The Overlooked Impact of Highway 37 Improvements on the Napa River Bridge.

Roadways Impacted by Proposed Toll.

CC BY-SA 3.0.

via Wikimapia.

Susan Wood's article last Friday in The North Bay Business Journal describes how Highway 37, on the northern edge of San Francisco (San Pablo) Bay, is planned for improvements to address traffic congestion and flooding issues. A proposed $7 toll aims to fund the $430 million project for widening the 21-mile road between Marin and Solano counties. However, the added toll has sparked some complaints from commuters.

Introducing a toll on Highway 37 will potentially lead to increased use of Highway 12 to Highway 29, particularly the untolled Napa River Bridge (George F. Butler Memorial Bridge). While imposing a toll on Highway 37 would help address congestion issues and generate revenue for road maintenance, what will prevent traffic from shifting to the alternate route, creating new challenges, as discussed previously?

If the use of the Napa River Bridge rises significantly due to the Highway 37 toll, the straightforward answer would be to consider implementing a similar toll system on the untolled alternative. Yet, local traffic in Napa Valley is far less likely to accept pricing for the Napa River Bridge compared to Highway 37 commuters crossing a 10-mile causeway. There seems to be a lack of recognition of how these routes together affect North Bay transportation planning in general.

The initial Highway 37 project is scheduled from 2025 to 2027, so work could begin in as little as 18 months. This phase will include adding an electronic toll station, a bus service, and a low-income discount program. However, it is important to note that the proposed traffic mitigation, bus transport, does not address issues in either Sonoma Valley or Napa Valley for traffic between the two regions. If the project is to prove successful, it is likely that at a minimum, installation of toll infrastructure at the Napa River Bridge should be included, even if it is not activated at the same time as tolls on Highway 37 -- and which leads, via an oblique angle, to the general issue of congestion pricing in the North Bay ...

IOLERO Audit Uncovers Incomplete Investigations in Sonoma County Sheriff's Office.

"21st Century Policing Task Force Report."

Pete Souza, March 2, 2015.

Public Domain.

via Wikimedia Commons.

In a recent Press Democrat article, Emma Murphy and Colin Atagi discuss an audit conducted by Sonoma County's Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach (IOLERO). The audit revealed that out of 36 internal investigations into disciplinary cases within the Sheriff's Office over the past six years, half were incomplete. Four cases specifically involved policy violations that received inadequate punishments. As a civilian-led oversight agency, IOLERO's role is to audit the Sheriff's Office's internal investigations and recommend policy changes and disciplinary actions when necessary.

The report highlighted cases involving excessive use of force by deputies, inappropriate relationships with confidential informants, and inaccurate information transmitted by dispatchers. The most severe case concerned a deputy's excessive use of force in 2020, which IOLERO concluded should have resulted in termination. Other cases involved a deputy with an inappropriate relationship with a confidential informant, a county jail correctional deputy's excessive use of force against an inmate, and a dispatcher who created an entry implying a husband involved in a domestic violence incident was violent without factual basis.

Sonoma County Sheriff Eddie Engram attributed the high number of incomplete investigations to differing definitions of "complete investigations" between the Sheriff's Office and IOLERO. He expressed confidence that the ratio of incomplete reports would decrease in the next annual report, as he and IOLERO Director John Alden have begun discussing how to define a complete investigation.

The report coincides with Alden and Engram's pledge to improve their shared work, marking a major step forward for IOLERO and the Sheriff's Office, following a historically combative relationship between the two organizations. IOLERO's report also marked a significant milestone, as the agency has cleared its backlog of investigations, allowing the six-member office to carry out its key responsibility of auditing the Sheriff's Office internal investigations more quickly.

From the perspective of school board trustees, I feel that these recent findings could be concerning when evaluating proposals for school resource officers (SROs) in Sonoma County. As trustees are responsible for ensuring the safety and well-being of students, staff, and the school community, the quality and effectiveness of any potential program must be carefully assessed in light of these revelations. The report highlights the need for improved transparency, communication, and accountability within the Sheriff's Office, which directly impacts the SRO program and the level of trust that school board members and the community at large can place in it for those jurisdictions that contract with the Sheriff's Office for services.

To make informed decisions, school board trustees should closely monitor the progress made by the Sheriff's Office and IOLERO in defining and implementing complete investigations and addressing policy violations. It is essential that the collaboration between law enforcement agencies and IOLERO results in proper training, guidance, and oversight, while also addressing concerns raised by parents, students, and the broader community. Additionally, trustees should continue to consider alternative methods of providing safety and support to schools, such as implementing mental health programs, restorative justice practices, or peer mediation initiatives. By actively engaging in discussions and decision-making processes, school board trustees can better evaluate the overall safety and well-being of Sonoma County schools.

Protecting Communities: Addressing Toxic Chemical Releases.

ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas Refinery.

© 2008 Baytownbert.

CC BY-SA 3.0

via Wikimedia Commons.

In an article by Eric Lipton in today's New York Times, the Biden administration's efforts to curb health threats caused by toxic chemicals from petrochemical plants are discussed. As the debate surrounding these health threats intensifies, families living near petrochemical plants, like the López family in Deer Park, Texas, are directly affected. The Biden administration is aiming to impose restrictions on toxic air releases and ban or restrict some of the most hazardous chemicals. However, companies are pressuring the administration to loosen some of the rules, fearing economic repercussions.

Toxic chemical releases are happening regularly in the Deer Park area, sometimes without notification to residents. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is cracking down on carcinogens released by plants such as the OxyVinyls plastics manufacturing plant across the highway from the López family. Over the past two years, records show the release of numerous toxic chemicals in the area, including some the Biden administration is preparing to impose new restrictions on.

As I reviewed this article, I recalled the German legal principle of "Vorsorgeprinzip," or the precautionary principle, that analytically should play a significant role in addressing the issues surrounding toxic chemical releases. This doctrine emphasizes the importance of taking preventive measures when an action or policy has the potential to cause harm to the public or the environment, even when scientific evidence is incomplete or inconclusive. If the Vorsorgeprinzip were applied to these chemical plants, it would require proactive action to minimize potential health risks and environmental damage.

In light of the precautionary principle, the EPA's proposed policies, that aim to remove a loophole that allows toxic chemical discharges during bad storms, plant malfunctions, or start-ups and shutdowns, are clearly warranted. The EPA also plans to require many chemical plants to monitor air at their fence lines for six key toxics to ensure compliance with the rules. By taking a more preventive approach, these policies aim to protect residents like those in Deer Park from potential harm.

Recent studies have shown that about 100,000 people living within six miles of chemical plants, mostly in Texas and Louisiana, have an elevated risk of cancer. In Houston, a separate study found elevated levels of formaldehyde, which can increase the risk of developing cancer if the levels persist. Another study found a 56% increased risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia among children living within two miles of the Houston Ship Channel compared to those living at least 10 miles away. Under the Vorsorgeprinzip, these findings warrant immediate and decisive action to reduce the risks posed by these plants.

Implementing the precautionary principle in addressing the issues surrounding petrochemical plants would lead to more stringent regulations and proactive measures to protect public health and the environment. While this approach may result in higher costs for the industry, it prioritizes the well-being of communities like the López family and others living near these facilities.

The New Geography of US Clean Energy Manufacturing.

"Solar Panels at Topaz Solar 1."
2014 Sarah Swenty/USFWS.
Public Domain.
via Wikimedia Commons.

In today's New York Times, Jim Tankersley and Brad Plumer review the impact of President Biden's climate law, finding it is driving more investment in American clean energy manufacturing than initially expected. This surge in investments in battery factories, wind and solar farms, and electric vehicle plants could lead to a significant reduction in fossil fuel emissions. However, the increased economic activity centered around green technology is also driving up costs for taxpayers who are subsidizing these investments.

The article prompted me to think about Paul Krugman's theory of New Economic Geography, and how the investments driven by Biden's climate law are reshaping the spatial distribution of economic activities in the United States. Companies are flocking to areas with abundant land, lower costs, and non-unionized labor, potentially turning these regions into new hubs of clean energy manufacturing. These emerging hubs could experience agglomeration effects, with firms and workers in the same industry clustering together, benefiting from localized knowledge spillovers, specialized suppliers, and a larger labor pool. Interestingly, the growth of clean energy projects in red states also highlights the potential for the law to bridge the gap between traditionally fossil fuel-dependent regions and the emerging green economy, fostering more balanced and sustainable regional development.

Moreover, the article brought to mind Brad DeLong's theory of communities of engineering expertise, and the importance of government investment in creating such communities that drive technological progress and economic growth. By providing substantial tax breaks and incentives for clean energy projects, the Biden administration is fostering an environment that attracts both domestic and international companies to invest in the United States. These investments can lead to the development of localized clusters of expertise in clean energy technologies, which, according to DeLong, are essential for driving innovation and maintaining a competitive edge in the global market.

As more companies, such as South Korean solar company Hanwha Qcells, establish factories and research centers in the United States, the spillover effects can create a virtuous cycle of innovation, job creation, and economic growth. This cycle ultimately reinforces the country's position as a leader in the clean energy sector. While the rising cost estimates have caused some controversy among lawmakers, the long-term benefits of fostering a clean energy economy should not be overlooked.

The increased investments in clean energy manufacturing as a result of Biden's climate law have significant implications for the United States' economic landscape and its fight against climate change. Krugman and DeLong emphasize the role of government intervention in shaping regional development and fostering communities of expertise that drive innovation and growth in the clean energy sector. The economic and geographical implications of these investments may thus be essential to continuing the United States' transition toward a greener economy, as the community of stakeholders continues to expand.

Restoring Trust: The Urgent Need for Ethics Reform in the Supreme Court.

Judge J. Michael Luttig, 2005.
Work of Dept. of Labor, Public Domain.
via Wikimedia Commons. 

The New York Times' Abbie VanSickle reports on the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig joined legal experts in urging Congress to establish new ethical standards for Supreme Court justices. This call to action comes in light of recent revelations about undisclosed gifts, luxury travel, and property deals involving justices. Judge Luttig contends that Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws prescribing ethical standards for the nonjudicial conduct of Supreme Court justices.

The hearing saw heated debates between Republicans and Democrats on the necessity of such ethical standards. Democrats argued an ethical code is essential to prevent misconduct and conflicts within the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Judge Luttig and other legal experts emphasized the importance of upholding the highest ethical standards to maintain the public's trust in the institution.

Regrettably, recent revelations involving justices such as Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch have highlighted the lack of reporting requirements and the self-policing nature of the justices, sparking increased calls for the establishment of an ethics code. Although all nine justices signed a "statement of ethics principles and practices" outlining their general ethical standards, many argue that this is insufficient and advocate for more stringent measures.

A Marist poll from last week reveals that 62% of Americans lack confidence in the Supreme Court, with only 37% expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the institution. This marks the lowest level of confidence in the Court since 2018, when 59% reported having faith in the institution. The ongoing debate on ethics reform within the Supreme Court highlights the need to restore public trust in this vital institution.

In light of the most recent series of revelations about undisclosed gifts, luxury travel, and property deals, it is clear that the time has come to establish and enforce ethical guidelines that will preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court. The Republican-dominated court has significantly undermined confidence and eroded the public's respect for the institution, which has come to define Americans' belief in their judicial system. An ethics code is not only necessary but also a step towards safeguarding the rule of law in America.

Presidential Limits in the Debt Ceiling Showdown.

14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, page 2.

(Section 4, shown above, concerns public debts.)

Work of NARA, Public Domain. 

via Wikimedia Commons.

As the standoff between House Republicans and President Biden over raising the nation's borrowing limit continues, the administration is reported by the New York Times today to be considering a constitutional challenge to the debt limit based on the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment states that the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned, which presents an apparent conflict with the current $31.4 trillion statutory borrowing limit. Jim Tankersley, the author of the article, writes that this has led to an intense debate among top economic and legal officials.

President Biden is set to meet with Speaker Kevin McCarthy on May 9 to discuss fiscal policy, but it remains unlikely a compromise can be reached in time to avoid a default. The president has consistently maintained that it is the job of Congress to raise the limit in order to avoid economically catastrophic consequences. Once again, gimmicks meant to circumvent Congress on the debt limit, such as minting a $1 trillion coin to deposit with the Federal Reserve, have surfaced.

It is clear that the federal government is barred from defaulting on the debt, while at same time, only Congress has the power to borrow. Tankersley reports that inside the administration there is an open question about what the Treasury would do if Congress does not raise the limit in time. Officials who support invoking the 14th Amendment and continuing to issue new debt apparently argue that the government would be exposed to lawsuits either way, which I think is correct. However, the right answer here is that the statutory borrowing limit is binding and that an attempt to ignore it would result in an immediate legal challenge that would likely traverse the Supreme Court's shadow docket and result in an affirmation that Congress has the exclusive power to borrow. There are no shortcuts out of this situation; the political branches, the Congress and the Executive, will have to resolve this issue between them.

Addressing Homelessness in Sonoma Valley.

"Sonoma Valley."

© 2020 TJM97.

CC BY-SA 4.0.

via Wikimedia Commons.

My friend Fred Allebach shared a public comment today for the upcoming Sonoma City Council meeting on May 3rd, discussing their three-year action plan to end homelessness. The plan aims to address homelessness and housing as interconnected issues. He argued that the plan should focus on housing first as a preventive measure, rather than prioritizing symptom management. The current process has encouraged collaboration among various organizations, but Allebach pointed out that the fragmented nature of local homeless services could be more effectively organized.

Allebach suggested three considerations for decision-makers in Sonoma and the County: First, focus on providing affordable housing and food through a unified effort. Second, establish a solid equity focus within the City to balance its investment in economic and environmental issues. Lastly, shift the focus from addressing homelessness to promoting prevention and healthy, inclusive, and equitable housing.

Fred highlighted the importance of following the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ("AFFH") policy and the Housing Element ("HE") in order to promote equity. He encouraged council members to study the plans and hold the City accountable for implementing them. He called on the City to partner with affordable housing advocacy groups to advance local housing solutions and consider renter protection policies.

Finally, Allebach suggested several measures to improve housing production in Sonoma Valley, such as creating a joint housing planning area with the County, focusing on shared services initiatives, and engaging wealthy donors to invest in affordable housing projects.

A key challenge in the Sonoma Valley is the lack of a valley-wide authority that can effectively take action, which Fred noted. The City's annexing the Springs had been proposed before but failed to gain political support from existing stakeholders in the City and the Valley. I think it's important to remember that Sonoma Valley's split between City and Springs reflects actual political power, which is correlated with economic clout.

Reform can only succeed if policy is backed up by organization. In considering this, I reflected on the work of Takashi Negishi, whose social welfare weights have been (controversially) applied in a series of contexts. Integrated assessment modeling ("IAM") would probably suggest that there first needs to be economic and political equality before action becomes possible. There are efforts to do precisely that, but in addressing the (sometimes quite awful) facts on the ground, the lack of alignment between elites in the City and in the Valley is probably the most significant hurdle to reform.