Unchain Long Island ...

"The media’s mistake with posting reader comments is in failing to uphold its old standard. Before online postings, there were letters to the editor. The traditional standard held that letter writers were identified and verified. But now that the media has taken a beating for elitism and liberalism and a whole host of other -isms, it wants to appear as if it suddenly cares what the reader has to say. So it’s thrown the standard out the window and wants to “engage the reader in the conversation.”

Reality check: For a conversation to take place, you need to show up for it. Once the media reports what it has to say, it walks away. A look at the online postings shows there’s no conversation between the public and media, or even among the public. It’s a cyber back alley strewn with negativity and needs to be cleaned up.

What should be dominating the public consciousness is what’s wrong with the local media infrastructure that allowed the major contender for ________ seat to bear a name unknown to 80 percent of the populace. Not enough coverage, that’s what wrong. What coverage appeared in Newsday was outweighed by the aforementioned commentary and suffered from probable bias, as reported by the Long Island Press."

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.

Another barrier falls ..

"Seven of the world’s top 10 supercomputers use standard chips from A.M.D. and Intel, as do about 90 percent of the 500 fastest machines. “I think this says that supercomputing technology is affordable,” said Margaret Lewis, an A.M.D. director. “We are kind of getting away from this ivory tower.”

Yet another barrier falls in the effort to create a "meta-planning" project on Long Island ....

More than hard data ...

"Those are two measures any taxpayer could support - if _________, and others who support the idea of school consolidation, come up with hard data to support them."

Correct. Hard data is required to make any responsible decision.

But it is more than hard data. It requires accurate, dynamic meta data and analysis of the type we have been advocating.

It requires data and analysis that is beyond reproach and in which all parties, most importantly the public, have had the opportunity to participate.

First we must build the requisite system for finding the truth. The truth will then become self evident.

A golden opportunity ...

“The public’s in a bad mood...”

Yes of course the public is in a bad mood.

Why?

Many reasons, but primarily because the public, which is generally ahead of the curve in understanding the need for change, is frustrated at the inability of the current "system" to implement reasonable and ordered change for the public good.

In short, a dramatic overhaul is required in the way we "think" about government (and those organizations which interact with government in some manner) and the way we "collaborate" with one another to bring about substantive and sustainable change.

It's about process, not revolution. It's about the empowerment of the public to govern themselves. Its about dynamic, accurate information and analysis presented in an common sense and understandable way.

Public anger will not be enough to change the current reality unless those who are put in position to effect the change required empower and enable the public to be an equal partner in the process.

The "One Long Island" series of concepts is a method to channel this "anger" into a new way of creating a sustainable and dynamic Long Island (or any region for that matter).

The anger will dissipate over time. It always does. But if we have not left a better "system" in its place, we will have lost a golden opportunity to make Long Island a better place.

Dynamic Collaboration Required ...

“I think this shows a collaborative spirit and it shows that (Paterson) is listening to the concerns of Long Island,” Alexander said. “We have not seen this level of attention to organizations that really are working on a community level in the past. Past governors been attentive to lobbyists and business interests, but getting to the interests of small businesses, of community organizations and other not-for-profits, that shows a real commitment.”

The "collaboration" part is a good sign.

Now we need to add the "dynamic" part to the "collaboration" part and make sure all voices are heard, both individual and organizational.

Also we should be reviewing and discussing the regional issues based upon a "normalized" data set and flexible analysis standards.

Meetings are great. But if there is no mechanism for follow up and "dynamic" collaboration the meetings will never be as effective as they could or should be.

Collaboration, not more bureaucracy ....

"....that includes Empire State Development, which does try to help the Island, but also has to look out for other parts of the state (such as Westchester, where OSI is going); the two county industrial development agencies, and town IDAs that do cooperate, but also compete. Our answer: We need a new structure - preferably a single regional voice.

Getting there won't be easy. The towns that have IDAs won't want to give them up. Nor will the counties. And creating a regional entity would require Albany action, which is as hopeless as it is oxymoronic."

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.

Another disconnected idea ...

"____________announced the formation of a "90/10 Coalition" that includes planners, educators, community groups, labor and others.

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.

Solution to the problem?

"The way forward

So, how do we keep what we have and bring in more? One small bit of hope: The Long Island Regional Planning Council is calling a July 29 summit of key players. Good idea: Use the still-fresh pain of the OSI loss as a catalyst for action.

That's one baby step. What we need is the will and the sense of urgency to flex our regional muscle and grow a biotech cluster that will be a world-beater. We need to be like San Diego, where Helicon fled. That city has enough biotech companies so that a scientist can feel safe in signing on with one, because if it fails (and many do), there are other jobs in the area. To grow companies and attract scientists to the Island, we need that same synergy here.

If the great science emerging from our world-class research institutions is to create companies that start and stay here, it's a lead-pipe cinch that we must speak with one voice, more loudly and persuasively than the competing regions. That's the real lesson of OSI"

The "One Long Island" series of ideas are designed to do what the above commentator proposes.

No, it's not a "bolt of lightening" that will solve out problems overnight. But then again we didn't arrive at this position overnight either.

Long Island needs to be "reorganized." Methodically, deliberately and based in real data and collaborative analysis and action.

Isn't it lucky we have the talent here on Long Island already to do this work. Give them some minor initial funding and some cooperation and let them get the job done.

You'll be amazed how quickly it can come together.

Put aside the "old ways of thinking" about the issues and dissolve old alliances where necessary.

This is a new day and age. The tools are available if the mind and heart are willing.

There's really nothing left to talk about.

There's nothing left to do, but to do it.

Plug n' Play ...

Here is yet another good idea and worthwhile program to benefit those citizens with Alzheimer’s.

Here's the question. What similar types of programs are currently available and how are they run? What programs currently exist not directly on point but similar (Amber Alert etc) that might be used as a model?

We've previously opined on the need for a flexible "common language" for Long Island (and indeed New York State and maybe the federal government as well). Without this "common language" there is minimal coordination and much wasted effort.

If, for example, the Alzheimer's program (legislation) described above could be "plugged in" to an existing technical framework, it would be much easier to establish connections with "complimentary" programs and legislation.

One Long Island offers, among other concepts, ideas on how to create this "framework" for the rapid and collaborative implementation of public policy.

A "unified theory"of sorts for public policy.

Good article ...

Here is an well written article "A Wealth of Municipalities, and an Era of Hard Time" that raises a number of interesting points.

It does serve to prove our point however, that when it comes to rational decision making about the best method(s) for providing services, we are not all singing from the "same hymnal" with regard to data and analysis.

The first step in coming to a reasonable, collaborative resolution is the normalization of the data and the creation of "dynamic" system rather than the "static" system that currently exists.

Part of the One Long Island series of ideas is an attempt to remedy this problem.

To Tweet or Not to Tweet ...

OK. I admit it. I don't tweet.

I just must not be cool enough yet.

Or I don't have enough hours in the day to conduct a "stream of consciousness" seminar about all my daily activities.

Not that anyone would care anyway.

I do think Twitter has has a usefulness beyond the current "hip" factor however.

Random and seemingly inconsequential as most of the information may be, it is information that may point to a "collective sense" about certain issues.

This could be useful as one of many information source on Long Island and elsewhere if harnessed properly and integrated into other forms of information.

This is one of the applications of the Stony Brook "Lydia" program and its Web 3.0 view (please see previous posts).

Twitter, if collected and analyzed properly could actually be a useful tool in helping to form public policy and to be a part of the independent media collaboration we've spoken about among other applications.

So even apparently benign sources of information can be integrated into the "One Long Island" process and be put to work for the common good.

The future of news on Long Island?

The site has recruited some current and former government officials to write columns, and it will keep some of the popular columnists and bloggers who already work there, in addition to the large number of unpaid local bloggers whose work appears on the site. Hearst also plans to repackage material from its large stable of magazines for the site.

Is this the future of news on Long Island?

It looks a lot like the Long Island Meta-News and Information service we've been promoting on this site.

We would (of course) take it further to include a rotating editorial board and more advanced Web 3.0 features among other features. All detailed in previous posts.

Citizens informing citizens with verifiable information. Interesting concept.

New York Dublin Core Project? One New York Project?

"New York's state government has a sprawling, information-laden empire on the Internet that dwarfs all local government Web operations in the state.With about 400 separate Web sites registered for use by departments, agencies, commissions, authorities and other governmental entities, the state's empire offers a staggering array of information — some aimed at citizens, some at government employees, some at companies doing business in New York. The contents range from simple explanatory guidebooks to hundreds of databases that track everything from liquor-license holders to prison inmates."

It's good that the state is taking steps to "normalize" the operation of all its websites.

But isn't time also to "normalize" the data as well?

Presenting a uniform "look" and functionality to the state website are useful, but creating and platform for allowing the citizens to actually use and analyze the data would be even more helpful.

All of the ideas we have been promoting for "One Long Island" would certainly be applicable to New York State as well.

Dynamic Legislative Process: Part Two

Additionally, part of the success of any legislation and especially an "economic stimulus" is to see how the general pubic will react and the level of understanding of the legislative impact.

If public confident then x outcome ...
If public somewhat confident then y outcome ...
If public skeptical then z outcome ...

Stony Brook University has a program called the Lydia Project which can do this quite well.

More in Part Three.

Dynamic Legislative Process: Part One

OK, so with all the commotion about the new stimulus package, I got to thinking.

How can we take some of the "One Long Island" concepts and apply them to a "dynamic" legislative process?

Not only for the federal government, but for state and local entities as well.

The above diagram is just a quick first draft.

More in Part Two.

Good start to an idea ...

Here is an idea by the New York State Attorney General's office that is gaining some notoriety lately.

It approaches the idea of lowering taxes by eliminating some government and giving the taxpayers an easier route to the referendum process (or it seems to give the county executive the power to call for a mandatory referendum, because allowing the county executive to unilaterally consolidate would run contrary to the idea of the referendum process. Additionally allowing "the entire county" to vote on the fate of particular villages, towns or districts or to have a sort of "general vote" on the idea of consolidation would also not allow enough specificity as to the structural requirements of consolidation and all of its consequences but would instead lend itself to demagoguery and political grandstanding).

First, the idea has merit, if only as a starting place for a real, comprehensive discussion.

If we eliminate some forms government, the work still must get done (unless we are willing to reduce services), so what will be the cost of the new entity doing the same work and what will be the short term and long term savings if any?

What are the best practices of existing forms of government (in New York or elsewhere) and how do we implement them state-wide?

What forms of government are involved? Counties, towns, school districts or just special districts and villages? How do we reform the larger entities where presumably the new duties will be going and where most of the tax dollars go presently?

Why not have regularly scheduled referenda (see Referendum Cycles on this site)? Every 3 to 5 years. Why make taxpayers have to gather signatures at all?

How does the Attorney General's idea mesh with past or current studies on the same, similar or interrelated subjects?

To us the idea of 10,000 governmental entities sounds like a big number, and perhaps it is. But in reality it is not a big technical job to catalog and analyze this "group." In fact that should be our first step prior to any legislation.

As we've said previously, a big problem in New York and elsewhere is the lack of a "common language." I won't bore you with the details as I've bored some of you in excruciating detail on this very subject over the 300 or so posts.

How can we make intelligent choices without trusted, verified and dynamic information?

Maybe the Attorney General already has it 100% correct.

The sad part is that we'll never know.

We should know.

We should demand to know.

"One Long Island" Metachart: 11.5.08

More "open" ideas for Long Island ...

Here is another "open platform" system that may, in addition to Dublin Core, Lydia and others we've discussed, serve as a basis for creating a rapid, collaborative Long Island communication network.

In addition to all the other One Long Island projects, this Long Island Open Code Library concept may (and as also previously discussed) offer the public an unprecedented opportunity to participate in their own "destiny."

Why wait for a crisis?

In the end, Lincoln was proved right again: "With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed."

The current debate on the economy has illustrated perhaps the key issue in moving forward on substantive change on Long Island and an issue the One Long Island program seeks to address.

Without the public trust nothing is possible.

We can see the overwhelming reaction to the public perception that a "solution" is being foisted upon them by those who "know better."

We can see many parallels to this attitude on Long Island. There are plenty of folks who claim to have the answer. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

It does not make the proposers "evil" or not interested acting in the public interest. In fact, ultimately they may have the correct solution.

It won't matter. The public distrust of government, large organizations and powerful individuals is so ingrained that to fight it is a fool's errand.

Lincoln was correct. Without a public buy in, change is virtually impossible. One Long Island is an attempt to re-organize how we approach problem solving on Long Island so that public sentiment may be achieved and that big issues may be addressed and solved in a civil and productive manner.

Why wait for a crisis?

"One Long Island" Metachart 9.26.08

(Please click on the image for a larger view)