Lake Erie Wind Farm

On Friday 07 January 2011, Ohio's outgoing Governor Ted Strickland finished something he started a couple of years back. According to an NBC4i report from Columbus, Ohio, Strickland signed a lease agreement giving Lake Erie Energy Development Co. rights to the lake bed (owned by the State of Ohio) which will allow LEEDCo the ability to anchor their new turbines to the underwater surface and conduct tests on the feasibility of offshore wind farms in the Great Lakes.

This is not a new idea, but it would be the first of its kind in Ohio. According to offshoreWIND.biz, the State of Indiana is looking to use a part of its Lake Michigan lakebed to start an offshore windfarm. This article also indicates a couple of other interesting facts - first off, in April of 2010, Massachusetts received permission from the Federal Government to establish the nation's first offshore windfarm off the coast of Cape Cod. Second, the State of Indiana already has 5 active windfarms producing 1,036megawatts of power. While, admittedly, this is still a small portion of Indiana's total energy consumption, it is a start to moving away from total dependency on coal fired plants and other non-renewable sources.

Another good article on the Lake Erie project and the turbines to be used by LEEDCo comes from Alternative-Energy News (23 June 2010). The Lake Erie project will be using new GE turbines that will stand 300' tall with 176' ultralightweight carbon fiber blades (improving efficiency). Furthermore, these new generation turbines will be more efficient through a number of new technologies and the elimination of numerous moving parts such as gearboxes.

This new technology is exciting for a number of reasons - the increased efficiency allows for optimization of wind capture and reduces maintenance requirements / costs. First, this means that the turbines can spin at a lower windspeed, increasing their energy production range. Secondly, and possibly more important given the accessibility issues of planting a giant turbine in the middle of a lake, this decrease in maintenance will reduce downtime of the turbine (leading to increased energy production) and will reduce the costs of maintenance (operational costs / mW produced) leading to a more cost efficient turbine complex.

In all, it's hard for me to not support this initiative. I do have some concerns though. Lake Erie is home to some notoriously challenging weather situations - these turbines are going to have to be built and anchored to survive Lake effect snow, large waves and the general battering of the Great Lakes. These turbines will also need to be well 'advertised' to mariners. As a new addition to the Lake topography, serious measures will need to be undertaken to ensure that mariners do not hit them - this could be catastrophic to both the mariner and the turbine (and depending on the ship's cargo, the Lake Erie ecosystem as well). Finally, there are some issues regarding the safety of turbines in relation to birds and other animals. While I think this is most likely a very minor concern, it should be stated that Ohio does have American Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons (I, however, do not know if these birds range into Lake Erie near the proposed site or if this is truly a viable concern - I AM just listing it as a potential concern).

I now pose the question - what do you think about offshore windfarms? Post your answers in the comments below.

ODOT's Transit Plan

ODOT recently announced that for the next biannual budget, they'd be freeing up $50M for transit agencies across the state. This is going to include grants for all aspects of transit agencies - operational support, green buses & starting up new services. According to this press release, the funding is coming from a mix of federal & agency monies and will be distributed according to a mix of formula grants & competitively awarded funding.

My feelings on boosting support for public transit are well known and I'm intrigued by this effort by ODOT to boost support for these transit agencies. COTA is the #2 winner here - getting north of $3.5M according to the formula grant for operations. Cleveland's getting nearly $2M more than that - in the largest award for the state.

Additionally, 41 new green buses will be purchased for the regions and there will be some money allocated to help fund rural & smaller urban mass transit options. In all, I think this is a pretty good allocation of the $50M over 2 years, as long as this provides an impetus for these transit agencies to continue to expand & upgrade their service.

MORPC's Sustainability Conference

Two years ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission's (MORPC) Sustainability Conference. It was an educational event centered on what we can do - on a regional level as public and private entities - to enhance the sustainability of the region. Topics ranged from the expected items such as improving mass transit and rebuilding in the urban core to reduce consumption and congestion to more nuanced topics such as how municipalities can work their zoning codes to allow for individuals to erect wind turbines in their back yards, raise chickens and utilize solar arrays.

This year, a number of awards were presented to local corporations and public entities for various green initiatives - ThisWeek German Village has a good wrap-up of the awards presented here. Additionally, MORPC maintains some information relating to the conference on it's home page, the navigation links are on the left hand side below "Summit".

It's a very interesting event that I recommend all governmental subdivisions should send a delegation to. As governments are looking to cut costs things such as saving energy, reducing consumption and making better use of existing structures / land - green initiatives - can help to reign in costs.

An Editorial Post - Over-educated & Unemployable?

"So, did you end up over-educated and unemployable like you said in the yearbook?"
-Gretchen Speck, Wonderfalls Season 1 Episode 1

I was talking to a friend today about some articles I'm writing and magazines I've queried recently and she suggested I write an article about having a Master's Degree and being underemployed. After thinking about it, I realized that it's not really the sort of thing I'm interested in fully researching and trying to find sufficient stats and figures to support a magazine article - but as a pre-weekend editorial, it could be interesting.

One of my favorite shows ever only lasted 4 episodes before being canceled from FOX was called Wonderfalls (fortunately, the full 1st season was released on DVD). The show centers around a young woman named Jaye Tyler who, after graduating from Brown with a degree in philosophy ends up moving back home to Niagara Falls to live in a trailer park and work retail in a tourist oriented gift shop. While at work one day, a former classmate (Gretchen Speck) comes in & while talking to her asks the quote at the top of this post, to which Jaye's deadpan reply was "Yep, went to Brown, got a degree in philosophy, now I work here..."

Jaye's reply is similar to mine when people ask what I do. I have both, a Bachelor's (Psychology) and a Master's Degree (Public Administration) from one of the top rated public universities in the US. My graduate program was a top 15 ranked program in the annual US News rankings. Currently, I'm driving a tractor-trailer for a local trucking company and have a part-time job driving buses for the university I graduated from. An acquaintance and I were talking on Monday, sharing trucking 'war-stories' and suddenly he paused and said "Wait... you have a master's degree... and you're driving a truck??"

So, what happened? When I started undergrad in 2004, education seemed the optimal path. I spent most of the preceding 3yrs driving truck over-the-road and knew I didn't want to do that for a living. Finishing undergrad in 2008, I realized that I wanted to make a difference. Work for the Government - preferably at a local or state level - and try to make things a little better. I started grad school in 2008 and watched as the economy got worse and worse with each passing month. Numerous governmental agencies and all levels of government began to realize that the economy was tanking, tax revenues were down & they still had a number of obligations to pay - bonds, employee retirement benefits and still trying to provide the services necessary for their constituents. Every morning, one of the first emails I read is the daily news from the ICMA (International City/County Management Association) and in the past few months - there have been articles virtually every week centered on how some governmental entities are saving money through restructuring / eliminating employee retirement plans or flat out eliminating positions. One of the reasons individuals take the lower pay associated with working in the public sector is for the job security & retirement packages.

With that said - what happened? More specifically, in my individual case... Well, since last October, I've applied to over 50 positions at all levels of government. In that time, I've managed to get 3 interviews, and haven't had any progress beyond that point. At present, I have over 20 applications in that have not progressed beyond the "Application Received" stage. While I try to remain cautiously optimistic for the applications I have in, I still go through state & municipal websites weekly to look for new openings to apply to. Yet still, none have borne fruit.

As I said before, I drove tractor-trailers for nearly 3yrs before going to school. I never gave up my Class A CDL & retained my skills for driving. A buddy's family owns a small trucking company & I fell into a part-time position with them while in my last year of grad school - part time to make some extra money. No other job prospects have lead to me taking on more and more hours there. Just barely paying the bills, erratic hours, inconsistent pay, unrewarding work - it's not where I anticipated being after $100,000 spent on education.

Like so many others that find themselves underemployed / unemployed, I find myself frequently depressed about what I'm doing, questioning my path through life, wondering if things will ever improve & live in a never ending battle of trying to figure out how I'm going to pay each months bills. Over-educated & unemployable? At least for the time being, anyhow...

3C & Midwest High-Speed Rail

Some of my readers who know me know that I'm a strong supporter of increasing rail travel in the US and better connecting the MidWest to the remainder of the nation's main rail lines including the Empire Builder, Lakeshore Limited, Silver Service & Capitol Limited. I have an appreciation for the European model of rail transit and see a high value in being able to increase one's productivity while traveling instead of "wasting" time by acting as a steering wheel holder.

Recently, a number of blogs including ColumbusUnderground.com's Transit blog and XingColumbus have been publishing articles about both the 3C rail (connecting Cincinnati to Columbus to Cleveland) and a proposed network of 220mph bullet trains in the MidWest aiming to connect a large portion of the US population to a major rail hub in Chicago in less than a 3hr journey from a given point to Chicago (e.g. Cincinnati to Indianapolis to Chicago is projected as a 2hr journey).

Many of the recent reports these bloggers are referencing come from a number of organizations including The Midwest High Speed Rail Association, The Ohio Rail Development Commission & The Ohio Public Interest Research Group (a non-partisan, not-for-profit advocacy group).

Alright, with all of the references cited and out of the way, let's get started on the commentary.

At present, The US Federal Government has allocated $400Million to study the feasibility, conduct environmental impact studies & lay out the preliminary designs of rail transport in Ohio, predominantly along the 3C corridor. Some recent numbers cited by XingColumbus indicate an average speed of 51MPH along the entire 3C line (255Mi) from Cleveland to Columbus to Dayton to Cincinnati. Bear in mind that this is merely the conventional speed rail corridor - not the proposed bullet trains. This conventional speed rail corridor is merely an interim step in the process of connecting the MidWest, nay, the nation, through a massive bullet train network.

When we turn to OhioPIRG's studies, they largely piggyback and support the Midwest High Speed Rail Association (which draws quite a bit of information from the IlliniosPIRG) we see that the impact of a 220MPH bullet train network is huge. First, I'd suggest that you look at this map and the associated projected numbers that Midwest Highspeed Rail Association advertises in it's vision. And combine that with some of the numbers ColumbusUnderground reports are coming from OhioPIRG.

I have a pretty optimistic vision for rail travel, but these numbers go far beyond anything I would have ever imagined! Additionally, most surveys that have been conducted in Ohio indicate that the majority of Ohioans are in favor of increasing rail transit options in the State and connecting us to the remainder of the nation.

For more information, you can take a look at the following articles (some are cited above in the in text links):
http://www.columbusunderground.com/report-high-speed-rail-will-boost-economy-in-ohio

http://www.ohiopirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/more-reports/more-reports/connecting-the-midwest-how-a-faster-passenger-rail-network-could-speed-travel-and-boost-the-economy

http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/3c-rail-gets-faster/

http://www.midwesthsr.org/integrated-railroad-network

Now that you've had a chance to look through some of these, what do you think about rail transit in both Ohio & the MidWest as a whole? As always, post your thoughts below and don't forget to follow this blog and pass it on to your friends! Until next time, take care.

From the NYTimes - Unemployment Fears for Older Workers

First up, this post is based on an article published 19 September 2010 in the NYTimes written by Motoko Rich. You can read the original here.

Here we see an interesting paradox. Individuals with education and / or years of experience are having at least as hard of a time finding a job (usually after a layoff or some other corporate misfortune) as those lacking an education and similar experience. Why is it so hard for these individuals to find gainful employment?

One theory i would posit is that employers simply do not want to invest the recruitment / training costs into individuals who will likely retire in less than a decade. But, given the counter point to this that most Gen-Y'ers do not see employment in the same manner as their baby-boomer parents / grandparents and are more comfortable changing jobs frequently and rarely view an employer / employee relationship as a lifetime commitment - this argument seems unlikely to hold water.

Perhaps older job seekers are seen as less technologically adapt? As the article states: "Others discover that their job-seeking skills — as well as some technical skills sought by employers — are rusty after years of working for the same company". Many individuals are trying to stave off both of those effects by attending workshops and classes to learn how to use specific software or equipment, but even with this effort, it seems as though they are still being passed over.

Another problem is that many of these job seekers are shackled to an anchor, figuratively, of course. Homeownership is a huge correlate with unemployment (I've spent the past 2hrs searching for the article I was thinking of for this, if I come across it, I'll post it later - in the meantime, here's a renting vs. buying article I like). But basically, the theory here is that individuals get saddled into a 30yr commitment to pay for a house, but thanks to the the current housing market, they can't get rid of their houses to move to a locale where there are jobs, or they will lose a ton of money because the house is now worth less than they owe.

Perhaps the cold hard fact is that employers want someone with as little previous experience / training as possible so they can train the new employees exactly as they want them & just think that these older candidates come with too much "baggage" to untrain and retrain...

Regardless of the reasons that the older unemployed job seekers cannot obtain new, meaningful employment, the sheer number of boomers that are in this age bracket, getting laid off and cannot find new jobs presents a huge problem. These individuals are unable to draw on their retirement accounts without huge penalties, they're too young to collect social security and they're unable to find gainful employment to prevent foreclosure, loss of residence, pay other bills and even eat (in some cases). This will likely lead to an increased reliance on welfare programs requiring payment from those who are employed - further reducing their real income.

This is a complicated situation, one that I freely admit that I don't know what the appropriate solution is. But as a recent grad school graduate trying to find meaningful employment in my field - I feel their pain and hope that a solution is on the horizon for these workers who are desirous of employment for the twilight of their careers.

Until next time, my dear readers - what solutions would you suggest for these older unemployed job seekers? Post your ideas in the comment section below & be sure to follow this blog if you like reading it!

Interim Update

Hello my dear readers! I have a treat for you. Today, I stumbled upon a variety of articles that I'm really looking forward to commenting on. Topics range from what Gen-Y means for the Mo'Town 3 to the DREAM Act (immigration) to the economy & unemployment stories.

My hope is to publish commentary on 1-2 stories per day for the remainder of the week - make sure September goes out with a bang.

While you're waiting for the posts - why not become a follower and subscribe to this blog?

Representation vs. Stewardship (Post 4)

This post should be a short one, as it only serves to wrap up the preceding 3 posts. In those posts I discussed the difference between Representation and Stewardship - the first indicates a philosophy of acting as a proxy for the populous one represents and serving merely to voice the opinions of that populous in the government, while the second posits the role of the official to act in the best interest of the greater good, regardless of the voiced opinions of the populous.

Those in lower levels of government seem to be better served by acting more as Representatives than Stewards. As their "greater good" is smaller it is more likely that their constituents are better attuned to what is in their best interest. In the process of moving to the national level, elected officials should start to lean closer to the Steward end of the continuum, as the greater good they are responsible for is one far beyond the locality that elects them.

Appointed officials should serve their constituency through closer adherence to the Steward end of the continuum as they are not elected to voice the will of the people, they are professional bureaucrats charged with enacting the will of the Legislature. These administrators are at least one level removed from the constituency, so acting with deference to the greater good of society should be seen as preferable to representing the views of a more vocal minority of the population (usually the same individuals clamoring for the attention of their elected officials).

And here ends my discussion on the rolls of Representation vs. Stewardship, as I see it, based on the factors surrounding the official's place in government. The two reside on a continuum and it is unlikely that any official - elected or appointed, local or national - will rest at one end or the other; but rather, will be closer to one end than the other. Some look out for the greater good while others serve to voice the opinions of their constituency - virtually all do both, it's merely a matter of degree of each.

Moving on from here, I hope to post at least once per week. This past month has been a trial to make sure I can keep (pretty close) on a schedule. Some weeks I may post more, based on how many interesting articles / issues I come across. In the meantime, if you like this blog - bookmark it, add it to your RSS feeds, become a follower & pass it on to your friends!

Until next time, my dear readers, take care!

Representation vs. Stewardship (Part 3)

Thus far, we've defined representation and stewardship (Post 1 on the topic) & taken a look at how those two items relate to elected officials at multiple levels of government (Post 2 on the topic). For Part 3, we're going to quickly look at this continuum and apply it to appointed officials.

Appointed officials fulfill a variety of functions, from Presidential Cabinet-level Secretaries to town / village administrators and all levels in between. These individuals are often holden to the political whims of those who appoint them, as they also often have the authority to remove these individuals from their appointed position.

Accountability to the general public is at least one degree removed for these appointed officials. The citizens elect the individuals who appoint them, if the citizenry is dissatisfied they must lobby their elected officials, they cannot directly vote the appointee out or recall them. Likewise, the appointed officials represent by one degree of removal (that is to say, since they were appointed by individuals who were elected, in fulfilling their will, they are also fulfilling the will of the citizenry in a roundabout way).

Interjecting my opinion, since there is this level of removal from the will of the citizenry, stewardship takes on a greater level of importance. The appointed official must take into account the good of an entire agency / populous, direct representation of the will of an individual or a sub-group should take a back seat to the larger good, as that is the good they have been entrusted with.

One could argue that this level of removal is necessary for the appointed official to maintain a higher level of objectivity, in this manner, they are not constantly thinking about the next election with every decision they make - it allows them an opportunity to consider the good of the whole, not just the voter before them that they might upset with their decisions.

Finally, elected officials should take into consideration the ability of the appointee to maintain objectivity with regards to the rule of law above all else. The ability to be fair in their interpretation & application of the rules / laws they are being appointed to uphold should be the defining characteristic of an appointee - something one could argue is the very definition of stewardship. Though, as we discussed in the last post, stewardship and representation rarely exist exclusive of the other, just opposite ends of the same continuum. In this case - the slider on that scale rests closer to stewardship than representation.

Next week, the 4th and final post in this series - a quick summation of these 3 posts and my final thoughts on stewardship & representation.

Representation vs. Stewardship (Part 2)

Currently, we have a rough understanding of the difference between a 'representative' & a 'steward', so let's delve a bit deeper into this discussion.

Most government can be divided into layers (e.g. "local", state & federal), each of which serves a vastly different constituency.

• Members of my city council serve within a very limited jurisdiction (even though it is ~213 square miles in size) and are expected to adequately represent my interests within that jurisdiction. Comparatively, they are not holden to a very large constituency and they need only concern themselves with what is in the best interest of the city in the eyes of its citizenry.
• On the state level of government, we vote for a number of individuals. State Senators & State Representatives represent a certain geographic area, often based on population, within a larger sphere of policy making. Other elected officials such as the governor, attorney general & secretary of state may come from a certain area, but they are expected to act in the best interest of the state - not just the area they hail from (as opposed to State Senators / Representatives).
• Finally, in the Federal Government, we see a pattern similar to that of the state, but on a far larger scale. U.S. Senators are chosen from the state as a whole to represent their views on the national stage. While they are expected to represent the views of their constituents, they are responsible for the running of the nation as a whole - a fact they should never lose sight of. U.S. Representatives, similar to Senators, are chosen to represent their constituents (from a smaller, defined region than that of the entire state) on the national stage, but again, they should be cognizant of the fact that they too are responsible for the well being of the nation as a whole. Mirroring the role of the governor, the President comes from one particular area, but is expected to act in the best interest of the whole - not just their home area.
  

With this said, it appears as though a trend is developing. At more local levels of government, representation seems to play a more noticable role, but as the officials become holden to a larger constituency - not just those who elected them - stewardship seems to become more prominent. This is not to say that one ever truly eliminates the other. Rather, they sit at opposite ends of a continuum & are blended together in a ratio that best serves the largest population they are responsible for.

On the local levels, with a smaller "greater good" to consider, it seems as though it would be easier to do as the constituents want - as their views should be more in tune with what is in the best interest of the total area represented by their officials. However, as the constituency becomes broader, stewardship seems to play a greater role.

The Distinguished Gentleman from Ohio may be well aware of his constituents' view that XYZ Missile Defense Site should be located in their district, as it would bring them an influx of new (much needed) jobs. However, the Gentleman is aware of the maximum effective range of said Missile Defense System and that if situated in Ohio, it cannot provide the same level of protection to the nation as if it were located further north in say, North Dakota. While his constituents expect him to represent their view and bring them needed jobs, the nation as a whole is dependent on his ability to act in her (the nation's) best interest.

At this point, I merely hope to present the view that Representation & Stewardship are not exactly mutually exclusive, but rather opposite ends on a continuum. As such, each plays a role in the decisions made by the official, but the relative value of each changes based on the level of government that the official operates in.

Next week, Part 3 in this series will look at the differences between those who are elected to their position and those who are appointed or employed as career bureaucrats and whether or not there is a difference in their ratio of Representation to Stewardship.