Return on Investment

I've been following a proposed hotel development here in Milwaukee. It's a $50 million Marriott on Wisconsin Ave and Broadway. The site includes some buildings designated as historic, and the developer would prefer to raze them. There are many smart and articulate voices on both sides of the issue: historic preservation vs. economic development.

It's a good discussion and an interesting one. When someone buys a building designated as historic, or in a historic district, they should buy it understanding the impact the designation will have on their bundle of rights associated with ownership. What they pay should contemplate those conditions. In those cases, if they wish to develop they should be subjected to the applicable expectations and standards.

Even in some of those cases, though, there are other interests. I do believe there should be some flexibility in the system to allow for appropriate development and growth. Therein lies the problem: who is the arbiter of appropriate? How does that work? I don't have even proposed answers for that question. But I do think we need to avoid dogmatic positions.

Back to the hotel... I think the Historic Preservation Commission made a fair decision. They said if the developer could keep the facade of the buildings intact, they could tear down the balance of the building. Is that harder? Yes. Will it be more expensive? Likely. But, it is consistent with some important objectives: honor our history; preserve our character; produce our present; and, invest in our future.

If preservation had equal costs and equal value to the alternative, the conversation would be short. Most everyone would preserve as a matter of course. But, preservation has costs. It's not always the cheapest option. It doesn't always result in greater objective value. As a result of these basic financial conditions, the financial market would not necessarily choose preservation if given a choice.

Because preservation is important, there are mechanisms out there to help cover those incremental costs. There are state and federal historic tax credits. There are New Market Tax Credits. Municipalities have TIF, and loan guarantees, and other financial mechanisms available. In some way shape or form, each of these are taxpayer supported programs. There's always vicious discussion about the merits of using those tools. Some people think there's simply not a high enough return on investment.

Let's assume the conversation about higher vs. lower taxes is solved by fixing taxes at this year's number for the next 4 years. About 60% of the budget goes to Defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP. Then, there's another 6%ish to pay interest on the debt. So that leaves, call it, 30%.

Let's say that the government let us pick where to invest a portion of our taxes. For each of the four years of frozen revenues the feds would create a different pool of programs from the 30% remaining that consume a total of 7.5% of the total revenues.

Then, each year each federal taxpayer could direct 7.5% of their tax obligation to the programs identified. Each program would be required to manage their budget with the understanding that they would need to be investment-worthy for a portion of their revenues. We would expect them to deliver a return on investment.

What if this was the list?:

1. Food Stamps
2. Historic Preservation
3. Urban Public Education
4. Medical Research
5. Veteran Benefits
6. Small Business Administration
7. Corps of Engineers (infrastructure)
8. Various real estate development tax credits
9. Job Training Incentives
10. Environmental Protection

Now your tax dollars are available to you as an investment. You can produce our present. You can invest in our future. You can preserve our character. You can honor our history. But, each dollar you put in one program isn't going into another.

So, where would you invest?

Getting What We Deserve

I need to get something off my chest. Like so many Americans, I'm exhausted from partisan politics. But I'm more convinced than before that we're reaping what we sowed. This is our fault and we have no-one to blame but ourselves.

I was sitting with some folks at a fundraiser for a good cause (good idea). We started talking about politics (bad idea). I said that regardless of my political inclinations I appreciate a politician like Russ Feingold. He's smart. He's capable. He's principled. He makes decisions based on his assessment of the issues at hand. He actually reads the legislation. If, as his constituents, we don't like the way he votes then we can vote him out of office.

A gentleman at my table told me he was embarrassed and furious that Russ voted against the Patriot Act as a lone voice. He said that if Russ had talked to his constituents he would have understood that he HAD to vote for it. He said that's the politician's job: to vote the way his/her constituents demand.

I'm writing this post to express how profoundly wrong I believe that idea to be. We find ourselves in a political quagmire in no small part due to the fact we've fostered a system in which our candidates become market timers. They use daily, if not hourly, polls to identify the whims and fancies of their constituents. They base their campaigns on their interpretations of the polls. So, as voter opinions change with the weather so too do the "platforms" the candidates are building.

If that's the system we want during the election cycle, so be it. But it absolutely is NOT the job of the elected official to vote as the constituents want while they are in office. I demand that my elected official whose full-time job it is to research, understand and assess the issues make a decision based on his/her understanding and principles.

I expect that the official will vote in a such a way that is a reflection of the representations that they made during the election cycle. They should remain internally consistent. If they don't, I won't vote for them again. Russ Feingold is at least internally consistent.

Please don't misunderstand. This is not about Russ. This isn't an endorsement of his politics. But this is absolutely an endorsement of his kind of politics.

As a representative democracy it is axiomatic that our elected officials represent our interests. But by creating a system of professional politicians we've engineered a democratic (small "d") monster. If the politician needs the job, they will do whatever is necessary to keep it. That includes ideological dithering.

In several weeks we have a chance to pick our next group of representatives. I'm beyond frustrated because I can't seem to identify what the candidates really stand for as individuals. I'm exhausted by relativistic politics. It's not about what candidate A stands firmly for, it's about how that compares to candidate B. And, because they're both market timers, that's all compared to how they read the polls.

Here's what I want from my candidate: tell me how you make decisions. Help me understand your intellectual underpinnings. Give me a roadmap to your fiscal and social policy decision tree. If you have any hard and fast standards that you exalt above all others, then make them clear. In other words, let me understand your baseline.

Just as I believe the Supreme Court is better when balanced by intellectual variety, so too do I believe our representative government is better when multiple ideological baseline voices are heard. This year in my voting decisions I will exalt a clear expression of baseline over specific policy.

If all we want from our representatives are mirrored drones in which we can see our dimly lit and ever-changing reflections, we'll get nothing better than that. But we deserve better. And, it's in our power to demand and receive it.