Pages

Friday, October 31, 2014

Failing economics 101

USF appears to be headed down the road to relocate most if not all of the USF medical school from the campus in north Tampa to downtown Tampa, a move that is "bigger than baseball", according to (downtown only) Tampa mayor Bob Buckhorn.
The University of South Florida took the first formal step to build a new medical school downtown as a trustees’ work group voted unanimously Thursday for a project Mayor Bob Buckhorn calls “bigger than baseball.”

Charles Lockwood, dean of the Morsani College of Medicine, unveiled renderings of a 12-story, $157 million structure at Meridian Avenue and Channelside Drive on land donated by Tampa Bay Lightning owner Jeff Vinik.

Rounding out the project are a 10-story medical building and a parking garage for 1,800 vehicles that will be built by Vinik’s development company.
1800 parking spaces?  This looks like car-oriented development - not exactly transit friendly.

As we wrote last week, when this first came to the media,
Removing medical school facilities and jobs from the northern USF campus can only subtract from the north Tampa - USF area economy. Notably, it will be much cheaper to develop the new/improved medical school on or near the USF, and much less disruptive to the faculty, staff, and students.
Building the medical school downtown on an acre or two will be very expensive. The only option will be to build a tower -- building up is much more expensive. Developing downtown will likely take more time than developing on the USF campus. Not to mention other downtown roads and infrastructure that will have to be altered or built to support the project (or any large scale future project for that matter, which we do not uniformly reject).
Also, don't forget the medical school properties themselves will not pay taxes. Any move downtown will take valuable tax generating properties off future tax rolls.
Playing out as expected.

Approximate location of proposed USF medical school relocation
Said Lockwood, “The idea of creating a vibrant university presence to act as a magnet to draw corporate headquarters, to draw additional residential areas, to draw hospitality services and restaurants and so forth, coupled with all the other components of this development project, will have a substantial long-term impact on the city.”
He added, “More importantly from my perspective, it would be transformative for our college of medicine, our college of pharmacy, and our research opportunities at this university because it would be an extraordinarily attractive location for students, for faculty and for researchers.”
Buckhorn was equally effusive, calling the move “the most significant redevelopment opportunity that this city has ever had.”
Perhaps.  But they currently have a $27 million shortfall in funding for the downtown location.  Will they be able to make that up?

I'm looking for any evidence where we've lost corporate HQ relocations because we did not have a medical school downtown.  Besides, the hottest business district in the state of Florida is the Tampa Westshore district, not downtown Tampa.

None of the last several corporate relocations or expansions in the Tampa Bay area have moved to downtown Tampa.

Can we ask why we always have to build something we don't need to attract corporate headquarters? We have all those museums, Straz Performing Arts Center, aquarium, convention center, cruise port, arena, trolley, Channelside, Riverwalk, etc. that were supposed to attract businesses. If we really want more corporate headquarters, why don't we save some of that money by not building things we don't need and spend it on tax breaks or other enticements for the businesses? What's the difference, other than it's probably cheaper to entice a business to relocate with various tax incentives? Not that we necessarily agree with the strategy, but lots of municipalities do it, and it's more effective.

Did you catch that part about the "hospitality services and restaurants"?  Amusing that they cite those relatively low paying jobs in those industries as progress, as if we don't have enough restaurants. Been to the Westshore business restaurant district lately?

But as we've grown to expect, there are no concrete benefits specified.  Just some effusive praise for the "transformative" magic of downtown Tampa, which is on course for more "transformative" apartments renting for $1200 for a studio for about 3000 or so "transformative" new residents downtown.

That's fine if that's the lifestyle they want.  But there's another 1.2 million residents in Hillsborough outside of downtown that are truly supporting Tampa and the county.
USF President Judy Genshaft said the move would free up valuable space in the overcrowded medical sector on the main campus. Vacated space “will be very, very very, readily scooped up and reassigned,” she said. “A lot of the general public might think, ‘Oh-oh, everything is going to be gone.’ No. Not true. It is going to be even more heavily used on the Tampa campus.”
Surely they can redevelop and repurpose some of the property at USF.  Just like they can develop the property downtown for some other purpose (another apartment building with a yoga studio?) that would actually contribute some tax revenues.

Of course, Genshaft did not elaborate on what the replacement plans or the costs would be.

They're missing the big economic picture.

Surely it will cost more and take more time to develop the medical school downtown.

Sure, they may save money being closer to Tampa General and the programs they can offer at TGH.

But it will cost money by being further away from H. Lee Moffit Cancer Center, Byrd Alzhiemer's Institute, the VA, and Florida Hospital.

They'll take more valuable downtown property off the tax roles.

They'll spend more to redevelop the USF campus.

Dig a hole in one part of Tampa, move the dirt to another part of Tampa. Does that make Tampa better economically?

In short, relocating USF medical school from one part of the city to another is not a net economic benefit for the city.  We spend a lot of money to relocate, and end up with much the same.

Isn't real economic growth about getting more for less?  Here we're getting the same costing more.

Seems like we're building the Taj Mahal when a new coat of paint will do.  But its only your tax dollars.

Do they care?

We can only hope its a wash.

1 Million Reasons Vote No on GreenLight Pinellas

Opinion by: E. Eugene Webb PhD

In the recent financial filings regarding campaign contributions, GreenLight Pinellas has received almost $1 million from about 30 donors. You can see the campaign finance reports here Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections.

Biggest contributor: NATIONAL Association of Realtors who dumped almost one quarter million dollars into the GreenLight political campaign.

If there was any question in your mind about who is driving the "train" and what their motives are, it should now be crystal clear.

Yes for Greenlight campaign manager Joe Ferrell said "donations from hospitals, finance firms, IT companies, the Rays and utilities are evidence that the private sector sees developing mass transit as a priority."

Not so much a "priority" as a business opportunity or a political necessity.

 If buses were the priority then GreenLight might make some sense, but nowhere in the Ordinance you are being asked to make a law, are the buses first in line for funding.

If the train were a real public transportation priority then it would go where the 2% who might use it live and not where the 1% who wouldn't be caught dead on a train live in their million dollar condos.

The train is passing through business parks, malls and other prime Pinellas County real-estate.

The purpose?

Transit oriented redevelopment. In other words a lot of real estate transactions, consulting and planning contracts, bond and financing transactions, construction contracts and a train to buy.

The big dollar players know where this project is going and they just ponyed up almost one million dollars to get their fingers in the pie.

The filling in that pie is your tax dollars.

The developers, train manufacturers, financial institutions, technology companies are throwing big dollars into the Yes for Greenlight till. This kind of money doesn't come with strings attached, it comes with chains attached.

After the smoke clears, should the sales tax referendum pass, just who do you think will really be calling the shots? It sure won't be the taxpayers.

GreenLight and this Tax referendum are bad for all Pinellas County tax payers and our visitors.

There is a solution to all of this. It's called YOUR VOTE.

They can buy all the ads, fill the airways, and stuff your mailbox until it falls over, but don't let them buy your vote.

Watch My Video Green Light - It's a Bad Law before you vote.

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter.
Disclosures: Contributor to
No Tax for Tracks.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Circle of Money Helps Stack the Deck

As we posted here, Hillsborough County Commissioners have handed Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) no bid contracts totaling almost $900K of taxpayer dollars to write our transportation plan.



It's a cozy relationship between those colluding and coordinating to push rail referendums in Tampa Bay. 

The Tampa Bay rail cartel is led by the Tampa Bay Partnership (TBP). Many of their corporate investors are also the largest donors to the pro rail PAC Friends of Greenlight and also to the pro rail PAC Moving Hillsborough Forward in 2010.

Tampa Bay Partnership developed "their" Transportation vision. TBP's 20/30/40 vision statement states - by 2040 we'll have 60 miles of rail, 60 miles of dedicated lane Bus Rapid Transit and a train going over the Howard Frankland bridge. 

Who helped TBP develop "their" transportation vision plan? Their rail cartel partners -  including Parsons Brinckerhoff....
TBP's partners who helped develop vision plan (click to enlarge)

Conveniently missing are costs associated with TBP's transportation vision. However, they do state that by 2020 "we" will have "secured all the long term solutions to funding, financing, building and operating the regional transit projects identified in the 20/30/40 vision (emphasis mine)."  

Who's the "we"? What happens if Greenlight is defeated next week, which is very likely? What happens when there's no federal funds available, as the AECom study reported, to pay for such projects? 

What about our county roads that have the critical funding gap?

How can a transportation vision plan with no cost estimates secure all of it's funding?  

Sounds like what we heard at last weeks Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting - 
Pass The Referendum First To Find out What's in It?  

Parsons Brinckerhoff is very skillful in using their political prowess and resources to build a plan that benefits them.

With Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB), it's a circle of money:
  • PB is an investor of the rail cartel leader Tampa Bay Partnership (TBP)
  • PB helped TBP develop "their" transportation vision
  • PB contributed $50K to pro rail Greenlight Pinellas
  • PB contributed to county commission campaigns
  • PB contributed $40K to pro rail Moving Hillsborough Forward in 2010
  • Former Executive Director of TBARTA (who also helped develop TBP's transportation vision), Bob Clifford, went to work for PB in Tampa this past June
  • PB creates the cause and then they (and the rest of the deep pocketed rail cartel) can contribute tens of thousands of dollars to the advocacy of the cause they created.
PB circle of money
Now the Parsons Brinckerhoff mercenary force has been called in to lead the transit charge in Hillsborough County. Handed $900K of Hillsborough county tax dollars via no-bid contracts PB will write our transportation plan. How comforting is that?

It appears "stacking the deck" to force another huge comprehensive, long term sales tax referendum for another rail boondoggle has begun.  

Will PB write a plan that looks like the Tampa Bay Partnership transportation vision they helped develop?

We already voted down a costly 30 year comprehensive sales tax for rail in 2010.

Every survey taken since then states roads and bridges are our top transportation priorities.

Innovation in transportation is quickly emerging and that innovation is not based on 19th century rail technology. 

We should be looking at what we can successfully fund and implement in the next 10 years - not forcing taxpayers to pay billions for costly solutions that may become irrelevant, that rely on federal debt dollars that may not exist in the future and probably will never be built.

Taxpayers in Hillsborough should be very concerned.

You can stop the GreenLight Train Wreck



Tuesday those of you who have not yet voted will go to the polls and vote on some very important races and issues.

None is more important than the Pinellas County Sales Tax referendum question. It is the last item ON THE BACK of the Ballot

It Reads like this:
Levy of Countywide One Percent Sales Surtax to Fund Greenlight Pinellas Plan for Public Transit.
Summary: Shall the improvement, construction, operation, maintenance and financing of public transit benefiting Pinellas County, including an expanded bus system with bus rapid transit, increased frequency and extended hours, local passenger rail and regional connections be funded by levying a one percent sales surtax from January 1, 2016 until repealed, with the proceeds deposited in a dedicated trust fund?
 
        ______   YES, for the 1% sales surtax 


   
      __X__    NO, against the 1% sales surtax

If you vote yes you put an additional $100 Million annually into the PSTA coffers.

Over the last few months the PSTA administration has been investigated for electioneering, misused federal homeland security funds, lied to the public and spread misleading information about the train they want to build and its intended purpose.

They have stone walled public records requests, refused to answer direct questions and berated those who would question their actions and motives.

Just over 30 people have donated almost all of the $1 million raised to support the passage of this tax. They all expect to get their money back and then some, and the tactics of the current PSTA Administration and complete lack of oversight by the Board of Directors makes it a real good bet.

This sales tax referendum was never about public transportation, although I believe that there are some on the PSTA Board that still believe it is. It was always about a train that requires property and right of way acquisition for track and stations and the redevelopment around the stations and the rail line.

The nature of PSTA and its leadership can be seen in the e-mails unearthed by News Channel 10's Mike Deeson.  News Channel 10 PSTA E-MAILS

The inability of the Board to control the PSTA Administration is evident the actions of its CEO.

If he is not concerned about misusing and directing his staff to misuse federal funds why would we expect anything less when the sales tax dollars start rolling in?

Don't pay more for virtually everything you buy so the PSTA can repay the political cronies that supported GreenLight and waste the money on a train that does not serve those who actually use public transportation.

Don't put this County in to debt for up to 90 years that you as a citizen cannot control and those who represent you won't control. 

Right now you are in the driver's seat.  You can stop this train wreck before it happens.

You can vote NO

If GreenLight passes, Pinellas County does not own a train, a train will ultimately own Pinellas County.

Watch My Video Green Light - It's a Bad Law before you vote.

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter.
Disclosures: Contributor to
No Tax for Tracks.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Tricklin' down

"Trickle-down economics" and the "trickle-down theory" are terms in United States politics to refer to the idea that tax breaks or other economic benefits provided to businesses and upper income levels will benefit poorer members of society by improving the economy as a whole.

So says Wikipedia.
A report by Ernst & Young projected that the GreenLight Pinellas transportation projects would create more than 67,000 jobs over 30 years, with 48,500 jobs in the construction industry. According to the same report, about $4.2 billion would be pumped into the county’s economy and will offer a return of $2.50 for every dollar spent.
So says  the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce.
The new proposed transit network is expected to generate positive economic activity, returning approximately $4.00 for every $1.00 invested in public transportation.
So says Greenlight Pinellas.

Hillsborough County PLG Value Proposition

Every $1 billion invested in public transportation capital and operations creates and supports an average of 36,000 jobs.

These 36,000 jobs result in roughly $3.6 billion in business sales and generate nearly $500 million in federal, state, and local tax revenues.

76 percent of public funding for transit is spent creating and supporting hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs.
For every $1 invested in public transportation, $4 is generated in economic returns.
Every $10 million in capital investment in public transportation can return up to $30 million in business sales alone.  
So says Hillsborough County Transportation and Policy Leadership Group.

That's a lot of trickling coming down.

Most of the jobs numbers cited above are very misleading.  "20,000 jobs will be created" was a common statement during the Florida HSR debates.  That was false.  It was 20,000 job-years, as in one job for one year, not total long term jobs, with a peak short term employment of 8,000 jobs during heavy construction.  The long term jobs for HSR operations and business was about 1,000, or a fraction of the overall jobs cited. That same flawed logic is applied in the cases above as well.

Meanwhile, recall Hillary, who recently said
“Don’t let anybody tell you . . . that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
Don't forget about President Obama's nearly $1T 2009 stimulus spending bill. Four years later we still had greater than 8% unemployment, and historically below average GDP growth averaging 2.4%.  We're still paying for that debt, and will be forever.

I'll defer defending trickle down theory and exposing these "value propositions" for another day.

But either you believe in it, or you don't.

Or you believe trickle down only when its convenient to believe in trickle down.

Monday, October 27, 2014

Millennials and their future

Millennials are under-employed, have tough job prospects, burdened with debt, living at home with Mom and Dad at high rates, and they will be asked to pay our share of the public debt. Millennials are challenged to earn money for cars, homes or much of anything else except a cool phone and an occasional tattoo.

Otherwise, we're repeatedly told millennials are our future.  Perhaps they are, but they are facing some pretty strong headwinds to build their own future.

Recently, the Tampa Bay Business Journal reported  Millennials are moving to Tampa, but more are moving to Texas.
The Tampa Bay metro region is near the bottom of the pack of Sunbelt cities that've grown their college-educated Millennial population — but it did beat out Charlotte, N.C.
Think tank City Observatory released a report this week with data on how the nation's 51 largest metros are faring in terms of attracting a young, educated workforce. Between 2000 and 2012, the population of 25- to 34-year-olds with a college degree in Tampa Bay grew nearly 41 percent, from 74,341 to 104,532.
It's interesting to note that with Houston, San Antonio, and Austin, Texas is widely recognized for promoting the best business environment in the country, as did the TBBJ.  It is also interesting that those municipalities, along with Nashville, are pretty much the prototypes of suburban dispersion, and not the urban dream often cited for millennials desires.  Texas and Tennessee are low tax low regulation states, and each of the cities is often cited as a top job creator in the current economy. Perhaps that has something to do with it. None of those cities currently has a focus on transit as much as Charlotte, which Tampa beats as far as attracting millennials.

This is consistent with the recent Census data, according to Trulia:
The punchline: millennial population growth in 2012-2013 in big, dense cities was outpaced by big-city suburbs and lower-density cities and even by lower-density suburbs and smaller cities.
Trulia goes on to say nine of the 10 metros with the fastest millennial population growth were in the South and West.

A study dubbed "The Young and the Restless and the Nation's Cities," released Monday by the new think tank City Observatory, shows that more 25- to 34-year-olds with a bachelor's degree or higher level of education are moving to close-in neighborhoods of large metro areas.
"This migration is fueling economic growth and urban revitalization," the study says. We can see it in downtown Tampa and Channelside, in downtown St. Petersburg and a bit so far in Clearwater.
The City Observatory report indicates the "Young and Restless in Close-In Neighborhoods" (basically downtown Tampa and St. Petersburg), grew from 4,673 in 2000, to 7,794 in 2010, or an increase of 3,121.  During the same time, Hillsborough County grew from 998,948 to 1,229,224, or an increase of 230,276.

227,155 more people moved into areas outside downtown.  Do you think they had a greater economic impact than 3,121 that moved into downtown, regardless of age?

Trigaux seems to have missed that point.

Who is City Observatory?
We’re studying where in cities new jobs are being created and how the nation’s urban cores are doing in generating economic activity.
If you're not in the cities, do you exist for job creation or economic activity?

They launched their site on October 14, 2014.  They've been thinking and tanking all of 6 days when TBBJ and the Times Robert Trigaux swallowed the hook.  City Observatory are "unabashedly pro-city".

Demographer Wendel Cox has run the numbers and demonstrated that most millenials are moving into the suburbs faster than the urban core.
There is no question that the millennial population has risen in urban cores in recent years. Yet the growth in the younger population in urban cores masks far larger increases in the same population group in other parts of major metropolitan areas and in the nation in general.

20 - 29 Age group share in major metropolitan areas
Cox later states
[M]illennials, long said to hate suburbs, have embraced dispersion. The more recently built suburban areas saw their share of 20-29s rise from 20.6 percent to 24.4, an 18 percent gain. A smaller gain was registered in exurban areas, where the share of 20-29s rose from 13.2 percent to 14.3 percent; an 8 percent share gains (Figure 2).
The net effect from 2000 and 2010: a full five percent more of all 20-29s in major metropolitan areas lived in the later suburban and exurban areas, while 5 percent fewer lived in the urban cores and earlier suburbs. The later suburbs and exurbs added 1,500,000 more 20-29s than the urban core and earlier suburbs.
So much for downtown cheerleading.  

Hillsborough County Commissioner Mark Sharpe most recently brought forward his concern for millennials in the Transportation Policy Leadership (PLG) on October 21. From the transcript:
>>MARK SHARPE: I THINK A LOT OF
HEADS WERE NODDING WHEN YOU
DISCUSSED NOT DICTATING THE TYPE
-- THE SPECIFIC ALIGNMENT OR THE
MODE.
THAT'S CORRECT.
LET ME ASK YOU, YOU DID LIST A
LOT OF GROUPS THAT YOU'RE GOING
TO BE REACHING TO, VERY DETAILED
TO BE REACHING TO, VERY
DETAILED.
WHAT ABOUT YOUNG -- THE
WORKFORCE, THE FUTURE WORKFORCE?
YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO USE --
I'M GOING TO USE THE WORD, THE
MILLENNIALS THAT EVERYONE'S
TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAD A LIST HERE.

I THINK WE LEFT OUT VEGANS.
>>MIKE MERRILL: HEY, LEAVE THE
VEGANS ALONE.
>>MARK SHARPE: I'M 75% ONE OF
THOSE.
SERIOUSLY, BLOOMBERG WAS
REPORTING SEVERAL DAYS AGO THAT
19% -- OR EXCUSE ME -- OF
19-YEAR-OLDERS, 30% DON'T HAVE A
DRIVER'S LICENSE.
NOW, AS WE'RE BUILDING A SYSTEM
AND WE'RE LOOKING OUT TOWARDS
THE FUTURE, ARE WE GOING TO BE
TALKING TO THE FUTURE?
DO YOU INTEND TO TALK TO THE
FUTURE WORKFORCE AND BRING THEM
INTO THE CONVERSATION?

>>KATHARINE EAGAN: THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
I WILL ALLOW MARCO -- STAND UP,
MARCO.
NOT EVERYBODY KNOWS MARCO.
MARCO SANDUSKY IS THE MANAGER OF
COMPLIANCE AND PROGRAMS AT HART,
AND LAST WEDNESDAY, ACTUALLY,
HELD THE INAUGURAL MEETING FOR A
REGIONAL CHAPTER FOR YOUNG
PROFESSIONALS IN TRANSIT.
IT IS A NATIONWIDE ORGANIZATION,
AND THEY ARE TARGETING SPECIFIC
AND THEY ARE TARGETING
SPECIFICALLY MILLENNIALS, SO
THESE ARE THE FOLKS IN THAT
DEMOGRAPHIC VERY INTERESTED IN
TRANSPORTATION IN VARIOUS SHAPES
AND SIZES, SO WE'VE GOT A GREAT
OPPORTUNITY HERE.
NOW THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING
TO BE WORKING MORE -- SORRY.
BUT THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF
HOW WE ARE GETTING IN CHARGE OF
THIS OUTREACH SO WE'VE GOT THESE
MILLENNIALSENING IN WAYS THAT
ARE BENEFICIAL FOR THEM.
I GUARANTEE THERE ARE A WHOLE
BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT
LINED UP.
>>MARK SHARPE: AND YOU'RE ALSO,
THOUGH -- YOU'RE TALKING, THOUGH
THOUGH -- YOU'RE TALKING,
THOUGH, ABOUT BUILDING A SYSTEM.
THIS IS NOT EITHER/OR.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A DEBATE THAT
JOEL COCKEN AND RICHARD FLORIDA
THAT SAYS YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO
TAKE TRANSIT OR DRIVE A CAR,
WHICH SEEMS TO ME SILLY.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM
WHERE PEOPLE HAVE OPTIONS AND
CHOICES AND CAN DECIDE, YOU KNOW
CHOICES AND CAN DECIDE, YOU
KNOW, TODAY I WANT TO DRIVE, BUT
TOMORROW I MIGHT BE GOING OUT
WITH FRIENDS AND IT'S JUST TOO
DIFFICULT TO FIND PARKING OR I'D
RATHER NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT
MY CAR?
IS THAT THE TYPE OF SYSTEM
YOU'RE BUILDING?
>> YES.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW
THE COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO
GROW, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO
GROW, AND WHAT ARE THE
EXPECTATIONS?
IF WE'RE LOOKING ABOUT WHAT
WE'RE DOING TODAY, THEN WE'RE
NOT DOING OUR JOB.
>>MARK SHARPE: AWESOME

I'm not sure if it's awesome or not to be a millennial, or to make them a core of our rationale for our transportation future.

Researchers and commentators define millennials as those born in the years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

In other words, those who are now mostly entering the workforce, early in their career, not yet in their prime earning years.

From an advertising demographic, millennials roughly fit in the 18 - 33 or so age group.

But the most valuable age group that advertisers target are the 25 - 54 age group.

Some overlap, but not much. Why do advertisers focus so much on the 25-54 age group?  That's the age range when people marry, raise children, expand their spending, move up the career ladder, and are in their prime earning years.  They have more income, and therefore, more money to spend.

The 25 - 54 age group are the biggest demographic driving our economy.

Millenials, on the other hand, are early in their career, unfortunately often have poorer job prospects in the current economy, are commonly heavily burdened in college debt (average $30,000), and delaying marriage and family formation. They have many challenges inhibiting their progress up the economic ladder, and they certainly are not out of the woods.

For example, millennials do want to purchase homes, but don't have the money to come up with the down payment.
So say you’re this average Millennial and you’ve got $30,000 in loans, on which you pay $500 a month at 5 percent interest. It’ll take about five years to pay your loans off. With incomes for graduating college students at $45,000 a year—and honestly, I think that number is a bit generous, National Association of Colleges and Employers--that’s nearly a quarter of your take-home pay.

That’s not to say you’re necessarily struggling, but you’re starting to look at your early 30s as the first available opportunity to buy a home.

And then there's that 20 percent down marker that so many housing experts hold paramount:

“When buying a home today, it's critical to be conservative and to safeguard your purchase,” advises Trulia real estate expert Michael Corbett in the news release. “Forget the 'no money down,' or the 5 and 10 percent down payment purchases. Many banks will be hesitant to give you a mortgage otherwise, and a 20 percent down payment gives you some equity right from the start and usually gets you a lower interest rate. Best rule of thumb: If you can't scrape together the 20 percent, then you probably can't really afford to buy just yet.”

That’s all well and good, but home ownership still holds a solid piece of the Millennial heart. We want to own just as much as our parents did.
Home ownership has historically been one of the key drivers in our economy. Millennials are having to wait to buy that home.

Currently just 26% of millennials — those between age 18 and 33 — are married. At the same age, 36% of GenX and 48% of the Baby Boomers were married. And 69% of millennials say they want to get married, but the lack of jobs is holding them back.

AP has reported almost 6 million young people are neither in school nor working.  There are many implications, starting with those young people unable to get in the workforce, start a career and build skills.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported (PDF)  around 44 percent of recent college graduates (ages 22–27) were underemployed in 2012—meaning they had jobs that didn’t require a college degree.

Yet, more young adults are living at home, as the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year (subscription required).
In a report on the status of families, the Census Bureau on Tuesday said 13.6% of Americans ages 25 to 34 were living with their parents in 2012, up slightly from 13.4% in 2011. Though the trend began before the recession, it accelerated sharply during the downturn. In the early 2000s, about 10% of people in this age group lived at home.

The figures are the latest evidence of the recession's continuing impact on young Americans, who are finding it harder to land jobs and take on the costs of setting up their own homes.
Not to mention the huge national debt overhang the millennials and upcoming generations will have to deal with, leaving them an even harder hill to climb than they would otherwise with our recent economy.

Sure, a few millennials have dramatically driven the new tech economy, such as Facebook and Twitter.  But what are the odds of more of those for us in Tampa Bay?  Even then, what does it really portend?
In contrast celebrated social media firms, overwhelmingly concentrated close to the venture capital spigot, are both geographically constrained and employ shockingly few workers. The darlings of the bubblicious tech boom — Twitter, Facebook, Zynga, LinkedIn and Google — employ roughly 58,000 people combined; in contrast the old-line tech firm Intel employ 85,000 people, half in the U.S., while ExxonMobil provides livelihoods to 80,000.

In term of profits, the supposed holy grail of business, it’s not even close. In Exxon’s disappointing last quarter it racked up $6.9 billion. By contrast Google earned $3.1 billion, while Facebook made $333 million and LinkedIn $3.7 million. Yet what the new tech oligarchs lack on the balance sheet, they seem to make up for with a combination of presumed potential and PR panache.
The old established businesses still have something going for them too, even for millennials.

Commissioner Sharpe seems to be weighing in on other reports that indicate millennials have less interest in owning cars.
A large majority of Millennials want access to better transit options and the ability to be less reliant on a car, according to a new survey of Millennials in 10 major U.S. cities, released today by The Rockefeller Foundation and Transportation for America. More than half (54%) of Millennials surveyed say they would consider moving to another city if it had more and better options for getting around, and 66% say that access to high quality transportation is one of the top three criteria they would weight when deciding where to live.
Perhaps we didn't need to bail out General Motors if we don't need as many cars in the future.

As the article stated, "Saving money is a key driver for many Millennials looking for more public transportation options, particularly among low-income respondents."

In other words, it's the economy stupid. (PDF)  People drive less, and are less able to afford cars, due to the poor economy.  Millennials included.

Most affected have been men, of all age groups.

Most men are driving less

Given the challenges we've outlined above, millennials have to save money... and earn more money than they currently are earning.  If they had more earning potential, they'd have more money to spend and contribute much more to the overall economy... and their future.

Perhaps the driving boom is over, or perhaps it will be augmented by autonomous vehicles, which may increase travel more.  There are many changes occurring now or in progress from online shopping, increasing telecommuting, increase in social network technologies,  to car sharing that may affect miles traveled and car ownership.  We really don't know where all this will end.  But many of the same affects will also affect public transit options.

Millennials will be challenged to move up into the middle-class and be the big driver of the economy that we all want if they continue to be underemployed or not employed at all.  

Millenials and the rest of use we will all be better served if we improve their economic and employment prospects rather than simplifying the solution as more transit.

Then they may want to help support the economy and buy a few more cars.

GETTING THE WORD OUT ABOUT THE GREENLIGHT SALES TAX - You Can Help



A majority of people when they hear the facts about GreenLight decide that it is a bad deal for Pinellas County and indicate they will vote NO.

The problem is the only serious effort to get the facts out is taking place right here where you're reading... Social Media.

Big news organizations are reluctant to go against powerful advertisers like the Board of Realtors, and the Chamber of Commerce with all their members. Big media needs the ad revenue.

Quite frankly No Tax for Tracks is out gunned in the money department by several folds.

The Polls consistently tell the story. As pollsters ask more detailed questions about the sales tax increase, reluctance turns in to opposition.

So here is what you can do.

Up there in the picture are three icons that are the key to getting the word out.

Somewhere on every Blog page and on-line newspaper article are a series of boxes with those ICONs. If you click the one that looks like an envelope you can mail the post your reading to up to five e-mail addresses. So every time you see something about the sales tax that you think is good information, click the e-mail envelope and send it to 5 friends.

You can click the envelope and send to as many groups of 5 as you want.

While you're at it, ask your e-mail contacts to forward the post to five of their friends. That will spread the word.

Here are some reports and Posts you may want to send to your friends:

Use Facebook and Twitter to like Posts you think are relevant and let your friends see them.

Give it a try.

Check out my video Post GreenLight - It's a Bad Law . If you agree with my thinking, e-mail the post to everyone in your contact list and ask them to do the same.

Help save this County from the biggest tax grab boondoggle in Pinellas County History.

Vote NO on the sales tax referendum

E-mail Doc at: dr.webb@verizon.net. Or send me a Facebook (Gene Webb) Friend request. Please comment below, and be sure to share on Facebook and Twitter.
Disclosures: Contributor to
No Tax for Tracks.