Leadership

The Covid-19 pandemic, recently compounded by the unrest following the George Floyd killing, has placed our public leaders front and center. Our President, placing self-interest above national interest, as always, has failed dismally. Much ink has been spilled on his self-dealing, mendacity and overall poor leadership, and I agree with almost all of it. If I had to pick what I find most distasteful about Trunp, though, it would be easy — at a time when we all need to work with, and show respect to, each other to contain the virus, he has politicized the issues and worked to divide us.

Trump has thrown a bone to the Black Lives Matter movement by calling (weakly) for police reforms and and by ordering an investigation, though I don’t think anyone in or sympathetic to the movement feels he is really taking their concerns seriously. Where he has utterly failed, at a cost of tens of thousands of lives, is in his handling of the corona virus crisis. As a person vulnerable to Covid-19, I view Trump’s refusal to wear a mask, and encouraging those who don’t in the name of freedom, a direct threat to my health and well-being. His holding a rally (aside from the offenses of originally scheduling it on Juneteenth and holding it at a site of anti-Black violence) at which masks and social distancing will not be required is beyond irresponsible – it is a taking advantage of his followers, who no doubt readily will click on the liability waiver they are required to accept in order to attend.

Our Governor, by contrast, has shown good leadership, though he has made mistakes and has resisted taking responsibility for them. Instead of shouting down reports whose questions he doesn’t like (and, when tired of that, discontinuing briefings altogether), he has faced the public every day and has answered questions from the press. His forthrightness and vulnerability (contrary to his former style, which was more authoritarian, leading a character in an editorial cartoon to ask “when can I start hating Cuomo again?) have earned him the trust of many (and the hearts of some) of his constituents. He has resisted the pressure of those desiring to “open up” the economy too soon, and what is happening in other states suggests he is right, though the negative effects on the economy and our mental and physical health of going slow are undeniable, and he does acknowledge them. In my view, he is walking the fine line appropriately.

On Black Lives Matter, he has shown a more genuine concern while responding in a more politically savvy way, kicking the can down to local police departments rather than undertaking any major reforms at the State level.

Another response has been his executive order declaring Juneteenth a paid day off for State workers (at the expense of a public fisc that is teetering on the edge of disaster) which I see as a political giveaway to State employees rather than a serious effort to memorialize Juneteenth and what it stands for (to his credit, the Governor also has asked the Legislature to declare Juneteenth a State holiday, which is the right way to go about it).

Instead of abdicating his role as the counter party to the public employee unions, representing the taxpayers with respect to the collective bargaining agreements that govern the terms and conditions of most State employment, what the Governor should have done, while waiting for the Legislature to act, was to order training and education on racial bias and Black history for all State employees for part of the day.

 

End of an era

USA Today reports that Southwest Airlines will soon stop serving its iconic peanuts, in deference to those with allergies. I only hope this heightened awareness of the needs of its customers with allergies will extend to those sensitive to the fur of so-called “support” animals, as well as those whose migraines can be triggered by screaming babies. I’m not holding my breath.

Repeal and replace

No, not Obamacare.  With all the focus on gun laws after the latest school massacre, it occurred to me that the problem could largely be solved if the Second Amendment were repealed, and that the chances of that happening — despite the fact that I’ve not heard it mentioned anywhere — have never been better.  The national sentiment appears to have shifted away from “protection” of unlimited rights to buy and own any type of gun toward support for sensible regulation.  A repeal of the Second Amendment would make that possible and undercut a lot of the NRA’s “moral” authority.

Of course, any move to repeal the Second Amendment could backfire.  I know many “gun nuts” who would fight it to the last.  But I don’t think the times have ever been more favorable to the success of such a move.

Whether a “replacement” to secure some gun rights would be necessary is hard to say.  The absence of any constitutional support for gun ownership would be new to this country, and many of those on the fence about repeal might insist on a replacement.  But any constitutional protection for gun ownership could hinder sensible regulation.

I say let’s run the idea up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it.

Health insurance for some

This Times Union story is disheartening, but not surprising.  It’s about legislators hiring rich cronies for part time jobs that pay little but provide State-subsidized health insurance, which is top-of-the-line and costs the employee very little (full disclosure — as a full-time, non-political State employee, and now as a State retiree, I too enjoy this benefit).

What the story doesn’t address, and what should be of broader concern, is the pricing policy for employees and retirees, who are required to pay a share of the cost of their policies.  There are two prices — for individuals with no dependents, and a higher family price for those with any number of qualified dependents.  Thus, the employee with a spouse and no children pays the same premium as the employee with a spouse and 15 children.  I do not know whether the cost to the State is the same regardless of the number of the employees’ dependents, but I do know that State employees with small families are paying a lot more per person for their health insurance than State employees with large families.  While this policy is great for State employees who have large families, it’s not so good for those making up the difference.  Even worse, it’s not a transparent policy — those who are making up the difference are not aware of who they are or how much they are paying.

I’m not saying the policy is indefensible; for example, where government jobs sometimes pay less than the private sector, the family insurance plan may make it practicable for someone with a large family who is an attractive candidate to take a lower-paying State job, which could benefit the public. And it is a way to make health care more affordable to those with larger families and, presumably, less disposable income (though that may not be the case of the part timers in the TU story, one of whom claimed a net worth of over $8 million). What I am saying is that it also presents apparent fairness issues and, as the TU story indicates, an incentive for abuse.  Open discussion of the issue — one that most taxpayers probably are not aware of — might benefit everyone.

 

 

Health care conundrums

As I advance in age, I am exposed more and more to the health care industry, despite having enjoyed relatively good health until recently.  As a retired New York State employee, I am blessed with excellent health insurance that covers most doctor visits, medical tests and procedures, as well as prescription drugs, with only a relatively modest co-pay. Here are a few observations:

First, it appears that many of our health problems are what a friend of mine calls “diseases of affluence.”  More appropriately, they should be called “diseases of lifestyle,” since they affect people of all socioeconomic strata.  A lot of these are directly influenced by government policies.  For instance, our auto-centric physical infrastructure minimizes the opportunities for and pleasures of walking and cycling, and cannot help but contribute to obesity and other problems based on lack of physical activity.  Our government subsidies to cane sugar and corn (the main ingredient of high fructose corn syrup) help make junk food and sugared soft drinks attractively priced.  This is especially so for the poor, since the SNAP program (formerly known as Food Stamps) allows their purchase with SNAP benefits.  If we collectively spent more on complete streets that were friendly to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as cars, how much could we save on health care (not to mention on school transportation)?  How about if we stopped subsidizing sugar?  I think it would be worth a try.

For all the criticism leveled against it, the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) has achieved something great — it has shifted the dialog from whether health care insurance should be extended to many of those who don’t have it to how the present system should be replaced or improved.  Neither Trump nor his minions are suggesting that those who obtained health insurance through Obamacare should lose it, meaning that they recognize that there is no going back on government’s commitment to growing numbers of its citizens.  Whether things actually get better or worse remains to be seen, but at least no one is talking a bout a pre-Obamacare “reset.”  To me, that is yuge.

Casino smoking update

I recently visited Turning Stone, which just completed alterations to its gaming areas.  I think it did a really good job to accommodate both smokers and non-smokers.  It enclosed in glass walls and allows smoking in about a quarter of its main gaming floor, an area that includes a bar and a self-service area from which patrons can get free coffee and soda.  The smoking area contains a large variety of slot and video poker machines and table games.  Also enclosed in glass and reserved for smokers is a separate, small high-limit table games area (there also is a non-smoking high limit table games area next to the high limit slots area).  While there are openings in the glass walls enclosing the smoking areas to allow patrons and staff to enter and exit, there does not seem to be a lot of leakage of smoke into the non-smoking areas.

Turning Stone’s solution, while the best I have seen to balance the preferences of smokers (who seem disproportionately represented among casino patrons) and non-smokers, is not perfect.  The main smoking area is very smoky, since almost everyone in it is a smoker (I didn’t go into the high limit table area, but I assume it’s also pretty smoky).  Though the smokers are there voluntarily, that may not be true of all the staff. The high limit slot area is outside the close and is now in the larger area of the casino in which smoking is prohibited.  I believe the live poker room and keno and bingo areas also are completely non-smoking, so players of those games who are smokers may not be accommodated.

All in all, though, management at Turning Stone deserves praise for responding to the complaints of non-smokers in a meaningful way, while preserving its competitive advantage over the non-native American venues in New York that will not be able to allow smokers to gamble and smoke at the same time. Now, if only management would turn its attention to the noise issue . . .

Let’s see how long it lasts

As I suspected, the new State-regulated casinos in New York (as well as those in Massachusetts) will almost all be smoke free.  This good news was reported by the Times Union in a recent item about what Turning Stone is doing to meet the new competition.

While I and many other casino patrons would welcome a completely smoke-free environment, maintaining a ban on smoking may not be economically viable.  There is a high correlation between gambling and smoking, and a complete ban in Atlantic City sent too many customers elsewhere and had to be rescinded.  Smoking will continue to be allowed at Turning Stone and in the Connecticut casinos.  Their customers may stay loyal to those establishments that allow them to smoke, even if new, non-smoking casinos are closer to where they live.

I think the best way to accommodate everyone is to make all public areas of casinos non smoking, with separate (but equal, in terms of games offered and other amenities) gambling rooms for smokers and non smokers.  Foxwoods has a separate non-smoking casino, but unfortunately for me it does not have any of the full pay jacks or better video poker machines I like to play at that establishment, so I have to put up with some smoke to play the better games.  Casino management also should consider accommodating those who are sensitive to noise by establishing some quiet areas.  The more a business can accommodate those with competing likes and dislikes, the better for everyone.

Albany bike path update

Yesterday, I rode on the Albany County bike path from its beginning on South Pearl St., and I was pleased to find that its western end had been extended from central Delmar (behind the Stewart’s on Delaware Ave.) to New Scotland Avenue in Slingerlands, almost doubling its length.  On a beautiful Saturday, a lot of people were using the trail for walking and riding.  This type of project always gets a lot of use, and it makes surrounding properties, residential and commercial, more valuable.  It’s a low-cost, high-yield investment for government, that pays off in better health for citizens enjoying expanded recreational opportunities, as well as financially.  I hope the rest of the path opens  while the weather is still good, and I hope local governments throughout the region decide to make similar investments.

Too loud and too sweet

I just returned from a trip to, among other places, Las Vegas, and I was very bothered by the volume of sound in several places I visited.  While I may be over-sensitive, I can’t believe that ear-splitting sound levels are good for the health of either the patrons or the employees of these loud establishments, and I question whether they are good for the bottom line.  When time permits, I’ll look for studies, but I find it hard to believe that sound levels I find uncomfortable to be present in are enjoyed by anyone.  Loud noise in other public places has become endemic — in addition to the dreaded airport CNN monitors, about which I’ve previously written, I often find televisions — usually competing with other background music — blaring in restaurants and bars.  In an age when everyone has a smart phone or other device that allows them to listen to whatever they want, is it really necessary for airports and other public places to bother those of us who prefer silence?

My trip exposed me to another of my pet peeves — screaming babies on airplanes.  Ear plugs are not a complete solution; what also would help would be to ask families who travel with young children, in exchange for the preferred boarding and the ability to bring infants along for free they now get, to sit in the last few rows of the plane.  It astounds me that Southwest, the airline I usually fly, will require a “Customer of Size” to purchase an extra seat if he or she intrudes on the space of one other passenger (the cost of which is reimbursed if not every seat on the plane is taken), while a screaming infant can terrorize dozens of people with impunity.  If the airlines really care about the comfort and well-being of their customers, they will pay more attention to the screaming baby issue.  I for one will gladly shift my patronage to any airline that does.

Further on the theme of too much, why is everything over-sweetened?  I have read that a can of regular Coke contains the equivalent of 10 teaspoons of sugar, which seems objectionable on health grounds.  Why not offer an alternative containing about half as much sugar, which might be more pleasing to adult palates and less objectionable than artificially sweetened alternatives, most of which also are cloyingly sweet.  Reduced sugar drinks would appeal to those watching their calories and would result in good public relations for their makers, something the soft drink industry could use right now.

Oscar Wilde admonished “everything in moderation, including moderation.”  Time to return to the time when moderation is the general rule and not the exception.

Lessons from our neighbors to the North

I just returned from a glorious cycling mini-vacation in Montreal, one of North America’s premiere cities for bicycling. I got to see a lot, compared to what pedestrians get to see; I got to see details that those who drive around miss; I got fresh air, sunshine, exercise and contact with locals. What Montreal got from me was tourist dollars, good will, great word of mouth and someone likely to return for more.

By accommodating cyclists, in addition to other tourists, Montreal has spawned a whole industry of businesses that support them – hotels and inns near bike paths, bicycle shops, and the like. It has provided its  residents an outlet for safe, outdoor, healthy recreation. And it has created a mini-boom in real estate along the major bike routes, such as the Lachine Canal trail.

By contrast, let’s look at what our area is doing to promote tourism and economic development: a convention center and a casino resort, neither world class, and therefore neither likely to attract visitors from outside the region. Both are late-comers in declining industries that already have excess capacity. While both will create one-shot jobs while they are being built, neither is likely to spur much ongoing development in their immediate surroundings, and neither will provide ongoing entertainment or recreational opportunities for locals, except perhaps for the casino, which may not be a good thing.

Some of the major benefits of encouraging bicycle tourism are:

1.  Low cost.  The bedrock principle for encouraging people to bike is to provide an area physically separate from automobiles in which they can feel safe and comfortable.  “Sharrows,” and bike route signs, the principal things our government wastes money on to promote cycling, do not achieve this goal.  However, there are relatively easy and inexpensive ways to separate cars and bikes.  Here’s a bike path in Montreal that uses no more than a painted line to demarcate a bike lane next to the curb, with cars parked on its outside to shield the cyclists from moving traffic.

Simple bike path – parked cars separate bikes and moving cars

For a little more money, actual temporary barriers can be installed that can be removed in winter (in Montreal, the bike paths are open from April through November):

Bike trail with stanchions

For a little more, you can add fancy, permanent curbing, and even a separate signaling system, but these are bells and whistles, not essentials:

Bike path with curbing

 

 

 

 

 

Bike traffic light

2.  Benefits to residents.  While attracting tourists, a usable network of bike trails will at the same time encourage locals to use their bikes more, which will improve their health, reduce automobile traffic and its negative side effects (pollution, accidents, use of large swaths of downtown land for parking lots, etc.).

3.  Economic development.  Bikeable cities attract millenials and others who prefer urban, car-less environments.  In Montreal, I saw a lot of new residential development next to the major bike trails, as well as renovations of older warehouses, factories and the like into apartments and condos.

Montreal has as long and severe a winter season as Albany, yet it proves that bike paths make economic sense even when used only part of the year.  One advantage Montreal does have over Albany is more level terrain, but there are plenty of potential routes here that would not require major hill climbs.  The Corning Preserve and Mohawk bike trails already here are a good start that demonstrate the local demand for off-road cycling facilities, so there is little risk that if we build it, no one will come.

Expanding our network of off-road bike routes would be a win-win for residents, tourists and local businesses, at minimal cost to government.  There are few greater opportunities for government to do so much good for so many at so little cost.  What’s stopping it?