In addition not only is the population of British Columbia and Canada aging, the birth rate is low. There are many factors contributing to this tread. Faced with a high cost of living and limited access to affordable multi-bedroom homes near transit, many people like myself have delayed having a family and will probably only have one child.
High cost of living also results in a higher supply chain cost, where labour is significant portion of this supply chain cost. A lower cost of living will reduce the burden of the aging population and make investment in British Columbia more attractive.
The cost of living is primarily housing, transportation and food. To reduce these cost it is important to build efficient cities which are not sprawling over a large area. Sprawling cities are the often the result of insufficient and inefficient redevelopment. Sprawling cities have very high personal transportation cost and semi-ironically very high housing cost when living within a reasonable commuting
distance/time. It is very important that expensive urban transit is not under utilized. In order to utilize urban transit it is important that the area around transit stations, which may be train/subway stations or bus terminals is redevelopment in a timely manner. Property value taxes do not accurately reflect the social value of land. High value land enjoying access to social transit services are
under valued. As a result people sit on this land preventing redevelopment. Traditionally property owners near transit stations hold on to their land in order to capture the increased land value which results from being near a transit station. The traditional practice slows redevelopment near transit, and result in a slower
property value appreciation which does not reflect the much high land value. Many more people would have an opportunity to enjoy access to transit if land near transit stations was more effectively redeveloped.
Near transit stations land value not property value should be taxed. Land near transit stations have an increase economic value of economical efficient transportation and should be taxed according. Land near a transit station has access a much higher transportation density. Height restrictions near transit are senseless. Green space regulations however do make sense.
For example land within walking distance to transit station should be taxed at assumed building hight of 10 stories. Of course public green space within this vivacity should not be taxed because of is significant social value to the community.
As the land value tax is phased in over a reasonable time frame of 5yrs, many land owners will redevelop the land as higher density. However not all transit stations are equally attractive for redevelopment. Taking this into consideration an urban development corporation should be formed to purchase property near transit
stations at the present market value + market real estate appreciated value. Failing this many land owners of low density property near transit stations would not have an opportunity to sell their property before incurring a significantly higher tax charge. And they would be rightly hostile and against converting from a property value tax to a land value tax. The land acquired by the urban development corporation
can be build into high density property.
To increase availability of multi-bedroom homes near transit, I believe it is a good idea for the urban development corporation to build much of the high density property with finished exteriors and unfinished interiors. Many stores and office buildings are already built this way. The unfinished interiors will allow first time home owners to buy a larger home and as a result start a family sooner. Young people are a very mobile work force and will often change jobs in order to advance their career. The transit access will enable many of them a ability to change jobs without needing to relocate themselves. With less disruption of their social network and access to schools there should be less pressure to delay having a family.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Demographic changes effecting Health Care
At this time I would like to highlight my concerns for British Columbia and Canada. We are about to go through some difficult times. And it is going to be more difficult than many expect. The reason is the aging population of British Columbia and Canada. Just as the aging population will result in a lower rate of violent crimes, it also will also result in a high health care demand for doctors.
Just as business plans for up coming market trends, Governments need to as well. The demand for doctors, dentist, and other health care professionals can be estimated with reasonable confidence. To meet this demand British Columbia needs to train doctors. British Columbia has many good Medical Universities and is able to produce and attract high quality students. The problem is just as British Columbia and Canada can expect an increasing demand for health care professionals so can United States. Many of our trained professionals will leave for the United States almost immediately after graduation.
To attract students into the health care profession I believe British Columbia should offer students up to the estimated number required student loan bonds. Like traditional student loans these cover education and basic living expenses. Unlike conventional student loans, student loan bonds will be forgiven if the student works a few years in Canada. Perhaps 3yrs for undergrad and masters and 5yrs for Phd. Of course students have the option of converting the full cost of their education tuition, living expenses and Provincial/Federal University funding into a loan, if they wish to leave instead of working a few years in Canada.
I believe student loan bonds are an efficient way for British Columbia to prepare for the demand in health care professionals. I also believe 3yrs and 5yrs is sufficiently long, even though this may not be sufficiently long for British Columbia, Canada to be fully compensated for the training cost. I significant number who stay these few short years will make connections with their communities and formal social relationships and as result stay longer.
Since a portion of University funding is Federal, I think it is important to highlight the future demand in health care professionals now and make it a Federal election issue.
Just as business plans for up coming market trends, Governments need to as well. The demand for doctors, dentist, and other health care professionals can be estimated with reasonable confidence. To meet this demand British Columbia needs to train doctors. British Columbia has many good Medical Universities and is able to produce and attract high quality students. The problem is just as British Columbia and Canada can expect an increasing demand for health care professionals so can United States. Many of our trained professionals will leave for the United States almost immediately after graduation.
To attract students into the health care profession I believe British Columbia should offer students up to the estimated number required student loan bonds. Like traditional student loans these cover education and basic living expenses. Unlike conventional student loans, student loan bonds will be forgiven if the student works a few years in Canada. Perhaps 3yrs for undergrad and masters and 5yrs for Phd. Of course students have the option of converting the full cost of their education tuition, living expenses and Provincial/Federal University funding into a loan, if they wish to leave instead of working a few years in Canada.
I believe student loan bonds are an efficient way for British Columbia to prepare for the demand in health care professionals. I also believe 3yrs and 5yrs is sufficiently long, even though this may not be sufficiently long for British Columbia, Canada to be fully compensated for the training cost. I significant number who stay these few short years will make connections with their communities and formal social relationships and as result stay longer.
Since a portion of University funding is Federal, I think it is important to highlight the future demand in health care professionals now and make it a Federal election issue.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Loss of Judiciary independence and increased corruption
Loss of the independence of the Judiciary is a serious matter.
It is because the Canadian Judiciary is independent it was able to reject recent laws imposed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that went too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. In fact these laws where not even needed, as stated by the RCMP.
For more detail see. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/opinion/27tue1.html
The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/top-canada-judges-say-nomination.php
Harper is naming a police and crime victim representative to the judicial panels.
Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.
Here is a good technical summary of the changes.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/article.asp?id=3072
The government is now appointing a fourth member to serve on each Committee. A related change is to remove the right to vote for the representative of the judiciary, except in the event of a tie. This means that there are seven members who are ordinarily entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice.
Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge.
It is because the Canadian Judiciary is independent it was able to reject recent laws imposed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that went too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. In fact these laws where not even needed, as stated by the RCMP.
For more detail see. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/opinion/27tue1.html
The judicial independence threaten by Conservative Government nomination changes. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/top-canada-judges-say-nomination.php
Harper is naming a police and crime victim representative to the judicial panels.
Again an additional nomination is only required to remove the independence of the judicial. A police representative can be filled as one of the three appointment available to the federal government.
Here is a good technical summary of the changes.
http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/article.asp?id=3072
The government is now appointing a fourth member to serve on each Committee. A related change is to remove the right to vote for the representative of the judiciary, except in the event of a tie. This means that there are seven members who are ordinarily entitled to vote, with four chosen by the Minister of Justice.
Because the majority of voting members are now appointed by the Minister, the advisory committees may neither be, nor seen to be, fully independent of the government. This puts in peril the concept of an independent body that advises the government on who is best qualified to be a judge.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
How do we know what we believe is true?
Everything I say is based on my beliefs. Everything you say, if you respond, is based on your beliefs. Our beliefs are the result of how we see the world and effect how we see the world.
Many people who claim to have found the answer to deep sociological questions have simply stopped searching. Of course when two people have a discussion we should always remember.
What I believe is correct with the possibility of being incorrect. And similarly what you believe is correct with the possibility of being incorrect. Belief alone is not enough to establish truth. What is needed is verified belief. A more verifiable belief is a more correct belief. This process is a growing process that can continue as long as people endeavor to verify their belief. However verifying a belief is hard work and beyond the willingness of many to work to such an extent.
Social systems based on beliefs and resulting actions are many ways like living organisms. They endeavor to reproduce themselves, for if no other reason members of the social system can live more easily with in it. Also there is a competitive evolution between social systems. It is to the advantage of the members of a social system to reproduce and draw more members into their group. Members of large social groups do not need to live outside their environment and as result are not second class citizens. There is many disadvantages to living as a second class citizen in society. And like wise being in a position of respect with in a social system has many advantages.
As an open question how do you verify a belief. A simple approach is to try to verify or disprove some core belief. As an example verify the existence or non-existence of GOD. However existence or non-existence of GOD is a belief and can not be directly verified. The existence or non-existence of GOD must be indirectly verified.
The next question is it really all that important to verify a belief. I am sure you are thinking I am little crazy at this point, but remember social systems are based on beliefs. If a social system does not benefit the greater good of mankind, then it must be based on some incorrect beliefs. Using the analogy that social systems are like living organisms. Rather than classify a plant as good or bad based on some unsupported belief, instead ask does the plant bear good fruit. A fig tree that does not bear fruit is just as much a weed as a throne bush, despite the fact that the fig tree came from the chosen seed. Often our beliefs are partially right and partially wrong. Even a dead branch which comes from the very vine itself needs to be cut off.
Many people who claim to have found the answer to deep sociological questions have simply stopped searching. Of course when two people have a discussion we should always remember.
What I believe is correct with the possibility of being incorrect. And similarly what you believe is correct with the possibility of being incorrect. Belief alone is not enough to establish truth. What is needed is verified belief. A more verifiable belief is a more correct belief. This process is a growing process that can continue as long as people endeavor to verify their belief. However verifying a belief is hard work and beyond the willingness of many to work to such an extent.
Social systems based on beliefs and resulting actions are many ways like living organisms. They endeavor to reproduce themselves, for if no other reason members of the social system can live more easily with in it. Also there is a competitive evolution between social systems. It is to the advantage of the members of a social system to reproduce and draw more members into their group. Members of large social groups do not need to live outside their environment and as result are not second class citizens. There is many disadvantages to living as a second class citizen in society. And like wise being in a position of respect with in a social system has many advantages.
As an open question how do you verify a belief. A simple approach is to try to verify or disprove some core belief. As an example verify the existence or non-existence of GOD. However existence or non-existence of GOD is a belief and can not be directly verified. The existence or non-existence of GOD must be indirectly verified.
The next question is it really all that important to verify a belief. I am sure you are thinking I am little crazy at this point, but remember social systems are based on beliefs. If a social system does not benefit the greater good of mankind, then it must be based on some incorrect beliefs. Using the analogy that social systems are like living organisms. Rather than classify a plant as good or bad based on some unsupported belief, instead ask does the plant bear good fruit. A fig tree that does not bear fruit is just as much a weed as a throne bush, despite the fact that the fig tree came from the chosen seed. Often our beliefs are partially right and partially wrong. Even a dead branch which comes from the very vine itself needs to be cut off.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Balancing Land individual and social cost
The suburbs of today are designed and build for cars and not people. Suburbs are a land usage and pollution disaster, simply because social cost and benefits of land usage are not taken into consideration. The US sub prime crises is in reality also a housing crises which can be best solved by redevelopment, not new development. Development of new land while discarding existing developed land simply results in either the old development or the isolate new development being in practical terms discarded and worthless. The discarded worthless development, slums are trash that needs to be eventually cleaned up.
Suburbs are gobbling up the best farm land, because the social cost of losing this farm land forever is simply not reflected in the land price. To reflect this cost a land usage transitioning tax needs to be charged when ever land is transformed from natural wilderness or farm usage to urban or industrial usage. The land usage transition tax should be 8 times the selling price for farm or forestry usage. Also land in its natural green state, whether it is forests, farmland or parks within a city needs to be taxed a much low rate to reflects its social benefit.
Property value taxes do not accurately reflect the social value of land. High value land enjoying access to social transit services are under valued. As a result people sit on this land preventing redevelopment. This prevents redevelopment of this high value land, insuring continued low property values and denying cost effective higher density redevelopment. Many more people would have an opportunity to enjoy access to transit if this was not the case. Land near transit should be taxed based on the access to transit it provides. This land near transit should taxed at the same rate regardless whether it is 30 story high rise condo, or a parking lot. Height restrictions near transit are senseless. Green space regulations however do make sense.
History is about to repeat is itself.
Much of the hardship suffered in the great depression was the result of incredibly destructive land practices we would not even dream of today.
http://www.cyberspaceag.com/visitafarm/southwestkansasfarming.htm
One of the farming practices of that time was to burn the stubble - the plant stalks left after harvesting. At this time, all fields were planted back to a crop and burning made it easier to plant. But, burning destroyed the organic matter that would help the soil. One of the favorite farm implements of the time was called a "one-way". This implement would turn the stubble under, saving the organic matter, but it left the soil exposed to the hot sun and dry winds.
To Quote the author.
We here in Southwest Kansas have learned to live with "Mother Nature" rather than fighting her!
Suburbs are gobbling up the best farm land, because the social cost of losing this farm land forever is simply not reflected in the land price. To reflect this cost a land usage transitioning tax needs to be charged when ever land is transformed from natural wilderness or farm usage to urban or industrial usage. The land usage transition tax should be 8 times the selling price for farm or forestry usage. Also land in its natural green state, whether it is forests, farmland or parks within a city needs to be taxed a much low rate to reflects its social benefit.
Property value taxes do not accurately reflect the social value of land. High value land enjoying access to social transit services are under valued. As a result people sit on this land preventing redevelopment. This prevents redevelopment of this high value land, insuring continued low property values and denying cost effective higher density redevelopment. Many more people would have an opportunity to enjoy access to transit if this was not the case. Land near transit should be taxed based on the access to transit it provides. This land near transit should taxed at the same rate regardless whether it is 30 story high rise condo, or a parking lot. Height restrictions near transit are senseless. Green space regulations however do make sense.
History is about to repeat is itself.
Much of the hardship suffered in the great depression was the result of incredibly destructive land practices we would not even dream of today.
http://www.cyberspaceag.com/visitafarm/southwestkansasfarming.htm
One of the farming practices of that time was to burn the stubble - the plant stalks left after harvesting. At this time, all fields were planted back to a crop and burning made it easier to plant. But, burning destroyed the organic matter that would help the soil. One of the favorite farm implements of the time was called a "one-way". This implement would turn the stubble under, saving the organic matter, but it left the soil exposed to the hot sun and dry winds.
To Quote the author.
We here in Southwest Kansas have learned to live with "Mother Nature" rather than fighting her!
Fair and Free Canadian Elections
We have a responsibility to hold those who violate free and fair elections accountable.
Remaining in power those who violated a fair and free election will seek to influence opinion, and may succeed in decriminalize or otherwise avoiding justice due.
This means ALL PARTIES must vote their non-confidence of the government at the next voting opportunity. This non-confidence of the government must be shown regardless of a party's desire for the particular vote at hand. Efforts to ensure election freedom and fairness must over rule all other concerns. As Loyal Opposition Parties you hold the responsibility to vote your non-confidence, before those violating a free and fair election is able to intimidate investigators.
As a professional I took an oath of service. In a similar light I believe every elected member of government took a similar if not greater oath of service. When faced with difficulty I remember my oaths and stand up.
Remaining in power those who violated a fair and free election will seek to influence opinion, and may succeed in decriminalize or otherwise avoiding justice due.
This means ALL PARTIES must vote their non-confidence of the government at the next voting opportunity. This non-confidence of the government must be shown regardless of a party's desire for the particular vote at hand. Efforts to ensure election freedom and fairness must over rule all other concerns. As Loyal Opposition Parties you hold the responsibility to vote your non-confidence, before those violating a free and fair election is able to intimidate investigators.
As a professional I took an oath of service. In a similar light I believe every elected member of government took a similar if not greater oath of service. When faced with difficulty I remember my oaths and stand up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)