« September 2007 |
Main
| November 2007 »
October 2007 archives
On my flight home Sunday night from visiting South Bend, Ind. the first officer contacted air traffic control asking about the fire was he could see blazing in the Temecula area, east of Los Angeles. It would be the first of many fires visible as flames made their way through Corona and the hills of Orange County, Lake Arrowhead, Santa Clarita and Malibu. It was pretty obvious: Southern California was burning.
Since Saturday night, more than a dozen wildfires have burned more than 1300 structures and tens of thousands of acres. Between Santa Barbara and San Diego, more than a half-million people have been evacuated from their homes.
A few decades ago, such wildfires would have been a major news event, but their impact on human lives would have been significantly lower. Because of the development and growth patterns of Southern California, residents are living on the edge and creating a built-up environment where a confluence of events can spark comparisons to the ultimate natural disaster in recent American history, Hurricane Katrina.
On the religious right, they would have you believe that exurban Southern California is burning because the City of San Diego filed an amicus court brief in support of marriage equality in California. Others are wondering whether the coincidence of so many fires could be tied to terrorism. But regardless of how the fires started, their devastation can be blamed on one group of people - NIMBY's.
If you don't have them in your town yet, let me tell you about our version of the NIMBY. Many Southern Californians believe that there should be no development any where near anyone. Once settled in a new community, they will say, "Not in my backyard!" to any building proposal that comes along. Like the Malibu environmentalist, they believe that the last house that should be built is the one they live in.
Unfortunately for us, politicians only respond to voters who live in their districts, not those who might move in, so NIMBY's can be very powerful. When they say that there should be no new apartment buildings or condos, local elected officials listen. They'll block projects, propose that density be capped and work the corridors of City Hall to make sure that nothing new gets built.
But the fact there is little to no density-increasing urban construction here in L.A., where it would make sense has not kept folks from moving to Southern California. To accommodate this influx, we first built up the San Fernando Valley, immediately North of L.A., in the 1950's. The Valley then spilled over the hills into the San Gabriel Valley. When that filled up, we started building in Ventura County and Santa Clarita, a community founded way back in 1984. The last decade has seen an explosion of growth in Orange County and now the Inland Empire, once nothing more than farms.
The fires raging in Southern California today are being compared to those of 1993, when a similar number of structures were burned. But if the fires of 2007 had happened in 1993, fewer homes would have been lost because, well, there were fewer homes in these outlying areas. The communities that were the suburban hinterlands back then - Altadena, Laguna Beach and Sierra Madre - are now considered close-in L.A. suburbs when compared to the far-flung subdivisions and towns which are burning today. In 1993, Rancho Bernando and Poway were considered the boondocks, whereas today, these communities are considered to be practically part of the city of San Diego.
Despite our wildfires, earthquakes and the occasional riot, people still seem to want to come to Southern California.I hate to admit it but I kind of agree with Al Gore about the need for smart growth here--and you know how I feel about the former Veep. If we continue to build out - not up - the wildfires one or two decades from now will be even more devastating as people live closer to the wilderness' edge.
To accommodate growth, Southern California's elected leaders will need to develop a scarce political resource - a backbone - and say no to the NIMBY's and to ask Washington for help to build the public transit necessary to make communities both more livable and more dense.
Sometimes, it takes a crisis to force our leaders into action. Just ask George Bush and Michael Chertoff as they visit Southern California this week. Maybe this will be the moment that prompts our leaders into action to develop a more sustainable pattern of development.
After September 11th, Americans faced a new reality of airline travel: stepped up security searches, carry-on baggage limits and silly regulations became the norm. Over time, we adapted to the "new normal" of flying and are back in the air again in record numbers which is creating a whole new set of problems.
When passenger levels were waning, local airport authorities like those in Los Angeles and San Francisco put off plans to expand capacity and build new gates. Facing bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy, U.S. airlines put off investments in new aircraft and sought to maximize revenue with the planes they already had, not counting on travelers wanting back in the air so quickly.
In the airline business, it seems, the rules of supply and demand have been shattered apart by these two externalities - no one flying to everyone on board - to the point where the system is near a breaking point. These days, too many people are trying to get on too few planes, and it’s not pretty.
While activists were lobbying Congress for a Passenger’s Bill of Rights, the nation learned of the most tragic victim of the airways woes: Carol Gotbaum. On her way to Tucson, Arizona to check into a treatment clinic, Gotbaum was denied boarding onto her connecting flight, got irate and was taken into custody by airport police, where she died of asphyxiation apparently trying to get out of her handcuffs.
Gotbaum’s case, while extreme, was not the result of anything out-of-the-ordinary for flyers. Every day across the country, Americans are subject to cancellations, overbookings and denied boardings leading to a sense that flying can kill, even when the plane takes off and lands safely.
Flying doesn’t have to be a dreadful experience, but it takes two to tango in today’s airline roulette - passengers as well as the airlines themselves. And if you follow a few simple rules, your experience will be much better. So here's my guide, culled from years of travel and a few friends in the business:
1) Know your rights. When an airline cancels a flight or changes a schedule, you as a passenger have certain rights. Know about “Rule 240” and use it liberally. When an airline changes or cancels a flight due to something within their own control - operations, mechanical problems or labor strife - they’re obligated to take care of their passengers with everything from meal vouchers to hotel accommodation to monetary compensation or ground transportation. If a schedule change occurs before you take off, you can usually use Rule 240 to choose the flights of your choice or to get a refund from the airline entirely - even on a non-refundable ticket. If you are denied compensation, ask, ask again until it is given.
Your rights, however, are limited to a degree. Officially, most airline contracts of carriage state that their only obligation is to get you from Point A to Point B - so accept this limitation before losing your cool as you fly through Charlotte on your way from L.A. to Newark.
2) Know your responsibilities. If the airline tells you to show up early for a flight, do so. If they tell you that you cannot check luggage after 45 minutes before flight, don’t push your luck.
If you want to be guaranteed a seat on a plane, better to get a seat assignment before check-in, because those without a seat assignment will be the most likely to be denied boarding in the case of an overbooked flight.
3) Be flexible. Sometimes the easiest way to get from Point A to Point B on a plane is not a direct line. If a connecting flight through Chicago is cancelled, check to see if Denver, San Francisco or Washington are viable alternatives. Last year, returning from holiday with my family in Southern Virginia, my travel plans got messed up when Denver International Airport shut down entirely. I was supposed to connect from Norfolk to Washington Dulles to Denver to Burbank. Knowing there was weather in Denver, I went to the airport early and asked to stand by on an earlier flight to Dulles. Because of weather in Denver, Dulles was a mad-house, but I convinced the airline to let me try to stand by on any flight to Los Angeles or San Francisco that was available. Once I arrived in San Francisco, I found someone to take care of getting me a boarding pass to Burbank.
During irregular operations, airlines are usually taking care of more than just one person and your trip is not the most important thing in the world to the agent you’re speaking to. Be creative and proactive in offering alternatives and you will be more likely to get what you desire: To your destination quickly.
4) Remember the Golden Rule. As children we are taught to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, and guess what? It applies to us even as adults especially when flying. When a flight is overbooked or worse yet cancelled, the airlines’ customer service representative is faced with handling dozens if not hundreds of passengers whose plans have gone awry. Human nature leads most passengers to get mad and try to get even, but surly passengers lead to surly gate agents and sometimes worse. Try killing them with kindness and see how kind the agent can be in response. Trust me, this works!
While the nation’s airports and airlines have a long way to go to create capacity to meet demand, we should not be more afraid of airport gate agents than we are of Islamo-fascists. Most airline nightmares can be avoided if you learn to play the airline game: Know your rights, know your responsibilities, be flexible and follow the Golden Rule.
The impossible happened this weekend in college football when a hapless Stanford University led by a first-year coach and a backup quarterback, seized Troy and brought down the number one team in the country, the invincible University of Southern California.
To Vegas, a Trojan win was more inevitable than the presidency of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. USC was a 41-point favorite over the Cardinal. But, alas for us USC fans, the impossible happened and we lost 24-23. Yes, only by one point but in football, as politics, one point matters.
With each national poll that is released, Clinton's nomination and election to become president of the United States appears inevitable. With all apologies to Fidel Castro, she is looking invincible with or without Barack Obama by her side if you listen to the political pundits. And that's why Clinton risks the same tragedy as my USC Trojans.
USC never thought they could lose to Stanford. In the week before the game, the coaches went home early. In their pre-game walk to the Stadium, players and coaches looked more focused on having fun than on playing football. And when it came time to put the pads on, the coaches now admit that they never considered that Stanford might win when choosing which plays to call.
In a word, my friends, that's hubris. And hubris, as my Spot-on colleague Mike Spinney pointed out yesterday, is the Democratic Party's greatest enemy right now.
With the war in Iraq being unpopular and Congressional Republicans seeking to offend just about anyone from Latinos to sick children, Democrats must think that both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue will be handed to them on a silver platter right now. For Clinton and for the party as a whole such a cocksure mentality can only spell trouble. They'd do well to take a look at their party's recent history here in California. After sweeping Statewide elections in 2002, the Democrats governed from the far left and their actions - and arrogance - led to the recall of Governor Gray Davis.
When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger limped out of the 2005 Special Election like a wounded puppy, Democrats turned far left again, nominating ultra-liberal tax-and-spender Phil Angelides over the more moderate Steve Westly. If you're taking notes, Schwarzenegger's still with us. Angelides couldn't get arrested.
On Saturday night against Stanford, USC played like they had a big lead even when they didn't because the coaches were so sure that if they played their game instead of playing to the circumstances of the game they were in they would have the lead. And playing with the lead is exactly what the Clinton for President campaign is doing today.
In national polling, Hillary Clinton leads her rivals for the democratic nomination by twofold. It's not unlike the 41-point Vegas spread for USC over Stanford. So, if presidential politics were a football game, she would have two choices: Run up the score or sit on the lead. The risk of trying to run up the score is that you might make mistakes and give your opponents hope. The risk of sitting on a lead too early is that it may get chipped away until it is too close and when you need it you no longer are running at full speed.
Metaphorically, it seems that Clinton has chosen to sit on her lead. She is running as the frontrunner, eschewing town hall meetings, Q&A's and is moving towards more scripted events. That kind of remoteness indicates a big of arrogance, doesn't it? And that's dangerous. If it doesn't hurt Hillary in the primaries, it could trip her up in a general election where she suddenly has to campaign again as if it mattered.
They said that a Stanford loss to USC was inevitable just as some are predicting a second Clinton Presidency will be. But if Hillary runs her campaign with the same hubris as Pete Carroll coached the Trojans last week, she may not have an opportunity to redeem herself in the last seven games of the season.
As the housing boom expanded into a bubble, I sat on the sidelines here in my rent-controlled West Hollywood apartment. My brother and his family were chased by rising housing prices from Los Angeles to Portland to San Antonio. Now, if proposals to bail out bubbled borrowers are approved, we may be forced - because of our rational decision-making - to subsidize everyone who made bad choices and bought a home before the bubble burst.
The National Association of Realtors went to President Bush and urged him to propose a mortgage bailout. So, naturally, Democratic presidential candidates must be even more generous in their proposed handouts. Heck, even local officials in Los Angeles have talked about using money from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to assist homeowners facing foreclosures. This is bad policy and even worse economics. As long as such bailouts are considered possible, they will only create market conditions that bend reality and artificially prop up housing prices, keeping market forces from returning home purchase prices to more rational levels.
In seven semesters of economics at Georgetown and the University of Southern California, I learned one basic truth: markets seek the equilibrium value. Want to know what that is? Well, draw a supply line and a demand line. Where they cross is the equilibrium value whether we're talking about housing markets or widgets. Where buyers find sellers and exchange money, that's the equilibrium value.
In a rational housing market, the median home will be affordable to the median homebuyer. That is to say, if you remove the people who are living in apartments and those who already own their homes, then the average home should be affordable to the average person. But that's not what's happened. In California, the housing affordability index has fallen from 24% in 2004 to 11% in 2007. In Los Angeles County, it is even lower. Only 3% of homes sold in early 2007 were affordable to the median household!
The economics of a market where only 3% of the people can buy in become unsustainable - as we are now finding out. The market has been inflated by buyers who couldn't afford their purchased - helped along by loose credit and well, some unsavory mortgage-lending practices. During the irrational exuberance of the housing market, buyers were told that prices were only going up because everyone needs a place to live and the population is only growing! But that's exactly why housing is a bad investment. You cannot profit from your gains unless you substitute the product you're selling for something less than what you had before. And if housing prices are only going up, you'll sell and buy something much less expensive. Unless, of course, you're willing to play Bubble Roulette.
Say you paid $250,000 for a charming West Hollywood bungalow in 1996 and you sell it today for over a million. Sounds great. But you aren't going to be able to afford another West Hollywood bungalow with your $1 million. You might be able to take some profits and get into a $900,000 condo or worse yet, move to Texas and pocket the difference but in the end, you are ending up with something less in part because you'll have a bigger loan to pay off the house that's replaced the bungalow. And everyone needs housing, so pocketing everything really isn't an option - unless you're willing to rent until the market returns to its equilibrium value.
Not everyone had the pleasure of taking seven semesters of economics, of course. But sometimes common sense can substitute. If a bank is going to lend you six figures you should be able to figure out this basic equation: How much money am I making and how much can I afford to spend? It seems many people didn't even do this math. Now they and the lenders who sought to profit off of their ignorance - some of whom suggested to their clients that the rules of mathematics didn't apply to home loans - are now paying the piper.
Now, I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is losing their house. Not all of those being put out on the street or who are working through the frustration of having to deal with far-away banks and unscrupulous lenders were buying and selling million-dollar property. But I have no sympathy for the lenders and real estate agents who profited from putting them in such a predicament.
The real estate agents have already made their profits when they pocketed their 6 percent commission. But lenders need the borrowers to be solvent in order to cover their bottom line - to keep money flowing through the system. Bailing out the borrower, therefore, will only help the lender while it hurts the rest of us who are stuck to foot the bill--in the form of tighter credit, stock market volatility, a falling dollar and higher taxes to pay for a government bailout. And that's not fair to anyone.
