Moral Pluralism and Conflict

Institutions have often been characterized as responses to conflict, and assumptions about the nature of conflict have frequently determined the structure and scope of political activity. Two prevalent interpretations of conflict portray it as either a conflict of interest or a competition for resources. Yet there is another view of conflict that regards it in terms of a contest of values, something that raises a different set of questions and issues. These issues involve concerns about the incommensurability and incompatibility of values, and challenge contemporary arguments that rely upon the ordering of preferences or that urge the pursuit of a normative consensus. As I argue, both preference based theories and theories of deliberative democracy prove to deal inadequately with the challenges of moral pluralism and value conflict

Promising Practices: BPA&O Collaboration with One-Stop Centers, Part II. Partnering with Disability Program Navigators: Employment Resources, Inc. (Wisconsin)

In this paper, there are three examples of how a BPAO project in Wisconsin is collaborating with the One-Stop Centers and Department of Labor Disability navigators in order to increase referrals and information dissemination to under-served populations. This paper will be of particular interest to those serving rural areas and projects interested in aggressively targeting transition-aged youth for services

Measuring Incremental SB743 Progress: Accounting for Project Contributions Towards Reducing VMT Under California\u27s Senate Bill 743

On September 27, 2013, California’s governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law, in part mandating the transition from a level-of-service-based (LOS) measure of transportation environmental impacts to a vehicle-miles-traveled-based (VMT) one in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Several California jurisdictions, including San Jose, Pasadena, and San Francisco, have moved quickly to comply with SB 743, so it is no surprise that several of these early-adopter cities have been working hard to develop powerful VMT estimation methods and tools using the most recent research available. This perspective uses the experiences of an early-adopter city, San Jose, to identify and illustrate the challenges faced by California planners trying to meet the legal requirements of SB 743 and the practical needs of their communities in developing the VMT calculation methods

Disabled Veteran\u27s Benefits, SSI/Title II Benefits, and Wages

This Just the Facts Series addresses the disability financial compensation and disability-related pension programs that may affect many benefits analysis clients. The interface between these programs and SSI/Title II is explained, as well as the effect of wages on these benefits

Active Transportation and Health Effects of Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Projects and Planning

On July 29, 2005 Congress passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the federal government’s transportation bill, in part, designating $612 million over five years to go to a relatively new funding program: Safe Routes to School (SR2S). The legislation mandated that state departments of transportation (DOTs) receive annual funding in an amount proportional to the number of primary and middle school grade children enrolled in their states. State DOTs could then grant that money to state, local, and regional agencies, as well as non-profit organizations to fund SR2S programs. Improving public health (and increasing active transportation) is both an explicit and implicit factor motivating this piece of legislation. In the years since its passage into law, the effectiveness of SR2S projects at improving public health have been tested and researched. This perspective documents our current state of understanding of the effects of SR2S projects on public health and active transportation in the U.S

The Benefits of Transit in the United States: A Review and Analysis of Benefit-Cost Studies

This white paper presents the findings from a review and analysis of the available literature on benefit-cost (b-c) estimates of existing U.S. transit systems. Following an inventory of the literature, the b-c estimates from each study were organized according to the type of study area (e.g., rural, small urban, urban, etc.). Through this process, categories of monetary transit benefits were identified. The estimated dollar value for each benefit category was divided by the total estimated costs of providing the transit services, thus creating a benefit-specific b-c ratio for each category and allowing benefits from each study to be compared on an equal basis. Some of these differences are attributable to the population size and densities of the service areas (context) with rural and small urban areas generally yielding lower b-c values than urbanized areas. However, differences remained even after the context was accounted for; suggesting appropriate transit investments in rural and small urban areas can yield benefits substantially greater than costs. The benefits of transit were measurable and strong in a variety of operating environments; not just in large cities. Key findings from this review and analysis were: Transit benefits often substantially exceed costs in rural and small urban areas—not just big cities; Transit typically pays for itself in congestion relief benefits for mid- to large-sized urban areas; Jobs and economic stimulus are among the largest benefit categories of transit; Transit improves health care access and outcomes while reducing costs; Transit saves people money, with transit in larger urban areas benefiting more people; Low b-c ratios aside, transit saves lives, with evidence presented that b-c analysis methods are likely undervaluing the role transit plays in reducing accidents and their costs to society; and Greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and other important but undervalued transit benefits categories should be considered in future studies

Federalism and Takeover Law: The Race to Protect Managers from Takeovers

This paper analyzes certain important shortcomings of state competition in corporate law. In particular, we show, with respect to takeovers, states have incentives to produce rules that excessively protect incumbent managers. The development of state takeover law, we argue, is consistent with our theory. States have adopted antitakeover statutes that have little policy basis, and, more importantly, they have provided managers with a wider and more open-ended latitude to engage in defensive tactics than endorsed even by the commentators most favorable to such tactics. Furthermore, states have elected, even though they could have done otherwise, to impose antitakeover protections on shareholders, who did not appear to favor them, in a way that left shareholders with little choice or say. Finally, we conclude by pointing out that proponents of state competition cannot reconcile their views with the evolution of state takeover law---and should therefore reconsider their unqualified support of state competition.