Universities and the Yik Yak Monster

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."  Me and Bobby McGee, Janis Joplin

When Janis sang about freedom, it was in romantic, if melancholy terms. 

On the internet, by contrast, freedom usually means the right to engage in the chaotic smack-down of anyone you disagree with.  And, by chaotic smackdown, I mean the right to threaten people with whom you disagree with physical harm, rape, torture, public humiliation, and/or death.  There's no better example of this right now than Yik Yak. 

For the uninitiated, Yik Yak is an anonymous social media app.  The preview on I-Tunes says that "Yik Yak acts like a local bulletin board for your area by showing the most recent posts from other users around you. It allows anyone to connect and share information with others without having to know them." 

'Yaks' (anonymous comments) can only be read by people within 1.5 miles of the poster's location.  The geographic nature of Yik Yak makes it  popular on college campuses. There are enough people around to start conversations, and all of those people share some basic things in common (age, shared classes, etc.) that make them inclined to talk to each other.  

Unfortunately, the anonymity of Yik Yak means people feel free to say hateful things they probably wouldn't say publicly, or even in the company of these same peers.   

Last year, when students protested police brutality in Ferguson during peaceful events on American University's campus, for example, yakers on campus sounded like they'd just walked out of George Wallace's Alabama.  For those with the stomach for it, here's a sampling of the vitriol.   

Yik Yak has also been used to denigrate or otherwise humiliate people.  A New York Times story on Yik Yak recounts a student reading a yak that compared her to a hippo.  Professors aren't immune either.  The same article recounts a series of yaks made during a class about a female professor.  Few of them were printable in a family newspaper.  

Most recently, students in a feminist group at nearby University of Mary Washington claim they've been stalked and harassed on yik yak.  Students in the group report receiving threats for their activist work and having their real time movements on campus reported on yik yak--a move that made students feel like they were in constant danger. 

So, how do college administrators respond to all of these problems? 

Well, let's just say that in the hands of college administrators, freedom sounds like a flimsy excuse to do nothing. 

To be fair to college administrators (and their PR hacks), most do issue public condemnations of the content of the yaks.  But, the great majority stop there.  After the ruckus at Mary Washington, for example, the university issued a statement that said in part that the university has "no recourse for cyberbullying" and directed students to complain directly to Yik Yak.  Not surprisingly, companies tell victims to call police--and on a college campus that means calling campus police. And the buck passing begins. 

Colleges can't make their students behave.  But, they could certainly make it hard for them to misbehave.  Many students and professors who have been harassed and threatened on Yik Yak argue that their universities should block access to anonymous apps like Yik Yak on campus wifi systems. 

Unfortunately, most colleges and universities refuse to do so, justifying their inaction on free speech grounds.  In fact, that's exactly how a spokesperson from Mary Washington explained the school's decision to a reporter with the Washington Post:  "There are First Amendment concerns when you are a state institution." 

I don't buy this argument one bit. 

Blocking Yik Yak from a university's wifi does not block speech.  Rather it blocks a particular venue for speech.  And,universities have been blocking venues for free speech for years--the only difference is that these venues are in real rather than cyber space.  Many universities, for example, have set up 'free speech'/'protest' zones.  Normally, they are tucked far away from any venue that might be used to host speakers, and thus draw protestors.  In effect, the university says you can speak freely on campus, but only in designated spaces.   

It feels hypocritical then, to hear universities claim they can't do the same in cyberspace, especially when there's ample evidence that Yik Yak isn't just a venue for hateful speech, but threatening/dangerous speech as well.   

Perhaps universities aren't worried about preserving free speech so much as avoiding lawsuits from Yik Yak?     

Why Is It So Hard for Neighborhoods to Recover from Riots?

Broken glass.  Looted stores.  Burned out cars.

They aren't pretty.  But, cleaning them up shouldn't be that hard, right?  Sweep the sidewalk.  Clean the store and install better security.  Call the tow truck.  It certainly sounds easier than cleaning up after an earthquake, where collapsed buildings create toxic piles of concrete, bodies, and burst sewage pipes, streets are littered with downed (and sometimes) live power lines, and clean water is hard to find.   

In truth, though, riots can sometimes take almost as long to 'clean up' as natural disasters.

Why is that?  Why do some areas hit by riots take decades to turn around when the physical damage is, in the wider scheme of things, quite small? 

Riots precipitate disinvestment.  The events themselves don't (always) create that much dammage.  But, they encourage people to disinvest from an area.  People move away.  Others close their businesses.  Squatters fill the empty spaces.  In turn, these decisions encourage people who might come to the area, and invest in it, to look elsewhere.

Let's use a hypothetical example--Jane Doe, who owns a laundromat on a street hit by riots.  She owns her business but rents the storefront from Max Money, a local landlord.  Ms. Doe's store is set on fire by looters throwing Molotov cocktails at police.  A few cocktails miss the mark and land in the laundromat.  Some of Ms. Doe's dryers are damaged in the fire.  The building's facade is also dammaged.  The wood frame around the door and front window caught fire and the glass windows shattered.  The linoleum floor at the front of the store also melted, leaving an acrid, chemical smell in the building.   

Fortunately for Ms. Doe and Mr. Money, the building and the business in it weren't engulfed in flames.  But, there was enough damage that reopening the next day isn't possible.

So, what does Jane Doe do?

Her first decision--should she reopen the business--hinges on several factors.  She needs to find out, for example, if her insurance company will cover the cost of her damaged equipment.  She also needs to know if her insurance will cover fixed costs--e.g. rent--while repairs are being made.  If those costs aren't covered, Jane Doe may have to consult a banker to see if she can get a short term loan.

What Max Money decides to do is also an important factor in Jane Doe's decision.  Jane needs to know if Mr. Max will fix the window, entrance, and floor.  She also needs to know his timeline.  Will he do it quickly?  She may also ask Mr. Max to suspend rent while repairs are made.  And, to cut her some slack while the business gets back on its feet.  Mr. Max, though, may depend on his steady rental income and demand payment. 

Finally, Jane has to want to reopen.  She may be angry at the rioters.  She may also feel threatened/unwelcome in the neighborhood.  She may not know, for example, that the fire was unintentional.  And, as a result, she may wonder if she was targeted by rioters.

Not surprisingly, lots of Jane Does don't reopen businesses in these circumstances.

Then, a bad reputation settles in.  People point and say "That's the place where the riots happened."  Others say, "The people here are prone to riot."  Or "'Those people' can't be trusted." 

The narrative that emerges isn't usually fair.  Collective blame for individual actions.  Amnesia about the actual events that set off the riots.

But, the narrative sticks nonetheless.  20 years later, the neighborhood often looks a lot like it did when Jane Doe left.

I wish a different fate for you Baltimore.  Justice for Freddie Gray, and reinvestment for Baltimore's forgotten neighborhoods.    

     

 

  

What will Negative Net-Migraiton look like in the DMV?

Today's Washington Post has a provocative article about new census data showing that population growth in the region is slowing down.  Most of the slow down is attributed to out-migration rather than birth dynamics.  Basically, more people are moving out of the region than are moving into it.  Population growth hasn't ceased in large part because birth rates are making up the shortfall. 

There is, of course, variation within the region.   Net migration (number of people moving to a place minus the number of people leaving it) is still positive in parts of the region.    DC still has positive net migration.  So, too, do Loudoun, Prince Georges, Montgomery, and Prince William Counties.  However, the city of Alexandria, and Arlington and Fairfax Counties now have negative net migration.

The Post attributes the shift in large part to "sequestration," which led to cuts in government budgets across the board.  Although many municipal leaders hoped the cuts would be restored, most haven't been.  And, Virginia localities, where beltway bandits set up shop, took the biggest hit.

The hand-wringing has already commenced.  Unlike other parts of the country, the DMV has experienced a largely uninterrupted growth spurt, nearly 20 years by some estimates.  Even the recession didn't really slow things down here.  In fact, people who lost jobs in other parts of the country often found work in DC--as was the case with one of the out-migrants profiled in the story.

So, what are the consequences of negative net-migration?  As with most shifts, there will be winners and losers.

Likely winners? 
* The region's commuters might see a small, but measurable improvement on commuter routes.
* So, too, might metro riders.  Metro ridership is already down.  Factors posited to explain the drop include rising prices, poor reliability, packed trains, more telework, and a reduction in the transportation subsidy for federal workers.  Ridership might decrease even more if negative net-migration continues to be a trend.  In fact, most migrants to the area have been public transportation-loving millennials.  If they opt to go elsewhere, then the trains might not be as packed.   
* First time home-buyers might benefit as well.  Inventory has been low since the 2008 recession.  Indeed, many homeowners put off selling their homes, choosing to wait until housing prices rebounded to their bubble (or near bubble) levels.  However, people who lose their jobs, or can't find ones to begin with (see: sequestration) are often willing to take a little less money when they sell. 
* The DMV's middle and lower-income residents.  They aren't complete winners (see below), but a slow down might make things a wee bit more affordable for people without top dollar incomes.  For the last ten years or so most development has been targeted to the luxury market.  If those people aren't coming here, developers of newly built apartments and condos might lower their prices.  Fewer people and somewhat lower prices also eases the displacement pressure the city's low income residents face. 

Likely losers? 
* Municipal Tax Coffers.  Fewer people means fewer people to tax.  And, fewer tax receipts means either tax hikes, or cuts in service.  It's hard to predict where tax hikes or cuts would be focused.  Most likely, though, there will be more cuts than taxes.  And, as a general rule, cuts usually hurt the poor more than the wealthy.
* Home Sellers.  People trying to sell their homes in the DMV have been incredibly lucky when compared with the country as a whole.  The DMV's housing values didn't fall as much as those in many other parts of the country, and they rebounded more quickly as well.  As a result, it's been a sellers market for much of the last 5 years (purchasers at the height of the bubble excepted).  With fewer people churning into the city, it will be harder to sell houses, and probably take more time as well.
* The DMV's Hipster Street Cred.  After years of being described as 'dowdy,' crime-ridden, wonky, arrogant, and type A, the DMV finally started appearing in all those urban top 10 lists.  You know, those lists of the 'Top 10 place to be a hipster,' or the 'Top 10 places to drink craft beer.'  That could change if the millennials decide to head elsewhere.  What's a hipster wonk to do? I guess they can always go back to yakking about policy over decidedly unhip (gasp) pitchers of beer.   

Robert McDonnell and His Band of Merry Thieves.

Robert F. McDonnell really doesn't want to go to jail.  His friends in high places don't want him to either.


To clarify, it's not because McDonnell's got any actual political friends left.  No, McDonnell's conviction makes him toxic for anyone still in the game.  Can't be seen hanging out with a convicted felon, even if he is out on bail pending an appeal.

So, why do members of the political class care whether McDonnell spends time jail? Turns out the political class is afraid that if McDonnell goes to jail, they might soon follow him.  The fear is so palpable that a bi-partisan cadre of former states attorneys general have signed onto an amicus brief in support of McDonnell's appeal of his conviction. 

Let's look at their reasoning.  And to prepare yourself, be sure to tighten your cynic helmets.  You'll need them to take what's coming with a straight face.

State's rights.  Yup.  This illustrious crew thinks that Robert McDonnell should have faced state rather than federal charges.  State corruption laws are looser, you see, so if he'd been tried in the 'right' place, he'd have gotten a slap on the wrist, not a prison sentence.  I wonder if this crew would consider writing an amicus brief on behalf of all the people put in jail on federal drug charges?  You know, that heroin dealer would be out of jail now if he'd only been held to a lower standard.    

Lunch with the local Lobbyist is now in peril.  I can't even muster the appropriate sarcasm.  I'll just quote from the brief:  "Dangling the threat of criminal liability over every lunch with a lobbyist and every meeting with an interest group would impede the proper functioning of state and local governments."  You may not have followed the trial, but suffice it to say that Johnny Williams, the businessman trying to curry the favor of the then governor, did more than cover a few lunches.  He flew McDonnell to political events on his private jet, bought McDonnell's wife expensive dresses, gave McDonnell's kids high-end gifts, and offered McDonnell a personal loan with no terms attached.  Williams was a sugar-daddy par excellence, giving the McDonnell's $177,000.  The notion that lobbying is somehow integral to the "proper functioning of state and local governments" is also mind-boggling.  Unless, of course, you accept the notion that your constituency isn't the people living in your district, but the people who fill your campaign coffers.


The bizarre logic notwithstanding, the most dispiriting aspect of the amicus brief is its bi-partisan nature.  People in both parties have bought into the notion that government is for and by the people who can pay for it.      

Blowing Smoke, DC edition

Marijuana use is now legal in the District of Columbia. 

A lot of people see this a a big win for pro-pot/medical marijuana/hemp crowd, and it surely is. 

But, it is probably a bigger deal for DC autonomy. 

Although Home Rule (established in 1973) gives the city the right to govern itself, that right is circumscribed.  Congress can prevent any legislation passed by the city government from taking effect. 

In 1998, the year I moved to the DMV, Congress wouldn't even allow the city to report the outcome of ballot Initiative 59, which would have allowed for the legalization of medical marijuana.  The bill's congressional opponents said they would never allow the initiative to take effect, and as such, wouldn't bother counting the votes.   

Those votes were eventually counted, and the initiative passed handily (69% in favor).  It didn't matter, though.  Congress had the final say. 

Congress tried the same heavy handed approach to the city's most recent marijuana initiative.  It told the city it could not spend any money to enforce the law, and when it was clear the District was moving forward with a legalization plan, the chair of the Congressional Subcommittee in charge of DC threatened to put Mayor Muriel Bowser in jail. 

Well, Bowser is still a free woman, the sky has not fallen (to quote Bowser), and it looks like the city's congressional opponents were blowing smoke.

It won't work for everything, but Bowser's decision to ignore Congress and heed the will of DC voters in the process, is a good sign for DC's autonomy.  

Super-bad: Bank Behavior in Black Majority Counties.

This week the Washington Post did a 3 part series on the effects of the 2008 mortgage crisis in Prince Georges County, a black majority county.  If you haven't read the story (part 1, part 2, and part 3), it is well worth a read.  For now I'll summarize two main points from it:  the mortgage crisis hurt black communities worse than white ones, and housing prices in predominantly black communities have not rebounded in the way they have in predominantly white communities.

There's a lot to chew on in these three installments.  For today, though, I want to focus on one thing.  The extra pernicious behavior of banks in black majority counties during the bubble.  Of course, anyone who followed the bubble and the 2008 recession that followed knows the banks were engaged in go-go lending.  But, the bad behavior was especially bad in black majority areas.  And, despite the wealth of knowledge about how badly banks actually behaved in all neighborhoods, a significant number of commentators still continue to blame borrowers.

Unfortunately, the 'blame the borrower' view assumes that lender and borrower have equal knowledge.  That is, while the banker has your personal asset and income statements, you the borrower know enough about mortgages to know whether you're getting a fair deal.

The story in PG county, and the upper middle class neighborhood of Fairwood, illustrates just how uneven that relationships can often be, and how unfair the banks could behave.

In the third installment of the WAPO series we meet the Boatengs, a couple originally from Ghana.  They owned a townhouse in Germantown but with a growing family they decided in 2005 to find a bigger house.  A friend in their church recommended they check out the Fairwood neighborhood--a upper middle class enclave with beautiful new homes.

The Boatengs fell in love with a house in the neighborhood.  It had a price tag of just over $600,000.  Their joint income at the time was just over $110,000.  By any credible standard, the Boatengs should not have qualified for a mortgage for the house.

But, Lehman Brothers, who gave them the mortgage found a way to make it work.  They had the Boatengs cash out the equity in their town home for use as a down payment.  They used savings to increase the amount, allowing them to take out a mortgage for just under $500,000.  Even with a 100,000 reduction, the loan amount was not sustainable.  By my optimistic, back of the envelope calculations, the Boatengs would have brought home about $7,300 a month (assuming a tax rate of 20%).  Their mortgage payments (according to the story) were $3,662 (more on this in a bit).  That means the Boatengs were paying 50% of their take home pay on housing.  Housing experts argue that families should pay no more than 30% of take home pay on housing costs.  For the loan to work the Boatengs would also need a lot of things to fall into place (and stay in place).  They'd need to find a reliable renter for the Germantown townhouse, for example, and they'd need to keep their jobs.    

So far we have an example of the garden variety bad behavior banks were engaged in during the bubble years.  That is, a bank gave out a loan to someone who'd likely have trouble repaying it.     

But, Lehman Brothers decided to pile on.  The Boatengs were immigrants.  They weren't familiar with US banking.  They believed in the American dream, and like many immigrants the idea that the American dream can turn into a nightmare never occurred to them.  The loan the Boatengs got was an adjustable rate, interest only loan.  For the first 5 years the couple would only pay interest (no equity building here).  After 5 years, they would start paying down some principle, but their interest rate would also go up, from 6.1% to 8.3%.  Not surprisingly, the Boatengs couldn't make the new payments.  They've since gone deeper in to debt to improve their ability to repay their mortgage.  They are in over the heads on multiple front.  Foreclosure looms.  

What happened to the Boatengs is called exploitation plain and simple.  And, it was targeted.  West Africans are about 5% of the population of PG county, but they held almost a third of the mortgages that were foreclosed on in the county. 

Superbad--it ain't just a movie.  It's a bank thing. 

Dodging an Olympian sized bullet

Folks in DMV can breath easy.  Boston was selected as the American city to be put forward to the International Olympic Committee to host the 2024 summer Olympics, besting LA, San Francisco, and DC.

This is good news for many reasons!

1.  Hipsters and athletes don't mix.  Yes, they are both skinny, but only one is emaciated.   

2.  Politicians and athletes don't mix well either.  The doughy unhealthy look is popular in Congress.  Congress is all about that base, no treble.   

3.  Ok, both groups do like to drink.  But one will be off the sauce at game time.  

4.  Metro can't handle 4 inches of snow.  The Olympics would destroy it.

5.  The Olympics does not have a 'hot air bloviating' contest.  The area's pompous asses would have taken their balls and stomped off home when they found that out.    

6.   The Swiss crooksInternational Olympic Committee will get their public assistance checks from someone else's tax base.   

7.  The endless chatter about how much the DC2024 team cares about lining their pocketsDC will stop. 

8.  Dan Snyder won't have yet another way to make money on a losing team. 

9.  Traffic will remain in Dante's first circle of hell instead of descending into the ninth circle, where the millions of people all fleeing hurricanes at the same time live.      

10.  More time to focus on the antics of Kirby DeLauter, Kirby DeLauter, Kirby DeLauter!