; SUNDAY, NOV 10, 2013 11:30 AM PSTThe below article is reproduced from Salon.com as is because it is a must read for everyone & anyone who wants to see real time proof of the devastation being caused by Wal-Mart and similar big box stores, who simply decimate the economy of almost every community that they move into.
Excerpted from "Happy City" Jobs, Money, and Geometry
Most of us agree that development that provides employment and tax revenue is good for cities. Some even argue that the need for jobs outweighs aesthetic, lifestyle, or climate concerns—in fact, this argument comes up any time Walmart proposes a new megastore near a small town. But a clear-eyed look at the spatial economics of land, jobs, and tax regimes should cause anyone to reject the anything-and-anywhere-goes development model. To explain, let me offer the story of an obsessive number cruncher who found his own urban laboratory quite by chance.
Joseph Minicozzi, a young architect raised in upstate New York, was on a cross-country motorcycle ride in 2001 when he got sidetracked in the Appalachian Mountains. He met a beautiful woman in a North Carolina roadside bar and was smitten by both that woman and the languid beauty of the Blue Ridge region. Now they share a bungalow with two dogs in the mountain town of Asheville.
Asheville is, in many ways, a typical midsize American city, which is to say that its downtown was virtually abandoned in the second half of the twentieth century. Dozens of elegant old structures were boarded up or encased in aluminum siding as highways and liberal development policies sucked people and commercial life into dispersal. The process continued until 1991, when Julian Price, the heir to a family insurance and broadcasting fortune, decided to pour everything he had
into nursing that old downtown back to life. His company, Public Interest Projects, bought and renovated old buildings, leased street-front space out to small businesses, and rented or sold the lofts above to a new wave of residential pioneers. They coached, coddled, and sometimes bankrolled entrepreneurs who began to enliven the streets. First came a vegetarian restaurant, then a bookstore, a furniture store, and the now-legendary nightclub, the Orange Peel.
When Price died in 2001, the downtown was starting to show signs of life, but his successor, Pat Whelan, and his new recruit, Minicozzi, still had to battle the civic skeptics. Some city officials saw such little value in downtown land that they planned to plunk down a prison right in the middle of a terrain that was perfect for mixed-use redevelopment. The developers realized that if they wanted the city officials to support their vision, they needed to educate them—and that meant offering them hard numbers on the tax and job benefits of revitalizing downtown. The numbers they produced sparked a eureka moment among the city’s accountants because they insisted on taking a spatial systems approach, similar to the way farmers look at land they want to put into production. The question was simple: What is the production yield for every acre of land? On a farm, the answer might be in pounds of tomatoes. In the city, it’s about tax revenues and
To explain, Minicozzi offered me his classic urban accounting smackdown, using two competing properties: On the one side is a downtown building his firm rescued—a six-story steel-framed 1923 classic once owned by JCPenney and converted into shops, offices, and condos. On the other side is a Walmart on the edge of town. The old Penney’s building sits on less than a quarter of an acre, while the Walmart and its parking lots occupy thirty-four acres. Adding up the property and sales tax paid on each piece of land, Minicozzi found that the Walmart contributed only $50,800 to the city in retail and property taxes for each acre it used, but the JCPenney building contributed a whopping $330,000 per acre in property tax alone. In other words, the city got more than seven times the return for every acre on downtown investments than it did when it broke new ground out on the city limits.
When Minicozzi looked at job density, the difference was even more vivid: the small businesses that occupied the old Penney’s building employed fourteen people, which doesn’t seem like many until you realize that this is actually seventy-four jobs per acre, compared with the fewer than six jobs per acre created on a sprawling Walmart site. (This is particularly dire given that on top of reducing jobs density in its host cities, Walmart depresses average wages as well.)
Minicozzi has since found the same spatial conditions in cities all over the United States. Even low-rise, mixed-use buildings of two or three stories—the kind you see on an old-style, small-town main street—bring in ten times the revenue per acre as that of an average big-box development. What’s stunning is that, thanks to the relationship between energy and distance, large-footprint sprawl development patterns can actually cost cities more to service than they give back in taxes. The result? Growth that produces deficits that simply cannot be overcome with new growth revenue.*
“Cities and counties have essentially been taking tax revenues from downtowns and using them to subsidize development and services in sprawl,” Minicozzi told me. “This is like a farmer going out and dumping all his fertilizer on the weeds rather than on the tomatoes.”**
Price, Whelan, and Minicozzi helped convince the city of Asheville to fertilize that rich downtown soil. The city changed its zoning policies, allowing flexible uses for downtown buildings. It invested in livelier streetscapes and public events. It stopped forcing developers to build parking garages, which brought down the cost of both housing and business. It built its own user-pay garages, so the cost of parking was borne by the people who used it rather than by everyone else. All of this helped make it worthwhile for developers to risk their investment on restoring old buildings, producing new jobs and tax density for the city.
Retail sales in the resurgent downtown have exploded since 1991. So has the taxable value of downtown properties, which cost a fraction to service than sprawl lands. The reborn downtown has become the greatest supplier of tax revenue and affordable housing in the county—partly because it relieves people of the burden of commuting, and partly because it mixes high-end lofts with modest apartments. All of this, while growing what one local newspaper emotionally described as, “a downtown that—after decades of doubt and neglect—is once again the heart and soul of Asheville.”
Does David Brandt hold the secret for turning industrial agriculture from global-warming problem to carbon solution?
—By Tom Philpott
)CHATTING WITH DAVID BRANDT outside his barn on a sunny June morning, I wonder if he doesn't look too much like a farmer—what a casting director might call "too on the nose." He's a beefy man in bib overalls, a plaid shirt, and well-worn boots, with short, gray-streaked hair peeking out from a trucker hat over a round, unlined face ruddy from the sun.Brandt farms 1,200 acres in the central Ohio village of Carroll, pop. 524. This is the domain of industrial-scale agriculture—a vast expanse of corn and soybean fields broken up only by the sprawl creeping in from Columbus. Brandt, 66, raised his kids on this farm after taking it over from his grandfather. Yet he sounds not so much like a subject of King Corn as, say, one of the organics geeks I work with on my own farm in North Carolina. In his g-droppin' Midwestern monotone, he's telling me about his cover crops—fall plantings that blanket the ground in winter and are allowed to rot in place come spring, a practice as eyebrow-raising in corn country as holding a naked yoga class in the pasture. The plot I can see looks just about identical to the carpet of corn that stretches from eastern Ohio to western Nebraska.
But last winter it would have looked very different: While the neighbors' fields lay fallow, Brandt's teemed with a mix of as many as 14 different plant species.
Two recent articles I found were very interesting and call out the fallacy that "the Super Rich (1%) are the job creators". Bryce Covert writes that "Entrepreneur and self-described one percenter Nick Hanauer warned Congress that rich people like him aren’t the engines of the economy. In a testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, he explained why, in fact, middle-class workers are the economy’s real job creators:In the same way that it’s a fact that the sun, not earth is the center of the solar system, it’s also a fact that the middle class, not rich business people like me are the center of America’s economy. […]As an entrepreneur and investor, I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all would have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.He described what he calls a “virtuous cycle” in which middle class consumers have money to buy goods, which increases demand and therefore hiring. The rich, on the other hand, don’t fuel the economy with their consumption in the same way. “I earn 1,000 times the median wage, but I do not buy 1,000 times as much stuff,” he noted." (read more)On the other hand, inspite of record corporate profits and sky high CEO compensations (which only recently are seeing a downswing), as per a New America Foundation report
, minimum wage has changed little in the last 50 years. Come on, 50 years and the majority are still making what they did a half century ago? Prices for everything are changing as they are keeping pace with the changing times, then how come we dont have a "Living Wage"? Shouldn't the minimum wage keep pace with the changing times?
From "The New America Foundation".
| The Next Social Contract 2013 |
|File Size: ||2892 kb|
|File Type: || pdf|
The tricky task of balancing work and personal life is an art form for most small-business owners. Feeling pulled in every direction? Learn some ways to achieve balance in your life.
Successful entrepreneurs may be a rarity, but most successful entrepreneurs do share a few common characteristics with each other. If you’re worried that you don’t have all of these on the list yourself, that’s OK, many, if not all can be learned as you grow as a business person.
So you want to be a successful entrepreneur? Review the Successful Entrepreneurs infographic below and be on your way to your creating your own fortune.
Small businesses play an essential part in powering our economy, but only if they can achieve success. Below are a list of common mistakes made by Small Business owners – do any of them look familiar to you?
Review the below infographic below to learn more on how to prevent the most common mistakes for small businesses that lead to failure. Help your business achieve the success that it deserves.
Finding the cash to launch your business or keep it running can be a daunting task. Whether you are reaching into your pocketbook (or someone else’s), borrowing money from a bank or seeking a cash-heavy investor, every entrepreneur knows that without cash, success is out of reach.
Learn more about the various ways that small businesses get money to help them grow from the infographic below , also who is most likely to get funding, and how much venture capitalists and angel investors contribute financially.
Passionate about your business idea? Convinced that you can provide a needed service to your target market? Not quite sure about all the steps needed to get your business up and running?
Starting your own business does not have to be an intimidating process. Outlined and explained below are the basic steps that are involved in starting a new business. The below infographic will help you more easily visualize and retain this important information. Hopefully the below guide will provide a great starting point.
What is the role of business exactly? Is it to create prosperity of society at large or promote greed for a few?
CommonPrise stands for Common enterprise and my endeavor to highlight how business, if done with the common people in mind and if the middle class is given the opportunity to be entrepreneurial, can bring a great deal of prosperity to the whole world as a whole and will help eradicate poverty and all the ills that come with it.
CommonPrise is more than social enterprise but has its origins in the same philosophy and ideology. CommonPrise about making every employee in every business a stakeholder and integral part of the businesses success plan.
What we see today is a bloated top down structure in the business hierarchy where the top few have all the power and reap all the benefits while the middle and bottom majority are just working longer and harder for fewer and fewer benefits. Most business owners and leaders want to sell their products to the big middle class but paradoxically balk at paying the same middle class a living wage. If the middle class cannot make a decent living, how will they pay for products or services. This might sound simple and logical but then why are today's business owners doing it?