The Newton Street Plaza Problem

The three owners of the Newton Street Plaza are proposing a housing complex.

According to research into the Costs of Community Services:

The average estimate ranges (for residential land development) from about 1.15 to 1.50, which means that for every dollar collected in taxes and non-tax revenue, between $1.15 and $1.50 gets returned in the form of local government and school district services.... 

According to the COCS studies, the largest single expenditure category for communities is the public school system, accounting for 61.4 percent of spending. Since open space and commercial development in themselves do not place any burden on the schools, it should not be surprising that their ratios are lower than those for the residential category.... 

If many homes in a community are in an extremely high price range and occupied by “empty nesters,” for example, the COCS ratio should be expected to be relatively low. On the other hand, low- or middle-income property occupied by families with numerous children would produce a higher ratio.

In short: this will increase the number of people who will require local services (schools, police, fire, roads, but mostly schools) without adding people paying local property taxes to offset those services. The owners will pay some property tax, and the residents' spending will add to the local economy, but not enough to offset anything.

What we have is a misalignment of incentives. The owners get to make money but not have to deal with the town's net deficit and overcrowded schools. Other than Yee, no one else lives in town. And unless he has children in the SH school system, he won't be affected by the increased load there.

I don't want to be anti-growth; I just want to be smart about it. I'd like to reduce the incentives for these types of residential developments and increase the incentives for tax-surplus developments (businesses and open spaces).

I. Discourage new rental housing (without skin in the game)

Any new multi family property development must be owned by someone with a kid in the SH school system. The idea is to create a disincentive for owners to invest in an arrangement in which they are not bearing the externalities. The largest local expenditure is schools; so they should have skin in the game.

This won't stop these developments or add more revenue, it will just force developers to have skin in the game. More consideration will be put into the whole process if they share the burden with the town.

Commercial/industrial space, or open land/agricultural space, can be left alone since the research shows that they are a net surplus on local government.

II. Offset Residential Development with Net Surplus Development

Encourage commercial growth
Others have argued that these structures must have a business on the first floor. That makes sense. According to the same research:

For commercial/industrial, the ratio usually ranges from 0.35 to 0.65, indicating that for every dollar collected, the local government provides only about 35 to 65 cents worth of services. For agriculture and open space, the ratios are only slightly smaller, usually ranging from 0.30 to 0.50.

How about this: a new residential development cannot be approved until a new commercial or open space development is approved. A really anxious owner can contribute to this project if they want to get their housing started.

Attract/Retain empty nesters
Empty nesters do not add to the school burden. We should do everything we can to attract and retain this population. They want low crime, low congestion, walkable communities, and probably a good senior living center. According to this: dog parks, lectures (hello MHC), community gardens, and low maintenance/high end homes are what retirees look for. Keep these options in mind.

More Parks?
Although it doesn't make intuitive sense, the research shows that developing a public park is a net benefit for a town. It doesn't add any revenue and has some expense for maintenance and probably police patrolling for loiterers.

But apparently it adds enough to property values to bring in more revenue. I couldn't be happier. I'm a huge proponent of more parks, a great source of social infrastructure.

How about this: the Newton Street Plaza owners pick up the tab on the proposed dog park. Or, they make annual payments to subsidize the municipal golf course.

Final thoughts
When you restrict housing, you inevitably price people out of the market. This is what is happening on a larger scale in our largest growing cities. Lower end housing isn't just poor people, it's often young people, struggling with student debt, supporting their families, and dealing with entry level pay. They should have their shot at the American dream too.

The population keeps growing; we need to build housing to keep up with it. So I propose a 1:1 new development ratio, a skin in the game requirement for residential developers, and incentives to keep/attract empty nesters.

Civility vs. Activism

I.
I keep thinking about the two campaign strategies: try to turn non voters into voters or try to turn moderate voters into voting for you. One assumes that there are a lot of people who think like you and you just have to convince them to vote. The other assumes that you can convince people who aren't that different from you to switch sides and vote for you.

One thinks that people don't change and any effort to do so is wasted energy. The other thinks that people are complex and some of them can change if you engage with them.

I think whichever one you favor says a lot about you.

I like Ezra Klein. He is thoughtful and kind; he invites people he disagrees with onto his podcast. Which is why it shocks me when I hear him say things about how he prizes blunt activism over working with the other side.

I can recite dozens of reasons why my path of civility/moderation/compromise is better, but I don't think any of that matters. Because I don't think I get to choose.

I think my coercion aversion (I really need a better name for that) decides for me. I think I prefer civility and compromise because, at my core, I really am uncomfortable telling people what to do or think.

A libertarian economist like Russ Roberts can write a long essay about how minimum wage laws actually hurt low skilled workers more than they help them. But I don't know that he doesn't just feel uncomfortable telling businesses how much they have to pay people, and then worked to find a good reason to justify that feeling.

II.
I think higher education was dominated by the civility types. Now, the activists are having their say. Activism gets things done, while moderates hem and haw about the right approach.

I know the academic pursuit of truth calls for careful consideration about what is good and true, but it didn't seem to make much room for the academic activists.

Maybe this is like Jonathan Haidt's idea of colleges deciding to be Truth U or Social Justice U. Activist students should have the opportunity to go to a school where they will be taught how to mobilize for social change: conducting multi cultural training, organizing protests, boycotting non fair-trade companies, and so on.

Truth U will teach students how to consider numerous viewpoints, how easily we can be fooled by data, civil debate, gentle persuasion, and so on.

Maybe viewpoint diversity is just one viewpoint and it isn't for everyone. It's not enough to split the world into liberals and conservatives. There are also liberals and conservatives who don't want to engage with their outgroup and liberals and conservatives who do. Maybe they both need their own space.

That's easy enough for higher education, but what about politics? We only have one governing body and the battle between civility vs. activism seems as important as the battle between Democrats and Republicans.

III.
Maybe without realizing it, groups like Better Angels, Living Room Conversations, and More in Common—groups that seek to unite liberals and conservatives—are actually crystallizing a political faction that has not had a home in civic participation. Instead of bridging the divide between reds and blues, they are just building a home for the existing reds and blues who don't hate each other.

From Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone:

"Ironically, more and more Americans describe their political views as middle of the road or moderate, but the more polarized extremes on the ideological spectrum account for a bigger and bigger share of those who attend meetings, write letters, serve on communities, and so on. The more extreme views have gradually become more dominant in grassroots American civic life as more moderate voices have fallen silent."

The Hidden Tribes report notes that "Progressive Activists" account for 8% of Americans, "Devoted Conservatives" making up 6%. Meanwhile "Moderates" and "Politically Disengaged" combined to form 41% of all Americans.

In general terms, I think what distinguishes these moderates is that they place greater emphasis on civility instead of pushing through their agenda.  And for good reason.

In a Democratic, pluralistic society, you need civility to accomplish your agenda. Plus, moderates do not want to live in a society in which authoritarianism, coercion, or, God forbid, violence is the means through which a faction achieves its goals.

And the activist faction might be less stable. Scott Alexander noted:

" Long before a group can take over society, it reaches a size where it needs to develop internal structure and rules about interaction between group members. If you collect a bunch of people and tell them to abandon all the social norms like honesty, politeness, respect, charity, and reason in favor of a cause – then the most likely result is that when your cause tries to develop some internal structure, it will be overrun by a swarm of people who have abandoned honesty, politeness, respect, charity, and reason...

"someone who will be a jerk for you will be a jerk to you ... But more importantly if you elevate jerkishness into a principle, if you try to undermine the rules that keep niceness, community, and civilization going, the defenses against social cancer – then your movement will fracture..."

But really, I'm just a guy who doesn't like aggressive confrontation on an emotional level and I'm looking for a community of like-minded believers who can confirm my priors. That's how I ended up as a member of Better Angels.

Predictions for small populations are useless

An article in Psychology today about gender representation in STEM had the following quote:

"Let's start with a simple fact: Most women do not have the right aptitude to be professors at top STEM departments. This is unfortunate, perhaps, but it’s true. It’s also true, though, that most men don’t have the right aptitude! Only a small minority of people do. The phenomenon we’re trying to explain is not why half the population (men) can do it whereas half the population (women) can’t. Most of the population can’t, and of the tiny fraction who can, some are men and some are women. The only question is: Why is the tiny fraction of men working in STEM fields today somewhat larger than the tiny fraction of women?"

I'm less concerned with where the author goes from there than I am with one specific part, the part where he points out that only a small minority of people work in STEM.

I wonder how much time we waste with forecasting and predictive models for something that has such a small sample size, that it's probably impossible to distinguish signal from noise.

Let's say the military wanted to identify US citizens at highest risk for joining ISIS. They collect all this demographic information of who has joined ISIS. They find that muslim men who immigrate from Aleppo, Syria, aged 17-28, with a college degree, who follow specific Twitter accounts are at highest risk to join.

So what happens when their spy program identifies a person who checks all those boxes? How likely are they to join ISIS? Still unlikely since MOST PEOPLE DON'T JOIN ISIS! If the base rate of people who join is 1%, all that statistical data does is move it to 3%.