There are dangerous signs that the U.S. is turning its back on the principles of a free and open society that fostered the nation’s rise.
CHARLES KOCHJuly 21, 2016 6:53 p.m. ET
I was born in the midst of the Great Depression, when no one could imagine the revolutionary technological advances that we now take for granted. Innovations in countless fields have transformed society and radically improved individual well-being, especially for the least fortunate. Every American’s life is now immeasurably better than it was 80 years ago.
What made these dramatic improvements possible was America’s uniquely free and open society, which has brought the country to the cusp of another explosion of life-changing innovation. But there are dangerous signs that the U.S. is turning its back on the principles that foster such advances, particularly in education, business and government. Which path will the country take?
When I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the 1950s, I quickly came to appreciate that scientific and technological progress requires the free and open exchange of ideas. The same holds true for moral and social progress. I have spent more than a half-century trying to apply this lesson in business and my personal life.
It was once widely accepted that progress depends on people challenging and testing each other’s hypotheses. This leads to the creation of knowledge that, when shared, inspires others and spurs the innovation that moves society forward and improves lives. It is a spontaneous process that is deeply collaborative and dependent on the contributions of others. Recall Sir Isaac Newton’s statement that he achieved so much by “standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Scientific progress in seemingly disparate fields creates opportunities for fusion, which is where the greatest innovations often occur. The British writer Matt Ridley has brilliantly described this process as “ideas having sex.” Today, this creation-from-coupling is evident in, for example, the development of driverless cars, which combine advances in transportation and artificial intelligence. When seen through this prism, the opportunities for life-altering innovation are limitless.
Despite our enormous potential for further progress, a clear majority of Americans see a darker future. Some 56% believe their children’s lives will be worse off than their own, according to a January CNN poll. ARasmussen poll released the following month found that 46% believe America’s best days are behind it. Little more than a third believe better days lie ahead.
I empathize with this fear. The U.S. is already far down the path to becoming a less open and free society, and the current cultural and political atmosphere threatens to make the situation worse: Growing attacks on free speech and free association, hostile rhetoric toward immigrants, fear that global trade impoverishes rather than enriches, demands that innovators in cutting-edge industries first seek government permission.
This trajectory takes the U.S. further away from the brighter future that is otherwise within reach. Resisting calls to exclude, divide or restrict—and promoting a free and open society—ought to be the great moral cause of these times. The most urgent tasks involve the key institutions of education, business and government.
Education in America, and particularly higher education, has become increasingly hostile to the free exchange of ideas. On many campuses, a climate of intellectual conformity has replaced open debate and inquiry, stifling discussion on a host of topics ranging from history to science to economics. Dissenters are demonized, ostracized or otherwise treated with scorn and derision. This disrupts the process of discovery and challenge that is at the root of human progress. Holland embraced this philosophy—best expressed by the phrase “Listen even to the other side”—in the 17th century, contributing to it becoming the most prosperous country in the world at the time.
Similarly, in business the proliferation of corporate welfare wastes resources and closes off opportunity for newcomers. It takes many forms—direct subsidies, anticompetitive regulations, mandates, tax credits and carve-outs—all of which tip the scales in favor of established businesses and industries. The losers are invariably the new, disruptive and innovative entrepreneurs who drive progress, along with everyone who stands to benefit from their work. Just ask the citizens of Austin, Texas, who recently lost access to Uber after a campaign backed by its competitors in the taxi industry.
Government, which often has strong incentives to stifle the revolutionary advances that could transform lives, may be the most dangerous. The state often claims to keep its citizens safe, when it is actually inhibiting increased individual well-being. See, for example, the FDA’s astronomically expensive and time-consuming drug-approval process, which University of Chicago professor Sam Peltzman argues has caused “more sickness and death than it prevented.” These kinds of harmful barriers to life-enhancing advances exist at every level of government.
Unleashing innovation, no matter what form it takes, is the essential component of truly helping people improve their lives. The material and social transformations in my own days have been nothing short of astonishing, with a marked improvement in well-being for all Americans. If the country can unite around a vision for a tolerant, free and open society, it can achieve even greater advances, and a brighter future for everyone, in the years ahead.
Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries and the author of “Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies” (Crown Business, 2015).
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Posters in the city’s Chinatown claim Airbnb landlords are ‘destroying affordable housing for immigrant, minority and low income families’
Flyers in San Francisco’s Chinatown feature the names and photographs of individuals accused of ‘Airbnb’ing our community’. Photograph: Courtesy of Patrick Connors
Julia Carrie Wong in San Francisco
Friday 22 July 2016 06.00 EDTLast modified on Friday 22 July 201613.29 EDT
San Francisco’s gentrification wars have long fostered a certain element willing to make the debate over affordable housing extremely personal.
During the first dot-com boom, members of the “Mission Yuppie Eradication Project” posted flyers encouraging residents of the once working-class Latino neighborhood to “vandalize yuppie cars”. During the current tech boom, asevictions soared, activists began using stencils to paint the sidewalks in front of certain buildings with an image of a suitcase and a message: “Tenants here forced out.”
‘Tech tax’: San Francisco mulls plan for taxing the rich to house the poor
But throughout all the turmoil, San Francisco’s Chinatown – 24 crowded blocks that have endured as a point of entry for generations of low-income Chinese immigrants – has remained largely insulated from the rancor.
In recent weeks, “Wanted” flyers have been posted around the neighborhood featuring the names and photographs of 12 individuals. The crime in question? “Airbnb’ing our community” and “destroying affordable housing for immigrant, minority, & low income families.”
Unlike a flyer posted recently in the Mission District that featured the heads of various tech CEOs, including Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky, impaled on spikes, the Chinatown flyer names and shames individual Airbnb hosts.
FacebookTwitterPinterest A poster in the Mission district of San Francisco takes aim at big tech CEOs. Photograph: Julia Carrie Wong for the Guardian
“It expresses a growing sentiment and a reality that the community is being exploited by speculators and unscrupulous players in the housing market,” said city supervisor Aaron Peskin, who represents the district that includes Chinatown.
“There’s no question that there are an increasing amount of illegal short-term rentals throughout the city and in Chinatown.”
Indeed, Peskin said that just two weeks ago, he observed three French people leaving a Chinatown apartment building at 10am, rolling suitcases in tow.
‘Like a village’
The fact that a group of tourists staying in a residential building in the city that is home to Airbnb seemed remarkable is indicative of how insulated Chinatown has been from the market forces rocking the rest of the city.
“Chinatown has generally been preserved and defended against gentrification,” said Joyce Lam of the Chinese Progressive Association, a group that organizes workers and tenants in the neighborhood.
FacebookTwitterPinterest The Chinatown ‘Wanted’ poster. Photograph: Courtesy of Patrick Connors
Strict zoning laws enacted during the 1980s have protected the stock of single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels, which serve as low cost housing for newly arrived immigrants, as well as many elderly Chinese Americans. With their shared kitchens and bathrooms, Lam said the SROs can feel “like a village” to the multi-generation families crowded into single rooms.
But units that once changed hands solely through word of mouth or Chinese language flyers posted on the street are now popping up on Craigslist, Airbnb, and other short-term rental sites, as landlords have realized that they can earn more money renting to college graduates, single adults and white people, Lam said.
“It’s changed the fabric of the SROs,” Lam said, especially since the new residents often cannot communicate with Cantonese-speaking tenants. “It’s a different kind of feeling.”
The average rent of SRO rooms has increased as well, from $610 in 2013, to $970 in 2015, according to a survey conducted by the Chinatown Community Development Center. Those figures are enticingly low in a city where theaverage rent was $3,907 as of June, but increasingly unaffordable for many low-income immigrant families.
“Contrary to the posters, we don’t see the problem as being individual players,” Lam said, adding that her organization supports citywide reform legislation aimed at strengthening short-term rental regulation.
“We are more interested in having a meaningful discussion about San Francisco’s longstanding housing issues than responding to anonymous attacks on individual San Franciscans,” a spokesperson for Airbnb said in a statement.
The people on the poster
The appeal of Chinatown to non-traditional residents is described on Airbnb’s website, where a number of Chinatown listings feature photographs of the neighborhood’s famous Dragon Gate and paper lanterns.
“Cramped. Crowded. Dingy. Delightful,” reads the caption on Airbnb’s neighborhood description of Chinatown.
One Airbnb host who lists four rentals in Chinatown defended his preference for tourists over tenants.
“We rather leave rooms and apartment empty rather than renting because of rent control,” the host wrote to the Guardian. “Once tenants move in they own the property ... they have more rights than property owners.”
That host was not featured on the “Wanted” poster. None of the people on the “Wanted” poster who currently have Chinatown units listed on Airbnb responded to queries.
Justin Hobbs, who is on the poster, said: “I’ve seen this flyer and have reported it to AirBnB and will be filing a police report. If I’m able to find the creator of the flyer, there will also be a lawsuit filed for slander as this is completely untrue.”
Hobbs said that he lives in Nob Hill, not Chinatown, and he does not rent out his apartment, which is his only residence.
Another one of the people on the poster, who asked not to be identified, was also frustrated by it. The individual said that he no longer lives in San Francisco, but had used Airbnb once, several years ago, and has long since deactivated his account.
“I don’t see that what I did was criminal,” he said. “The reason why I left San Francisco is because it was way over gentrified and it was impossible to live as an artist, and now to get blamed as a gentrifier is just funny.”
Jeff Chen, who was also featured on the poster, was more sanguine about being singled out. Chen, who moved to a different part of the city in May, said that he rented his apartment a few times on Airbnb last summer, when he was traveling for work.
“I don’t really feel good about it [the poster], but I can see why members of the community are concerned about the housing situation,” Chen said. “I see stories about people who do [Airbnb] as a business, and I can see how that would drive up housing costs … I actually do identify with those concerns.”
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Marin County Supervisors approve of a work plan to implement HUD "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) in Marin County. The plan aims to create "racial and economic equity" in all areas of Marin.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Clarification: Westchester V Hud was settled in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appesls in NY. The Final Decision quoted Chief Justice John Roberts. This short video describes the effects on local communities if they accept HUD money for fair housing or urban development under their new rule, Affirmatively Furthering fair Housing. AFFH, as a term has existed for many years, the ruling went into efect July, 2015.
Here is a quick video of the crime heat maps in Downtown San Rafael and the proposed location for the Ritter Center in North San Rafael. The crime statistics tell the story.
See the maps at http://www.srpd.org/crimereports/
The county of Marin and San Rafael is considering moving Ritter Center homeless services to 67 Mark Drive in North San Rafael that borders residential areas. The Marinwood CSD provides emergency services to this area WITHOUT COMPENSATION and will be the primary responder. We also own thousands of acres of open space where we have had problems with homeless encampments and fires.
Clearly the move will have huge impact yet NO ONE on the CSD board wants to act to protect the Marinwood CSD's interest. Leah Kleinman Green even admits that she SUPPORTS the move but she has not heard from her neighbors. Naylor, Kai and Shea seem concerned but will do nothing to make San Rafael and the County of the aware of the financial impacts it will have on the Marinwood CSD.
Where are our leaders?!
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
|While videotape recording of public meetings is allowed by the Brown Act, SECRET videotaping with hidden cameras without consent violates California law, most especially when it is used to record private conversations.|
The July 12, 2016 Marinwood CSD meeting
For the record, the Marinwood CSD is denying that it had anything to do with surveillance video on July 12, 2016.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.
The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"
The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"
The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"
The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"
The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"
The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Senator wants the federal government to investigate the extent to which the short-term lodging market actually consists of commercial rental firms
Senator Elizabeth Warren’s plea to the federal government: ‘We are concerned that short-term rentals may be exacerbating housing shortages and driving up the cost of housing.’ Photograph: Gary Cameron/Reuters
Senator Elizabeth Warren has urged the federal government to investigate Airbnb and other short-term rental companies in a move that experts say marks an unprecedented step in US lawmakers’ formal scrutiny of the “sharing economy”.
The progressive senator from Massachusetts, who has taken on a high-profile rolein the presidential race, co-signed a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Wednesday, requesting that the agency “study and quantify” the extent to which the short-term lodging market consists of “persons or firms acting in a commercial manner by renting out entire residences or multiple residences simultaneously”.
Analysis How a failed attempt to get porn off the internet protects Airbnb from the law
The story of Airbnb’s current battle with San Francisco over regulation actually begins with a senator who prayed to control ‘the pollution’ of internet porn
The letter, which also raises concerns about racial discrimination through Airbnb, lends weight to some of the central criticisms of the controversial home-sharing tech company, which has faced an intensifying backlash in recent years.
It is the latest example of how lawmakers are turning their attention to the practices of tech firms in and around San Francisco, which are propelling an economic boom but raising challenging questions for regulators.
Opponents argue that Airbnb, a platform that allows users to rent out their homes to strangers, is aggravating housing crises in cities across the country by flooding markets with short-term rentals and, as a result, reducing much-needed affordable housing.
While Airbnb claims that many of its users are occasionally renting out rooms to make extra cash, some experts who have studied the limited data available argue that the platform is allowing people to operate sophisticated hotel businesses while dodging taxes and other key regulations.
Warren’s letter – co-authored by senators Brian Schatz of Hawaii and Dianne Feinstein of California – states that the distinction between “commercial” operations on Airbnb is “critical to Congress and state and local lawmakers as we seek to assess the wide-ranging impact of the short-term rental industry”.
“[W]e are concerned that short-term rentals may be exacerbating housing shortages and driving up the cost of housing in our communities,” the lettercontinues.
“Furthermore, we are concerned that communities and consumers may be put at risk through violations of sensible health, safety, and zoning regulations under state and local law.”
The senators’ inquiry, which mentions Airbnb competitors HomeAway, VRBO and Flipkey, also notes complaints about the alleged “widespread discriminationagainst African-American guests” by Airbnb hosts. On Twitter, black users have recently shared stories of facing rejections from potential hosts with the viral hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack.
While Airbnb has fought with numerous local governments working to adopt stricter regulations, including its hometown of San Francisco, the senators’ letter appears to be the first formal step by federal lawmakers to launch a serious inquiry into the company’s operations.
“The fact that they’ve written to a federal agency is hugely significant,” said Steven Hill, a critic of the sharing economy, who has written about the consequences of companies like Airbnb and Uber avoiding regulations.
‘Tech tax’: San Francisco mulls plan for taxing the rich to house the poor
“It reflects the reality that Airbnb has been ‘disruptive’, as they like to put it, not only in good ways, but in bad ways, too,” Hill said. “It’s a corroboration of what myself and other critics have been saying – that this is not just an enterprise where you let someone rent out a spare room and make some extra money. This has become a major commercial enterprise.”
The letter cites data that supports this argument.
In New York, the attorney general found that “commercial users”, meaning those with three or more unique units, accounted for a disproportionate share of the revenue generated from Airbnb rentals. The 2014 report also indicated that 72% of Airbnb units in New York City appeared to violate state and local law, the letter notes.
The letter further questions Airbnb’s reluctance to release data and its seemingly inconsistent collection of taxes.
“We believe the FTC is best positioned to address this data gap in an unbiased manner.”
Warren, who has been rumored to be a potential vice-presidential candidatepick of Hillary Clinton, has previously raised concerns about the impact that the “gig economy” is having on workers.
The FTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Chris Lehane, head of policy for Airbnb, defended the company’s record in a statement on Wednesday.
“The vast majority of our hosts in Massachusetts, California, Hawaii and across the county are middle class people who depend on home sharing as a way to address economic inequality,” Lehane said, arguing that many hosts “depend on the on the extra money they make from home sharing to make ends meet”.
He added: “We welcome any opportunity to work with lawmakers and regulators who want to learn more about how home sharing helps the middle class address the issue of economic inequality.”