7-12-09

 
7-12-09
Modesto Bee
Jardine: To say closures help UC just a lie...Jeff Jardine
http://www.modbee.com/local/v-print/story/778943.html
There's an old joke about a student from Texas who got lost during his first day at Harvard University.
He sees a dignified-looking gentleman walking toward him and, in his Texas drawl, asks, "Can y'all tell me where the library's at?"
The man, who turns out to be an English professor, indignantly scolds and corrects the newcomer.
"Young man, at Harvard, we never end a sentence with a preposition."
The student thinks for a moment and says, "Thanks. Now can y'all tell me where the library's at, comma, you jerk?"
OK, so I changed the last word. This is, after all, a family newspaper.
Nonetheless, the joke depicts the stereotypical pompous college professor talking down to the blue-collar type.
Same thing's happening in the University of California system, where 23 UC San Diego department chairmen signed a letter imploring UC President Mark G. Yudof to close the campuses at Merced, Santa Cruz and Riverside.
After all, the state's economic freak show demands drastic cost-cutting measures. Certainly, these profs will contend they are only looking out for the good of the system, maintaining its integrity and keeping a UC diploma the elite piece of sheepskin it's been for decades, including before UC San Diego opened in 1960.
Who are they kidding? These folks are willing to stab in the back thousands of students and would-be students, UC faculty and support staff, and cities just to keep their own inflated salaries for what amounts to a three-day workweek.
These sun-soaked, fish taco-eating egotists want to protect themselves by picking on the weakest links. Merced is the newest of the UCs and in one of the state's poorest areas where they - eewww! - actually grow food and touch dirt and stuff. Rich folks in the cities love to load their gullets, but they can be downright snobby toward people and places producing anything that can't be uncorked, decanted and poured.
UC Santa Cruz is a quirky school with a quirky mascot, the banana slug, in a quirky town that values its quirky medicinal marijuana shops. It doesn't fit the stuffed-shirt image of a UC estate, but why should it?
Diversity and individuality, it seems, are OK as long as everyone looks, dresses and thinks the same.
Riverside, meanwhile, is hardly a garden spot. But that was the point in putting the university there, just as it was in Merced and Santa Cruz. Like the 21 California missions, the UCs need to be spaced throughout the state, accessible to students - and not just those in high-rent districts.
If anything, maybe UC San Diego is more expendable than the others. After all, the San Diego area has San Diego State University and the University of San Diego along with a passel of smaller colleges and universities. You could make the argument that it is oversaturated with four-year schools and community colleges. Selling it would be like stimulus dollars for the UC system.
Merced, Santa Cruz and Riverside each have a UC and a community college. Beyond that, higher ed means learning to weld, clean teeth or dye hair purple at a trade school.
Throughout the UC system, faculty and staff will take the same proportionate pay hits. Contrary to the UC San Diego professors' claims, none of these institutions will go belly up.
Beating up on the less affluent areas is old hat, though. During an economic downturn in the 1970s, some folks suggested closing California State University, Stanislaus, in Turlock and pouring the money into other state schools.
Folks have been picking on UC Merced, in particular, since it was in the larval stage. Former state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton said he would "sell off UC Merced in an minute."
Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters called it a "boondoggle."
Yet the school opened in September 2005. It's growing and it isn't going away. To the contrary, Merced drew jealousy-based scorn from the Berkeley crowd when first lady Michelle Obama spoke in May at commencement.
Do these bombastic scholastics really think Yudof would close the campus that brought him his greatest public relations coup since he became president?
A campus that has room to grow and is perhaps the most affordable, all things considered, of all the schools in the UC system? A school that hasn't lost a game yet?
In words they should understand, it's academic.
In their letter, the San Diegans wrote, "We suggest, more generally, that in discussions systemwide, you drop the pretense that all campuses are equal and argue for a selective reallocation of funds to preserve excellence, not the current disastrous blunderbuss policy of even, across the board cuts."
(I'll save you a visit to dictionary.com: A blunderbuss is a short musket of wide bore and flaring muzzle, formerly used to scatter shot at close range.)
The letter continued, "Or, if that is too hard, we suggest that what ought to be done is to shut one or more of these campuses down, in whole or part."
A selfish and bad idea, rife with snobbery, arrogance and condescension by some pontifical, pretentious profs.
I'll give 'em this much, though:
They didn't end their sentences with prepositions.
Modesto Bee
Politicians can't get dam thing done...Editorial
http://www.modbee.com/editorials/v-print/story/778819.html
The politicians are scrambling for political cover as California's water crisis gets more serious because of a drought in its third year and because of environmental restrictions on how much water can flow in the Golden State.
They don't want their constituents to know they've been ducking this issue for years, so they periodically fire off news releases demanding action. But they've been unable to compromise on water issues, just as they've been unable to address long-term financial issues. That dirty little secret is finally getting out to California residents, and many are becoming angry.
Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Legislature have an opportunity to come together behind a comprehensive water plan that would create surface storage, expand underground storage through water banking and increase water availability through conservation efforts. Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, is an especially strong legislator on water issues and we would hope that he will have a key role in the plan.
Getting an agreement will require sitting down with the warring factions, chiefly environmentalists who oppose dams and farming interests who think dams are their salvation. Both sides have overstated their cases, which means there's lots of room for negotiation.
But it also will take the cooperation of the federal government. The feds must help pay for new water projects and take another look at environmental laws that restrict water flows.
California's congressional Democrats, especially House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, cannot remain silent on this issue any longer.
Water politics are complicated, but a solution can be found because everyone knows the issues and what's at stake. The various sides have been making the same arguments for decades.
They must be willing to compromise because stubbornness is the only thing standing in the way of a comprehensive water plan.
We believe that even in a drought year there is adequate water available for farm, urban and environmental uses if we manage this crucial resource properly. That means having balance in our water policy and a willingness to find common ground.
California's population has doubled since the last major water project was built in the state, and demand for water has gone up by an even greater factor.
The political pressure for a water deal has been increasing because big water users in Southern California cities have become concerned. It was one thing when Los Angeles political interests could side with environmentalists against valley farmers. But now Los Angeles residents are facing water rationing, and that's making their elected leaders nervous.
Here in the northern San Joaquin Valley, the pain is not distributed evenly. Farmers within the Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts are getting conservative but adequate allotments, but they're not not hurting anything like their counterparts on the West Side, some of whom had to leave fields fallow.
The time couldn't be more critical for a comprehensive water plan.
The state budget is and should be the No. 1 priority in Sacramento, but addressing the long-term water needs has to be a close second.
Stockton Record
McNerney criticized for Delta vote
Congressman says he supports restoring estuary...Alex Breitler
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090712/A_NEWS/907120319
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Rep. Jerry McNerney said this week that he is committed to restoring the Delta, despite an earlier vote to remove funding for new protections for salmon and steelhead.
The vote - which temporarily aligned McNerney with thirsty south and Central Valley lawmakers - failed by a narrow margin.
McNerney said Thursday that he was concerned about Stockton's own water supply should the federal protections go forward. Those protections call for a decrease in the amount of water that can be exported from the Delta, but they also threaten to severely restrict Stockton's water supply from the Stanislaus River.
"I'm sure you can imagine that was a difficult vote for me," McNerney said. "I want to see the Delta be healthy and restored, and that's all really critically important. My first priority has to be my constituents and making sure there's enough drinking water for Stockton and groundwater recharge."
But some Delta advocates have said they felt blind-sided by McNerney's June vote. He has, after all, publicly condemned a peripheral canal and they have generally considered him an ally against water exporters.
Advocacy group Restore the Delta announced that McNerney had "abandoned" his Delta constituents.
"The people of the Delta have a long memory, and we will keep a close eye on Congressman McNerney's votes from this day forward," the group said in a statement.
Stockton fisherman Dave Hurley said he was "very disappointed."
"I didn't understand it. The science is pretty clear," he said.
McNerney's concern stemmed from one portion of the new rules that requires greater flows be released from New Melones Lake for steelhead on the Stanislaus.
The Stockton East Water District, which channels water to eastside farms and the city, has warned that under the new rules, Stockton may get no water at all from the Stanislaus many years.
That water is sorely needed to reduce well pumping and save the dwindling groundwater aquifer.
McNerney said he's especially concerned about the quality of the region's groundwater. As the aquifer drops, saltwater has crept in from the west. That is "a big environmental threat," he said.
The situation illustrates how politically fluid water can be. McNerney, for example, represents not only a large swath of the Delta west of Stockton but also portions of Alameda and Santa Clara counties - where constituents drink water pumped from the estuary.
McNerney's vote on fish protection aligned him with Reps. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa, Dennis Cardoza, D-Atwater, and Devin Nunes, R-Visalia. Nunes, in particular, has blasted the Endangered Species Act and asked for federal intervention to aid farmers, some of whom have seen their water supplies severely cut because of drought and, to a degree, restrictions to protect fish.
But McNerney said he disagrees that this is a matter of "fish vs. people."
"That's the wrong way to describe the situation," he said. "We need to protect the Delta. Keeping it healthy serves everybody."
San Francisco Chronicle
Corrections...Sunday, July 12, 2009
UC chief lays out plan for deep cuts, July 12, Bay Area, C1
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/MN5K18KHGH.DTL&type=printable
A story about budget cuts at the University of California misstated the history of student fee hikes this year. The UC Board of Regents raised the fees in May by 9.3 percent.
Indybay.com
Tulare Lake Restoration – Fiction or Fact?...Steve Haze
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/11/18607139.php
Did you know that at one time the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi used to be right here in the San Joaquin Valley, just down Highway 41 heading from Fresno past Lemoore over to Kettleman City and Interstate 5? And, would you believe that at one time this lake covered over 500 square miles and contained almost as much fresh water as is now stored in all of the reservoirs in California today?
For many centuries Native Americans lived peacefully along its great shores and abundant waters full of fish and waterfowl using their handmade tule reed canoes to navigate its great expanse. Until the late 18th Century they continued to live rather peacefully around the lake during the Spanish Mission period of California. Then in 1848, gold was discovered and the great multitude of outsiders from throughout the world and America showed up to seek their fortunes along the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Within a few decades, Americans were homesteading and began farming using the life giving and seemingly infinite waters cascading from those previously gold laden mountains. And slowly into the 20th century those waters became the new gold which made a desert bloom. But, it wasn’t long thereafter that the Tulare was drained of its precious liquid gold and the lake bottom itself was farmed. And yet, in spite of it having been drained of nearly 25 million acre feet of fresh water (1 acre foot is 326,000 gallons of water that covers the area of a football field 1 foot in depth) – with the dry lake bottom farmed primarily for cotton over these many decades – this great phantom still shows on maps in California as the Tulare Lake!
Why bring up another sad story of a great environmental calamity of such historic proportions? Doesn’t that story deserve to remain buried? In this day and age of water shortages, endangered species – such as the delta smelt; and prolonged drought – what about high farm worker unemployment, poor drinking water quality and our farming communities withering in the long hot dry days? Doesn’t it seem that there are very few options to solve these many pressing problems? Isn’t that the story that needs to be told?
There are those who continue to bang the drum of “build more dams” while using negative rhetoric such as “fish versus people” and “rural cleansing” and “destruction of our way of life”. The “Water Buffalos” such as the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) and Westland Irrigation District (WID) demand that “their water” is given to them – regardless of the consequences to others – including the potential to create irreparable harm to farm workers, farmers and farming communities in other parts of the great Central Valley – such as the Sacramento – and within the Delta region most importantly. This does not matter even if it includes an environmental collapse – and massive costs to taxpayers of some of their major schemes to building more dams and create private water banks.
And, what about the question of environmental and economic justice for people in those same small rural farming communities? Amazingly, you would think that there is agreement that the best quality water in California would be made available for drinking to those underserved communities. However, the truth be known, 95% of the purest water in California that comes out of the southern Sierra Nevada mountains is laid on the land for crops – not for people first! Yet, to hear the argument from those same water buffalos – it’s always “fish versus people” as the premise. Is it possible that it is really an argument of “my crops and commodities first – versus those people”?
What is missing from the debate on water is knowing what the real numbers are – that is, how much water do we have (supply); and whether it can be used on a sustainable basis – and, how much flows into or outside the San Joaquin Valley region. Finally, is there a way to manage our needs for water (demand) in a much more effective and efficient manner. Did you know that some of the least expensive and best water is less than $50 dollars an acre foot – yet, bottled water which is unregulated can cost over $1 million dollars an acre foot, (I’ll be happy to do the math!)?
Also, another part of the debate is being aware of the fact that under the State Constitution, water belongs to all of the people of California as part of the Public Trust and for their benefit. Thus, there may be a “legal right” for those to use water for highest and best use – but, those rights are not in perpetuity and can be challenged at any time. Good examples of this include Mono Lake and Owens River on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada. Each was successfully litigated and now being restored based upon the public Trust and Benefit. Another example includes the recent settlement of the San Joaquin River lawsuit that spanned 18 years – and, the agreement for restoration of the river and re-establishment of the historic salmon fisheries below Friant Dam down to the Merced River. What each of these success stories exemplifies is that there are ways to overcome technical, financial, legal and political hurdles – in order to re-establish multi-beneficial uses of the people’s California water. This illustrates the ability to comprehensively accommodate our drinking water needs for rural and urban communities; our needs to grow crops for food, fiber and timber – while simultaneously maintaining a healthy economy and environment.
The restoration of Tulare Lake can continue to take us down the right path towards economic and environmental sustainability. Just like the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, precious remnants of this phantom lake remain. And, just like those of us involved in environmental and economic justice for our underserved communities as it relates to jobs, air quality, clean drinking water – or those involved in improving the natural environment for education, recreation, plants and animals – this modest restoration proposal can contribute greatly to those same positive outcomes of creating livable and sustainable communities within the San Joaquin Valley.
However, be forewarned – there is a political train leaving the station – and another attempt to keep things “business as usual” when it comes to how our water is managed by others. This means more dams – including massive surface storage on the San Joaquin River above Millerton Lake; private water banking schemes such as the significant expansion of KCWAs – and finally, the construction of a “Peripheral Canal” around the sensitive Delta farming region within the Central Valley. And of course, all of these massive proposals will be primarily paid through mega construction bonds which the people of California cannot afford. Yet, 99% of the benefits go back to those same Water Buffalos who have been leading nearly all of our local elected officials at all levels of government blindly off a fiscal and environmental cliff.
The restoration of Tulare Lake rather than a massive dam on the San Joaquin River is a pragmatic opportunity to bring back some amount of political sanity to our water woes here in the San Joaquin Valley. For starters, you can have twice the surface storage for 1/5th the cost – or 20 cents on the dollar. Could you imagine what can be done for less than $1 billion – versus $5 billion dollars as the water buffalos propose? And, other benefits include managing the flood waters from four rivers rather than just one for beneficial use! And, how about bringing pure mountain water for drinking to our small rural farming communities in the valley? That’s what Tulare Lake restoration could do! Or, why not create connections between existing canals such as the Friant-Kern down into the Tulare Lake so water can be moved more effectively – and cost efficiently? And finally, why not restore the lake for environmental and recreational benefits? Won’t that improve the quality of life for all of our farming communities as well – and move us in the direction of environmental and economic justice for the underserved?
The following chart highlights some of the most important benefits of restoring Tulare Lake:
Unfortunately, there’s not enough space to explain all of the financial, technical and environmental details on how this would all work. However, more information is available at the following web site: http://www.sjvwlf.org
--------------
(Steve Haze is in his eighth year of working on water resource quality and quantity challenges in the San Joaquin River through the State of California’s CALFED Bay Delta Watershed Program. He is also the Program Director for the San Joaquin Valley Water Leadership Forum which is promoting alternative approaches to managing water resources within the region – including the restoration of Tulare Lake for surface and groundwater storage. More, details of the program and how you can help can be provided by contacting Steve at: 970-6320 – or via email at: stevehaze007 [at] gmail.com )
http://www.sjvwlf.org
Tulare Lake...google satellite_map
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/11/tulare_lake_-_google_satellite_map.jpg
Comparison of Temperance versus Milerton Enlargement and Tulare Lake Basin Surface Storage Facility
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/07/11/tulare_lake_versus_
temperance_flat_comparison_table_image.jpg
http://www.sjvwlf.org
Fresno Again Spared Atomic Menace
This article first appeared in the July 2009 issue of the Community Alliance newspaper...David Weisman
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/11/18607150.php
It seems like a poster from a 1950s science fiction film, and for those who have studied and followed this issue, the promise of nuclear power remains just that—science fiction.
Nevertheless, that has not stopped local businessperson John Hutson from attempting to gain support for building a nuclear reactor in Fresno. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more apparent that Hutson does not know how to go about building a nuclear reactor. Doing so requires overturning three decades of a California moratorium, which, with the aid of Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R–Irvine; also a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010), Hutson has been unable to do for three years. In addition, during Fresno’s recent mayoral election, both candidates stated that they did not favor constructing a nuclear reactor in or near Fresno.
Undeterred, Hutson sent his emissary—Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC’s CFO and Treasurer Richard Egan—to join a Fresno congressional representative, Devin Nunes (R–CA), for a GOP-sponsored “Renewable Energy Forum” at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, on May 28. Anyone expecting perhaps solar or wind power to be the leading topics at this “forum” would have been disappointed; the renewable energy leading the agenda was nuclear. Aside from the speciousness and technical fallacies of that argument, none of the dozens of states that have passed renewable energy portfolio standards even consider nuclear to be in the renewable category.
What should be more embarrassing to Hutson and his investors is the way in which his nuclear emperor is being revealed to be without clothes. Egan asserted that there was no problem in solving the nuclear waste issue because Fresno Nuclear would ship it to France for reprocessing. Except, of course, that the United States has a law prohibiting that; perhaps that is something Nunes can work on in his next term.
Furthermore, the Department of Energy recently published the short list of the four reactor projects mostly likely to receive the limited $18 billion in loan guarantees passed in the 2005 Energy Act, and Fresno Nuclear did not make the list. Perhaps money is more of an issue than Hutson would like us to believe.
During the Q&A, it was pointed out that the Web site for Fresno Nuclear (http://www.fresnonuclear.com, which was printed on the literature distributed at the event) was now posting listings of golf courses in Fresno. Egan admitted that was a problem and that the true Web site was http://www.fresnonuclearenergy.com. Egan was then informed that an inspection of that site revealed it had not been updated in nearly two and a half years. He seemed unaware of that and said he would look into the matter. (Weeks after the event, the site is still not updated.)
For a company planning to spend billions on a major construction project involving multiple layers of administration and oversight to be unable to maintain a Web site or renew an Internet domain name certainly discredits the enterprise. It is left to others more curious to investigate what sort of shell or sham Fresno Nuclear is operating. Egan left the event hurriedly in the company of a representative of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is a lobbying arm of the industry.
Curiously, had Egan been truly interested in the nuclear enterprise, he could have stayed in San Luis Obispo that evening for the annual meeting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to discuss the performance at PG&E’s Diablo Canyon reactor. There, he would have heard the Engineering and Scientists Union of California (Local 20) raise serious concerns about management lapses and quality control at the plant. He also would have heard locals ask serious questions about security threats to the spent fuel waste storage and the newly discovered “Shoreline” fault 1,800 feet from the plant—questions the NRC was unable to answer.
For now, it seems that Fresno Nuclear’s plans are toothless. But for those who are concerned about the lack of oversight by the NRC and the increasingly trouble-prone existing reactors and who want to know what actions this state and its residents can take to ensure that they have a reliable and affordable source of electricity in the future, we invite readers to visit http://www.a4nr.org, the Web site of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.
--------------
David Weisman is the outreach coordinator of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility and director of the film Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Nuclear Power* but were afraid to ask, which can be viewed at http://www.everythingnuclear.org.
http://www.everythingnuclear.org
Los Angeles Times
Wind power stalls
A number of factors have combined to make wind farms less attractive...Editorial
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-wind12-2009jul12,0,7014818,print.story
Ayear ago the Oracle of Oil, T. Boone Pickens, reinvented himself as the Wizard of Wind, launching a $58-million ad campaign to boost alternative energy and vowing to spend $10 billion to build the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle. It was a startling move from a staunch conservative who had made a fortune in the Texas oil fields, raising hopes that both ends of the political spectrum were coming around to the same point of view about weaning the country from its reliance on oil.
And then, last week, the Pickens plan foundered. Pickens announced that he was scrapping the wind farm. It's too late to take back the $2 billion worth of wind turbines he has already ordered, so instead he has decided to place them in smaller projects around the country.
Pickens isn't the only renewable-energy entrepreneur facing troubles. Wind projects have been increasing sharply in recent years, rising last year by 8,545 megawatts of installed capacity nationally, according to the American Wind Energy Assn. But the trade group expects to see the first decline in new capacity since 2004 this year, projecting that only about 5,000 megawatts will be developed. That's a statistic that should depress both liberals who look to clean power as a solution to climate change and conservatives who want to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
So what's going wrong? The recession and the discovery of new supplies have depressed natural gas prices, making gas-fired power plants more economically competitive than renewable energy. Another consequence of the recession is that lenders that were once eager to put up the money for renewable-energy projects have pulled back. And the expense and difficulty of building transmission lines from remote wind farms to urban centers is forcing many, including Pickens, to drop ambitious projects in favor of smaller ones in places where transmission lines already exist.
The Obama administration helped improve matters last week when it announced that it would soon accept applications for $3 billion in renewable-energy grants approved as part of the economic stimulus package. But Congress could do far more, starting with setting a strong renewable-power standard as part of climate-change legislation being considered in the Senate. That bill also should include provisions that would ease construction of high-voltage transmission lines by first identifying high-priority corridors, then giving federal regulators full authority over siting lines in those areas.
State officials would grumble about that, but the federal government already has similar authority over the siting of natural-gas pipelines, and access to renewable power should be considered at least as high a national priority as access to natural gas.
Many underwater homeowners are deliberately walking away from mortgages
A study finds that 26% of the defaults across the country are calculated economic decisions to bail out of loans by borrowers who could afford to make the monthly payments...Kenneth R. Harney. Distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.
http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-fi-harney12-2009jul12,0,1493788,print.story
Reporting from Washington — Would you, under any circumstances, default on your home mortgage, even if you could afford to make the monthly payments?
That's a trickier question than you might assume, according to new research from the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business and Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management.
The study found that 26% of the record numbers of home mortgage defaults across the country are "strategic" -- that is, calculated economic decisions to bail out of loans by owners who actually have the money to make the payments but can't handle the negative equity they're carrying caused by local property value declines.
Nationwide, according to data from Zillow.com, 22% of all homeowners were underwater, with mortgage debts that exceeded their home values, in the first quarter of 2009.
In some parts of California and Nevada, more than half of all households have negative equity. In a few localities, the size of the equity deficit is staggering: In the Salinas, Calif., metropolitan area, for example, the median equity for people who bought their homes in 2006, near the peak of the boom, is now a negative $214,305, according to the study.
When researchers questioned two nationally representative statistical samples of households about strategic defaults, they found that moral and social beliefs play a constraining role, but negative equity and the frequency of defaults in local ZIP Codes have significant contrary effects.
Co-authors Paola Sapienza, Luigi Zingales and Luigi Guiso used interviews with 2,000 U.S. households in December and March to explore the "moral and social" dynamics of strategic defaults.
The two 1,000-person samples came from the Chicago Booth/Kellogg School Financial Trust Index, which monitors the level of trust households have in the financial system.
Their research not only represents the first attitudinal study of the phenomenon of widespread strategic walkaways from home loan commitments, but also has implications for federal policies seeking to limit the numbers of foreclosures -- which are on pace for a record 3.1 million filings this year, according to RealtyTrac Inc.
Among the study's sobering findings:
Moral precepts keep large numbers of financially struggling homeowners out of default, but only to a point. Fully 81% of household heads said they believed intentional defaults on mortgages to be "morally wrong." But that high percentage begins to crumble as negative equity grows increasingly larger.
When negative equity rose to $50,000, 7% of those who consider strategic defaults to be immoral said they'd walk away. At $100,000 negative equity, 22% would do so. At negative $200,000, 37% of those with moral objections would nonetheless default, and at $300,000, 38% said they would.
Among those who had no moral reservations, the percentages were much higher. At $50,000 negative equity, 20% said they'd walk away. At negative $100,000, 41% would do so, as would 59% at negative $200,000 and 63% at $300,000.
The researchers found that age, tenure of homeownership, the frequency of foreclosures in a person's ZIP Code and even politics influence an owner's willingness to bail out of a mortgage. Owners under age 35 are less likely to have moral problems with strategic defaults, as are self-described political independents, compared with Republicans and Democrats.
An important factor in walkaways, according to the researchers, is the level of foreclosures owners observe in their local community and their personal acquaintance with owners who have defaulted. In the latter case, owners who know someone who defaulted strategically are 82% more likely to default themselves, compared with owners who do not know anyone in that situation.
The higher the number of foreclosures in a given ZIP Code, the higher owners' willingness to walk away, the researchers found, suggesting what they call a "contagion effect that reduces the social stigma associated with default as defaults become more common."
High numbers of foreclosures also appear to create a "vicious circle" that increases neighboring owners' negative equity and greatly raises the probability of additional defaults, foreclosures and equity destruction in the area.
Although the authors offer no specific remedies -- they are behavioral researchers, not policy advisors -- they argue that the traditional assumption that borrowers default because they can't afford their monthly payments needs to be reexamined in light of accelerating foreclosures in some markets combined with plummeting equity.
The Obama administration appeared to take a step in that direction July 1 when it allowed refinancings of Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-owned mortgages in which owners have as much as 25% negative equity. Previously the limit was 5%.
Bankruptcy is an option for homeowners trying to avoid foreclosure
If nothing else, the legal maneuver will buy them some breathing room. But it also will destroy their credit rating, and it may not even be necessary...Lew Sichelman...Distributed by United Feature Syndicate.
http://www.latimes.com/classified/realestate/news/la-fi-lew12-2009jul12,0,231342,print.story
Reporting from Washington — To most people, bankruptcy is a four-letter word. But when all else fails, declaring bankruptcy can be an honest and time-tested legal maneuver to save your house from foreclosure.
If nothing else, filing for bankruptcy protection will buy you some breathing room, which is particularly important in "non-judicial" states where the clock on foreclosure starts as soon as your lender posts a notice that it intends to accelerate your note.
In "judicial" states like California, the process of repossessing a house can take as much as six months, "so you can really see it coming," said Reed Allmand, partner at Allmand & Lee and author of "The Truth About Bankruptcy." But in Texas, a non-judicial state, the clock runs out in 30 days. So "once you are notified," the Dallas attorney said, "it's very difficult to negotiate a deal with your lender because there is not enough time."
The act of filing for bankruptcy results in an automatic stay, meaning your creditors must stop all foreclosure proceedings and debt-collection activities. As a result, Allmand said, the power position shifts from them to you, however briefly that might be.
But whether to file for bankruptcy can no longer be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Under a change in the law that went into effect in October 2005, before you can file you are required to go through credit counseling from a nonprofit agency approved by the Justice Department's U.S. Trustee Program. A state-by-state list of approved agencies can be found at www.usdoj.gov/ust/ eo/bapcpa/ccde/index.htm.
The session includes an evaluation of your financial situation, a discussion of alternatives and a budget plan "to help put you on a more solid financial footing no matter what you decide to do," said Stephanie Osterland, credit counselor at GreenPath Debt Solutions in Farmington Hills, Mich.
Counselors are permitted to charge a fee of about $50. But the fee will be waived if you cannot afford it. The session can take place in person, on the phone or online, and should run no more than 90 minutes. Once it is finished, you will receive a certificate of completion.
Assuming you have exhausted all other options, here's a rudimentary discussion of what you need to know about filing for bankruptcy, which is intended to give a fresh start to people who cannot pay their bills. Nothing that follows should be construed as legal advice. Anyone considering bankruptcy should consult with an attorney.
Under the law, there are two types of bankruptcies that apply to individuals, Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. A Chapter 7 proceeding involves the absolute liquidation of a debtor's property to pay off unsecured debt. With Chapter 13, on the other hand, you set up intermittent payment plans with creditors to pay off some or all of what you owe.
If you earn less than the median income for your state, you can file under Chapter 7, which will allow you to shelter certain assets such as automobiles necessary to get to work, work tools and possibly even your house, depending on the law in your state. All other assets must be sold, and the proceeds will be used to pay your debts. Even if that ends up being less than what you owe, most of your remaining debts will be canceled.
If you earn more than the median and can afford to pay back at least $100 a month based on your income and "reasonable expenses" -- as determined by the Internal Revenue Service, not your budget -- you'll probably have to file under Chapter 13. This will give you a three- to five-year window to repay your debts.
You can keep more property under Chapter 13, but the plan is more difficult to complete. The American Bar Assn. says 2 of every 3 households that file under Chapter 13 don't complete the workout. If that happens, everything is liquidated.
A Chapter 7 liquidation is typically the choice for people with few assets, little income and loads of debt. If you can wipe out enough debt to be able to once again afford your mortgage payments, perhaps you will be able to save your house.
Chapter 7 may also be the best option if you are simply ready to throw in the towel on your house, especially if the lender can hit you with a deficiency judgment for the difference between what you owe and what the house is sold for.
Under a Chapter 13 reorganization, you are required to file a repayment plan showing how you will pay off your debts over the next three to five years. As long as you follow the repayment plan, creditors are prohibited from harassing you and you can keep property subject to security interests, such as your house and car.
Chapter 13 is usually the best choice if you are facing some immediate creditor action -- read: foreclosure -- and you have the income to catch up on what you owe if given enough time. The payments required under the repayment plan will be based on what is owed on the original debt plus whatever extra is required to get caught up on the amount on which you have fallen behind.
It must be mentioned that often it is possible to work out a similar repayment plan directly with your creditors, perhaps with the help of a nonprofit credit-counseling agency, without having to go to the expense of filing for bankruptcy.
One important problem is that bankruptcy destroys your credit standing. But so does foreclosure. So the real question isn't whether you want to ruin your credit, but rather which might do worse damage.
According to Craig Watts, public affairs director at FICO, the company that created the leading credit scoring formula, bankruptcy weighs more heavily because it typically involves more than one account, whereas foreclosure usually involves just your mortgage.
Although both a bankruptcy and foreclosure will remain on your credit report for seven years (10 years for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy), your score will begin to recover from either form of delinquency after a couple of years if you keep your credit clean. And as the delinquency continues to age, it will have less and less of an effect.
CNN Money
The statistics that colleges hate to share...Penelope Wang
http://moneyfeatures.blogs.money.cnn.com/2009/07/12/the-statistics-that-colleges-hate-to-share/
When you start searching for that perfect college for your child, you might think there’s plenty of information to help you with your decision. Just for starters, every college has a website that will give you all the essentials.
Take Stephens College, a private, four-year women’s school in Columbia, Missouri. A quick tour of its website will tell you that the college offers more than 50 major and minors, everything from English to event planning to equestrian science. Class sizes average just 13 students. Annual costs total $32,250, but nearly all students get some kind of financial aid. And the campus looks nice.
But what you  won’t see without diligent searching is that half of Stephens students fail to graduate, even after six years. Not to pick on Stephens, which does mention that statistic deep in its website. Point is, little of the data that colleges provide really tell you much about the value of your investment: the quality of the education, the experience of the students, or how the graduates fare later in life. Instead parents have long accepted the value of the diploma on faith. And many assume that a college that charges $50,000 a year will give their child a better education than one that charges $25,000.
All of which may give momentum to long-standing efforts to improve higher education accountability, which is something that colleges have successfully resisted for years. (Ironically, these same schools have demanded increasing amounts of information about applicants and their parents’ ability to pay.) As Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Trust, noted in a recent interview, “Families need more disclosure about value of the education their money is buying, and the federal government should encourage colleges to make this information transparent.”
Truth is, many colleges do a poor job at graduating well-educated students. A recent study by the American Enterprise Institute found that on average four-year colleges graduate fewer than 60% of their students with six years. And there were wide differences among all categories of schools; even for the most competitive colleges, average graduation rates differed by 13 percentage points. (To find out the graduation rates for many four year colleges, go to collegeresults.org.) Other studies have found that good students who attended less prestigious colleges ended up earning the same as those who went to brand-name schools.
It wouldn’t be that hard to provide data about educational quality, since schools compile most of it anyway. They just keep it private, which is curious considering that most colleges are public institutions or or least partially funded by taxpayers. The National Survey of Student Engagement gathers loads of data on how they spend their time in school and how they feel about their education.The College Learning Assessment tests students’ ability to reason analytically and solve problems during their academic career. As for student outcomes after graduation, well, most colleges keep tabs on their alumni for fundraising purposes. So it’s time that they shared some of that information with tuition-paying families.  And who knows? A little more disclosure might improve the quality of higher education and even slow the rate of tuition hikes.
The Education Trust
College Results online
http://www.collegeresults.org/search_basic.aspx
University of California Merced...No data
University of California-Riverside
http://www.collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?institutionid=110671

University of California-Santa Cruz
http://www.collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?institutionid=110714
University of California-San Diego
http://www.collegeresults.org/search1a.aspx?institutionid=110680