This weekend at the Cow we have great music!
Thursday, April 2nd -Study Hall with Peter and Terry
Friday, April 3rd -Chad Johnson
Saturday, April 4th -Spruce Top Review
Sunday, April 5th -Northern Roots Session
Well, I have spouted off a more than a few times to tell people that the good citizens of Bridgewater Township took control of local planning and zoning because they thought the county was too far removed to address the needs of the Bridgewater citizens. Now it sounds like Northfield is rethinking its agreements with Waterford township and we are all getting a little nervous. Maybe they are too removed as well. Dundas and Bridgewater Township have a landmark agreement that has generated some concerns as it appears that the citizens in the annexation region may have been sold to the city (at least in terms of being able to use their land as rural properties). But no one wants to build any obnoxious feed lots there anyway, the city would have had legitimate rights to manage growth in that region anyway, and both parties seem to be willing to continue the dialogs with civility and a little prodding from their joint Planning Commission.
Meanwhile, on another front my friends are accusing me, the arch-libertarian conservative, of being a socialist with communistic tendencies because of my efforts to develop 100 to 200-year horizon planning (sort of short term version of sustainability). Because of this vision, I sometimes claim that farmland is too valuable to let it be paved or otherwise rendered unusable without first asking about the impact on local economies. They view these comments as taking away development property rights from the rightful owners.
In a similar vein, to the north of Northfield (north-north-field?) we see that a certain local lawyer of some reputation is all about changing the rules, abrogating a treaty signed in 1980 that promised that Northfield would respect Waterford Township wishes whenever it wanted to annex land. Like the famous “as long as the grass shall grow and the rivers flow“, it turns out that forever is only a few decades. Sheese, talk about two-faced promises. (Ref: http://hvmdblawg.blogspot.com/2009/02/hvistendahls-involvement-with-waterford.html). On the other hand, this agreement is leaving a local landowner is tied to a stake in the prairie to die, while paying and trying to maintain a commercial site as an empty building that the township apparently must not want to succeed. Sounds like some calm thinking may be needed, but too often we bring in the big guns and start firing briefs at each other before we try other more gentle means.
So, this week I hope to talk about propery rights, sustainability, urban and exurban planning and annexation agreements. Should be very local with a dash of the old Constitution. We all get to play Constitutional lawyer without degrees, as we tip back the pints of good fellowship and strive to cast light on these issues.
The fine print:
What: Politics and a Pint
Where: The Contented Cow, Northfield
When: 29 March 2009, 6-7:30PM
At the last meeting we decided to talk on a social justice issue. One of the regulars has suggested we talk about the social and economic justice issues raised by an article found on line. The primary reference he offered is an online article found at the Property and Environment Research Center website. From the website we see the flyleaf and a comment …
“Environmental justice” is a term that relates to claims that poor and minority households suffer harms from hazards imposed on them by large firms. It is alleged that powerful companies can steamroll the political system and are allowed to impose toxic wastes on people with little political power. Community organizers have used this claim to demand remediation of past environmental practices, such as Superfund sites, as well as demand participation in administrative processes that determine licensing of polluting facilities.
H. Spencer Banzhaf, who recently published a paper on the topic in the American Economic Review — the most prestigious academic journal in economics–furthered his work in this area while at PERC as a Julian Simon Fellow in 2007. This paper summarizes the state of the academic literature on the implications of environmental justice. A member of the economics faculty at Georgia State University, Banzhaf carefully examines some of the consequences of the policies related to environmental justice. His empirical work indicates that, as with many policies that have good intentions, the poor may not be the beneficiaries of environmental justice policies asserted to be designed to improve their neighborhoods.
Comments
Few would deny that poverty and minority status are correlated with pollution, and many have sought to redress the seeming injustice. Yet the laudible cause of helping the disadvantaged can easily be unproductive, or even counterproductive, if the forces at work are misunderstood. In this engaging essay, Banzhaf examines the evidence on why the poor often live in close proximity to pollution. His insights should be required reading for those leading the debate and shaping our policy on environmental justice.
Robert Deacon
Professor of Economics
University of California, Santa Barbara
So, we see that this paper addresses academically some of the hue and cry over poverty, pollution and the concept of justice. Just as we have seen “economic justice” defined in two ways by two sides of the wealth redistribution chasm:
and where P&P has discovered that the truth is neither of these but rather both (a very quantum mechanical view of the truth), so we may find that “environmental justice” is a similarly loaded term. So let’s lift and read the pamphlet, lift and sip the pint and get the the heart of the politics at the next Politics and a Pint.
The details:
What: Politics and a Pint!
Where: Contented Cow, Northfield Minnesota
When: 6-7:30PM, Sunday, 01 March 2009
References:
This is an improvement?
This last week saw two anniversaries that can be linked to the general question of evolution. And what could be more British than celebrating the life and accomplishments of one of the great thinkers of our age, Sir Charles Darwin, KBE, MC, FRS with a spot of ale? In a bit of a reversion to type I plan to present a short introduction to one of the most powerful algorithms I have ever seen. I hope to indulge myself in a bit of mathematics as I bring out the old whiteboard as we investigate the “Genetic Algorithm”. Modeled on how we think evolution works, this algorithm can be used to solve problems that are otherwise unsolvable. It can be instructive to watch it work, and I’ll bring you all up to date on the key assumptions, and how those programming assumptions function in the real world of biology as it is understood in the West. So, bring your family tree, bring your favorite myths and be of good cheer as we revisit the descent of man over one of humankind’s best discoveries, a good cup of ale!
The details:
What: Politics and a Pint!
Where: Contented Cow, Northfield Minnesota
When: 6-7:30PM, Sunday, 22 Feb 2009
References:
Sunday, March 15th at 4pm African Fundraiser Feedback Bereket Haileab will give a presentation about his trip to Africa and how the proceeds of the fundraiser were used.
Tuesday, March 17th St. Patrick’s Day Heritage will be entertaining us as we enjoy this Irish celebration.
Saturday, March 28th KVARTS is a band directly from Norway. One of the best-known Norwegian folk music groups. Don’t miss this! See videos of them on YouTube!
Traditional Gumbo, made by Helen Preddy, will be available from 5pm until it is gone.
There is recent news of a possible request for annexation. Two landowners to the west of Armstrong Road are thinking of asking to be annexed. The region is shown below. Matching roads with the conceptual map provided gives an idea of the area we are talking about.
The concept map shows the west half as “Office Park” and the southeastern part as industrial with a possible RR spur crossing Armstrong Road.
At the meeting at Bridgewater Twp (board of supervisors working session) we heard from several concerned neighbors. We also listed a whole white board of concerns. Some of those concerns …
In addition, there is a real question of the viability of the proposed use in the current market, and the issue of how to pay for the necessary infrastructure.
Two years ago I would have said that cities are not required to ask if a business plan makes sense, it is sufficient to provide a good environment and let businesses take the risks. But a new term has entered our lexicon … “to big to fail.” It is clear that in the modern relationship between large business and government (size is relative) we can no longer let businesses make their decisions as if we thought only they would lose if their business failed. But the overdesigned developments we see in our area are more than just incomplete dreams, they are also possible nightmares, as the money and the market dries up leaving incomplete chunks of real-estate. If business is going to come begging for our (government) handouts, then perhaps we have the right to help them make good business decisions. Of course, that sounds like socialism, and THAT’s another problem.
So we’ll tip pints, trip politicians and rip plans at the next Politics and a Pint.
Details:
When: 6-7:30PM, 25 Jan 2009
Where: Contented Cow
I.O.U.S.A.
“America must mend its spendthrift ways or face an economic disaster of epic proportions.”
Say what? We just got control of the country and now we gotta stop the spending? Baby, we got a contract. We got promises and we got dreams. Lets get out that credit card and start spending the way WE were promised.
We’ve been warned before about the fact that democracies fail once people start voting themselves goodies from the treasury. The urge and imperative to spend money to buy votes (health care, social programs, who can say no?) overwhelms the pitiful cries of the people who will eventually have to pay for those goodies (how’s that for a novel “what about the children?” appeal?).
We will watch the trailer, maybe even the 30-minute version of the movie that’s doing for the national debt what “An Inconvenient Truth” did for global climate change. Of course, just as the with the weather, we seem to only be able to talk about it.
So we will, at the next, Politics and a Pint.
Details:
What: Lively but civil discourse
Where: Contented Cow
When: 6-7:30PM, Sunday, 18 Jan 2009
Who: everyone
January Music and Events
Sundays
Tuesdays
Sat. Jan 3rd Jerry Johnson, Inga Johnson & Joel Cooper
Fri . Jan 9th Roger Anderson Trio
Sat. Jan 10th Last Known Whereabouts
Thurs. Jan 15th Bobby Bomba
Fri. Jan 16th Occasional Jazz 5pm; New Moon Trio 8pm
Sat. Jan 17th Carol Lynn
Fri. Jan 23rd Carey Langer
Sat. Jan 24th Spruce Top Review
Fri. Jan 30th TBA
Sat. Jan 31st Marty Anderson & The Goods
Global warming is an example of what I call consensus science. That is, it is science theory that has become so embedded in the body scientific that counter claims are required to live by Thompson’s law:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Recent stories have suggested that perhaps this is good time to review the bidding on the global warming debate.
We’ll be tipping back a few brews, tipping over a few sacred cows and looking for the new tipping point as we talk about this one, next, at the Contented Cow.
Legal details in appropriately tiny font:
References:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:
- Radiative forcing F;
- The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter K; and
- The feedback multiplier f.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.
The planet could face a freeze worse than an Ice Age starting in as little as 10,000 years, giving future societies a headache the opposite of coping with global warming, scientists said on Wednesday.