« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 30, 2006

Doing the Math

So developers for the old G.C. Murphy building near Market Square have announced they would like convert the building into apartments instead of condos. Nothing too shocking there, but there's this:

The apartments would target people with incomes of $40,000 to $50,000 a year, including Downtown workers and recent college graduates.

The average apartment would feature about 1,100 square feet, with rents running "much less" than $1.50 a square foot, Mr. Piatt said. Most apartments would be 1 1/2-- to two-bedroom units, although studios and three bedrooms also would be available.

Come again?

Let's do the math, shall we?

1,100 * $1.50 = $1,650 in rent per month.
$1,650 * 12 months = $19,800 per year

Note: no mention of parking access. If garage space is not included, factor in roughly $2,400 per year for a parking lease.

So we're at $21,200 per year for housing and parking. No word on whether utilities would be included in the rental fees.

So I'm a single college graduate, making, say, $45,000 per year. After taxes, I'll have $37,500 in my pocket. My housing costs would be 56% of my take home pay.

Now, I can certainly see someone making considerably more than $45,000 in salary deciding to rent a 1,100 square foot apartment in the heart of downtown Pittsburgh. That makes perfect sense. But say that your target demographic is college grads making up to $50,000 a year? I don't get it.

November 26, 2006

View from the Backyard

November 22, 2006

On Cycling

VeloNews has published an interview with 1988 Tour de France winner Pedro Delgado. Delgado lays into the current crop of racers and organizers, and I found this bit on strategy in the grand tours very much on target:

In cycling there are the downhills as well. The race is in the feed zones, on the downhills, these are the places to attack. In my time, we lived under a constant tension; the race was always on the edge. Laurent Fignon would attack in the feed zones, he would always try to fan the race out in the wind by making echelons, and he would attack on any day. Stephan Roche was another. He was one that would often attack going downhill. Everyone and anyone would attack at any time and at any place.

Now this is not the case. It is like a rule that has been established - you make your time in the time trials or in climbing the mountains, and the rest of the race is simply of no interest to the greats, to those who are in contention.

He is absolutely correct. Since Miquel Indurain began his domination of the Tour de France, the peloton has been ruled with an iron fist (Armstrong, of course, was an absolute dictator), and we have been given the impression that anyone who does not bow to the wishes of the patron is somehow cheating. This is flat out wrong. Why, in a race like the Tour de France, should the GC riders be prohibited from racing? Of course, stronger teams, especially ones like Armstrong's Discovery mates, would force the pace and likely cripple any chance the attacker had, that is still not a reason to forgo the attacks (I remember saying last year that T-Mobile should have decided its goal was simply to dethrone Armstrong--with three fine cyclists in Ullrich, Kloden, and Vino they could have worn down the Disco boys).

November 17, 2006

Death, Music, and Other Things

Last night, the boys and I went to the co-op to pick up ingredients for tonight's little dinner party. While packing up the car, said dinner guests arrived at the Factory to head to the climbing gym. They stopped over to the car and said hello to the boys, and we chatted for a bit, and then went our separate ways. Sebastien tends to associate people with their pets, and he got to know our friends' husky, Sabre, during the many (well, few) climbing trips we took together. Seb has a bit of a fear of dogs, but given Sabre's temperament, he was always very curious. So when I informed Seb that they would be joining us for dinner, he asked if Sabre was coming. Now, Sabre is no longer alive. He was old, and suffering from various ailments, and his owners sadly euthanised him. So instead of simply saying "no, Sabre isn't coming" I said "Sabre isn't alive anymore."

Lesson learned.

Being three and half, Sebastien likes asking questions.

"What is Sabre not alive anymore because?" (He has not yet mastered "why")

"He was old and sick."

"What was Sabre old and sick because?"

"Because everything gets old?"

"Will Oren get old and sick?"

(What have I gotten myself into? I this point I was envisioning nightmares for the poor child.)

"Well, Oren will most certainly get old."

"Will Oren die?"

Err. Now I've done it. Sigh.

"Yes, some day."

"Help please, with my fruit snack."

Thankfully, there ended the conversation, and Seb proceeded to tell Oren to stop eating all his toys.

Changing gears.

I've finally started to listen to music at work again. In the heaviest rotation as of late are Freakwater's Feels Like the Third Time and Galaxie 500's Copenhagen, the taping of their final show together. Freakwater makes me want to dust off my guitar. Perhaps I will.

I came across this blog today (via Daniel Larison) and got a kick out of the author's bio:

Dennis Dale has no scholastic credentials, is not recognized as an authority on any subject, and is not respected in any field. Dennis is marginally employed and lives in the Pacific Northwest.

Describes me perfectly.

November 16, 2006

Sustainability and Localism

The urban homesteaders at Hen Waller have posted about a New York Times Small Business section article entitled "Why Roots Matter." The Times explores the interest in local and regional food producers as consumers are faced with the reality that not all food labeled as "organic" necessarily is local and/or produced with sustainable methods. There are two reasons to be optimistic that maybe, just maybe, people are beginning to rethink the current modes of food production. First, consumers are willing to seek out and pay more for locally grown food. Second, regional and national suppliers and producers are finding ways to re-invest in local producers. These are precisely the sort of steps that have to be taken, and what is really great is that it is happening generally without government intervention.

November 09, 2006

Reactionary Democrats?

Slate's Jacob Weisberg hangs a new title on the wave of Democratic congressional winners--economic nationalists. These folks campaigned on "reactionary" economic issues--limiting free trade and outsourcing, and managing illegal immigration. Weisberg believes, however, that these "nationalists" want to strike a blow not against big business, but against the poor of the world.

Come again?

Weisberg is a supporter of "creative destruction"--the economic philosophy that says you cannot make wine without smashing a few grapes (side note: everyone's favorite TV show, the West Wing, dealt with this very issue, and oh boy, did it bother me). To his credit, Weisberg understands that President Clinton's efforts in the 1990s failed because no one ever attempted the second half of the economic program--the care and retraining of workers displaced by outsourcing and free trade. Of course, Weisberg's history lesson ends there, ignoring the rather rich tradition of Democratic resistence to big business.

Weisberg never picks up his original premise again--that a vote for our workers is a vote against the poor of the world--though he mentions the apparent prejudice of protectionists:

For some reason, economic nationalists never seem to complain about job-killing Dutch or Irish competition. The targets of their anger are consistently China and Mexico, with occasionally whacks at Dubai, Oman, Peru, and Vietnam.

Perhaps that because one must go to a boutique shop to purchase Irish or Dutch wares? Sorry, I don't buy it. Yes, "Buy American" has a certain nationalist ring to it, but the benefits of a national economy that actually produces things could be enjoyed by all (we are, by the way, primarily producers of services these days). Weisberg seems to think that in our global economy (and yes, despite what anyone tells you, we are a part of a global economy), we must be more concerned about spreading the wealth abroad instead of spreading it within our borders.

So, yes, maybe we (well, other people) have ushered in a wave of reactionary Democrats. I say that's a good thing. These congressional representatives want to do their jobs--protecting the interests of the people that elected them. How is that a bad thing?

November 08, 2006

All Things Bicycle

First, a bit of racing news. Ivan Basso has signed with Discovery Channel. This is not necessarily a surprise, as DS Johan Bruyneel has mentioned negotiations with the Italian in the past. Basso, remember, was excluded from the Tour de France because of (unsubstantiated) links to a Spanish doping ring. CSC, his former team, decided to drop Basso, even after he was cleared of any involvement. Basso will likely submit to a DNA test to return to the ProTour in an effort to completely clear his name.

A few comments about the signing. First, Discovery is poised to have an incredible year. It's likely that George Hincapie will focus primarily on the spring classics (and given his run of bad luck this season, I believe his time at Paris-Roubaix has come), and reprise his role has super-domestique for the Tour (I could also see his challenging for the green jersey). The odd man out at the moment is Levi Leipheimer, who left Gerolsteiner for Disco this fall. He probably signed on thinking he would be the team's Grand Tour man, but with Basso on board, his focus may be on the smaller national tours and possible the Vuelta. If Basso continues his quest for the Giro/TdF double, it is entirely possible that Disco could sweep the Grand Tours, no mean feat.

On the other hand, I could see a disastrous season, much like what T-Mobile experienced two years ago when they had the super team of Ullrich, Kloden, and Vino. Despite the firepower, T-Mobile could not produce the results. It is worth noting, however, that Bruyneel is a fine DS, and I can't really imagine him mismanaging his arsenal, especially in the Grand Tours.

I gave the new (old) Cannondale a second shakedown this morning. The bottom bracket on the Surly is squeaking, and I didn't have time to strip it down last night, so I decided to spare my ears and ride the gears. I replaced the bar-ends, and that made the straight bars a bit more tolerable, though I'm still going to swap them out for something else. I'm considering removing the front derailleur and putting the cyclocross cranks (currently sitting in the cabinet) on with just a single 39 tooth ring. I figure with the seven speed cassette, that should be more than enough gears. I spent most of the commute in the big ring (which I'm guessing is a 42 or 44), and only slip into the middle ring for the short climb at the end of Pine Creek Valley. I'm also considering dropping the indexed shifting on the rear derailleur. Bar-wise, I'm leaning toward mounting a moustache bar upside down, mounting road brake levers and an old school thumbshifter, or better yet, an old bar end (why, oh why did i ever get ride of the set I had?). I'm not sold on the saddle (an old Bontrager), though I think the nose could be tipped up a bit.

I have to admit, the bike is sorta fun to ride, especially on my commute. I can cut roughly five minutes on the ride in, and close to ten minutes off the ride thanks to the coasting drivetrain (just being able to let it rip on the descents without my legs spinning out of control is an advantage). It also considerably more comfortable, but that is expected with 1.5 inch tires. I know this sounds like blasphemy coming from my mouth, but gears ain't all that bad.

November 06, 2006

The Scene

I've noticed a few interesting items lately, and felt the need to at least mention them here.

First, Daniel Larison has been skewering our incumbent junior senator, Rick Santorum, over his rather curious speeches regarding the vast importance of the conflict in Iraq. I considered, briefly, actually voting for Robert Casey, Jr. this year, in the apparently vain hope that he is cut from the same mold as his father, but alas, he is not, and I have increasingly disillusioned with politics, so I will not likely be at the polls next Tuesday.

Second, Rod Dreher has been flapping in the wind over his support of Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb, who is apparently a member of the long lost species of Democratic reactionaries. The problem? Webb is, as most good democrats are, pro-choice. Now Dreher is forced to explain why someone who is stridently pro-life would support a pro-choice politician. The whole situation makes me wonder: why is Dreher voicing opinions on a Senate candidate a thousand miles away from his state?

Third, the Ted Haggard scandal. Poor man. When Christianity receives a black eye, it is generally self-inflicted. Again, I'm not sure I care much about the man's guilt or innocence (it is not my church). The speck-plank bit is quite relevant, though. I do want to comment on this post by Mark Driscoll, specifically this bit:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

Now, Driscoll has some other good things to say about the "scandal," but this...I'm not sure where he's coming from. It's a rather dangerous bit that assigns some blame, though it's likely Driscoll knows absolutely nothing about the Haggard's relationship (it is worth noting that Driscoll is not writing directly to the Haggards). He wants to "take one for the team" but truthfully, he is just perpetuating stereotypes and shifting blame. There is also the not-so-matter of spiritual discipline--Driscoll appears to believe that if the man has "physical needs" his wife must satisfy them (after all, that's in the Bible, right?). I would like to think, however, that Driscoll fired off this salvo without thinking through it completely. Driscoll is a bit of Pied Piper for young, reformed pastors and pastors-to-be, and this exactly the sort of statement that gives the wrong advice.