One more gigantic heave to the right: Building Height Decision Delayed
I just love this quote from the article linked above: "Neighbors in single-family homes along Highland have argued the new limit would allow buildings out of character with the existing neighborhood."
Would that be the character of square brick multi-tenant boxes on the waterfront, boarded up rat nests on the Washington Ave and Manette bridge intersection, the shoe-box hovels on Pleasant avenue, or the dime-a-dozen craftsman houses on Highland avenue?
I honestly think that the time for discussion is done and that the time for legal action should begin. Opposers of development tried these delay and control tactics to the investors on Bainbridge Island and when those developers fought, the city lost every time. Not only has the city of Bremerton invested large sums of money in a plan of revitalization that they developed and promoted, so too has the State government and the Federal government, in addition to individuals, invested large quantities of money into this plan.
This City has a contractual obligation to make every attempt to fulfill their plan and to proceed with all due haste toward a resolution that pays the maximum returns on all the money invested in this area. Whether that means population density in the downtown area, if that means economic assistance to individual remodelers, or if that means swift resolution on topics that should have been resolved in the multi-year formulation of this revitalization plan, the city must take action. Anything less than the city's every effort to affect a smooth transition of "the plan" in the Highland district is a breach of contract and should be treated as such.
If there truly are historic residences in this Highland District, let's see them listed on the National Historic Register and let's see Bremerton provide financial aid in their restoration and preservation. If not, however, then let developers and individual homeowners alike benefit from the very economic windfall that everyone south of 6th street has been enjoying, un-impeded.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
More on Oil and Gas
Did anyone else see these two great inter-related articles this morning over at CNN.com?
I mean, am I the only one who is putting one and one together to get two? Here’s my take.
In any urban area there is a lot of traffic; I live in a small town, and nonetheless every morning and night there’s bumper-to-bumper traffic with people trying to get to or from work. But how bad is it really? According to a 10-year-old study released by the Texas Transportation Institute in 1996,
In 2003 the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) re-examined the on-going Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) study and found that:
Review the works cited and read the full article here.
This increase in lost hours per year isn’t an exact linear curve, but if we apply a little math-a-magic to the trend we can interpolate that we’re increasing by roughly 4 hours per year in lost time. That means today, in 2006 we’re up to 74 hours lost per year and by 2010 we’ll be losing 90 hours a year to traffic jams!
Back to the CNN articles and their question of why is oil at $72 a barrel? (And the underlying question: what can be done about it?) Well, if each and every one of us spends 74 hours a year in our cars at a dead stop, and worse starting and stopping every 15 seconds as we creep along toward our final destination… man, I need a math genius to help me out here: how much gas is wasted, not in getting from point a to point b, but lost in-between the two?
Well, why? Why are we okay with spending an extra 74 hours a year in our cars? And what is the leading cause behind this “time tax”? My hypothesis: it’s the point a to point b mentality. And I say “mentality” for a very specific reason: it’s not really point a to b. For arguments sake, lets say that I live in a suburb of Seattle. In order for me to get from home to work, then, I have to get in my car and travel out of my neighborhood to get to an arterial, which will then lead me along a circuitous route to a freeway; and this process must happen in a very specific and limited timeframe. I then travel this freeway with two hundred thousand of my closest friends and strangers to make it to an exit that leads to an arterial that drops me in a neighborhood where I spend too long looking for a parking space… just so I can begin my day.
Well, at this point I’m pretty fed up with my state government for not providing adequate transportation routes, so I call up my congress person, my senator, my newspaper, and I write a scathing blog about how unjust this system is to my quality of life. So, with much capitulation the State of Washington starts adding a new lane to my freeway, which for the next two years will actually TAKE a lane of traffic away from me and make my commute even more miserable. And by the time that two years has passed and the freeway is now one lane wider, population density has surpassed the intended relief and the net gain is zilch.
Hey, is anyone else seeing that adding new lanes to an old road system isn’t getting us anywhere? Take gas and the price of oil completely out of the equations for a moment: 74 lost hours a year: that’s the standard American worker’s allotted vacation, spent in traffic. Even at a nickel a gallon gas, I’m not okay with that. Roads are a one-dimensional solution that will never work. Now, air-scooters (same video again)… hey, there’s an idea that’s as exciting as it seems far-fetched. Well, I say far-fetched because we don’t have them yet, even though just about every futuristic movie ever made has something or another flying around (and probably using gasoline, I might add.) But while people and governments alike are spending millions and billions in research money to find a cheaper fuel alternative and the politically career extending “oil independence”, such a solution is no solution at all, and nobody but nobody has addressed this reality.
Here’s my question: If today by waving my magic wand I could reduce every ten minutes you spend commuting down to one minute: I.e. a 10:1 ratio, would you be willing to pay $10 a gallon for gas? I know I would. My time is infinitely more valuable to me than the price of sweet crude and worth a great deal more money to me than cheaper gas. Ironically, if such a course of action were pursued the overall usage of gasoline would decrease. If my 60-minute commute turns into a 6-minute commute, well then I’ve only burned 6 minutes worth of gas, and so did my 200,000 friends… and that’s a lot of gas being saved. Maybe "Air scooters" aren't the best solution, but something along those lines, something that puts us back on the "shortest distance between two points" again, because 10 cents a gallon increase is a platry price to pay for getting my 74 hours back a year.
Well, that’s my 2 cents.
I mean, am I the only one who is putting one and one together to get two? Here’s my take.
In any urban area there is a lot of traffic; I live in a small town, and nonetheless every morning and night there’s bumper-to-bumper traffic with people trying to get to or from work. But how bad is it really? According to a 10-year-old study released by the Texas Transportation Institute in 1996,
Commuters in 1/3 of the nation’s largest cities spend more than 40 hours a year, one workweek, in traffic jams. The most congested city is Los Angeles, where drivers wait an average 65 hours a year bumper to bumper. In Washington, D.C., the figure is 58 hours, and the cost per capita of traffic jams $820 per year. The total cost of congestion for the 50 urban areas studied is approximately $51 billion.
In 2003 the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) re-examined the on-going Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) study and found that:
On a daily basis, Americans are experiencing longer delays, longer periods of congestion, and the spread of congestion across more and more of the nation’s roadways. This study of 75 urban areas, ranging in size from New York City to areas with 100,000+ population, suggests that traffic congestion will continue to worsen as the number of vehicle miles traveled continues to grow. The APTA quoted the following 2003 statistics from the TTI:
· Each person traveling in peak periods wastes, on average, 62 hours a year -- nearly eight full working days -- in congestion delays.(*1)
· Urban travelers can now expect to encounter congested roadways during seven hours of the day.(*1)
· Congestion is becoming more widespread, experienced by nearly 60 percent of urban roadways in 2000.(*1)
· Congestion is no longer confined to our largest metropolitan areas. As long ago as 1997, two-thirds of peak-period traffic was congested in areas of 500,000 or less. (*2)
Review the works cited and read the full article here.
This increase in lost hours per year isn’t an exact linear curve, but if we apply a little math-a-magic to the trend we can interpolate that we’re increasing by roughly 4 hours per year in lost time. That means today, in 2006 we’re up to 74 hours lost per year and by 2010 we’ll be losing 90 hours a year to traffic jams!
Back to the CNN articles and their question of why is oil at $72 a barrel? (And the underlying question: what can be done about it?) Well, if each and every one of us spends 74 hours a year in our cars at a dead stop, and worse starting and stopping every 15 seconds as we creep along toward our final destination… man, I need a math genius to help me out here: how much gas is wasted, not in getting from point a to point b, but lost in-between the two?
Well, why? Why are we okay with spending an extra 74 hours a year in our cars? And what is the leading cause behind this “time tax”? My hypothesis: it’s the point a to point b mentality. And I say “mentality” for a very specific reason: it’s not really point a to b. For arguments sake, lets say that I live in a suburb of Seattle. In order for me to get from home to work, then, I have to get in my car and travel out of my neighborhood to get to an arterial, which will then lead me along a circuitous route to a freeway; and this process must happen in a very specific and limited timeframe. I then travel this freeway with two hundred thousand of my closest friends and strangers to make it to an exit that leads to an arterial that drops me in a neighborhood where I spend too long looking for a parking space… just so I can begin my day.
Well, at this point I’m pretty fed up with my state government for not providing adequate transportation routes, so I call up my congress person, my senator, my newspaper, and I write a scathing blog about how unjust this system is to my quality of life. So, with much capitulation the State of Washington starts adding a new lane to my freeway, which for the next two years will actually TAKE a lane of traffic away from me and make my commute even more miserable. And by the time that two years has passed and the freeway is now one lane wider, population density has surpassed the intended relief and the net gain is zilch.
Hey, is anyone else seeing that adding new lanes to an old road system isn’t getting us anywhere? Take gas and the price of oil completely out of the equations for a moment: 74 lost hours a year: that’s the standard American worker’s allotted vacation, spent in traffic. Even at a nickel a gallon gas, I’m not okay with that. Roads are a one-dimensional solution that will never work. Now, air-scooters (same video again)… hey, there’s an idea that’s as exciting as it seems far-fetched. Well, I say far-fetched because we don’t have them yet, even though just about every futuristic movie ever made has something or another flying around (and probably using gasoline, I might add.) But while people and governments alike are spending millions and billions in research money to find a cheaper fuel alternative and the politically career extending “oil independence”, such a solution is no solution at all, and nobody but nobody has addressed this reality.
Here’s my question: If today by waving my magic wand I could reduce every ten minutes you spend commuting down to one minute: I.e. a 10:1 ratio, would you be willing to pay $10 a gallon for gas? I know I would. My time is infinitely more valuable to me than the price of sweet crude and worth a great deal more money to me than cheaper gas. Ironically, if such a course of action were pursued the overall usage of gasoline would decrease. If my 60-minute commute turns into a 6-minute commute, well then I’ve only burned 6 minutes worth of gas, and so did my 200,000 friends… and that’s a lot of gas being saved. Maybe "Air scooters" aren't the best solution, but something along those lines, something that puts us back on the "shortest distance between two points" again, because 10 cents a gallon increase is a platry price to pay for getting my 74 hours back a year.
Well, that’s my 2 cents.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Lilah's Ring
I had Lilah's ring redone while she is away on vacation and then I had it FedExed to her in Texas. She'd been mentioning that perhaps something a bit more
flattering and since she was out of town I thought this would be a great opportunity.For those of you astute individuals who will mention that the stone also looks different; well, you're right. We had discussed that perhaps now that we're better situated that we could possible get her a better quality stone, and we're probably not done yet.
Working our way up the diamond scale is actually quite exciting. It makes me feel that I'm in an ongoing Proposal process that we can share in, over and over again.
And if you don't agree, bully on you.
Two Right, One Wrong
This Article by Fortune on CNNMoney.com did a good job at clarifying two items and muddying up another one. Here's an excerpt:
Maybe I missed it all the other times this first fact was published, but I like that it's being stated here, suscintly: Oil companies sell oil, not gasoline.
Second point: Big oil companies do not set gas prices and more importantly do not set oil prices Shockingly true, but it's the American Stock Market, more specifically the American Futures Market, that sets the price of oil based on the belief of the American worth of that barrel at some point in the future. In fact, Big Oil companies make money because American's cry out that we need more oil. See, it works like this: Say today that an actual barrel of oil is selling for $40.00. But we know that the summer driving season is coming upon us and we're screaming at our legislators and local news companies that Oil costs too much because it's in short supply, which causes investors to believe that in the near future oil will cost more per barrel because of limited supply and a big need. So, the future price of that same barrel of oil goes up, to say $60 a barrel. BUT, and here's where the oil companies make a bundle, the government and OPEC come together to try to ease the burden of the poor American driver and so produce more oil. More oil means that the price per barrel should really be cheaper, but because this oil was sold on a future's market they get more money for the product. So, really, who you should be screaming at is... American investors.
The third point I disagree with. Because of this system of demand and price, the Government shouldn't have to legislate MPG statistics, the buying public should drive demand for better gas mileage cars. Two to three dollar per gallon gas is inconvenient and even a little painful, but people are managing. Price gas at $6.00 to $10.00 a gallon and you'll see SUV's sitting on car lots untouched and an upsurge in Hybrid and Alternative fuels, or masses of people will finally adopt public transportation, car-pooling, and less energy dense transportation methods like scooters and electic carts. This will send the clear and quick message that we demand better fuel economy to Detroit and Japan, not some Congressional legislation that will take 2 years to pass, 5 years to implement, and 10 years to statistically affect the amount of gas used by American Motorists.
Just thought I'd share.
Because while those profits might seem outrageous - ExxonMobil (Research) earned over $36 billion last year - Big Oil makes its money by pumping oil out of the ground, not refining and selling it as gasoline. Of Exxon's mammoth haul, only a tiny fraction came from making and selling gas in the U.S.
The idea that prices are set by Big Oil, not the traders at the NYMEX and other global bourses, is a misconception that seems to come into vogue whenever energy prices start making new highs. And putting the blame on OPEC, let alone trying to subject a foreign cartel to U.S. laws, seems to be doing anything but dealing honestly with the problem of too much demand and too little supply here at home.
Kohl's bill, alas, won't do much to lower gas prices. The real problem here is the reluctance of Washington to make more than modest improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. At the same time, politicians and other leaders seem unwilling to at least jawbone more Americans into giving up their SUVs and Hummers in favor of more fuel-efficient cars. Suing OPEC under U.S. anti-trust laws may be smart politics, but what about actually telling voters that they, too, have to take some responsibility for the problem?
Maybe I missed it all the other times this first fact was published, but I like that it's being stated here, suscintly: Oil companies sell oil, not gasoline.
Second point: Big oil companies do not set gas prices and more importantly do not set oil prices Shockingly true, but it's the American Stock Market, more specifically the American Futures Market, that sets the price of oil based on the belief of the American worth of that barrel at some point in the future. In fact, Big Oil companies make money because American's cry out that we need more oil. See, it works like this: Say today that an actual barrel of oil is selling for $40.00. But we know that the summer driving season is coming upon us and we're screaming at our legislators and local news companies that Oil costs too much because it's in short supply, which causes investors to believe that in the near future oil will cost more per barrel because of limited supply and a big need. So, the future price of that same barrel of oil goes up, to say $60 a barrel. BUT, and here's where the oil companies make a bundle, the government and OPEC come together to try to ease the burden of the poor American driver and so produce more oil. More oil means that the price per barrel should really be cheaper, but because this oil was sold on a future's market they get more money for the product. So, really, who you should be screaming at is... American investors.
The third point I disagree with. Because of this system of demand and price, the Government shouldn't have to legislate MPG statistics, the buying public should drive demand for better gas mileage cars. Two to three dollar per gallon gas is inconvenient and even a little painful, but people are managing. Price gas at $6.00 to $10.00 a gallon and you'll see SUV's sitting on car lots untouched and an upsurge in Hybrid and Alternative fuels, or masses of people will finally adopt public transportation, car-pooling, and less energy dense transportation methods like scooters and electic carts. This will send the clear and quick message that we demand better fuel economy to Detroit and Japan, not some Congressional legislation that will take 2 years to pass, 5 years to implement, and 10 years to statistically affect the amount of gas used by American Motorists.
Just thought I'd share.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
I'm Famous! (or not)
I wrote a letter to the editor of the Kitsap Sun, our local paper. I don't know if it actually made it to the printed paper, but they posted it on their blog, here. I wrote my letter in response to this letter from Caroline Pierce.
Here is/are some other enjoyable letters that I've commented on.
Ferries cost too much.
More Gripes about the Ferries
:j
Friday, April 07, 2006
Tidings
Well, today is Lilah's last day of work at Mercer Health and Benefits. It's been a few years and this seems like such a major change. Still, we're both so happy about the change in commute time, from 3 hours a day to about 20 minutes a day. I know I've professed for years how great it was how close my work was and how I walked to work every day... with Lilah's new job, she'll be even closer than I am. It's great.
In other news, for those of you who don't follow Projectsoup.com, it's been growing. I finally got Google Adsense installed and you can now see the advertisements over on the right hand side and at the bottom of the page. So far the clicks have earned me a mighty whopping Three Dollars and Fifty Cents, but hey, it's a new blog. Traffic wise, I've more than doubled my unique viewers each month, and have gone from an anemic 5.7 megabits of bandwidth the first month, to a still well below petite though statistically larger 40 megabits of bandwidth usage last month. That amounts to 4300 hits in March and 2034 page views.
Ah, so anyway, seeing as my millions aren't made yet, I continue in my employ at the shipyard. It's been a busy travel month! I've been to San Diego, Hawaii, and San Diego thus far this month. At the end of next week I expect to head to San Diego again and at the end of the month I'll be heading to Northrup Grumond Newport News in Virginia to give a presentation on Eddy Current Inspection to a consortium of fellow DoD employees. If that sounds important, it kinda is. Nothing to get me elected to Congress or even to the local library staff, but it's some much needed face time with NAVSEA and potential exposure for long term solutions to inspection criteria that will do some good for both the Navy and my resume'.
The house the house the house. We finally received the contract papers from our designer. Now it is a matter of getting back in touch with our banker to make sure that they are willing to fund us for the increase of scope... which basically amounts to leveling this house and building a new one. This was suggested from the beginning by many family members and friends. To all of you: please take your moment to say it: "nanny nanny boo boo, I told you." There, you feel better, I feel better, we're better together. SO, what spurred the change of scope? Mostly it was discussions with the Architect, the Developer, the Engineer, and the City. Anything that was as grand of scope as our "remodel" would have required us to buy into any new zoning and regulations... in other words, we would have torn the house down to make remodels meet codes that we're grandfathered into so long as we never touch the place, but the second we start cracking into retaining walls, our foundation has to be re-engineered; the second we start adding a second story, the first story framing has to meet new load limits (which it most likely does, but I would still have to pay for the engineer to prove it... money that could be spent more wisely). And in the end, the engineer pointed out: you're trying to make a million dollar home and you might well do it, but you'll always have 100 year old framing and that won't sell nearly as well as a million dollar home made out of renewable products with all the bells and whistles that Engineering can buy.
Besides, we're really excited about being able to design our house outside the footprint we're currently living on.
Anyway, that's my update. Lilah is heading to Texas next Monday for a week vacation between her jobs. I'll be home alone with the dog; just us two kids. He he he.
:j
In other news, for those of you who don't follow Projectsoup.com, it's been growing. I finally got Google Adsense installed and you can now see the advertisements over on the right hand side and at the bottom of the page. So far the clicks have earned me a mighty whopping Three Dollars and Fifty Cents, but hey, it's a new blog. Traffic wise, I've more than doubled my unique viewers each month, and have gone from an anemic 5.7 megabits of bandwidth the first month, to a still well below petite though statistically larger 40 megabits of bandwidth usage last month. That amounts to 4300 hits in March and 2034 page views.
Ah, so anyway, seeing as my millions aren't made yet, I continue in my employ at the shipyard. It's been a busy travel month! I've been to San Diego, Hawaii, and San Diego thus far this month. At the end of next week I expect to head to San Diego again and at the end of the month I'll be heading to Northrup Grumond Newport News in Virginia to give a presentation on Eddy Current Inspection to a consortium of fellow DoD employees. If that sounds important, it kinda is. Nothing to get me elected to Congress or even to the local library staff, but it's some much needed face time with NAVSEA and potential exposure for long term solutions to inspection criteria that will do some good for both the Navy and my resume'.
The house the house the house. We finally received the contract papers from our designer. Now it is a matter of getting back in touch with our banker to make sure that they are willing to fund us for the increase of scope... which basically amounts to leveling this house and building a new one. This was suggested from the beginning by many family members and friends. To all of you: please take your moment to say it: "nanny nanny boo boo, I told you." There, you feel better, I feel better, we're better together. SO, what spurred the change of scope? Mostly it was discussions with the Architect, the Developer, the Engineer, and the City. Anything that was as grand of scope as our "remodel" would have required us to buy into any new zoning and regulations... in other words, we would have torn the house down to make remodels meet codes that we're grandfathered into so long as we never touch the place, but the second we start cracking into retaining walls, our foundation has to be re-engineered; the second we start adding a second story, the first story framing has to meet new load limits (which it most likely does, but I would still have to pay for the engineer to prove it... money that could be spent more wisely). And in the end, the engineer pointed out: you're trying to make a million dollar home and you might well do it, but you'll always have 100 year old framing and that won't sell nearly as well as a million dollar home made out of renewable products with all the bells and whistles that Engineering can buy.
Besides, we're really excited about being able to design our house outside the footprint we're currently living on.
Anyway, that's my update. Lilah is heading to Texas next Monday for a week vacation between her jobs. I'll be home alone with the dog; just us two kids. He he he.
:j
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
