![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkuDvR_LRLcwZdiN6yuF1PT8plOC9QQzCtbxrQ8YKbhgslhyphenhyphenfRjcgwQXpMua51wUjRKpFaKaJoGTvN9E-Sw4lAyI4z8zmL7AZ9W3-XpQlaL-850hyphenhyphen0vN6pUJKKt_UGIe8oO69BUEEGnq-y/s400/BRRM+II.jpg)
Available here.
Dynamic, Collaborative and Sustainable Meta-Regionalism ...
Of course a "single" reformer will ultimately fail if his or her reform is based upon personal charisma.
Where there is no structural reform, failure is almost always certain.
Where there is no participation by the governed, reform will almost always fail.
This is a story as old as recorded history, yet somehow we cling to the concept of being "saved" by an individual.
If someone wishes to show true reform, create a system where collaboration and the free exchange of ideas and methods is made dynamic and simple. "One Long Island" is an attempt at "creating" this type of system.
True reform will break the "cycle of stagnation" we currently find ourselves mired in, on Long Island and in the country in general. True reform will assist the public in creating a fair, just and efficient society in a way that no top down dictate can.
We are the "reformers."
For true reform, we need merely look in the mirror.
Part of the problem on Long Island is that we tend to analyze the different "elements" that comprise Long Island separate and apart from one another. This is not unusual in that all of us have different areas of expertise in which we feel comfortable.
Part of the "One Long Island" series of ideas is way to "bridge" the different disciplines and to find common ground and common elements between them.
We all need to think in a "meta" sort of way. This is not an easy thing to do immediately, it is a skill to be learned and to be taught and passed on until it becomes the "norm."
Any of the "One Long Island" ideas may operate alone or in connection with one or more of the other elements of the concept. True, certain elements of the concept are necessary to do first (such as the "common language") but many of these are easily started because the technology is readily available. It just requires a little organization.
Once you have the framework in place true conversation may occur. And conversation not just based on visceral opinion but on real information and analysis and informed opinion.
The anarchy we see in today's media is most likely caused by the unknown. What is the role of media today and going forward? Where can we get our news unfiltered through the lens of opinion? Can we trust the media?
We've written before of the need for Long Islanders to form "collaborative constituencies" and in essence, inform themselves and their neighbors. The current anonymous postings may be cathartic and sometimes entertaining, but they do not substitute for real dialogue based upon a common "Long Island Philosophy."
The question then becomes, can we handle the truth? Can we work collaboratively? Do we want to be successful or do we enjoy and sometimes profit from the chaos?
I believe out of the current confusion, we will find a way to work collaboratively. I believe that certainly some of what we've proposed in "One Long Island" is essential to the "turnaround."
I know that there are more "intelligent" folks per square inch on Long Island than almost anywhere else on this planet.
Perhaps its time to open up the process and see how intelligent Long Islanders truly are.
This may be a time of change on Long Island as, perhaps, it is finally recognized that the "old forms" and the "old ways"are not up to the task of serving the public.
Talking about what needs to change is important obviously, but frankly, until we do the difficult and rather boring (to some) task of creating an "structural environment" for dynamic and sustainable change, all the talk in the world we have little or no effect.
OK so if it works for news, why wouldn't work as a collaborative tool for helping citizens connect with citizens (see IdeaTV in a previous post) on Long Island and in New York generally.
What ideas will reduce property taxes and create jobs? If there is a great idea out there (and there are) but implementation is blocked by one or more special interests, how does the "general" public overcome this obstacle?
Right now there is no effective method for the general public to "bypass" the traditional forms of governance. Part of the reason, as previously stated, is because there isn't any "normalization" of meta data. Also there isn't any method for dynamic analysis (see the 300 or so previous posts for details).
So, in essence, the public is constantly attempting to analyze a "shell game" to ascertain where the "marble" is located. In short the "game" is constructed in a way to be difficult and confusing.
Part of this may have been intentional, but most of it is the result layers of information, rules, laws etc. accumulated over the decades to the point now where it's so confusing no one really has a handle on what to do or how to do it.
Everyone may have an opinion (since admitting incompetence is never a good thing to do), but the truth remains elusive.
So can we "unwind" this mess and give the public accurate information and analysis?
Of course.
This is what we've been advocating over the past 15 years or so. A method for reform without a predetermined agenda.
Give the public the truth and let them (us) decide.
The first step in creating a "regional entity" or a collaborative structure which has the same effect as a regional entity, is the creation of a dynamic "meta-zoning map" or land use map of Long Island and the normalization of the data and analysis we all use.
As it stands today, we are simply not prepared to take advantage of opportunities that may be available to us.
We do not need another level of bureaucracy. We need a dynamic system of collaboration that allows us the freedom to work collaboratively and rapidly.
Certainly changes in the law and new or amended legislation would make it easier to move quickly. Perhaps this is another reason a constitutional convention may be in order.
The One Long Island series of inter-related concepts is an attempt to build such a system.
The big event turned out to be little more than a photo op.
In fact, only 15 percent of the funding allocated to New York will be used to refresh the state’s decaying infrastructure. Instead, an overwhelming portion of the money went to fill the state’s budget gap ..."However, ________of the Long Island Progressive Coalition said at the presentation that she had not seen plans to make a grass-roots connection. "How do we get to my cousin, who doesn't go to these things?" Tyson said."
The One Long Island series of ideas encompasses the "grass-roots connection." This is a part of the "dynamic" concept we have been promoting.
Yet another example of potentially a good idea destined for a troubled implementation because of a lack of a "system" on Long Island for analyzing proposals and collaborating in an objective manner.
We should be able to simply "plug and play" ideas into the Long Island "dynamic grid", and get a reasonably quick and complete analysis of the pros and cons of a proposal and how to remedy any shortcomings.
"Three state senators called on Gov. David A. Paterson to sign into law a bill that would create a statewide e-mail alert program notifying people when a convicted sex offender moves into a neighborhood.
Here we have yet the latest example of a worthwhile program running into an "implementation" problem.
Putting aside the issues that the alerts should be more than email (xml etc) and as we have previously stated, ideas of this sort should be "plug and play."
That is, there should be existing, dynamic and flexible open standards in place to immediately execute the ideas of our elected officials and our concerned citizens and organizations.
"One Long Island" contains suggestions for this type of open system.
Good point.
What is needed however is a methodology for achieving this "unified" vision.
"One Long Island" is a suggested path for achieving these results.
Here is another worthwhile program disconnected from other similar (Amber Alert etc) ideas.
If the county (and government in general, Long Island in particular) could establish a "set of flexible standards" as proposed here with the "Citizen Alert Network" along with other One Long Island collaborative ideas, it would be a simple matter for the police department to have this program up immediately upon passage.
by the Editors
Published: June 5, 2009
Tags: Andrew Cuomo, consolidation, taxing districts
This bill, which has bipartisan support, would help streamline government responsibilities.
Be careful what you wish for, lawmakers, the voters might be best served by eliminating you.
New York has 10,000 layers of government imposing taxes and fees.
That includes water, sewer and lighting districts.
Lighting districts? If something isn’t done soon, there won’t be any lights left to turn on.
My response:
You have identified a key point. Currently there is no adequate method of assessing the quality of services and the cost of similar services. In fact as Mr. Cuomo has said, he is not even 100% sure how many taxing jurisdictions there are.
That is unacceptable. How can you know how to solve a problem unless you have identified the problem in detail and explored all viable options? This not the fault of Mr. Cuomo who I’m sure is doing the best he can within the existing structure, but it is a problem that needs to be addressed so that the public can feel reasonably secure that the changes being considered are viable and well thought out and that all informed opinions are heard (most importantly the public) on a level playing field. This is because, in part, we have data and methods of analysis that are disjointed and not “normalized” on Long Island and New York generally. Also the information is generally if not always presented in a “static format” rather than a “dynamic format” making it difficult to compare and analyze the different options and to react to sudden changes in the “decision making environment.” Consolidation is one method for change. “Dynamic collaboration” is another (explained here http://www.onelongisland.com) with some proposals on how to construct this new “dynamic environment.”
Unintended consequences are outcomes that are not (or not limited to) the results originally intended in a particular situation. The unintended results may be foreseen or unforeseen, but they should be the logical or likely results of the action. For example, historians have speculated that if the Treaty of Versailles had not imposed such harsh conditions on Germany, World War II would not have occurred. From this perspective, one might consider the war an unintended consequence of the treaty.
Unintended consequences can be grouped into roughly three types:
Discussions of unintended consequences usually refer to the situation of perverse results. This situation can arise when a policy has a perverse incentive and causes actions contrary to what is desired.
The "law of unintended consequences" (also called the "law of unforeseen consequences") states that any purposeful action will produce some unintended consequences. A classic example is a bypass — a road built to relieve traffic congestion on a congested road — that attracts new development and with it more traffic, resulting in two congested streets instead of one.
This maxim is not a scientific law; it is more in line with Murphy's law as a warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them. Stated in other words, each cause has more than one effect, and these effects will invariably include at least one unforeseen side effect. The unintended side effect can potentially be more significant than any of the intended effects.
The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results). However, it was the sociologist Robert K. Merton who popularized this concept in the twentieth century.
In his 1936 paper, "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action", Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of "unanticipated consequences" of "purposive social action". He emphasized that his term "purposive action… [is exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives".[1] Merton also stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."[2]
Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception or other cognitive or emotional biases. As a sub-component of complexity (in the scientific sense), the chaotic nature of the universe – and especially its quality of having small, apparently insignificant changes with far-reaching effects (e.g., the Butterfly Effect) – applies.
Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences:[3]
A good example of what we've been talking about. No one really knows the impact of their legislative actions.
To be fair, this is a longstanding problem and not just in New York State
However it is knowable.
As we've discussed here among other posts, we require a new methodology for coming to rational solutions.
More later ...