Environmental Economics

Dare County votes away the $.01 beach nourishment sales tax

You can't even get residents of an Outer Banks county to support higher taxes for beach nourishment (Dare sales tax ...):

Nearly four out of five voters who showed up at the polls Tuesday in Dare County chose to overturn the penny increase in the local sales tax in a historic referendum. ... The fight in Dare County was not just about the sales tax. It was also what it would pay for. County officials planned to use the estimated $12 million it would have raised each year to pump sand onto the coastal beaches to counter erosion and protect oceanfront properties. Some residents argued that would harm the aquatic environment, waste taxpayer money and benefit only a sliver of the county's population.

Trackbacks

Due to excessive trackback spam we are no longer accepting them. I apologize to all those legitimate trackbackers who will be inconvenienced.

As for me, I never figured out how the stupid things work so I simply embed a web link like a regular web page. I think this is one of those signs that the youngsters are slipping ahead technologically.

Next thing you know, I won't update to the new version of MSOffice, I'll keep using Windows after Linux takes over, I'll use MSFrontpage for webpages instead of Dreamweaver and I'll keep using Limdep for econometrics when everyone else is using Stata. Dinosaur-itis.

Defending the World Trade Organization

Note: due to technical difficulties the following post is from Jason Scorse [not John W]:

A few weeks ago I was one of the speakers on a panel entitled, “Free Trade Agreements and Sustainable Agriculture,” at the Ecofarm Conference in Asilomar, California. The other two speakers were a representative from Oxfam and a representative from The Forum for Free Trade and Democracy. I knew that both of them, as well as the crowd, would favor the anti-globalization agenda, and I looked forward to making the case in favor of free trade. I put together a 20-minute talk on who would be the likely winners and losers if we truly made a shift to free trade in agriculture, and how the benefits both to people and the environment would clearly outweigh any costs (and even these would mostly come at the expense of special interests).

Another user fee reversal

First Tennessee, now Washington:

Hoping to lure disgruntled patrons back to Washington's state parks, the House on Monday voted to repeal a highly unpopular $5 parking fee blamed for driving away millions of visitors. ... During the first two years, the money was used to whittle away a $350 million maintenance backlog. In the current budget, it helps finance basic operations at 120 state parks. ... Kessler and Gov. Chris Gregoire say they support using $3.4 million of the state's budget surplus and laying off 22 workers to offset the loss in the short term. But no long-term replacement for the revenue has emerged.

Sometimes, I just don't understand how the world works.

The fee had raised $11.5 million, chump change when you have a $350 million maintenance backlog. But still, whatever happened to the "user pays principle." Do even state parkers demand subsidies these days. Are they that poweful politically (the vote was 94-2)? And, oh yes, please lower our taxes please ... and fix the toilets at the state park.

Hat tip to env-econ reader Leif.

Slow loading zone

Env-econ.net has been loading slowly lately, arggghhh, so I've removed the links to The Truth Laid Bear and Blogstreet. My limited test reveals this to be the problem (I'm not sure which one is the cause and I don't care, arggghhh). Unless I hear something that suggests these links aren't the probem, they won't be put back up.

Tim is out of town and now this is my personal blog

Like I said, when the cat is away ...

I'm stoked. For my birthday I bought Springsteen's Born to Run: 30th Anniversary 3-Disc Set for myself. I just got it in the mail and Thunder Road is playing a little too loud. It's going to be difficult to revise that nagging paper this afternoon.

Plus, I just got an email that my very own copy of the newly published Handbook on Contingent Valuation should arrive in my box shortly. I wrote chapter 3 and 4 (4 with Glenn Blomquist) back in, let's see, ... , it seems like it was around the time that Born to Run first came out. But that can't be, I was struggling with puberty back then, not hypothetical bias and temporal embedding. It must have been about 1999. And yes, as you feared, I'm going to say it: when the book arrives I'm partying like it's 1999 (cringe).

... the mouse will play.

How long are you going to be gone, Tim? I hope Typepad lets me change the name of this blog from "Environmental Economics" (bor-ring) to "John Whitehead's Econ, and other things, Blog."

How Far Does the Clean Water Act Reach?

From the WSJ Law Blog:

Does the Clean Water Act Reach the Nation’s Arterioles?, by Peter Lattman, WSJ Law Blog: The Supreme Court held oral arguments today in two cases involving the Clean Water Act. The cases pit developers against environmentalists, and according to a story in yesterday’s New York Times, “more than half of the nation’s streams and wetlands could be removed from the protections of the federal Clean Water Act if two legal challenges” are supported by the newly remade Court.

Environmental Economists in San Antonio

I'm off for three days in lovely San Antonio, Texas.  I'm attending the W-1133 meetings--Benefits and Costs of Resource Policies Affecting Public and Private Lands.  The point of these meetings might take a little explanation. 

Beach (re)nourishment

Yesterday we announced a new opinion poll on whether federal money should be spent on beach renourishment. President Bush's budget has an answer to the question (Nothing shelled out for beaches):

President Bush's proposed budget doesn't include money to restore a single grain of sand to North Carolina's eroding coastline.

This isn't a huge surprise to coastal leaders. Neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations have been interested much in beach nourishment. So once again, getting the money comes down to lobbying Congress.

New opinion poll!

A new opinion poll appeared over the weekend (take a peek over at the right hand column). We wonder:

Do you support or oppose the use of federal money for renourishment of beaches?

• strongly support
• support
• neither/don't know
• oppose
• strongly oppose

Renourishment involves the placement of sand onto eroding coastal beaches. The benefits of renourishment accrue to property owners and, in the absence of beach retreat (moving beach houses), beach goers (no one wants to go to a narrow beach and lean against a wall). The costs are, well, costly. The good sand is hard to find and it is expensive to move.

We look forward to finding out what you think ... so that we'll know what to say about it in the future! But, really, we're like politicians. We don't blog according to polls. We're strong leaders in the envir-blogosphere. Strong leaders don't need polls.