The current [homeowner mortgage] deduction costs nearly $80 billion a year in forgone federal revenues. It is available only to the minority of households—typically affluent— that itemize their taxes. Households at the margin of choosing between renting and owning are not, for the most part, itemizers. The deduction has no effect on their [...]]]> Well Put Clive:

The current [homeowner mortgage] deduction costs nearly $80 billion a year in forgone federal revenues. It is available only to the minority of households—typically affluent— that itemize their taxes. Households at the margin of choosing between renting and owning are not, for the most part, itemizers. The deduction has no effect on their choice, and thus does almost nothing to promote homeownership. What it does promote, studies show, is spending on housing—that is, people who would have been owners anyway pay more for their houses. Prices are higher than they would otherwise have been, and mortgages are bigger. As many owners have learned abruptly, this can worsen economic insecurity.

$800 billion over ten years is a lot less than I thought the mortagage deduction was costing, but it’s still nearly enough to fund a certain government program that’s getting a lot of attention lately.  Combine it with a ‘sin tax’ based on overlarge home square footages (which have negative environmental and land use externalities) and we’d be  talking real money…

(via Matt Zeitlin)

Echo Park, Los Angeles photo by newsphotog2.

I was in Echo Park (the gentrifying neighborhood of LA) today and was struck by how hobbled Echo Park (the park) is by it’s gigantic lake that easily takes up 90% of the park’s area. Absurd! Among the 50 largest US cities, Los Angeles ranks 41st in park acreage per [...]]]>

Echo Park, Los Angeles photo by newsphotog2.

I was in Echo Park (the gentrifying neighborhood of LA) today and was struck by how hobbled Echo Park (the park) is by it’s gigantic lake that easily takes up 90% of the park’s area. Absurd! Among the 50 largest US cities, Los Angeles ranks 41st in park acreage per capita — worse than Houston, San Diego, Phoenix, and Dallas. (But not New York! Take note big apple partisans.) Here’s a chart based on data from the Trust for Public Land’s 2002 study (click for a readable version):

My chart of open space per capita for major cities per Trust for Public Land data.

A measly 7.9 acres per 1000 people (including water!), which is why if you walk by any inner city park on a weekend you’ll see families barbecuing on top of each other or playing halfcourt soccer (it doesn’t work as well as basketball). Given that, it’s especially crazy for a city to spend valuable park area on space that’s essentially useless. Lakes can be beautiful and help create nice microclimates, but so can verdant tree-covered spaces, and the latter can also be used for hiking, sleeping, sports, picnics, etc.

Plus lakes are much more difficult to construct and maintain, and as a result they tend to be extremely unclean, to the extent that the one nice feature about a lake, the one thing that would make that park the place to be on a hot summer day, swimming, can’t be done. The water just sloshes around temptingly, but you can’t jump in. Frustrating!

I doubt there is an ability to fill in existing park-lakes, given that “filling in the lake” sounds like the nefarious plan of an eco-villain and Echo Park itself is now a historic monument, but even reducing in size the lakes at certain parks would reclaim valuable land. At minimum, future parks, assuming we ever build more, should certainly not be designed around lakes.

Today, as I left the metro a woman was asking for money for food. [...]]]> Sadly, today my hopes that public transit would be a panacea for anti-social behavior were, once again, dashed. PT: not a sufficient condition for people to develop enough affinity for their fellow man to avoid being mean to beggers.

Today, as I left the metro a woman was asking for money for food. Not uncommon. Less common: she was accompanied by her 5 year old (? — I find it impossible to tell the age of children. My observations can’t get past: small, disproportionate), who had very large eyes. Then:

She asked, “Spare some money for food?” and the person behind me said, “No. But I will call Social Services to come pick up your child.”

“Fuck You.”

“I’m going to call Social Services since you can’t feed your child.”

The woman paused, then walked to the elevator where we all enjoy an awkward ride up out of the station.

Now, I’m willing to admit that there’s some moral complexity with regards to the children of extremely poor folk. At what point should one give up their child for a “better” life? At what point should the government step in and “take” children away? Certainly food, shelter, and safety form a bright line that there’s probably consensus about. And it’s possible that my subway woman had crossed those lines, and she probably should have access to a social worker for assistance if nothing else.

However: I don’t think begging in and of itself should be grounds to take a child away. Entirely possible that said child had been fed and a bed for the night at a local church was lined up, but woman had not eaten. Or needed money for job interview clothes (my strong case). Or for beer (my weak case, but not actually an illegitimate purchase!). Moreover, hanging out in the subway asking for money: not particularly dangerous. So cursory look at the situation suggests hard-luck case to sympathize with, not vile child abuser to scorn.

But no: must call child protective services. Of course, given that SS does not have a rapid response guerrilla division, and I would only be able to direct SS to “go check out the Hollywood Metro,” and on top of it all the chances of me actually calling are about one in a million, this is all just posturing.

You see, I’m so annoyed that you, a poor person, would have the gall to ask me, ‘innocent’ bystander in your poverty, for money and thus make me feel guilt at my own tightfistedness that I will threaten to break up your family. That’s just how I roll. Asshole.

I feel like I should end my story by saying how I gave the women money/food to make this recitation serve as some sort of behavioral model. Or I could say that I didn’t do anything to help, admitting my own complicity, and by extension that of everyone who reads, given that we all participate in this classist society. But neither feels right. I’m not comfortable with my character as either holy or fallen.

Instead: a plea. I don’t have a solid opinion on the quantity and frequency of direct small-sum charity you should engage in. But sure as hell, harshing on beggars is fucked up. So don’t do it or I may have to punch you in the face.

Sounds reasonable, but I wish we could have arrived at a better solution to a problem animal than habitat [...]]]> The reason the Venice canals have a steep vertical rather than a gradual slope: ducks pooped on the slope, and “…who wants a slimy, defecated slope instead of a nice one you could moor your boat against.”

Sounds reasonable, but I wish we could have arrived at a better solution to a problem animal than habitat elimination — like genetically engineering ducks that don’t poop.

I am 34, married with 2 kids and have accepted a new job in Los Angeles. I’d like to live in a White suburb, do you have any recommendations?

Oh no he didn’t!  And then:

I turned down the job.

After seeing those Mexicans [...]]]> Crazy shit from 2006 from my wife’s research into racism in LA housing:

I am 34, married with 2 kids and have accepted a new job in Los Angeles. I’d like to live in a White suburb, do you have any recommendations?

Oh no he didn’t!  And then:

I turned down the job.

After seeing those Mexicans making a ruckus on the freeway on the news I realized it isn’t a safe place. I also read that prisoners are deported after their sentences back to Mexico and then they simply return to America to rape/murder again.

It’s unfortunate also that California is now apparently, “Aztlan”. What the HECK is that?

Ah.  A silver lining to Richard Beddington’s racism: he gets to be some other city’s problem.  Of course, according to the 2000 census, 35% of LA County’s white people live in areas that are 75% white or more.  So it’s not like there’s a dearth of places where white people can escape the brown menace.  And if  75% is too colorful for you?  Well there’s always Malibu or Huntington Beach where residents are proudly pushing towards 90%.

The extremely diverse, Latino-majority city core has fueled the “white minority” narrative, but the truth is that there’s still a lot of white folk, and they tend to segregate themselves.  So nostalgia for the good ol’ days of racial covenants seems a little displaced.  Oh, and pretty disgusting too.

Not that they don’t make a convincing case, but if anything we have entered an accelerated period of tower construction since 9/11. Even in LA, home of the earthquake, we’re racing up as fast as we can. An example of the wonderful city of [...]]]> From the Bad Futurist Pantheon: The End of Tall Buildings

Not that they don’t make a convincing case, but if anything we have entered an accelerated period of tower construction since 9/11. Even in LA, home of the earthquake, we’re racing up as fast as we can. An example of the wonderful city of tomorrow, being brought to you today: the Staples Center expansion. Which completes our development cycle:

• Expired — suburbs
• Tired — exurbs
• Wired — downtown.

Repeat as necessary.

Any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste.

I first heard about these guys when a commenter in Architectural Record complained that a picture caption that lauded a building for “lighting up [...]]]> The International Dark-Sky Association (warning: garish site design) defines light pollution as:

Any adverse effect of artificial light, including sky glow, glare, light trespass, light clutter, decreased visibility at night, and energy waste.

I first heard about these guys when a commenter in Architectural Record complained that a picture caption that lauded a building for “lighting up the night sky in Kansas City” was insensitive.  Inappropriate taking of anger out on a figure of speech aside, the organization is compelling.

Being a longtime big city resident, I don’t tend to notice the fact that at any time there is noise and people and light.  In fact I find it kind of reassuring.  I always know there hasn’t been a nuclear war and people are nearby if I yell for help.  The city is the most comfortable place to walk alone at night — in the suburbs, no one can hear you scream.

At the same time, anyone who’s taken the 405 through Long Beach at night has seen the Chemoil refinery lit up like a Christmas tree (disappointingly, I can’t find a picture anywhere, but it’s like this shot of Long Beach harbor, times ten), will tell you their are limits.  One of Dark Sky’s initiatives is reserves that will preserve low-lighting levels in certain areas, such as around the Mont Megantic ASTROLab in Quebec (an observatory).

This isn’t going to top my list of pollutions we need to fight anytime soon, but surrounding light norms are something architects should be taking into account with the lighting design of their buildings.  Stargazing and restful sleep are at stake!