"8%
That’s the share of global greenhouse gas emissions that come from food waste, according to some estimates. In the US, nearly 40% of food produced is wasted.
"
By: Publisher
Comments
"Slater King Building Part II
There are a couple of other things that might need to be considered by the potential demolition of the Slater King building. Often buildings in Albany go through a long legal mostly secret process before being demolished. This amounts to something close to theft. Albany has created a cycle where home ownership has declined because of conditions created by no fault of homeowners. Second, the Slater King building the County is being considering for demolition, that was constructed using the funds of local residents. Shouldn’t residents have a say in its future? Finally, often the buildings are demolished without the consent of the owner, with no attempt made to find a buyer or modify the building for an alternative use. There is little doubt that the City and County’s processes are legal, but are they right?
AlternativeAlbanyGA.online
"
By: Publisher
Comments
"The Demise of the Middle Class.
Southern governors take a stand against UAW
Gov. Brian Kemp and the governors of Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas issued a joint statement opposing the United Autoworkers efforts to unionize in their states.
“Unionization would certainly put our states’ jobs in jeopardy – in fact, in this year already, all of the UAW automakers have announced layoffs,” they wrote.
The Georgia AFL-CIO, a labor federation that includes the UAW, said the governors should be reminded that the autoworkers are also their constituents.
Voting is underway for Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, TN to join the UAW. The union is hoping to galvanize workers across the auto industry, which would double its size.
"
By: Publisher
Comments
"Who Killed the City?
Written By Vaneesha Patel
This article is Part One of a series on the forces, processes, and regulations that harm good citybuilding.
Attend any charrette, public engagement session, or city council meeting regarding development, and it’s clear what a majority of communities want: good urbanism. From more bicycle infrastructure to improved public realms, higher-density housing, and more, a majority of people voice their support for such improvements. Yet the development that is implemented often lacks these priorities and characteristics. So who or what is responsible for their absence?
Let’s start with city councils.
While it may not always be apparent, city councils have large amounts of power. Whether a local government is set up with a strong mayor or city manager, city councils have the ability to propose, approve, and/or override decisions, policies, and plans. With this power, they are able not only to cultivate ideas of good urbanism—but also to push such projects forward.
While city councils are uniquely positioned to champion urbanist development, they are also one of the largest blockers of its implementation. Even if the majority of people support a certain development or specific components of a strategic plan, city councils still have the opportunity to strike down otherwise favorable proposals thanks to opposition from select constituents. In fact, last September, the New Orleans city council unanimously voted to remove bike lanes with plastic posts in the Algiers neighborhood in response to fierce opposition from local critics. In March, city council members in Kansas City, Missouri, voted to remove half of the bike lanes on Truman Road and will implement additional changes like more permanent parking as a result of pushback from business owners along the thoroughfare.
Even though bicycle lanes offer a plethora of benefits to the general community, city council members often reverse their decisions to build these amenities or torpedo the idea before it can be implemented. Why are city council members so quick to stop or strike down good urbanism? Three issues are to blame:
Part of this phenomenon is due to the re-election problem that every politician faces. City Council members have four-year terms. That’s enough time to spearhead change, but it’s not long enough to implement ideas that spark opposition and hope that time will make people forget any displeasure. As a result of lingering bad feelings, these politicians run the risk of losing re-election. When given the option of effecting radical change or maintaining the status quo, city council members will likely opt for the latter in order to stay in power.
In addition to the re-election issue, there’s a gap in representation due to the way city council members are voted into office. Most such officials are elected by district, meaning that each constituency within a city will go to the polls separately for its own city council member. Upon entering office, they are then expected to serve the general interests of the entire city, but doing so can be difficult due to the fact that they were only technically elected by a portion of the population and therefore represent their specific interests. This situation results in council members with conflicting views, which helps the generation of ideas but can act as a blocker when it comes to their implementation.
The final contributor is the fact that most city council members have vested interests outside of their elected roles. Especially in small towns, they often hold full-time positions that fall outside of their responsibilities as city council members. While members are supposed to abstain from voting on matters that pose a potential conflict, it is still difficult to leave existing perspectives and knowledge outside the door when acting in their capacity as a council member.
The institutional structure of city councils makes it difficult for members to engage in radical thinking and limits their ability to promote good urbanist development. Thanks to the three challenges mentioned above—prioritizing re-election, elections by district, and the part-time nature of the role—city council members tend to be most responsive to those who are most vocal to avoid backlash and opposition.
To implement better development, we need to re-evaluate the role city councils have in decision-making. At the same time, there is another elephant in the room: the outsized influence of public engagement. But that’s a topic for another day.
"
By: Publisher
Comments
"Very seldom do members of the HPC appear before either City or County Commissions. So it is important when they do. Yesterday the Chairperson of the HPC was invited to a county commission meeting to discuss historic districts and historic markers. The discussion can be found at facebook.com/dougherty.ga.us beginning 20 minutes into the meeting and continuing to the 52.39-minute mark.
If anything the presentation highlights the continuing need to educate our commissioners along with the public.
Markers defining the boundaries of the historic district are a great idea. But they miss the point of the HPC and arguably are not part of the mission of the HPC. Certainly, the City/County Commissions can ask the HPC to take on functions that the Commissions consider important. But the point of the HPC is to preserve. A marker is not a suitable replacement for the original building or site.
"
By: Publisher
Comments
