Local Government as a Threat?

Earlier this month, Franklin Foer argued in The New Republic that “The Greatest Threat to Our Liberty Is Local Governments Run Amok.” It seems that the main purpose of the article is to use Ferguson as a means to challenge the idea of modern libertarian politicians that some matters of governance are best left to local governments. The problem is that the article overlooks a lot.

I want to very briefly call out one of those things: The article’s conflation of state and local governments. As I recently explained in an essay for The Urban Lawyer, states and municipalities maintain drastically different roles in our system of government. Not that these two levels of government can’t work to solve the same problems: ours is a system of polyphony. But it is a mistake to equate the legal authority of the state with that of the city.

On Portland, Semi-retired Youth, and the Best Places to Live

The New York Times Magazine has a great piece out this week about Portland and how it is attracting young educated folks despite not having jobs suited for their skills. They are coming for its vibe, for lack of a better term. There are lots of tidbits of data in the article, about Portland and other cities. But this discussion about “the sacrifice measure” was the one that fascinated me the most:

David Albouy, an economics professor at the University of Illinois, has created a metric, the sacrifice measure, which essentially charts how poor a person is willing to be in order to live in a particular city. Portland, he discovered, is near the top of the list. Even when college-educated residents get jobs there, they earn 84 cents for the average dollar earned in other cities, according to Greg Schrock and Jason Jurjevich, professors of urban studies at Portland State University. In 41 of the country’s 50 largest cities, young, educated people earn more than they do in Portland. “It’s a buyer’s market for labor,” Schrock says.

I found a paper Albouy published in 2012, Are Big Cities Bad Places to Live? Estimating Quality of Life across Metropolitan Areas, that ranked cities by quality of life. It doesn’t discuss his “sacrifice measure” but does have an interesting ranking of metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas by established quality of life. Here’s the top  50. Portland is all the way down at 44, but the west coast definitely dominates the list.

Continue reading

New Edition of The Urban Lawyer

The Spring Edition of The Urban Lawyer is up on the ABA’s page for the Section of State and Local Government. My article, Federalism and Municipal Innovation: Lessons from the Fight Against Vacant Properties, is part this edition. It is also available on SSRN.

Here’s a list of the other articles in this edition, with links to SSRN versions:

The Benefits of Cities Using LEDs for Street Lighting

Ucilia Wong has a great piece up online today at Forbes about cities adopting LEDs for street lighting. They are more expensive, but last longer and more energy efficient, especially since they can be controlled digitally to dim when appropriate. LEDs also decrease light pollution, as Wong demonstrates with some interesting before-and-after pictures.

Near the end, Wong makes this interesting observation:

For all of LEDs’ energy savings and anti-light-pollution potential, their real promise may be in hastening the arrival of the smart grid. Forward-thinking cities are using retrofit programs to turn lamp housings into intelligent hubs with microprocessors, cameras, sensors and wireless radios. Streetlights can feed the system with information about traffic, weather, air quality, sudden noises and unexpected crowds.

It looks as if LEDs will be a key component of the data-driven cities of tomorrow.

What Affordable Housing Should Afford: Housing for Resilient Cities

This post’s title is the title of a new paper in HUD’s Cityscape journal, Volume 16, Number 2, page 21. In it, a group of urban-planning experts from MIT argue, “Well-designed affordable housing involves more than the provision of safe decent, and inexpensive shelter; it needs to be central to the resilience of cities.”

They then list four goals for affordable housing:

  1. Support the community social structure and economic livelihoods of residents.

  2. Reduce the vulnerability of residents to environmental risks and stresses.

  3. Enhance the personal security of residents in the face of violence or threats of displacement.

  4. Empower communities through enhances capacities to share in their own governance.

I like the concept of city “resilience,” and the paper spends a little time usefully describing that idea. The rest of the paper gives detailed accounts of efforts to design housing to meet these goals.

 

Federalism and Municipal Innovation: Lessons from the Fight Against Vacant Properties

I have a new paper out this week in The Urban Lawyer.  It is an essay that touches on many of the things discussed on this blog over the past few years. It can be downloaded on SSRN. Here’s the abstract:

Cities possess a far greater ability to be trailblazers on a national scale than local officials may imagine. Realizing this, city advocates continue to call for renewed recognition by state and federal officials of the benefits of creative local problem-solving. The goal is admirable but warrants caution. The key to successful local initiatives lies not in woolgathering about cooperation with other levels of government but in identifying potential conflicts and using hard work and political savvy to build constituencies and head off objections. To demonstrate that point, this Article examines the legal status of local governments and recent efforts to regulate vacant property through land banking and registration ordinances.

Low-cost technology for emergency managers

My friend Shahrzad Rizvi, along with co-author Joshua Kelly, recently published an article in Public Management Magazine titled “Communicating Emergency Information on a Budget.” The article covers low-cost ways for emergency managers to connect with their communities. It highlights social media, new types of alert systems, and free online mapping of public safety concerns. The article includes links to some of these new tools, so I encourage you to check it out.

Rosemond v. United States & technology providers

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Rosemond v. United States, which addresses the culpability of a man who was charged with aiding and abetting another person’s use of a gun in relation to a drug offense.  The court decided that he is liable if he knew ahead of time that one of the people he drove to a drug deal with had brought a gun.

In reaching that result, Justice Kagan, writing for the majority, re-addressed some fundamental principles of aiding and abetting law (Rory Little at SCOTUSblog calls the decision “a primer on aiding and abetting law”). Since I recently co-authored an article on the aiding and abetting liability of technology providers, this decision was of particular interest.

The article addresses the lingering confusion over whether the mens rea for aiding and abetting is “shared purpose” or “knowing assistance.” Justice Kagan serves up a sort of blending of the two ideas, which is common among appellate courts. Justice Alito, in dissent, writes that he wishes the court would have addressed the two differing standards, but instead “refers interchange­ably to both of these tests and thus leaves our case law in the same, somewhat conflicted state that previously existed.”  Justice Alito also says, however, that he thinks the difference between the tests is “slight.”

The point in our article is that this slight distinction can have important implications for technology providers who may be at risk of being considered accomplices of their users’ crimes. Rosemond certainly adds to the conversation about that topic, but doesn’t do much to answer the question. In fact, the Court, in footnote 8, expressly takes no view on “defendants who incidentally facilitate a criminal venture rather than actively participate in it,” as with “the owner of a gun store who sells a firearm to a criminal, knowing but not caring how the gun will be used.” This hypothetical strikes at the heart of the concerns faced by technology providers.

Interestingly, Justice Scalia joined the majority opinion except for footnotes 7 and 8. The Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting discussion about how, and why, that happened, as does DailyKos.)

In other news, our article, and its title, are featured on BookForum’s Omnivore blog today.

New Podcast on Criminal Liability of Tech Companies

There’s a new discussion up at “The Law Review,” a podcast run by legal research company Fastcase, discussing some of the ideas in my recent article, Technology and the Guilty Mind, about the potential criminal liability of technology providers for aiding and abetting their users. The guest for the conversation is Fastcase CEO Ed Walters.

The part that addresses the article starts around the 12-minute mark with a dialogue on Judge Posner’s hypothetical (discussed in the paper) about a dress seller who knows his client is using his dresses in her prostitution business. The  conversation then focuses on how doctrine about knowing assistance of criminals may apply to tech companies in the communications industry (like Fastcase).  Thanks to Fastcase for highlighting the article!

Government in the information age

Features Stats Integration Plugin developed by YD