A tale of two cities: an observation on the different directions of Boston and Syracuse

So about a week ago, I can across two stories, one in my old home town, one my my new.

Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

At $37.5m, Millennium Tower condo tops most everything

That's one condo. Granted, it's a 13,000 (yes, thousand) sq. foot 60th-story penthouse that overlooks just about everything in Boston. But still, that's a lot of money. ALSO, the artists rendition of the porch/balcony in that new condo is a bit terrifying. Maybe a railing is a good idea when you're up that high? I mean, I suppose if you can afford a condo of that price you can afford the insurance on having a cliff portruding from your residence. But still, maybe a railing.

Meanwhile, on Syracuse.com, the website affiliate of the Syracuse Post-Standard:

NY: Benches will be removed where homeless gather under Syracuse highways

As you may know, Syracuse's economy is doing less well than Boston's I'm not sure that Syracuse actually has more homelessness than Boston - it's a serious problem in both cities. Poverty in general, however, is a much more common issue here in central New York. So in order to deal with homelessness, the state has decided "out of sight, out of mind" is the best policy and bets that maybe if those lazy homeless folks don't have a place to sit and panhandle they'll get off their lazy butts and get jobs? That's some good public policy, folks. Good to see the city biting the bullet and making sure the poors understand where they belong.

What I love most about his article is that this was a compromise. Initially, the county and city wanted to put "No Loitering" signs. On public benches.

"No Loitering" signs.

On public benches.

"No Loitering" signs. On public benches.

Welcome to Syracuse.

I might have some culture shock.

Or, I might just be fucked.

Fin

Free Wi-Fi isn't a "right"; It is, however, a really good idea

Maryland governor and future not-President Martin O'Malley caused a bit of a stir when he described Wi-Fi as a "human right." The right-wing internet press has, of course, been attacking him like crazy. ANYTHING described as a right is worthy of scorn to those folks, except of course your Constitutional Right to a Bushmaster .446 Remington SuperLight Carbine Semiautomatic. While I have little patience for the argument of the crazies, the underlying problem here is that the conversation we are having about infrastructure an its relation to government is broken. The government doesn't exists just to guarantee rights. It exists to enhance the public good.

Is a government that doesn't provide wi-fi committing a human rights violation? That seems a little bit ludicrous on its face, but let's twist this discussion around. A government that suppresses internet usage is authoritarian, right? Protests need a space to begin, and the nebulous internet provided the perfect public space for what became the Arab Spring, as well as the recent protests in Hong Kong. Attempts by the Chinese government to suppress internet access have been rightly condemned.

Access to a job is not a human right. Access to a road to get to your job is not a human right. Access to a port to bring your wares to market is not a human right. They are, however, all things that enhance society. A connected, employed, productive society isn't just a positive development, it is necessary to the existence of democracy. They are public goods. They increase the general welfare. They don't make America a more righteous place, but they obviously make it a better one.

And so it is with wi-fi availability. Arguing that something which didn't even really exist 10 years ago is a human right is a hard sell. The case that needs to be made is that we are all better off with consistent, reliable internet access. This was the case that was made with the establishment of a Postal Service - that being able to connect everyone, everywhere, at a reasonable price benefitted not only those in remote outposts and those who couldn't afford private parcel delivery, but strengthened as as a whole.

Let's get out of the business of trying to describe everything that helps us as a right, and back into explaining how public goods work and why they should be implemented.

"A police officer keeps watch over demonstrators."

The situation in Ferguson, Missouri is disgusting on multiple levels. The racism, both latent and open, is sad. The inequities that lead to a city that is 64% black to have a police force that is 6% black is the result of years of policy mistakes and poor management, leading to obvious public distrust in those supposed to protect them, and leading those supposed protectors to see their citizens as dangerous "others" rather than members of their own community. But the one public policy disaster that has become crystallized on our computers as we watch this crisis take place is the descent of local police forces into paramilitary organizations.

The use of military tactics and high-grade weaponry to keep the citizenry "in line" has no place in a democratic nation. This is the stuff of a military dictatorship, which the citizenry of Ferguson, Mo. does not have the capacity to overthrow. 

Imagery, and how it is reported, is important. From USA Today's website:

The caption, as the title of this post notes, reads ""A police officer keeps watch over demonstrators."

Is that what you see there? A "police officer?" "Keeping Watch?" Here's a better headline. "Untrained paramilitary soldier aims his assault rifle at black people standing in the street."

Photo from : "Alderman Antonio French arrested in Ferguson" http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/14/antonio-french-alderman-arrest-ferguson-missouri/14042391/