Gentrification: Disturbing a Way of Life

 Liberals seem often to express sympathy for those adversely affected by gentrification.  Over the years I've seen articles in the Post covering protests by black inner-city residents of DC over the progress of gentrification.

I've tended to have ambivalent reactions.  On the one hand, having lived in DC during some of its worst days, namely the 1970s, I want to applaud any signs of "progress", a growing population rather than shrinking, people with good incomes.  On the other hand, you can't help but sympathize with the people who've lived in an area for all their life, who are in middle age or older, and who don't have jobs and income which would give them choice and power over where they live. 

On the third hand, I remember the patterns of life in rural NY when I grew up, and I know those patterns were changing then and have changed even more in the 60 years since I left.  The fact I left aggravates my ambivalence. 

The Limitations of Vertical Farming

 To be honest, I don't know that anyone has tried to use vertical farms to grow marijuana.  They use similar technology though, and as it turns out a hell of a lot more electricity to grow green pot than to grow green lettuce. See this Politico piece.

The bottom line of the piece is: legalize marijuana at the federal level so it can be grown where it is most efficient to grow it. 

Sources of Sorting--1968 Act?

 "The Big Sort" is the idea that Americans are sorting themselves into two separate camps--based on politics, education, etc. factors., which can be seen geographically--the red and blue areas on the map.

Supposedly this is a new phenomenon.  If so, I wonder why it started?  It's easy enough to see why the sorting might continue, if people make decisions on where to live, where to buy, depending on economics and the importance of schools, etc. But why would it start?

It struck me yesterday that I should look at myself--why did I buy in Reston, in an area where today about 90 percent of my neighbors vote Democratic (per a NYTimes interactive feature)?  The answer is relatively simple.   When I decided to buy in the suburbs in late 1975 I focused on Reston.  Why? Because Robert Simon, who initiated the project, sold it as an equal opportunity town back in 1964-5.  That was when I first became aware of it, as I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir. I even visited during an early open house on a weekend. 

Simon was in advance of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, LBJ/s final achievement, which mandated equal opportunity. I can't believe EEO was a big factor in decisions by many, but it might have been just enough for some to start the snowball rolling down the hill. 

Disaster Programs

 During much of my time at ASCS/FSA the agriculture policy community was pushing the idea of moving from disaster payment programs to crop insurance, an effort which culminated in the 1996 farm bill, along with Sen. Pat Roberts' "Freedom to Farm".

Back on July 28 House Ag passed another bill deviating from that path.  As quoted by Illinois extension, Chris Clayton summarized: 

"“The bill, passed unanimously by voice vote, will expand coverage of losses under USDA’s Wildfire Hurricane Indemnity Program-Plus (WHIP-Plus) and cover losses including those from wildfires last year in California as well as the derecho that hit Midwestern producers last summer. The aid will also cover producer losses this year from the polar vortex as well as farmers whose crops are in D-2 ‘severe’ drought conditions for at least eight consecutive weeks.”

Packaged Produce

 My local Safeway is selling more and more produce in packages.  Corn is no longer on the cob, so you don't have the job of husking it.  Salad is shredded and mixed, just open the package into the bowl and put dressing on it.  

What the Safeway buyer wants is convenience, saving time by having someone back in the chain do the work. It's all part of work shifting by the upper middle class--we have money but, unless retired, not the time so we pay others to do stuff.

This trend, which has been going on for decades (think TV dinners in the 1950's), poses a big problem for the advocates of organic farming, CSA's, and similar ideas. You can't ask the farmer to do the packaging, but your market share will be limited if you don't.

Bipartisan Commisions--Watergate Version

 Finished Woodward's book, The Last Men of the President, which is mostly Alexander Butterfield's story. 

A side note--Woodward reminds that Sen. Howard Baker, the ranking Republican on the Erwin committee was initially working with the White House to protect Nixon. What was new to me, was a tidbit which Woodward interprets that Baker was still providing information to the White House, but not in person, through an aide.

So politics isn't beanbag and there wasn't a golden age of bipartisanship now lost?  

An All Electric Navy?

 Just got on 19fortyfive.com--a national security site recommended by Prof. Farley at Lawyers, Guns and Money. 

They have a piece on the progress in the Navy towards electric power. Mostly it's over my head, but my impression is much of the innovation is more like the early Prius than a Tesla, but I didn't realize there was any change in propulsion since Adm. Rickover and nuclear power.  

Inertia and Conservatism

 Many people find the easiest course of action is just to do what they did yesterday. Doing something different has downsides:

• it may mean breaking a habit. My wife and I joke about my driving on autopilot. If it's Friday I turn right, turn right, turn right, then turn left and we're at the glass recycle place. Varying the pattern means a conscious effort to decide to make a different turn.
• it may require a decision, and the decision may require researching an issue and getting information.
• it may mean risks, unknown risks. Doing what you do you're very familiar with the risks you run, and you're comfortable with them.  Doing something different means you're less familiar with the risks, which can mean you become nervous and tense, not something one likes.
• there may be unintended consequences.

So one part of conservatism is just an extrapolation of our habits.

The Long Slow Progress of Direct Deposit

Been 25 years or more since FSA started pushing direct deposit (it was just starting back in the mid 90's before I retired)  According to the notice about 82 percent are now direct deposit/ Since I retired they've come up with a waiver provision, presumably for hardship, but only 5 percent of the paper check people have a current waiver on file.  

It seems that it's still the producer's option--she "invokes" the waiver for one of the three permissible reasons, there's no burden on the FSA to determine the validity. I'm curious whether compliance with the requirement is greater among the other agencies which issue payments to the public. Somehow I expect farmers to be more resistant to the change.

Might have helped to sell the idea to note that having direct deposit makes it easier and more foolproof to get benefits issued by IRS, as has happened now several times this century.

Of course the answer is for everyone to get a basic bank account with fees paid by the government, but that would be against the American individualistic ethic, so a nonstarter.

Modern Farmer Is Confused

Modern Farmer has a post on the new loan program intended to help in establishing title to heir property.  It has some problems, and I feel nitpicky today so I've bolded the errors I find:

"For instance, if a land owner died without a will, that land would be divided up among the owner’s heirs. Once they passed on, the land would be further divided among their heirs. While property might be in a single family’s control for generations, they don’t have legal title or claim to the land. That means they cannot easily sell the land or consolidate fractured acreages...."  [My comment: usually it's the father dying intestate, with the children inheriting the land in common, not divided. When a child dies, her ownership share is inherited by her children, and so on. One of the owners can appeal to the court to force a sale of the land and divide the proceeds among the heirs. That is a way whites have used to buy land cheaply: forced sales. Even when there's no forced sale, the person farming on the land doesn't have clear title, a prerequisite to mortgaging the land.]

"After the Civil War, the federal Homestead Act gave Black families land, mainly across the South, and many of them became land holders for the first time.... [The Homestead Act and  the Southern Homestead Act weren't effective in getting black farmers land. "Gave" is wrong--the charge was $50 for 40 acres, which was a significant sum in 1866 (perhaps $700 to 12,000 in todays money). I know of no statistics or study showing the relative importance of the different ways in which blacks accumulated land, but my impression is that hard work, scrimping, and good relations with selected white owners were key.]

"That became a bigger problem after President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services came into effect. At the time, the USDA established a loan program to help farmers..." [ASCS had nothing to do with the loan program, which had originated in the New Deal, and was by 1961 administered by the Farmers Home Administration. The current day Farm Service Agency is the successor to ASCS and to the farmer loan programs of FmHA.]

 I don't trust the rest of the writer's facts, based on her errors in these portions.