Here‘s the feed for posts and here’s the feed for comments.

See you there!

This blog will no  longer be updated.

[University of British Columbia Professor Lawrence] Frank is part of an emerging area of cross-disciplinary science that’s examining the relationship between the shapes of our cities and the shapes of our bodies.

He and other researchers have evidence that associates health problems with urban sprawl, a loose term for human made landscapes characterized by a low density of buildings, dependence on automobiles, and a separation of residential and commercial areas. Frank proposes that sprawl discourages physical activity, but some researchers suggest that people who don’t care to exercise choose suburban life. Besides working to settle that disagreement, researchers are looking at facets of urban design that may shortchange health.

(via)

A Madison Avenue antiques dealer is suing a group of unidentified homeless people for $1 million, saying that the group has taken up residence outside his posh Upper East Side business, using the sidewalk in front of the shop as a urinal, spittoon and occasional dressing room [source].

Now the problem of homelessness in the United States is something that Americans wish that would simply disappear if they ignore it long enough. Hardly has anyone tried to understand the underlying cause of homelessness. Some term it as a urban truth that we have to live with while others look at it as nuisance that we could zone out of our visibility cone. While not being an expert on homelessness, I understand that in spite of millions of research dollars thrown at it, authorities haven’t been able to agree on a politically and economically feasible solution.

Why not give all homeless a free home? Of course, the United States so busy in resettling whole countries in the Middle East can afford it. But then that might logically lead to free-ridership and creating dependencies in the long run and definitely goes against the American ethos of work hard and you’ll succeed. At the same time, the core cause of homelessness is mental illness. I have seen numerous incidents of previously well-to-do individuals like lawyers, doctors, or businessmen being forced into homelessness due to chronic mental illness and lack of family support. Strangely a count of the homeless in the United States put the figure at an astounding low 744,000. But addressing causes of homelessness or seeking a solution may be beyond the scope of this post and let me return to the topic of discussion brought up by the article cited above.

“My concern is the health of the man,” Mr. Kemp said by phone from his store’s East 10th Street location today. “Sometimes he’s out there in blizzard conditions, and you and I pay taxes in New York City and some of that is to maintain decent shelters. And he should take advantage of that.”While Mr. Kemp referred to one of the homeless men as a “nice guy,” he said it is time for them to part ways. “It’s nothing against him,” Mr. Kemp said. “I want him to be safe and not to be an obstruction to us.”

If you notice the tone in this paragraph, it goes beyond the usual get-out-of-my-way apathetic attitude that you would normally associate with the landowner. Mr. Kemp may have developed a personal relationship with the homeless man after seeing him around for more than 2 years and although understands the plight of the afflicted man, he is now taking a more practical stand by wishing more for the man. But at the same time, shifting the responsibility onto the city seems like a likely and easy solution.

Has the city or Mr. Kemp tried to understand why does the homeless man not want to go to a homeless shelter? Definitely a warm place however seedy might seem like a better option than living out in a New York winter. Probably the answer might be similar to that of a slum dweller who rather live in the squalor of a drain in Bandra than relocate to Mira Road. The homeless man might be thinking in economic terms as well – why move to a distant homeless shelter and spend time and money commuting when you can in fact live right on Madison Ave.and hope for better alms. After all, he is occupying public space. Mr.Kemp’s ownership ends at the threshold of his store.

But at the same time, a case can be made to the city on the grounds of harm to his property value/business due to presence of the homeless. The city may very well be interested in addressing the issue if it leads to loss of revenue through sales tax. Unfortunately apart for the humanitarian argument, the homeless may have little support.

The larger question here is, where should we move the homeless man to? Should he become someone else’s problem or should we just zone them out of sight? However ignoring a social problem has never solved any.

[NY Times article hat tip: Bongo Pondit; cross posted at Urban Planning Blog]
Technorati Tags: homeless, New York, urban, space, public, private

Stop subsidising higher education and increase the fees. That is the recipe of Montek Singh Alhuwalia to improve the quality of education. The Deputy Chairman of India’s Planning Commission was addressing students at the University of Mumbai’s 150th convocation ceremony on Sunday.[link]

In a country which is unable to provide quality primary education to millions of kids, subsidizing higher education makes no sense at all. Unfortunately, there is a strong sense of entitlement attached to higher education-somehow the government is obliged to provide for college education. As with all subsidies, it has acquired a logic of it’s own and it is extremely difficult to force this change.

There is of course a second, equally strong argument for increasing fees. Only this will allow the institutions to have at least some degree of autonomy so that they can chart their policies independent of day to day political interference. Also, this would help them  expand facilities and truly become world class institutions. In the current set up, U.G.C funding is just about enough to pay the non-plan expenditure, mainly salaries. This ensures that the vociferous unions keep their mouth shut. The capital demands which are essential for the growth of the institutions are largely unmet.

Interestingly enough, Planning Commission has suggested that money allocated to education be halved, so how will government attempt to fund ambitious primary education projects?

The government may talk of its commitment to elementary education, but when it comes to walking the talk, it turns to you and me. It is likely that in the next fiscal, a larger portion of government spending on elementary education will be met by the 2% education cess.[link]

There is a much better way. As Sam Pitroda recently said, privatize B.S.N.L. This alone will net the government close to 80,000 crores.

What is the government doing in telecom industry anyway?

 Within the last two years, companies including Toyota, Spring Nextel, Florida Power and Light, Credit Suisee and Pepsi Bottling Group have opened or expanded on-site clinics. And many employers are adding or planning to add even more clinics, which were experimented with about 30 years ago but fell out of favor amid questions about their cost-effectiveness.Today a new wave of clinics is opening, driven largely by a motive that was less of a factor in the past: employers’ desires to reduce their health insurance premiums by taking care of workers before they need to see outside doctors. More than 100 of the nation’s 1,000 largest employers now offer on-site primary care or preventive health services — a number forecast to exceed 250 by the end of the year, according to David Beech, a health benefits consultant.[Link]

While it does seem to a great idea, the problem is that running clinics is not their core competency.If health premiums were to go down tomorrow, the health clinics will disappear as fast as they have appeared. Also, it would be quote interesting to see how the big insurance companies react to this threat.

The Department of Science and Technology has therefore come out with the scheme of INSPIRE to offer science as a career option by providing necessary opportunities for youth with aptitude for careers seeking innovation and psychic delight in addition to reasonable income.
The scheme includes three elements in different age groups which will run for a period of five years.
The first element is providing Science innovation scholarships of Rs 5,000 for a total of one million young learners in the age group of 10-17 once in their school career during the next five years for experiencing the joy of innovation. Second element is providing mentorship for top one per cent performers of Class ten examinations through meeting with global icons – Nobel Laureates during summer camps .
Third element will be providing assured opportunity for career with science for best 500 students for 15 years, from 17 to 32 years by offering scholarship for doctoral research and an Assistant Professor’s job later.[link]

Sounds good on paper-as all government of India schemes inevitably do. But the crucial question is-where exactly is the problem? Is it merely the failure to attract the best talent or is it that the quality of work being done in science institutes is not innovative and cutting edge? Perhaps, government money would be better invested in enhancing the infrastructure of institutes like IISc.

1. China and India are less locked into fossil fuels than is the United States, and as Brazil has done they will take the lead in moving toward energy alternatives. America does not need to get them “on board,” and given their cooperativeness American energy policy will matter at the margin.

2. We can cut a deal with China and India at a suitably presented international convention. China and India will enforce this deal and abide by it, overcoming previous problems they have had ruling their provinces and avoiding excess decentralization.

3. Forget about the international conference, we can pressure China and India by twisting their arms. Like we’ve done with the Chinese currency. We also can threaten them with trade taxes, as has been discussed in Europe.

4. We are best saying nothing to China and India and calling no conference. There is some chance they will act unilaterally, out of pride and the desire to upstage the United States. External pressure will be counterproductive, remember British imperialism and the Opium Wars?

5. China and India will continue to be major polluters. If we tax American-generated carbon we pay a big price in terms of economic growth but make no real progress on global warming.

6. We do not know what China and India will do, but the United States is a world leader and ought to move first, set a good example, and do the right thing.

As noted later in the post, the cost for either India or China to be reduce global warming contribution might not be very high in real terms, but the important problems are institutional.

There are potential incentives (#2) and disincentives (#3), both political and economic, that might compel the two countries to overcome such barriers. But I doubt that either country will act unilaterally (#4) out of pride or to upstage the United States, even if under the remote possibility that USA is able to set a ‘good example’. Conventional wisdom says that while protecting the environment and reducing fossil fuel consumption are noble goals, China and India’s interest at this stage is obviously better served through economic growth and that is where all policy will be directed.

What interests me though is the flip side question: will investment in cleaner energies now actually make the Chinese and Indian economies grow at at a more rapid pace ? I am not an expert by any stretch and would welcome comments from those who are. However, a couple of intuitive points come to mind.

First, cleaner burning systems means more efficient systems, which should be beneficial in economic terms, right ? Second, independence from natural gas might serve the political interests of the country, since it would not have to pander to the interests of oil rich countries to ensure smooth economic growth.

As noted in the original post, Brazil has taken a lead in innovation towards energy independence – would be interested to know if how that has helped the growth of their economy.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed extending health care coverage to all of California’ss 36 million residents as part of a sweeping package of changes to the state’s huge, troubled health care system. The plan, which Mr. Schwarzenegger estimated would cost $12 billion, calls for many employers that do not offer health insurance to contribute to a fund that would help pay for coverage of the working uninsured. It would also require doctors to pay 2 percent and hospitals 4 percent of their revenues to help cover higher reimbursements for those who treat patients enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.[link]

The number of the uninsured in United States (currently 44 million) is fast approaching a critical mass where a public policy intervention would make political sense. Massachusetts was first off the block but of course , California is unique. It’s much larger than and also has a very high proportion of undocumented workers. It remains to be seen how many taxpayers are willing to pay for them.

The proposal makes a lot of sense to Schwarzenegger personally. California  usually votes blue in Federal elections and he is looking for a possible Senate run in 2008. If he can carry it off, it can yield some excellent electoral benefits. The proposal would meet some strong resistance primarily from Republicans and their core constituency -small business. California has already amongst the highest minimum wages in the country and the effect this will have on the general business envoironment remains to be seen.

Finally, there is little doubt that movement towards universal health care is going to pick up steam. Apart from the 2006 elections, the cost of Medicaid, the program which takes care of the poor is going through the roof. In some larger states, it is estimated that without reforms, it will reach almost 50% of the state budget. Completely unsustainable. Interestingly enough, couple of states, noticeably Maryland and Florida are practically privatizing their Medicaid in order to cut costs.

In many countries, higher oil prices have hurt pocketbooks and led to worries about economic slowdowns. But here in Japan, Kiminobu Kimura, an architect, says he has not felt the pinch. In fact, his monthly energy bill is lower than a year ago.

A reason is his new home fuel cell, a machine as large and quiet as a filing cabinet that sits in front of his house and turns hydrogen into electricity and cold water into hot — at a fraction of regular utility costs.
….
Energy-efficient appliances abound in the many corners of his cramped home. There is the refrigerator that beeps when left open and the dishwasher that is compact enough to sit on the kitchen counter. In some homes, room heaters have a sensor that directs heat only toward occupants; there are “energy navigators” that track a home’s energy use.

and a conservation ‘mindset’ :

“It’s not just technology, it’s a whole mind-set,” said Hitoshi Ikuma, a specialist in energy issues at the Japan Research Institute. “Energy conservation is almost an obsession here among government, companies, regular citizens, everyone.”

Of course, since this is the New York Times reporting, the benevolent and sensible involvement of the government needs to be highlighted:

The guiding hand of government has also played a role, forcing households and companies to conserve by raising the cost of gasoline and electricity far above global levels. Taxes and price controls make a gallon of gasoline in Japan currently cost about $5.20, twice America’s more market-based prices.

The government in turn has used these tax revenues to help Japan seize the lead in renewable energies like solar power, and more recently home fuel cells. One way has been a subsidy of about $51,000 for each home fuel cell. This allowed Mr. Kimura to buy his cell last year for about $9,000, far below production cost. His cell, which generates one kilowatt per hour, provides just under half of his household’s electricity, and has cut his electricity bill by the same amount, he said.

 The shaky 15-second footage shows a clearly identifiable boy grinning as he strides up to throw the missile. Head teacher Gordon Cunningham said it had been the Year 9 pupil’s last day at Easthampstead Park School in Berkshire before he and his family emigrated. “It’s horrendous,” he said. The police would be informed. The clip, featured on a popular video-sharing website, also shows a boy and a girl dressed in school uniform who appear to have been encouraging the attack, while other voices can also be heard.

While the conduct of the student is indeed despicable and he deserves to be chastised, trying to police the Internet is futile. This will only drive the movement underground where even community measures like flagging offensive content are unavailable.[link]

It’s not as if windows were not broken before the advent of Youtube!

Iran is attempting a more desperate gambit to control the Internet.

In a blow to the country’s estimated 5 million internet users, service providers have been told to restrict online speeds to 128 kilobits per second (kbps) and been forbidden from offering fast broadband packages. The move by Iran’s telecommunications regulator will make it more difficult to download foreign music, films and television programmes, which the authorities blame for undermining Islamic culture among the younger generation. It will also impede efforts by political opposition groups to organise by uploading information on to the net.[link]

This is beyond stupid. Broadband  connections  are not only used to view ‘decadent Western sites’ as the cultural police seems to believe. By denying access to high speed connections, the Iranian government is taking the country backward.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, Youtube is in for further trouble.

( Reuters link via Labnol)