Actually, our State Bar should have a DC-3 on standby so that its disaster team could more quickly parachute into places like Richmond CA, you know, just like D-Day, you know, When Disaster Strikes.
Actually, our State Bar wants people like attorney Nick Haney to call the whaaaaaaaaambulance, to complain about how the State Bar street team is just like the Waffen-SS. It sends a message to all the others.
Keep on keeping on, State Bar Disaster Team!
PS: Oh BTW, exactly zero people were hospitalized due to the latest Chevron refinery fire / explosion / incident. So the chances of any one person garnering “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from watching soot zoom up thousands of feet into the troposphere are, similarly, exactly zero.
Jerry Nickelsburg Senior Economist UCLA Anderson Forecast
Saurabh Ahluwalia Anderson School of Management UCLA
June 2012
Here’s the start and the end – you’ll have to click above to read the whole thing.
“California High Speed Rail (CHSRL) is once
again in the news as the governor and state legislature
take up the issuance of construction bonds approved
by the voter passage of Proposition 1A of 2008.
Under “project vision and scope” on the CHRSL Authority
website are listed three categories of benefits: economic, environmental and community.
In this article we focus on the economic benefits.
Specifically we look at economic growth and,
by implication, job creation. That is to say, we are
examining the benefit side of the equation and leaving
the cost side to other analysis.
Though CHSR Authority has developed and vetted a forecasting
model and has commissioned a number of economic
impact studies, these rely on relatively strong, though
perhaps plausible, assumptions. As an alternative,
we examine an actual case of high speed rail, one that
has been widely deemed a success, for evidence of
the magnitude of benefits measured by induced GDP
growth that one can expect from the building and
operation of CHSR over the next 40 years.
Our study of the Japanese Shinkansen system
from 1964 to present fails to provide evidence of
induced aggregate growth.
Rather, the evidence suggests high-speed rail simply moves jobs around the geography without creating significant new employment or economic activity. That is not to say that
CHSR is not justified by population growth, pollution
abatement, or other factors. However, the evidence
from Japan is relatively clear. As an engine of economic growth in and of itself, CHSR will have only a marginal impact at best.
Governor Brown claims CHSR to be a visionary
project along the lines of the U.S. Interstate Highway
System, The California Central Water Project, and
the Panama and Suez Canals. As with these projects,
Governor Brown claims HSR will result in job
creation, economic development, particularly in the
Central Valley, the accommodation of population
growth and a cleaner environment.
The California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) has a set of studies demonstrating a sufficient
benefit cost analysis, a business plan that claims
operating costs will be covered by setting prices at
the currently charged airline prices for travel between
Los Angeles and the Bay Area.
The principal economic benefits cited by the CHSR Authority are the
creation of 100,000 construction jobs for the duration
of the project, operation and maintenance jobs for
the running of the trains, and the creation of 450,000
jobs and faster economic growth as a benefit of the
existence of the rail lines.
But, critics of the business plan abound. The
Board of Supervisors from both Tulare and Kern
Counties, counties who would presumably benefit
from the increased connectivity and economic growth
potential of CHSR voted their opposition to the program
as “currently constituted.
Moreover, questions have been raised about construction costs and timing,
environmental impact, operating costs and ridership
forecasts.
The State Legislative Analyst’s Office,
while not taking a position on the desirability of
CHSR, has critiqued the decision making process and
the quality of information available for legislators to
properly evaluate the issue.
Conclusions
In this study we have looked for, and failed to
find evidence of economic development that could
be clearly identified with the introduction or
operation of high-speed rail in Japan. This is surprising
because, at least for the Tokaido Line, conditions
were ripe for economic development. To be sure the
prefectures along the Tokaido Line grew. The late
60s and early 70s were a period of transformation and
growth throughout Japan. But the data don’t admit a
clear story that high-speed rail was in and of itself a
differentiating contributor.
Is it possible that absent high-speed rail Kanagawa
Prefecture would have grown more slowly? That
is an experiment that can never be performed. But
when we keep in mind that Japan’s growth in the 60s
and 70s were due to exports of goods and Kanagawa’s
main city, Yokahama, is a major port city for the
Tokyo area, it is easy to conclude that the economic
growth would have occurred with existing low speed
rail and truck transport.
The lessons for California are two-fold.
First, high-speed rail tends to create sprawl as it lowers
the cost for commuters and makes more far-flung
locations possible bedroom communities. This may
be considered a benefit by some and a detriment by
others.
Second, the claims that a multiplier effect (or economic development effect) of 450,000 jobs as a result of the introduction and operation of CHSR are not likely to be realized. There may be good reasons
to invest in CHSR including the possibility that
CHSR is the optimal infrastructure investment for a
growing population; but the economic argument, the
jobs argument, does not seem to stand on very solid
ground.
Here’s the crew who’ll be waiting for you, or at least this was the crew at one of UCSF’s recent screenings in Chinatown:
Click to expand
Free Skin Cancer Screening at UCSF WHAT: In honor of National Skin Cancer Awareness Month, the UCSF Department of Dermatology is offering free skin cancer screenings. The event is co-sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. No appointment is necessary and no insurance is required.
WHEN: Saturday, April 21, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. The screenings will take approximately 30 minutes.
WHERE: 1701 Divisadero Street, third floor, San Francisco.
WHY: Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer, with more than three million skin cancers diagnosed annually in some two million people in the United States. More new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed each year than the combined totals of breast, prostate, lung and colon cancers. Melanoma is the most common form of cancer for young adults 25 to 29 years old. Anyone can develop skin cancer, regardless of skin color or general health. Many can be easily treated when detected early.
About UCSF Medical Center
UCSF Medical Center consistently ranks as one of the top 10 hospitals in the United States. Recognized for innovative treatments, advanced technology, collaboration among health care professionals and scientists, and a highly compassionate patient care team, UCSF Medical Center serves as the academic medical center of the University of California, San Francisco. The medical center’s nationally preeminent programs include children’s health, the brain and nervous system, organ transplantation, women’s health and cancer. It operates as a self-supporting enterprise within UCSF and generates its own revenues to cover the operating costs of providing patient care.
FRISCO Day is an annual event held in spring to help all San Francisco Unified School District graduating seniors enroll in college, learn about financial literacy, develop support systems and build relationships with other students to help them complete the transition to college.
FRISCO Day (FRIday = Successful College Opportunities) started in April 2011 with more than 3,000 students participating at four locations: City College of San Francisco (CCSF) hosted all students who were CCSF bound and for students who were not yet sure of their educational plan, California State University (CSU) bound students went to San Francisco State’s campus to learn about the CSU system, University of California (UC) bound students visited UC San Francisco Mission Bay to learn about the UC system, and other two-and four-year public and private college bound students attended workshops delivered by the College Bound Network held at the Fort Mason Conference Center.
This year, students will go to CCSF (those students CCSF bound and for students who were not yet sure of their educational plan), University of California San Francisco Mission Bay, UCSF (those students who plan on going to a UC) and St. Mary’s Conference Center (for students who plan to attend a CSU or other 2 or 4 year colleges).
Why is it called FRISCO Day?
Click here for an article on the students who named FRISCO Day.”
(Well, that’s the belly of the beast, that’s the Fortress of Reaction right there. Mmmm.)
Anyway, here’s his myth #8, to get you started:
“#8: Only the wealthy can afford to attend UC.
Nothing belies this myth more than the incredible socioeconomic diversity of UC students.
About 40 percent of all UC undergraduates receive Pell grants. Pell grant recipients come from families with an annual household income of $50,000 or less.
To contextualize this percentage, consider this: Four of our campuses — Berkeley, Davis, UCLA and San Diego — each enroll more Pell grant recipients than the entire Ivy League combined.”
On Dec. 2, UC President Mark Yudof spoke to the California Chamber of Commerce Board in San Francisco regarding misconceptions about the University of California. The following are his prepared remarks.
“A Baker’s Dozen Myths about Higher Education”
Thank you. It’s a pleasure for me to be here this morning, and to see so many familiar faces.
You know, Mark Twain once said, “Predictions are very hard to make — especially when they deal with the future.”
Unpredictability shapes the job of every university president. And as everyone here knows, much has happened at the University of California in the last few weeks. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have about recent events during our Q&A.
Now, with apologies to David Letterman, I’ve come here today with a list. Unfortunately, it’s not very funny.
It’s a list of 13 myths about higher education.
(I should add that because I’m a big fan of Wallace Stevens, I almost called this speech “Thirteen Ways of Looking at a University.” But in deference to the language of commerce, I settled on “A Baker’s Dozen Myths about Higher Education.”)
These are the myths driving the grand narrative about universities — the grand narrative that says students are being priced out of universities like UC, while funding instead goes to new facilities or administrator salaries. So today, I’m here to dispel these myths.
#1: The cost of producing UC degrees and credit hours has gone up over the last decade.
I hear this myth all the time. And it’s frustrating, because this cost has actually dropped by more than 15 percent, in constant dollars, since the 1990s.
This cost has dropped in part due to a broad range of systemwide efficiencies: common IT systems; reduced employee travel; thousands of unfilled faculty and staff positions; one-third fewer employees at the UC Office of the President; a higher student-faculty ratio, and so on.
What has gone up, however, is the student contribution, or co-pay, to these degrees. At the same time, the state’s contribution per student has plummeted — by 60 percent in the last two decades.
To put this see-saw in perspective, UC students now cover roughly 46 percent of general fund support. But 20 years ago, their share hovered around 12 percent.
Now, sometimes I hear a variation on this myth, in the form of #2:
“Former state Supreme Court Justice and UC Davis School of Law Professor Emeritus Cruz Reynoso is the first member of task force that will review report about UC Davis pepper spraying from ex-L.A. police chief William Bratton.”
I, for one, am prepared to allow our UC some breathing room on this one. Let’s give them a little while and then see what they come up with, on both this incident and the prior UC Berkeley baton incident, m’kay?
Click to expand
“Cruz Reynoso chairs task force on pepper spray incident
Date: 2011-11-28
University of California President Mark G. Yudof announced today (Nov. 28) the appointment of former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso to chair the task force formed to address the pepper spraying of UC Davis students.Reynoso, a UC Davis law professor emeritus who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2000, will be “absolutely fair,” Yudof said.The task force is part of UC’s efforts to address policing issues in the wake of the Nov. 18 pepper spraying of UC Davis students and other incidents involving law enforcement officers and protesters. Acting in response to a written request from UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, Yudof last Tuesday announced that former Los Angeles police chief William J. Bratton would lead an independent fact-finding of the pepper spray incident and report back the results to him within 30 days.Bratton, who also led the New York City police department, now heads the New York-based Kroll consulting company as chairman. He is a renowned expert in progressive community policing. Assembly Speaker John A. Perez also had made a request to Yudof and UC Regents Chair Sherry Lansing for an independent investigation.Under the plan, Bratton’s report also will be presented to the task force that Yudof is forming, again at Katehi’s request. The task force will consist of a cross-section of students, faculty, staff and other UC community members. Reynoso is the first member named to the task force. The task force will review the report and make recommendations to Katehi on steps that should be taken to ensure the safety of peaceful protesters on campus. She will present her implementation plan to Yudof.
Reynoso, a farmworker’s son, rose from an Orange County barrio to become the first Latino to serve on the California Supreme Court. He has a bachelor’s degree from Pomona College and a law degree from UC Berkeley. His distinguished career includes serving as director of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, a UCLA law school professor and as vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He joined the UC Davis law school faculty in 2001 as the inaugural holder of its Boochever and Bird Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality.
In remarks at the regents meeting today, Yudof reiterated his support for protecting the right to peaceful protests on campus and emphasized that Bratton’s investigation will be independent.
Last Tuesday, in a separate effort, Yudof also appointed UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley Jr. to lead a systemwide examination of police protocols and policies as they apply to protests at all 10 UC campuses. The review is expected to result in recommended best practices for policing protests across the 10 UC campuses.
University of California President Mark G. Yudof moved on two fronts today (Tuesday, Nov. 22) to address policing issues in the wake of the pepper spraying of UC Davis students and other incidents involving law enforcement officers and protesters.
Acting in response to a written request from UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, Yudof agreed to conduct a thorough review of the events of Nov. 18 on the Davis campus.
As a first step, Yudof reached out to former Los Angeles police chief William J. Bratton to undertake an independent fact-finding of the pepper spray incident and report back the results to him within 30 days.
Bratton, who also led the New York City police department, now heads the New York-based Kroll consulting company as chairman. He also is a renowned expert in progressive community policing.
“My intent,” Yudof said, “is to provide the Chancellor and the entire University of California community with an independent, unvarnished report about what happened at Davis.”
Assembly Speaker John A. Perez also had made a request to President Yudof and UC Regents Chair Sherry Lansing for an independent investigation.
Under the plan, Bratton’s report also will be presented to an advisory panel that Yudof is forming, again at Katehi’s request. The panel will consist of a cross-section of students, faculty, staff and other UC community members.
The advisory panel, whose members will be announced at a later date, will review the report and make recommendations to Chancellor Katehi on steps that should be taken to ensure the safety of peaceful protesters on campus. She will present her implementation plan to President Yudof.
On a second track, Yudof appointed UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Christopher Edley Jr. to lead a system-wide examination of police protocols and policies as they apply to protests at all 10 UC campuses.
This effort will include visits to campuses for discussions with students, faculty and staff, and consultation with an array of experts.
The review is expected to result in recommended best practices for policing protests across the 10 UC campuses.
“With these actions,” Yudof said, “we are moving forward to identify what needs to be done to ensure the safety of students and others who engage in non-violent protests on UC campuses. The right to peaceful protest on all of our campuses must be protected.”
