Time is the essence...Time is the season...

While in graduate school a few years back, I developed a strange fixation with oysters. 

Now, I've never eaten them and never plan to, but I found the story of the native Chesapeake Bay bivalves fascinating -- I mean, people fought wars over them! 

My oyster obsession led to several papers on the topic of their restoration -- which after over half a century of effort has actually left them worse off than before intervention -- and ultimately culminated in a policy memo arguing not for or against any specific polices, but rather a new approach to policy. To wit:

Despite the insistence of many intelligent individuals to the contrary, the problem plaguing oyster recovery efforts is not an inability to overcome the diseases; rather, the problem is an inability to overcome our dogmatic approach to issues of ecology and economics. The first question posed above asks what we have done wrong, and the answer is simple: we have mistaken the oyster situation for a single problem and therefore have generated single-minded policies to address it. In reality, we are faced with two distinct problems, one involving oysters and one involving watermen. And, to define these problems only in their joint context fails to account for the broader range of issues involved in both. The perfect example of our outmoded framework for addressing these issues is the current debate over the introduction of the non-native oyster Crassostrea ariakensis (Chinese Oyster). Proponents of the plan stress that these oysters would be able to supply watermen with a viable livelihood, while also increasing the Bay’s water quality; it sounds too good to be true because it is. When freed of the desire to find a single panacea for these two problems, we can finally begin to individually address the real needs of maintaining the oysters’ water filtration capacity and improving the sustainability of the watermen and their harvests by creating adequate levels resource stock, oysters or otherwise.

Of course, I was writing this to get a grade and not so much to change policy, but prior to my ill-fated stint with the State Department of Natural Resources, the memo found its way into the hands of policy makers, who at the time weren't too keen on taking advice from some Longhair with a nebulous job title.

Nevertheless, despite its glacial pace, State government has proven me prescient.

Maryland should move toward an aquaculture-based oyster industry while at the same time trying to restore natural oyster bars for ecological benefits, according to a task force report.

The Maryland Oyster Commission's 2007 interim report does not call for a moratorium on the harvest of oysters nor for an end to public subsidies for harvest programs. Rather, it says the state should over the next two decades change how it manages oysters.

"People understand that what we've done in the past is not working, and that we do have to take some dramatic steps," said Bill Eichbaum, commission chairman and vice president of the World Wildlife Fund. "We have at least put down benchmarks that are different from what's been done in the past."

The state has convened numerous panels to discuss oyster restoration over the years, and each has tried to balance the ecological benefits of keeping oysters in the water with the economic interests of watermen. The new report says economic and ecological goals for oysters are "mutually incompatible." The oyster population is at 1 percent of its historic levels.

(Bolding mine.)

I'm not trying to claim credit or even pat myself on the back (well, maybe a little). Perhaps I'm just proving the cliche about a broken clock being right twice a day -- personally, I prefer "the sun even shines on a dog's ass some days," but that's neither here nor there.

What is here, however, is the fact that with a new approach to oyster recovery we might finally start seeing some real progress, which, no matter how you shuck it, is very good thing.

Mama I'm coming home...

Back in the good old days of this blog, an editorial like the one in today's Examiner was pure gold.

Seriously, it has more holes than a donut shop and my previous, more antagonistic self would have loved the opportunity to point out every single one.

In today's climate, however, I should probably take a more conservative tack.

Bor-ing!

Alas, this is the path I've chosen and the price I must pay for the wealth fame power…uh, benefits of my job.

Anyway, the editorial in question attacks Howard County's inclusionary zoning policy, also known as the Moderate Income Housing Unit program. This program is nearly identical to many others around the country, so in reality, the editorial's target seems to be inclusionary zoning itself.

The Examiner's problem with inclusionary zoning seems to be that "it discriminates against everyone else as it drives prices up on other homes."

In Howard County, a family of four with a household income of $75,408 qualifies to apply for the moderate-income housing program. Once approved, that family can purchase a condo or town home for a discounted rate in area developments.

At Ryan Homes' Elkridge Crossing, the moderate-income housing condos sell for $178,067 and town homes for $204,044. Regularly, those properties sell for about $260,000 to $330,000. Any way you slice it, that is a huge discount on a luxury home. Condos at Elkridge include a sun room, two full baths, an open kitchen and patio.

This is patently unfair to other county residents. How would you feel If you were a family of four with a household income of $94,260 — the median household income in the county? Why should the extra $18,852 you make each year force you to sometimes pay more than $100,000 more for the same property?

The program has other repercussions. A number of studies, including one from the California-based Reason Foundation, find that inclusionary housing policies, like rent control policies, reduce the supply of housing — driving demand up with prices.

(Huh. No mention of the patently unfair nature of the biggest housing boondoggle of them all and a bigger cause of increased home prices, the mortgage interest deduction?)

Rather than untangle the arguments from the outrage in this editorial, I'm going to focus on the source of its claims. In this case, the Reason Foundation and its free market dogma.

Reason has long been an opponent of affordable housing policies. The study mentioned by the Examiner is one of several produced by the libertarian think tank criticizing inclusionary zoning because, mainly, it distorts the "free market." These studies throw around numbers detailing the supposed costs of inclusionary zoning, which are always -- surprise! -- frighteningly high.

But what, then do you do when the market is clearly failing to provide the optimal outcome -- in this case an adequate mix of housing for people of all incomes  -- like the textbook says it always does? 

Thankfully, Reason has a bunch of recommendations in their handy report New Approaches to Affordable Housing: Overview of the Housing Affordability Problem (PDF). Here they are:

• Modify explicit and implicit land use and growth controls to allow homebuilders and developers the opportunity to meet demand quicker.
  
• Increase civil service compensa tion in select areas where incomes do not reflect high housing costs.
  
• Encourage the use of market innovations such as location-efficient mortgages.
  
• Assist and leverage grassroot, volun teer organizations such as Habitat for Humanity (HFH).
  
• Use local flexible housing vouch ers to EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) eligible households.
  

I don't know whether to laugh or cry: Several of those recommendations demonstrate a stunningly poor understanding of economics, markets and development.

For instance, while the basis for the first – that land use and growth controls raise the cost of housing – is true, removing such controls would then cause another, perhaps worse market distortion.

Why?

Because growth imposes costs on existing communities, and as everyone who has ever taken Econ 101 knows, actions that impose costs on others are known as "negative externalities." In order for markets to work as wonderfully as they do in theory, the costs of these externalities need to be paid for both those who create them. The report singles out "impact fees" as a problem, but such fees are perhaps the perfect example of compensation for negative externalities, yet Reason doesn't like them because they screw up the market. I don't get it.

But why don't we just raise civil service pay to bring it in line with housing prices? That's a solution I can get behind, but it probably won't help the affordable housing situation because…because…throwing more money into the economy causes inflation ( i.e. increase in prices). Oh, well.

There is also the location-efficient mortgages idea, which would allow higher income-to-debt-payment ratios in certain high cost areas. Right, because screwing with mortgage practices hasn't contributed to any housing bubbles or problems in the credit market.

As for leveraging volunteer groups like Habitat to build more affordable housing, I'm all for it. Habitat does great work – 50,000 houses in 30 years across the U.S. I'm not sure how much of an impact it can have on prices, however, when for-profit residential builders knock out just shy of 2 million houses…each year.

I'm not even going to comment on the last one, because, well, I didn't really bother reading about it. But I think I've made a point in here somewhere…

Hmm…

Oh, yeah…This affordable housing stuff is hard. Drawing supply and demand curves helps illustrate basic points, but in our complex reality, "X" rarely marks the spot.

Hey, monkey, where you been...

Happy New Year!

Ha!

First post of the new year. Sad, I know.

WOW! OMG!

So, I'm sitting here at my kitchen table, writing what's going to be a pretty lame post, when I hear a loud bang coming from the deck. Just in time, I turn my head to see a hawk flying from our new bird feeder towards a pine tree just beyond the fence with a much smaller bird in its talon. After a quick stop on one of the pine branches, the hawk flies off to find a less exposed place to enjoy its lunch. 

Needless to say, the feeder, which had been covered with birds all day, is now wanting for patrons.

Here's a picture of the scene of the attack. If you look close enough you might be able to see a few downy feathers still floating in the air.

Anyway, the real point of this post was to explain the lack of posts over the past couple weeks. I've been consumed with a project at work, which will come to fruition on Tuesday. Until then, here's a picture I was able to snap with my new camera (woo-hoo! thanks, Abbzug) during a brief respite from the grind last weekend.

Maybe I didn't treat you quite as good as I should have...

The one thing I'll say about Bun Penny...

It should move to Oakland Mills.

With two cats in the yard...

Hey, look! My neighborhood gets profiled by the Washington Post!

In April 1972, Better Homes and Gardens featured the Pacesetter model home in Columbia in a glossy multipage color spread.

Focusing on its contemporary look, sliding-glass doors, interior courtyard deck, wall-to-wall carpeting and $27,000 price tag for a three-bedroom, two-bath house, the magazine presented the Pacesetter as the best in modern living for young couples on a limited budget. An even less expensive model featured two bedrooms and one bath.

Today, the single-level, 850- and 1,220-square-foot Pacesetter houses that line Encounter Row and the four courts that extend from it define the enclave and remain a distinctive alternative to the large Colonial-style houses more common in the region.

Both on the blog and in real life, I extoll the many virtues of my house at every opportunity, so I'll resist the urge to do so here (but you can find copious virtue-extolling easily in this blog's archives). 

However, I would like to reiterate a major point of the Post's story, one that Encounter Row resident and Oakland Mills village board member Phil Engelke and his house exemplify: namely, the ease with which these houses can be personalized has really allowed the neighborhood to evolve in ways that most suburban enclaves could only dream of. (By the way, Engelke really should win some kind of award for the amazing things he and his wife have done to their house.)

After 35 years of pleasant living, a neighborhood that started out with only two home types has become one where no two houses are the same. 

Single-family houses such as these would never be built today because they are too small and too unboxlike to be economically feasible, Engelke said. Now people build townhouses, which limits how they can adapt them, he said.

In contrast, Encounter Row homeowners have personalized the Pacesetters. Some have added large two-story additions. Others have converted the central interior deck to a sunroom or family room. Some, like the Engelkes, have added a foyer to connect the carport to the house and have turned the carport into a family room, study or studio.

"They're a canvas you can project yourself onto," Engelke said. "This house is not intimidating. It's easy to adapt."

Despite the supposed strictness of Columbia's covenants, individuality and personal style have managed to thrive in our little corner of Stevens Forest. And there is, I think, a lesson planners, developers, builders and, well, all of us can learn from this. 

Communities are dynamic places, shaped and defined by the residents who live there more than anyone or anything else, something many seem to know intuitively (or by way of Jane Jacobs) but may have trouble seeing in relation to the hyper-planned and -controlled environment of suburbia. 

Naturally, where this evolution begins is certainly a major factor in how the neighborhood evolves, and on Encounter Row, we're lucky to have started with small, affordable, adaptable, well-designed and thoughtfully placed houses. But the fact remains that construction, while the end of planning and development, is only the beginning of a community. 

Like grass growing through concrete, individuality will find a way to push through the built environment, no matter how seemingly impenetrable its design, and a community will flourish. If my neighborhood is any indication, perhaps that's something we should welcome.

Just nod if you can hear me...

It's that time of year…

The time when we get inundated with year-end lists. Last year, I offered two totally-made-up lists of awards (one, two)that each generated a lot of discussion.

But those were different times for me and this blog, times when pushing buttons was fun and (usually) without repercussions. Since I now try to avoid pushing buttons (at least, officially), a set of snarked-out awards probably isn't the best idea. Job security concerns shouldn't stop you, however.

So, here's your chance to generate some content on your own. (How's that for a sales pitch? "Do my work for me!") In the comments, let's see if we can put together a list of snarky, sarcastic or otherwise funny HoCo awards. Note: there's a fine line between this goal and meanness. Please try to avoid the latter.

Here are a few I thought of to get this party started:

Biggest Blog Letdown: Me, proprietor of two all-but-worthless blogs nowadays

Biggest Blog Surprise: Still can't say

Biggest Columbia Story of the Year: Strangely, the Poinsettia tree

Least Conclusive Columbia Story: The Tower

And…that's all I got for now. But if we get something going, perhaps I'll chime in again in the comments.

In case I don't get a chance to write again over the next week, everyone have a safe, happy holiday.

I dreamt I saw you walking up a hillside in the snow...

Nothing like the regenerative power of snow to cure what ails...

The Husky's been a little slow to recover from last month's surgery. He's still very hesitant to use the repaired leg, largely, we believe, because he's kind of a baby and is just scared of re-injuring it. Our belief was all but confirmed yesterday when the maniac couldn't stop himself from running around in the snow yesterday. I know Marylanders are often conflicted about snow, but for the sake of my dog, who really needs to start exercising the leg more, let's all pray for a snowy winter.

In other snow news, Little Duke and I booked our tickets last night for the Big Sky Snowboard Extravaganza in February! Woo-hoo! I sure hope my sister's house is ready by then -- given the cost of plane tickets to Bozeman, I don't think we'll be able to afford commercial lodging.

Interestingly, Bridger Bowl, my sister's local ski hill and one of the stops in our southwestern Montana winter adventure, opens for business this weekend, the same weekend as our Big Three local resorts -- Liberty, Roundtop and Whitetail. The commonalities end there.

Hail victory...

On the way to the Ravens game Monday night, my friend (and blog tipster) came up with another idea: a comparison of the stadium experiences of Maryland's two professional football franchises – the Baltimore Ravens and the Washington Redskins (of Landover).

This seemed like a great idea. After all, how many chances does one get to attend two NFL games on consecutive days? Starved for decent blog content as I am, how could I refuse?

As I thought about writing this post over the past couple days, however, I realized I couldn't do the idea justice. In the span of 35 hours, I sat through two "est" games, both of which failed at providing a truly representative example of what most events at the stadiums -- FedEx Field and M&T Bank Stadium -- are really like. I would be comparing extremes that were, in some ways, opposite and, in other ways, painfully similar.

In case you live under a rock, the Redskins suffered their first real loss in quite some time when one of their best players was murdered over a week ago during a botched robbery at his house. There is nothing I can add to the Sean Taylor story that isn't just additional noise, so I won't even try.

Despite the emotions and the relative insignificance of it, the Redskins still had to line up to play their game on Sunday against the Buffalo Bills. It turned out to be the saddest sporting event I've ever attended. While Abbzug's the real Redskins fan, I still maintain a strong interest in the team of my childhood. And even if everyone's saying it, Taylor was one of my favorite players. For a fairly laid back guy, I tend to gravitate towards the football players that are ruthless on the field. Taylor, who leveled a punter during the traditionally easy-going Pro Bowl last year, was that guy for the Skins.

So, going to the game was a way for me and Abbzug to pay our respects to the man. As instructed, we arrived early and made our way to our seats for the pregame ceremony, which was far better than what I expected from a Daniel Snyder production. The band's slow rendition of "Hail to the Redskins", played as a dirge, was tremendously moving, as was the video tribute, and by the end of the 15 minute ceremony, I don't think a single "21" towel wasn't soaked with tears.

The game itself was good, right up until the last minute, when a painful series of events led to a Redskins loss that epitomized the idea of kicking someone while they're down.

In the grand scheme of things…I don't think it mattered if they won or lost. They played. They honored their teammate and friend. And the next day, they got up first thing in the morning and flew to Florida to bury him. The game's outcome changed nothing.

Nevertheless, from a fan's perspective, the loss sucked and just added to the sadness.

Undeterred, I made my way to Baltimore on Monday to watch the Ravens play the Patriots, who, in case you're living under a rock, have already been given the Lombardi trophy this year. I hate them dearly. I hate their cheating coach, their womanizing quarterback, and their totally insufferable fans, all of it. (I do kind of like Randy Moss, though – straight cash, homey!)

My only real hope for the game was that it would turn into a blow out by the half and I could leave early enough to get a decent night's sleep.

Instead, I watched the greatest game of football I've ever seen. I'm still so upset that I don't really want to talk about it, but, wow, the play on the field, the wind, the snow flurries, the crowd, everything conspired to make it an amazing night…except for the fact, minor really, that the Ravens, like the Skins the day before, lost in the final minute of the game.

Something about appreciating the journey and not just the destination seems appropriate here. But, as I said, I don't want to talk about it.

Anyway, in what is certainly the cruelest twist of fate ever delivered by the football gods, the Redskins play again tonight (Thursday) against the Chicago Bears. I know there's still a mother and father without a son, a bride-to-be without a groom, a daughter without a father, and a team without a brother – the sad reality that no game will change – but damn, it would be nice if something could go the Skins' way.

Welcome to the machine...

Some people are concerned about the Wegmans coming to Columbia and some of these concerned people have put up a website and sent out flyers to express their concerns and perhaps convince others to share in them.

Actually, cutesiness aside, Responsible Growth for Columbia's main gripe about the Wegmans is not so much the store itself or even its impact on existing grocery stores and village centers, but rather the shoppers who'll junk up our byways. They believe the store -- which, ironically, was praised as the epitome of "responsible development" by others in the past -- conducted a flawed traffic study and consequently proposed ineffectual traffic mitigation measures. I'm not going to argue either side, but if you want to hear my officially sanctioned take, the folks at RGC can, in a roundabout way, put you in touch with me.

I'm more interested in who's behind this fledgling group. Of themselves, their mostly-under construction website says:

We started out as just a couple of concerned neighbors and friends in the Owen Brown Village, and have grown to include small business owners, residents of Columbia from across all Villages.

Hmm. Anyone know anything more about them? I haven't seen their name anywhere except on their limited-run flyer (which didn't come to my house) and website-in-progress. Before you think this is some sinister attempt to silence critics of The Man, let me say that this is purely about my own curiosity and academic interest in the dynamics of community organizing and activism. Trust me, I don't care enough about Wegmans either way to get too wrapped up in it. After all, my grocery store allegiances are clear.

Anyway, what say you about the Wegmans? Good? Bad? Too much traffic? Too much food?

And since we've no placed to go*...

Woo-hoo!

Snow!

In my quest to find subjects that I like and can actually write about, snow's probably on top of the list. Actually, not so much snow itself, but how well it was forecast.

That's right: Time for some Weatherman Accountability.

It's been a while since we've done this – obviously, since the last time it snowed – and last night I debated whether I should even bring it out of retirement for today, our fourth snowy December 5th since 2002. (How's that for consistency?)

Because I usually love accountability and weather, you might wonder why I was so lukewarm the idea of bringing WA back for today's "storm." The answer is those quotes. Before it started, I didn't think this predicted low-moisture Alberta Clipper really deserved a full analysis, especially because most meteorologists were in agreement about the outcome – namely, as of last night, 1" – 2" with little real impact. See a collection of predictions at Capital Weather.

But, then, it started snowing. And it kept snowing. And thanks to a burst of heavy snow after dark, we somehow managed to get 5" of snow on the Hayduke Weather Deck by 7 pm.

This surprised even me, a person who always expects snow storms to over-perform.

Unfortunately, it totally throws a (monkey) wrench (gang) in the post I had been mentally composing all day. I, the eternal snow optimist, expected the storm to exceed expectations, but only by an inch or so, just enough to joshingly reprimand the Weather Gillterati for their poor predictions.

As fun as that post would have been, the assessment of the pre-storm weather wisdom is easy: wrong.

Here's hoping they're wrong like this all winter.

*Snow. Christmas lights. I can't help the cheesiness.

Update: Channel 9 Meteorologist Tony Pann admits to being humbled by the storm, which he actually explains was two clippers. Good stuff, indeed...

Wie grün sind deine Blätter!

While sitting around a yule log a couple days ago, some friends and I discussed the relative merits of the ongoing Fake versus Real argument. 

Don't get any ideas. We were, of course, talking about Christmas trees.

Eventually, after discussing ease of set up and aesthetics, we came to the question of which is better for the environment. It seemed intuitive to me that real trees, even farmed and cut as they are, were the right choice for environmentally minded people -- such as myself. 

Intuition confirmed. 

If you want a tree for the holiday, the experts at Grist and TreeHugger say it's actually better to buy a cut real Christmas tree than an artificial tree.

Why? In a word, plastics. Fake trees are made of polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Producing this type of plastic creates a lot of pollution, and PVC is difficult to recycle.

Plus, lead has been found in PVC. According to a report(PDF) in the Journal of Environmental Health, lead levels are higher in older artificial trees. You've probably heard about lead in children's toys, so just imagine the kiddos hanging around lead-tainted branches of your fake Christmas tree. Not a merry scene.

Farmed Christmas trees are ultimately a renewable resource. Growing trees absorb carbon dioxide, and after the holidays, the trees can be recycled into mulch.

So, what about you? Do you like them real, fake or not at all?

Everyone's gone to the movies...

Since YouTube clips seem to be the new hottness on the local blogs, here is my contribution to the trend. First, some comedy.



If this blog's audience is anything like members of my family, only a few of you (namely, musicians and people who hang out in music stores) will truly appreciate the genius of that clip. More guitar heroes receive similar treatment here.

Second, some music that's actually and intentionally good. The band is ALO and the song is Maria.



Happy Monday!

It's getting better all the time...

Just a quick update on the Husky...

He seems to be getting back to normal, though he's still hobbling around on three legs. Complicating the healing process is the fact that he actually had work done on both hind legs. The right was the torn ACL, and the left had a fat deposit that need to be removed.

An indicator of his improving health and morale: Last night, when we got back from Trader Joe's (see below), he bounced out of his crate to come sniff through all the bags (Inspector Husky, we call it -- there's even a little song). He loves doing this, mostly because we occasionally hide a toy for him in there.

He's also lobbying hard for more outside time, but that will have to wait until the wound closes and some of the hair grows back. Not because I don't want him getting it dirty -- he's on enough antibiotics right now to kill all the bacteria in Columbia -- but because I don't want to freak out people walking by. Serioulsy, it's pretty nasty looking.

I don't want to be right...

Dear Trader Joe’s,

I shouldn’t like you. Really, I shouldn’t. After all, you’re just another chain with a gimmick – an appealing and quirky gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless – and we have more than enough gimmicky chains around here.

But then you had to go and leave flowers by the door to welcome me with fragrance and color as I cautiously crossed your threshold.

And then, just past the symphony of colors and scents, the produce. Oh, how glorious it was to see my sugar snap peas looking healthier and tastier than anything I’ve ever seen at Giant or Food Lion. Surely they must cost a fortune.

No.

They’re cheaper.

But that’s not all. The other produce met or exceeded the peas standard: fresh, inexpensive and a wide assortment of organics. I’ll give you this: You know how to make an entrance (area).

As I wound my way through the wide aisles, each bearing its own surprises (a 10-pound chocolate bar, pistachio cookies, bags of assorted frozen peppers – perfect for taco night!), my will-power waned, but it wasn’t until I found the Reed’s Extra Ginger Brew for nearly $2 less than anywhere else that I finally broke down and confessed my love for you.

Sure, you’re just an odd grocery store in a glitzy big box park along the highway and you don’t sell Gatorade, an essential at my house. But you’re fun. And cheap. And kind of tailored to my diet. And your employees are nice, helpful and very efficient.

But you’re so small: 11,000 square feet, according to those who know. How do you do it? How do you offer so much in such a little space? Actually, don’t answer that. I’d rather not know. I’d rather my affection exist without the cold realty of business tainting it.

Will I visit every week? Perhaps. I can’t say. I’m sure there will be times when I’d rather not drive the 10 minutes it takes to get to your door. Plus, I noticed you don’t have many of the non-food essentials: paper products, toiletries, etc. Which is fine. I know another place close by that has those; it's the only real hang up in all this: Food Lion.

I’ve stood by “The FL” for over a year, extolling its virtues to all who will listen. And here you are, in your shiny new building, disrupting a solid relationship. Home-wrecker.

Oh, that’s not fair. It’s not your fault that I like natural, healthy foods at reasonable prices. You didn’t force me to happily fill my cart with your wares.

Maybe this is just an infatuation with something new and novel that will fade with time. Who knows? But for now, let’s just keep this between you, me and the poor souls who still point their browsers to this moribund blog. (They’re cool; we can trust them to keep the secret.)

Yours,

Hayduke

Oh what a relief it is...

Bit of an anxious day here at chez Hayduke...

The Husky went under the knife to repair, among other things, a torn ACL. Although the vet assures us he's fine, we need visual confirmation before relaxing. Thankfully, he'll be ready to come home in about a half hour.

His surgery comes after a week of hobbling around on three legs, a pretty sad sight. Also unfortunate was the timing of the injury, which happened just before our annual excursion to Green Ridge State Forest. As always, the trip was fun, but the Husky has been a fixture for the past eight years and it just wasn't complete without him getting covered in dirt and taking up too much space in the tent. See?


Anyway, I'm leaving for the vet now and after that there's the County Council hearing and the Ravens game -- quite a TV night! Before I go, here's western Maryland showing its somewhat-muted fall colors.



UPDATE: He's home and, aside from a foot-long gash, a shaved leg and a heavily drugged demeanor, appears no worse for wear.

While waiting our turn at the vet, they stuck an orange Post-It note with the letters "DND" on one of the exam room doors. A woman left that room just as we left the other. She seemed more composed than I was at the time, and my dog is still alive.

I'm still a long way off from accepting my dog's mortality.

Here come old flattop...

Just a couple quick notes on the first fall-like day of 2007…

I know others have already posted about this story, but I can't help myself. How's this for coming together to work for the common good?

After a chance encounter followed by a friendly chat and a later lunch date, County Executive Ken Ulman has submitted former rival Christopher J. Merdon's name to the County Council for appointment to the county's new revenue authority. The nomination will be formally introduced Nov. 5.

With his title, Freemarket paints a hilarious picture, while Wordbones gives it some additional context:

This speaks well for both men. It is not that often that we see this type of post election collaboration after what can be conservatively described as a nasty campaign. Nicely done!

In other news, here's an excellent piece about my old employer, Enterprise Community Partners. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of news in the story, but it does provide a good overview of what Enterprise does (hint: not renting cars) and what it has accomplished.

Unfortunately, two of the most interesting tidbits didn't make the story, but reporter Jamie Smith Hopkins nonetheless makes them public through a couple blog posts.

The first one reveals Jim Rouse's preferred name for Enterprise (The Robin Hood Trust), while the second discusses Enterprise Chairman Bart Harvey's idea to eliminate or reduce the mortgage interest tax deduction and use the money to pay for affordable housing, something I wrote about when he first floated the idea almost a year ago at a speech at Harvard. Now, I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is on affordable housing and therefore, would support such a move (not like it will ever happen), assuming it wouldn't totally tank my finances. My house, dog, appliances, and cars, to name but some, are doing a good job of that already.

Finally, it's almost here! The new Trader Joe's opens on Friday! Too bad for me. I'll be in beautiful western Maryland, soaking up the cold air and what's left of the fall foliage.

Someone saved my life tonight...

You know what's fun?

Giving blood.

You get free cookies and juice and the satisfaction of knowing that you probably helped someone who really needed it. And really, what more can you ask for?

If you'd rather not let innocent people die because they didn't have access to blood when they needed it most (shameless), why don't sign up to give blood this Friday at the Columbia Mall.

The Columbia Foundation's twentyfivefortyfive initiative and the Chamber of Commerce's Young Professionals network are teaming up (actually, kind of competing) to take your blood. Between 10 am and 3 pm next Friday, the Bloodmobile will be parked at the mall, awaiting donors. If you're interested in participating, you can schedule an appointment here (use sponsor code 14839). Not only will your blood buy you cookies and juice, but you'll also get a t-shirt and a chance to win a $500 gift card and two tickets to a Ravens game, which, if you're a Redskins fan, you can probably sell on eBay.

Who is he and what is he to you...

One of the most vexing issues facing us in HoCo Blogdom is that of anonymous commenters and whether contributions from the nameless are more or less constructive, informed, civil, etc.

Obviously, I allow anonymous comments on this blog and for the most part, always have. Also for the most part, discussions on this blog have generally been fruitful and productive, especially if you exclude the period from September to November of last year, when politics was too central to really discuss anything intelligently.

That said, I've never fully been sold on completely anonymous comments, for both pragmatic and philosophical reasons. Pragmatically, trying to maintain a discussion with several people named "Anonymous" is like herding cats. Philosophically, I tend to lean towards Jessie in the sense that a name -- even a made up one -- creates an identity and reputation that need to be protected and therefore an incentive to "think twice" about saying something foolish, inappropriate or out of character. Using Tom Berkhouse as the counter argument to this isn't appropriate because, for good or bad, he has a reputation that needs to be maintained, too.

That's a long way of shrugging my shoulders and saying "I don't know." Much of my (and others) thoughts on anonymity stem from experiences and observations, both of which are susceptible to personal biases. Not to say that it's perfect in anyway, but here's an external data point we can add to our assessment on the anonymous situation.

The beauty of open-source applications is that they are continually improved and updated by those who use them and care about them. Dartmouth researchers looked at the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to determine if the anonymous, infrequent contributors, the Good Samaritans, are as reliable as the people who update constantly and have a reputation to maintain.

The answer is, surprisingly, yes. The researchers discovered that Good Samaritans contribute high-quality content, as do the active, registered users. They examined Wikipedia authors and the quality of Wikipedia content as measured by how long and how much of it persisted before being changed or corrected.

“This finding was both novel and unexpected,” says Denise Anthony, associate professor of sociology...

...By subdividing their analysis by registered versus anonymous contributors, the researchers found that among those who contribute often, registered users are more reliable. And they discovered that among those who contribute only a little, the anonymous users are more reliable. The researchers were most surprised to find that the reliability of Good Samaritans’ contributions were at least as high as that of the more reputable registered users’ contributions...

...According to Anthony, Wikipedia now requires that anonymous contributors who make numerous edits must register.

“This will probably limit the number of low-quality contributions we find among high-use anonymous contributors, because in exposing their identity, they will have their reputation to consider,” says Anthony. “I don’t foresee this new policy affecting the quality of those Good Samaritans, though. Their presence should continue to be valuable.”

(Emphasis mine.)

I have concerns about reading too much into the study because I think there is a key difference between high frequency anonymous commenters on this and other local blogs versus high frequency anonymous Wikipedia editors. I suspect that on Wikipedia these folks are focused on poisoning the well, so to speak. For ideological, political or other reasons, they are compelled to purposely spread misinformation on certain controversial topics (evolution, global warming, the Laffer curve, etc) or to continue beating a single drum. For these people, a name is a signal to all others that the content they've added should be ignored.

Although there is likely some of that going on on the local blogs (for instance, the person who continues to comment on posts on another blog that are over a year old), I think the vast majority of anonymous commenters of all frequencies make positive contributions to the discussions by addressing the issue at hand and maintaining a respectable level of civility.

Clearly, this study doesn't hold the answers to the questions we face -- indeed, it might even raise a few more -- but it does provide an interesting perspective on the idea of anonymity in general, even if its conclusions are pretty much aligned with intuition.

Hypnotized, mesmerized by what my eyes have found...

This might not be the most cogent post I've ever written, but whatever. For the sake of my good name I think I need to say something.

You see, it all started when I had the gall, the nerve, to write a pretty straightforward post with a pretty straightforward message. Here's the post I'm talking about. Most people with decent reading comprehension skills could probably figure out what I was trying to say, but just in case, here are two bullet points that sum it up.

• Big box stores are a fact of life that I have grudgingly come to accept as, on the whole, pretty good, and;
• There are ideas and examples of better ways of dealing with them that mitigate some of their bad stuff and that we as a community could consider implementing
  

Clearly, it's not rocket science or, I would think, particularly controversial, but judging from some of the responses, I am a very poor drawer of conclusions.

Not only did the post raise the ire of at least one anti-Big Box person, but my dear old friend Tom Berkhouse took it as a proof of something nefarious. Because I rarely read closely what Berkhouse has to say (I gotta look out for what's best for my psyche, after all), I'm not sure entirely what he was trying to prove. However, I believe he used my conclusion that Big Boxes aren't all bad to prove yet again that I am a hypocrite of the highest order.

A few years ago when I was trying to save Merriweather from an owner that apparently never intended to close it down (right, Tom?), I opposed potential Big Box development in Town Center. Which clearly means that, at the time, I hated all Big Boxes, regardless of location, while the post from the other day means that, today, I love them, regardless of location. Silly me, I thought I could have it both ways -- that is, Big Boxes in appropriate areas (car-friendly Snowden/Dobbin) and no Big Boxes in inappropriate areas (people-friendly downtown Columbia).

There is only love and hate in this world, after all. Take your wishy-washy BS somewhere else, chief.

Sorry. Lesson learned.

If only it would have ended with the incessant need of Mr. Berkhouse to make it All About Town Center (and by extenison the evilness of me and Ken Ulman), but it didn't. Some crafty anonymous commenter decided to call Mr. Berkhouse by another name in an attempt to "out" him, or expose his true identity. By failing to respond in due course to this bit of pettiness, I tacitly endorsed such actions and, again, demonstrated absolute proof of my hypocrisy, at least according to David Keelan.

Mr. Keelan took it upon himself to admonish me for failing to admonish someone whose identity I still have yet to ascertain and who may or may not have ascertained the identity of Mr. Berkhouse. Normally, this would just be a failure to enforce the Choose Civility edict in effect for The Howard County Blogs, but since I had the nerve to question Mr. Keelan's decision to entrap a previous anonymous commenter over a year ago, I just demonstrated a "double standard."

Mr. Keelan drags up this comment of mine from Back in the Day:

I do want to say that I strongly disagree with David Keelan’s decision to expose the true identity of a commenter he doesn’t like, and one with whom I disagree (and am frustrated by) regularly. Regardless of how you feel about her, David’s decision sets an ugly precedent. Commenter’s [sic] can be held to different standards depending on their views and the threat of tracing identities through IP address (which are available for all to see by looking at the Site Meter reports — see bottom of the page) looms over all. Such things help stifle diverse debate and might prevent many worthy commenter’s [sic] from participating.

(Note: The [sic]s are mine, added to what Keelan posted, as I used proper grammar in my original comment. See here.)

My thoughts on involuntary outing remain the same. I still think it's wrong and wish the anonymous commeter didn't do it. But I have no idea what I was supposed to do in this case. Immediately delete the comment? Right, then I'd get in trouble for patrolling my blog on government time. Oh, and I'd probably be in trouble for failing to allow free speech, as has happened in the past when I deleted totally unsubstantiated rumors (coincidentally, written by Mr. Berkhouse). I also caused quite a fervor when I tried to get everyone to use a pseudonym because I was limiting speech.

Damned either way, I suppose.

It's also pretty funny that this was not the first time somebody tried to guess the real identity Tom Berkhouse. Indeed, the first such instance was on Mr. Keelan's blog and his response to the commenter was just as lame, if not more so, than my non-response:

Thanks for posting. Your inaugural post is telling. I am sure we can rely on you for more interesting and insightful commentary. Keep up the fine work anonymous Slim.

Look, I don't really care if Mr. Keelan wants to call me out on his blog; I just wish he would be more direct about it. If he thinks my failure to act was shady, come out and say it. Instead, we get this:

The people trying to out Berkhouse are treating Tom as if he did something terrible like threatened a county employee for trying to shut off his water for non-payment or something when in fact all Tom does is forcefully and at times very forcefully expresses a strong difference of opinion with Ian. At times Tom will criticise [sic] Ian for what Tom perceives to be a twisting of the facts in order to reach a desired conclusion. Tom is often (not always) rather enjoyable to read and makes good points but often (if not always) fails to elicit a reaction from Ian. So in fairness to Ian perhaps Ian is just simply ignoring all commenter’s [sic]. Perhaps Ian is too busy with his new job which is perfectly understandable. I have a full time job too, a family, and I just started an MBA program (which is going great so far) so I understand finding time to stay up on the local scene and one’s blog isn’t easy.

Yes, I'm busy. But, frankly, I don't have the time or the inclination to get involved in these silly bloggy squabbles (says the guy writing over 1000 words about one -- I know), rehashing the same arguments, fighting the same fight. If anonymous and semi-anonymous commenters can't discuss things without feeling offended or offending others, perhaps they should spend more time with puppies or flowers. I'm nobody's mother.

It's also kind of sad that Mr. Keelan finds the need to again apologize for completely inappropriate behavior from Mr. Berkhouse (lies, character attacks, etc.). I know a lot of people like to disagree with me about a lot of stuff and some of my more vocal critics likely revel in the treatment I receive from the resident jerk. But in a community like ours, the fact that Mr. Berkhouse still has a group of people that accept and condone his vile words is pretty lame. Disagree all you want, that's fine. But is it too much to ask that you do it with some class?

Finally, there's a lot of stuff going on locally right now that hasn't been talked about at all, yet time gets spent on this? Please, discuss and argue about the big stuff and leave the drama to the high schoolers. Continuing to worry about which anonymous person said what about some other anonymous only dooms our little blogging enterprise to irrelevance.

Speaking of irrelevance, the icing on the cake of this whole thing is that -- as I told someone recently -- my blog is about two steps away from reading like a little girl's diary. Over my "two weeks" of silence I've only had two ideas for posts -- one about the rather large amount of acorns falling on my house and the other about my awesome dog. I'm being totally serious. There's a ton of acorns coming off our big oak and my dog is freaking awesome (for instance, he recently started "talking" in his sleep, which is probably the cutest thing I've ever seen).

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to write either post and my silence on the subjects is probably proof of my true disdain for oak trees and huskies.

Little boxes made of ticky tacky

As much as it may hurt my anti-establishment cred (as if there's really any of that left), I think I'm coming around on big box stores. Sure, they're soulless, harmful to local businesses and the idea of buying jeans, lawn furniture and iPods in the same store is kind of silly, but they do offer convenience and great prices. And, really, who doesn't like easy shopping and low prices?

On balance (and in economist-speak), I'd say Target, Best Buy, Borders et al have produced net gains in our collective welfare. Which is a good thing, I think. What's more, they're so entrenched in today's consumer culture that fighting them doesn't really seem like the "good fight."

All that said, I still have a special place in my heart for local businesses and do what I can to support them. While big boxes may be great for getting mass produced items on the cheap, customer service is borderline nonexistent and the quality of the goods is questionable, both of which are fine for some things (jeans, lawn furniture, iPods, etc) but not so much for others (bicycles, suits, dinner, etc.).

Of course, over the last several years, we've seen the imbalance between big box, chain retailers and smaller, locally-owned shops grow. This is an unfortunate, but not intractable, situation. See, for instance, Washington DC:

The shells for what will be some of the biggest big-box retailers Columbia Heights has ever known are rising along 14th and Irving streets and Park Road NW. They include Target, Best Buy, and Bed Bath & Beyond .

Yet below these retail giants, space has been reserved for the little guys.

A Peruvian restaurant has signed a lease, as has a local African American franchiser of the Quizno's sandwich chain. A Vietnamese grocer is negotiating to bring a Pho restaurant to the development. A locally owned spa may also come.

The $149.5 million DC USA project is being developed by Grid Properties of New York. President Drew Greenwald said the firm will reserve 15,000 square feet, or about 11 percent, of ground-floor retail space for local and minority-owned businesses, under an agreement with the District to buy and develop the land. He will reduce rents by 30 percent to encourage smaller tenants.

"With all the projects, it is going to be a nice mix," Greenwald said. "It kind of has a little bit of everything."

Throughout the District, developers are carving out space for locally owned or small businesses. While small businesses tend to be riskier bets than their better-financed corporate counterparts are, mixing local and national retailers is a goal of city officials when selling or leasing public land.

So, the circumstances aren't perfectly analogous, but the idea is good, right?

Thanks to Jamie for the link. Also, for more on local restaurants, Jessie's got the scoop.