...in a very unusual way, according to this nutjob planner as reported by the Independent Weekly: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=403156
My cynical thoughts in a nutshell:
* At first I thought this article was parody... but this guy is actually serious? He's actually convinced at least one person that he will single-handedly redesign and revive a capital's downtown? Dear God, they can't even pave Wade Avenue.
* So the land will come from private companies that will voluntarily "donate" potentially hot property? Are people really giving away valuable land in a recession? What's the over/under on how many kickback scandals result from this "donation," and where can I place that bet? Free money! If anything, this guy really screwed himself by laying out all of his plans in the news and adding a revenue estimate. The higher he estimates the value of the project, the less likely it is for the land to be donated. Would you give something away for free that will be the primary asset in a billion-dollar investment? I sure as hell wouldn't. And it's not like any tax credit would make giving it away worthwhile since that credit won't remotely approach the estimated value of the project - otherwise, the financial "plan" collapses entirely. Good thing these sellers aren't greedy businessmen looking for $$$ in a recession. Oh, wait...
* Some of these things aren't even consistent within the plan itself. He wants to increase density, yet put story limits on building heights? How does having more buildings as opposed to fewer ones help density?
* I'm glad he's planning massive investment in bus stations ("Grand Central Station" of Raleigh? bahahaha, OK). The bus stations I've been to in Raleigh are certainly where people want to be. Mostly I see people trying not to make eye contact and walking on the far side of the street. But I guess we've been sitting on a gold mine this whole time, and Raleigh needs more of that.
* More bicyclists... great. Now bicyclists will actually have priority instead of just acting like they do. Can't wait for even more unlit bikes rolling through stop signs and expecting every other vehicle on the road to move out of the way for them because, hey, they're on a bike! Nevermind that we built an extensive greenway system for this very purpose. But let's keep subsidizing behavior that is not only hazardous and totally unregulated but a significant inconvenience to everyone else on the road. Smart growth indeed. That scratching sound you hear is Charles Darwin desperately thrashing inside his coffin.
* ANOTHER downtown campus? Again, I am unclear how having two buildings for the same purpose helps the density issue. I'm as big a proponent for community/technical schools as you will find, but even I can recognize that we don't need more of them. On a per capita basis, we have one of the most development secondary school systems in the country, yet unemployment is 10% (actual unemployment is of course significantly higher). How can anyone think this state needs more schools? Can we start investing in things that will actually yield a return?
* A new African-American cultural center... is something wrong with the old one? That reminds me - I'm sure Raleigh's black population has had a strong voice in all of these developments (yes, I realize that is a product of their own fault as much as anyone's). You can see this dialogue coming, can't you? "Good news, guys! We've finally gentrified downtown enough that we can raise rents and supplant all of you outside the city limits, thus perpetuating the problem we claimed to solve! But don't worry about the upheaval... we built you a cultural center!"
* A "Chautauqua" center for culture and entertainment... well, that may be the single most vague, ambiguous thing I've ever read. Who couldn't support a proposition as strong as that one? By the way, does no but me find it a bit odd that a city which admits to having no culture is busy planning so many cultural centers?
* "We just need to think bigger"... really? Are you sure that's not the exact same mantra which got us in this unenviable position in the first place? Apparently spending a ton of money without regard to credit, solvency, oversight, or accountability is both the cause of AND solution for our problems. I guess thinking "smarter" as opposed to "bigger" is asking too much. 'Unsustainable - the new sustainable!'
* On that note, I'm assuming this article has been truncated, because I didn't see a whole lot of info on how these massive redevelopments will actually, you know, be funded. Who's paying for this? And where is that money coming from? Will the ones paying the most for these changes be the ones who receive the most benefit? (Hint: no.) Funny how these pesky details can get in the way of a good idea. "Let's build a bunch of stuff we really don't need and pass the check" seems to be a lot like the real estate market in 2005, don't you think? Why is it acceptable when public funds are at issue instead of private ones? And why do I seem to be the only one asking these questions?
* I love Europe about as much as I hate our country's (well, really our towns') obsession with being like Europe. There's a reason people choose to visit Europe but not live there, yet the push is to make our cities and towns as "liveable" as Europe. Why are we looking to equally bankrupt countries for ideas on economic development? I must have missed the day in economics class where they talked about Spain being an economic superpower instead of the US. This is a case of grass being greener on the other side, and no one is ready to admit that Europe has just as many problems as we do, if not more. Pay no mind to the dirty streets, rampant racism, burdensome taxes, exploding consumer price index, lower standard of living, fewer opportunities, and socialized everything - they have bike lanes!!!
* A new RBC Center might be the worst of these ideas, and that's saying a lot. I guess I didn't realize this city needed a new arena. I hate U2, but if a band of their stature is willing to play at the RBC, what exactly is the benefit of building a bigger place? Do they think The Beatles will reunite to play there or what? Or is it that more people want to watch ncsu basketball? But all seriousness... this is exactly why people make fun of Raleigh and its "little sister" syndrome. It wants to be like Charlotte, with its rail line and new stadium (the latter of which has been a complete failure thus far)... it wants to be like Madrid with a vibrant downtown (but without the litter and abject poverty, of course)... it wants to be like New York with a Grand Central Station... but whatever it is, it doesn't want to be like Raleigh. That is the clearest mark of an inferiority complex. To this end, the last bit in the article is the most telling - Raleigh has no culture, and like any person with low confidence in itself, it envisions itself as the best of everything else, yet failing to realize that culture, like esteem, can only be built from within and not copied. Every one of those places became unique through their own ideas and development, not through emulation. Unfortunately, thinking freely and critically appears to be beyond the intellectual horizon of our politicians, to say nothing of those of us who elect them.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Friday, February 1, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Update!
Yes, I'm still alive. I've been studying for the bar the past few weeks so I haven't done much (or any) updating to this blog. Have no fear, fine readers, I will return soon enough.
In the meantime, I present to you a paradox. It goes by the name of "cheeseburger in a can." I'm still sorting out how I feel about it, but maybe you can solve it faster. Be warned: I don't think there's a simple or even a right answer. To paraphrase Carolina Panthers coach and fellow idiot John Fox, "It is what it is."
Cheeseburger In A Can?!
In the meantime, I present to you a paradox. It goes by the name of "cheeseburger in a can." I'm still sorting out how I feel about it, but maybe you can solve it faster. Be warned: I don't think there's a simple or even a right answer. To paraphrase Carolina Panthers coach and fellow idiot John Fox, "It is what it is."
Cheeseburger In A Can?!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
A Modest Solution?
Here's something for you to do on a slow Sunday afternoon. Find a modern-day picture of the Los Angeles skyline and put it next to an identical one from 1970. The difference will make you fall out of the chair. Of course, because I know you're all too lazy to actually do this, I'll spoil the surprise. The modern skyline is clear and sunny, but in the other shot you can barely make out the shape of the skyscrapers. The reason for this difference is the ubiquitous presence of everyone's favorite portmanteau word: smog!
In the 1970s, Congress rode a burgeoning wave of environmentalism to the tune of comprehensive reform acts, most notable the Clear Air Act. For all of our legislature's shortcomings, they finally struck law-of-averages gold with their environmental laws. The acts were an unqualified success. Today, smog in the United States is a mere fraction what it used to be, and soot - the other nasty particulate the laws sought to control - has been virtually eliminated from the atmosphere. We all rejoiced and praised the government for its impressive step forward. "Hey, they finally did something right for once!"
Or did they? Fast-forward to modern times and examine global warming, our current environmental nemesis. Global warming is increasing at a rate similar to smog's proliferation in the post-WW2 era. We've all been educated, scolded, and warned of the dangers it poses. And for all the good that environmental laws have done, they are still far, far away from solving this tricky problem.
As it turns out, our massive reduction of smog, soot, and other aerosols wasn't the comprehensive victory it once appeared to be. This year, a NASA study confirmed what sounds like an ironic joke: all those nasty chemicals in the year were actually HELPING the cause against global warming! How can this be?
It's actually relatively simple: the huge amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere were acting as a sort of sunscreen for the planet, reflecting the harmful UV radiation that gets trapped in the atmosphere and warms up the planet. While increasingly less sunlight had reached the earth due to dust, pollution, and other atmospheric particles, that trend reversed around 1990 when aerosol levels began to decline. Notably, that date also marks the start of the rise in average yearly temperatures - in other words, the beginning of global warming as we know it. Recent statistical information, coupled with basic principles of meteorology, confirmed that this connection was more causation than correlation. Over time, aerosols directly and indirectly (e.g. via cloud stabilization) led to global warming's opposite counterpart, the so-called "global dimming" phenomenon.
Interestingly, "global dimming" presents a potential solution to the main argument directed at global warming doomsayers. Although there seems to be little dispute that the planet has been gradually yet consistently warming over the past 15 years or so, meteorologists have yet to observe the incidental effects of the phenomenon. For example, a warmer climate facilitates water evaporation, leading to greater cloud formation and thus increased rainfall. Of course, if you're like me and live in the Southeast, you know that this absolutely not the case. Indeed, by all accounts we're in one of the worst droughts in modern history. Instead, the theory is that less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer temperatures, thereby stabilizing the hydrological cycle.
Unfortunately, while first-world countries have done a commendable job reducing aerosols, developing nations like China and India are producing enormous amounts of particulate pollution at staggering rates. Complicating the problem is the possibility of black soot settling on the polar ice caps and absorbing further sunlight, melting them even faster than the current rate. On the other hand, fewer aerosols means more sunlight and all of its nasty problems like higher skin cancer rates. Must we literally pick our poison?
With the way things currently stand, the answer might be yes. Unfortunately, the other major problem is that neither industrialized nor developing nations are doing much of anything to tackle greenhouse gases, the prime culprit behind global warming. But don't worry guys - this will only be a problem for future generations.
**************
After hearing about this dilemma, I envisioned what I thought was a brilliant and creative solution. What if we could somehow inject more aerosols into the upper atmosphere, low enough to effectively block UV radiation but high enough to negate their deleterious health effects?
Unfortunately, some Nobel-winning chemist thought of it as well. Where's my Nobel prize, bitch? Anyway, this particular scientist postulated that, by injecting 1 million tons of sulfur per year into the stratosphere, the climate would cool down sufficiently to effectively halt global warming. Yes, sulfur - the very same sulfur that forms acid rain compounds known to decimate forests and fish - could be our biggest ally in the fight to save the natural world.
Here's the part that stumped me though. How the hell do you release a million tons of sulfur into the upper atmosphere? Listen to our chemist's solution: "giant cannons or balloons." ... Okay, so we're both still working on that part. But if you offer me a Nobel, I bet I'll think of it first.
In the 1970s, Congress rode a burgeoning wave of environmentalism to the tune of comprehensive reform acts, most notable the Clear Air Act. For all of our legislature's shortcomings, they finally struck law-of-averages gold with their environmental laws. The acts were an unqualified success. Today, smog in the United States is a mere fraction what it used to be, and soot - the other nasty particulate the laws sought to control - has been virtually eliminated from the atmosphere. We all rejoiced and praised the government for its impressive step forward. "Hey, they finally did something right for once!"
Or did they? Fast-forward to modern times and examine global warming, our current environmental nemesis. Global warming is increasing at a rate similar to smog's proliferation in the post-WW2 era. We've all been educated, scolded, and warned of the dangers it poses. And for all the good that environmental laws have done, they are still far, far away from solving this tricky problem.
As it turns out, our massive reduction of smog, soot, and other aerosols wasn't the comprehensive victory it once appeared to be. This year, a NASA study confirmed what sounds like an ironic joke: all those nasty chemicals in the year were actually HELPING the cause against global warming! How can this be?
It's actually relatively simple: the huge amounts of aerosols in the atmosphere were acting as a sort of sunscreen for the planet, reflecting the harmful UV radiation that gets trapped in the atmosphere and warms up the planet. While increasingly less sunlight had reached the earth due to dust, pollution, and other atmospheric particles, that trend reversed around 1990 when aerosol levels began to decline. Notably, that date also marks the start of the rise in average yearly temperatures - in other words, the beginning of global warming as we know it. Recent statistical information, coupled with basic principles of meteorology, confirmed that this connection was more causation than correlation. Over time, aerosols directly and indirectly (e.g. via cloud stabilization) led to global warming's opposite counterpart, the so-called "global dimming" phenomenon.
Interestingly, "global dimming" presents a potential solution to the main argument directed at global warming doomsayers. Although there seems to be little dispute that the planet has been gradually yet consistently warming over the past 15 years or so, meteorologists have yet to observe the incidental effects of the phenomenon. For example, a warmer climate facilitates water evaporation, leading to greater cloud formation and thus increased rainfall. Of course, if you're like me and live in the Southeast, you know that this absolutely not the case. Indeed, by all accounts we're in one of the worst droughts in modern history. Instead, the theory is that less sunlight reaching the surface counteracts the effect of warmer temperatures, thereby stabilizing the hydrological cycle.
Unfortunately, while first-world countries have done a commendable job reducing aerosols, developing nations like China and India are producing enormous amounts of particulate pollution at staggering rates. Complicating the problem is the possibility of black soot settling on the polar ice caps and absorbing further sunlight, melting them even faster than the current rate. On the other hand, fewer aerosols means more sunlight and all of its nasty problems like higher skin cancer rates. Must we literally pick our poison?
With the way things currently stand, the answer might be yes. Unfortunately, the other major problem is that neither industrialized nor developing nations are doing much of anything to tackle greenhouse gases, the prime culprit behind global warming. But don't worry guys - this will only be a problem for future generations.
**************
After hearing about this dilemma, I envisioned what I thought was a brilliant and creative solution. What if we could somehow inject more aerosols into the upper atmosphere, low enough to effectively block UV radiation but high enough to negate their deleterious health effects?
Unfortunately, some Nobel-winning chemist thought of it as well. Where's my Nobel prize, bitch? Anyway, this particular scientist postulated that, by injecting 1 million tons of sulfur per year into the stratosphere, the climate would cool down sufficiently to effectively halt global warming. Yes, sulfur - the very same sulfur that forms acid rain compounds known to decimate forests and fish - could be our biggest ally in the fight to save the natural world.
Here's the part that stumped me though. How the hell do you release a million tons of sulfur into the upper atmosphere? Listen to our chemist's solution: "giant cannons or balloons." ... Okay, so we're both still working on that part. But if you offer me a Nobel, I bet I'll think of it first.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
GWAR!
A friend of mine forwarded me this clip of GWAR on the Joan Rivers show, a moment that I thought had been lost to history. Fortunately, the cream rises to the top, and this moment has resurfaced. Thanks youtube!
If you don't know who GWAR is, check Wikipedia for a primer. But all you really need to know is this: In the 1990s, GWAR was arrested in Charlotte when the singer was accused of using the "cuttlefish of Cthulhu" to simulate a human penis. "What an insult!" was the classic reply. They refer to this moment at the 6 minute mark in the video.
Man, I love these guys. Quick-witted, brilliant sense of humor, and spraying pig blood on their audience at concerts. I'm telling you, if you haven't attended a GWAR show, you're missing out on one of the best nights of your life.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
My Dream Arrives
Finally, the internet offers a sanctuacy for the coug-loving men (and women!) of America:
http://www.dateacougar.com
For those of you who thought I already made too many mom jokes, you'd better just stay away from me for a while.
http://www.dateacougar.com
For those of you who thought I already made too many mom jokes, you'd better just stay away from me for a while.
Ali G vs. Kobe
This great clip is from TNT's promos of their NBA package. British comedian Sasha Cohen (aka Ali G, aka Borat) absolutely owns Kobe with this one-liner. I still can't tell if this is unscripted, but almost all of Ali G's stuff is ad hoc, so I'm betting it is. In either case, the look on Kobe's face is priceless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)