Unit 4: Property Rights and Incentives
Think about:
From the news, identify an issue in your community that is amenable to property rights / incentive analysis. Possibilities range from the cleanliness of your school's cafeteria or bathrooms, to arguments for privatizing local transit systems, to selling Yellowstone National Park. Think through the problem using your new insights on the role of property rights in shaping incentives:
Identify the problematic behavior and the involved stakeholders or interest groups.
Provide a property rights / incentive analysis to explain the current outcomes.
Propose a way to change the incentives and predict the results (or, failing that, explain why change isn't possible).
Compose a single, concise paragraph incorporating your thoughts, conclusions, etc.
Post your paragraph as a reply to this blog posting.
Post twice more in reply to the postings of classmates.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
Old-growth, more than a bump on the skin…by Rob Wiersema
When I bought my house and property, my 300 foot back lot line (South lot line) abutted a stand of old-growth trees, many of them oaks and maples with trunk diameters approaching 9 feet. It was a forest primeval. The realtor made it a big selling point. Then, about eight months into living here, a logging company went in and clear-cut all but a fringe around the sides of the stand. Many people were outraged, and I was asked to join in with an effort (petitions to the zoning board, etc.) to stop the cutting. Most figured I had so much to lose it wouldn’t be a question of joining in. I simply replied that it wasn’t my land, and in fact I had been enjoying a positive externality (went right over their heads…ignorance is bliss?) and the change might provide me a lawn with a thicker turf due to some direct sunshine. I knew of the guy who owned the land, and he was suffering some serious medical conditions and had big bills, and not much insurance (sole-proprietor), so he was selling the trees and then the land for single-family housing. He got the biggest bang for his buck. My pre-cut neighbors and friends were flabbergasted when I told them the land wasn’t mine to stop the cutting, and if it was such an issue for them, they should buy the land. You’da thought I sucker-punched them or something… So now our local government has a bigger tax-base, some of my very students live in that development (job security), and my yard was nicer. Had the ‘up-in-arms’ crowd went ahead and bought the land, that would have been fine, but apparently the value they placed upon keeping it ‘as was’ wasn’t equal to the price for it. C’est la vie. Get over it. (But you would think a series of earthquakes occurred for the shaking and incredible sounds/rumbles when those big trees hit the dirt! Wow…glasses in cabinets tinkled, lamps swung, and we watched en rapt.) Remember, the definition of government is simply your neighbors ganging up on you.
You can see the lot to my south on Google Earth at these coordinates… Latitude 42°43'56.51"N and Longitude 85°42'27.94"W It is a nice little development.
Walmart in or out?....by Jason E. Lyons
There is an old, run down drive-in (for those of you who are too young or in areas where drive-ins are extinct, drive ins are where you could watch a movie or two from your car-poor sound and picture but great setting). The Buffalo area has some of the highest concentration of drive-ins in the country and they are a sense of pride. Well, over the last couple of years, the drive-in has not been doing well and the owners have been looking to sell. The area is short on stores and Walmart has given a tremendous offer to the owners.
This has caused a tremendous divide in the community. On one side, there is a group called “Save the drive-in” who is trying court orders and the such to stop the sale of the property to Walmart. They argue that the social history of the town is in jeopardy. They also argue that small businesses will be at risk if Walmart is allow to come into the town. On the other hand is a group for letting Walmart come in. They argue that this is progress and will increase the number of jobs in the town while increasing the tax revenues. This group is gaining momentum. It seems that a huge silent group that wants Walmart to come to the town has woke up.
What is interesting is that the actual property owners are rarely brought up in the paper. It seems that many people do not care or want to care that they own the property and can do what they want. How do we know their situation? Perhaps this is their retirement?
Walmart is coming to the town. The law is very clear that the owner can sell the land to anyone they want. Walmart is jumping through every hoop such as environmental impact studies and the sort shooting holes in the arguments of the opponents. The only argument that the opponents really have is that the town will change. Well, that’s life…..and property law in the U.S..
(By Justin Starr)
In response to Jason's post about Wal-Mart, we had something similar happen in my hometown of Sewickley, PA (just outside of Pittsburgh)... except instead of a drive-in, we had an abandoned mental hospital, full of asbestos. We had community groups up in arms when they found out that Wal-Mart was coming in, and that their abandoned asylum woul dbe demolished. Nevermind the fact that prior to that, the asbestos in the hospital was a health hazard & the site was attracting crime due to its vacancy...
Anyway, the community group could have cared less about the poor schmuck who bought the land containing the abandoned insane asylum & tried to sell it to developers for years. Finally, he got someone to take the bait, and make a profit off of the land he sat on for years, and everybody started complaining.
I was abroad at the time, and I remembered reading about it in an online paper, and thinking that it takes a special kind of person to claim that tearing down an abandoned mental hospital will hurt a community.
(By Justin Starr)
In response to Rob's post. Great viewpoint. I wish that everyone could take such a mature viewpoint. I know my parents are just like you in that regard. Growing up, I was lucky to live in a wooded area - the land around our house was owned by the township, and remained undeveloped. When my parents found out that the township was going to sell the land to developers, they thought about the price they were willing to pay for privacy, the impact that development would have on their lifestyle, and they put in a bid for the land themselves.
They didn't end up winning, but at least they put their money where their mouths were and didn't just complain about it like other residents. Also, way to go for finding some positive effects of deforestation, though I hear the lawns near the recently cleared Amazon haven't gotten any lusher ;) (Just kidding!)
Seriously though, it always frustrates me when people think that they should have some say over what their neighbors do with their land. As long as people are following the law or endangering others, they should be free to use their land as they please. Sometimes I think Americans in particular have a difficult time accepting that.
(COMMENT to Greg: It's really hard to reply to individual people in this blog format, unless I'm missing something...)
My first blog ever, we'll see how this goes - by Tom Roehl
Again, I'm in east-central Wisconsin and it's pretty rural in my vicinity.
For the past few years, there has been a great deal of controversy in our area caused by some power companies looking to put up wind farms. The turbines are 400 feet tall to the top of the blades. Farmers give up about an acre or two of land to host a wind turbine (going rate to rent farmland is about $100 per acre) and receive payments ranging from $3,500 to $6,500 per year based on how good of a negotiator you are. Neighbors aren't too thrilled about 400 foot wind turbines in the vicinity and have opposed the projects from the start, citing noise pollution from the turbines, danger to migratory birds, and decrease in property value. Three large wind farms are in the process of being built, with the main ordinance being that the turbines need to be 1,000 feet minimum from a home. It's unfortunate that some people are negatively impacted by the wind turbines, but the farmers should be able to do whatever they want with their land.
Tom Roehl Responding to Jason Lyons. Interestingly enough, someone went to the zoning board in our township last fall with hopes of purchasing some farmland, having it rezoned to commercial, and putting up a drive-in. Neighbors were quite concerned about what the drive in would look like in 10 years, especially if it turned out to be unprofitable. The zoning request was turned down, but the fact that the farmer could have sold that land for $10,000 an acre for commercial use vs. $4,000-$5,000 an acre for farm use cannot be overlooked.
Response to Rob Wiersema
What a great response you gave. It is disturbing how many of us Americans love you use the “freedom” card except if we do not agree with the freedom. Even if the people behind your yard wanted to sell the land to put all of the money on number 23 on the roulette table, that is their right! Money talks and if all of the people wanted to “save” the land, they could have pooled their money and bought the land. But when it is time to show the money, usually all that is heard is crickets.
In response to Tommer725
This seems like a little bit of a different scenario. Yes, the farmers can do what they want with the land. But the people who take it over cannot do things on it that will directly affect the people around it in a dramatically negative way. For example, should a business be allowed to open a factory and put was in the sewers which infects the drinking water for the people outside their land? Of course not. A business should be able to do what they want ON THEIR LAND. But if the wind turbines have tremendous sound pollution, then the government should step in and make the company install changes to make the turbines quieter. The farmers are not at fault for selling the land, but there is a responsibility to not injure the people around it either.
The problem is mold in several of our local schools. Here in South Carolina, mold grows freely in several of our schools due to the warm climate and high level of humidity. My school is one of the mold infested buildings and the students, teachers. Parents and community members are the people with vested interested. The referendum that was proposed this month to clear up this situation failed by a wide margin, because no one wanted to pay higher school taxes next year. Our school is also seen in the area with a negative light due to bad publicity, so many of the voters in our county have children that attend one of the other four high schools located in better areas. The people of Beaufort County own these schools, but yet refused to authorize payment to fix the situation because the bulk of the money would go to less privileged schools that need the help more than others. If incentives were proposed that encompassed all students versus just the needy students, then maybe changes could be made. The bottom line is that schools need a remedy to the situation and we are not getting it. To offer a little money to fix a major problem would be like putting a band aide on a huge cut, the bleeding continues. As teachers this has become a taboo subject and only a few even discuss it. The District acts as if it is not that bad, and the community is clueless. What do you do?
This may be a stretch, but what the hey? There's been a raging argument for 35 years over the rights of the unborn. At the heart is the controversy over when life actually begins and when individuals can claim proprietary protections from intrusion. In life, as we recognize it, people have ownership of their bodies and can deny expropriation of any of its contents without the inhabitant’s permission. My parts are my own, my organs are my own, and my fluids are my own. I can choose to donate a kidney, send my ear lobe to a woman in a brothel, give life by sharing my blood, or subject myself to the test of my bodily broth. These freedoms, of course, are subject to me remaining within the parameters of the law. But, if some say the 14th amendment's protections begin at conception, can there also be some skepticism over when they end. Considering the level of respect we afford the recently deceased, does one still have ownership of the contents of one's body even after departure? I'm reminded of a story where a young couple gets married, in a whirlwind fashion, and shortly after the vows the groom dies in a tragic car accident. Thinking quickly in her moment of sorrow, the young bride asks the doctors to extract semen from her beau for future use. Everyone recognizes the small window available for this procedure and the physician prepares to do it. But, no one can ever recollect any discussion of whether the young man ever wanted children and ponder whether this would be a violation of his privacy. As a matter of fact, a brother steps forward and claims he had discussions where the thought of bringing a child into the 21st century was not in the recently deceased's plans. The young woman is going on nothing but faith in her love of this fallen man. The family of the young man steps in and asks the courts to halt the process out of respect for the uncertainty.
This controversy begs the question, since we can't officially define the beginning of life; can we be so certain of the end? Thus, it can be implied that our proprietary rights are far more complicated to define on both ends.
In response to Brett B. . . .
Wow, you really know how to pick the tough topics! I enjoyed reading your analysis and will try to add a few thoughts. When discussing the Bill of Rights in Business Law class, we always spark an interesting discussion about personal rights. Our legal system prides itself on protecting the Constitutional rights of the individual. Most court cases, however, deal with the fact that the enforcement of our individual rights cannot infringe on the individual rights of someone else. So is this an appropriate topic for our Chapter 4 dicussion? I believe so . . . for several reasons. First, just as with property rights, individuals are usually much better at making the "highest value" choice concerning their person. Every situation has unique circumstances that need to be considered when making "life-changing" decisions such as the scenarios you mentioned. It may not be in the best interest of the individual for the government to impose a certain required behavior in these scenarios . . . it certainly would not always produce a desirable incentive or outcome. Second, when making decisions about their personal life, most people do consider the future value of the choices presented to them. Again, would the government's imposed actions be as successful with this? Third, as mentioned in some of the readings we had this chapter, there may be situations requiring government intervention. There are the unfortunate times when an indivudal may chose the action that appears more favorable to them but negatively effects others. (Such as emitting mind-boggling amounts of pollution in order to drive down costs of production and thus lower consumer prices.) Abortion and after-life decisions may be similar to this. There are times when the individual choices made my people in moments of extreme duress are not always logical or in the best interest of all involved. These may be the moments when certain forms of government intervention may be necessary. So, in conclusion, property rights involve much more than just real estate; but, for the most part, the same conclusions can be drawn--individuals are usually much more efficient than government intervention except for the few situations where the rights of others may be violated and abused.
Reply to Tom Roehl (from Robert Wiersema)
Wind farms…personally, I don’t favor the idea, wouldn’t put one on my land, but hey, NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) seems to trump common sense. The point about the value of the neighbor’s property values dropping is a legitimate one, we are after all concerned about secured property rights, the benefits and costs of ownership…and if the activities of one limits the benefits of another… Laws are simply the majority over-running the minority, legally. (Recall the great line in Star Wars Episode I, “Is it legal?” Reply by the soon-to-be-Emperor, “I will make it legal!”) So, if the (need a somewhat objective standard here) assessed value drops (getting your property tax slips in the mail? See how your value increases even after the bubble popped? Maybe our local government is on drugs…or schizophrenic…or living in a cave cut-off from the real-world) due to a neighbor’s activity, compensation seems to be in order.
On that same point, equality and fairness (lovely word, so fraught with subjective hyperbole!) demand that if a neighbor’s actions improve the value of the property of another, the owner of the improved property should compensate the neighbor for that improving activity. So, with that caveat, whether improving or decreasing the value of the neighboring property becomes somewhat moot. (Imagine a world where these things had to be established by a board or panel, and the increased opportunity costs derived therefrom…)
Response to William Kinsey (from Robert Wiersema)
Do the mold spores create super-powers? Unfortunate that all they probably create is ill-health, otherwise the voters would be lining up. You have the typical reaction in a case of undefined property rights. Who will benefit and who will bear the cost? “People respond in typical ways to incentives.” This is the FTE mantra, and they’re right in this example you provide, William. What incentive to pay for mold clean-up? Will it make them better off? What if a media campaign was initiated by the board or county as to the way this mold may spread from spores transported by the students and staff to shopping malls, churches and other public places, and from there to private homes? Bet that’d get their attention quickly. However that attention would be manifested in quarantines and such… What is the solution that is not being paid for? A.C.? (In Michigan, air-conditioning is not a given. It is found in buildings, but not everywhere.) Dehumidifier equipment attached to the HVAC ducting? Or is it a contractor with men in jumpsuits and respirators spraying noxious liquid mists everywhere for a month? Contact your district/regional vocational education program. Sounds like a practical ‘hands-on” (wow do administrators love that phrase!) win-win-win (anyone watch “Office”?) solution. (Sorry, got carried away there, hope you saw that ‘solution’ was a double-entendre too!) Seriously though, I hope you find your way to a proper conclusion.
In response to Jason and Wal-mart:
Individuals have property rights but so do communities. We elect our town councils to be the shepherd of the collective lifestyle vision the citizens desire. If you want to live in a town of concrete and strip malls or green space and trees, then the electorate has to communicate through the ballot-box. The current economic condition of western New York probably makes it difficult to reject anyone who's willing to bring jobs and revenue. But, I don't believe there has ever been a turn-around of fortune germinated by the emergence of a Wal-mart. A community can take ownership of its town and the retirement dreams of an individual should take a back seat to the well-being of the collective. The drive-in owner may have his sights set on Florida but not at the expense of the quality of life he leaves behind.
In response to Tom and the wind turbines:
Do we really want to live in a society where people can do anything they want with their land? I hear Yucca Mountain isn't very popular among Nevada voters, let's move the waste to rural Wisconsin. I hear the farmer is one/sixteenth Chippewa, how about a 500 slot gambling facility? I'm all for alternative energy and am sure the savings would be evident in resident's utility bills. But the opportunity cost may be too great if the quality of life is usurped. If we cherish birds, peace, and quiet then you may be asking too much from the community. I, personally, don't believe that the unbridaled whimsy of a single landowner should trample over the well-being of the community that co-exists around him.
(Response to William from Alan Johnson)
I too have had mold in my school and the busy-ness to clean it up seemed to go well. My question?-"How long has this been a problem and would they have acted on this concern if someone hadn't 'noticed the mold'? Respectfully, the parents stepped up and demanded that this be taken care of poste-haste; with the district taking on the burden of the expense. The district has done the responsible thing and cleaned it up-but I'm concerned about where the funds have come to pay for the clean-up? I do know my taxes went up and many people were upset with the board/district for seeking a bond increase for the school(I wonder if they knew about the mold before the bond elections/vote?),but voting to increase the additional funds for th district anyway.Taxes are high enough as you stated, and the accountability for the school district leadership has been questioned (3 Supt.s in 5 years!).
Fortunately our mold was cleaned up. Hopefully yours will be dealt with in a positive way that will satisfy the taxpayers, students, parents, and especially the students as they can return to a 'clean'school without harmful effects.
(alan)
For those who have followed national news recently there is a problem in the mountains 100 miles west of Denver- a mine drainage tunnel in the community of Leadville has collapsed creating a blockage that if estimates are even close, there is a possiblity of 1.5 BILLION gallons of water that could cause a fearful catastrophic blowout. A record snowfall(snowpack at 160% of average depth) in the mountains surrounding the mountain community at 10,200 ft elevation has caused both the local,state, and the federal govt. to become seriously interested in the "What if..when" scenario. The tunnel is harboring metals-contaminated water(toxic levels of cadmium and zinc from old mine shafts seepage)that has been known since 2001,but no one has adressed the issue until now. Government agencies (EPA,Bureau of Reclamation and the US Army Corps of Engrs)now are trying to figure out what to do. Drilling holes to reduce the pressure build-up is to start soon. But where do you put enough water that is capable of filling up 1,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools/or cover the downtown area of Denver with 5 ft of water? Govt officials state there is no immediate danger to the town's 2,700 residents and already there are evacuation drills going on with loudspeaker broadcasts to those residents closest to the tunnel's portal. However there are those that say waiting for the govt to react proactively only increases the catastrophic possibility. Contaminated water is seeping into the Arkansas River and this can cause concerns downstream to other towns as well as wildlife habitats. Unfortunately, this seems like another govt blunder waiting to happen that could have some serious consequences not only to property but loss of life, destruction of watersheds/supplies;thus a state of emergency exists for the residents of Leadville that thrives on the summer tourist dollars for survival, amongst the Rocky Mountain splendor of majestic snow-capped peaks.
The big question? Who is the "owner" of such a mess? County, State or Federal govt.? Is this a scenario of the "tragedy of the commons" that unfortunately won't be known until the snow melts and the mountain run-offs begin, possibly ending in an environmental disaster, loss of life, and serious pollution of the Arkansas River ? I'm concerned-I have a house in Leadville and am part-time resident and hope to retire there- if there is anything left!
“To ‘tree’ or not to ‘tree’”
Four years ago we moved from the small town of Bancroft (pop. 850) to an acreage outside of town. North-central Iowa is very rural and this is definitely not a development area . . . well . . . maybe for hog confinements . . . but there’s no threat of new neighbors moving in except for the soybean aphids and Asian beetles. I hate mowing the four acres of “weeds” we call our lawn but I love the privacy. What I truly appreciate, however, is the exclusive right of ownership we enjoy here. I’m not sure what other countries, states, or even other Iowa towns are like, but in Bancroft there has always been a battle between the city government and the property owners. When you own a home in Bancroft, it is common knowledge that you are expected to maintain the 15-feet section of land that extends from the street to your sidewalk—but you don’t own it. The city owns this “boulevard” which often is used for the utility lines. City officials highly encourage beautification efforts by homeowners on these boulevards such as planting trees and flowers. The problem is that the city maintains the right to alter this area as they see fit. Every fall the city workers do their annual tree trimming in preparation for the winter winds. The goal is to protect the utility lines from branches. Bancroft residents refer to this as the annual “massacre” because of the random and brutal destruction of trees. Most trees are either completely lopped off at about 15 feet or the middle section of the tree is completely removed leaving a huge void in the shape of a “V”. It doesn’t work to outsmart the city workers by planting the tree on the inside of the sidewalk because they wack off any branches that extend over the sidewalk and into the boulevard area. You’re left with a deformed tree that only branches out on one side. Finally, people just stopped planting trees. Now the city is complaining because the air conditioners in the summer keep putting the electric plant on high-alert. The solution—plant more trees to provide more shade to help with the cooling! The city even offered small financial stipends to homeowners who planted new trees. They didn’t find too many takers—unless the property owners were able to plant in their backyards. The whole scenario reminds me a lot of the Soviet farmers. Why keep raising livestock if the collective farm could seize them at any time! The solution I would recommend—bury the utility lines! Granted, the city would still need to maintain ownership of the boulevards—or at least the right to access lines as needed; and I’m sure there is a hefty cost for undertaking this project. However, the cost benefits in terms of less maintenance, less power interruptions, more shade, and better relations with home owners should offset any costs within a reasonable length of time. Property owners would also have more incentive to plant trees and undertake more beautification projects on their land. What do you thing?????
COMPUTER ROOM MESS
I guess the most local and relevant example of property rights / incentive analysis is the condition of computer room that I have been assigned to at my school. The problematic behavior is that many of the teachers who use room allow their students to tear up the room and leave it a mess. I feel this behavior is the result of that fact that, since no one teacher has claim to the room (it is property in common), they do not feel the need to ensure that the room is left in good condition. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that some teachers who use the room clean up after their messier colleagues.
I think one way to change incentives is to have every entering teacher that enters the computer room has fill out a sign in sheet reporting the condition of the room. Teachers and classes that repeatedly leave the room a mess would lose their privileges and those that keep it tidy will be rewarded with more computer lab days (or some other reward).
In response...or addendum...to Tommer425.
The wind farm scenario reminds me of a very similar problem rural Iowa is dealing with. Yes, we have the wind farms popping up as well, but the real threat to the Iowa standard of living is hog confinements. In north-central Iowa, a person could drive five miles in any direction and probably come across at least one random hog confinement plopped in the middle of a farm field. Along with their appearance comes the issues over the ramifications they have on local residents—air quality, noise quality, beautification issues (a compost pile of rotting carcasses doesn’t sit well with neighbors!), decreased property values, insect infestations, etc. Agriculture is a way of life in this part of the country but there’s a big difference between corn fields and hog confinements. It usually works like this--an investor buys ten acres of land, builds a confinement, and hires someone to run it. Many times the actual owner doesn’t even step foot back on the site after construction is completed. And of course, the owner lives many miles away—usually in an entirely different town! Just like wind turbines, hog confinements interfere with the exclusive rights of property owners—or do they? Do we have a say on how someone else uses their land? In our local town, you can be fined by the city for having a non-working vehicle sitting on your property—detracts from the cleanliness of the town. If your neighbor thinks your lawn is too shaggy and weedy they can complain to the major who requires you to spray the weeds. And don’t ever leave a piece of indoor furniture on your front porch! All of these scenarios come down to one thing—how “exclusive” can your exclusive property rights be without interfering with my exclusive property rights? (That’s a mouthful!) What incentive is there to own property if the ability to enjoy that property is reduced by someone else? This is why we need some form of government intervention. The problem comes with drawing the legal line that cannot be crossed in terms of interfering with a neighbor’s exclusive property rights. It’s very difficult to not interfere with other’s rights and still maintain your own exclusive property rights.
Reply to Alan’s posting . . .
Have you ever seen Waterworld? Seriously: Who owns the mine drainage tunnel? At first glance, it would seem as if it is the owner’s responsibility. Or, did the government take over or threaten to take over the mine? (That was part of the problem at Love Canal in Niagara Falls--as discussed in the Stroup and Baden article for this chapter.) If that’s the case, it would seem to muddy the waters a bit (no pun intended). In other words, if the government threatened to confiscate the property through eminent domain (as was the case at Love Canal), that should have some bearing on who owns--and is therefore responsible for--the property. That is, if the government owns the property, or forced the previous owner to sell, it would seem that the government should shoulder the responsibility. On the other hand, if the mine owner’s negligence has caused the problem, it would seem as if it was their duty to provide a remedy for the problem. (I hope this isn’t too simplistic a solution; I may be missing something.) On the bright side, have you considered opening and operating a jet ski store during your retirement?
Taxable property or unused building in Buffalo, NY?
Western New York is endowed with some of the most gorgeous vistas in the United States. As Lake Erie narrows into the Niagara River, the water becomes more shallow and the current is swift. Before feeding into the eastern-most of the Great Lakes, the water cascades over one of the wonders of the world. The Queen City of the Great Lakes, Buffalo, is in possession of some of the most desirable real estate in the world. One would assume, then, that this highly sought after land would be booming with development. Time after time, however, those who have attempted to promote economic activity in the region have run up against an insurmountable roadblock: the local government. Of late, negotiations with outdoor and hunting supply store Bass Pro have stagnated over the location of a new outlet. The main stakeholders in this dispute are the City of Buffalo and Bass Pro. Until recently, the city fathers had their hearts set on putting the store in the former home of the Buffalo Sabres, “The Aud”--War Memorial Auditorium, which just so happens to be owned by the city. Unfortunately, the venerable old arena hasn’t been used in a dozen years, is in a state of decay and the home of rats. Needless to say, Bass Pro officials weren’t too thrilled with this venue. The most recent version of the plan (this has been discussed since the new millennium) involves demolition of the Aud, and construction of a new facility. Of course, there are the inevitable environmental-impact studies to be completed, and the removal of asbestos must be accomplished before construction can begin. Unfortunately for Buffalo, it may have already lost its chance; while the city waits for Bass Pro to capitulate (or perhaps grease the appropriate palms), the company has gone ahead with plans to open stores in Pittsburg and Toronto. Sadly, it appears as if the Queen City is content to have a vacant, unprofitable eye-sore occupy land that could be a source of tax revenue.
Reply to Brett B.’s reply to Jason’s posting . . .
While the establishment of a Wal-Mart in and of itself may not be the solution to Western New York’s fortunes, it seems to me as if it is a step in the right direction. That is, as Jason pointed out, the drive-in has become an unprofitable venture of late. I understand the objections that people have to Wal-Mart, but I think it’s important to realize that, even at its peak, the drive-in would never have presented the opportunity for employment for employment that Wal-Mart does. It seems to me that the well-being of the collective would be enhanced by having some people employed (and therefore paying taxes), rather than have fewer people employed (and receiving unemployment, et al.). Additionally, as Jason mentioned, it seems as if the property owner should have the opportunity to sell if he so desires. I would be willing to wager that the new property owner (in this case, Wal-Mart) would take substantially better care of the real estate than would the owner of a closed down drive-in. Just a thought . . .
Tom Roehl in response to Annette's tree problem.
An interesting situation, people attempting to beautify area that isn't their own yet are foiled by the actual owners - the city. Unfortunately, the city's hands are tied. They need to trim the trees or else power lines will be affected. Perhaps they could take more care in trimming the trees - by the way, those V-shaped trees are beautiful, aren't they? They could bury the power lines, but doing so would be difficult with all of the tree roots in the way, not to mention the cost. Sounds to me like the incentive being provided by the city is to only plant flowers or shrubs in the terrace area, and save the shade trees for the front yard.
in response to Tom Bittner-
Yes, I have seen Waterworld-but rather is stay on the movie screen instead of outside my front door!
Presently the EPA and Bureau of Reclamation are in the process of drilling holes to release some of the pressure from the backup of water that has developed since the collapse (5 yrs ago) and is the owner of the tunnel. They are to maintain, regulate the water as well as treat the water for toxic metals removal and then transfer into the Arkansas River. The govt has been dragging their feet on this and now that things have become dangerous they are now taking some action. Recently Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) inbtroduced legislation to Congress to fund emergency measures to empower the BoR to correct the action and ensure safety of lives and property,. We'll see how long that takes. Spring thaw and warm temps may speed that up a bit.
Response to Kenneth(Computer Rm mess)
It's too bad that there are such 'inconsiderate slobs' in your school that can't/won't pickup after themselves(probably their home looks the same way!). A signed contract would be great-if they would all sign in/out. Loss of use would be a wonderful thing if someone would monitor such; but who would be the 'computer room cop'?
Perhaps a faculty meeting to address the messy issue or those who are civic minded and clean up after the 'piggies' could confront those responsible and see what the public ridicule could/would do. If this doesn't work, I guess one is almost stuck as to what will work and won't. Sad... that adults can't clean up after themselves-what kind of example are they modeling to their students;doen't say too much for their own integrity.
Re.: Computer Room Mess
This is a problem that affects your work environment, but I’m not sure if it’s a tragedy of the commons—at least, not in the sense that, say, a faculty room mess would be. That is, it’s generally understood that the latter area belongs to the teachers, and the administrators should stay out. As a result, the faculty is responsible for policing itself—which, as you say, isn’t always easy. A classroom, on the other hand, is considered part of the building—perhaps especially so since it is shared by a number of teachers. Wouldn’t it, therefore, be the administrator’s responsibility to act as “computer room cop”? Granted, this would create friction between teachers who do and don’t clean up (i.e., “snitching”), and it’s not the preferred alternative. If, however, some are so inconsiderate of their peers and recalcitrant in their duties, maybe it is time to ask the boss to intervene. Like they say: Some people respond to a gentle suggestion, others have to be kicked in the ass. (Economically speaking, I guess that would fall into the category of a negative incentive.)
Whose yard is it anyway? by Michelle Augusta
My friend lives on a street that floods during periods of heavy rainfall. Most of the homes in the area have no basement, and all of the homes have sump pumps to drain away excess water. On a recent visit to my friend’s home I noticed a 3ft-by-3ft box in the front yard: 3ft from the sidewalk and 2ft. in from his neighbor’s driveway. I asked him what was that awful eye sour. He informed me that some years ago the electric company had buried power lines under the ground. After awhile the transformers started to malfunction, due to the water table in the area, thus prompting the city to install the boxes, in every other lawn, to house the transformers while the rest of the line remained underground. In addition, the neighbor hits the box on a regular basis backing out of his driveway. The box was not there when my friend bought, and I guess he could move if he wanted to, but short of that there is nothing he can do. The incentive to supply the houses on that street with electricity outweighs the cost of big ugly boxes scratching cars and cluttering lawns. Simply put the property rights belong to the city (three feet back from the road), and although my friend has to maintain it, the city has the right to claim it as they see fit.
I response to kenneth: Compurter Room Mess...by Michelle Augusta
Ken have you ever seen a woman's public restroom? I hope you said no. Anyway, I have oftened wondered why they are such a mess when you know that you could probably eat off the floors of some of the messy women's homes. Why the mess then? Propetry rights, they have no stake in the appearance of that restroom, they don't own it, they don't care. Unfortunetly this happens at school too. You have to put up with a messy computer room, and I get irate over a messy coffee room. I think your "reward" idea is a good one since their is little incentive for the other teachers, who share your room, to keep it clean. Good Luck
Response to Mentorman..by Michelle Augusta
I feel your neighbor's pain. Behind the Walmart, where I live, is a lagre beautiful farm. You can't miss it, because it is surrounded by newer homes and shoppiong centers. I tell everyone I talk to about it how much I admire the man for not selling it off. I can only imagine the value of the property. Well, he sold it, or at least part of it, and it is being level off for new home construction. I think what a shame, then I think good for him. The incentive is there for him to make a profit while he can, yet keep part of the land for himself to farm. I'm sure it won't be long before he sells off the rest, as the value of the land becomes greater than the profit he can make farming it.
Response to William
Funny that you mentioned a mold problem. The high school that I teach in has the same problem. Part of the building is very old and completely underground. There has been mold in the area for a long time, but school budgets being what they are, the problem has never been addressed. It seems that the community would rather put their money into what they can see, namely a new addition, than fixing the problems that they have. The mold issue came to a head this year when students were actually getting sick from it. The negative publicity that was generated seemed to kick the district into high gear, but whether the problem is solved remains to be seen.
I don't know if this fits, but here goes! My husband is an electrical contractor, in business for 30 years. He is licensed by the state, and must, obviously, abide by all electrical codes,; national, state, and local. In order to do en electrical job in a town, a permit must be taken out, and certian work must be inspected by an agency before a certificate of occupancy can be obtained by the homeowner. Here is the problem. The permit/inspection system was stared to protect the consumer against shoddy work, and up until recently, was logical in its application. However, the last two years has seen a change in the system. It seems that towns realized that they could make a lot of money by raising the price of the permits and requiring them for every job performed, even something as small as changing an outlet. What this was intended for was proteciton for the consumer, but it has had many perverse results. First of all, the permits have risen astronomically, and this cost is passed onto the consuer. Secondly, there is so much paper work involved that additional workers have had to be hired by the town to complete it, so more money is spent from the taxes that the people pay. Finally, the paperwork changes so frequently that clerks have a hard time keeping up. Permits are slow to be processed, and often times the clerks don't even know what forms to fill out. So something that started as a government regulation to protect the consumer has ended up doing the opposite in many cases.
Response to Kenneth
We have the same problem, but with a different room. The teacher's lounge is an area that is open to all staff. There is a partial kitchen with cabinets, a refrigerator, sink, toaster oven, and microwave. The problem is that no one takes ownership of the room, so it is a mess. People do not clean up after themselves, and food items are left all over. Spills are not cleaned up, and people leave dirty dishes in the sink. Liek you said, it gets so bad that other people clean up the mess, so there is really no incentive for people to clean up after themselves. A system like the one you suggested may have to be implemented to clear up the problem.
To JLyons 22 from Renee Augusta
In response to your Walmart situation, we have a similar situation going on here in the community of Cleveland Heights. A private owner wants to tear down a small strip of old stores and put in a state of the art car wash. The people who live on the street that is perpendicular to the spot are fighting the car wash. They were on the news stating that the car wash would decrease their property value and if it was given the green light by the city, they are going to sell their homes. I wish you could have seen the picture of the new car wash, very clean, state of the art and the picture of the old strip of stores, abandoned and run down. What are these people thinking? The right to build this facility is currently in their city court system. While an investor wants to make money he is also willing to build a beautiful facility to do so. The residents are opposed to the building because of the type of business it is. Do they honestly think old, abandoned and run down buildings increase property value? Do they really have the right to stop a legitimate business from acquiring the property and building if he follows city codes? I think they feel a sense of sovereignty over their community and this clouds their ability to accept change and allow free private ownership to create change. Old and ugly is better and more comfortable than the new unknown.
To Tommer725 from Renee Augusta
I totally agree with you that a property owner has a right to capitalize on their own land. If the land is not in the city what right do the neighbors have to tell a person what to do on their own land? Wind energy is the future and whether they buy into this energy source or not it is going to happen. Hurray for the property owners who are able to take advantage of the windmills and reap the benefits. The land owners are maximizing their lands potential and this is their right since they own the land. The windmills pose no danger to the community, if the community currently lost all its power sources and had to rely on the windmills than they would be singing a different tune. If the community was promised lower electric bills because of the energy source provided by the windmills again they would be singing a different tune. The mass public has only their own interests in mind blindly following the loudest opposition they hear often opposing issues that actually create positive benefits.
Posted by Renee Augusta
I live on a street that is a divided boulevard 1/2 mile long. During a heavy rain, it was apparent that on 1/2 of the street on both sides there were drain sewers running on through the first 3 feet of their property. Last summer due to public pressure from the other half of the homes that were often flooded by as much as 2/3 of their frontage during a heavy rain or big snow melt, the city installed drainage in their front yards. The city installed new feeds into the existing drainage system; they did not increase the existing system in relation to the new feeds. Because many of us live in split levels with walk-outs we have drains outside our doors that are connected to these lines. These houses have been like this since the 60’s. Now that the city has added more feeds into the existing lines, the lines are too full and they back up into the sewers like mine, outside my walk-out. The result is water builds up over the threshold and comes into my lower level. I complained to the city and they said this was my issue. My neighbor recently spent $10,000 to waterproof his home and one of the improvements was to bust his lower level floor and install a drain from the sewer outside his door so the water that backed up would run into his house, along the wall and into his sub pump. The city said they were not responsible for my drain outside the door. Now I have to pay big dollars out of my pocket to do what my neighbor did. I have to bring outside water into my home to get rid of it. What if my sub pump fails during a storm? The city will tell me it is my problem. Isn’t this a perverse incentive that the city is not taking responsibility for?
AYP and Test Scores- No Child Left Behind Dave Zaban
Students have varying incentives to learn. First, they can better themselves by getting an education. Second, they can avoid conflicts with teachers and parents by achieving certain standards. Third, they may enjoy learning and it makes them feel better about themselves. Finally, it allows them to graduate and move on with their lives at college or in the world of work.
Teachers have incentives to teach. First is that they enjoy teaching (it brings them utility). Second is that it allows them to earn money to provide for themselves. However, they will say the main reason is that they enjoy it. However, as time passes, money becomes more important.
Parents have an incentive to have smart or adequately educated children. However some parents are unable to control their own lives and thus cannot monitor their children. These parents seek to maximize their utility, and not their children’s.
School Systems, towns, and Governments have incentives to provide education. Besides that it betters society and increases everyone’s wellbeing, it is required by law. Schools then seek to provide the maximum education they can give within their budgets, or for the lowest costs. They also have incentives to maintain the status quo and create as little work for themselves as possible. They provide a required service and thus would not like to rock the boat. Cities want to provide the most education for the lest money.
The problems in education occur because the incentives of the above groups do not match. No one argues that increases quality and quantity of education is a positive for everyone, even those with no direct involvement in the school. (IE no children, but live in a town with a school and school children)
Individuals with the most to gain are the students. However they have no say in their education, outside of their own efforts. Often they are unaware or unwilling to understand the consequences of their choices. Their incentives don’t match any of the other groups.
Teachers have an incentive to feel good about their work and to receive payment. Yet this incentive to earn more money runs counter to the school district, parents, and community. They want to maximize their own money. They see it as a zero sum game. If I pay teachers more, I have less for myself.
The problem then, is the government expects a certain level of achievement from a school. Not meeting this standard means the loss of money for a school or perhaps a loss of employment. Teachers and the school have HUGE incentives to meet this standard. The community has no incentive, and the students have no incentive.
The solution is that we all gain by having better educated students. The size of the economic pie is increased- it is not a zero sum game. We need to create external incentives for students to meet the standards, as they are the ones taking the test. For example, it is juniors (16-17) year old that take the test. If they pass, they are allowed parking passes to school. (Or have them taken away if they fail) They are given a “free” ice cream or food item party. They get movie tickets, gift cards or some incentive. This would be subsidized by everyone in the community, as they all gain from this process. Perhaps money can be offered. Seniors who didn’t pass cannot leave school early and have to take extra classes or study skills groups. Seniors who don’t pass must take their final exams (if the school lets seniors skip finals). Juniors who don’t pass the test are not allowed to become seniors and need to repeat their courses. (remember the test results done come back until they are seniors).
The end result: Using these incentives, or at least a combination of them, would cause more students to pass the exam. Of course, the problem is that test results are based on juniors only, thus the group tested changes every year. That would have to be scrapped.
Will this happen? No. Until almost all schools are not making AYP- which will occur in 2-3 years, the current system will not change.
Response to Wal-Mart
Dave Zaban
The problem people have with Wal-Mart is a problem of perception. They perceive the profits gained by Wal-Mart are wrong. They perceive the profits of a local family owned retailer as good or “right”. Common myths are that workers are hurt by working there. This is not true. It is simply the best job a worker can get, because they have no skills or education to let them go elsewhere. No one is forced to buy there or work there. I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, I prefer Target. Generally Target is a cleaner, brighter and nicer store with shorter lines. I could save money by shopping at Wal-Mart, but I’d lose time. So I chose to pay slightly higher prices and go to Target.
Another myth is that is destroys local or family businesses. If businesses close, it is because they cannot offer something better than Wal-Mart. Perhaps they need to focus on quality and service. Wal-Mart sacrifices quality and service to lower costs. People are always willing to pay more for quality and service. If they weren’t, why did I pay 1.29 for a 20oz Sprite at the gas station yesterday, when I can go to Wal-Mart and get a 2 liter bottle for 99 cents?
Change is hard. Wal-Mart is part of creative destruction. I am not trivializing the destruction on some people. The internet destroyed certain jobs in our society. But did the positives outweigh the negatives? Did Sears and Roebuck’s first catalog destroy local retailers? Did the assembly line or the tractor destroy some jobs? The hope is that with the loss in all of those instances, we have greater gains!
Wind Turbines
Dave Zaban
The wind turbine is a classic positive/negative externality. A negative externality is created by the sight of the turbine. A positive externality is created because it is renewable energy that is good for the environment and will decrease pollution and energy costs for everyone. The neighbors aren’t thinking about their environmental concerns, they are thinking about their own incentives. Perhaps a small subsidy to the neighbors is needed. When enough energy is created by the turbine, it helps everyone in the community. What is the value it creates by reducing pollution and reducing the number of trucks hauling things into and out of the power plant? Does it lower utility bills for everyone?
Of course, people’s subjective opinions on the drop in the neighbor’s home value come into play. The value of a home is sort of an art, not a science.
I have lunch duty this semester at my school. This is not the first time I have been assigned to this duty, but I notice the horrible mess that is left in the cafeteria each day after lunch. The floors are covered with wrappers and pieces of food. Is this because there are food fights going on consistently? No. (Though there is an occasional piece of food thrown to a neighboring table.) Students will accidentally drop something on the floor or leave it sitting on a table and then just neglect to pick it up. There have been numerous times that I have had to ask students to pick something up off the floor or clean up the mess. There are days when entire tables leave a pile of trash and lunch trays in the center of their table. Unfortunately, they depart the lunch room before one of the three lunch monitors sees it. If the cafeteria were privately owned, like for instance someone’s own kitchen, I’m sure the owner of that kitchen and home would be much more likely to pick up a piece of food that is dropped.
The idea of incentives and private property applies here. The cafeteria is a communal place. It’s where all 850 kids each during one of the four time slots. It never ceases to amaze me what condition the lunch room is in at the end of 4th lunch. On the very first day of the semester, one of the teachers on lunch duty caught a student throwing a piece of food or trash. He proceeded to wheel the garbage pail over to the student and escorted him to each and every table in the lunch room to collect garbage from the students. This happened on four consecutive days that I was on duty (with different students of course). It definitely helped to alleviate some of the problems in the lunch room with kids throwing things, but I have yet to figure out how to improve the cleanliness of the cafeteria by the time students leave from fourth lunch.
A possible solution to this might be having some kind of reward as an incentive for picking up garbage on the floor. Maybe there could be some kind of point system set up and after a certain number of points were accumulated, the student earned something. Maybe there could be a competition set up between each of the four lunches to see which one was left the cleanest. A reward could be awarded to students in the lunch that left the least mess. Is this a feasible option? It is doubtful that this will happen. I’m not sure that any of the teachers on duty have the time to organize something like that at least at the moment. Furthermore, of all the problems in the school, a messy lunch room is probably not on the top of everyone’s list.
In response to William, the mold situation and the town taxpayers....
The town I teach in in Vermont has a serious problem getting their budget to pass. The people in the town want the school to be competitive with neighboring towns, yet we have the lowest per student budget in the county. Every time the budget goes for vote, it is so difficult to get a majority YES vote to pass the budget. (Fortunately, we don't have problems with mold, but we do have a situation now where we are out of road salt...and it's Vermont...at this time of year, there's quite a bit of ice and snow.) Each time the budget goes to vote, it is difficult for supporters to override the media. The media states for example an 8% increase in the budget, but what they don't publish is that that is a $1.42 increase per household. Good luck with the mold. So many people (including myself) are allergic to it!!
In response to Dave's comment....
That is an interesting point that you make, "Individuals with the most to gain are the students. However they have no say in their education, outside of their own efforts." As I responded earlier, the budget in the town I teach in is extremely difficult to pass.
How are students supposed to meet these standards when the town budgets for education are so low? There is something wrong when I read in my local paper that Vermont spends more money on its prisons than it does on education.
We recently admistered a new set of standardized tests. The results came back and they are soon to be printed in the paper. Only 25% of our students met the math standards. This is cause for alarm. My department had a meeting with the principal and we discussed what could have happened with these tests. Well, one of the common feedback comments that we got was that the test was too long, but another thing that each and every teacher said was that the students did not take the test seriously. They were not getting graded for class for taking it so what was their motivation, what was their incentive? I like your idea of not letting seniors have something like senior privilege if they do not meet certain criteria. Even though this was a test given to juniors, the results could roll over into their senior year.
River Weeds - Josh Otlin
My community faces the problem of phosphate-rich runoff from homes contaminating a river and leading to the overgrowth of vegetation on the river and the pond it feeds. The overgrowth has a negative impact on river health and recreational use. The run-off stems from the use of phosphate-rich products that enter the streams via storm drains. The two main “culprits” are lawn fertilizer that enters storm drains during rainstorms and car-washing soap that homeowners sprayed down storm drains. Homeowners face no disincentive to use low-phosphate or no-phosphate alternatives or to adopt practices that reduce the phosphate run-off (such as avoiding lawn fertilization shortly before rain).
Beyond the lack of incentives to change behavior, the nature of storm drains compounds the problem. Storm drains allow consumers to externalize the costs of phosphate consumption. Eliminating storm drains might force homeowners to pay someone to take their wastewater (but it may just as likely create an incentive for illegal dumping), but doing so would impose great costs (ground-level flooding) that would likely exceed the benefits.
Incentives can likely produce good results. A phosphate-tax could encourage the use of low-phosphorous alternatives. On the other hand, a tax credit for using low-phosphorous alternatives could encourage such usage. Such a credit creates a (perhaps) insurmountable regulatory challenge, however. An “easier” incentive is a subsidy to decrease the price of low-phosphorous alternatives.
In Response to Laura...
I expect that most schools confront the same exact problem. You don't sound very enthusiastic about the practicality of incentives. What about disincentives? Detention or Saturday school for leaving trash on the table? I expect that this might sound too harsh for some, but it's perfectably reasonable for kids to pick up after themselves.
Another alternative is to include clean-up in the cost of lunch. At my school, I know that Food Services is not responsible for custodial services in the cafeteria - that comes out of the building budget. If Food Services had to clean up, they would increase the price of lunch to cover the new costs.
A different (and less practical approach) would be to privatize food service and set up competing vendors in the cafeteria, each with its own seating area. The cost of clean-up will be included in the lunch price. If students don't like sitting at dirty tables, the vendors will respond.
Still another option is to make the kids responsible for cleaning up after themselves by ceasing to provide the service for them. This runs the risk of letting them wallow in their own filth for some time, perhaps a long time. It also might do the trick!
In Response to Renee....
I don't think this is a problem of "perverse incentives" per se. I think it is more of a problem caused by the cities monopoly on sewer services. The supplier (the city) does not need to please the consumer (you) becuase you have no other suppliers to purchase sewer services from.
A sewer system is an example of a "natural monopoly." It's simply impractical to have competing sewer infrastructures. It is not, however, necessary that the government provides the services. Many natural monopolies, such as electrical services, are provided by private suppliers under highly-regulated circumstances. This might be a better alternative to city services.
If you complain to the city, they do nothing because they have no incentive to respond. Institutions are typically bad at policing themselves. If you complain to the city about the services provided by a private contractor, they might be more likely to act as an effective police agent. But they might not. Maintaining quality services at low prices with natural monopolies is tough business.
In Florida we have a property tax system that is perverse. Several years ago they passed an ammedmnent to our constitution that property taxes could only increase 3% based on the market value at that time. But when you sell the property the tax basis is reset at the new market rate. This was not a problem when property values were increasing a 5-10% a year, but during the recent real estate boom prices were increasing 50% or more a year. This meant that no one could afford to move because your tax rate would be set at the new market rate. For example, if you purchased a home for $100,000, 10 years ago you would pay property tax based on that amount and the government could only increase it by 3%. That property would now be worth $300,000.00 If you wanted to sell that property and buy one for $ 350,000.00 your tax would be calculated on 350,000.00 with a 3% increase. This has led to all sorts of problems. People that bought years ago, can't sell because their taxes will increase so much. This meant that no one was selling. Even if you wanted to downsize and buy a $200,000.00 condo your tax base would still be higher than the tax base for the home you bought 10 years ago. Furthermore, homeowners are a voting block so they tend to vote to maintain their lower property taxes. The real issue is that no one wants to use the market value of the asset.
In reponse to Tom Roehl- windfarm.
The difficult issue is that decisions we make about our property rarely affect only us. No man or woman is an island. If one is in a rural community with a low population the choice of one indidvidual to start a wind farm would probably not lower property values. However, try doing something like this in the tony Miami neighborhood og Coral gables and all the neighbors would be up in arms. They would say their rights are being trampled on. That is why there are zoning laws. Much of the time what we do with our property or what the neighbors do with theirs affect property values for the entire neighborhood.
In reponse to Laura- mess in cafeteria.
Ihis is an area where the benefits of private ownership can be seen. People generally don't take as good care of "common" property. Although my Mother would say this is a lack of teaching people good manners :) There was another example of this in the local news recently. A bacteriologist took samples of armrests and chairs at movie theaters and without going into too much gross detal- it was clear that people don't care whether they contaminate or mistreat space that is not theirs. From a private property standpoint however, if the movie theater owner does not respond, they will probably lose business. I agree that in a school system some other type of incentives need to be set up.
Re: Cafeteria Mess
The lunch room dilemma....how to get kids to pick up their garbage. At our high school...students who have ISS come at the end of every lunch hour and they are responsible for making sure the lunch room is clean...brand new thing this year that has worked pretty well. The kids in ISS hate it.
Incentive and Property Rights
Cell Phones in School
round two..I already spent time typing this once..but my blog disappeared into the world wide web. So here we go into, I am behind the 8 ball so this will be quick.
The student rights to have their cell phone with them in the classroom. This is the hot topic of the year at our school. Cell phones can do everything from take pictures, text, play/record audio and video, surf the web. The ability to engage in academic dishonesty using cell phones is rampant. Whether it is taking pictures of tests to texting answers back and forth to each other. If a student is caught with a cell phone in school they automatically get a day of ISS and their parent/guardian has to come to school to pick it up. The students/parents versus the administration/teachers. The most mind boggling thing is that most of the time when a student is caught with their cell phone is because their parent is calling them or texting them during the school day. I fail to understand how a parent believes it is fine for them to text or call their student during a class period to give them a grocery list to pick up on the way home. It will be a constant battle at our school. Anyone who deals with the same issues and has some good ideas to help fight the battle I would appreciate hearing them...I'm tired and done.
Cheers,
Kris
Decaying waterfront . . Greg Heald
In the town I live in along the Hudson River there has been an ongoing debate about the use and development of the riverfront property. At the present time, the commuter train station to NYC is near the waterfront along with a park, a marina and several unused industrial buildings that have been condemned. Suffice it to say that the waterfront in my town is an eyesore that has much potential but is now underutilized. The train station, parking lots and tracks are owned by the state transportation agency. The marina is privately owned and the park (which lies between the parking lots for the train and the river) as well as the condemned industrial buildings are all owned by the town. The park is poorly maintained with no amenities (other than park benches and trash cans), is poorly lit and is considered a dangerous place to be at night. There are no fees or other charges to use the park. While there have been efforts by citizens to get the town to refurbish and maintain the park, budget constraints and other priorities have stood in the way. An effort has been brewing for several years (which now seems close to fruition), to allow a private developer to buy the land and build condominiums. Part of the deal would require the developer to allow public access to a set amount of the riverfront land. Many citizens have been energetically protesting the idea of privatizing most of the riverfront. I think the scenario in my town demonstrates how a publicly owned resource (the riverfront property) is not being properly valued and consequently no investment is being made in its maintenance. If it were to be turned over to a private developer who could capture the actual benefits, then the investment would be made and the resource would be efficiently utilized.
Smelly sandwiches - Sabrina Bieloski
Community property stinks and I mean that literary! Our department at school collectively uses two refrigerators. Located in the computer room in the area next to our desks it is convenient appliance that all members of the department share. Although everyone uses the fridges to house their lunches; when it comes to taking responsibility for the cleanliness no one steps up to the plate. There will be sandwiches, yogurts and worst of all meat-like products that will sit for days or even months without anyone taking the imitative to deal with the odorous stench that these items produce. If the refrigerator were privately owned, much like the one that sits in my apartment, there would be no foul smell circling the office when the door to the fridge is quickly opened. This relates to the collectivization created by Stalin because since no one has the incentive to clean the fridge, just like no one has the incentive to make sufficient use of the farm land. When people feel a sense of ownership that will inevitable make better use of something. I make it a point to clean out my refrigerator once a week at home, because after all I own it. Sometimes private ownership proves to be a sweeter smelling advantage.
Reply to Kenneth's posting by Greg Heald:
I think your example is a great illustration of the problem of the commons. Just as with many things that are utilized by the public, there is no sense of ownership or personal responsibility. Thus, your computer room is a mess. I actually am philosophically in favor of public ownership of many forms of property -- it seems that public spaces in the United States are often not so well-cared for compared to public spaces in other places (like Europe). We have such a strong history of individualism and private property rights that I think "public" is sometimes viewed as lesser and inferior.
In response to Rob - Sabrina Bieloski
When your neighbors complained about the cutting down of the trees I can see why they would be upset. Change is something that takes people sometime to warm up to. But, like you said it was really no business of the people to interfer with this other man's desire to sell his land. When you look at group efforts such as was the case in your neighborhood and in the Soviet Union with their collectivized farms, some people have more to gain and others less.
In response to Jason and Walmart - Sabrina Bieloski
I mentioned this in my response the Rob - people fear change. I can only imagine that the day that Walmart opens its doors to the people of your area that those who protested the loudest will be the ones with the fullest shopping carts. I did want some clarification on this topic. Are people more concerned with the loss of drive-thrus or the possible loss of small businesses? Does eminent domain play into this situation at all?
Florin Ion Teodorescu
With regard to this subject, the history of my own country is a study case in itself. After the fall of communism many a not-for-profit organization shoot up like mushrooms. The Romanian law establishes two types of non-profit organization, associations and foundations. In order to be able to obtain funds and act in the society in order to fulfill their scopes, each of these NGOs are required to obtain juristic personality and register with a tribunal.
However, the organization is mandated to constitute an initial endowment which is not entitled to restitution. This stipulation of the law makes a case in itself, transforming the Romanian associations into a sui generis socialist entity. When an association is dissolved, it has to distribute the remaining assets to similar not-for-profit organizations.
I think that the contributors should be allowed to regain ownership over their contributions once they want to be reimbursed or leave the association.
This might be similar to donation. I also think that the donor should be able to regain the right of property over his or her donations.
Response to Tom Roehl (wind turbines) by Greg Heald . . .
This must be a problem in many areas of the nation with alternative energy being in such high demand. My family lives in northwestern Maine and there is an effort to put wind turbines on the mountainsides in this rugged region. It is amazing to hear about the uproar from all sides on this issue. What I do not understand though is how the issue of public control of property is implicated in this situation. I realize that the government regulates and zones private property, but I do not see that as the same as the government controlling and ineffeciently using resources.
Florin Ion Teodorescu
In response to Jason's post about Wal-Mart
I suppose that it happens almost similar when environmentalists desire to interfere with the right to sell or buy land.
In Ceausescu’s time, it was almost impossible to built new private houses. Building a dwelling on former agricultural land would have brought a criminal punishment. There were certain domains that were not allowed to be transacted. However, communist blocks were built everywhere and towns were expanding. These new dwellings were mostly owned by the state. Socialism did not permit a free market for dwellings (they did not permit free market for anything, as a matter of fact) but every family was entitled at least to an apartment.
After the Revolution the situation changed: now everyone ca acquire land, but there are less people that afford to buy.
Florin Ion Teodorescu
In response to Chris G
I understand what you are saying. Inside the European Union there’s a complicated system which is intended to find the common denominator with regard to standardizations. However, there are so many systems that need to be observed that sometimes people find themselves in the situation to comply with contradictory regulations. The European Union uses the term acquis communautaire to refer to the total body of EU law accumulated thus far. Imagine 27 independent states speaking 23 different languages, with 23 almost completely different legal history trying to reach a consensus over the regulations and standards to be used!
I can think of two key examples. First, when I was living in Russia, winters got to be VERY cold. I stayed with a family in a Soviet-era apartment block with centrally controlled heat. They set their thermostats high, and when it got to be too hot, instead of turning them down, they would just open a window - as you can imagine this was an extremely wasteful situation. If Russians had to pay for the heat they were using, they would likely use it more responsibly.
Second, and I'm not sure why this didn't appear when I clicked submit before, my home city, Pittsburgh, currently has a public transit system with the highest-paid bus drivers in the nation (when salaries are adjusted for cost of living). It turns out that throughout the 1990s, both the union and management, rather than go through the difficult process of negotiation, opted to give each other sweetheart deals, and consistently run over budget. This was never a problem, as the Port Authority (our transit system) could always ask for and get more money from the county to fill in its deficits. (Side note: the extravagance is so bad that the Port Authority, while running a deficit, built themselves a new headquarters, is currently building a $435 million dollar 1.2 mile extension to our light rail system that is completely unnecessary, and is sitting on $1.5 million in hard currency because it hasn't gotten around to sorting and counting it yet - unbelievable!). Nobody has ownership of the system and thus, nobody has an incentive to make sure it operates effectively and efficiently. Management was more interested in achieving their own goals (high salary and low conflict) than at effectively running the corporation, and bus drivers (can't blame them) were just trying to get the best deal possible. Taxpayers don't have the time or the ability to effectively manage the system and local government officials are busy (mis)managing the day-to-day operations of the county.
How can we solve this problem? I think privatizing the system would create a situation where an owner has a stake in the economic success of public transportation. Running a $1.5 million deficit would be unacceptable, as would be the incurring of losses due to the lack of desire to count money. Less drastically, a more accountable board of directors / corporate policy should be established, rewarding officers for successful economic operation of the authority and punishing them politically when they fail. Fortunately, we finally have a county executive who claims he will not increase their funding until they get their costs under control, but we will see if he is able to keep his promises.
When I look at incentives versus property rights I think of the idea of tax benefit for home owner. Tax deductions, provide an incentive for people to own property. But there is a cost to owning property outside of the mortgage. That cost is imposed on some and often incentives are lost.
Homeownership is a big deal for people. It is often seen as the defining moment or transition into real adulthood. Yet, silly renters do not get to partake in this right of passage. Instead renters get left out of the federal government's exclusive party of homeownership. Other than leaving renters out, homeownership has one perverse incentive, it promotes unemployment. If a person gets laid off then they are less likely to move right away to seek employment elsewhere, if they own. Renters, since less is invested, can expedite the unemployment process by being willing to move. Although people receive the tax write off from this large purchase (partly because the government favors it) the idea of homeownership also locks people down into a place even if they lose their jobs.
Response to Lyons comment on Wal-Mart
I loved this story that examines every small town versus the Evil W. Personally you hit home with me, because being from Southern California, drive-ins are non-existent but still pretty cool. As neat as they are indeed, I feel that this argument has been, the old time hardware store versus Walmart, or any aspect of Americana that once was versus Walmart. What the problem is, and your right, is that Walmart has property rights, and unless they are violating an antitrust agreement they can function in the market. Even if people dislike it, it still has the right to be built. And as of now, I've never heard of an unsuccessful Walmart once it has been built.
Response to Bret B.
In unclear matter of property rights, I feel that the law is followed, unless otherwise stated. In the case of the hypothetical deceased unless otherwise stated lets say his wife gets all of his belongings in the will. Would willing the house be any different that sperm? If there is nothing that states that he did not want his future generations to be given to his wife then the assumption is to be made that is can. Either way, I enjoyed reading your post and found it truly interesting.
Post a Comment