…and, no, we are not talking about taking peyote.  Not that kind of vision conference.

My friends at the Downtown Voices Coalition are hosting a 5-year retrospective and visioning conference on January 15th and 16th. These guys have done an incredible job of advocating for what it should look like in CenPho in the near future, and advocating for inclusiveness in the city’s planning process.

If you’ve ever thought about getting involved in the future of CenPho, this is a great group to get involved with.

Here is another redistricting and census primer.

We seem to go through this every ten years, too. Folks close to government and voting rights get out and want to encourage more participation in the census count, as it results in federal dollars and more congressional representation. Folks who don’t trust government do what they can to suppress the count and somebody else gets money that would have otherwise gone to Arizona.

However, this article shows a great example of how the census runs right up against the housing market in Arizona (and why we need a more diversified economic base).

For the last several years, those of us close to the issue have expected that Arizona would get 2 more congressional seats after the 2010 census. It looks like we will only get one.

According to the article linked above, we are about 60,000 residents shy of getting that second congressional district. According to rough estimates based on housing starts and home purchases, Phoenix has not grown in three years.

So, here is how it lays out: a few bankers get in to the risky game of Collateralized Debt Obligations and Credit Default Swaps, which grow exponentially; too many people buy houses that are too big for them; too many mortgage brokers sell loans to people without the standing to incur that debt; the entire thing falls apart; Arizona gets hit the worst because for years the home builders have too much power in our state government and they keep our economy tied to only one major industry; home sales plummet; people stop coming and, as a result we don’t get another member of congress.

Mind boggling, isn’t it?!

In polite cocktail party chatter, after people ask why we don’t have more solar in Arizona, they often bemoan the fact that why we don’t have a high speed rail line between Phoenix or Tucson, etc.

After all, there are only so many times you can get pinned between two 18-wheelers and a 20-year old in a Hummer with spinney wheels on I-10 before you start to wonder if there is isn’t better way.

The only answer I got when I asked was that there was not sufficient capacity on the rail line next to I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.

The issue came front and center when Amy and I were in New Mexico in October, riding that state’s spankin’ new Rail Runner between Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

I gotta say, I was a little embarrassed that New Mexico was kicking our collective petooty in the high speed rail department. This thing was pretty swanky, in all it’s double-decker, panoramic windowed glory. Kinda like pimp my ride meets the Santa Fe Super Chief.

Well, it just so happens that one of my real estate clients helped plan and install the high speed rail servicing Washington, DC. So, he pointed me to people who could get me some answers as to why we don’t have this basic necessity  and what it would take to get it.

He pointed me first to Chris Blewett, the project manager behind New Mexico’s Rail Runner. This soft-spoken public servant seemed almost underwhelmed by his own accomplishments. At a total cost of $400 million (via state bond), they had phase one of the rail line completed in about 2 years, from conception to operation. That was 45 miles of upgraded track, plus trains. Phase 2, the next 100 miles, was completed about 2 years later.

In government time, that’s like doing the 100 meter dash in 5 seconds.

So certainly, you’d think, it can’t be that bad. Absent our budget morass, we could pull that off, right? Heck, Civic Plaza cost over $500 million.

Well, the reasons it worked so easily was that there was under-used Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) line between the two cities. All the state had to do was kinda spruce it up with new ties and some new track, according to Blewett.

What made the rail line necessary, however, was not so much the traffic but the Native American communities that dot the land on either side of the existing I-25. The freeway simply can’t grow outward any further without encroaching on tribal land. This problem won’t be apparent tomorrow, but it would bottleneck the entire state in the next decade if alternatives were not created.

The rail line, on the other hand, offered an actual solution and that is where we need to learn to make better arguments.

According to Blewett, when answering the “why not here” question, you have to look more broadly. You have to answer the question: what can commuter rail help with beyond the old standard “traffic and air quality” issues?

It creates an alternative and markets like alternatives. It allows you to build affordable housing closer to work. Money put in to rail goes further per mile than money put in to widening freeways.

If it were all that simple, then we would have it in Arizona, right?

That is when I turned to Mark Pearsall, a rail transit planner with the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). The first thing he did was clarify for me that we are really talking about two different things: commuter rail and passenger rail.

1) The commuter rail is in the metro area, it travels long distances (say from Wickenberg to Gilbert), but it makes frequent stops. It is an elevated train, so it is not light rail. But it is not a connector for major metro areas. This needs rail lines capable of speeds up to 79 miles per hour.

There are several options for commuter rail in Phoenix: BNSF owns track from Wickenberg, down Grand Ave. to Central Phoenix. A commuter could get from Surprise to downtown Phoenix is 30 minutes. (You think the wait is long at Matt’s Big Breakfast now? Just wait.)

In order to make that happen, we would have to lay parallel track on the Grand Ave. corridor, do some signal upgrades and build a few bridges. Pearsall estimates this would average 5,000 riders per day.

There is also a Union Pacific track that could connect Buckeye to Phoenix. They would actually have to lay more main-line track in that case. Finally, there is a southeast line that could connect Phoenix, Tempe, Gilbert and Queen Creek.

According to Pearsall, this entire network would move 17,000 riders per day.

This is where money is not the only problem. Have a look at the map above. In order to see all of those connections, you would have to find a way to connect a number of those track lines that are not already connected. The map makes it look easy, but it is a spaghetti junction of rules, ownership and rights of way.

Further, you’d need to get agreement from BNSF about dedicating valuable track space and time to passenger rail. While not using all of the track space now, BNSF fears that they might in the near future.

MAG is going to come out with the results of a study in the spring, the most serious in 30 years, with conclusions about which of these lines are the most feasible. Click on the photo, above to download a copy of a recent system analysis. You will be able to get the major study at the same website in the spring.

This is where it comes down to money again. The next time the existing transportation sales tax is up for renewal is 2026, and I don’t see the voters going for another tax on top of our existing one any time soon.

So, no! No twain for Chwistmas until 2026, little Johnny!

2) Passenger rail is what we think of when we talk about Phoenix to Tucson or L.A. to Phoenix.

The problems of using existing track and laying new main lines is the same as with commuter rail, but the costs for completing the projects are much higher. However, whereas you can share rail corridors between commuter and freight rail in many cases in Maricopa County, Union Pacific tells us that we would have to build our own corridor for passenger rail between Tucson and Phoenix.

That’s big money, folks.

This is where Pearsall has hope for an ADOT study, under way now. That study will identify the top 8 corridors of possible service between Phoenix and Tucson in which you could average 70 to 100 mph. This “alternatives analysis” is meant to start the discussion of getting federal dollars to lay the track.

You know, “baby steps.”

This is also where MAG and ADOT will be coordinating efforts. They will want to locate commuter rail line next to passenger rail line in some cases to maximize efficiency and make a seamless system.

Pearsall is confident that all of these details could and would be worked out once there is money in the pot. Railroads would change their tune and track could be laid.

Just drop $2billion in the tip jar on the way out, thanks.

But, you could envision it one day. Just close your eyes and let’s imagine together: hiking in the mountains around Wickenberg, stopping off for lunch in downtown Phoenix and having a nice evening out in Tucson, without ever setting foot on a gas pedal.

Or, more seriously, you could actually save money over building new, congested freeways. (gasp!)

However you want to look at it, I think it is a goal we should have.

Postscript: It looks like the AZ Republic was doing a story on this issue as I was writing this. So, learn more here.

Every 10 years we redraw the legislative and congressional line, usually poorly.

Watch for two issues next year to be at the forefront: whether we should ask people their immigration status when we count them and what impact the foreclosure crisis will have on where people live. Congressional Quarterly does a good primer on this issue.

The immigration is a non-issue that some on the right will howl about. They will say that we favoring states with high illegal immigration. Its a bit of an issue de jour. I don’t remember this being such a do or die issue in 2002 or 1992.  We’ve always counted everybody, regardless of where they are from. That does not  mean that the illegal immigrants will control our government. At least, if history is to be a lesson.

As for foreclosures, that might be one reason that Arizona will only get one new member of congress, and not two. Projections in 2007 and 2008 when I was working on the issue were that we would get two new congressional seats. Stand back and watch in 2011 as politicians in Maricopa county fight to get that new district laid out to favor their races.

I know it is unpopular to “increase the size of government”, but perhaps we might look at having more than 435 members of Congress for 235 million Americans. Something about better representation when your member of congress does not have to attend to over 500,000 constituents all at once.

Call me crazy.

The City of Phoenix announced a couple weeks ago that it will now take all numbers of plastic in recycling, except #6, which is styrofoam.

This, despite hand wringing from certain quarters that cities can’t afford to recycle because there is less demand for recycled products.

Kudos to the City of Phoenix for moving forward on this.  I look forward the day when the city or somebody finds a way to pick up compostable stuff from your house and deliver nutrient-rich composted mulch for your house, if you want it.

It boggles my mind the volume of nutrients we just bury in the ground, where they do no good for anybody, while we struggle to use chemicals to feed the plants and grass in our yards. We can do much better.

Dare I cite San Fransisco’s effort to reduce its waste stream by 90% over the next few years? That bastion of nutty reasoned thinking and common sense (sometimes).

Here are three articles that, together, point to the trend downtown.

1) Downtown is the Real Deal. OK. This is an opinion piece, but it really speaks to the fact that there is a general perception of progress, despite the economic downturn. Oh, and they mention the Urban Grocery and Wine bar of which I am a fan!

2) New Nursing College Building Opens in Downtown Phoenix. A new 84,000 square foot building in downtown, serving thousands of students means that ASU is progressing on plans that they set in motion before the economic crash.

3) More Students are Flooding in to Downtown. Slightly more than 7,000 students took at least one class downtown this fall, up from 4,963 in fall 2008.

So, if you are thinking about investing in real estate for a business or a home, CenPho, in my opinion is the safest place to be in Arizona. It is beyond safe with prices this low. It is a smart move.

But, beyond the real estate side of things. Feel free to invest in the human capitol, as well. We aren’t going anywhere!

You might have seen my previous post on this topic of the potential of the $8,000 tax credit.

The National Association of Realtors wants Congress to extend and expand the $8,000 tax credit. Now it will not only be for first time home buyers, but everybody.

As an agent, I would continue to do everything I can to get my clients this credit if it remains in effect.

However, I believe that the cost to the country (over $200 billion) is not necessary. Further, I believe that this could encourage more unrealistic upward pressure on home prices –something that got us in to this mess.

I think the expectation is that the housing market will drive the economy. That is questionable when the commercial real estate market is tanking.  I believe that there will be an imbalance as people obligate themselves to new homes while unemployment might continue to rise and the commercial real estate market might result in more lay-offs.

The result could be many more people buying houses that they cannot afford.

This recovery needs to be driven, not by real estate, but by investment in infrastructure, energy and technology.

For your information, here is the National Association of Realtors Call to Action. I have called and told the Senators and Rep. Mitchell that I do not want to see the extension.

———————————

Dear Arizona REALTOR:

The U.S. Senate will be voting on an amendment this week that would extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit.

NAR is supporting the Dodd-Lieberman-Isakson amendment because this amendment will:

–Provide the $8,000 tax credit to any buyer (not just first time)
–Set income limits at $150,000/$300,000 for single/married buyers
–Make the credit available until June 30, 2010

NAR’s Legislative talking points on the Dodd-Lieberman-Isakson Amendment $8,000 Homebuyer Tax Credit also are attached for your use.

NAR is asking for your help in generating phone calls from Arizona REALTORS to the offices of Senator McCain and Senator Kyl in Washington, DC.

Please request to speak to each Senator’s Tax Legislative Assistant and ask them to support the Dodd-Lieberman-Isakson amendment. We need to generate as many calls as quickly as possible.  Below are the phone numbers for our Senators.

Senator McCain:   202-224-2235
Senator Kyl:       202-224-4521

Thank you for your prompt response on this important issue!

You may know that the US Green Building Council will be here in town in November for a huge conference featuring Cheryl Crow, Al Gore, Smokey Robinson and, oh yeah…building sustainably.

You may also know that it is more expensive to build green. So, how can we build inexpensive sustainable structures for low-income home buyers? How can we renovate existing structures so we use less energy there?

The local USGBC will be hosting an event on just that topic. See the announcement, below. I plan to be there.

—————————-

USGBC

Affordable Housing Summit

Phoenix, AZ

November 10-11, 2009

Join us on Tuesday, November 10, for a full day of panel discussions with national experts on green affordable housing, focusing on the rehabilitation of existing homes and transit oriented development, as well as small group charrettes on real projects around the country.  The second day of the Summit will include a guided tour of innovative projects in and around Phoenix, AZ.

This is a free pre-conference event organized In conjunction with the

2009 Greenbuild International Conference and Expo.

Contact Tom Flanagan at tflanagan@usgbc.org to receive an invitation.

The Arizona Republic ran an editorial (I think) on October 11th with a list of problems in policy-making and possible solutions.

They suggest that the best way to reduce extremism in AZ politics is to (1) get rid of Clean Elections and (2) make competitive districts.

It is nice to see that my three-year long mantra is starting to stick with some folks. However, the idea that eliminating Clean Elections will do anything to improve politics in AZ is ignorant of our own history.

Clearly nobody at the editorial board (or among our legislators who talk about “reforming” Clean Elections while they try to gut it) remember what it was like before Clean Elections.

The only people who could run a campaign were those who could get gobs of money from the Arizona and Phoenix Chambers of Commerce, lobbyist or the home builders. This meant that candidates were, in many ways, hand-picked before they even got started.

That is why the chambers and the home builders would like to see us go back to the old, broken ways.

There are problems with Clean Elections, but not enough to justify tearing it all down!

If you have competitive districts –i.e. within 6% registration, Dem/Rep, it will be more difficult for the extremes of both party to get candidates in to office, regardless of whether they run clean or not.

So, why tear down a system that allows more people to get involved?

Like Columbo, we need to just keep coming back to the suspects behind this effort to ask the same questions over and over. Motive? Opportunity? Means?

I’ve read this article by CNN commentator John Avlon several times because I think it is perfectly on the mark about what ails our republic.

(If you are a regular reader of the Clark Report, you know that I believe that competitive redistricting is our only possible solution to an ever-polarizing political landscape. I won’t beat that dead horse here, except to say it stands to reason that we will have politicians who cater less to the lunatic fringe and their own narrow interests when they must win in a truly competitive district.)

Of course, one critique of articles like that above is that there never really ever was civility in politics. As I recall, opponents of Andrew Jackson claimed that he was an adulterer, etc.

However, I think the Avlon article reminds us that the problem is not lack of civility from some quarters, rather the amount of space we give those lacking civility at the table of democratic discourse. After all, now the distance between lie and the public eye is even shorter than when Churchill famously said that “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

There is something different: the blog-as-news syndrome. We have lost the old standard-bearer news organizations and returned to the days of Jackson when papers were owned by partisan organizations or industrialists. We are Balkanizing and we don’t seem to care.

I saw the most frightening aspect of that first hand in Bosnia. In support of their political masters, “news” organizations just parroted the party line to the point of tearing that country apart, resulting in over 200,000 deaths.

In American history, we avoided that fate over 100 years ago as the Journalists Canon of Ethics took on greater meaning and newspapers became more professional and independent.

Walter Kronkite is not just a good anchor, he epitomized the way journalists aught to be.  But more that that, he epitomized the way editors should be. The best news  production was professional, process-driven and introspective enough to admit when it made mistakes.

This is where I think the turning point needs to be. Blogs don’t have editors and fact checkers –and that is bad enough because people take blogs as true news sources. To make it worse, editors at Fox and MSNBC, primarily, have decided to continually blur the line between news and commentary.

Really, you can’t always tell which show is meant to be a commentary show and which is news.

Editors: you need to take back control of the process. Your news readers should be only that, news readers. They are not stars. They should not toss in comments or throw knowing glances at the camera to tell you how they feel about the news. In fact, tear it all down and start over. But this time, re-read the Canons of Journalism.

Only then can we strive to have civility in discourse. Only then can we really protect our democracy.