Life as Edward Jensen

For what it’s worth…this was on the PBS NewsHour’s 19 February 2010 broadcast.

-Edward Jensen

Last week, retired US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stopped by KAET’s public affairs program Horizon to talk about what she’s been doing since she retired from the high court, civility in government, and her O’Connor House Project.

Justice O’Connor’s confirmation created the Horizon program back in 1981 and it’s apropos that she was the first guest in Horizon’s new set in the Cronkite School building on the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus.

if you can’t see the video, click here

-Edward Jensen

Phoenix’s (and here, I mean the entire metropolitan area) leaders still don’t get it. Surprise? Probably not: even our own Governor has called this place a “hellhole.”

Our leaders think that we’re going to grow, and to satiate that growth, they’re calling for 400 miles (!!!) of new highways in the metro area over the next four decades. (In fairness, the plan does call for 320 miles of rail.)

What a boondoggle. What an environmental calamity. What an incredibly short-sighted 1950’s solution to a 21st century problem. What a waste of money.

Plus, how can we sustain that growth? I’m thinking in terms of water. With more growth comes the increased demand for more water. Water that is incredibly under-priced for desert living.

Do I need to remind you what happens when a region puts its entire economic development’s eggs in one basket? Phoenix was hit the hardest during this economic recession because our economy was because we had a growth-centric economy. Yeah, it provided fantastic revenues for the state when it was going gang-busters, but now that it isn’t, well…you know where I’m going.

Here’s my bold proposal: let’s institute a growth boundary around Phoenix. Like Portland, Oregon, for instance. Let’s force the 25 municipalities to play nice together and act in the region’s best interests. There’s minimal growth happening now, so this is the perfect wake-up call. Plus, there’s plenty of virgin land that’s been leapt over during the region’s explosive expansion. And there are a lot of places in Central Phoenix that desperately need attention.

Oh, wait, fixing what’s already here isn’t politically sexy.

-Edward Jensen

“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.” [Sen. Kennedy, 12 August 1980]

[author's note: This is the concluding post to my four-part series on how different policies affect family decisions. Part I offered introduction to the series. Part II compared my beliefs to that of our elected leaders. Part III looked at if Phoenix's future is worth fighting for. So, what have we learned?]

What have we learned?

It’s a fair question to start this post. In the last week, I have learned a lot about myself. While the guiding theme behind this series of posts focused on if Phoenix and its surrounding metropolitan area is a suitable place in which to raise a family, there was a personal objective to this. This series was a personal sounding board, if you will, that looked at where I might end up calling home.

A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to one of my dear friends who was on vacation at the time in Seattle. In our conversation that one night, she had talked about moving to Seattle. She mentioned a couple of reasons why she would move there, namely family and education. But another major theme emerged from that conversation: when it comes down to it, are we ready to pick up where we’ve lived for so many years (she and I are both Arizona natives) and start anew in a different locale?

Starting anew in a different place sounds so romantic. The movies and literature give us many reasons why their characters move: a fresh start, a place to discover one’s self, a chance to escape the institutions that pervaded one’s life in a different city. But when the chips are down – when a decision actually has to be made – am I (and are we) capable of actually carrying through with it?

Rewind to that Downtown Phoenix Journal post that sparked this whole series off. The comments are truly enlightening. A comment left by user AdamMackWright summarizes that which has taken me a week to write into a couple sentences [spelling, capitalization, grammar retained from the original]:

In the last few years, the majority of the people who i once called “my community” have left or are planning to leave (some to Korea, some to San Fran, MOST to Bend, OR…). I find it hard to disagree with Kelli’s comment…Arizona is being run by people who are amongst the worst decision-makers/human beings i’ve ever seen or heard about in the country.

Sadly, I find it hard to disagree with that last statement. I’ve been following a couple of our state legislators – David Lujan and Kyrsten Sinema (both Democrats) – on Twitter and Facebook as they provide updates on what’s going on with our state legislators. That which I’ve been reading is simultaneously enlightening and disturbing.

~ ~ ~

So, here’s what will make my “should I stay or should I go” decision easier: if our lawmakers continue this downward spiral in their decisions, then going seems appetizing. But if our lawmakers come to their senses, which seems like a fat chance, then staying becomes a favorable choice.

It’s their decision. There’s only so much I can do. I exercise my duties and vote for my representation, but others express that same right, too. But if people think that our state legislators are doing a good job – a rather scary thought – then I regret to say that I live in a backward state. Sadly, though, my decision on staying or going depends on my neighbors and fellow Arizonans. I am resigned to this fact.

Thanks for listening.

-Edward Jensen

CNN reports that work has begun on the nation’s largest – and most ambitious – mass transit project.  Dubbed as ARC, or Access to the Region’s Core, the project will create over 6,000 design- and construction-related jobs.

This is a textbook example of how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, colloquially known as the Stimulus Package, is supposed to work.  These are shovel-ready projects that can be started earlier with the help of matching Federal funds.

The largest mass transit project in the country got under way Monday with the help of federal stimulus dollars, as public officials broke ground on a second passenger rail tunnel beneath the Hudson River.

The new tunnel will link New Jersey with New York and eventually will double capacity on the nation’s busiest rail corridor, running from Washington to Boston, Massachusetts, officials said.

Officials participated in the groundbreaking for the $8.7 billion project as commuter trains passed behind them in North Bergen, New Jersey, before entering the existing train tunnel, which went into operation in 1908.

[more at CNN]

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. I’m definitely going to keep track of this. Thank goodness for Google Alerts!

-Edward Jensen

As if you needed to be reminded, the economy is bad and cities need to save money. Sadly, most of the cost reductions come through service cuts of much-needed programs.  Policy studies would show us that now is the time to cut duplicate items.  The DASH Downtown Loop, as I am prepared to argue, is one of those duplications.

For those familiar with Downtown Phoenix, there are two free shuttles that connect various parts of the area: the Downtown Area Shuttle, or DASH. One travels from Central Station to the Arizona State Capitol (Government Loop) and the other meanders around the area, traveling to the two stadia and up to Roosevelt St (Downtown Loop). Both shuttles operate from 6.30a-6.30p. For the Government Loop, this may make sense since that’s when state offices are open. But it doesn’t make sense for the Downtown Loop: the areas served by the Downtown Loop start to come alive after that shuttle service is finished for the evening.

Here’s the proposal: get rid of the DASH Downtown Loop and replace it with a free-ride zone on the Metro Light Rail that extends from the Roosevelt St/Central Ave station to the 3rd St/Washington & Jefferson St stations.  Most major downtown areas have a free-ride zone to encourage people to take public transport to get from one part of the downtown to the other.  Phoenix should not be different.

It would work by not having fare enforcement officers check between the Roosevelt/Central Ave station and the 3rd St/Washington & Jefferson St stations.  There would still be ticketing machines at those stations so people who need to go outside of the free-ride zone can buy their tickets.

-Edward Jensen

[source: Corey Schubert, media manager, ASU College of Public Programs] Can tourism help eliminate hunger? That’s the hope of Waste Not Arizona, a nonprofit organization that has been working with local resorts to supply their unused food to the hungry in the Phoenix area. A recent research study by MBA students from Arizona State University’s W. P. Carey School of Business has been helping the organization increase its impact.

The study, part of a class taught by ASU Associate Professor Elliot Rabinovich, examined the supply chain processes leading from Phoenix-area tourist resorts to a network of local groups that feed the hungry. The study was a collaborative effort between the Megapolitan Tourism Research Center in the College of Public Programs and the Center for Services Leadership at the W. P. Carey School of Business. W. P. Carey MBA students Ross Cain, Xicheng Zhou and McCall Baldwin wrote the report.

Waste Not Arizona has a fleet of four refrigerated trucks that run in the Valley six days per week, picking up food from donors and delivering to several organizations that feed the hungry. The study focused on the organizational structure, current supply chain processes, the pros and cons of different initiatives within Waste Not Arizona’s network, and ways to maximize how the organization carries out its daily activities.

“The ASU supply chain analysis completed for the logistics side of Waste Not was invaluable,” said Dee Mitten, executive director of Waste Not Arizona. ”The caliber of analysis and suggestions for improvement were well-thought out, realistic and attainable. We tremendously value and appreciate the commitment of time, energy and enthusiasm devoted to this project.”

Dr. Timothy Tyrrell, director of the Megapolitan Tourism Research Center, initiated the project that led to the study. “The tourism industry gives much more than jobs and tax revenues back to the community,” Tyrrell said. “Tourism contributes to a wide range of economic and social qualities of life for local residents. This study is a great example of how the university can help tourism do an even better job of serving the public good.”

Dr. Rabinovich, who supervised the course, said the project was also beneficial for the students who took a hands-on approach and were engaged in learning from Waste Not Arizona’s operations. “For the students, this was an educational experience, as well,” Rabinovich said. “They were exposed to an area of the economy they rarely get to see as part of their MBA curriculum.”

For information about the Megapolitan Tourism Research Center, visit http://mtrc.asu.edu. To learn about the W. P. Carey School of Business, visit http://wpcarey.asu.edu/.

One of my colleagues and dear friends, Sam Richard, is big on the social media thing.  (I am, too, but not as much as he is.)  Something that both he and I agree on is that our legislature – federal, state, and even city alike – should embrace social media as a means for more transparent government.  One of President Obama’s campaign platforms was for a more transparent government, and what would be better than to have any proposed legislation be posted on the Internet for 72 hours before Congress begins its debate.  Not only would it give our representatives a time to read the legislation that they are going to argue, but so would their constitutents.

The Sunlight Foundation is championing this cause through ReadTheBill.org.

Read on (from here):

Hey,

Here’s something terrifying: Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill and we’re pretty sure the people who voted on that legislation didn’t actually read it. And for sure you didn’t have a chance to look at it, either.

That’s not the first time important legislation has rushed through Congress in a matter of hours. By hurrying to vote on these bills, members of Congress might miss an earmark or tax break that could have a lasting impact on you and your community.

Let’s make sure this doesn’t happen again. Sign the petition and demand that Congress Read The Bill:

http://www.ReadTheBill.org/petition

Thank you for your support.

The link is above, and I’ve signed the petition.  You should, too.

-Edward Jensen

As preface/context, I am pursuing dual undergraduate degrees at Arizona State University: Urban & Metropolitan Studies (UMS) through the School of Public Affairs and Sustainability through the School of Sustainability.  Being in the fourth semester of my UMS studies and only in my first for Sustainability studies, I am taking the introductory classes to the latter.  And while the curriculum for Sustainability is what I thought it would be and that I understand the importance of such a program, there are just a couple of concerns I have.

Something that we are taught in these introductory classes on sustainability is that true sustainability is the intersection of environmental protection, social equity, and economic justice.  If I may borrow from ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS, the parent organization of the School of Sustainability), a sustainable society

considers the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social systems; reconciles the planet’s environmental needs with development needs over the long term; and avoids irreversible commitments that constrain future generations. (from here)

Being a UMS major, I have taken a lot of classes rooted in policy analysis.  From those classes (and also from being a student of history), long-term policy changes are best achieved through incremental policy shifts.  In other words, it is not wise to disregard previous policy and enact a new set of policies.  This sets any institution up for serious failure.  While troubling times do call for widespread measures, the rule of thumb is to change present policy in an incremental fashion.  This might be the result of society’s teaching that we should look upon extreme movements with a cautious eye and critical analysis.  The simple cultural clues that we get in our early years – don’t go too far from mommy and daddy, ignore the person on the street yelling that “the end is near”, and so on – teach us to ignore (and quite possibly tune out) extreme points of view.

I am prepared to argue that this is why programs such as Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) might be looked upon with widespread cultural disdain.  These programs have adopted a wildly different policy agenda for (in their words) saving the planet.  For instance, PETA advocates for everyone to go vegan: one step above and beyond simple vegetarianism.  To live a vegan lifestyle means to eliminate everything produced by animals.  Generally, these products are more expensive than their non-vegan counterparts, and so those who find that basic food for survival is too expensive could not adopt this lifestyle.  While it might protect the environment, it is not economically just.

It seems like sustainability is the current buzz word.  But I fear that people automatically associate sustainability with liberal tree-hugging hippies.  I believe that the reality of sustainability and the genuine need for sustainability education is far from this perception.  As a disclaimer to both my introductory courses in Sustainability this semester, the instructors conceded that there is not a wide literature on the field.  With that justification, I fear that I am getting a perception that my instructors teaching this curriculum are adopting that mantra (sustainability=save solely the environment).  Using their School’s (GIOS’s) definition of sustainability (see above), there is a definite disconnect.

The first real acceptance of the importance of sustainability was back in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission (formally World Commission on Environment and Development) of the United Nations released their report, Our Common Future, and said (about sustainable development):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

I bring this up to show that the idea of sustainability is relatively new.  The textbooks for both my introductory classes to the concept are from the disparate areas of sustainability: environment, economy, and society.  But the emphasis seems to be on the first of those areas.  The PETA agenda example I listed above just targets one of those disparate areas (environment).

Let me be clear that I am not dismissing that we need to change our current habits of consumption.  I am arguing that the best way to do this is in an incremental manner.  Take the customary New Year’s Resolutions that people make.  Most resolutions proposed are on a large scale: stop smoking, lose 30 pounds, or do some other behavioral change.  Most of those resolutions do not make it through the end of January.  I bring this up because this is an argument that we are creatures of habit.  We do things with the best of intentions but we fade back into our prior habits.  I fear that true sustainability, if its associated polices are not adopted in an incremental fashion, will be looked upon as a fleeting fancy and nothing will happen.

As I was discussing with one of my colleagues, there are a lot of incremental changes that individuals can make to affect the course of this planet and adopt sustainable living.  If everyone switched out one incandescent light bulb and replaced it with one compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).  The micro change that this would bring would be massive on the macro scale.  All being equal, however, it is still an incremental change.

I hope I have shed some light on this.  I was working on a book review assignment and I thought of  this issue.

-Edward Jensen