"In a true democracy, legislation becomes law after vigorous debate by well-informed parties who reach agreement for the betterment of the public.
In Albany, it’s different. "
"Detailing the projects after the fact doesn't help," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "The public deserves to know how their money is being spent before the vote."
"The head of the region’s most powerful business group is calling the budget deal struck in Albany over the weekend a disaster for Long Island."
Seems that we have quite a few folks unhappy with the new New York State budget. Maybe more than usual this year.
This shouldn't come as a surprise as there is greater competition for dwindling resources (at least for the time being). Those in power do what those in power always do (with rare exceptions). Take care of the folks who put them in power.
So what are we poor New Yorkers to do? Accept the inevitable?
Just as with the federal budget, there doesn't seem to be a clear understanding of how "all the various parts" work together to form a just and productive society with maximum liberty and minimal governmental intervention.
Unfortunately, the more "passive" we are the more liberty we lose. Liberty is a "dynamic" active process which requires a good deal of public involvement.
It isn't entirely our fault that we have become "passive." We send "reformers" to Albany and to Washington don't we?
We do, and for the most part they try their best until they are crushed by the status quo and give up or conform.
So, again, what are we to do?
Probably the only way to effect substantive change is with an overhaul of the way we currently do business. Not an easy thing to accomplish when those controlling the purse strings and the legislative process are not prone to change.
It doesn't pay to get angry and accusatory, the situation is what it is and it will take time to change. Progressive, positive change is generally a slow, deliberate process.
The first thing we should require is "normalized" information and analysis across the board that is widely available and in user friendly formats (see previous posts). This will allow everyone to see what is before us in the cold hard light of reason.
The second thing we need to do is shed "organizational labels"and preconceived notions of what is before us. You may believe you are 100% correct on the issues, and indeed you may be. However, your ideas must be subjected to the same intellectual rigor as all other ideas.
The third thing we must do is create an open "dynamic" legislative process (see previous posts). We should use our public and private universities and others to design a "better" system. The "system" will ultimately assist the public in forming fair and impartial public policy.
To change, we must "think" differently and give the public the tools to change.
More in Part Two.
Showing posts with label Virtual Community Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virtual Community Congress. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
No Change Without Knowledge: Part I
President Obama correctly assessed the public mood for "change" and indeed has tapped into something broader than that.
Significant change is upon us. It just may not be the change the President anticipates, or for that matter the change any of us anticipate.
Maybe it comes around on or about the beginning of a new century and is somewhat psychological in nature as much as real (we feel we must change because its a new century) or perhaps based on new economic, environmental and political realities. That is for smarter folks than me to debate.
Whether it is technological, scientific, generational, organizational or any other category we may mention, there is a thirst for "something different and presumably better."
So while the president and others have clearly seen that change is imminent and is doing his best to assess what this change means and to "lead" the country is a productive direction, it may not be completely possible unless we "empower" the public with the tools we need rather than stay mired in the politics of division.
Its one thing to say we want a unified and collaborative United States, it is quite another to give the public an easier route to accomplishing this task.
So, whether it is the current debate over executive bonuses at AIG, or how to fix the state budget or how to reform local government or schools or any number of important issues, the public feels somewhat left out of the process and angry and frustrated as a result.
Who do we blame? Who is in charge? Who knows how to fix the problem?
No one. Everyone.
You can not make significant, sustainable progress without an educated and engaged public.
You can not say you want public participation with a straight face and then not give the public the tools (please see the 300 or so preceding posts) to help govern themselves.
People must know the true cost of services or the true outcomes of certain actions.
Knowledge is key to sustainable, positive change.
We now have the technology to "tell the truth."
Do we have the strength to make real change and allow the "truth" to be told?
"Of course, it is not uncommon for complicated legislation to go through Congress with sections that escape detailed initial scrutiny."
Yes, but shouldn't it be?
More in Part II
Significant change is upon us. It just may not be the change the President anticipates, or for that matter the change any of us anticipate.
Maybe it comes around on or about the beginning of a new century and is somewhat psychological in nature as much as real (we feel we must change because its a new century) or perhaps based on new economic, environmental and political realities. That is for smarter folks than me to debate.
Whether it is technological, scientific, generational, organizational or any other category we may mention, there is a thirst for "something different and presumably better."
So while the president and others have clearly seen that change is imminent and is doing his best to assess what this change means and to "lead" the country is a productive direction, it may not be completely possible unless we "empower" the public with the tools we need rather than stay mired in the politics of division.
Its one thing to say we want a unified and collaborative United States, it is quite another to give the public an easier route to accomplishing this task.
So, whether it is the current debate over executive bonuses at AIG, or how to fix the state budget or how to reform local government or schools or any number of important issues, the public feels somewhat left out of the process and angry and frustrated as a result.
Who do we blame? Who is in charge? Who knows how to fix the problem?
No one. Everyone.
You can not make significant, sustainable progress without an educated and engaged public.
You can not say you want public participation with a straight face and then not give the public the tools (please see the 300 or so preceding posts) to help govern themselves.
People must know the true cost of services or the true outcomes of certain actions.
Knowledge is key to sustainable, positive change.
We now have the technology to "tell the truth."
Do we have the strength to make real change and allow the "truth" to be told?
"Of course, it is not uncommon for complicated legislation to go through Congress with sections that escape detailed initial scrutiny."
Yes, but shouldn't it be?
More in Part II
Monday, March 16, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, February 13, 2009
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.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Trust: Part II
"I propose that the Internet is the truest sense of the modern-day city. There are dense populations, a social infrastructure, complex architecture, rules, and culture. I will suggest that there is transportation as well as residences. Drawing mainly on the ideas of Jane Jacobs I will present the Internet as a modern day city that is governed under what I define as "Democratic Anarchy."Emily's paper addresses an issue I've been pondering lately: The extent to which an Internet community such as Second Life is a city. Another way to put it is to ask to what extent are such communities substitutes or complements to real face-to-face communities? I use Jane Jacobs's work as the analytical foundation, of course, which is why her concepts are so prominent in Emily's discussion."
"Instead of chasing non-Long Island planning and economic development consultants, the planning board should consider keeping the economic impact here on Long Island by integrating into its plans the economic and planning expertise available at each county, most Long Island towns, the Long Island Association, Dowling College and Stony Brook University. Recommendations will emerge that the planning board can discuss, at a cost the region can afford."
Here we have three elements (of many we have been discussing on this site) which, at first, may seem not to have a lot in common.
Virtual cities? Aren't those just games?
Integrated planning? How do you accomplish that?
Common agreement on a big issue? How to get started implementing these big ideas?
OK, so as we've previously explored current web technology (2.0 and emerging 3.0) makes it reasonably easy to communicate. Among many questions we might ask are, what information do we communicate? How is it relevant? How has it been vetted? Is it dynamic or static information? How do we avoid this "democratic anarchy" explore above?
OK smart guy, if its so easy to communicate, why don't we just communicate get more done here on Long Island. Ah ha very true, but first you must be willing to communicate and have the means and opportunity to communicate.
This is actually what we've been advocating with our "One Long Island" series of proposals (and actually back to the Oyster Bay 2000 days of 1992-93).
So we have the technology to communicate effectively, there is certainly enough capital on Long Island to create/expand the "virtual infrastructure," we have plenty of smart people with great ideas here on Long Island ... sooooooooo .. what's missing?
In a word, trust.
We simply do not trust the that information we receive is complete or has been vetted and analyzed completely (whether it has or not), we do not believe we (the general public) is adequately informed or that our opinions even when heard even matter, we are generally suspicious of government and large organizations ... in short in the maze and daze of daily living we do not have the time to focus on the "larger issues" of the day in a way that will allow us to trust that the correct actions are being undertaken.
So what to do?
Well you could try to just ram things through a la Robert Moses. It won't work, but you could try.
You could try to convince everyone that you have thought of every possible angle and contingency and that your conclusions are bullet proof. It won't work, but you could try.
First we must establish trust, and more importantly a methodology to ensure that this trust is verifiable.
More in Part III.
"Instead of chasing non-Long Island planning and economic development consultants, the planning board should consider keeping the economic impact here on Long Island by integrating into its plans the economic and planning expertise available at each county, most Long Island towns, the Long Island Association, Dowling College and Stony Brook University. Recommendations will emerge that the planning board can discuss, at a cost the region can afford."
Here we have three elements (of many we have been discussing on this site) which, at first, may seem not to have a lot in common.
Virtual cities? Aren't those just games?
Integrated planning? How do you accomplish that?
Common agreement on a big issue? How to get started implementing these big ideas?
OK, so as we've previously explored current web technology (2.0 and emerging 3.0) makes it reasonably easy to communicate. Among many questions we might ask are, what information do we communicate? How is it relevant? How has it been vetted? Is it dynamic or static information? How do we avoid this "democratic anarchy" explore above?
OK smart guy, if its so easy to communicate, why don't we just communicate get more done here on Long Island. Ah ha very true, but first you must be willing to communicate and have the means and opportunity to communicate.
This is actually what we've been advocating with our "One Long Island" series of proposals (and actually back to the Oyster Bay 2000 days of 1992-93).
So we have the technology to communicate effectively, there is certainly enough capital on Long Island to create/expand the "virtual infrastructure," we have plenty of smart people with great ideas here on Long Island ... sooooooooo .. what's missing?
In a word, trust.
We simply do not trust the that information we receive is complete or has been vetted and analyzed completely (whether it has or not), we do not believe we (the general public) is adequately informed or that our opinions even when heard even matter, we are generally suspicious of government and large organizations ... in short in the maze and daze of daily living we do not have the time to focus on the "larger issues" of the day in a way that will allow us to trust that the correct actions are being undertaken.
So what to do?
Well you could try to just ram things through a la Robert Moses. It won't work, but you could try.
You could try to convince everyone that you have thought of every possible angle and contingency and that your conclusions are bullet proof. It won't work, but you could try.
First we must establish trust, and more importantly a methodology to ensure that this trust is verifiable.
More in Part III.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Meta-Leadership: Part II
We referenced a good article on "Meta - Leadership" in an earlier post.
Although I'm not a big advocate for "leaders" being able to solve all our problems (I much prefer a broad based collaborative model, for all the reasons mentioned in the previous 250 posts), since we live in essentially a quasi-hierarchical model, leaders do have an important role in fostering collaboration and finding workable solutions.
But who do we "hire" as leaders and what should their qualifications be?
Well first, it would be an important asset to be someone who can find common attributes between concepts, ideas, organizations and people.
What makes us similar? How can Group A assist Group B? How can I make the "situation" good for everyone? How do I create a "dynamic" atmosphere for continued positive growth and sustainability.
What we don't need is, hire me I have all the answers and I'll take care of your every need. That's too easy and too dangerous.
Democracy and sustainability require hard work and accountability on all levels.
Do we even train folks to be "meta-leaders?" Do our leaders engage in "meta think" or are they victims of the expedient. Do we allow long term, broad based action to take time to develop properly? Do we give ourselves a chance to be successful?
Do we need a whole new school to teach "meta interdisciplinary thought and action."
On Long Island, as is the case elsewhere, we need leaders who can "connect the dots" across disciplines and forge collaborative partnerships divorced from competitive, political or personal issues.
Every area, whether its a state, county or any geographic region can not be the same. All have unique attributes.
With all due respect to states rights folks, if for example, state A is better suited for project Y, shouldn't we as a nation support state A be successful? Shouldn't all states support one another in maximizing what they do best? If all states are successful, isn't our nation successful?
Shouldn't a meta-leader, on any level, be able to help conceptualize and help implement a collaborative effort to achieve these goals?
The ideal in America is one of fairness and equity. A meta-leader who can inspire these ideals is worth listening to. A meta-leader who can help turn these ideals into reality is worth "hiring."
More in part III
Although I'm not a big advocate for "leaders" being able to solve all our problems (I much prefer a broad based collaborative model, for all the reasons mentioned in the previous 250 posts), since we live in essentially a quasi-hierarchical model, leaders do have an important role in fostering collaboration and finding workable solutions.
But who do we "hire" as leaders and what should their qualifications be?
Well first, it would be an important asset to be someone who can find common attributes between concepts, ideas, organizations and people.
What makes us similar? How can Group A assist Group B? How can I make the "situation" good for everyone? How do I create a "dynamic" atmosphere for continued positive growth and sustainability.
What we don't need is, hire me I have all the answers and I'll take care of your every need. That's too easy and too dangerous.
Democracy and sustainability require hard work and accountability on all levels.
Do we even train folks to be "meta-leaders?" Do our leaders engage in "meta think" or are they victims of the expedient. Do we allow long term, broad based action to take time to develop properly? Do we give ourselves a chance to be successful?
Do we need a whole new school to teach "meta interdisciplinary thought and action."
On Long Island, as is the case elsewhere, we need leaders who can "connect the dots" across disciplines and forge collaborative partnerships divorced from competitive, political or personal issues.
Every area, whether its a state, county or any geographic region can not be the same. All have unique attributes.
With all due respect to states rights folks, if for example, state A is better suited for project Y, shouldn't we as a nation support state A be successful? Shouldn't all states support one another in maximizing what they do best? If all states are successful, isn't our nation successful?
Shouldn't a meta-leader, on any level, be able to help conceptualize and help implement a collaborative effort to achieve these goals?
The ideal in America is one of fairness and equity. A meta-leader who can inspire these ideals is worth listening to. A meta-leader who can help turn these ideals into reality is worth "hiring."
More in part III
Friday, June 6, 2008
Some excellent ideas ...
I just returned from New York Institute of Technology's "Sustainable Solutions for Converging Crises" conference.
While all the presenters were excellent, two presenters in particular stood out as having great relevancy and potentially effective applications for Long Island.
Project Better Place is a brilliant concept for the distribution of electric automobiles.
Daniel Lerch of the Post Carbon Institute has written a very clearly thought out book regarding the energy crisis and its impact on public policy.
Both sites are well worth your time and effort.
While all the presenters were excellent, two presenters in particular stood out as having great relevancy and potentially effective applications for Long Island.
Project Better Place is a brilliant concept for the distribution of electric automobiles.
Daniel Lerch of the Post Carbon Institute has written a very clearly thought out book regarding the energy crisis and its impact on public policy.
Both sites are well worth your time and effort.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Long Island Next Generation Housing Referendum?
"Many LI leaders are present and accounted for here (only the first half-hour was available for preview), including Nancy Rauch Douzinas, president of the Rauch Foundation; Paul Pontieri Jr., mayor of Patchogue; Matt Crosson, Long Island Association president (and co-host of Ch. 21's "Crosson and Welles"); Wayne Hall, mayor of Hempstead, and many others. Crosson, speaking tonight, sets the table with this thought: "Long Island is losing young people at the same time the baby boomer [retirement] tsunami is beginning, [and] we will be in serious trouble. ... The Island's economy depends on the availability of young people in the workforce, and if we don't have that, the cost of living goes even higher, and [business] growth will be virtually impossible."
The consequence of this vicious cycle is a decline in housing prices."
Good show and well worth watching.
As stated previously, affordable housing for young people is perhaps the top issue facing the economic viability of Long Island.
How about this for an idea.
Long Islanders have shown that they are willing to support environmental and open space bonds by an overwhelming majority.
What if the same procedure was applied to the issue of workforce or next generation housing?
How about the "Next Generation Housing Referendum?" If the problem is as acute as many believe and many believe that the public is in favor of changes to permit higher density development, then perhaps we should provide a forum to raise the capital quickly (it can be a revolving fund, replenished as the units are sold).
The units can be constructed on existing state, local and federal property (at least in the beginning to get the process jump started) which are exempt for the most part from local zoning restrictions. If, as we've been told, Long Island needs upwards of 100,000 units of workforce housing, then swift, decisive "public supported" action needs to take place.
Another option is to use the referendum funding (presuming the referendum passes) to purchase property, convert it to municipal property for the purposes of building the housing (payment in lieu of taxes to the community), then return it to private hands via homeowners association or other device where it then returns to the taxrolls.
The referendum "board of managers" should be comprised primarily of citizens, business leaders and others who would determine and ensure a fair process.
If as strong a case can be made that a "next generation" fund is required for the long term health of Long Island as was made for open space preservation, then passage should be a relatively simple affair.
Part of the reason private sector incentives have not worked or have only had minimal impact is that there just isn't the return on investment for workforce housing as there is for traditional housing.
Additionally, there is some question in the public's mind as to the extent of the need. A full and complete debate within the context of a referendum would allow a clearer picture of the need and the solutions.
Of course I've oversimplified the issue and there are many details to be worked out, but if the retention of younger Long Islanders is a true priority, then the government, with the consent and support of the citizens must take decisive and direct action in accomplishing the task at hand.
The consequence of this vicious cycle is a decline in housing prices."
Good show and well worth watching.
As stated previously, affordable housing for young people is perhaps the top issue facing the economic viability of Long Island.
How about this for an idea.
Long Islanders have shown that they are willing to support environmental and open space bonds by an overwhelming majority.
What if the same procedure was applied to the issue of workforce or next generation housing?
How about the "Next Generation Housing Referendum?" If the problem is as acute as many believe and many believe that the public is in favor of changes to permit higher density development, then perhaps we should provide a forum to raise the capital quickly (it can be a revolving fund, replenished as the units are sold).
The units can be constructed on existing state, local and federal property (at least in the beginning to get the process jump started) which are exempt for the most part from local zoning restrictions. If, as we've been told, Long Island needs upwards of 100,000 units of workforce housing, then swift, decisive "public supported" action needs to take place.
Another option is to use the referendum funding (presuming the referendum passes) to purchase property, convert it to municipal property for the purposes of building the housing (payment in lieu of taxes to the community), then return it to private hands via homeowners association or other device where it then returns to the taxrolls.
The referendum "board of managers" should be comprised primarily of citizens, business leaders and others who would determine and ensure a fair process.
If as strong a case can be made that a "next generation" fund is required for the long term health of Long Island as was made for open space preservation, then passage should be a relatively simple affair.
Part of the reason private sector incentives have not worked or have only had minimal impact is that there just isn't the return on investment for workforce housing as there is for traditional housing.
Additionally, there is some question in the public's mind as to the extent of the need. A full and complete debate within the context of a referendum would allow a clearer picture of the need and the solutions.
Of course I've oversimplified the issue and there are many details to be worked out, but if the retention of younger Long Islanders is a true priority, then the government, with the consent and support of the citizens must take decisive and direct action in accomplishing the task at hand.
Monday, May 12, 2008
If you build it ... Part One
But, he said, while the deal will "please" shareholders, "unfortunately for the consumer, both editorially and financially, it is never a good idea to let one media conglomerate control pricing and editorial content."
OK so I don't pretend to be a media expert.
But it strikes me as a lot of doom and gloom that only "one player" will control the news and editorial content for all of Long Island.
Sure Newsday and Cablevision have great brand ID and a lot of smart folks working for them.
Why don't I worry?
Because it is very easy to create a competitor network (or collaborative networks) constructed out of the many content sources we have here on Long Island.
What news do people really want? My experience is first they want the news that most effects their immediate daily life. "Hyperlocalism" is a buzz word often used to describe the web based confluence of news, information, video etc, focused on a "finite" location or area of interest. Do folks in Sayville care about what's happening in Bayville? Maybe a little, but not a lot.
Next maybe they are interested in a regional perspective and so forth almost like expanding waves of knowledge gathering.
Most national and international news, sports, entertainment news etc is provided from a wide array of organizations and sources predominately through XML (extensible markup language) or some similar protocol which updates news almost as it happens. Most of this information is free to use for non-profit enterprises and for a nominal fee for profit oriented enterprises.
Next opinion. Look everybody has an opinion. Hopefully its an informed opinion. There are tons of blogs, podcasts, video what have you out there giving opinions on almost anything you can think of. What if, for example, you set up a rotating multiple xml feed of ten food critics? Wouldn't that be better than one? Wouldn't that give the public a better view of what's out there?
In fact, why should we be limited by any one group's point of view or control over the distribution of content?
How about (as we've explored previously) a rotating editorial board made up of regular citizens and members of various organizations of let's say 20 at a time, rotating through every 60 days on staggered shifts? It can actually be a "virtual" editorial board able to meet on a moments notice. Wouldn't this ensure that all voices are heard and that there is a true diversity of opinion made available? Why should only a few folks have all the fun!
Additionally, there is the issue of trust. Does the general public (or anyone for that matter) trust that the information they are getting is accurate and presented fairly?
My belief is that the more power (information is power) in the greater number of hands the greater the likelihood is that we will have an equal playing field for the debate of ideas that will shape our future.
Toward this end we have a number of "One Long Island" projects underway and in the planning stages that would make the creation of this "Long Island independent information and news" project a reality.
Would it replace existing news institutions? No. There would be no purpose in that as the existing institutions provide an important service and one that many folks depend upon.
But there is room for improvement and real diversity of news, opinion and thought on Long Island.
It is possible to create a reliable collaborative Long Island news and information network that is, among other things, accessible, flexible and accurate.
More in Part Two.
OK so I don't pretend to be a media expert.
But it strikes me as a lot of doom and gloom that only "one player" will control the news and editorial content for all of Long Island.
Sure Newsday and Cablevision have great brand ID and a lot of smart folks working for them.
Why don't I worry?
Because it is very easy to create a competitor network (or collaborative networks) constructed out of the many content sources we have here on Long Island.
What news do people really want? My experience is first they want the news that most effects their immediate daily life. "Hyperlocalism" is a buzz word often used to describe the web based confluence of news, information, video etc, focused on a "finite" location or area of interest. Do folks in Sayville care about what's happening in Bayville? Maybe a little, but not a lot.
Next maybe they are interested in a regional perspective and so forth almost like expanding waves of knowledge gathering.
Most national and international news, sports, entertainment news etc is provided from a wide array of organizations and sources predominately through XML (extensible markup language) or some similar protocol which updates news almost as it happens. Most of this information is free to use for non-profit enterprises and for a nominal fee for profit oriented enterprises.
Next opinion. Look everybody has an opinion. Hopefully its an informed opinion. There are tons of blogs, podcasts, video what have you out there giving opinions on almost anything you can think of. What if, for example, you set up a rotating multiple xml feed of ten food critics? Wouldn't that be better than one? Wouldn't that give the public a better view of what's out there?
In fact, why should we be limited by any one group's point of view or control over the distribution of content?
How about (as we've explored previously) a rotating editorial board made up of regular citizens and members of various organizations of let's say 20 at a time, rotating through every 60 days on staggered shifts? It can actually be a "virtual" editorial board able to meet on a moments notice. Wouldn't this ensure that all voices are heard and that there is a true diversity of opinion made available? Why should only a few folks have all the fun!
Additionally, there is the issue of trust. Does the general public (or anyone for that matter) trust that the information they are getting is accurate and presented fairly?
My belief is that the more power (information is power) in the greater number of hands the greater the likelihood is that we will have an equal playing field for the debate of ideas that will shape our future.
Toward this end we have a number of "One Long Island" projects underway and in the planning stages that would make the creation of this "Long Island independent information and news" project a reality.
Would it replace existing news institutions? No. There would be no purpose in that as the existing institutions provide an important service and one that many folks depend upon.
But there is room for improvement and real diversity of news, opinion and thought on Long Island.
It is possible to create a reliable collaborative Long Island news and information network that is, among other things, accessible, flexible and accurate.
More in Part Two.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Putting the "public" in public media ...
The "public" as subsidizer of the news business? The "public" as a monolithic "object" in league with the media?
Or the "public" we envision in our "One Long Island" projects?
"The public is an idea, which would never have occurred to people in ancient times, for the people themselves en masse in corpore <8 took steps in any active situation, and bore responsibility for each individual among them, and each individual had to personally, without fail, present himself and submit his decision immediately to approval or disapproval. When first a clever society makes concrete reality into nothing, then the Media 9 creates that abstraction, "the public," which is filled with unreal individuals, who are never united nor can they ever unite simultaneously in a single situation or organization, yet still stick together as a whole. The public is a body, more numerous than the people which compose it, but this body can never be shown, indeed it can never have only a single representation, because it is an abstraction. Yet this public becomes larger, the more the times become passionless and reflective and destroy concrete reality; this whole, the public, soon embraces everything. . . .
The public is not a people, it is not a generation, it is not a simultaneity, it is not a community, it is not a society, it is not an association, it is not those particular men over there, because all these exist because they are concrete and real; however, no single individual who belongs to the public has any real commitment; some times during the day he belongs to the public, namely, in those times in which he is nothing; in those times that he is a particular person, he does not belong to the public. Consisting of such individuals, who as individuals are nothing, the public becomes a huge something, a nothing, an abstract desert and emptiness, which is everything and nothing. . . .
The Media is an abstraction (because a newspaper is not concrete and only in an abstract sense can be considered an individual), which in association with the passionlessness and reflection of the times creates that abstract phantom, the public, which is the actual leveller. . . . More and more individuals will, because of their indolent bloodlessness, aspire to become nothing, in order to become the public, this abstract whole, which forms in this ridiculous manner: the public comes into existence because all its participants become third parties. 10 This lazy mass, which understands nothing and does nothing, this public gallery seeks some distraction, and soon gives itself over to the idea that everything which someone does, or achieves, has been done to provide the public something to gossip about. . . . The public has a dog for its amusement. That dog is the Media. 11 If there is someone better than the public, someone who distinguishes himself, the public sets the dog on him and all the amusement begins. This biting dog tears up his coat-tails, and takes all sort of vulgar liberties with his leg—until the public bores of it all and calls the dog off. That is how the public levels."
Or the "public" we envision in our "One Long Island" projects?
"The public is an idea, which would never have occurred to people in ancient times, for the people themselves en masse in corpore <8 took steps in any active situation, and bore responsibility for each individual among them, and each individual had to personally, without fail, present himself and submit his decision immediately to approval or disapproval. When first a clever society makes concrete reality into nothing, then the Media 9 creates that abstraction, "the public," which is filled with unreal individuals, who are never united nor can they ever unite simultaneously in a single situation or organization, yet still stick together as a whole. The public is a body, more numerous than the people which compose it, but this body can never be shown, indeed it can never have only a single representation, because it is an abstraction. Yet this public becomes larger, the more the times become passionless and reflective and destroy concrete reality; this whole, the public, soon embraces everything. . . .
The public is not a people, it is not a generation, it is not a simultaneity, it is not a community, it is not a society, it is not an association, it is not those particular men over there, because all these exist because they are concrete and real; however, no single individual who belongs to the public has any real commitment; some times during the day he belongs to the public, namely, in those times in which he is nothing; in those times that he is a particular person, he does not belong to the public. Consisting of such individuals, who as individuals are nothing, the public becomes a huge something, a nothing, an abstract desert and emptiness, which is everything and nothing. . . .
The Media is an abstraction (because a newspaper is not concrete and only in an abstract sense can be considered an individual), which in association with the passionlessness and reflection of the times creates that abstract phantom, the public, which is the actual leveller. . . . More and more individuals will, because of their indolent bloodlessness, aspire to become nothing, in order to become the public, this abstract whole, which forms in this ridiculous manner: the public comes into existence because all its participants become third parties. 10 This lazy mass, which understands nothing and does nothing, this public gallery seeks some distraction, and soon gives itself over to the idea that everything which someone does, or achieves, has been done to provide the public something to gossip about. . . . The public has a dog for its amusement. That dog is the Media. 11 If there is someone better than the public, someone who distinguishes himself, the public sets the dog on him and all the amusement begins. This biting dog tears up his coat-tails, and takes all sort of vulgar liberties with his leg—until the public bores of it all and calls the dog off. That is how the public levels."
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
More interesting reading ...
"No one starting from scratch would design a local government system like New York has
now, with its overlapping governments and rigid structure. This structure makes it
difficult – but not impossible – to define efficient service areas and to levy taxes or
assessments on those who are served. It creates some duplication of services and
functions. It creates opportunity for miscommunication and lack of coordination in
30
economic development and other policy areas.
Although it is not the system we would design today, it is the system we have.
Unfortunately, changing the system structurally is extraordinarily difficult: The political
hurdles in front of eliminating a village layer or merging a city and county are
extraordinarily high. City-county mergers in upstate New York would require merging
governments whose citizens are dramatically different in terms of race, poverty,
urbanicity, educational attainment, political inclination, and preferences for government
services. That doesn’t mean it cannot or should not be done, but clearly it will not easily
be done.
The quantifiable benefits of eliminating a layer or merging a city and county appear to be
low, often because of leveling up between collective bargaining agreements. Potential
cost savings, while certainly meaningful in dollar terms, can be small relative to
government budgets – on the order of 1 to 2 percent of spending, judging by available
dissolution and merger studies. While taxpayers certainly would welcome tax reductions
of this magnitude, historically they have rarely been willing to accept the intangible costs
of dissolution or consolidation for this level of tax reduction.
Each merger and dissolution situation must stand alone. New York’s local governments
vary enormously as do their service delivery and financing arrangements. Whether a
specific merger or dissolution will make sense from fiscal or other perspectives will
depend on its facts – there is no one size fits all solution. However, even if a merger or
dissolution appears sensible on its face, how it is implemented will matter. Careless
implementation can lead to inefficiency and waste.
Consolidations and dissolutions also involve a redistribution of service benefits and tax
costs. In a positive vein, one could say they involve equity issues, but another
characterization is that they produce winners and losers."
Bottom line. If you don't build trust based upon verifiable information and analysis and give citizens a sense of common purpose and inclusion, change is almost impossible.
now, with its overlapping governments and rigid structure. This structure makes it
difficult – but not impossible – to define efficient service areas and to levy taxes or
assessments on those who are served. It creates some duplication of services and
functions. It creates opportunity for miscommunication and lack of coordination in
30
economic development and other policy areas.
Although it is not the system we would design today, it is the system we have.
Unfortunately, changing the system structurally is extraordinarily difficult: The political
hurdles in front of eliminating a village layer or merging a city and county are
extraordinarily high. City-county mergers in upstate New York would require merging
governments whose citizens are dramatically different in terms of race, poverty,
urbanicity, educational attainment, political inclination, and preferences for government
services. That doesn’t mean it cannot or should not be done, but clearly it will not easily
be done.
The quantifiable benefits of eliminating a layer or merging a city and county appear to be
low, often because of leveling up between collective bargaining agreements. Potential
cost savings, while certainly meaningful in dollar terms, can be small relative to
government budgets – on the order of 1 to 2 percent of spending, judging by available
dissolution and merger studies. While taxpayers certainly would welcome tax reductions
of this magnitude, historically they have rarely been willing to accept the intangible costs
of dissolution or consolidation for this level of tax reduction.
Each merger and dissolution situation must stand alone. New York’s local governments
vary enormously as do their service delivery and financing arrangements. Whether a
specific merger or dissolution will make sense from fiscal or other perspectives will
depend on its facts – there is no one size fits all solution. However, even if a merger or
dissolution appears sensible on its face, how it is implemented will matter. Careless
implementation can lead to inefficiency and waste.
Consolidations and dissolutions also involve a redistribution of service benefits and tax
costs. In a positive vein, one could say they involve equity issues, but another
characterization is that they produce winners and losers."
Bottom line. If you don't build trust based upon verifiable information and analysis and give citizens a sense of common purpose and inclusion, change is almost impossible.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Long Island Meta News Service: Part Two
OK so we're calling it a Long Island Meta News Service to take advantage of the current debate of the sale of Newsday, shameless self-promoters that we are.
But in fact, this "structure" may be applied to almost any form of mass (meta) communication and information distribution on Long Island or elsewhere. It is one of the central collaborative models we're promoting in our "One Long Island" series.
From a technical point of view, creating a "community based" news service really isn't all that difficult any longer. We define community as all individuals and organizations (of all types) on Long Island. Even organizing it isn't a monumental issue.
The difficult part is trust. Do we trust one another enough to engage in the type of broad based collaborative dialogue necessary to move Long Island forward? Or will we remain in our "cycle of stagnation" depending on old forms and methodologies to solve new and ever more complex problems?
Will those in power and with influence share the same stage with those who are not?
Make no mistake, we are not advocating some community based free for all. It must be professionally managed and open to all those who have productive information and ideas for Long Island.
No exclusive agendas, no partisanship. Just accurate information, ideas, opinions and analysis presented fairly.
Imagine. A news and information service with unlimited access to content about and for Long Island with the ability to do complex analysis easily and collaboratively.
I think it might be worth our time to explore the viability of this project.
More in part three.
But in fact, this "structure" may be applied to almost any form of mass (meta) communication and information distribution on Long Island or elsewhere. It is one of the central collaborative models we're promoting in our "One Long Island" series.
From a technical point of view, creating a "community based" news service really isn't all that difficult any longer. We define community as all individuals and organizations (of all types) on Long Island. Even organizing it isn't a monumental issue.
The difficult part is trust. Do we trust one another enough to engage in the type of broad based collaborative dialogue necessary to move Long Island forward? Or will we remain in our "cycle of stagnation" depending on old forms and methodologies to solve new and ever more complex problems?
Will those in power and with influence share the same stage with those who are not?
Make no mistake, we are not advocating some community based free for all. It must be professionally managed and open to all those who have productive information and ideas for Long Island.
No exclusive agendas, no partisanship. Just accurate information, ideas, opinions and analysis presented fairly.
Imagine. A news and information service with unlimited access to content about and for Long Island with the ability to do complex analysis easily and collaboratively.
I think it might be worth our time to explore the viability of this project.
More in part three.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Long Island: The 51st State?
Interesting article here about a renewed effort to create the State of Long Island.
We've already pointed out a few previous efforts.
The idea has merit, if only as a serious intellectual exercise for now. So let's put some of Long Island's universities and organizations to work on the idea and vet it completely. Good job for a Long Island Community Congress (or Virtual Long Island Constitution, Long Island Virtual Community Congress or Long Island Virtual Think Tank).
How about a Long Island Virtual Constitutional Convention?
This is a perfect opportunity to discuss all of the "One Long Island" concepts and all of the other great ideas out there for creating a new Long Island.
Because it only makes sense to create the State of Long Island if we are going to do it in a new and different way.
To replicate what we have now or base it solely on existing New York State government organization and existing Long Island organizational structures makes little sense and will only perpetuate existing problems.
But let's have a serious discussion and see what we can come up with. Even if a new state isn't the final outcome, this exercise might provide valuable insight into how sustainable, positive change may occur on Long Island.
Who knows? This time five or ten years from now we may indeed have the State of Long Island.
We've already pointed out a few previous efforts.
The idea has merit, if only as a serious intellectual exercise for now. So let's put some of Long Island's universities and organizations to work on the idea and vet it completely. Good job for a Long Island Community Congress (or Virtual Long Island Constitution, Long Island Virtual Community Congress or Long Island Virtual Think Tank).
How about a Long Island Virtual Constitutional Convention?
This is a perfect opportunity to discuss all of the "One Long Island" concepts and all of the other great ideas out there for creating a new Long Island.
Because it only makes sense to create the State of Long Island if we are going to do it in a new and different way.
To replicate what we have now or base it solely on existing New York State government organization and existing Long Island organizational structures makes little sense and will only perpetuate existing problems.
But let's have a serious discussion and see what we can come up with. Even if a new state isn't the final outcome, this exercise might provide valuable insight into how sustainable, positive change may occur on Long Island.
Who knows? This time five or ten years from now we may indeed have the State of Long Island.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Long Island "Green" Business Accelerator
I've been reading with great interest all the new focus on "green" energy and its possible positive impact on the Long Island economy.
"The Green Guide" and "Long Island's Next Big Thing" among others are great additions to the cause and are doing splendid work in highlighting the issues and attempting to take a comprehensive approach to energy production on Long Island.
I would suggest all involved consider a Long Island "Green" Business Accelerator model along the lines of the Port of Technology in Philadelphia and other business "accelerator" models we've discussed in previous posts over the past year. Here is another example of an "alternative energy accelerator" in Michigan.
I've had some very preliminary talks with some folks out at Stony Brook (a natural location given their new alternative energy center) and other folks in the industry who feel the idea has merit and some potential.
Of course there may be multiple "accelerators" so long as they work collaboratively (this is the meta acceleration we spoke about previously) and for a common purpose. There should also be "cross pollination" of ideas and business among and between accelerators engaged in green energy and accelerators and incubators engaged in different but potentially mutually helpful work.
Depending on governmental resources to launch this initiative into high gear is, perhaps, dooming it to at best mediocrity. Again, it must be a "dynamic" process, not the stagnant "static" process which has formed so much of our current policy.
We need all the resources at our disposal to create a "green" Long Island.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Interesting hearing ...
Monday, September 24, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
"As you think, so you act. As you act, so you become."
As we have previously stated, the Long Island Congress and Long Island 3.0 concepts are as much about a new way of thinking as they are about hard and fast solutions.
It is important to think about solutions for Long Island in a "global" and inclusive manner rather than in the fragmented approach that exists on much of Long Island at present. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
We do ourselves a disservice as a region and subject ourselves to the fickle machinations of Albany and Washington when we keep ourselves in a fragmented and weakened state.
Think inclusively and we will act inclusively and we will become inclusive. The more of our citizens who prosper from a united Long Island, the stronger we will become.
Think in a coordinated manner, and we will act in a coordinated manner and will will become a coordinated and powerful region.
We must fully utilize and develop all aspects of our educational and library systems, business development and accelerator projects, advanced technology centers, community and advocacy organizations, local governments among many others, and weave it into a strong, flexible and unbreakable fabric.
If we depend too greatly upon others for support, we run the risk of allowing others to play one Long Island group off of another, keeping us is a constant state of disarray.
We must think as a Long Island region and be proud of and relentlessly promote and defend Long Island. Too often, I think, some think of Long Island in the abstract; as a place to come from on our way to somewhere else.
We must infuse a sense of urgency and devotion to the Long Island cause, and build upon what we have; and what we have is pretty good already.
We can achieve greatness.
Think regionally, act regionally, become a region.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Artifice as Reality? Part One.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"What is emptiness? Emptiness (shunyata) is the reality of the existence of ourselves, and all the phenomena around us. According to the Buddhist point of view, seeking reality and seeking liberation amount to the same thing. The person who doesn't want to seek reality doesn't really want to seek liberation, and is just confused."
“The most dangerous thing is illusion.”
“It was more in our spirit to let things come to rights by the plain dictates of common sense than by the practice of any artifices.”
So much of what is done on Long Island seems to be done for "theatre" rather than for substantive change.
I don't think, however, this is done as some evil plot against the citizens of Long Island, although that would sell a lot of papers!
I think much of it is done out of a sense of frustration with the lack of communication and the "layers of complexity" surrounding almost every issue of public policy. Having many moving parts (organizations/individuals) doesn't necessarily make things complicated if there are permanent, common "bridges" of communication and a willingness to cooperate. This is the driving force behind the Long Island Congress and Long Island 3.0 concepts. Give people the means and the opportunity to cooperate and they will cooperate. Sort of like a "unified theory of regional cooperation." In future posts we'll explore what it takes to cooperate and to break down the "silos" and "fiefdoms" while still encouraging organizational autonomy and personal choice.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
What do we want?
What do Long Islanders want?Like most folks, I would imagine it is "maximum liberty with minimal governmental intrusion." This is not a plug for the libertarians out there or any other ideology, it is just a simple observation of how most folks live their lives.
The issue then remains what "liberty" and "governmental intrusion" mean to the individual. Is it an intrusion on my liberty not to have health care provided to me for the taxes I pay? Is it an intrusion on my liberty to pay taxes for health care I do not want? The liberty-intrusion formula is a complicated and ever shifting dynamic.
I would say that most Long Islanders want and expect safe neighborhoods, a clean environment, opportunity for good paying jobs, reasonable services at a fair tax rate, you know, all the perennial favorites.
I would also say that most people on Long Island are fair-minded, clear thinking individuals who care a great deal about their communities. The same can be said for the multitude of organizations that abound on Long Island.
Diversity and individuality must be part of the Long Island psyche. Does this mean Long Islanders won't cooperate? Not at all.
What has been missing from the "Long Island equation" is the ability of organizations and individuals to communicate clearly and rationally with one another. Thankfully we live in age where the communication revolution is in full swing. What is needed now is to take a step back, take a deep breath, assess where we are and devise a flexible plan to move us forward as a region while maintaining the individuality and diversity that still make Long Island a place many folks want to call home.
Hopefully our Long Island Congress and Long Island 3.0 concepts will play a small part in the "new" Long Island model.
I think we all know what we want.
Now it is time to get it done.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
ABS Share
