Saturday, November 09, 2019

ANS -- In Detroit, A New Type of Agricultural Neighborhood Has Emerged

this is an article about Agrihoods, especially what is happening in Detroit.  There is some positive stuff happening on the community level all over this country -- you just have to look for it.  
--Kim


In Detroit, A New Type of Agricultural Neighborhood Has Emerged

The Michigan Urban Farming Initiative is focusing on food insecurity and community investment.
1.mufi_sign.jpg

A decade ago, a resurgence of urban gardens and farms sprouted a new agricultural trend around the country. And while many of them continue to thrive, in the past five years, another trend has entered the urban agricultural scene: agrihoods, short for agricultural neighborhoods.

The term, trademarked in 2014 by Southern California-based development company Rancho Mission Viejo, is a real estate brand that—different from urban gardening—centers agriculture in neighborhoods, and is mostly targeted at affluent millennials, who are increasingly considering proximity to fresh and "clean" foods in their homebuying decisions. The Urban Land Institute defines agrihoods as master-planned housing communities with working farms as their focus. Overwhelmingly, they have large swaths of green space, orchards, hoop houses and greenhouses, and some with  barns, outdoor community kitchens, and environmentally sustainable homes decked with solar panels and composting.

Agrihoods, which number about 90 nationwide, are typically in rural and suburban areas—with some near large urban centers such as Phoenix, Colorado, and Atlanta—replacing previous generations' desire for the lush green acres of golf communities. They're newer communities with homes that cost $300,000 to $700,000, but can be in the millions such as those in the Walden Monterey community in the Bay Area. At Walden Monterey, luxury amenities are expected where lots start at $5 million each.

Instead of living on or near a golf course, San Francisco's tech giants can live near a unique farm-to-table agrihood, where they walk out their front doors to pick the fixings for their avocado toast.

But a new type of agrihood has emerged.

Donate to YES!

Within the city of Detroit, home to nearly 1,400 community gardens and farms, there is one officially designated agrihood, Michigan Urban Farming Initiative. The nonprofit in the North End neighborhood, just north of the recently gentrified Midtown area, calls itself America's First Sustainable Urban Agrihood.

It was founded in 2012 and gained its development designation in 2016.

Co-founder Tyson Gersh said at the time, "Over the last four years, we've grown from an urban garden that provides fresh produce for our residents to a diverse, agricultural campus that has helped sustain the neighborhood, attracted new residents and area investment." They've received corporate support from Target, BASF, and General Motors.

The Michigan initiative is a 3-acre farm focusing on food insecurity in one of Detroit's historic communities that was once home to a thriving Black middle class. Now the median home value is under $25,000, and about 35% of the residents are homeowners.

The Detroit agrihood model plans to provide a Community Resource Center with educational programs and meeting space across from the garden, a café, and two commercial kitchens.

"For us, food insecurity is the biggest issue," says, Quan Blunt, the Michigan initiative's farm manager. "The closest [fresh] produce store to this neighborhood is Whole Foods [4 miles away in Midtown], and you know how expensive they can be."

MUFI grows lots of hot peppers and collard greens, because that is what North Enders like, Blunt says. But they're also an economic opportunity. At MUFI, one of their sustainability goals is to create hot sauces from their fresh peppers to sell. The farm also has rows and rows of other vegetable varieties all dotted with marigolds, which help keep bugs away, organically.

Blunt, who joined the Peace Corps after college to do food security work in India, was born and raised in Detroit, and is proud of the agricultural heritage passed down through his family.

My grandmother grew up in this neighborhood," says Blunt, a graduate of Michigan State University's College of Agriculture who majored in Food Science and Environmental Studies. Growing up in Detroit, labeled a "food desert," was a major motivation for Blunt to enter the agricultural field. "People deserve fresh food," Blunt says, "I believe good nutrition can help people reach their potential."

Photo by Michelle Gerard.

Blunt says MUFI recognizes the importance of being a part of the community, and works closely with the North End Block Club. MUFI has served them in ways such as neighborhood cleanups, he says. With a trip to the farm, one can see that the grass is neatly manicured, even at abandoned property near the area.

"Community members can use our tools, our lawnmower," Blunt says. "Whenever we get large numbers of volunteers [for the farm], we go first to the block club president to see what she needs done. The goal here is to strengthen the community."

At MUFI, produce is free to all. The farm is open for harvesting on Saturday mornings.

The free-food concept has been a topic of debate within urban farming communities, particularly those whose focus is food sovereignty, controlling the means of one's own food production and distribution.

The Detroit Black Community Food Security Network has spent more than a decade working toward this end. The community-based nonprofit membership organization recently celebrated 13 years of service to the city. The Detroit network operates D-Town Farm, the largest of the Detroit's gardens and farms, on the city's west side.

"[At D Town] we are most interested in fostering self-determination," the network's executive director Malik Yakini says.

The 7-acre farm grows more than 30 different fruits, vegetables and herbs, which are sold at local farmers markets and to wholesale customers at the farm. It employs five people part time, and hosts up to 40 to 50 volunteers weekly during the busy summer months.

"Urban agriculture is not a one size fits all venture,"  Yakini says. "There are various motivations behind it."

Some folks are trying to improve food insecurity and access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and some do it because they think it is a good community exercise, he says.

"Our purpose is to get Black people working on their own behalf," Yakini explains. "That is not to say that garden leadership has to be exclusively Black, but in a majority Black city [which Detroit is], we hope that the gardening organizations reflect the population." For Yakini, building gardens in Detroit is to build economic and environmental justice as well.

Photo by Michelle Gerard.

Oakland Avenue Urban Farm—also in the North End, and a neighbor of MUFI—sells its produce as well, and products created from that produce, such as their delicious fruit jam, Afro Jam. But Jerry Ann Hebron, the Oakland farm's executive director, allows bartering for volunteer hours or service to the farm.

At Oakland Avenue, community events are frequent. Farm-to-table dinners, parties, and other opportunities to gather is a priority. "The Oakland Avenue corridor, historically, was important to Detroit," Hebron explains. The neighborhood was the northern extension of the historic Hastings Street, where Black entrepreneurship prospered. "And because it is where we chose to do this work, it was important to have a space that is for the community and they could feel connected to."

Detroit's agricultural neighborhoods, whether or not branded as an "agrihood," are attractions for newcomers to the city. Gardens, to some, signal safety in a city that has for many years been labeled as "the most dangerous" or "most violent" for many years. And as more transplants make Detroit home, the hundreds of acres of vacant land across the sprawling 139-square-foot city are prime real estate opportunities for new developments.

Real estate entrepreneur and investor Rondre' "Key" Brooks says as he sells homes to clients he finds that they are not just looking to buy a home, but to buy into a neighborhood and community.

"Agricultural neighborhoods bring a different look and feel to the community," Brooks says. "While there are the obvious healthy lifestyle benefits, they also create a more appealing environment."

For MUFI's Quan Blunt, Detroit's embrace of agriculture paints an optimistic picture, "Air quality would go up. Nutrition would improve," he says wistfully, "What a city Detroit could be."

Thursday, November 07, 2019

ANS -- GM selling Lordstown plant to electric truck startup

I am sending this partly because I want you to know that a big problem with moving forward is the conservatism (in a more traditional sense) of Unions.  they just haven't come into the 21st century, and have no courage to try new things.  They should be enthusiastic and trying to help on this venture, but, no, they oppose it because it might fail.... 
It's about an old GM plant being bought by a new company that proposes to build electric delivery trucks in it.  
--Kim


GM selling Lordstown plant to electric truck startup

Data pix.
GM selling Lordstown plant to electric truck startup

LORDSTOWN, Ohio – General Motors is selling their Lordstown plant to Lordstown Motors Corporation, an electric-truck startup.

GM opened the Lordstown plant in 1966. It closed earlier this year after General Motors announced a restructuring plan that required closing several facilities.

Lordstown Motors plans to build electric pickup trucks and delivery trucks.  They are hoping to acquire a contract to make plug-in mail trucks for the United States Postal Service.

They have wanted to take over the closed car factory for quite some time, which is in part why the startup was formed.

Now that the company has reached an acquisition agreement, Steve Burns, Chief Executive Officer of Lordstown Motors, says he's turning his attention to raising funds to convert the plant from building gasoline-burning Chevrolet Cruze sedans to plug-in pickups.

The United Auto Workers reportedly oppose the Lordstown plant sale because of the alleged risk involved.  The UAW cites financial concerns associated with a startup, as well as the uncertainty in future demand for electric vehicles.

However, Burns says he's confident in Lordstown Motors' ability to be successful, especially since he hired a team of veteran workers from GM, Ford Motor Co. and Karma Automotive LLC. His chief production officer also served as a manufacturing director at Tesla for over three years.

"We've got a solid team and I'm confident in our fundraising efforts," Burns told Bloomberg News.

Terms of the sale and the investors who are behind the deal weren't disclosed Thursday by the privately held Lordstown Motors. However, Burns said that GM is not among the investors.

Acquiring the plant will allow the company formed just months ago to begin seeking more money so that it can begin production of a new electric pickup truck that will be marketed to commercial customers such as utility companies and municipal governments.

So far, the focus has been on designing the truck, building its management team and buying the plant, he said. "We've raised money to get this far, but the large fundraising starts now," Burns said.

The company, he said, had a unique opportunity to buy an auto plant still equipped welding, stamping and painting operations needed to produce vehicles.

"Normally when these plants shut down, by the time someone buys it, it has been gutted," he said. "To build from scratch would be in the billions."

While production will be limited in the beginning, the plan is to create a hub for electric vehicle manufacturing. "We didn't buy this plant to not fill it up and get to full production," he said.

Burns said he knows there will be skepticism until Lordstown Motors starts producing an electric pickup truck that customers love.

The trucks, he said, will use hub motors in each wheel, eliminating the need for drive shafts and other parts.

"We're essentially reinventing electric vehicles," Burns said. "The wheel is the motor. The only moving parts on this truck are the wheels. It's a super, simple vehicle."

The deal comes as GM itself is trying to move toward the future with an eye on autonomous and electric vehicles, with plans announced earlier this year to build its own electric pickup truck at a Detroit plant. GM also is building an electric vehicle battery cell factory in the Lordstown area that will be run by a joint venture.

Burns thinks his company can compete for a share of the electric vehicle market by being quicker to adjust to new technology and by targeting commercial, fleet customers who want more than what conventional trucks can supply.

Congressman Tim Ryan (OH-13) released the following statement to FOX 8 regarding the acquisition:

"I am very encouraged that the Lordstown plant has been acquired by Lordstown Motors Corporation. I am extremely proud of the men and women who helped build the General Motors brand of vehicles at the Lordstown Complex. Electric vehicles are the future of transportation, and my goal is to make sure these vehicles are built right here in Northeast Ohio. I will continue to fight to bring jobs back to this facility and the district—which has and will always be my top priority. I stand ready to help this new company start building electric trucks in the Valley and put Northeast Ohioans back to work. In addition to building electric vehicles, I am also working to ensure that Northeast Ohio is at the forefront of electric vehicle components such as batteries and fuel cells."

Continuing coverage, here.

ANS -- 11K SCIENTISTS: PLEASE PANIC, CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL

Here is a summary and link to an article about climate change happening faster than predicted -- which, if you know how scientists do this, was predictable.  
Find it here:    https://futurism.com/the-byte/11k-scientists-please-panic-climate-change-kill-us?utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_03cd0a26cd-b51e49aa94-246227969&mc_cid=b51e49aa94&mc_eid=ddbc8dd924&utm_source=The%20Future%20Is&utm_campaign=b51e49aa94-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_05_06_09   
--Kim


Global Warning

More than 11,000 scientists in 153 nations have endorsed a newly published statement on climate change — and it's extremely gloomy.

"The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected," the authors wrote. "It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity."

Climate Emergency

The statement, published on Tuesday in the journal BioScience, includes decades' worth of hard data and scientific analysis on climate trends to support the authors' claims. It also includes a slew of concrete actions humanity could take to address climate change, from replacing fossil fuels with renewables to reducing meat consumption.

"We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency," the scientists wrote. "To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems."

Decades Of Destruction

The timing of the statement's publication was appropriate for two reasons.

First, this year marks the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference. And just one day prior to the statement's publication, the United States officially notified the United Nations that it's leaving the Paris Climate Agreement — potentially humanity's best hope of avoiding the disaster foreshadowed by the authors.

READ MORE: More Than 11,000 Scientists Just Officially Declared a Global Climate Emergency [ScienceAlert]

More on climate change: "Climate Apartheid" Is Imminent. Only the Rich Will Survive.

SEND HELP

11K SCIENTISTS: PLEASE PANIC, CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL

IMAGE VIA NEEDPIX/VICTOR TANGERMANN

Sunday, November 03, 2019

ANS -- WHY A “PUBLIC OPTION” ISN’T ENOUGH

This article is from last July, but it appears I didn't send it out then.  It has now become apparent that you guys need to see it --- I have just witnessed a conversation on FaceBook between some people who seem to be confused about health insurance, and why we need single payer and not just a public option or some other fix to private insurance companies.  We need something BETTER than Medicare for all -- we need what other civilized countries have, that is, real single payer.  If it were too expensive, why would almost all countries in the world have it?
--Kim

JULY 14, 2019

WHY A "PUBLIC OPTION" ISN'T ENOUGH

 

The point of replacing private health insurance with single payer…

by BENJAMIN STUDEBAKER & NATHAN J. ROBINSON

At one point, the meaning of "Medicare For All" was quite clear. Under Medicare For All, every American, instead of having to navigate the tangled and inefficient marketplace of for-profit health insurance corporations, would simply be enrolled in Medicare. Instead of people paying premiums and copays to an insurance company, they would pay taxes, and those taxes would be used to pay providers. As Dr. Abdul El-Sayed wrote in this magazine, Medicare For All is "single-payer healthcare that would provide cradle-to-grave government-supported healthcare for all Americans." 

But as Democrats have realized how well the phrase "Medicare For All" polls with voters, its meaning has been deliberately muddied. Most of the Democratic presidential candidates now support something they call "Medicare For All," but it's often not clear what they mean by it. Some, when they clarify specifics, make it clear that what they actually want is a "public option," i.e. a new kind of government insurance plan that you can buy within the structure of the existing healthcare marketplace. Pete Buttigieg says that he believes in "Medicare For All Who Want It." Presumably, what this would mean in practice is that when you go to healthcare.gov to select your insurance plan, one option would be a thing called "Medicare For All," and you could buy it, through premiums, if you chose it. This is, as Dr. El-Sayed points out, a "rebranding" of the concept, an attempt to present Bernie Sanders' single payer proposal and Barack Obama's old abandoned "public option" idea as roughly the same. 

But how do proponents of (actual) Medicare For All respond to the basic arguments made by those proposing "Medicare For All Who Want It"? What Pete Buttigieg and other moderates say is this: Why force people into a government program? Most people are satisfied with their healthcare (though note the huge difference between the 70 percent of Medicare enrollees who say they are satisfied with the cost, and the 51 percent of people with private insurance who are satisfied with cost). Why abolish private insurance? Why not just have insurance companies compete against a government plan in an open marketplace where people can choose? That way, everyone who wants Medicare gets it, while people who are satisfied with their current insurance can keep it. Everyone wins. The implication here is that anyone who supports a full single-payer plan, in which everyone would just be insured under a government program, must be rigidly ideological, wanting to shutter the private insurance industry for no good reason. Why would we do that instead of just providing a new option?

To understand why full "single payer" health insurance is the left's goal, rather than just "another insurance plan on the marketplace," it helps first to understand the left's vision for how healthcare should work. In an ideal world, your healthcare would not be something you have to think about very much. If you got sick, you would choose a doctor's office and make an appointment. You would go to that appointment and see the doctor. Then you would leave. You would not have to apply for insurance, not have to pay bills. And this would be the case no matter who you were or how much money you made. In Britain, this is what you do already. As U.K. Current Affairscontributor Aisling McCrea has explained, the NHS makes healthcare easy. "Insurance" isn't a part of it at all: Your relationship is between you and your doctor, not you and your doctor and your doctor's hospital's billing department and your insurance company. Leftists dream of making healthcare as easy as possible to receive and universally accessible to all regardless of how much money they have. 

Private health insurance is an unnecessary part of the healthcare system. Insurance companies are middlemen, and insurance just exists to make sure that providers get paid. It was our government's own choice to encourage the proliferation of private insurance, through laws like the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. It was the federal government that subsidized private insurance companies and encouraged employers to use them. Other countries didn't build this kind of healthcare system, for two reasons:

1.     It doesn't cover everyone.

2.     It creates a bloated, inefficient insurance bureaucracy.

Our government has always been playing catch-up trying to get more people covered. It's created employer subsidies, Medicaid, CHIP, and the Obamacare exchanges in a desperate bid to get this system to do its job, and despite decades of piecemeal healthcare reforms 13.7 percent of Americans remain without health insurance and millions more have inadequate coverage. Offering to let Americans "buy-in" to Medicare keeps Americans paying premiums, and as long as Americans must personally pay premiums to receive healthcare there are going to be some people who can't or won't pay those premiums and go without. It turns Medicare-For-All into a publicly run HMO. Maintaining an employer-sponsored health insurance system means remaining in a situation where large numbers of people go through a period of being uninsured each year, because when you lose your job you lose your insurance. (Currently 1 in 4 Americans go through an uninsured period each year.) Single payer advocates ask the question: "Why have a nightmarish tangle of public and private options, varying by state, with people moving on and off all the time? Why not just pay for healthcare with taxes, cover everyone, and make it free at the point of use?" 

Not only will a public option fail to cover everyone, it will do nothing to restrain the growth of healthcare costs. Single payer systems control costs by giving the health service a monopoly on access to patients, preventing providers from exploiting desperate patients for profit. If instead there are a large number of insurance companies, providers can play those insurance companies off each other. Right now, we have a two-tier system, in which the best doctors and hospitals refuse to provide coverage unless your insurer offers them exorbitantly high rents. To support that cost while still making a profit, your insurer has to subject you to higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher deductibles. Poor Americans with poor-quality insurance are stuck with providers who don't provide high enough quality care to make these demands. The best providers keep charging ever higher rents, and the gap between the care they offer and the care the poor receive just keeps growing. Poor Americans are now seeing a decline in life expectancy, in part because they cannot afford to buy insurance that would give them access to the best doctors and hospitals. Costs balloon for rich Americans while the quality of care stagnates for the poor.

The bloat doesn't just come from providers. Because insurance works on a profit incentive, the insurance companies must extract rents as well. So the patient is paying to ensure not only that their doctor or hospital is highly-compensated, but that the insurance company generates profit too. Each insurance company has its own managers—its own CEO, its own human resources department, and so on. We have to pay all of these people, and because there are so many private insurance companies, there are so many middle managers to pay. (Barack Obama once bizarrely critiquedsingle payer by saying it would eliminate millions of jobs in the insurance bureaucracy, implying that we should keep admittedly pointless jobs and gouge patients as a make-work program.) 

These duplicate bureaucracies are expensive to maintain and do nothing to improve the quality of care. The providers make them compete to offer higher compensation, and you pay for it. Getting rid of these middle men makes the system far more efficient. We now spend 17 percent of GDP on healthcare. Britain spends 10 percent, and British people can expect to live two years longer. (Though in order to achieve a full cost-effective British system, we'd have to socialize medicine rather than just socializing insurance.) People do not associate government with efficiency, but when it comes to moving money from one place to another—which, after all, is all an insurance company does—it can be quite good, and it makes far more sense to have government handle healthcare payments than to leave it to companies with a direct financial incentive to deny treatment. 

Private insurance is inconvenient, inefficient, and continues to leave large numbers of Americans with inadequate insurance or no insurance at all. The Affordable Care Act shored up this system by funnelling more public money into subsidies for private insurance. Now these Democratic candidates are proposing to make a new insurance company, call it "Medicare," and charge you premiums to use it. That doesn't get rid of the problem of wasteful duplicative bureaucracies, and will guarantee that some people remain uninsured.  It was the federal government's decision to build this bizarre, burdensome system. Nothing about private health care is natural or inevitable. It doesn't have to be like this. 

And yet: Democratic presidential contenders seem reluctant to call this system what it is, and stand behind a comprehensive replacement. It's not just Buttigieg. Candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris claim there are "many paths" to Medicare-For-All. In addition to Bernie Sanders' bill, they've quietly signed onto some of the "buy-in" bills circulating through congress. Elizabeth Warren says she has a plan for everything, but there's no Medicare-For-All plan on her website. (A plan for everything except healthcare, as Tim Higginbotham put it in Jacobin.) When asked at a town hall about it, she said:

When we talk about Medicare for All, there are a lot of different pathways…Some folks are talking about "Let's start lowering the age. Maybe bring it down to 60, 55, 50″…Some people say "Do it the other way. Let's bring it up, from, uh, everybody under 30 gets covered by Medicare." Others say "Let employers be able to buy into the Medicare plans." Others say "Let's let employees buy into the Medicare plans." For me, what's key is we get everybody at the table on this…I've also co-sponsored other bills including expanding Medicaid as another approach that we use.

It's a waffling answer that tells us little about Warren's vision for healthcare—beyond her willingness to count the public option "buy-in" bills as "pathways" to Medicare-For-All. Yet Warren also came out at the Democratic debate for getting rid of private insurance. With no actual plan, it's hard to know quite what she's advocating. The Harris campaign does something similar. Harris has co-sponsored multiple buy-in bills, including Jeff Merkely's and even Michael Bennett's. Asked about Harris' stance on Medicare-For-All, Harris' press secretary said:

Medicare-for-all is the plan that she believes will solve the problem and get all Americans covered. Period…She has co-sponsored other pieces of legislation that she sees as a path to getting us there, but this is the plan she is running on.

A single payer system requires a lot of political commitment, because it means going up against the insurance companies and the ritzy providers and telling them they can't screw us over anymore. They can't deny us coverage, extract heavy rents, and keep us on the phone forever. If a Democratic candidate doesn't see a meaningful difference between a public option and single payer, if that candidate sees these things as two different "paths" to the same place, that candidate cannot be trusted to put an end to this madness. They are offering just one more piecemeal reform to prop up a failing system—not a true overhaul.

Single payer healthcare is a tried and tested system, and it isn't radical. Trying to cobble together "universal" coverage from a patchwork of giant for-profit bureaucracies and government insurance products is senseless. "Eliminating private insurance" rather than "adding choice" may sound unnecessarily sweeping. But private insurance just gets in the way of efficiently paying healthcare providers and covering everybody. Medicare-For-All makes sense, and we shouldn't let it be watered down.