People Helping People

I read about a great idea the other day, paying teenage girls to not get pregnant.
Brilliant eh?

I really like the idea, but when I told my sister in-law about she found the concept repugnant. "You want to pay people to do nothing?" she asked incredulously. "Well it's better then paying them for lying on their backs and doing nothing" (I didn't really say that, but should have).

Anyway, the full idea is that you pay high risk teen girls a dollar a day for every day that they are not pregnant. This equals $365 dollars a year per teenage girl; while this may sound like a lot compare it to whatever you think it would cost per year per pregnant teen and child, who doesn't have much education, training, or familial financial support for the rest of their life. Sounds like a bargain to me.

The theory at work here comes from behavioral economics, and that many people don't act in their own self interest, or at least the way that classical economists describe self interest.
I thought that this concept was fairly well known. One of my wife's favorite topics is behavior modification, this type of reward system is a continuous reinforcement schedule with a fixed ratio, aimed to maintain a certain behavior.

It reminds me of a childrens book I read a long time ago where in order to stop a girl from bitting her nails they tried to pay her up to ten cents at the end of every day, one penny for every nail not bitten. This strategy didn't work so well because the reinforcement came at the end of each day. After a while the tactic changed to the girl getting ten pennys at the beginning of the day and at the end of the day she would be able to keep a penny for each unbitten nail. The presence of a constant reminder was able to shift her behavior.

As I understand it the money works in the same way, as a more constant reminder of the goal or desired behavior.

Now this isn't the best reinforcement type, that is an intermittent reinforcement schedule, with an unfixed ratio, meaning the target has no idea when the reward will come, or how big the reward will be. The uncertainty generates the best results. I wonder if the government would consider that instead. The problem I see with that is that bureaucrats have a hard enough time trying to maintain a stable schedule, and teenagers don't have the ability to process consequences very well.

I read an article on teenagers brains that was great, but to long to talk about here; suffice it to say that brains are like teeth, your baby brain falls out around 12 and the adult brain comes in around 25. So a couple of bucks for high risk girls sound like a good investment for them and for the economy as a whole.

Down with Zoning!!

I think that land use zoning is an idea that has outlived its usefulness, mostly.

The rational for zoning was to separate land uses that could be a hazard for people. The example is that you don't want a brick making plant, in a persons back yard because the noise, air, and water pollution is detrimental for human health.

This is the good part of the idea; the part that needs to be continued.

The bad part is that the different land use zones have gotten ever more restrictive and reactionary. When an individual does something that a city council finds offensive (like put a giant statute of a fish on their roof) all of a sudden the zoning laws are changed so no one else could do something similar.

The result is the development of ugly monotonous sprawl. Zones have been so tightly controlled that little variation is possible, even if it is a good idea. Also developers can use the zoning codes to do things that are not part of the cities desires or best interest (like a lot of big-box retail stores).

I think that a lot of the reason that zoning has gotten this way is because it's easy for the bureaucrats. Once a zoning law is in place, planners behind the counters look at a developers plans, go down the check list to see if it meets code and then approve or disprove as the law requires. Simple, safe, and mindless.

I say safe because doing it in this fashion prevents (in theory) lawsuits being filed for the city being arbitrary and capricious. However, zones get changed all the time. Also most times if a developer threatens a lawsuit cities will just give the developer what they want.

So now for my grand solution, ready?

Get rid of zoning.

I bet you didn't see that one coming. The system is often overly burdensome and complex in its mindlessness. So lets toss the whole thing out.

Apparently this is what some Texas city did. I forget if it was Houston or Dallas. Unfortunately both those places area also very sprawlly (I was listening to a lecture a week ago that compared the no-zoning city to LA; they blamed it on similar parking requirements).

So just getting rid of zoning doesn't actually make anything better. Fortunately my plan continues.

What would replace zoning would be a mandatory visioning process that was updated every 15-20 years.

Visioning exercises have become more popular in the past decade, they consist of a series of public meeting and a set of alternative land use, transportation and economic scenarios for a period in the future. the public vote, argue about, and recommend things that need to be included in the scenarios. Then the city has an understanding of what the population wants there city to be in the next few years, the issues of greatest importance to the citizens.

Armed with this knowledge budgets can be properly allocated and development can occur in a shape and form consistent with the character of the individual city.

The planners would no longer sit behind desks and run down their check lists, but would engage in discussion with all developers to make sure that what they proposed is in line with the vision and long term goals of the community. If no consensus can be reached between the developer and the planner then no development is approved. If this was law then the developer would have no recourse but to leave or capitulate.

Now above I mentioned that this would be a mandatory process every 15-20 years. The reason for this is to capture cultural shifts in the cities population. As you may have noticed technology and culture can change very rapidly. Things that were unheard of years ago are now normal (I'm thinking of a population shift back to the cities, cell phones, Wi-Fi, and mixed-use development).

By going through a visioning process every 15-20 years many of those shifts can be dealt with in an orderly way.

For this all to happen a few things need to change. First, city councils need to be willing to try something new, take a bit of a risk instead of being reactionary codgers. Second, city planners will need to get brains.

That may sound unfair, and it is a little bit. There are some very smart dedicated city councils and municipal planners; I haven't met many.

Politicians, well, do I really need to say anything more?

As for the planners some are just mediocre. City jobs offer a low, but stable salary, not necessarily a lot of work and an ability to be fairly comfortable. Other planners are smart and dynamic folks, but how much mediocrity can a person be around before they leave or succumb?

Anyway, that is another one of my thoughts for making cities better. Sounds doable in theory, and some planners that I have run this across are all up for it. If only the politicians would allow it.