature is trying to make these lenders more accountable and transparent. I hope that more states will address this growing concern also.
Mark
Annexation Bill Would Give County Residents a Voice
STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
April 27, 2007
Ron Taylor, who lives near Joe's on Lancaster Drive NE, wants the right to vote before Salem annexes his neighborhood into the city.
On Thursday, Taylor got what he wanted.
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously to approve House Bill 3303, a bill sought by Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, on behalf of thousands of people who live east of Lancaster Drive. The bill gives residents in so-called "islands" the right to vote on proposed annexations, in cities that require voter approval of annexations.
The city of Salem has no imminent plans for large-scale annexations of unincorporated areas of East Salem.
"What he's trying to do is give us a voice," Taylor said of Clem's bill.
Taylor said he fears that Salem will try to acquire Cordon Road from Marion County, thus surrounding unincorporated territory with city lands. That creates an island of unincorporated territory inside the city. Islands are easier to annex under state law, and residents of the islands don't get to vote on proposed annexations.
Under HB 3303, people inside the city and the affected islands get to cast votes on proposed annexations.
Taylor worries that his property taxes will increase if Salem annexes his neighborhood, and he's content with services provided by the county and special districts.
"There isn't a single service the city has to offer me," he said.
Clem said forced annexation was a common fear of East Salem residents when he walked door-to-door in last year's campaign.
"They want to be able to vote," Clem said.
Salem City Manager Bob Wells said the city can't simply acquire Cordon Road to surround an island of unincorporated territory. That's because the city's urban growth boundary was deliberately drawn west of Cordon Road, to prevent that kind of tactic, he said.
However, the urban growth boundary, which includes unincorporated East Salem, is a reflection of the area where Salem intends to expand, Wells said.
"How long that takes, I don't know," he said.
The Salem City Council supported HB 3303, Wells said.
Statesman Journal
April 27, 2007
Ron Taylor, who lives near Joe's on Lancaster Drive NE, wants the right to vote before Salem annexes his neighborhood into the city.
On Thursday, Taylor got what he wanted.
The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously to approve House Bill 3303, a bill sought by Rep. Brian Clem, D-Salem, on behalf of thousands of people who live east of Lancaster Drive. The bill gives residents in so-called "islands" the right to vote on proposed annexations, in cities that require voter approval of annexations.
The city of Salem has no imminent plans for large-scale annexations of unincorporated areas of East Salem.
"What he's trying to do is give us a voice," Taylor said of Clem's bill.
Taylor said he fears that Salem will try to acquire Cordon Road from Marion County, thus surrounding unincorporated territory with city lands. That creates an island of unincorporated territory inside the city. Islands are easier to annex under state law, and residents of the islands don't get to vote on proposed annexations.
Under HB 3303, people inside the city and the affected islands get to cast votes on proposed annexations.
Taylor worries that his property taxes will increase if Salem annexes his neighborhood, and he's content with services provided by the county and special districts.
"There isn't a single service the city has to offer me," he said.
Clem said forced annexation was a common fear of East Salem residents when he walked door-to-door in last year's campaign.
"They want to be able to vote," Clem said.
Salem City Manager Bob Wells said the city can't simply acquire Cordon Road to surround an island of unincorporated territory. That's because the city's urban growth boundary was deliberately drawn west of Cordon Road, to prevent that kind of tactic, he said.
However, the urban growth boundary, which includes unincorporated East Salem, is a reflection of the area where Salem intends to expand, Wells said.
"How long that takes, I don't know," he said.
The Salem City Council supported HB 3303, Wells said.
Legislators Consider More Oversight of Subprime Home Lenders
BY AARON CLARK
The Associated Press
April 26, 2007
Lawmakers are considering clamping down on subprime lenders who they say are trapping Oregon residents into making poor financial decisions that can keep them debt-ridden for years or force them into bankruptcy.
Regulators and industry representatives told members of the Business, Transportation and Workplace Development Committee on Wednesday that several bills under consideration would create more transparency for borrowers and promote long-term stability for the mortgage industry.
"The ability to buy and finance a home is critically important; it may be the single most important financial decision an Oregonian ever makes," said Cory Streisinger, the director of the state's Consumer and Business Services department. "Having good information and having lenders take some responsibility to make sure that the loan is suitable for that person -- that is very important."
Streisinger said many companies that issue subprime loans -- mortgages with high interest rates and fees, generally offered to high-risk borrowers -- have no incentive to ensure that borrowers can pay back the loan over the long term because they are paid on commission.
Regulators and consumer advocates said they want to stem loans in which a lender refinances an existing home loan but the borrower receives no net benefit. Moreover, they said that any legislation should ensure that lenders and brokers demonstrate a borrower's ability to pay back the loan.
Another practice that Streisinger identified as harmful to consumers is negative amortization, when lenders offer mortgage loans with such low payments that the principle balance of the loan increases over time.
Prohibitive fees also can trap unsuspecting borrowers.
Oregon is one of 22 states that has introduced legislation this year aimed at curbing subprime lending practices, which many economists say threaten to hurt the economy.
In recent months, high-risk mortgage lending practices have resulted in shocks in the housing market as dozens of mortgage companies have gone under and many others have laid off workers.
Although Wall Street has expressed concern that the blowup of companies that make higher-risk loans could spill into other industries, Treasury Department officials have said the current situation is manageable.
The crisis has been less pronounced in Oregon, where housing and land prices have continued to rise, albeit more slowly, protecting borrowers who took out subprime loans.
Fifteen percent of outstanding loans nationally, including those made decades ago, are subprime, but the comparable figure for Portland is 9.8 percent, according to First American LoanPerformance data from 2006.
In 2006, subprime loans accounted for 17 percent of new mortgages in Oregon, down from the 20 percent in each of the previous two years, according to the organization.
The Associated Press
April 26, 2007
Lawmakers are considering clamping down on subprime lenders who they say are trapping Oregon residents into making poor financial decisions that can keep them debt-ridden for years or force them into bankruptcy.
Regulators and industry representatives told members of the Business, Transportation and Workplace Development Committee on Wednesday that several bills under consideration would create more transparency for borrowers and promote long-term stability for the mortgage industry.
"The ability to buy and finance a home is critically important; it may be the single most important financial decision an Oregonian ever makes," said Cory Streisinger, the director of the state's Consumer and Business Services department. "Having good information and having lenders take some responsibility to make sure that the loan is suitable for that person -- that is very important."
Streisinger said many companies that issue subprime loans -- mortgages with high interest rates and fees, generally offered to high-risk borrowers -- have no incentive to ensure that borrowers can pay back the loan over the long term because they are paid on commission.
Regulators and consumer advocates said they want to stem loans in which a lender refinances an existing home loan but the borrower receives no net benefit. Moreover, they said that any legislation should ensure that lenders and brokers demonstrate a borrower's ability to pay back the loan.
Another practice that Streisinger identified as harmful to consumers is negative amortization, when lenders offer mortgage loans with such low payments that the principle balance of the loan increases over time.
Prohibitive fees also can trap unsuspecting borrowers.
Oregon is one of 22 states that has introduced legislation this year aimed at curbing subprime lending practices, which many economists say threaten to hurt the economy.
In recent months, high-risk mortgage lending practices have resulted in shocks in the housing market as dozens of mortgage companies have gone under and many others have laid off workers.
Although Wall Street has expressed concern that the blowup of companies that make higher-risk loans could spill into other industries, Treasury Department officials have said the current situation is manageable.
The crisis has been less pronounced in Oregon, where housing and land prices have continued to rise, albeit more slowly, protecting borrowers who took out subprime loans.
Fifteen percent of outstanding loans nationally, including those made decades ago, are subprime, but the comparable figure for Portland is 9.8 percent, according to First American LoanPerformance data from 2006.
In 2006, subprime loans accounted for 17 percent of new mortgages in Oregon, down from the 20 percent in each of the previous two years, according to the organization.
Voters Might Get Opportunity to Retool Measure 37
BY AARON CLARK
The Associated Press
April 28, 2007
Oregon lawmakers advanced a bill Thursday that would give voters a shot at amending the state's controversial property rights law.
Voters would choose between a measure that would curb large-scale development but allow an expedited process for property owners who want to build no more than three homes and the existing process in which most counties and the state have ceded development rights under the property rights law known as Measure 37.
A party-line vote in the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness broke a nearly four-month stalemate during which the panel heard testimony from hundreds of people and held more than a dozen public meetings in an attempt to fix the voter-passed initiative.
Lawmakers said House Bill 3540 would allow voters to decide what they meant in 2004, when they passed the measure that requires governments to pay owners for property value lost from land-use restrictions passed after the property was purchased.
If governments don't pay -- and Measure 37 claims against state and local governments already have reached more than $10 billion -- they must waive the restriction and allow development.
"A lot of people wanted a right to develop their property and we still have that in this document," said Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, a member of the committee.
Republicans who voted against the legislation said it guts the voter passed land-use law. They predicted that if the bill is sent to voters, it would be rejected in favor of the current method of processing and approving claims.
"The only conclusion I have is that the effort behind this is to repeal ballot Measure 37," said Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood.
Supporters of the bill said the current system offers no recourse for neighbors who might be effected by large-scale development adjacent to their property.
The bill would allow landowners who want to build up to three homes to qualify for an "express lane" -- putting their Measure 37 claims on a fast track. Supporters of the bill estimate that more than two-thirds of the roughly 7,000 existing claims could fall into this category.
Property owners who think they lost more than the value of three home sites because of property regulations enacted after their land purchase would be allowed to apply to build as many as 10 homes -- with a statewide maximum of 20 home sites per claimant -- but would have to go through a more rigorous valuation process to prove their loss.
This option would not be available for some properties that are entirely high-value farm land, or in areas where groundwater is limited or in critical supply.
The Associated Press
April 28, 2007
Oregon lawmakers advanced a bill Thursday that would give voters a shot at amending the state's controversial property rights law.
Voters would choose between a measure that would curb large-scale development but allow an expedited process for property owners who want to build no more than three homes and the existing process in which most counties and the state have ceded development rights under the property rights law known as Measure 37.
A party-line vote in the Joint Committee on Land Use Fairness broke a nearly four-month stalemate during which the panel heard testimony from hundreds of people and held more than a dozen public meetings in an attempt to fix the voter-passed initiative.
Lawmakers said House Bill 3540 would allow voters to decide what they meant in 2004, when they passed the measure that requires governments to pay owners for property value lost from land-use restrictions passed after the property was purchased.
If governments don't pay -- and Measure 37 claims against state and local governments already have reached more than $10 billion -- they must waive the restriction and allow development.
"A lot of people wanted a right to develop their property and we still have that in this document," said Sen. Kurt Schrader, D-Canby, a member of the committee.
Republicans who voted against the legislation said it guts the voter passed land-use law. They predicted that if the bill is sent to voters, it would be rejected in favor of the current method of processing and approving claims.
"The only conclusion I have is that the effort behind this is to repeal ballot Measure 37," said Sen. Larry George, R-Sherwood.
Supporters of the bill said the current system offers no recourse for neighbors who might be effected by large-scale development adjacent to their property.
The bill would allow landowners who want to build up to three homes to qualify for an "express lane" -- putting their Measure 37 claims on a fast track. Supporters of the bill estimate that more than two-thirds of the roughly 7,000 existing claims could fall into this category.
Property owners who think they lost more than the value of three home sites because of property regulations enacted after their land purchase would be allowed to apply to build as many as 10 homes -- with a statewide maximum of 20 home sites per claimant -- but would have to go through a more rigorous valuation process to prove their loss.
This option would not be available for some properties that are entirely high-value farm land, or in areas where groundwater is limited or in critical supply.
Affordable-Housing Bill Introduced in Second Legislative Chamber
STEVE LAW
Statesman Journal
April 24, 2007
Rep. Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach, and four other lawmakers have introduced a House bill to raise fees on recording of real-estate documents, to finance affordable-housing projects.
As reported in the Statesman Journal, a similar Senate proposal, Senate Bill 38, was deemed by legislative lawyers to be a tax. Tax-raising bills must originate in the House.
Boone’s proposal helps keep the affordable-housing proposal alive.
Sen. Margaret Carter, D-Portland, worked with Boone to submit a House version of the bill. Other co-sponsors are Rep. Mary Nolan, D-Portland, the powerful co-chairwoman of the joint budget committee; Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, whose committee has already worked the bill in the Senate, and Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene.
Statesman Journal
April 24, 2007
Rep. Deborah Boone, D-Cannon Beach, and four other lawmakers have introduced a House bill to raise fees on recording of real-estate documents, to finance affordable-housing projects.
As reported in the Statesman Journal, a similar Senate proposal, Senate Bill 38, was deemed by legislative lawyers to be a tax. Tax-raising bills must originate in the House.
Boone’s proposal helps keep the affordable-housing proposal alive.
Sen. Margaret Carter, D-Portland, worked with Boone to submit a House version of the bill. Other co-sponsors are Rep. Mary Nolan, D-Portland, the powerful co-chairwoman of the joint budget committee; Sen. Ryan Deckert, D-Beaverton, whose committee has already worked the bill in the Senate, and Rep. Paul Holvey, D-Eugene.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Summary of News Events this Week by Mark Young
Most Recommended Stories
Sat. April 21, 2007
1. Avoid making dumb comments to troops' families
2. Explore the future of 'green' living in Salem
3. Students learn about the Earth by teaching
4. 'Guns were yesterday's news, yesterday's worry, yesterday's political cause'
5. Logic behind staying in Iraq doesn't make sense
To read these "Most Recommended Stories" please use the Statesman Journal web-site link provided in the "Link's" section of this blog.
The article on the "Gay Rights" anti discrimination bill awaiting the Governors signature is another example of a minority groups exclusion from our society and its attempt to rectify the situation. In my opinion, no one in America should be exempt from employment opportunities based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference. This bill helps to amend some of these employment concerns. However, one rather troubling issue that this bill addresses, is that certain religious organizations are exempt from this legislation. I fully understand that some forms of Christianity perceive homo-sexuality as an abomination, but one would think that a religion which is based on the teachings of Christ would be more tolerant of others. Having studied the bible as a once practicing Catholic and later a born-again christian, the understanding that I took from Christ's teachings was acceptance and love for one's fellow human beings regardless of who or what they are. It is sad that practicing Christians cannot find a place in their hearts and institutions for anyone in need of employment.
As to the "Measure 37" debate over property development in Oregon, this issue continues to "heat up". The concerns over protecting farmlands and forests versus the rights of real estate developers to build home sites on land which they own, will only increase in the months ahead. In my opinion, it will be the faction which possesses the most "political clout" with Oregon's legislators that will ultimately prevail.
Note: The posting on the use of "eminent domain" here in Oregon, which I commented on earlier this semester, has received no new coverage as of this date. I was hoping to make this issue more of a centerpiece for this blog but I have seen nothing lately on this subject. Have a great day.
Sincerely, Mark
Sat. April 21, 2007
1. Avoid making dumb comments to troops' families
2. Explore the future of 'green' living in Salem
3. Students learn about the Earth by teaching
4. 'Guns were yesterday's news, yesterday's worry, yesterday's political cause'
5. Logic behind staying in Iraq doesn't make sense
To read these "Most Recommended Stories" please use the Statesman Journal web-site link provided in the "Link's" section of this blog.
The article on the "Gay Rights" anti discrimination bill awaiting the Governors signature is another example of a minority groups exclusion from our society and its attempt to rectify the situation. In my opinion, no one in America should be exempt from employment opportunities based on their race, ethnicity, or sexual preference. This bill helps to amend some of these employment concerns. However, one rather troubling issue that this bill addresses, is that certain religious organizations are exempt from this legislation. I fully understand that some forms of Christianity perceive homo-sexuality as an abomination, but one would think that a religion which is based on the teachings of Christ would be more tolerant of others. Having studied the bible as a once practicing Catholic and later a born-again christian, the understanding that I took from Christ's teachings was acceptance and love for one's fellow human beings regardless of who or what they are. It is sad that practicing Christians cannot find a place in their hearts and institutions for anyone in need of employment.
As to the "Measure 37" debate over property development in Oregon, this issue continues to "heat up". The concerns over protecting farmlands and forests versus the rights of real estate developers to build home sites on land which they own, will only increase in the months ahead. In my opinion, it will be the faction which possesses the most "political clout" with Oregon's legislators that will ultimately prevail.
Note: The posting on the use of "eminent domain" here in Oregon, which I commented on earlier this semester, has received no new coverage as of this date. I was hoping to make this issue more of a centerpiece for this blog but I have seen nothing lately on this subject. Have a great day.
Sincerely, Mark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)