It is time to blow the whistle on newspaper editors who claim that they rid themselves of their editorial cartoonist for ‘budgetary’ reasons. It is a dishonest, disingenuous, and duplicitous assault on the truth. That is not to say that there are not budgetary problems facing newspapers across America, just that it is not the reason they are laying-off their cartoonists. The sad truth of journalism today is that there are editors who lack the guts–the most polite way I can express it–to have a cartoonist.

The public accepts their ‘budgetary’ excuse because it knows newspapers are having a tough time, unknowingly buying into these editors’ falsehoods. It is their ‘cover letter’ to shield themselves and thus be forgiven the sad decision ‘they had to make.’ Baloney.

It takes a courageous editor to have a staff cartoonist. Cartoonists give editors a big headache if they are doing their jobs well. That means that editors must pick up their phone, or answer their emails, or otherwise have their ears bent by readers, politicians, advertisers, or newspaper publishers who complain to them about ‘that damned editorial cartoon on the page today.’ I always thought this was part of their job, along with fielding complaints about mistakes in news stories. Surely that is why they are paid so well, or so I thought.

When it comes to cartoonists, there are two kinds of editors.

One kind thinks that a cartoonist causes them trouble, so they rid themselves of that trouble. Often, they inherit a cartoonist when they first arrive from another paper. They are the editors who feign concern for the editorial page, but would rather hire a new sports reporter with the money saved by shedding their trouble-making cartoonist. That is exactly what they do, too. Entertainment is the watchword for this brand of editor. Some of them are even afraid of Presidential endorsements, lest they may alienate a large segment of their readership. My last editor was so worried, that in 2008 he proposed to endorse both candidates. He thought it was a good idea to endorse Obama in the City Edition (majority of black readers) and endorse McCain in the Suburban Edition (majority of white readers). Believe it. In 2012, he refused to make any Presidential endorsement.

The second kind of editor is one who possesses the belief that a newspaper editorial page should have a cartoonist to express a strong point of view, stir the pot, point out the glaring ineptitude of some politicians, and get the public to think. Think? Imagine that. This kind of editor must possess a tough skin. What is more important, this editor must have courage and a professional calling. These are old-school thinking editors with moral strength. They know that the visual impact of a cartoon has a valuable place in journalism. They would never sacrifice the one person at their newspaper who puts opinion down in visual form any more than they would sacrifice their mother to a gang of thieves.

There are still many brave editors who have not forgotten their role as protectors of the First Amendment, and continue to support their cartoonist. They know the truth about the phony ‘budgetary’ excuses passed out by the pretenders posing as editors. Having said that, there is one editor, (perhaps I should say ex-editor) in America who stands out above all the rest for his courage. One editor who went to the mat for his belief in his cartoonist and his editorial page. To me, he is a hero of the highest order. His name is Brad Warthen, former Editorial Page Editor of the The State in Columbia, South Carolina.

In 2009, Brad talked his Executive Editor out of laying off cartoonist Robert Ariail on several occasions. He never told his cartoonist to lay low by being careful with his ideas. One morning Robert gave Brad a cartoon idea on the trend of cartoonists losing their jobs. Robert asked Brad to use it instead of killing it, so Brad made the principled decision to run the cartoon, since it was a worthy topic and true. The Executive Editor was furious and called Brad on the carpet. Brad stood up for his decision and for Robert. Not long thereafter, Robert AND Brad were laid off. He and Robert paid the price for standing up to a bully. Even worse, it sent a chill through every editorial page in America. Those editors who still have a cartoonist are showing that they will not be frightened into submission by this shameful act. They are proof that proud and professional editors still do exist in the ‘Fourth Estate’.

It has been a difficult four years since Brad Warthen’s courageous stand for his cartoonist and for his profession. Brad now writes a blog while holding a job outside of newspapers. If you would like to visit it, please see www.BradWarthen.com . It is full of insight and humor. Brad has a knack for finding ironic humor while being serious at the same time. Robert Ariail found a job in a nearby city. His cartoons can be seen at http://www.gocomics.com/robert-ariail . He has also won a few national and international awards following his layoff. I am proud of you, Robert. They are earned, well-deserved, and they were achieved against all odds.

For his heroic stand, I am offering Brad Warthen a very belated award for his ‘Valor, Professionalism, Courage, and Lifetime of Journalistic Excellence’. I have named it The ‘Best Editor in America’ Award. With it, he might get a free cup of coffee offered by his favorite breakfast hangout. Of course, ethics would prevent him from ever accepting it. Also, he would never agree that anything he did was ‘heroic’, anymore than a bystander, who happened upon a fire, ran into a burning building and saved lives, would claim to be a hero. They always say they only did what anyone else would do in the same circumstances. Yeah, right.

Thank you, Brad. America needs more editors like you.

We need to bring that same level of energy, determination, and civic pride to improve the lives of the youngest children in Memphis.

Imagine what we could get done with everyone cheering on early childhood programs. Imagine the responses from children who have a city brimming with fans urging them on. Imagine the results from parents who know the city is pulling for them to be heroes and role models.

The Memphis Grizzlies season that just ended produced more positive national media coverage about our city than anything in recent memory.

Sportswriters across the country wrote about the special spirit they found here and the gritty determination of a team and a city with a big heart that leads them to do the unexpected. The media wrote about players who were considered lost causes and unwanted, but who, when given the chance, developed the skills to succeed in a highly competitive environment.

The analogies are obvious when it comes to many of the children of Memphis. Some people have written them off and think the game is over for them. It is all about simply running out the clock. It’s an attitude that sends the most malignant message of all to these children: their own city doesn’t value them.

Tens of thousands of children start out with the odds stacked against them. Thirty percent of Shelby County’s children live in poverty, and half of that number lives in extreme poverty. Pervasive stress is a constant companion, shaping their lives and creating risks that become hurdles to their futures.

And yet, in Memphis, we battle for the underdog. Because of it, none of this means that these children’s futures are preordained. In fact, despite problems and challenges, it is impressive how many of these children rise above the harsh realities of their lives to take their places as successful citizens of Memphis and Shelby County.

When the Grizzlies took the court and surpassed all expectations, it was in large measure because of their coach, and the same is true for children. Parents are the best coaches children can have, because it is nurturing, supportive parenting that can reduce the effects of poverty and other risks.

There’s nothing more important than a positive home environment, because it becomes the home court advantage for children’s healthy brain development and for better outcomes in the long term when it comes to high school graduation, employment, and earnings.

As a community, we did not sit idly by and quietly watch the Grizzles’ games. Rather, we became the sixth person on the team, and numerous reporters credited the level of support in the stands as a reason for the success on the court.

The same is true for our children. We can’t sit on the sidelines and merely hope that they beat the odds. We have to become cheerleaders and the active support team they need to make it happen. The good news is that we know what works. All that’s missing is a citywide commitment to creating a winning game plan and to pursuing it fearlessly.

That’s the kind of headline that says volumes about who Memphis really is, because success with our children is all about heart, grit and grind.

Previously posted as The Urban Child Institute’s Perceptions commentary.  You can register to receive this and other information from The Institute by clicking here.

Attract talent or die. That’s the one imperative of the zero-sum Creative Class game. Another run at Cool Cities in Michigan:

David Egner, president of the Hudson-Webber Foundation and executive director of the of the New Economy Initiative for Southeast Michigan, said the suburbs will benefit from a more vibrant Detroit, if the city can attract more young college grads. …

… “If we don’t have a strong urban core, we won’t have the young talent that will move to the suburbs when they have children, and the financial distress will continue,” Egner said.

“We’ve been fighting the wrong battle,” he said. “It’s not about Detroit versus the suburbs. It’s about Detroit versus Chicago.”

It’s also about Detroit versus San Antonio, Portland, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Grand Rapids, and Las Vegas. More and more places are competing for the young and college educated, which will bid up the price for that demographic cohort. How can Detroit outshine the giants of Silicon Valley in this war for talent? It can’t.

As usual, Detroit and Michigan are a few steps behind in economic development. About three years ago, an alarm bell was sounded in Silicon Valley:

Fully 60 percent of the Valley’s science and engineering workforce was born outside of the United States, mostly from India, China, and Korea, according to the Index.

But “some who have lived and worked here for years are beginning to ‘go home,’” observes Tom Friel, retired board chair of the executive search firm Heidrick & Struggles.

“This is a troubling trend, exacerbated by our dysfunctional national immigration policy agenda, and if not addressed will have significant negative impact on our future as a region.”

In addition, the percentage of foreign-born students earning science and engineering degrees in Silicon Valley has declined since 2003, dropping from 18 percent to 16.6 percent in 2007. The influx was hit first by tightened restrictions under Homeland Security after Sept. 11, Hancock said.

Friel stressed the importance of supporting education and training for the local population, “natural and immigrant alike,” and doing whatever possible to keep the region attractive to talent from around the world.

At the same time, he said, “I don’t think it’s realistic or healthy to continue to rely on such a large inflow of engineering and science talent from abroad, particularly from Asia. This inflow has been the source of much of the Valley’s historic edge in innovation, but conditions for these immigrants, support for their education, financing for their business ideas, have improved in their home countries and declined here.”

Even as attracting and retaining top talent remains important to the region, California’s investment in higher education is declining. While the total number of science and engineering degrees has leveled off, the percentage conferred to foreign students has been sliding in both the state and nation as a whole, the report notes.

I call this concern the “end of migration.” Opportunities are popping up in source communities and countries. From whence they came, they return. The focus shifts from talent attraction to talent production. Top-tier research universities matter more than a vibrant urban core. I think that’s the pickle that Portland, Oregon finds itself in. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley reiterates the looming crisis:

Alan Berube, a researcher with the D.C.-based Brookings Institution, detailed his findings on the dearth of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) talent in the region during the event.

“I’m actually a Silicon Valley STEM product myself,” said Berube, who holds a Stanford degree in chemical engineering. Despite his personal experience and the fact that Silicon Valley “looks good on paper,” he said sustainable growth will only come with an adequate supply of labor.

“Human capital is sticky, and that’s really what drives economic growth in a region over the long term,” Berube said. “Silicon Valley relies on a lot of in-migration.”

Emphasis added. Berube isn’t offering a compliment. He’s describing a problem. He’s also describing Pittsburgh’s competitive advantage. Pittsburgh couldn’t rely on in-migration. Whatever the local workforce needs, the local colleges and universities met them. Today, companies such as Google and Disney move to Pittsburgh to be near the talent source. Instead of trying to be the next Silicon Valley or Portland, Detroit should aim to be the next Pittsburgh.

Jobs emphasizing science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) skills have long conjured up images of research universities and corporate offices.

Many such STEM-heavy jobs require a bachelor’s or advanced degree. But what’s often not talked about is the roughly equal number of STEM jobs found on factory floor shops, construction sites and other blue-collar workplaces.

A Brookings Institution study published Monday makes the case that policymakers are overlooking the role these blue-collar STEM jobs play in the economy, finding far more STEM workers than previous estimates. About 26 million jobs (20 percent of the U.S. workforce) required knowledge of at least one STEM field in 2011. About half of these jobs did not call for a four-year degree, paying an average salary of $53,000, according to the report.

Want more management & labor news? Click here.

Skills for these jobs often aren’t acquired from four-year universities, but rather at community colleges, workshops and vocational schools. While professionals with advanced degrees typically do design work or make higher-level decisions, it’s the blue collar STEM workers who carry out the actual production or technical repairs when needed.

“Notwithstanding the economic importance of professional STEM workers, high-skilled blue-collar and technical STEM workers have made, and continue to make, outsized contributions to innovation,” the report states.

The report also suggests demand for these types of jobs is growing. In particular, the construction and manufacturing sector are shifting in this direction.

To examine STEM jobs across different metro areas, the study classified jobs using data from surveys part of the Labor Department’s Occupational Information Network Data Collection Program. One section of the survey asks workers to assess the level of knowledge required in different areas for their work, which Brookings then used as the basis for identifying STEM jobs.

Areas with the highest concentrations of STEM jobs aren’t too surprising. The San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Calif., metro area and all of its tech-heavy companies topped the list, with 33 percent of the workforce requiring high knowledge of at least one STEM field. Washington, D.C., ranked second with 27 percent.

We’ve compiled the following map using Brookings data showing STEM jobs for the 100 largest metro areas. STEM jobs accounted for the largest share of the total workforce in green regions; purple areas recorded lower percentages. (Open full-screen map in new window)

In general, jobs requiring at least a bachelor’s degree account for the majority of the STEM jobs in regions with the most such available positions. The Brookings report and other studies have also pointed out these regions, shown in green, tend to have lower unemployment.

A slightly different pattern emerges if we look only at STEM jobs not requiring a four-year degree.

By this measure, the following metro areas were shown to have the top concentrations of STEM jobs:

• Baton Rouge, LA: 12.6% of workforce
• Birmingham-Hoover, AL: 12.5% of workforce
• New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA: 12.4% of workforce
• Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL: 12.4% of workforce
• Wichita, KS: 12.3% of workforce

Here’s another map showing only STEM jobs not requiring four-year degrees. Again, green markers represent higher percentages, while purple signifies lower figures.

View Larger Map

You’ll notice that the type of STEM jobs vary by metro area. Several of the employment hubs in northern California, for example, are more heavy on STEM jobs requiring bachelor’s degrees, while the opposite appears to be true in Florida.

View an interactive STEM jobs map
Read Brookings profiles for each metro area

Have you ever gotten a letter or an email when you know that the person who sent it to you is really writing to the person receiving a copy – or you can tell he’s likely writing to someone who’s getting a blind copy?

That’s the feeling that we get when we read the second bellicose letter from the state comptroller to the City of Memphis about getting its financial house in order.  It’s hard not to get the impression that he’s playing to the cheap seats (a move that is highly successful based on the anti-Memphis comments on The Commercial Appeal article).

It also seems that Justin P. Wilson, the comptroller who is a political appointee of the Tennessee Legislature, is writing the over-the-top political missives while his staff is writing the thorough, more rational six-page letter that is about the “review of the refunding plan for the proposed general improvement refunding bonds, Series 2013.”  It calmly and rationally lays out the non-compliance issues and the correction actions.

Non-compliance issues:

*  Deficit fund balances (New Memphis Arena, Fleet Management, and Unemployment Compensation)

*  Various interfund loans not in compliance with Section 9-21-408 (authorization, approval and documentation, including appropriate actions by City Council)

*  Failure to file reports on debt obligation/CT-0253 for interfund loans

*  Failure to maintain a balanced budget on a cash basis for each fund

*  Failure of Debt Management Policy to require specific legislative authorization for principal deferral

Correction actions:

*  Proper issuance of grant anticipation notes

*  Amendment of debt management policy

*  Amendment of fiscal year 2013 budget

*  Accounting entries and fund transfers

*  Filing reports on debt obligation/CT-0253 for grant anticipation notes and for the retired New Memphis Capital Outlay Note

Tale of Two Letters

The letter then elaborates on the facts surrounding each of these issues.   All in all, it is an exceedingly helpful and reasonable letter, and it should be, because these are serious accounting issues (but the sorts of things that you’d think equally committed financial officials from city government and the comptroller’s office could get together to resolve).  As the comptroller pointed out in this initial letter to Mayor Wharton, these problems pre-date him.  For that matter, they also pre-date most on the Council.

Then, the comptroller enters from stage right, and that’s when the politics begin.  His first letter – to Memphis Mayor A C Wharton – commends the mayor for his administration’s “extraordinary level of cooperation and commitment,” but three weeks later, in his letter to Memphis City Council Chairman Edmund Ford, his tone has become lecturing, shrill, and threatening.

The comptroller letter to Chairman Ford suggests that a state takeover of Memphis’ financial decisions is possible, but while he was critical, he failed to suggest what actions he thinks City of Memphis should make.  “The Council should decide the City’s priorities,” he wrote.  “If the Council does not do this, someone else may end up doing this.  This budget may well be Memphis’s last clear chance to determine its own future.”  He ends the letter with a “pledge to support your efforts in overcoming this challenge,” but it hardly reads like a letter from a cooperative partner looking to help out

But here’s the thing.  Despite all the venom from some parts of the public directed at City of Memphis elected officials, there is no mayor or City Council who would know that these problems were taking place.   Local government budgets, by and large, are impenetrable, and as a result, elected officials rely on their finance officials to provide them with accurate information, to act in accordance with state regulations, and to take actions that demonstrate high levels of fiduciary responsibility.  When that is not being done, elected officials rely on auditors, financial advisers, and bond advisers to provide them with warnings, but often as not, these experts feel that they are support staff for the finance department rather than elected officials.

Feeding the Negative Narrative

Some of these issues began to surface when changes were made by Mayor Wharton to the financial leadership of city government, and that is surely to what the comptroller’s letter is referring to when he writes about “longstanding financial problems.”

In truth, there’s little difference between the letter to Mayor Wharton and the letter to Mr. Ford except the tone, and in large measure, the second letter was unnecessary and unneeded.  There was little need to repeat his ominous threats, because the City of Memphis has no option but to resolve the comptroller’s concerns and to get into compliance with his interpretation of  policies and procedures.

Some of the older heads in Nashville have been shaking their heads as they watched this play out.  It was not long ago that the comptroller’s office was free of any kind of partisan suspicions.  But that aside, here’s the disturbing part of the comptroller’s actions.  The earlier letter to Mayor Wharton was hardly a national story, but his latest letter to Chairman Ford is a headline grabber across the country.

The comptroller’s letter, more than anything, is reminiscent of the letters Detroit got before it was taken over by the State of Michigan.  In this way, the comptroller feeds a negative narrative that Memphis is working hard to eliminate, but with one letter, Mr. Wilson has not only fed the narrative, but made it worse.  The message: Memphis is unmanageable and this majority African-American city is simply incapable of handling its own affairs.  All in all, it plays into one of the ugliest stereotypes for majority minority cities.

Damage

Surely, Mr. Wilson – a graduate of Stanford University and Vanderbilt University – understood the damage that this second letter would do, and yet, he sent it anyway.  It did not elaborate on the issues of the first letter, it did not suggest any corrective actions to take, and it did nothing put give lip service to a pledge to help.

But now, because of him, there are stories in newspapers across the country that Memphis has been threatened with state takeover, and that threat has the potential to affect everything from city government’s bond rating to local economic development plans.

In a word, this letter was reckless.  Mr. Wilson should now take the opportunity to treat Memphians as if they are constituents of state government, not merely its serfs.

Note: The report said that 22.1% of the Shelby County residents are food insecure, which exceeds the state average of 17.6%.  The study finds that many food insecure individuals do not qualify for federal nutrition programs and must rely on charitable food assistance.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines food-insecure homes as those households that don’t regularly have access to enough to eat for an active, healthy life, and the problem is more pervasive in rural America than in cities. Los Angeles, however, has an unfortunate distinction: More than 650,000 children there live at risk of going hungry, more than in any other county in the United States. That’s a population larger than the entire state of Wyoming, or roughly the same number of people who live in the District of Columbia.

These results come from a new study by the hunger-relief organization Feeding America, which has mapped county-by-county rates of overall food insecurity, child food insecurity, food-insecure homes unlikely to qualify for federal food stamps, as well as the uneven geography of what it costs these families to buy a meal when they can afford it.

Across the country, food-insecure Americans spend an average of $2.67 per meal. But that number is as high as $4.37 in Traverse City, Michigan, or $3.91 in New York City, meaning that while hunger is unevenly distributed across the country, so too are the costs of overcoming it.

You can navigate and zoom in on the full maps here. But below is the national picture of food insecurity, with the darkest shaded counties having insecurity rates of 30 percent or more (the map above shows food insecurity among children). Mississippi, the poorest state in the country, has eight of the 10 counties nationwide with the highest rates of food insecurity:

M

So, let’s see if we’ve got this right.

On the side supporting the spanking and paddling of students are Shelby County School Board members Joe Clayton and David Reaves.

On the other side are the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and 31 states that have already forbidden it.

It seems like a clear winner for those who liken corporal punishment to state-sanctioned abuse of students.  It’s also amazing that it’s an idea that just won’t die, as proven by the recent comments defending it by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Reaves.

Combat

Perhaps, revealing a little more about his psychological approach to education than he intended, Mr. Clayton – a former sports coach (it’s a Southern tradition for coaches to do a lot of paddling), a former county school principal, and a former Christian School principal – said forbidding paddling is “like sending a soldier into a combat zone and telling him he can’t take his weapon.”

As a general rule, we’d question the wisdom of allowing anyone who sees education as a war to have the power to invoke corporal punishment in the first place.  But not to be outdone, Mr. Reaves dismissed mountains of research that show that paddling students has no lasting benefits and pointed to his own children as examples of how wonderful spanking works.

We don’t know his children, but using his analogy, if anyone is to spank children, perhaps it should be left to parents – although it seems that parents have already lost control and the moral high ground if the only way to get their points across is to strike their children.  But, to adopt Mr. Reaves’ parent-centric approach, if Shelby County schools are to allow corporal punishment, they should also allow parents to exempt their children from it and to manage their children’s discipline in the home

Grab Your Ankles

It seems to us that when an educator decides to inflict corporal punishment, it is not the result of a student’s failure.  It is the result of the educator’s failure, and often it results from angry teachers and principals unable to control their emotions and as a result, they resort to paddling their students.

We know from his previous positions on hot button issues that Mr. Clayton tends to rely on educational policies from the days of Ozzie and Harriet when “grab your ankles and bend over” was a theme heard in most schools.  But, in the ensuing decades, there is now conclusive research that shows that an absence of any benefits from spanking students, not to mention that we can’t think of another segment of society where someone is allowed to be physically struck by another person in a power position, much less a person in a power position with a wooden object.

Research indicates that in districts where corporal punishment is still practiced, it is used disproportionately against boys and minority and disabled students.  The fact that the old county school district still allows it but it is no longer used indicates to us that even there, educators have found more effective way to address students’ disciplinary issues.

Inequities

Research indicates that corporal punishment contributes to student’s aggressive, anti-social behavior and contributes to adults experiencing more depression and substance abuse.

It’s the solid red states of the South where corporal punishment remains prevalent.  About 75% of all spankings in the U.S. take place in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Alabama.  Interestingly, these are also states that end up on the wrong end of the rankings on school success.

The issue of corporal punishment will be revisited at the next school board meeting, and hopefully, someone will ask Mr. Clayton why when the county schools were using corporal punishment more widely that African-American students made up 71% of the students paddled although they only made up 38% of the enrollment.

Wise Heads

Richard Thompson at Mediaverse said it well a year ago: “Personally, I’m against corporal punishment in schools. It shouldn’t be one of many arrows in a school’s proverbial disciplinary quiver.  Why? Because if I, as a parent, can’t discipline my child without fear of jail or Child Protective Services, there is no way that I would allow a school district to do it.”

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said: “Education is the civil rights issue of our generation.  The undeniable truth is that every day education experience for too many students of color violates the principle of equity at the heart of the American promise.”

Hopefully, wiser heads will prevail and the next school board meeting and corporal punishment will be put aside once and for all as the “weapon” that it is.

It’s a good thing that few entering academia expect to earn huge salaries and become incredibly wealthy because professorial jobs don’t usually come with rock star pay and benefits. Yet most newly graduated academics, after often spending nearly a decade in college, have the much more reasonable expectation of being able to earn a salary commensurate with their expertise or at least one that allows them to afford basic expenses like housing, food, and healthcare. Unfortunately, it’s increasingly common for even this very basic expectation not to be met.

Today, the majority of Ph.D. grads will find themselves working as adjunct faculty, not full-time professors. The shift towards adjuncts, who now make up almost 75% of instructional faculty, is perhaps one of the largest and most significant in the history of higher education, but so far, it doesn’t necessarily seem to be a change born out of a desire to improve education, but rather than to cut costs, as adjuncts are very often not particularly well-paid nor well-treated. How bad is it? Most adjuncts earn just $25,000 a year, less than half the average of $56,288 a new, full-time assistant professor will bring in according to the The College and University Professional Association for Human Resources.

Yet in a trend reflective of our larger economic shifts, many are more than willing to take on these low-pay, low-prestige positions to be able to pursue a career that they love in a subject they’re passionate about teaching. And while this is certainly an opportunity, it’s clear that those who are benefiting most aren’t adjuncts at all (nor the students they teach, in truth), but universities who have replaced more expensive full-time faculty with those who can be paid less, treated poorly, and quickly fired if necessary. While it’s yet to be seen if this trend has long-term staying power, what is clear is that colleges can no longer ignore the human impact of cutting back on tenured, full-time faculty.

The Changing Face of Higher Education

In 1969, 78% of faculty at America’s colleges and universities were tenure-track professors, with the rest having adjunct or part-time status, according to data from the Pullias Center for Higher Education. Today, those numbers are flipped, with adjuncts making up nearly three-quarters of instructional staff and tenure becoming so rare it’s almost mythical: just a third of professors have tenure or are on the tenure track. What spurred on such a massive movement towards hiring adjuncts instead of full-time, tenure-track professors?

The reasons for the shift are, like many things today, largely economic. As state and federal funding for higher education has declined, schools have looked for ways to trim budgets however they can. Given that some schools have seen budget cuts of 20% or more from state sources, it’s not hard to understand why they’ve moved towards hiring instructors who they can pay less, don’t have to offer benefits, and can easily let go when they need to tighten the belt. This flexibility means that colleges can quickly fill vacancies and respond to shifts in student demand, ensuring that they are not providing too many or too few courses in a given semester.

These same economic concerns have also been behind the drop off in tenure track positions. Tenured professors, while providing quality education and research, are expensive to maintain, and many colleges have favored putting the money they save by hiring part-time faculty towards enhancements and services on campus that can draw in greater numbers of students and make them more competitive in the higher education sphere.

The Adjunct Plight

While hiring greater numbers of adjuncts might make economic sense for universities, it hasn’t gone without some serious, often warranted, criticism. That’s because adjuncts, as a temporary workforce, haven’t been treated especially well by the universities who employ them. While there are exceptions, most adjuncts are faced with pretty abysmal working conditions causing this once invisible campus group to become a serious point of contention among many worried about the state of higher education.

To read more, click here.

In light of yet another annual increase in tuitions, we are reprising this post from June 19, 2012:

Memphis has to do a lot right at the same time if it is to succeed in an economy where winners and losers are often determined by talent and connectivity.

It’s the obstacle to connectivity caused by high airfares that led us to create the Facebook group, Delta Does Memphis, as a way to give voice to our concerns about the economic drag that the airfares are having on our economy.   In other words, at the time every city needs to connect seamlessly with the rest of the world, we have a major barrier to entry because our citizens are priced out of full participation in the global and even the national market.

But high airfares are not our only concern.  There is also the high (and getting higher) tuitions at University of Memphis.  At a time when cities’ success is defined by the presence of college-educated workers, the major source of that talent – U of M – is buffeted by climbing tuitions that prevent too many Memphians from access to the higher education they want – and that Memphis needs.

It was not too many years ago that tuition costs were one-third from students and two-thirds from state government .  Today, it’s been turned upside down, and it comes at a time when tuition for one semester at University of Memphis is $4,000.  At this point, there is no sign that the Haslam Administration will treat higher education any kinder than the Bredesen one did.

The Nose to Spite the Face

In the last three years of the Bredesen Administration, the budgets for schools in the Tennessee Board of Regents – which includes the U of M – were cut 25%, amounting to $186 million in reductions.  Universities were left reluctantly with no option but to shift the costs to students.   It was the height of political cynicism, and it all took place while the governor talked about improving the state’s economy.

The same “say one thing, do another” continues today with the Haslam Administration, which set economic development as a top priority and talks endlessly about creating entrepreneurship and economic growth, and yet, all the while it continues the decline in funding and the emphasis in priorities for higher education.

David Cox, executive assistant to University of Memphis President Shirley Raines, has seen the shift in tuitions in his decades at the university.  “At the time of the GI Bill, to a large extent, it was seen that expanding educational opportunities was a public good with benefits that went way beyond the individual,” he said.  “In the last 25 years, it moved from being seen as a public good to a private good.”

It is no mere coincidence that the GI Bill was the major driver of the economic boom for the decades following World War II.  Despite the lessons of history, from 2001 to 2011, nationally, tuition and fees at state schools increased 72%.  Currently, states are spending 20% less in inflation-adjusted dollars on higher education than a decade ago.

Dodging the Blame

The indicator of the shift from private to public good came when the virtues of a university degree were no longer perceived as important in and of themselves, but its value was seen in the amount of additional income that the degree would produce for a graduate.  It’s the same trend that has come to grip the arts, parks, and other quality of life investments.

For example, it was no longer good enough for the arts to have value for their aesthetic effects or their intrinsic benefits.  They had to have an accompanying economic impact study if they are to be considered important.  The traditional public good was now to be defined in its private good.

The shift in thinking fueled public policy decisions that led to higher and higher tuitions, and like the price gouging taking place with airfares, the higher cost of a university education is taking place in a region with one of the lowest median incomes and highest poverty rates in the U.S.  As a result, the higher tuition has a doubly negative effect on Memphis: it’s expensive for an average Memphis high school graduate and it erodes our ability to create the educated workforce needed for our region to compete in today’s economy.

Unfortunately, most of the outrage about climbing tuitions is directed at the universities coping with slashed budgets, which lets legislators off the hook and keeps their short-sighted funding decisions off the front page as well as its negative impact on Tennessee’s economic potential.  Certainly there can be no argument about the direct link between investments in higher education and economic competitiveness.

The Smart Investment

Perhaps, the State of Tennessee would access some of its universities’ researchers to determine if it is really “saving” money by cutting higher ed budgets in light of the long-term negative impacts on the state’s economy.  The governor and legislators might discover that they have based their decisions on a false economic equation.

Also, it might be that our business and political leadership has been diverted by the pursuit of the University of Memphis’ own board of trustees when they should be fixated on a lobbying campaign for state government to no longer abdicate its responsibility for university funding.

Otherwise, the privatization of our public universities will continue, and no city in Tennessee and the Southeast will be hit harder by the reality of this shift than Memphis.  It comes at the exact moment when we have to increase our college degreed workers if we are to compete in an economy shaped by knowledge workers.

There’s no confusion in Memphis these days about the way that our economic success in the future is tied to our percentage of college-educated workers.  It’s given birth to action on many fronts.

We know here that there is no smarter economic development strategy than to invest in human capital.  Now if only we could convince Governor Haslam and the Tennessee Legislature.

It’s as bold a move as one could imagine. The Rockefeller Foundation, celebrating its 100th anniversary, is launching a “100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge.” It will invest $100 million in 100 cities across the world that come up with the best and broadest plans to cope with massive natural and man-made shocks of the time.

In accepting the award, each winning city will be required to appoint a “chief resilience officer” who will work across departments to make sure strong city resilience plans are developed, refreshed and strengthened over time.

As Rockefeller Foundation president Judith Rodin puts it, we’re in a time when a “once-every-hundred-year storm becomes a once-a-week storm somewhere.” Climate change is leading to massive disruptions – all in addition to potentially dire earthquake, tsunami and infectious health challenges.

And with humankind crowding into cities by the billions – numbers unprecedented in human history – metropolises become the dominant stage for humanity.

The Rockefeller Foundation is especially concerned that the shocks of the times, while a peril to all, may most seriously affect poor and vulnerable people who have fewer means to recover.

Yet some may ask: Isn’t it too intrusive for a single foundation to suggest recipient cities must appoint an official with a previously unknown title and duties – “chief resilience officer”?

One reply: The idea comes from a proven friend of humanity. The Rockefeller Foundation has already invested deeply across the world, including in the Green Revolution of the mid-20th century, which introduced crops and production methods credited with saving more than a billion people from starvation.

Second, it’s critical that cities, for their fast-expanding billions of people, focus on resilience. The word is new, a bit strange to our ear. But it has real promise. It suggests toughness, fitness and a no-excuse ability to cope with broad ranges of crises. Resilience may not have the instant verbal appeal of Green Revolution. But it’s just as essential for humankind.

A resilience officer should be a point person for continuity and keep city departments talking and collaborating on survival and long-term sustainability issues. He or she, notes Neill Coleman, Rockefeller’s vice president for global communications, should be part of the executive function of the city, not necessarily a line executive but an officer with the ear of the mayor and city leadership.

I’ve seen the need in my own reporting, as I’ve covered initiatives for better climate change protection, improved utilities, transportation and neighborhood quality initiated by such mayors as Chicago’s Richard M. Daley, New York’s Michael Bloomberg and Los Angeles’ Antonio Villaraigosa. Their programs qualify as landmarks of forward-thinking city initiatives. But will they still be active and extended across city departments two, three or five years from now? A chief resilience officer could be the key champion of continuity.

Superstorm Sandy played a role in Rockefeller’s new initiative: Rodin was cochair of a task force, “NYS2100,” commissioned by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, which has set forth a bold plan for building New York’s capacity to bounce back from inevitable future stresses and shocks.

To minimize the effects of broad scale electric power failures during severe storms, the task force suggested creating incentives for “distributed energy” – power from many small power plants with diversified fuel sources. A companion strategy could be “islanding” – isolating areas hit by severe system breakdowns so they don’t shut down a whole city or metro area power system.

Then there’s money – how can cities afford the massive repair and recovery costs huge storms make necessary? [One example: The May 20 tornadoes that hit Moore, Okla., and the Oklahoma City area are estimated to have caused $2 billion in damage.] The NYS2100 commission suggested creating infrastructure banks to attract private capital and pull together money to repair storm-created physical damage. Or they might create disaster insurance policies for local governments – dubbed “sovereign insurance” – in which cities turn to private capital markets to buy prefunded insurance that will cover their potential losses in disasters.

Other ideas Rodin now proposes range from localities building absorbent road surfaces – a way to cut back on destructive storm flooding – to emergency broadband networks to keep businesses functioning.

Rockefeller’s selection of cities will roll out over the next three years. The hope is that it will create an expansive dialogue among world cities comparing notes and experiences on how they gird themselves against the extreme perils, flood and drought to tsunami and terror that the 21st century is presenting.

In five or 10 years, will cities still have many of the chief resilience officers Rockefeller is recommending? Maybe not – they’re just a means, not a goal. But I’d be hopeful. How else will cities keep focused on their resilience strategies, keep them rolling year-to-year and mayor-to-mayor, unless there’s a clear eye and voice at city hall to stay on task? That’s a major challenge for not just 100, but thousands of cities across the globe. And, one can argue, it is no less critical for human life and welfare than the Green Revolution was in its time.

Joe Leaphorn and Jim Chee, the Navajo Tribal Police investigators in Tony Hillerman’s superb mysteries, contended that there is no such thing as coincidence.  It’s hard not to agree when it comes to recent letters from state government to the City of Memphis government.

One of the letters was from the comptroller and took a hard shot at the city’s financial practices and the other was from the state treasurer questioning the City of Memphis pension plan.  Both were unusual actions by State of Tennessee, but the tone and the timing make them even more suspicious.

Memphis remains a land of mystery for most of the legislators and officials in state government.  It’s an attitude that’s been a fact of life on Capitol Hill for a long time, but it has new intensity and venom with the takeover of the Tennessee Legislature by right wingers who see Memphis as an island of liberal, black Democrats.

Former Governor Lamar Alexander made no secret about how Memphis baffled him and he generally avoided coming here.  Former Governor Phil Bredesen once said that anytime he came in contact with Memphis, it resulted in a problem or controversy.  So we guess it should be no surprise that with a supermajority of Republicans shaped by Tea Party orthodoxy, Nashville has become downright hostile toward its largest city and its people.

Information Gap

The lack of knowledge about Memphis and the lack of interest in understanding its problems shape the anti-Memphis attitude in the Legislature, where it became hostility and animus once it was fueled by the hostile commentaries shared by suburban Shelby County legislators.  Their regimen of horror stories about Memphis and their paranoia about all things Memphis have inspired a litany of myths and scorched earth political maneuvers.

The stories consistently portray Memphis, its people, and its government in the worst possible light and often with ugly stereotypes about urban life, urban residents and urban government.  There are stories suggesting that Memphians acted diabolically when they voted to dissolve the city school district and it was designed to destroy the majority white county schools.  There are regular stories of how corrupt and wasteful City of Memphis government is and how its payroll is bloated with political hangers-on.  There are numerous stories in which Memphis politicians are the punch line and Memphians are the butt of the jokes.

It’s within this context that it becomes easy for state legislators – egged on by suburban Shelby County legislators – to interfere in decisions of city government that range from living wage ordinances to guns in parks to annexation to the naming of parks.  It’s a paternalistic philosophy born out of the general disrespect that exists for Memphis.

It has also played itself out in state interference into local school decisions, and it will undoubtedly inject itself more in the future, particularly as suburban interests seek former county schools at no cost. Of course, getting the schools free makes no sense because most of their costs were paid by Memphians, and as a result, the more reasonable answer is for each town to deduct its percentage of the total county property tax from the total building cost and that should be the price of the school.

Rumors

Back to the two letters from state government to City of Memphis government, it’s curious that they were mailed at a time when one of the most popular stories on Capitol Hill, aided and abetted by suburban legislators, has been that Memphians are planning to dissolve the city charter.  It’s built on the premise that if Memphians were willing to dissolve their own school district, they are willing to do the same to their own city.  It’s accompanied by the prevailing opinion that all Memphians are looking for a free ride.

It’s a specious fiction.  Not only is no one in Memphis thinking about surrendering the city charter, it’s too problematic to consider anyway.  No one is going to pursue a strategy that wipes Memphis off the map, allows Germantown and other towns to annex parts of the former city, the bond debt becomes problematic, and more.

And yet, it’s hard to imagine that the tall tales about Memphis’ possible charter surrender weren’t carried to the comptroller’s office from Legislative Plaza by Jason Mumpower, former Republican House Majority Leader.  Although the comptroller is elected by the General Assembly to two-year terms, the office has a tradition of being politically detached, but it’s hard to see Mr. Mumpower’s hiring as deputy comptroller as anything but lowering that wall in an office with formidable powers, including the audit of state and local governmental entities.

Seasoned Nashville observers said that they can’t remember seeing a letter like the one mailed to the City of Memphis.  It was in response to the City of Memphis request for approval of its refunding plans for a negotiated sale of $112.5 million in bonds that would be used to pay off bonds issued in 2005 and restructure debt into future years to 2025.  The transaction would eliminate $10 million in debt payments in the upcoming fiscal year.

More of the Same

Approval by the comptroller’s office is required, and its staff had several options, and while some Nashville observers are not surprised that a letter was written, they are surprised by its range and terse tone.

The comptroller’s letter was dated May 20.  Nine days later, another state agency wrote City of Memphis.

This time, it was the State of Tennessee treasurer, who is also an appointee of the Tennessee Legislature.  The letter was mailed on behalf of the Council on Pensions and Insurance, a committee of the Legislature.  Its chairman is an East Tennessee Republican and its vice-chairman is a Middle Tennessee Republican. Its 14 members are state legislators – 10 Republicans and four Democrats.  None are from Memphis.  The only local member is Mark Norris, Senate Majority Leader from Collierville, and frequently, the driving force for suburban legislation.

Interestingly, the review of the city’s pension plan was requested by Mr. Norris, whose legislative digs at Memphis are obvious and often.  He tried to water down the import of the letter and did his best to make it sound routine by insisting that it will involve more than just Memphis.

But all in all, the letters lend credence to the statement that there really is no such thing as coincidence.

Governor Cuomo Seeks to Turn SUNY Campuses Into Tax-Free Zones

This is continued from our two previous posts this week.

After a recent post, Wake-up Calls for Economic Growth Demand Action, we received the following question from a reader, and because it is one receive fairly regularly, we asked a few friends of ours to answer it.  Here’s the question and it’s followed by the recommendations :

I’ve read several similar articles recently about Memphis, and it has made me want to do more to get involved.  I’m a transplant to Memphis from the Mid West, and am a fairly highly educated (MBA) professional.  I moved to Memphis out of college for a job, then out of Memphis for work, and chose to seek a job back that brought me back to Memphis.  I’d like to get involved and look into how we can make Memphis a city that attracts more young, educated professionals, but I have no idea where to start.  What are the best ways to get involved in moving the city forward?

Jared Bulluck, Leadership Memphis:

There are many ways to get involved in this city, but you have to be ready to show up and be social.  In our Memphis world you have numerous of organizations that try to attract young professionals to get involved and stay involved; Leadership Memphis, New Memphis Institute, MULYP, The YP Collaborative, etc.  These organizations really help you find what you would like to get involved in.

What these organizations will show you are the different things that Memphis is doing to attract young professionals from economic development to volunteer organizations.  But, the way young professionals really connect are in the neighborhoods.  To me there are 3 significant neighborhoods that come to mind when talking about YP’s, Cooper-Young district, South Main District, and Overton Square.  Here you will find young people from all over the city getting together and having a good time.

Occasionally the YP’s will get together and have what I call “pop up events” from poker nights, small concerts, 5k’s, fundraisers, and your always classic themed parties.  This is where the YP’s really mix and mingle and get to know one another.  By getting out and showing up to any situation you will find who and what type of people you are looking for.  It may take some time, but once you have found what you are looking for Memphis can be a really great place to live, work, and play.

Sarah Ray, former head of White House’s Strong Cities, Strong Communities initiative in Memphis:

I love that people are asking the question of how to get involved. What I would recommend are:

1) go out more in Memphis: help keep the city vibrant by spending money within its borders, visiting non-chain restaurants, local stores, concerts, etc.

2) participate in the political process: send your thoughts and ideas to City Council, go to community meetings, find out who your neighborhood organizations are, join a religious community, or some other way to connect to a group of people doing social justice work (Mid-South Peace & Justice Network, Church of the River, BRIDGES, etc),

3) volunteer: there are so many good organizations that need volunteers to keep their programs running. The Memphis Urban Debate League, after school tutoring programs, Bridge Builders, MIFA, Latino Memphis, I could go on, can use the help and giving back is a way to make sure the next generation of Memphians succeeds.

Zach Hoyt, University of Iowa graduate and Des Moines transplant and University of Memphis Law School student:

1)      Prioritize

a. Think of what may have given you doubts about moving to Memphis again.  Look for others working on the same problems and try to build off of that before starting yet another effort that might be working in the same space as another group.

b. At the same time, do not limit yourself to what is already being done.  Memphis is doing better, but clearly has a long ways to go.  It seems reasonable to infer that many of the efforts to improve the city have been ineffective, or at least less effective than they could be.  If you have an idea, get it out there and try to make it happen.  You’ll be surprised how easy it is and how many people might have been having the same idea but were unwilling to act on it.

c. In my opinion, the most important things we can do to improve the city long-term are investing in inner-city re-development, improving public education, and investing in local entrepreneurs.  The most important things we can do to attract talent in the short-term are to improve on organic national PR (think of how NOLA is portrayed and prominently represented in the media), financially support the people who already make Memphis great (artists, musicians, local businesses, etc,) and to be active, engaged citizens (politically and otherwise).

2)      Research

a. Learn about the history of the city, the region, and the state.  Look at what has been tried before, what worked, what failed, and why.  A great starting point for 20^th Century Memphis history is Memphis and the Paradox of Place by Wanda Rushing.

b. Don’t limit your perspective to Memphis.  Learn from the lessons of other cities that have struggled with similar problems.

3)      Appreciate

a. Don’t take for granted the things you love about Memphis.  Appreciate that in many ways it is already an amazing city.  It has problems, but it is not simply a broken place that needs to be fixed – it is a fantastic place that needs help living up to its potential.

b. Keep rankings in perspective.  Driven by media reports, we fixate on rankings of various things.  It is important to know where we stand on these metrics and what can be improved.  However, keep in mind that: 1) the absolute difference between some of these rankings is often relatively low, and 2) the metrics used (especially the composite rankings,) are often very poorly constructed – their purpose is to sell magazines, not to accurately evaluate cities.

4)      Maintain

a. Memphis does have very real problems. Long term problems that people have been struggling with for decades.  The more you get involved, the more you will be reminded of these problems.  One of Memphis’ problems is the failure of our leaders to solve our long term problems.  Being stymied by red tape, the good old boys network, and stupid decisions by leaders will frustrate you.  Don’t become jaded.  Don’t give up.  If you want to make a difference, you have to outlast those who are comfortable in the status quo.

b. Never forget that things can happen relatively quickly and that long term trends do not have a stranglehold on the future.  Memphis has struggled with a high crime rate since the 1980’s, but it has not been alone in these struggles.  Between 1998 and 2000, the violent crime rate in Memphis and Nashville were very similar (on average 4.8% higher in Memphis).  By 2006, that difference grew to 36% and it has stayed close to that ever since – a combination of Nashville’s crime rates dropping and Memphis’ increasing or remaining stagnant.  Similarly, for many decades Memphis was the dominant city in Tennessee (based on population and economic output).  In 1990, Memphis had a slightly greater population than Nashville (1.07M to 1.05M).  Twenty years later, Nashville’s population has grown by 60% (now 1.67M) whereas Memphis has only grown by 24% (now 1.32M).

1. This leads to one final point: be objective.  The popular narrative is that the Memphis population has stagnated for the past 20 years.  While we have not grown as fast as Nashville, if you look at the census data you will that Memphis’ growth rate was close to the median of all metros (25.6%).  We may be behind Nashville, but we have grown faster than San Diego, San Francisco, Chattanooga, San Jose, New York City, Chicago, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Louisville, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, and many, many other cities.

Former New York mayor Ed Koch envisioned bicycles as vehicles for the future, and in 1980 created experimental bike lanes on 6^th and 7^th Avenues in Manhattan where riders were protected from speeding traffic by asphalt barriers. It was unlike anything most Americans had ever seen–and some people roared their disapproval. Within weeks, the bike lanes were gone.

Twenty-seven years later New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and his transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan saw the growing ranks of bicyclists on the streets as a key component of 21^st Century transportation, and began building protected bike lanes in Manhattan and Brooklyn. They had studied the success of similar projects in Copenhagen and the Netherlands, noting how to make projects more efficient and aesthetically pleasing.

These “green lanes” and pedestrian plazas were an immediate hit but ignited a noisy reaction from a small group of well-connected people unhappy about projects in their neighborhoods, including Bloomberg’s former transportation commissioner. Lawsuits were filed while New York Post and Daily News columnists thundered about the inconvenience to motorists and supposed dangers to pedestrians. New York magazine declared the situation a “Bikelash” on its cover.

Pressure mounted on Bloomberg to sack Sadik-Khan and rip out the green lanes. Anthony Weiner, then a Queens Congressman and mayoral hopeful, told Bloomberg he would spend his first year as mayor attending “a bunch of ribbon cuttings tearing out your [expletive] bike lanes.” Bicyclists everywhere braced themselves for a setback, which would once again slow progress toward safer streets in New York and around the continent.

Now two years later, Sadik-Khan is still commissioner, and bike lanes continue appearing across the city, including 11.3 new miles of green lanes last year alone.

Two-thirds of New Yorkers call bike lanes a good idea in the most recent New York Times poll, compared to only 27 percent who oppose them. All of the major candidates to replace Bloomberg as mayor expressed support for bicycling at a recent forum, notes Paul Steely White, executive director of the local group Transportation Alternatives.

“Bike lanes are the new normal in New York,” White adds. “People in East Harlem are saying we want bike lanes like those in other parts of town.”

Another of Bloomberg’s and Sadik-Khan’s big ideas to improve New York has now hit the streets: the Citi Bike bike sharing system, the largest in North America with 6000 bikes available at 330 stations in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

What rallied the public around bicycling? “It was a combination of things,” reports Ben Fried, who chronicled the debate as editor of Streetsblog, a web magazine covering transportation in New York. First, independent polls debunked the myth that New Yorkers disliked bike lanes. “Actually a strong majority from throughout the city supported them.”

Fried also credits neighborhood leaders and bicyclists with mobilizing grassroots support for bike lanes, both on the web and at public meetings. “In the end, politicians need to see that bike lanes are a win for them.”

Pressure for new biking facilities came also from business leaders who see better biking conditions as an asset for their companies. High-tech executives at 33 firms—including Foursquare, Meetup and Tumblr—urged Bloomberg to implement the bikeshare system “as a way to attract and retain the investment and talent for New York City to remain competitive.”  The Hearst Corporation recently announced it will pay employees’ cost to join the Citi Bikes program. “It’s a cool New York thing to do and good for fitness,” says Hearst spokesperson Lisa Bagley.  “Our decision is driven by what are employees are interested in.”

Tim Blumenthal, president of PeopleForBikes and the sister Green Lane Project, stresses, “Bike issues need to framed in the context of what they mean to the city, not just what they mean to people who bike. In New York City, for example, more green lanes, better bikeway networks, and the new CitiBike system will benefit all residents and visitors by reducing traffic, noise and air pollution–making city life a little less frenetic for everyone.”

This all represents good news for cities coast-to-coast. “If you can do it here, you can do it anywhere,” says White paraphrasing the old song “New York, New York.”

Other communities will no doubt face their own version of bikelash, but the high-profile debate in New York over bike lanes highlights two key assets of protected green lanes:

1. Bike lanes create safer streets for everyone. “It’s the safety stats that carried the day,” notes Ben Fried, editor of Streetsblog, “They’re pretty indisputable.” Crashes for all road users (drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists) on streets with green lanes drop on average by 40 percent, and sometimes as much as 50 percent, according to a memorandum from Deputy New York Mayor Howard Wolfson. Green lanes also lead to significantly fewer bicyclists riding on sidewalks, Fried notes.

2. Bike Lanes are good for business. Shop owners are sometimes zealous opponents of bike lanes, which they claim will suffocate business by reducing traffic and eliminating parking. Yet businesses on 9^th Avenue, the first major green lane in the city, saw a 49 percent rise in retail sales, compared to 3 percent across Manhattan as a whole, according to research by the New York City Department of Transportation. Another study of consumer patterns by Portland State University researchers, found that shoppers who arrive by bicycle spend 24 percent more at stores per month than those who drive.

New, unfamiliar ideas like green lanes always spark opposition– at first. “Push back is inevitable,” Fried explains. “It doesn’t mean the project is flawed. Once it’s built, the constituency for it will grow.”

Complaints about a “war on cars” have echoed around Seattle from a small but persistent chorus opposed to bike lanes. In response the Cascade Bicycle Club commissioned a poll of Seattle voters (conducted by the independent research firm FM3 using a scientifically rigorous sample of 400 respondents), which found that 79 percent view bicyclists favorably, 73 percent want to see more protected green lanes, 59 percent support “replacing roads and some on-street parking” to build green lanes,” while only 31 percent believe Seattle is “waging a war on cars.”

(Green lanes in Washington, D.C. have also been denounced as a “war on cars”, even though only one percent of DC’s roads are dedicated to bicyclists, according to computations by Washington City Paper reporter Aaron Wiener.)

The new two-way protected bike lane on Dearborn Street in Chicago

In Chicago, there’s no organized opposition to Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s vision of boosting the city’s economy by providing 100 miles of green lanes and 550 more of on-street bike lanes. More than 16 miles of green lanes were built in 2012. One project on the South Side, however, did raise aesthetic concerns about historic Martin Luther King Drive, which was solved by shifting the protected green lane to a parallel street and adding buffered bike lanes (wide swaths of paint) to King Drive. The community engagement process around this issue resulted in neighbors forming the Bronzeville Bicycling Initiative to encourage more people to bike in this historically African-American community.

However Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass rouses emotions with his warnings that the mayor’s plans “foreshadow the day that cars will be illegal.” He also targets “little bike people” as “free riders” who don’t pay to keep up the roads and as scofflaws who defy traffic laws.

Ron Burke of the Active Transportation Alliance sees “little bike people” as a compliment, noting “how little space we take up on the roadway, how little wear and tear we cause, and how little our facilities cost within the grand scheme of transportation spending.”

Burke agrees with Kass that bicyclists endangering other people should be ticketed, but deconstructs his claim that motorists pay their own way on the streets. Between 24 and 38 percent of total road costs in Illinois are not covered by user fees such as gas taxes and vehicle stickers, even when you count federal funding as user fees, Burke explains, citing a study from the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

Kass is one of a number of commentators across the country who regularly target bikes and bicyclists. After New York Daily News columnist Denis Hamill wrote, “I hate bike lanes…they are steering some people like me to road rage” one reader responded “All I hear is an old man yelling, ‘Get Off My Lawn.’”

Jay Walljasper writes, speaks and consults frequently about biking and other ways to improve our communities. His website: www.JayWalljasper.com

This is continued from our two previous posts this week.

After a recent post, Wake-up Calls for Economic Growth Demand Action, we received the following question from a reader, and because it is one receive fairly regularly, we asked a few friends of ours to answer it.  Here’s the question and it’s followed by the recommendations :

I’ve read several similar articles recently about Memphis, and it has made me want to do more to get involved.  I’m a transplant to Memphis from the Mid West, and am a fairly highly educated (MBA) professional.  I moved to Memphis out of college for a job, then out of Memphis for work, and chose to seek a job back that brought me back to Memphis.  I’d like to get involved and look into how we can make Memphis a city that attracts more young, educated professionals, but I have no idea where to start.  What are the best ways to get involved in moving the city forward?

Kerry Hayes, Doug Carpenter & Associates:

Last season after a thrilling comeback defeat of the Golden State Warriors, Rudy Gay famously said in a postgame interview: “Remember, kids, make your own luck.” For our circle of friends, that’s been sort of a mantra (along with a lot of other beautifully on-brand gems that the Grizzlies say from time to time). Having lived here for almost eight years, I feel like one of the city’s defining paradoxes is the question of access and accessibility that young professionals have.

The allegations and criticism from so many people that Memphis is a perpetual good-old-boys network is not necessarily misplaced. But my experience has been so unique and unusual and crazily lucky — I had lived here for only four years before I got a policy job in the Mayor’s office, for crying out loud (and for that matter, in how many other major American cities can you reliably interact with the Mayor at his gym, coffee shop, or grocery store on weekly basis?).

The good-old-boys criticism festers among those who believe — falsely — that other cities offer some greater number of opportunities or depth of experience to young people. It’s a fascinating thing that I hear all the time from frustrated 20 and 30-somethings. “Real cities like Portland or Denver or Austin or Nashville or Atlanta or Los Angeles or etc etc. really value and understand young people.” The grass is always greener and all that, and I think it’s easier for some people to believe in another city’s marketing materials than confront their own cynicism and inertia. But I digress.

So, to your question, my big advice is pretty facile: SHOW UP. Find a non-profit with a mission that moves you and ask how you can volunteer. If there are no volunteer opportunities immediately available, ask to take the executive director or other staff out for a drink so you can ask them more about their mission; 99% of the time, a new volunteer opportunity (or in some cases, a job offer) will emanate from these kinds of creative conversations.

This advice is doubly true of political involvement. I say this with practically no regard to a person’s individual political leanings. With our divided city/county governments and odd-year elections, there are a LOT of campaigns happening almost every year in the community. Pick up a paper, read about the races, find a candidate who shares your views, and just start showing up at his/her campaign office. If you can speak in coherent sentences and especially if you have your own car, there are a multitude of positions for which you can take immediate and meaningful responsibility, be it registering voters, managing a phonebank, taking care of paperwork, advancing appearances for the candidate, etc. Well-managed political campaigns, even at (especially at?) the local level work like great pyramid schemes were people are always trying to organize themselves out of a job and up the ladder of influence. If you have any competency and luck whatsoever, you’ll advance  Between 2007 and and 2009, I volunteered on a city council campaign and a national campaign, and was then hired to work on Mayor Wharton’s campaign, and the rest is history. Taken together, those three experiences taught me an unbelievable amount myself (time management skills, ability to relate to others, work ethic, etc.) and the city of Memphis (demographics and political predilections of of various neighborhoods, inner workings of the local media, etc.) than anything else possibly could have.

The most important element of this advice is to not overthink something before you decide to get involved. You don’t need to know the board  of directors or the entire 5 year strategic plan. You don’t even need to believe that your efforts will lead somewhere specific. And you certainly should NOT fall victim to the curse of thinking that the City of Memphis, or any of its neighborhoods or population groups, or problems waiting for you to solve them. Our city is not your project. Just be present, open, and eager to help. Show up with no agenda except to be helpful, and enjoy what happens.

When people form connections to a city, what they are really forming are connections to one another. THAT is the sense of community and empowerment and belonging that young people are craving, and there’s really no big secret to it or substitute for it.

Attempting to change a culture of negative behavior & attitudes is difficult work & sometimes it makes one wonder if the effort is worth it. This sub-culture of criminal behavior is so deeply embedded that it feels like I am attempting to dig a hole in a stone with a sponge.  How does one “unlearn” what he has known as fact for his entire life? What factors will motivate him to live a different lifestyle – that is contrary to his normal and will cause him to be ostracized and mocked? How does one value something new and foreign, and often times uncomfortable and frightening?

These are a few of the questions that I wrestle with on a daily basis, in order to find the right words and strategies to actually make a difference in the lives of our team members.

This criminal culture is filled with socially acceptable norms of negative behavior. Going to jail has become so common that many of those that live the life already have attorneys on retainer and they have bail money hidden away because they know they will eventually get caught. The sad thing is, those are normal and expected parts of life and that lifestyle. Jail is no longer a deterrent. It has become something that gives more credibility to those that go. People aren’t even ashamed to tell that their loved ones are locked up. How did this become OK?

So many negative behaviors have been embraced by our community that any ideas that are contrary to the negativity are unwelcomed.  Now, residents allow criminal activity to take place next door, or across the street, or around the corner. They REFUSE to get involved and remove the infection! Good citizens that care about their neighbors and want safe environments are seen as snitches and nosey neighbors. So they hide in their homes and pray that no one intrudes on their privacy.

I have found that we will rally around a cause, but if there is no cause, men and women don’t seem to care. I don’t understand that train of thought. If an issue is present, we MIGHT get involved. If a teacher corrects a child and it is viewed by the parent as abusive, they will run to the school, ready to fight- without getting an understanding of the situation. But this same parent will allow the dope boys to shoot dice in front of his house because he wants to be accepted. And I want to teach him how to see the world from a completely different perspective- without changing his environment or giving him something for his trouble, something tangible that he can look at and see why what he is being taught is important. Needless to say, it’s not easy!

Value must first be instilled in the person. We must empower them to be whole.

Then, we enlist them in the fight and allow them to build value in others. Now, the issue is not about the man, it’s about the cause, which has been carefully and masterfully imparted into the man that is now fighting the fight. He can see the issues in the culture now, and he is ready to fight. He has his tangible mission that will bring about a change, not just for him, but for his family. And, if done correctly, he has an opportunity that is tangible, to earn a living while doing it. He has now become change! He is an example! Now the neighbors have proof.  NOW WE HAVE TO TRAIN #2. A lot of energy is spent, but the return on that investment will be exponential.

This is continued from our last blog post.

After a recent post, Wake-up Calls for Economic Growth Demand Action, we received the following question from a reader, and because it is one receive fairly regularly, we asked a few friends of ours to answer it, and in this installment, Charles Santo does another masterful job of speaking about things that matter to Memphis :

I’ve read several similar articles recently about Memphis, and it has made me want to do more to get involved.  I’m a transplant to Memphis from the Mid West, and am a fairly highly educated (MBA) professional.  I moved to Memphis out of college for a job, then out of Memphis for work, and chose to seek a job back that brought me back to Memphis.  I’d like to get involved and look into how we can make Memphis a city that attracts more young, educated professionals, but I have no idea where to start.  What are the best ways to get involved in moving the city forward?

Charles Santo, University of Memphis:

Memphis is a place that quickly engenders affection from newcomers. Whether this happens despite disdain from outsiders (read: TJ Simers, Forbes, etc.) or because of that disdain – as a kind of natural defensiveness or rationalization technique – I’m not sure. But I think it is a credit to the uniqueness of the place and its variety (in a homogenizing world). Regardless, many people who are transplanted to Memphis, whether for work of other reasons, quickly come to consider themselves “Memphians by choice.” I consider myself among that lot.

Recognizing the assets of the city, Memphians by choice want to bring others along, in part to make the city better. There are certainly ways to connect to others with like-minded goals. In a big small town, if you just give it time those connections will happen. But if you’re looking for the structure to facilitate those connections, I’d suggest organizations like Leadership Memphis, or the New Memphis Institute, which hosts a Memphis Connect program and engages fellows in Community Action Projects.

If you’re looking for ways to help Memphis appeal to more young and educated professionals, a second strategy would be to get involved in organizations that promote the things that are important to you, and to why you love Memphis. For example, If you’re into sustainability that might mean hooking up with the Sierra Club or getting involved with the Midsouth Regional Greenprint planning process, or volunteering with Citizens to Preserve Overton Park. Or, if you have some skills or talent you want to share and use to connect, put it out there with Guild Local.

I think talent attraction and retention is critical to the future of our city, but I also think that moving Memphis forward has to mean more that focus alone. What has come to make me nervous about talent attraction boosterism is the subtle message that in order to move Memphis forward, what we need is… more people like us. In a place whose appeal is its variety, I worry that we become too insular in this approach. Moving Memphis forward has to also be about addressing the challenges facing those who are not Memphians by choice (yet).

As Darrell Cobbins and Cardell Orrin have been saying lately, we need to start waving our yellow growl towels at some everyday problems too. And there are opportunities. If you have a church, ask them about their outreach ministries to see where you skills could be of use. Or consider volunteering for an organization like Advance Memphis, which works to promote economic self-sufficiency among households in poverty, and is considering alternative approaches to developing worker cooperatives as a means of neighborhood entrepreneurship. Or help Memphis address economic hurdles by building life skills with an organization like Literacy Mid-South. Or work with Stand for Children to improve educational outcomes and address disparity in education.

In the meantime, the simplest thing you can do to move Memphis forward is continue to live where you live — supporting your community by becoming an advocate, and by living your life locally: shopping, eating, playing in your neighborhood. Encourage Memphians who might otherwise run away from the problems of the city to stand firm — to stay and face those challenges in their city and in their neighborhoods. A commitment to this city — like any city — involves risk and raises legitimate concerns; especially for those raising families. While recognizing this, I believe that more people would be more willing to make the commitment to Memphis if they knew they were not alone in doing so.

I’ve only recently discovered your blog, but am really enjoying the variety of topics and perspectives on issues the cities, and particularly those Memphis faces.  I’d love to read your thoughts on the I-240 corridor between Jackson Ave and South Parkway.  I’ve catalogued the exits and there are very few that are complete (I’m sure there’s an industry term, but I don’t know it) – meaning you can enter and exit from both North and South from the interstate and go in either direction on the city artery, and go in either direction onto the interstate from the city artery.  Most of those exits that do exist are older, and so initially I would have just put it down to an evolution in guiding principals behind interstate design and assume that there was a time when engineers and planners thought is better to bypass easy access to major areas, but really that doesn’t make sense.  Here are a few examples of the inefficiency and seeming disregard for how this corridor works with our local commercial and residential traffic:

A friend that lives off Jackson pointed out that when she gets onto 240 from Jackson she can’t access the ramp that exits onto I40 west in order to head across the river to Arkansas (though I consider Jackson basically a complete exit, clearly even this one has a major flaw).   That’s just nuts – Jackson is far enough from that I-40 exit that those residents should have access to the I-40 ramp – my gosh, this is basically a brand new build!  And if you know midtown, where else are the Evergreen, V& E and other neighborhood residents going to enter I-240in order to head west on I40?  Moreover, why in the world should they have to think that hard when a brand new exit was just built.  It’s a like a bad joke.

In further examples, I can’t understand why the ramp from Lamar going North on 240 is isolated from the interstate for so long that you cannot exit onto Union, in fact the driver still hasn’t merged with the interstate traffic at this point.  The next exit available for this driver would be Jackson ave.  In the process you’ve bypassed Eastmoreland, Peabody, Union, Madison, Jefferson, Poplar and N Parkway.  I’d think a fully functioning ramp near Methodist would be a boon to the area and particularly the neighborhoods and schools that currently have to deal with speeding emergency vehicles that are zipping down Cleveland to get to Lamar/Bellevue/240.  The same could be said for Poplar or N Parkway and the hospitals on those arteries, but any complete exit  on this stretch of interstate would be an improvement.  Just one or complete two exits in this prime area would make a world of difference to the residents and commercial traffic in our city.  As a logistics hub it’s just baffling that we haven’t improved this interstate.

The Midtown/Med Dist stretch of 240 bisects major residential areas and UT Med and our hospital district.  I-240 could be used well as a North South corridor for local traffic if there were several complete exits in this urban core area.  Because there aren’t exits and there are few N/S arteries to choose from, people use Cleveland and tend to speed in the process.  But Cleveland runs through both commercial and residential property and I can tell you first hand the amount of traffic leads to a lot of fender benders (which in turn effect our emergency responders).  To document, I have a small photo album of wrecks near my home on Cleveland.  I’m not sure what the hold up is on improving the interstate, or if it’s just not on the radar.  There’s land to enhance these exits, in fact some of the areas between 240 and Cleveland would be much improved if there was a smartly designed complete exit instead of the urban blight that exists there now.

My last bone to pick with the poor decisions/priorities on this integral stretch of interstate is the lack of sound barriers/privacy walls/safety walls (whatever they are called).  The difference between the tall, reasonably attractive and very effective interstate walls going up in the Germantown area and the pitiful chain link fences in the Midtown/Med district stretch of 240 is absurd.  There are incredible historical districts in sight of the interstate and those neighborhoods would have a better chance of thriving if such walls were in place, as seen in most other older urban districts in successfully renewed areas like Nashville’s Hillsboro village (which 440 bisected) etc.

Last year I wrote Congressman Cohen who replied that this is state level funding.  I think leaders, residents and businesses would be happy to get behind a redesign of this area, and hope that our engineers and other departments involved have a broad enough vision to tackle the needed improvements.  I’d love to read your thoughts in a series on this challenge.

After a recent post, Wake-up Calls for Economic Growth Demand Action, we received the following question from a reader, and because it is one receive fairly regularly, we asked a few friends of ours to answer it:

I’ve read several similar articles recently about Memphis, and it has made me want to do more to get involved.  I’m a transplant to Memphis from the Mid West, and am a fairly highly educated (MBA) professional.  I moved to Memphis out of college for a job, then out of Memphis for work, and chose to seek a job back that brought me back to Memphis.  I’d like to get involved and look into how we can make Memphis a city that attracts more young, educated professionals, but I have no idea where to start.  What are the best ways to get involved in moving the city forward?

Here are some answers (more to run in our next post):

Margot McNeeley, Project Green Fork:

When I moved here 22 years ago, I wondered the same thing. So, I met the P&H Cafe! Not saying bars are the only places to meet people but it was a start.

I would encourage your reader to cheek out some volunteer opportunities with organizations they are passionate about. Farmers Market, Zoo, Museums, Launch Your City, Theaters, Memphis Heritage …. They should get on mailing/email lists of organizations that have gatherings to learn more about Memphis whether through FB, twitter or just signing up on local interests websites.

And most importantly, talk to people. I learned that Memphians love to brag about their city and help newcomers.

Tommy Pacello, Mayor’s Innovation Team funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies:

This question comes up a lot when we present on our Team’s work or talk about the role of Tactical Urbanism in creative placemaking. As a side note, I think that part of the reason Tactical Urbanism has become so popular is that formal channels for how to engage are not clear. Time is a luxury and people become frustrated if it is not clear how to engage or they don’t feel like their voice is heard. TU becomes sort of this constructive “city hack” for having your voice heard – make a point while actually addressing the problem.

I don’t have a clear answer for this question – it is something that we need to work on as a community. Below are a few things that for some people might be places to start.

»        Understand the Issues – Cities are complex places and there are rarely simple solutions. City staff is stretched thin by budget cuts and current city resources are anemic. We need to understand the realities of the new economy and the need to adjust. We must understand the history then look to how other cities are talking about the same challenges. If possible, travel and study the places you love most and bring ideas back to Memphis.

»        Demand Better – Not just of elected leaders but also of local businesses, neighbors, and ourselves. If out at a restaurant and it is dirty or the food is bad say something constructive to the staff. If a neighboring business or resident is not maintaining their property say something to them and offer to help them. If you see trash on the sidewalk or in the gutter stop and pick it up. Be a good neighbor and lead with a carrot. If that doesn’t work look to other options.

»        Organize, Take Ownership, and be Creative – If you and your neighbors see something that needs to be addressed in your neighborhood devise a collective solution and address it (see the Tactical Urbanism manual -  can help crowd resource community solutions to community challenges.

»        Get Out and Support – Ideas, neighborhoods, businesses and leaders behind them. Show up at meetings and community events. Make them fun – There is no reason that rebuilding a city shouldn’t be fun.

»        Serve on a Board – Non-profit, community/neighborhood association, or government agency. Find something that you are passionate about, get educated on the options and seek out how to be part of the decision making body.

Darrell Cobbins, Universal Commercial Real Estate, and Chairman of the Board of the New Memphis Institute:

In my opinion, the best way is to seek out the organizations that are focused on making Memphis better through the lens which you are most passionate (youth, politics, poverty, mentoring, young prof connections, etc).  This is where you have the opportunity to learn more about the present state of affairs, in whichever area(s) you have a curiosity or interest (becoming informed and educated on Memphis)…as well as build the relationships w/ those like-minded Memphians who may share the same passion, interest, and curiosity.  This is what leads to dialogue, idea-sharing, and solutions/action.  In every endeavor I’ve been involved in..it typically happens through this informal/organic process.