Connect with us

Spread & Containment

John Snow Memo v. Great Barrington – The Johns Hopkins Debate

John Snow Memo v. Great Barrington – The Johns Hopkins Debate

Published

on

John Snow Memo

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health held a debate on October 30, 2020. Locking Down or Opening Up? A Debate on the Best Path Through the Pandemic – Discussing the John Snow Memo and the Great Barrington Declaration.

The debate was part of a series that draws researchers from Johns Hopkins and around the country to learn more about emerging approaches to inform COVID-19 decision making.

I promised subscribers to the 33c newsletter (sign up here) that I would take notes. So I did. What follows are some of key segments that I took away with subheadings and comments. What I captured is not comprehensive but rather a curated selection of the discussion that captures the participant’s views.

The debate is available on YouTube and I would encourage you to listen.

For me the debate less about solving COVID as much as it was about recognizing the different ways we might approach the pandemic. That understanding comes from hearing the different perspectives and weighing the tradeoffs. More specifically, the debate brought:

Leadership exemplified. This debate and the willingness of the participants exemplifies leadership in medicine. Given the politicization and polarity around this crisis, this is the kind of dialog we need. It’s a great example of how institutions like Johns Hopkins School of Public Health can bring value at a time when the media and politicians seem to be dictating our fate.

Authorities not TV experts. These are not practicing internists or influencers who decided to read about COVID and weigh-in. These are some of the world’s most talented public health experts whose lives are dedicated to understanding and controlling threats like COVID. Unlike television’s talking heads, they appreciate the importance of uncertainty around some of this.

A conversation defined by civility. What was most impressive was the sense of humility that these panelists brought to the process of discussing this wicked problem. The session was defined by civility, open mindedness, constructive conversation, critical thinking and respect for legitimate differences, all defining elements demonstrated by the participants. The conversation between these professionals contrasts so sharply with the hostility and zero-sum positioning that occurrs on places like Twitter.

And more than one of these panelist remarked on the value of having a respectful conversation. I’ll add that this debate would be immensely valuable for the public in order to understand that the approach to this pandemic does not fit what we see portrayed by physician commentators on prime time cable.

A debate centered on two polarizing documents

As you can draw from the title, the debate centered on two approaches to the pandemic: The Great Barrington Declaration and the John Snow Memo. As described by moderator Colleen Hanrahan:

The Great Barrington Declaration was authored on October 4 by three career epidemiologists. The basic position of this declaration is that lockdowns to curtail COVID produce devastating effects on short and long term public health. The statement advocates an approach involving herd immunity where those who are younger are allowed to build immunity through natural infection. This then provides protection for those who are older and at higher risk for mortality. The concept is called focus protection and they advocate that life should largely return to normal for those who are not in the vulnerable groups, which includes returning to school work, sports business and cultural activities.

And the other side of this is the John Snow memo. This was published in Lancet on October 14 by a group of authors from throughout medicine and public health. The statement holds that herd immunity approaches a dangerous fallacy. There’s not yet evidence of lasting immunity to SARS COVID to infection and that approach would would cause recurrent covid epidemics. The John Snow Memo advocates for continuing restrictions that allow for suppressed transmission until public health efforts can effectively smother local outbreaks.

The debate participants were Drs Ajay Bhattacharya, David Dowdy and Stefan Baral moderated by Dr. Colleen Hanrahan. So here are some of the high points of the discussion broken down by participant. Their dialog is in ‘pull quotes’.

Ajay Bhattacharya | The Great Barrington Declaration

Dr. Ajay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, is a professor of medicine at Stanford. He’s a health economist with research interests ranging from aging populations to health and medical spending. He’s one of the three authors of the Great Barrington Declaration and represented this position in the debate.

Three defining premises

Dr. Bhattacharya opened with the three premises that underly the Great Barrington Declaration.

The very first premise is and I think everyone on the panel will agree that there’s a very wide difference in the threat of the disease of infection for people who are older versus people who are younger. For people who are older, over 70, the evidence suggests that there’s about a 95% survival rate, which is a very very low survival rate for disease like this. It’s it’s a severe problem for older populations and also for people who have certain chronic conditions. For younger populations, under 70, it’s much milder. So the zero prevalence data from around the world now suggests that the survival rate is something on the order of 99.95% from infection. So that’s just a basic fact that I think everyone agrees with.

The second premise which is that a zero COVID outcome is not possible. It’s not in the feasible space. People point to places like New Zealand as counter examples. But even New Zealand can’t protect itself forever. I think it’s at this point a fantasy to think about zero COVID as a reasonable potential outcome. And in any case, the amount of dislocation and damage to human civilization will be enormous to try to get there. Because we’ve tried to get there and failed.

The third premise is that there is no such thing as a herd immunity strategy. Herd immunity is the endpoint of this epidemic no matter what strategy we pick. It’s not a policy to have herd immunity. Herd immunity is a basic biological fact. Denying that herd immunity will eventually be the endpoint of the epidemic is like denying that gravity exists. It will eventually happen. That’s how the epidemic will end.

Safely getting to herd immunity

So the only question at hand is how do you get there safest? How do you get there with the least amount of human misery, death and harm with the greatest respect for human rights and for the protection of civil liberties? How do you get there consistent with our values and in a way that protects people? So the Great Barrington Declaration does this. It’s actually a call for return to traditional public health principles.

For one, acknowledge who actually is in danger and devote enormous creativity, resources, and energy to protect them. So just concretely I’ll give some sense of who they are and how the current policy block has failed them. So, for instance, nursing homes. Much of the deaths in the United States and actually in many other developed countries has been in nursing home settings. We have failed to protect older people in nursing homes with this lockdown policy. The lockdown policy basically says if we control community transmission we can control transmission in nursing home and that’s evidently not true. We have asked older essential workers, the urban middle class, who are actually at risk from the infection high risk for infection, because they’re essential and poor we asked them still to go work and expose them to the virus because we haven’t adopted folks protection ideas. At the same time, we’ve asked younger people who faced very little risk from the virus itself to burden themselves with enormous costs from this disease. We’ve closed schools and essentially depriving our children of their right to an education. With absolutely devastating effects that will last a generation. We have asked young people to basically cease normal activity. In fact, public health has made such a mistake that what it’s done is it’s created a sense in people who don’t face a huge risk from COVID itself, the risk COVID is so high that people have stopped getting immunizations for their children. They stopped going to get chemotherapy or cancer screening, again with mortality toll to come….So I think the current policy we have is an immoral one. We are asking people who don’t bear a huge risk and disease to bear the burden of the disease, not in the form of COVID but in form of other other harm and damage.

So the Great Barrington Declaration says let’s respect the autonomy of them. Let them go about their lives. I’m not arguing against normal precautions that public health would normally argue. We’re not arguing to go infect yourself and we’re not arguing for covid parties. We’re arguing to let people do the things that they value — that are important while taking reasonable precautions. At the same time devote enormous resources to protect the old. The results will be better both for the old in terms of COVID deaths and also better in terms of non-COVID deaths and the respect of human rights.

David Dowdy MD, PhD | The John Snow Memo

Dr. David Dowdy followed. He’s an MD, PhD and associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. His primary research interest is in tuberculosis and he works at the intersection of epidemiology, health economics and infectious disease modeling. While he disclosed that he had not signed either the Great Barrington Declaration or the John Snow Memo, he agreed to take the position of the John Snow Memo for the debate.

Critically representing The John Snow Memorandum

So I’m going to be defending the the John Snow Memo but I should start by saying I’m actually not a huge fan of certain aspects of this memorandum. I do worry that in signing this document and having it called the John Snow Memo and we were reading a bit of scientific orthodoxy .. implicitly shaming people who might have different perspectives. And I would not like to go about things in that way but I also feel like this memo doesn’t necessarily provide a clear path forward. And that’s something I’d like to correct or address.

Where do I agree with what Jay has said? First of all I agree 100% that the most important goal is to prevent misery, morbidity and mortality and that zero is not possible. Secondly, I also fully agree that lockdowns are a harm to be avoided if at all possible. And the current policies have failed multiple populations.

Separation of vulnerable and not vulnerable is not feasible

So what do I disagree about? First of all, I don’t think that it’s feasible or right to label some people as vulnerable and others as not vulnerable. I think vulnerability is a spectrum and not really just based on age. So should we label our President as being vulnerable because he’s 74 years old? What if you were 69? What if you were black rather than white? And so I worry about a specific age cut off. Are we really just talking about long-term care facilities. So like Jay said just 45% of all deaths COVID deaths in the US have occurred in long-term care facility or residence of long term care facilities, but that leaves 125,000 confirmed deaths outside of those facilities. That’s more than three times as many people who die in road traffic accidents in an average year. Nobody’s arguing, I think, that we shouldn’t be protecting residents of long-term care facilities. But, but once we start to expand the concept of vulnerability to age, I start to worry.

Secondly, even if we could identify the vulnerable the best way to protect those, I believe, is not just to isolate, them test them, and create an island, but rather to reduce transmission in the community. So, I’ll ask everyone here would you rather live in a wholly testing isolated nursing home in North Dakota, where they’ve had 6000 cases in the last week, or one with no testing at all in Taiwan where they have 30 times the population and haven’t had a single case in the past 200 days. So I think that reducing transmission in the community is the key to protecting the vulnerable. Everywhere you go deaths in vulnerable populations track with the number of infections. And so the best way to reduce the number of deaths is to reduce the number of infections. Finally, even if we could identify and shield the vulnerable, people panic. COVID is scary to people in a way that the flu, for example, is not. So let’s just say I don’t want to be the one looking for toilet paper in a place where the message is ‘COVID cases in your city are doubling every week but stay calm we’re protecting the people who are at greatest risk.’

I want to make a quick note on herd immunity. I agree 100% that that herd immunity is not a strategy, it’s an outcome. But we’re not very close to that. So a very recent study just this week published in The Lancet, estimated that about 9% of the US adult population is seropositive to Sars COVID2 as of January. So we have a really, really long way to go. Furthermore, the strongest correlate of seroprevalence was the cumulative COVID mortality rate. So, again, wherever infection is occurring people are dying.

Four ways the Australian response differed from the U.S. response

But how would I move forward? I would look to specific success stories. I’ll use the example of Australia that I think is somewhat similar to the U.S. culturally. Australia is not more locked down than the US. Schools reopened for the most part in May. …GDP predictions for for 2020 in Australia are in a decline of 4.1%, in the US is 3.8%. So very similar in those regards. But despite these similarities, Australia’s pandemic is one 20th the size of the US, both in terms of seroprevalence, which is at .5% in July, and in terms of death. So the cumulative death rate per capita is also about one 20th of that of the U.S.

And so I’m going to say that there are four main differences between Australia’s response and ours in the US and these point the way to a strategy. First of all, knowing your epidemic. So for every confirmed case in Australia they’ve performed 2000 tests versus 13 here in the US. Second, targeting response not based on vulnerability but based on where transmission is happening. So, for example, when an outbreak occurred in Melbourne they enacted restrictions not on a countrywide level, not on a statewide level, but at a level of 10 postal codes. So thinking where is infection occurring, and that’s where we need to enact restrictions. Third, enforcing laws that people can tolerate. So in those 10 postal codes, for example, there were fines for not wearing a mask, fines for missing a curfew. I don’t feel like masks and curfews are breaking the economy or breaking people in the same way that that large lockdowns are. And then finally, supporting people who need it most. So, Australia has has passed legislation to support people who are caring for elders, people who are holding on to jobs, not just in a blanket fashion.

So, in summary, I think we agree on the goal. We agree that lockdowns are bad and we agree to zero is not achievable. But I would argue that rather than trying to identify, shield and protect the vulnerable, we should try to be reducing the level of infection by knowing our epidemic by testing, targeting our spots to where transmission is happening, and forcing tolerable laws and supporting those who need it the most.

Stefan Baral MD | Resources before restrictions

Stef Baral is a physician epidemiologist also at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. His work focuses on HIV epidemiology, prevention and implementation within the context of human rights for men who have sex with men, transgender women, and female sex workers across the globe. He also has not signed either statement but offered his free thinking position that he called resources before restrictions.

To reinforce Dan’s point at the beginning of this, the idea about being able to openly talk about this is a major advance because I think the moment we are afraid to speak as scientists about evidence-based and rights affirming interventions we do a disservice collectively to the response and surely we’re not saving lives.

Public health’s three core values: equity, social justice and participation

I’m gonna start with like a couple premises and those are basic premises of public health. I think of public health as having sort of three core values. Those are equity, social justice, and participation. So equity is that we do more for people who need more. Social justice is that we try to balance intervention benefit and burden. And participation is that we engage the public and people that we ultimately want to use our interventions. That we don’t single handedly, as public health, come up with things and then just push them on people.

No empiric interventions to date

I think when I think about interventions to date I don’t recognize a single empiric intervention to date. I don’t even think that social distancing are empiric interventions because they don’t react to individual or network level needs. And so they are what they are … they are interventions. I just don’t think of them as empiric interventions. Similarly, and I don’t know if lightning’s gonna strike, I certainly don’t think of masks as empiric interventions. I just say I recognize that they’re just like something that we feel we can do as a mandate and just kind of hope that it’s gonna work. But ultimately it represents a passive strategy that’s ultimately implemented by the police and by sort of collective blame and shame. And not necessarily because it’s an empiric intervention or I should say evidence-based intervention.

The public has assumed the social costs of COVID

I think the fundamental problem that I’ve seen within COVID is that we’ve wanted individual people to take on what should be social costs. And so we want people who are generally well to isolate and quarantine when they’re positive but we’re not providing them that means in order to do that. So we’re asking people normally already on the economic margins to absorb social costs and that disconnect between social costs and personal benefits doesn’t feel like a sustainable strategy to me. I think there’s a couple things that we should absolutely be doing. So I say that’s while I’m calling in from a homeless shelter where I work, and I wasn’t for effect, I’m just in clinic. Like, what have we done for the venues and the settings that are so disproportionately affected in the context of doing shutdowns? Should we be shutting down the area that is around this homeless shelter because we’re at such disproportionate risk related to the fact that we’re in a shelter, and that it’s just a congregate living setting? Or should we start thinking about what are the programs that we need to put in place to actually break those chains of transmission? As I think has been happening at individual venues and centers but it hasn’t really been taken the scale.

What we need to be doing that we haven’t done

I think there’s a couple core things that we need to be doing. So one is, it’s amazing to me that this far along we are not providing paid leave, particularly for workers in long term care facilities and in shelters that are like agency hires contract hires and this is kind of universal. It’s amazing to me. It’s like a fundamental failure that we haven’t done that when it’s a major source of thinking about how you’re going to prevent virus from ever entering the building. Because I think once this virus has entered a site, then it’s like testing and PPE and all those sorts of things and masks, obviously. But once virus has entered the site it’s like hope is your best strategy, as compared to really trying to think about how you’re going to prevent that. Housing support. Often when we’re testing folks, telling them to isolate I think the natural question is, ‘where would you like me to isolate?’ We set up programs in my own city for folks that lived in the homeless system but not for folks who were densely housed or couch surfing in an unstable house, etc. So I think this question about ‘where would you like me to do that?’ And particularly for people in multi-generational households, telling them to isolate without providing a means to do that feels like a disconnect that is just going to propagate transmission.

Address unmet needs with resources

And then finally, I’ll just say this idea that people have a tremendous amount of barriers to testing that are often designed for wealthier folks who can work from home, maybe even be able to do a conference call while waiting in line to get tested. Obviously not feasible for shift workers and others who are, as we know, disproportionately affected by COVID. So we’ve misaligned, the programs in general, from where the needs are. So I would say, indeed Colleen said I have this little thing about resources before restrictions, but it’s only because it feels like a very natural public health strategy that we try and address unmet needs with resources. And if people have higher unmet needs, we address those with higher and more resources. And if all of that fails, fine. Let’s close our society. But that should be something that we do when everything else has failed.

I’ll finish by saying that I think the precautionary principle has been and I don’t know if it’s a casualty of 2020 but it feels like it is used often. And people just talk about we need to close down Halloween because who knows, or we need to close down restaurants because who knows. I think we need to do a few things: One, we need to think about the precautionary principles as not just like what are the potential benefits from intervening, but also what are the potential harms and both of those should be along a continuum probability. And secondly, we have to get back to a time of empiricism. If we’re going to close restaurants it should be because we’ve identified clusters that are at a significant scale and make up a significant proportion of the epidemic in terms of attributable fraction, both in terms of immediate, as well as downstream infections. Fine, let’s intervene there and let’s think about how to address that. But I think we have to move away from this approach where the first time cases are going up, we’ve made it easy for governments. It’s like, what do we close now okay let’s close strip clubs. Let’s close restaurants. Let’s close you know what we say and public health is like, people just chasing unicorns and doing pandemic theater of just like closing something just to show action.

We need to let public health function independently

I’ll finish with that I think that I worry about a future where every time a pandemic arises because this isn’t our last pandemic. We might have another pandemic in the next two to three years. That is just the nature of our world at this point, where we move to these sort of grave close-down-the world restrictions, nationalistic close our borders, etc. as compared to by the way — that wasn’t universal across Sub Saharan Africa and Asia they’ve just been a lot more country to country coordination. But Europe and North America, we’ve just closed down and in a very nationalistic way. I worry about this future and I think we need to get back to a point when public health can function independently, do what it needs to do to try to mitigate the epidemic, and save lives.

How do we protect the vulnerable?

Dowdy | protecting the vulnerable

I think that, in general, the three of us are in in rough agreement that what we need are creative and focused solutions to protect the people who are who are at greatest risk. I do think that it is important to be responsive to the overall level of of infection in a community. I think that where infection levels are higher we need to be more proactive in our response. And by proactive I don’t mean locking down. Along the lines of what Stef was suggesting by providing more support, allowing people and enabling them to act in the ways that they need, to protect themselves and to protect their families. Also, being proactive about testing and seeing where transmission is occurring on not just a country or state level scale, but really down to locales. And this may be a controversial point but I do feel that focused and temporary restrictions in in areas where transmission is intense can be effective and can reduce both inequities and long-term morbidity, mortality, and misery at a population level. I think that we’ve seen, going back to the, to the example of Australia, First Nations people in Australia have one fourth the risk of dying of COVID as the average individual whereas in the United States, American Indians, Native Americans, blacks, Alaskan Natives have five times higher risk of of hospitalization due to COVID. And so by keeping transmission at a lower level and being focused for temporary, short periods of time I think that we can actually improve equality and make things more tolerable for the population.

The question of testing | Where, when and at what cutoff?

The question of testing was raised and each participant brought a unique perspective.

Dowdy | The question of testing

So, without getting into too many of the nitty gritty details of who to test and where to test, I think the key is you want to use testing in such a way as you know where to respond. And so if we see positivity levels going up in a community, for example, that’s where we should be pouring in more resources to do additional testing so that we can figure out where transmission is occurring and how we can be creative about responding to that. So if I if I know that transmission is occurring in one particular venue finding a way like to support the people who are engaged with that venue, making it such that they don’t have to continue to interact with each other, and get them through that. So there should be more and more testing and that helps to define the exit strategy too, because, because then you know when when admission has, has declined as well. And so, again, I don’t want to spend too much time on a response about the details of diagnostic testing but just to say that we should be using it to figure out where transmission is occurring, where cases are cropping up, and therefore how to focus our response. Without knowing that, it’s really difficult to come up with targeted or creative responses for reducing transmission. And by transmission, also morbidity, mortality, panic, the possibility of of lockdowns in session.

Bhattacharya | the question of testing

I took a pretty strong position about testing earlier so let me agree and disagree with David. I do think that testing to track community spread is useful but we should do it in a representative way. Right now the testing regimen identifies cases not randomly. It depends on who shows up, whether you test asymptomatic people or not. It doesn’t actually give an accurate picture of community spread.

The second thing I’d say about testing is that we can tune the test to be very sensitive or very specific. There’s a trade-off there, even for the PCR test. A very sensitive test used in schools to identify cases that most likely aren’t transmissible, and where you where you use it to close the school down is a is a terrible use of a test. We should think about the error properties of the testing and the use to which the test is being used when we’re thinking about testing. Not simply just test in order to identify cases. So I think that we sort of failed at that as well. We convey to the public this idea, we put up the case numbers beginning. Who’s infected? Is it older people is it, young people? That matters a lot more than just the total number. I think you want to you want to use test to protect people to save lives, you can use it in to guide medical therapy, obviously. But you know that you should think very carefully about how these tests are being used and the harms …The dictum that more information is always better is actually not true here. If you use the more information in a way that harms people then I don’t want that information. So, I think, in, in theory, one could imagine a world where more and more information is better but that’s not the world we live in right now. Those tests are being used to close down schools and to quarantine people. I don’t think only sort of indifferent link to actually controlling the harm from the epidemic.

Dr. Baral | the question of testing

This is just brilliant.

Testing is important for epi purposes. And I agree with Jay. I love data. We’ve started figuring out how to deal with these collider biases etc, but you know, some of the selection biases that exist in terms of how to test to start inferring what’s happening …. But I feel very strongly that tests as a diagnosis is not a prevention strategy. I think it’s indicative of how this whole response feels really well aligned for rich folk. Sure, if you’re rich, and you get a positive test and go into your home where you likely have at least one room per person in your household and isolate. Get food delivered to your home, do what you need to do, and that you’re fine.

If you’re lower income and you’re asking people to test, that’s not an intervention; the intervention would be making sure that they don’t if they’re well enough that they’re not in the ICU. Basically, you’re asking them to to quarantine and isolate. I think the fair question has to be, how are you making sure that that’s feasible for them? What resources are you providing them to safely quarantine and isolate from all of the various high risk people either in their occupation, or in their household setting. And if you’re not doing that then the test is not an intervention. It’s just like a piece of data. And people like me love data anyway so I think from a data perspective and writing papers it’s one thing. From a prevention perspective, I think we should have a very different kind of understanding of utility these tests.

Getting to a middle of the road approach

The conversation lead to the question of concrete ideas about what we could do going forward? This part of the conversation echoed the idea of tolerance and the need for real dialog.

Bhattacharya | The path forward

I’m a partisan in this so I have to defend my position, but I’m I wanted to come to this conversation to learn. I think we have to talk to each other. I think this tendency toward trying to suppress the opposite view or suppress basically one side of you we’ve seen basically. I mean we put the Barrington Declaration out and Google immediately banned it. It’s absolutely shocking to me that scientists cannot speak to one another — over disagreements over fundamental things we have to have an open discussion. And this attempt to suppress people you disagree with has to stop. So, I think I don’t think a balanced view is possible unless we have discussions. I have to say when you invited me I was very pleased. I mean, over the moon ecstatic because I wanted to learn from people that disagree with me. That’s the only way forward in science.

Okay, now let me do the partisan thing, I think focus protection is the balance thing. We have to account for the harms that we’re imposing with lockdowns on people. We shouldn’t ask people who don’t bear a huge burden of COVID to bear huge burdens from lockdown hands, it’s not right. At the same time we have to acknowledge that COVID is a deadly disease and there are groups that are that are at risk from it, and we have to do our absolute best to protect them if we can. This is not a possible to get to a utopian world where we have zero COVID and we’re back in 2019 again. It’s just a question of minimizing human misery and minimizing death. It’s going to require us to acknowledge that. Stop blaming each other, listen to one another.

Dowdy | The path forward

I’ve learned a lot from this discussion as well. And I think that the only way for us to find out where we agree on things and where might be a reasonable middle road is to have these discussions where we bring in people who might have different perspectives but are willing to talk and, hopefully, in a respectful fashion. And so just to give my own thanks to my co panelists in that regard because I feel like this has been a great experience for me. I also agree with Jay that we need to be thinking about how to be focused in our protection. I think we need to do it in such a way that is not necessarily a one-size-fits-all strategy. I think that when we have even a one-size fits all focus protection strategy that runs the risk of creating more inequity than it solves creating sometimes even more human miseries than it solves. And so I really do think that this has to be something that is done on a local level, or on a small level where people understand the context into which each of these interventions that we might be employing. They understand what that context is. Understanding what the history of transmission has been in that community, and figuring out how we can reduce transmission particularly transmission among those who are at greatest risk of suffering the worst outcome. And so without that sort of customized local approach, I think, like again one size fits all approaches are bound to fail.

Baral | The path forward

This is one of the most important chunks of commentary in the debate.

I alluded to this earlier: I have to say that I worry pretty gravely and I’ve actually had this happen to me personally. I think the first time in my career I was actually afraid to speak, which is crazy. And I think is crazy because I’ve all the perks. I have a lot of these elements of privilege and I felt a personal and professional fear that I think is inappropriate. I know a lot of folks that are more junior and earlier in their careers are feeling, in very real ways, and it’s hindering conversation. The idea of likening certainty around this brand new virus in this new dynamic to whether the earth is round and whether we orbit around the sun does such a disjustice to a lot of the uncertainty. And I think many of us are used to managing uncertainty, but I think this idea of pretending that there isn’t uncertainty, does a disjustice that science and the fact that science is a process, not a destination and surely not a popularity contest. I’ve laid out, I think, very sort of traditional public health principles. I continue to believe, as David said, if you get back to a process of local public health being able to manage resources from the feds, resources by those states and the provinces, and national governments to do local public health, you’re in a much better position. This idea of federal mandates and restrictions-based approaches is going to harm the relationship between public health and the public for decades to come. I even worry about people that don’t want to apply to be like MPHs anymore. They just look at what is public health — like is it the police, or is it really this empowering, oriented approach to solving the world’s problems? So, I will just say that I worry about a future where this is what public health has become and it’s surely not the public health I trained in. And I should know. Public health is all I’ve ever trained in and this all feels very foreign to me. So, thanks.

I can’t finish any better than that.

The post John Snow Memo v. Great Barrington – The Johns Hopkins Debate appeared first on 33 Charts.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Students lose out as cities and states give billions in property tax breaks to businesses − draining school budgets and especially hurting the poorest students

An estimated 95% of US cities provide economic development tax incentives to woo corporate investors, taking billions away from schools.

Published

on

By

Exxon Mobil Corp.'s campus in East Baton Rouge Parish, left, received millions in tax abatements to the detriment of local schools, right. Barry Lewis/Getty Images, Tjean314/Wikimedia

Built in 1910, James Elementary is a three-story brick school in Kansas City, Missouri’s historic Northeast neighborhood, with a bright blue front door framed by a sand-colored stone arch adorned with a gargoyle. As bustling students and teachers negotiate a maze of gray stairs with worn wooden handrails, Marjorie Mayes, the school’s principal, escorts a visitor across uneven blue tile floors on the ground floor to a classroom with exposed brick walls and pipes. Bubbling paint mars some walls, evidence of the water leaks spreading inside the aging building.

“It’s living history,” said Mayes during a mid-September tour of the building. “Not the kind of living history we want.”

The district would like to tackle the US$400 million in deferred maintenance needed to create a 21st century learning environment at its 35 schools – including James Elementary – but it can’t. It doesn’t have the money.

Property tax redirect

The lack of funds is a direct result of the property tax breaks that Kansas City lavishes on companies and developers that do business there. The program is supposed to bring in new jobs and business but instead has ended up draining civic coffers and starving schools. Between 2017 and 2023, the Kansas City school district lost $237.3 million through tax abatements.

Kansas City is hardly an anomaly. An estimated 95% of U.S. cities provide economic development tax incentives to woo corporate investors. The upshot is that billions have been diverted from large urban school districts and from a growing number of small suburban and rural districts. The impact is seen in districts as diverse as Chicago and Cleveland, Hillsboro, Oregon, and Storey County, Nevada.

The result? A 2021 review of 2,498 financial statements from school districts across 27 states revealed that, in 2019 alone, at least $2.4 billion was diverted to fund tax incentives. Yet that substantial figure still downplays the magnitude of the problem, because three-quarters of the 10,370 districts analyzed did not provide any information on tax abatement agreements.

Tax abatement programs have long been controversial, pitting states and communities against one another in beggar-thy-neighbor contests. Their economic value is also, at best, unclear: Studies show most companies would have made the same location decision without taxpayer subsidies. Meanwhile, schools make up the largest cost item in these communities, meaning they suffer most when companies are granted breaks in property taxes.

A three-month investigation by The Conversation and three scholars with expertise in economic development, tax laws and education policy shows that the cash drain from these programs is not equally shared by schools in the same communities. At the local level, tax abatements and exemptions often come at the cost of critical funding for school districts that disproportionately serve students from low-income households and who are racial minorities.

In Missouri, for example, in 2022 nearly $1,700 per student was redirected from Kansas City public and charter schools, while between $500 and $900 was redirected from wealthier, whiter Northland schools on the north side of the river in Kansas City and in the suburbs beyond. Other studies have found similar demographic trends elsewhere, including New York state, South Carolina and Columbus, Ohio.

The funding gaps produced by abated money often force schools to delay needed maintenance, increase class sizes, lay off teachers and support staff and even close outright. Schools also struggle to update or replace outdated technology, books and other educational resources. And, amid a nationwide teacher shortage, schools under financial pressures sometimes turn to inexperienced teachers who are not fully certified or rely too heavily on recruits from overseas who have been given special visa status.

Lost funding also prevents teachers and staff, who often feed, clothe and otherwise go above and beyond to help students in need, from earning a living wage. All told, tax abatements can end up harming a community’s value, with constant funding shortfalls creating a cycle of decline.

Incentives, payoffs and guarantees

Perversely, some of the largest beneficiaries of tax abatements are the politicians who publicly boast of handing out the breaks despite the harm to poorer communities. Incumbent governors have used the incentives as a means of taking credit for job creation, even when the jobs were coming anyway.

“We know that subsidies don’t work,” said Elizabeth Marcello, a doctoral lecturer at Hunter College who studies governmental planning and policy and the interactions between state and local governments. “But they are good political stories, and I think that’s why politicians love them so much.”

Academic research shows that economic development incentives are ineffective most of the time – and harm school systems.

While some voters may celebrate abatements, parents can recognize the disparities between school districts that are created by the tax breaks. Fairleigh Jackson pointed out that her daughter’s East Baton Rouge third grade class lacks access to playground equipment.

The class is attending school in a temporary building while their elementary school undergoes a two-year renovation.

The temporary site has some grass and a cement slab where kids can play, but no playground equipment, Jackson said. And parents needed to set up an Amazon wish list to purchase basic equipment such as balls, jump ropes and chalk for students to use. The district told parents there would be no playground equipment due to a lack of funds, then promised to install equipment, Jackson said, but months later, there is none.

Cement surface surrounded by a fence with grass beyond. There's no playground equipment..
The temporary site where Fairleigh Jackson’s daughter goes to school in East Baton Rouge Parish lacks playground equipment. Fairleigh Jackson, CC BY-ND

Jackson said it’s hard to complain when other schools in the district don’t even have needed security measures in place. “When I think about playground equipment, I think that’s a necessary piece of child development,” Jackson said. “Do we even advocate for something that should be a daily part of our kids’ experience when kids’ safety isn’t being funded?”

Meanwhile, the challenges facing administrators 500-odd miles away at Atlanta Public Schools are nothing if not formidable: The district is dealing with chronic absenteeism among half of its Black students, many students are experiencing homelessness, and it’s facing a teacher shortage.

At the same time, Atlanta is showering corporations with tax breaks. The city has two bodies that dole them out: the Development Authority of Fulton County, or DAFC, and Invest Atlanta, the city’s economic development agency. The deals handed out by the two agencies have drained $103.8 million from schools from fiscal 2017 to 2022, according to Atlanta school system financial statements.

What exactly Atlanta and other cities and states are accomplishing with tax abatement programs is hard to discern. Fewer than a quarter of companies that receive breaks in the U.S. needed an incentive to invest, according to a 2018 study by the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, a nonprofit research organization.

This means that at least 75% of companies received tax abatements when they’re not needed – with communities paying a heavy price for economic development that sometimes provides little benefit.

In Kansas City, for example, there’s no guarantee that the businesses that do set up shop after receiving a tax abatement will remain there long term. That’s significant considering the historic border war between the Missouri and Kansas sides of Kansas City – a competition to be the most generous to the businesses, said Jason Roberts, president of the Kansas City Federation of Teachers and School-Related Personnel. Kansas City, Missouri, has a 1% income tax on people who work in the city, so it competes for as many workers as possible to secure that earnings tax, Roberts said.

Under city and state tax abatement programs, companies that used to be in Kansas City have since relocated. The AMC Theaters headquarters, for example, moved from the city’s downtown to Leawood, Kansas, about a decade ago, garnering some $40 million in Promoting Employment Across Kansas tax incentives.

Roberts said that when one side’s financial largesse runs out, companies often move across the state line – until both states decided in 2019 that enough was enough and declared a cease-fire.

But tax breaks for other businesses continue. “Our mission is to grow the economy of Kansas City, and application of tools such as tax exemptions are vital to achieving that mission, said Jon Stephens, president and CEO of Port KC, the Kansas City Port Authority. The incentives speed development, and providing them "has resulted in growth choosing KC versus other markets,” he added.

In Atlanta, those tax breaks are not going to projects in neighborhoods that need help attracting development. They have largely been handed out to projects that are in high demand areas of the city, said Julian Bene, who served on Invest Atlanta’s board from 2010 to 2018. In 2019, for instance, the Fulton County development authority approved a 10-year, $16 million tax abatement for a 410-foot-tall, 27,000-square-foot tower in Atlanta’s vibrant Midtown business district. The project included hotel space, retail space and office space that is now occupied by Google and Invesco.

In 2021, a developer in Atlanta pulled its request for an $8 million tax break to expand its new massive, mixed-use Ponce City Market development in the trendy Beltline neighborhood with an office tower and apartment building. Because of community pushback, the developer knew it likely did not have enough votes from the commission for approval, Bene said. After a second try for $5 million in lower taxes was also rejected, the developer went ahead and built the project anyway.

Invest Atlanta has also turned down projects in the past, Bene said. Oftentimes, after getting rejected, the developer goes back to the landowner and asks for a better price to buy the property to make their numbers work, because it was overvalued at the start.

Trouble in Philadelphia

On Thursday, Oct. 26, 2023, an environmental team was preparing Southwark School in Philadelphia for the winter cold. While checking an attic fan, members of the team saw loose dust on top of flooring that contained asbestos. The dust that certainly was blowing into the floors below could contain the cancer-causing agent. Within a day, Southwark was closed – the seventh Philadelphia school temporarily shuttered since the previous academic year because of possible asbestos contamination.

A 2019 inspection of the John L Kinsey school in Philadelphia found asbestos in plaster walls, floor tiles, radiator insulation and electrical panels. Asbestos is a major problem for Philadelphia’s public schools. The district needs $430 million to clean up the asbestos, lead, and other environmental hazards that place the health of students, teachers and staff at risk. And that is on top of an additional $2.4 billion to fix failing and damaged buildings.

Yet the money is not available. Matthew Stem, a former district official, testified in a 2023 lawsuit about financing of Pennsylvania schools that the environmental health risks cannot be addressed until an emergency like at Southwark because “existing funding sources are not sufficient to remediate those types of issues.”

Meanwhile, the city keeps doling out abatements, draining money that could have gone toward making Philadelphia schools safer. In the fiscal year ending June 2022, such tax breaks cost the school district $118 million – more than 25% of the total amount needed to remove the asbestos and other health dangers. These abatements take 31 years to break even, according to the city’s own scenario impact analyses.

Huge subsets of the community – primarily Black, Brown, poor or a combination – are being “drastically impacted” by the exemptions and funding shortfalls for the school district, said Kendra Brooks, a Philadelphia City Council member. Schools and students are affected by mold, asbestos and lead, and crumbling infrastructure, as well as teacher and staffing shortages – including support staff, social workers and psychologists.

More than half the district’s schools that lacked adequate air conditioning – 87 schools – had to go to half days during the first week of the 2023 school year because of extreme heat. Poor heating systems also leave the schools cold in the winter. And some schools are overcrowded, resulting in large class sizes, she said.

Front of a four-story brick school building with tall windows, some with air-conditioners
Horace Furness High School in Philadelphia, where hot summers have temporarily closed schools that lack air conditioning. Nick-philly/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Teachers and researchers agree that a lack of adequate funding undermines educational opportunities and outcomes. That’s especially true for children living in poverty. A 2016 study found that a 10% increase in per-pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public schooling results in nearly one-third of a year of more education, 7.7% higher wages and a 3.2% reduction in annual incidence of adult poverty. The study estimated that a 21.7% increase could eliminate the high school graduation gap faced by children from low-income families.

More money for schools leads to more education resources for students and their teachers. The same researchers found that spending increases were associated with reductions in student-to-teacher ratios, increases in teacher salaries and longer school years. Other studies yielded similar results: School funding matters, especially for children already suffering the harms of poverty.

While tax abatements themselves are generally linked to rising property values, the benefits are not evenly distributed. In fact, any expansion of the tax base due to new property construction tends to be outside of the county granting the tax abatement. For families in school districts with the lost tax revenues, their neighbors’ good fortune likely comes as little solace. Meanwhile, a poorly funded education system is less likely to yield a skilled and competitive workforce, creating longer-term economic costs that make the region less attractive for businesses and residents.

“There’s a head-on collision here between private gain and the future quality of America’s workforce,” said Greg LeRoy, executive director at Good Jobs First, a Washington, D.C., advocacy group that’s critical of tax abatement and tracks the use of economic development subsidies.

Three-story school building with police officers out front and traffic lights in the foreground
Roxborough High School in Philadelphia. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

As funding dwindles and educational quality declines, additional families with means often opt for alternative educational avenues such as private schooling, home-schooling or moving to a different school district, further weakening the public school system.

Throughout the U.S., parents with the power to do so demand special arrangements, such as selective schools or high-track enclaves that hire experienced, fully prepared teachers. If demands aren’t met, they leave the district’s public schools for private schools or for the suburbs. Some parents even organize to splinter their more advantaged, and generally whiter, neighborhoods away from the larger urban school districts.

Those parental demands – known among scholars as “opportunity hoarding” – may seem unreasonable from the outside, but scarcity breeds very real fears about educational harms inflicted on one’s own children. Regardless of who’s to blame, the children who bear the heaviest burden of the nation’s concentrated poverty and racialized poverty again lose out.

Rethinking in Philadelphia and Riverhead

Americans also ask public schools to accomplish Herculean tasks that go far beyond the education basics, as many parents discovered at the onset of the pandemic when schools closed and their support for families largely disappeared.

A school serving students who endure housing and food insecurity must dedicate resources toward children’s basic needs and trauma. But districts serving more low-income students spend less per student on average, and almost half the states have regressive funding structures.

Facing dwindling resources for schools, several cities have begun to rethink their tax exemption programs.

The Philadelphia City Council recently passed a scale-back on a 10-year property tax abatement by decreasing the percentage of the subsidy over that time. But even with that change, millions will be lost to tax exemptions that could instead be invested in cash-depleted schools. “We could make major changes in our schools’ infrastructure, curriculum, staffing, staffing ratios, support staff, social workers, school psychologists – take your pick,” Brooks said.

Other cities looking to reform tax abatement programs are taking a different approach. In Riverhead, New York, on Long Island, developers or project owners can be granted exemptions on their property tax and allowed instead to shell out a far smaller “payment in lieu of taxes,” or PILOT. When the abatement ends, most commonly after 10 years, the businesses then will pay full property taxes.

At least, that’s the idea, but the system is far from perfect. Beneficiaries of the PILOT program have failed to pay on time, leaving the school board struggling to fill a budget hole. Also, the payments are not equal to the amount they would receive for property taxes, with millions of dollars in potential revenue over a decade being cut to as little as a few hundred thousand. On the back end, if a business that’s subsidized with tax breaks fails after 10 years, the projected benefits never emerge.

And when the time came to start paying taxes, developers have returned to the city’s Industrial Development Agency with hat in hand, asking for more tax breaks. A local for-profit aquarium, for example, was granted a 10-year PILOT program break by Riverhead in 1999; it has received so many extensions that it is not scheduled to start paying full taxes until 2031 – 22 years after originally planned.

Kansas City border politics

Like many cities, Kansas City has a long history of segregation, white flight and racial redlining, said Kathleen Pointer, senior policy strategist for Kansas City Public Schools.

James Elementary in Kansas City, Mo. Danielle McLean, CC BY-ND

Troost Avenue, where the Kansas City Public Schools administrative office is located, serves as the city’s historic racial dividing line, with wealthier white families living in the west and more economically disadvantaged people of color in the east. Most of the district’s schools are located east of Troost, not west.

Students on the west side “pretty much automatically funnel into the college preparatory middle school and high schools,” said The Federation of Teachers’ Roberts. Those schools are considered signature schools that are selective and are better taken care of than the typical neighborhood schools, he added.

The school district’s tax levy was set by voters in 1969 at 3.75%. But successive attempts over the next few decades to increase the levy at the ballot box failed. During a decadeslong desegregation lawsuit that was eventually resolved through a settlement agreement in the 1990s, a court raised the district’s levy rate to 4.96% without voter approval. The levy has remained at the same 4.96% rate since.

Meanwhile, Kansas City is still distributing 20-year tax abatements to companies and developers for projects. The district calculated that about 92% of the money that was abated within the school district’s boundaries was for projects within the whiter west side of the city, Pointer said.

“Unfortunately, we can’t pick or choose where developers build,” said Meredith Hoenes, director of communications for Port KC. “We aren’t planning and zoning. Developers typically have plans in place when they knock on our door.”

In Kansas City, several agencies administer tax incentives, allowing developers to shop around to different bodies to receive one. Pointer said he believes the Port Authority is popular because they don’t do a third-party financial analysis to prove that the developers need the amount that they say they do.

With 20-year abatements, a child will start pre-K and graduate high school before seeing the benefits of a property being fully on the tax rolls, Pointer said. Developers, meanwhile, routinely threaten to build somewhere else if they don’t get the incentive, she said.

In 2020, BlueScope Construction, a company that had received tax incentives for nearly 20 years and was about to roll off its abatement, asked for another 13 years and threatened to move to another state if it didn’t get it. At the time, the U.S. was grappling with a racial reckoning following the murder of George Floyd, who was killed by a Minneapolis police officer.

“That was a moment for Kansas City Public Schools where we really drew a line in the sand and talked about incentives as an equity issue,” Pointer said.

After the district raised the issue – tying the incentives to systemic racism – the City Council rejected BlueScope’s bid and, three years later, it’s still in Kansas City, fully on the tax rolls, she said. BlueScope did not return multiple requests for comment.

Recently, a multifamily housing project was approved for a 20-year tax abatement by the Port Authority of Kansas City at Country Club Plaza, an outdoor shopping center in an affluent part of the city. The housing project included no affordable units. “This project was approved without any independent financial analysis proving that it needed that subsidy,” Pointer said.

All told, the Kansas City Public Schools district faces several shortfalls beyond the $400 million in deferred maintenance, Superintendent Jennifer Collier said. There are staffing shortages at all positions: teachers, paraprofessionals and support staff. As in much of the U.S., the cost of housing is surging. New developments that are being built do not include affordable housing, or when they do, the units are still out of reach for teachers.

That’s making it harder for a district that already loses about 1 in 5 of its teachers each year to keep or recruit new ones, who earn an average of only $46,150 their first year on the job, Collier said.

East Baton Rouge and the industrial corridor

It’s impossible to miss the tanks, towers, pipes and industrial structures that incongruously line Baton Rouge’s Scenic Highway landscape. They’re part of Exxon Mobil Corp.’s campus, home of the oil giant’s refinery in addition to chemical and plastics plants.

Aerial view of industrial buildings along a river
Exxon Mobil Corp.’s Baton Rouge campus occupies 3.28 square miles. AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

Sitting along the Mississippi River, the campus has been a staple of Louisiana’s capital for over 100 years. It’s where 6,000 employees and contractors who collectively earn over $400 million annually produce 522,000 barrels of crude oil per day when at full capacity, as well as the annual production and manufacture of 3 billion pounds of high-density polyethylene and polypropylene and 6.6 billion pounds of petrochemical products. The company posted a record-breaking $55.7 billion in profits in 2022 and $36 billion in 2023.

Across the street are empty fields and roads leading into neighborhoods that have been designated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a low-income food desert. A mile drive down the street to Route 67 is a Dollar General, fast-food restaurants, and tiny, rundown food stores. A Hi Nabor Supermarket is 4 miles away.

East Baton Rouge Parish’s McKinley High School, a 12-minute drive from the refinery, serves a student body that is about 80% Black and 85% poor. The school, which boasts famous alums such as rapper Kevin Gates, former NBA player Tyrus Thomas and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Gardner C. Taylor, holds a special place in the community, but it has been beset by violence and tragedy lately. Its football team quarterback, who was killed days before graduation in 2017, was among at least four of McKinley’s students who have been shot or murdered over the past six years.

The experience is starkly different at some of the district’s more advantaged schools, including its magnet programs open to high-performing students.

Black-and-white outline of Louisiana showing the parishes, with one, near the bottom right, filled in red
East Baton Rouge Parish, marked in red, includes an Exxon Mobil Corp. campus and the city of Baton Rouge. David Benbennick/Wikimedia

Baton Rouge is a tale of two cities, with some of the worst outcomes in the state for education, income and mortality, and some of the best outcomes. “It was only separated by sometimes a few blocks,” said Edgar Cage, the lead organizer for the advocacy group Together Baton Rouge. Cage, who grew up in the city when it was segregated by Jim Crow laws, said the root cause of that disparity was racism.

“Underserved kids don’t have a path forward” in East Baton Rouge public schools, Cage said.

A 2019 report from the Urban League of Louisiana found that economically disadvantaged African American and Hispanic students are not provided equitable access to high-quality education opportunities. That has contributed to those students underperforming on standardized state assessments, such as the LEAP exam, being unprepared to advance to higher grades and being excluded from high-quality curricula and instruction, as well as the highest-performing schools and magnet schools.

“Baton Rouge is home to some of the highest performing schools in the state,” according to the report. “Yet the highest performing schools and schools that have selective admissions policies often exclude disadvantaged students and African American and Hispanic students.”

Dawn Collins, who served on the district’s school board from 2016 to 2022, said that with more funding, the district could provide more targeted interventions for students who were struggling academically or additional support to staff so they can better assist students with greater needs.

But for decades, Louisiana’s Industrial Ad Valorem Tax Exemption Program, or ITEP, allowed for 100% property tax exemptions for industrial manufacturing facilities, said Erin Hansen, the statewide policy analyst at Together Louisiana, a network of 250 religious and civic organizations across the state that advocates for grassroots issues, including tax fairness.

The ITEP program was created in the 1930s through a state constitutional amendment, allowing companies to bypass a public vote and get approval for the exemption through the governor-appointed Board of Commerce and Industry, Hansen said. For over 80 years, that board approved nearly all applications that it received, she said.

Since 2000, Louisiana has granted a total of $35 billion in corporate property tax breaks for 12,590 projects.

Louisiana’s executive order

A few efforts to reform the program over the years have largely failed. But in 2016, Gov. John Bel Edwards signed an executive order that slightly but importantly tweaked the system. On top of the state board vote, the order gave local taxing bodies – such as school boards, sheriffs and parish or city councils – the ability to vote on their own individual portions of the tax exemptions. And in 2019 the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board exercised its power to vote down an abatement.

Throughout the U.S., school boards’ power over the tax abatements that affect their budgets vary, and in some states, including Georgia, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey and South Carolina, school boards lack any formal ability to vote or comment on tax abatement deals that affect them.

Edwards’ executive order also capped the maximum exemption at 80% and tightened the rules so routine capital investments and maintenance were no longer eligible, Hansen said. A requirement concerning job creation was also put in place.

Concerned residents and activists, led by Together Louisiana and sister group Together Baton Rouge, rallied around the new rules and pushed back against the billion-dollar corporation taking more tax money from the schools. In 2019, the campaign worked: the school board rejected a $2.9 million property tax break bid by Exxon Mobil.

After the decision, Exxon Mobil reportedly described the city as “unpredictable.”

However, members of the business community have continued to lobby for the tax breaks, and they have pushed back against further rejections. In fact, according to Hansen, loopholes were created during the rulemaking process around the governor’s executive order that allowed companies to weaken its effectiveness.

In total, 223 Exxon Mobil projects worth nearly $580 million in tax abatements have been granted in the state of Louisiana under the ITEP program since 2000.

“ITEP is needed to compete with other states – and, in ExxonMobil’s case, other countries,” according to Exxon Mobil spokesperson Lauren Kight.

She pointed out that Exxon Mobil is the largest property taxpayer for the EBR school system, paying more than $46 million in property taxes in EBR parish in 2022 and another $34 million in sales taxes.

A new ITEP contract won’t decrease this existing tax revenue, Kight added. “Losing out on future projects absolutely will.”

The East Baton Rouge Parish School Board has continued to approve Exxon Mobil abatements, passing $46.9 million between 2020 and 2022. Between 2017 and 2023, the school district has lost $96.3 million.

Taxes are highest when industrial buildings are first built. Industrial property comes onto the tax rolls at 40% to 50% of its original value in Louisiana after the initial 10-year exemption, according to the Ascension Economic Development Corp.

Exxon Mobil received its latest tax exemption, $8.6 million over 10 years – an 80% break – in October 2023 for $250 million to install facilities at the Baton Rouge complex that purify isopropyl alcohol for microchip production and that create a new advanced recycling facility, allowing the company to address plastic waste. The project created zero new jobs.

The school board approved it by a 7-2 vote after a long and occasionally contentious board meeting.

“Does it make sense for Louisiana and other economically disadvantaged states to kind of compete with each other by providing tax incentives to mega corporations like Exxon Mobil?” said EBR School Board Vice President Patrick Martin, who voted for the abatement. “Probably, in a macro sense, it does not make a lot of sense. But it is the program that we have.”

Obviously, Exxon Mobil benefits, he said. “The company gets a benefit in reducing the property taxes that they would otherwise pay on their industrial activity that adds value to that property.” But the community benefits from the 20% of the property taxes that are not exempted, he said.

“I believe if we don’t pass it, over time the investments will not come and our district as a whole will have less money,” he added.

In 2022, a year when Exxon Mobil made a record $55.7 billion, the company asked for a 10-year, 80% property tax break from the cash-starved East Baton Rouge Parish school district. A lively debate ensued.

Meanwhile, the district’s budgetary woes are coming to a head. Bus drivers staged a sickout at the start of the school year, refusing to pick up students – in protest of low pay and not having buses equipped with air conditioning amid a heat wave. The district was forced to release students early, leaving kids stranded without a ride to school, before it acquiesced and provided the drivers and other staff one-time stipends and purchased new buses with air conditioning.

The district also agreed to reestablish transfer points as a temporary response to the shortages. But that transfer-point plan has historically resulted in students riding on the bus for hours and occasionally missing breakfast when the bus arrives late, according to Angela Reams-Brown, president of the East Baton Rouge Federation of Teachers. The district plans to purchase or lease over 160 buses and solve its bus driver shortage next year, but the plan could lead to a budget crisis.

A teacher shortage looms as well, because the district is paying teachers below the regional average. At the school board meeting, Laverne Simoneaux, an ELL specialist at East Baton Rouge’s Woodlawn Elementary, said she was informed that her job was not guaranteed next year since she’s being paid through federal COVID-19 relief funds. By receiving tax exemptions, Exxon Mobil was taking money from her salary to deepen their pockets, she said.

A young student in the district told the school board that the money could provide better internet access or be used to hire someone to pick up the glass and barbed wire in the playground. But at least they have a playground – Hayden Crockett, a seventh grader at Sherwood Middle Academic Magnet School, noted that his sister’s elementary school lacked one.

“If it wasn’t in the budget to fund playground equipment, how can it also be in the budget to give one of the most powerful corporations in the world a tax break?” Crockett said. “The math just ain’t mathing.”

Christine Wen worked for the nonprofit organization Good Jobs First from June 2019 to May 2022 where she helped collect tax abatement data.

Nathan Jensen has received funding from the John and Laura Arnold Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. He is a Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center.

Danielle McLean and Kevin Welner do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Revving up tourism: Formula One and other big events look set to drive growth in the hospitality industry

With big events drawing a growing share of of tourism dollars, F1 offers a potential glimpse of the travel industry’s future.

Published

on

By

Sergio Perez of Oracle Red Bull Racing, right, and Charles Leclerc of the Scuderia Ferrari team compete in the Las Vegas Grand Prix on Nov. 19, 2023. Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

In late 2023, I embarked on my first Formula One race experience, attending the first-ever Las Vegas Grand Prix. I had never been to an F1 race; my interest was sparked during the pandemic, largely through the Netflix series “Formula 1: Drive to Survive.”

But I wasn’t just attending as a fan. As the inaugural chair of the University of Florida’s department of tourism, hospitality and event management, I saw this as an opportunity. Big events and festivals represent a growing share of the tourism market – as an educator, I want to prepare future leaders to manage them.

And what better place to learn how to do that than in the stands of the Las Vegas Grand Prix?

A smiling professor is illuminated by bright lights in a nighttime photo taken at a Formula 1 event in Nevada.
The author at the Las Vegas Grand Prix. Katherine Fu

The future of tourism is in events and experiences

Tourism is fun, but it’s also big business: In the U.S. alone, it’s a US$2.6 trillion industry employing 15 million people. And with travelers increasingly planning their trips around events rather than places, both industry leaders and academics are paying attention.

Event tourism is also key to many cities’ economic development strategies – think Chicago and its annual Lollapalooza music festival, which has been hosted in Grant Park since 2005. In 2023, Lollapalooza generated an estimated $422 million for the local economy and drew record-breaking crowds to the city’s hotels.

That’s why when Formula One announced it would be making a 10-year commitment to host races in Las Vegas, the region’s tourism agency was eager to spread the news. The 2023 grand prix eventually generated $100 million in tax revenue, the head of that agency later announced.

Why Formula One?

Formula One offers a prime example of the economic importance of event tourism. In 2022, Formula One generated about $2.6 billion in total revenues, according to the latest full-year data from its parent company. That’s up 20% from 2021 and 27% from 2019, the last pre-COVID year. A record 5.7 million fans attended Formula One races in 2022, up 36% from 2019.

This surge in interest can be attributed to expanded broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals and a growing global fan base. And, of course, the in-person events make a lot of money – the cheapest tickets to the Las Vegas Grand Prix were $500.

Two brightly colored race cars are seen speeding down a track in a blur.
Turn 1 at the first Las Vegas Grand Prix. Rachel Fu, CC BY

That’s why I think of Formula One as more than just a pastime: It’s emblematic of a major shift in the tourism industry that offers substantial job opportunities. And it takes more than drivers and pit crews to make Formula One run – it takes a diverse range of professionals in fields such as event management, marketing, engineering and beyond.

This rapid industry growth indicates an opportune moment for universities to adapt their hospitality and business curricula and prepare students for careers in this profitable field.

How hospitality and business programs should prepare students

To align with the evolving landscape of mega-events like Formula One races, hospitality schools should, I believe, integrate specialized training in event management, luxury hospitality and international business. Courses focusing on large-scale event planning, VIP client management and cross-cultural communication are essential.

Another area for curriculum enhancement is sustainability and innovation in hospitality. Formula One, like many other companies, has increased its emphasis on environmental responsibility in recent years. While some critics have been skeptical of this push, I think it makes sense. After all, the event tourism industry both contributes to climate change and is threatened by it. So, programs may consider incorporating courses in sustainable event management, eco-friendly hospitality practices and innovations in sustainable event and tourism.

Additionally, business programs may consider emphasizing strategic marketing, brand management and digital media strategies for F1 and for the larger event-tourism space. As both continue to evolve, understanding how to leverage digital platforms, engage global audiences and create compelling brand narratives becomes increasingly important.

Beyond hospitality and business, other disciplines such as material sciences, engineering and data analytics can also integrate F1 into their curricula. Given the younger generation’s growing interest in motor sports, embedding F1 case studies and projects in these programs can enhance student engagement and provide practical applications of theoretical concepts.

Racing into the future: Formula One today and tomorrow

F1 has boosted its outreach to younger audiences in recent years and has also acted to strengthen its presence in the U.S., a market with major potential for the sport. The 2023 Las Vegas race was a strategic move in this direction. These decisions, along with the continued growth of the sport’s fan base and sponsorship deals, underscore F1’s economic significance and future potential.

Looking ahead in 2024, Formula One seems ripe for further expansion. New races, continued advancements in broadcasting technology and evolving sponsorship models are expected to drive revenue growth. And Season 6 of “Drive to Survive” will be released on Feb. 23, 2024. We already know that was effective marketing – after all, it inspired me to check out the Las Vegas Grand Prix.

I’m more sure than ever that big events like this will play a major role in the future of tourism – a message I’ll be imparting to my students. And in my free time, I’m planning to enhance my quality of life in 2024 by synchronizing my vacations with the F1 calendar. After all, nothing says “relaxing getaway” quite like the roar of engines and excitement of the racetrack.

Rachel J.C. Fu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Where Is R‑Star and the End of the Refi Boom: The Top 5 Posts of 2023

The topics covered on Liberty Street Economics in 2023 hit many themes, reflecting the range of research interests of the more than sixty staff economists…

Published

on

The topics covered on Liberty Street Economics in 2023 hit many themes, reflecting the range of research interests of the more than sixty staff economists at the New York Fed and their coauthors. We published 122 posts this year, exploring important subjects such as equitable growth and the economic impacts of extreme weather, alongside our deep and long-standing coverage of topics like inflation, banking system vulnerability, international economics, and monetary policy effects. As we close out the year, we’re taking a look back at the top five posts. See you again in 2024.

By Wenxin Du, Benjamin Hébert, and Wenhao Li 

Since the global financial crisis (GFC), long-maturity Treasury bonds have traded at a yield consistently above the interest rate swap rate of the same maturity. The emergence of the “negative swap spread” appears to suggest that Treasury bonds are “inconvenient,” at least relative to interest rate swaps. Our most-read post of the year documents this “inconvenience” premium and highlights the role of dealers’ balance sheet constraints in explaining it. The analysis further explores the role of the Treasury yield curve slope in driving dealers’ long position in Treasury bonds post-GFC and describes a framework for thinking about how shifts in monetary and regulatory policies can affect these market dynamics. (February 6)

By Alena Kang-Landsberg, Stephan Luck, and Matthew Plosser

This April post drew press and reader attention for offering updated estimates of banks’ deposit betas in order to capture the extent of the pass-through of the federal funds rate to deposit rates. The authors also compared the speed of adjustment of deposit betas in this interest-rate hiking cycle to four other such cycles since 1995. They reported, for example, a cumulative deposit beta on interest-bearing accounts of almost 0.4 for the fourth quarter of 2022; that measure was on par with “peak beta” in the 2015-19 hiking cycle and achieved over one year rather than three. (April 11)

By Andrew Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw 

A sharp reduction in mortgage refinance originations seen in the Center for Microeconomic Data’s Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit for the first quarter provided an opportunity for these authors to mark an end to a refi boom that began with the COVID-19 pandemic. They look back at who refinanced, who cashed out on their home equity, and assess how much potential for consumption these transactions provided. They identify the COVID refi boom as lasting for seven quarters over 2020-21 in which approximately one-third of outstanding mortgage balances was refinanced (or fourteen million mortgages). Additionally, they estimate that $430 billion in home equity was extracted using mortgage refinances, a notable volume, though “not nearly as consequential as” the 2002-05 refi boom as a share of income. Some nine million borrowers refinanced their loans in the 2020-21 period without cashing out on equity and lowered their monthly mortgage payments—resulting in an aggregate reduction of $24 billion annually in housing costs, they reported.  (May 15)

By Katie Baker, Logan Casey, Marco Del Negro, Aidan Gleich, and Ramya Nallamotu 

These authors looked at trends in the long-run natural rate of interest, or r*, to find out if it had risen much in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, finding different answers from different models. According to VAR models, long-run r* remained roughly constant since late 2019, at 0.75 percent in real terms. A DSGE model by contrast had long-run r* rising by almost 50 basis points following the pandemic, to about 1.8 percent. The authors went on to discuss what would drive differences across the models and observed the relevance of the r* estimate for assessing the terminal (or peak) policy rate. (August 9)

See also:

The Evolution of Short-Run r* after the Pandemic (August 10)

By Andrew Haughwout, Donghoon Lee, Daniel Mangrum, Joelle Scally, and Wilbert van der Klaauw

This analysis of new U.S. household debt and credit data found “fairly large” increases in delinquency transition rates on credit card and auto loan balances for the year ended December  2022, up from unusually low levels during the pandemic and approaching pre-pandemic levels. When changing their focus from balances to borrowers, the authors found a higher percentage of credit card borrowers—particularly younger borrowers—missing payments than before the pandemic. They noted a similar although “slightly healthier” trend for auto loan performance with younger borrowers struggling relatively more. The authors explained that among the potential contributing factors to the uptick in delinquencies were rising car prices (the data showed the average new auto loan increasing to $24,000 in 2022 from $17,000 in 2019) and the end of pandemic support policies to households. (February 16)

Anna Snider is a senior editor in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

How to cite this post:
Anna Snider, “Where Is R‑Star and the End of the Refi Boom: The Top 5 Posts of 2023,” Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, December 21, 2023, https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2023/12/where-is-r-star-and-the-end-of-the-refi-boom-the-top-5-posts-of-2023/.


Disclaimer
The views expressed in this post are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the author(s).

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending