Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Data Center Taxation Should Be Guided by Sound Policy, Not Short-Term Gains
LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker:
* * *
Data center taxation should be guided by sound policy, not short-term gains
States should craft tax policy that is efficient, neutral in its treatment of different businesses, and built for long-term prosperity.
-
Public political pushback against data centers has state lawmakers rethinking tax breaks they passed with little controversy only a few years ago. Between 2008 and 2025, 38 states passed legislation offering tax exemptions and incentives ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker: * * * Data center taxation should be guided by sound policy, not short-term gains States should craft tax policy that is efficient, neutral in its treatment of different businesses, and built for long-term prosperity. - Public political pushback against data centers has state lawmakers rethinking tax breaks they passed with little controversy only a few years ago. Between 2008 and 2025, 38 states passed legislation offering tax exemptions and incentivesto these centers in hopes of attracting more of what they saw as a new and booming type of business.
Now, amid a backlash over data centers that has reached near fever pitch in recent months, the mood in state capitols has undergone a sudden change. In the spring and summer of 2026 alone, lawmakers in at least eight states have introduced bills that would repeal data center tax exemptions, with several more pausing or reducing tax breaks that appeared safe only a couple of years ago.
During the initial legislative boom, proponents argued these tax exemptions would attract more data centers to their states. Amid increasingly stiff competition from dozens of other states passing similar packages, legislators sought to bring a larger share of data center construction within their borders. To assure residents of the benefits of increased data center activity, each state attached requirements to data centers receiving tax breaks, such as overall capital investment dollars in the project and new jobs created. But when it became clear in the last two years that the boom in question was, in reality, far larger than anyone expected, states began to rightfully question whether tax breaks were really necessary to reap the benefits.
When reconsidering the tax breaks they recently passed, states should not repeat the mistake of singling out data centers for short-term political benefits but instead look to sound long-term tax policy. Some of the exemptions offered by states to data centers are the same as those long provided to other types of businesses like manufacturers, and that experts have long argued should be extended to all firms. States should keep exemptions for data centers on the books when they are justified based on fair and efficient taxation, and repeal them when they are not.
Sales and property tax exemptions
While the state tax packages vary in their technical details, they are mostly similar in the type of exemptions they offer and the benchmarks they require in return. In 37 of 38 states, an exemption on sales tax for machinery and equipment (M&E) is the principal break offered, which covers chips, servers, cooling and electrical equipment, and networking gear. Some states extend this sales tax exemption to also cover utilities. (Montana, which does not have a sales tax, passed legislation with a property tax exemption.)
Property taxes fill the other category of exemptions found in some states' packages. Property tax incentives offered to data centers are both less frequent and more idiosyncratic than the sales tax exemptions at the core of almost every state bill. A few states, such as Iowa and Montana, passed statewide property tax abatements covering either land or previously purchased equipment. Others like Indiana and Mississippi passed legislation authorizing cities and counties to offer data centers special property tax breaks during their negotiations.
Virtually all of the data center tax breaks offered by states are conditional on the recipients meeting "economic development" benchmarks. While benchmarks vary from state to state, they most commonly take the form of requirements on capital investment and jobs. To qualify for sales tax breaks in Virginia, data centers must make $150 million in new capital investment and hire 50 workers at wages at least 150% of the local average (with these hurdles lowered in "distressed areas"). In Illinois, qualifying data centers must make $250 million in capital investment and create 20 jobs within 60 months. Other states such as Michigan add "green" building requirements to the list of necessary qualifications.
The economic case for M&E exemptions
While the combination of exemptions and incentives makes the tax treatment of data centers unlike any other business, the practice of single-stage sales taxes that exempt B2B transactions and apply once only at the point of final consumption is both time-tested and economically sound. In fact, the wave of legislation from 2008 to 2025 brought data centers more closely in line with how states tax traditional manufacturers. Forty states exempt factories from paying sales tax on M&E, with a smaller subset again extending the break to electricity. In this regard, states' treatment of data centers and manufacturers now tracks very closely.
Sales taxes are a critical part of how most state governments operate, accounting for approximately one-third of revenue in the 43 states that impose them. A well-designed sales tax applies only to the final stage of consumption. Most of what we buy in a modern economy goes through many steps in a supply chain. If businesses and manufacturers must pay the sales tax in full at each step in that chain, goods and services that pass through several steps will be taxed several times. This is called "tax pyramiding." Tax pyramiding penalizes manufacturers that produce goods that require many stages of production and can disadvantage smaller firms by incentivizing vertical integration. Capital investment is similarly penalized when sales tax falls on B2B transactions. Finally, repeated taxation at each stage of the value chain can obscure the essential signals that market prices send to buyers and sellers, a problem only compounded when goods or services move across the borders of states with different rules.
For these reasons, economists and tax experts widely agree that all businesses should receive M&E sales tax exemptions of this kind. Karl A. Frieden and Fredrick J. Nicely, authors of a 2024 study examining sales tax history, note that historically services and wholesale did not typically receive such robust exemptions, and observed that sound taxation principles like neutrality (treating all types of business as similarly as possible) and avoiding tax pyramiding were less prominent in more recent debates. They recommend all states with manufacturing exemptions on the books extend them to digital products as a matter of "good tax policy." Jared Walczack of the Tax Foundation found that eliminating the sales taxation of intermediate goods for all types of business, while raising rates on final consumption goods in a revenue-neutral manner, would increase capital accumulation and ultimately output in state economies by billions of dollars. Data center M&E sales tax exemptions represent progress toward the goal of a single-stage sales tax for all types of businesses.
Looking forward
Unfortunately, proponents of the data center tax bills focused on the flimsier prospect of short-term economic and political benefits rather than on sound longer-term tax policy. Lawmakers told their constituents they would out-compete other states for a larger piece of a construction boom destined to bring investment and jobs in the short-term. What happened next shows why targeting handpicked industries and firms for special treatment is misguided.
Predictions of a boom proved wildly underestimated. States did not need to out-compete each other because it turned out there would be enough projects to go around. This is an unavoidable problem when designing policy around handpicked businesses and predictions about cutting-edge new technology. Businesses and governments alike are bound to make false assumptions. But while businesses must face self-correcting market mechanisms, governments risk keeping policies in place long after these assumptions are proven wrong.
States are therefore better off crafting tax policy that is efficient, neutral in its treatment of different businesses, and built for long-term prosperity rather than short-term gains. To the extent that states gave data centers tax breaks that other businesses do not have and that lack justification, repeal them.
The 37 states that passed M&E sales tax exemptions should keep them in place. Were it politically feasible, states would best proceed by extending these exemptions to all businesses. But if such a proposal is too politically messy, it nevertheless makes sense to leave these specific exemptions in place for data centers. Repealing them would amount to placing short-term political gains ahead of sound tax policy.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/data-center-taxation-should-be-guided-by-sound-policy-not-short-term-gains/
* * *
Data center taxation should be guided by sound policy, not short-term gains
States should craft tax policy that is efficient, neutral in its treatment of different businesses, and built for long-term prosperity.
-
Public political pushback against data centers has state lawmakers rethinking tax breaks they passed with little controversy only a few years ago. Between 2008 and 2025, 38 states passed legislation offering tax exemptions and incentives ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Aug. 15 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary by Managing Director of Technology Policy Max Gulker: * * * Data center taxation should be guided by sound policy, not short-term gains States should craft tax policy that is efficient, neutral in its treatment of different businesses, and built for long-term prosperity. - Public political pushback against data centers has state lawmakers rethinking tax breaks they passed with little controversy only a few years ago. Between 2008 and 2025, 38 states passed legislation offering tax exemptions and incentivesto these centers in hopes of attracting more of what they saw as a new and booming type of business.
Now, amid a backlash over data centers that has reached near fever pitch in recent months, the mood in state capitols has undergone a sudden change. In the spring and summer of 2026 alone, lawmakers in at least eight states have introduced bills that would repeal data center tax exemptions, with several more pausing or reducing tax breaks that appeared safe only a couple of years ago.
During the initial legislative boom, proponents argued these tax exemptions would attract more data centers to their states. Amid increasingly stiff competition from dozens of other states passing similar packages, legislators sought to bring a larger share of data center construction within their borders. To assure residents of the benefits of increased data center activity, each state attached requirements to data centers receiving tax breaks, such as overall capital investment dollars in the project and new jobs created. But when it became clear in the last two years that the boom in question was, in reality, far larger than anyone expected, states began to rightfully question whether tax breaks were really necessary to reap the benefits.
When reconsidering the tax breaks they recently passed, states should not repeat the mistake of singling out data centers for short-term political benefits but instead look to sound long-term tax policy. Some of the exemptions offered by states to data centers are the same as those long provided to other types of businesses like manufacturers, and that experts have long argued should be extended to all firms. States should keep exemptions for data centers on the books when they are justified based on fair and efficient taxation, and repeal them when they are not.
Sales and property tax exemptions
While the state tax packages vary in their technical details, they are mostly similar in the type of exemptions they offer and the benchmarks they require in return. In 37 of 38 states, an exemption on sales tax for machinery and equipment (M&E) is the principal break offered, which covers chips, servers, cooling and electrical equipment, and networking gear. Some states extend this sales tax exemption to also cover utilities. (Montana, which does not have a sales tax, passed legislation with a property tax exemption.)
Property taxes fill the other category of exemptions found in some states' packages. Property tax incentives offered to data centers are both less frequent and more idiosyncratic than the sales tax exemptions at the core of almost every state bill. A few states, such as Iowa and Montana, passed statewide property tax abatements covering either land or previously purchased equipment. Others like Indiana and Mississippi passed legislation authorizing cities and counties to offer data centers special property tax breaks during their negotiations.
Virtually all of the data center tax breaks offered by states are conditional on the recipients meeting "economic development" benchmarks. While benchmarks vary from state to state, they most commonly take the form of requirements on capital investment and jobs. To qualify for sales tax breaks in Virginia, data centers must make $150 million in new capital investment and hire 50 workers at wages at least 150% of the local average (with these hurdles lowered in "distressed areas"). In Illinois, qualifying data centers must make $250 million in capital investment and create 20 jobs within 60 months. Other states such as Michigan add "green" building requirements to the list of necessary qualifications.
The economic case for M&E exemptions
While the combination of exemptions and incentives makes the tax treatment of data centers unlike any other business, the practice of single-stage sales taxes that exempt B2B transactions and apply once only at the point of final consumption is both time-tested and economically sound. In fact, the wave of legislation from 2008 to 2025 brought data centers more closely in line with how states tax traditional manufacturers. Forty states exempt factories from paying sales tax on M&E, with a smaller subset again extending the break to electricity. In this regard, states' treatment of data centers and manufacturers now tracks very closely.
Sales taxes are a critical part of how most state governments operate, accounting for approximately one-third of revenue in the 43 states that impose them. A well-designed sales tax applies only to the final stage of consumption. Most of what we buy in a modern economy goes through many steps in a supply chain. If businesses and manufacturers must pay the sales tax in full at each step in that chain, goods and services that pass through several steps will be taxed several times. This is called "tax pyramiding." Tax pyramiding penalizes manufacturers that produce goods that require many stages of production and can disadvantage smaller firms by incentivizing vertical integration. Capital investment is similarly penalized when sales tax falls on B2B transactions. Finally, repeated taxation at each stage of the value chain can obscure the essential signals that market prices send to buyers and sellers, a problem only compounded when goods or services move across the borders of states with different rules.
For these reasons, economists and tax experts widely agree that all businesses should receive M&E sales tax exemptions of this kind. Karl A. Frieden and Fredrick J. Nicely, authors of a 2024 study examining sales tax history, note that historically services and wholesale did not typically receive such robust exemptions, and observed that sound taxation principles like neutrality (treating all types of business as similarly as possible) and avoiding tax pyramiding were less prominent in more recent debates. They recommend all states with manufacturing exemptions on the books extend them to digital products as a matter of "good tax policy." Jared Walczack of the Tax Foundation found that eliminating the sales taxation of intermediate goods for all types of business, while raising rates on final consumption goods in a revenue-neutral manner, would increase capital accumulation and ultimately output in state economies by billions of dollars. Data center M&E sales tax exemptions represent progress toward the goal of a single-stage sales tax for all types of businesses.
Looking forward
Unfortunately, proponents of the data center tax bills focused on the flimsier prospect of short-term economic and political benefits rather than on sound longer-term tax policy. Lawmakers told their constituents they would out-compete other states for a larger piece of a construction boom destined to bring investment and jobs in the short-term. What happened next shows why targeting handpicked industries and firms for special treatment is misguided.
Predictions of a boom proved wildly underestimated. States did not need to out-compete each other because it turned out there would be enough projects to go around. This is an unavoidable problem when designing policy around handpicked businesses and predictions about cutting-edge new technology. Businesses and governments alike are bound to make false assumptions. But while businesses must face self-correcting market mechanisms, governments risk keeping policies in place long after these assumptions are proven wrong.
States are therefore better off crafting tax policy that is efficient, neutral in its treatment of different businesses, and built for long-term prosperity rather than short-term gains. To the extent that states gave data centers tax breaks that other businesses do not have and that lack justification, repeal them.
The 37 states that passed M&E sales tax exemptions should keep them in place. Were it politically feasible, states would best proceed by extending these exemptions to all businesses. But if such a proposal is too politically messy, it nevertheless makes sense to leave these specific exemptions in place for data centers. Repealing them would amount to placing short-term political gains ahead of sound tax policy.
* * *
Max Gulker, Ph.D., is managing director of technology policy at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/data-center-taxation-should-be-guided-by-sound-policy-not-short-term-gains/
Mich. State University Research Foundation: Mobility Summit Focuses on State's Competitive Edge in a Changing Mobility Economy
EAST LANSING, Michigan, Aug. 15 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Mobility Summit Focuses on Michigan's Competitive Edge in a Changing Mobility Economy
Co-hosted by the MSU Research Foundation and MSU Mobility, the summit drew more than 200 attendees from across Michigan's mobility ecosystem to address the forces reshaping the industry and the state's ability to compete.
-
Leaders from across Michigan's automotive and mobility ecosystem gathered at the Graduate by Hilton East Lansing on August 11 for the 2026 Mobility Summit: Michigan ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Aug. 15 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Mobility Summit Focuses on Michigan's Competitive Edge in a Changing Mobility Economy Co-hosted by the MSU Research Foundation and MSU Mobility, the summit drew more than 200 attendees from across Michigan's mobility ecosystem to address the forces reshaping the industry and the state's ability to compete. - Leaders from across Michigan's automotive and mobility ecosystem gathered at the Graduate by Hilton East Lansing on August 11 for the 2026 Mobility Summit: MichiganMoves -- Building the Next Mobility Economy, co-hosted by the MSU Research Foundation and MSU Mobility.
Supported by Waymo, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Industry Office, the daylong summit brought together researchers, entrepreneurs, automotive leaders, investors, policymakers, and government partners for conversations spanning autonomous mobility, emerging technologies, defense innovation, and Michigan's position in an increasingly competitive global industry.
The summit opened with remarks from Judd Herzer, Director of MSU Mobility, who welcomed attendees and introduced Britany Affolter-Caine, Executive Director of Research Universities for Michigan, to set the stage for the opening keynote.
Who Will Build the Future of Mobility?
The keynote fireside conversation featured Dr. Shashank Priya, Vice President for Research and Innovation at Michigan State University, and Jim Quesenberry, Innovation Outreach at Magna International, moderated by David Washburn, Chief Executive Officer of the MSU Research Foundation.
Speakers challenged participants to consider what stronger university-industry partnerships could unlock for Michigan's mobility sector.
From Prototype to Policy
Autonomous mobility took center stage during From Prototype to Policy: Michigan's Path to Autonomous Mobility, introduced by Jeff Smith, Executive Director of Research Parks at the MSU Research Foundation and moderated by Justine Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Mobility Officer at MEDC's Office of Future Mobility and Electrification.
Panelists Derek Caveney of Toyota Motor North America, Niall Berkery of Neumo, Michelle Mueller of Michigan Department of Transportation, Emily Frascaroli of Ford Motor Company, and Lara Dailey of Waymo explored the intersection of autonomous vehicles, roadway safety, human factors, infrastructure, public trust, and policy.
Rather than focusing solely on when autonomous vehicles will arrive, the discussion examined what it will take for the technology to be deployed safely and at scale, and how Michigan can leverage its automotive, research, infrastructure, and public-sector assets to help lead that transition.
Research and Emerging Technologies
Three Michigan State University researchers presented technologies ready for industry engagement through rapid research spotlights. Nizar Lajnef, MSU faculty and founder of Infratico presented infrastructure sensing technology; Chengcheng Fang, MSU faculty and founder of Current Collector, highlighted innovations in EV battery current collectors; and Josh Siegel, MSU faculty and founder of AI Mechanic, demonstrated technology that uses a smartphone microphone to diagnose vehicle problems from sound in real time. The session was introduced by Brice Nelson, the director of corporate partnerships at MSU.
The summit also looked beyond ground transportation during Skyward: Michigan in the Air. Moderated by Nicole Noll-Williams, President and CEO of the Capital Region Airport Authority, the conversation featured Surya Congress of Michigan State University, Dakoyta Greenman of Westwood AI, and Mike Bucci of Birdstop, exploring drones, autonomous systems, airport applications, and the barriers to real-world aerial mobility deployment. Brad Garmon of Michigan Outdoor Recreation Industry Office introduced this session.
Built Together: MSU's Cross-College Model examined how expertise across Michigan State University can support increasingly complex mobility research and commercialization. The session featured Satish Udpa, David Frayer, John Verboncoeur, Jenny Carter-Johnson, and Sri Kalyanaraman. This session was introduced by Sanjay Gupta, co-chair of the Green and White Council at Michigan State University.
Mobility, Defense, and Global Competition
Congressman Tom Barrett kicked off the afternoon sessions with remarks on mobility in national defense and Michigan's role in World War II, setting the stage for the panel, Arsenal of Democracy: Michigan's Next Mission. Moderated by John Manza of the MSU Office of Research and Innovation, the panel explored mobility as it relates to national security.
Panelists Talia Marie Sebastian of the U.S. Army DEVCOM Ground Vehicle Systems Center, Dr. Mahmoodul Haq, Chris Thomas of Assembly Ventures, and Parker Boundy, CEO of General Orbit, discussed Michigan's potential role in dual-use mobility technology, defense manufacturing, federal procurement, applied research, investment, and startup deployment.
Drawing on Michigan's historic role as the Arsenal of Democracy, the discussion considered what that legacy could mean in the 21st century and what it will take to move emerging technologies from development into defense applications.
The final panel, Michigan's Supply Chain: Built to Compete, turned toward global competition. Tu Le of Sino Auto Insights opened with an assessment of China's mobility supply chain and what it means for Michigan manufacturers, followed by a discussion with Chris Nolte of Bloom, Sriram Narayanan of Michigan State University, and Katie O'Brien, General Manager, Purchasing Supplier Development at Toyota Motor North America.
The conversation challenged participants to consider where Michigan can compete globally, what capabilities it must strengthen, and what decisions industry, government, universities, and investors need to make now.
The Summit closed with remarks from David Washburn, CEO of the MSU Research Foundation, who reflected on the day's conversations and called on attendees to act on the partnerships and commitments made throughout the day.
Designed for Connection
Beyond the stage, structured networking opportunities were incorporated throughout the day, including a lunch hosted by Clean Fuels Michigan. Facilitated lunch tables brought participants together around autonomy, advanced air mobility, clean fuels, workforce, policy, investment, startups, and defense.
An outdoor showcase featured a Waymo Jaguar I-P and a Ford Mustang Mach-E, as well as MSU Drift Drone, rockets from MSU Rocketry Team, Formula 1 race cars from MSU and University of Michigan, a SpartanXpress autonomous bus, and exhibiting companies including Ketchel Axle Systems, Neumo, Motion Sync, the MSU Industrial Training and Assessment Center, Next Energy, EMC Squared Vehicles, Infratico and a variety of small electric vehicles.
The summit also included the Satish Udpa Mobility Awards, named in honor of the founding leader of the MSU Mobility program. Pete Savolainen, Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Michigan State University, was named Faculty Member of the Year, while Jim Quesenberry of Magna International was recognized as Council Member of the Year. The awards recognized their contributions to advancing mobility research, collaboration, and innovation.
Three Key Takeaways from the 2026 Mobility Summit
1. Michigan's Mobility Strengths Need Stronger Connections: Michigan has automotive expertise, university research, manufacturing capacity, startups, and public-sector support, but maintaining a competitive edge will depend on connecting those assets more effectively.
2. Deployment is Becoming as Important as Development: Across autonomous vehicles, drones, defense technologies, and university research, discussions repeatedly returned to the infrastructure, policy, partnerships, and capital required to move technologies into real-world use.
3. Global Competition is Raising the Stakes: From China's mobility supply chain to emerging defense needs, the summit underscored that Michigan is competing in a rapidly changing global environment that demands faster commercialization and closer collaboration between industry and research.
To learn more about upcoming summits and events hosted by the MSU Research Foundation, visit msufoundation.org/events.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/mobility-summit-focuses-on-michigans-competitive-edge-in-a-changing-mobility-economy/
* * *
Mobility Summit Focuses on Michigan's Competitive Edge in a Changing Mobility Economy
Co-hosted by the MSU Research Foundation and MSU Mobility, the summit drew more than 200 attendees from across Michigan's mobility ecosystem to address the forces reshaping the industry and the state's ability to compete.
-
Leaders from across Michigan's automotive and mobility ecosystem gathered at the Graduate by Hilton East Lansing on August 11 for the 2026 Mobility Summit: Michigan ... Show Full Article EAST LANSING, Michigan, Aug. 15 -- The Michigan State University Research Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Mobility Summit Focuses on Michigan's Competitive Edge in a Changing Mobility Economy Co-hosted by the MSU Research Foundation and MSU Mobility, the summit drew more than 200 attendees from across Michigan's mobility ecosystem to address the forces reshaping the industry and the state's ability to compete. - Leaders from across Michigan's automotive and mobility ecosystem gathered at the Graduate by Hilton East Lansing on August 11 for the 2026 Mobility Summit: MichiganMoves -- Building the Next Mobility Economy, co-hosted by the MSU Research Foundation and MSU Mobility.
Supported by Waymo, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) and the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Industry Office, the daylong summit brought together researchers, entrepreneurs, automotive leaders, investors, policymakers, and government partners for conversations spanning autonomous mobility, emerging technologies, defense innovation, and Michigan's position in an increasingly competitive global industry.
The summit opened with remarks from Judd Herzer, Director of MSU Mobility, who welcomed attendees and introduced Britany Affolter-Caine, Executive Director of Research Universities for Michigan, to set the stage for the opening keynote.
Who Will Build the Future of Mobility?
The keynote fireside conversation featured Dr. Shashank Priya, Vice President for Research and Innovation at Michigan State University, and Jim Quesenberry, Innovation Outreach at Magna International, moderated by David Washburn, Chief Executive Officer of the MSU Research Foundation.
Speakers challenged participants to consider what stronger university-industry partnerships could unlock for Michigan's mobility sector.
From Prototype to Policy
Autonomous mobility took center stage during From Prototype to Policy: Michigan's Path to Autonomous Mobility, introduced by Jeff Smith, Executive Director of Research Parks at the MSU Research Foundation and moderated by Justine Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Mobility Officer at MEDC's Office of Future Mobility and Electrification.
Panelists Derek Caveney of Toyota Motor North America, Niall Berkery of Neumo, Michelle Mueller of Michigan Department of Transportation, Emily Frascaroli of Ford Motor Company, and Lara Dailey of Waymo explored the intersection of autonomous vehicles, roadway safety, human factors, infrastructure, public trust, and policy.
Rather than focusing solely on when autonomous vehicles will arrive, the discussion examined what it will take for the technology to be deployed safely and at scale, and how Michigan can leverage its automotive, research, infrastructure, and public-sector assets to help lead that transition.
Research and Emerging Technologies
Three Michigan State University researchers presented technologies ready for industry engagement through rapid research spotlights. Nizar Lajnef, MSU faculty and founder of Infratico presented infrastructure sensing technology; Chengcheng Fang, MSU faculty and founder of Current Collector, highlighted innovations in EV battery current collectors; and Josh Siegel, MSU faculty and founder of AI Mechanic, demonstrated technology that uses a smartphone microphone to diagnose vehicle problems from sound in real time. The session was introduced by Brice Nelson, the director of corporate partnerships at MSU.
The summit also looked beyond ground transportation during Skyward: Michigan in the Air. Moderated by Nicole Noll-Williams, President and CEO of the Capital Region Airport Authority, the conversation featured Surya Congress of Michigan State University, Dakoyta Greenman of Westwood AI, and Mike Bucci of Birdstop, exploring drones, autonomous systems, airport applications, and the barriers to real-world aerial mobility deployment. Brad Garmon of Michigan Outdoor Recreation Industry Office introduced this session.
Built Together: MSU's Cross-College Model examined how expertise across Michigan State University can support increasingly complex mobility research and commercialization. The session featured Satish Udpa, David Frayer, John Verboncoeur, Jenny Carter-Johnson, and Sri Kalyanaraman. This session was introduced by Sanjay Gupta, co-chair of the Green and White Council at Michigan State University.
Mobility, Defense, and Global Competition
Congressman Tom Barrett kicked off the afternoon sessions with remarks on mobility in national defense and Michigan's role in World War II, setting the stage for the panel, Arsenal of Democracy: Michigan's Next Mission. Moderated by John Manza of the MSU Office of Research and Innovation, the panel explored mobility as it relates to national security.
Panelists Talia Marie Sebastian of the U.S. Army DEVCOM Ground Vehicle Systems Center, Dr. Mahmoodul Haq, Chris Thomas of Assembly Ventures, and Parker Boundy, CEO of General Orbit, discussed Michigan's potential role in dual-use mobility technology, defense manufacturing, federal procurement, applied research, investment, and startup deployment.
Drawing on Michigan's historic role as the Arsenal of Democracy, the discussion considered what that legacy could mean in the 21st century and what it will take to move emerging technologies from development into defense applications.
The final panel, Michigan's Supply Chain: Built to Compete, turned toward global competition. Tu Le of Sino Auto Insights opened with an assessment of China's mobility supply chain and what it means for Michigan manufacturers, followed by a discussion with Chris Nolte of Bloom, Sriram Narayanan of Michigan State University, and Katie O'Brien, General Manager, Purchasing Supplier Development at Toyota Motor North America.
The conversation challenged participants to consider where Michigan can compete globally, what capabilities it must strengthen, and what decisions industry, government, universities, and investors need to make now.
The Summit closed with remarks from David Washburn, CEO of the MSU Research Foundation, who reflected on the day's conversations and called on attendees to act on the partnerships and commitments made throughout the day.
Designed for Connection
Beyond the stage, structured networking opportunities were incorporated throughout the day, including a lunch hosted by Clean Fuels Michigan. Facilitated lunch tables brought participants together around autonomy, advanced air mobility, clean fuels, workforce, policy, investment, startups, and defense.
An outdoor showcase featured a Waymo Jaguar I-P and a Ford Mustang Mach-E, as well as MSU Drift Drone, rockets from MSU Rocketry Team, Formula 1 race cars from MSU and University of Michigan, a SpartanXpress autonomous bus, and exhibiting companies including Ketchel Axle Systems, Neumo, Motion Sync, the MSU Industrial Training and Assessment Center, Next Energy, EMC Squared Vehicles, Infratico and a variety of small electric vehicles.
The summit also included the Satish Udpa Mobility Awards, named in honor of the founding leader of the MSU Mobility program. Pete Savolainen, Chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Michigan State University, was named Faculty Member of the Year, while Jim Quesenberry of Magna International was recognized as Council Member of the Year. The awards recognized their contributions to advancing mobility research, collaboration, and innovation.
Three Key Takeaways from the 2026 Mobility Summit
1. Michigan's Mobility Strengths Need Stronger Connections: Michigan has automotive expertise, university research, manufacturing capacity, startups, and public-sector support, but maintaining a competitive edge will depend on connecting those assets more effectively.
2. Deployment is Becoming as Important as Development: Across autonomous vehicles, drones, defense technologies, and university research, discussions repeatedly returned to the infrastructure, policy, partnerships, and capital required to move technologies into real-world use.
3. Global Competition is Raising the Stakes: From China's mobility supply chain to emerging defense needs, the summit underscored that Michigan is competing in a rapidly changing global environment that demands faster commercialization and closer collaboration between industry and research.
To learn more about upcoming summits and events hosted by the MSU Research Foundation, visit msufoundation.org/events.
* * *
Original text here: https://msufoundation.org/mobility-summit-focuses-on-michigans-competitive-edge-in-a-changing-mobility-economy/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary Entitled 'True Courage in Hong Kong'
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Yale law student Rachel Chiu:
* * *
True Courage in Hong Kong
What Jimmy Lai teaches us about free markets and free speech.
-
As Jimmy Lai's imprisonment shows, a country's economic prosperity means very little if it fails to preserve civil liberties.
In May, President Trump met with Xi Jinping in Beijing, marking the first US presidential visit to China since 2017. Trump returned with agreements to strengthen US-China relations and cooperate on major foreign policy issues. One of the most ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Yale law student Rachel Chiu: * * * True Courage in Hong Kong What Jimmy Lai teaches us about free markets and free speech. - As Jimmy Lai's imprisonment shows, a country's economic prosperity means very little if it fails to preserve civil liberties. In May, President Trump met with Xi Jinping in Beijing, marking the first US presidential visit to China since 2017. Trump returned with agreements to strengthen US-China relations and cooperate on major foreign policy issues. One of the mostnotable post-meeting developments was the speedy release of Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri, who was detained in October 2025 for leading an underground Christian church. While Jin's homecoming is a significant victory for religious liberty, Trump was unable to secure the release of another prominent political prisoner: Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong businessman (and British citizen) who has been in jail for over five years for running the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper.
Lai, a self-made entrepreneur and billionaire, had the opportunity to flee before his arrest, but chose to stay to encourage millions of Hong Kongers to keep fighting for the freedom and autonomy that the region has had for decades. His plight resonates strongly with me because of my family's experiences during the Chinese Communist Revolution, but it should be just as meaningful for every American who believes in the virtues of economic and social freedoms.
In recent years, China has complicated the long-held belief among classical liberals that free markets are key to economic prosperity. Although the country has embraced central planning, it has become the world's second-largest economy after the United States. Hong Kong is situated in a fragile position: the island has been under British influence and, at times, control since 1842. In 1997, Britain's lease on the territory ended, and Hong Kong was handed back to China. The "one country, two systems" policy promised that Hong Kong would become part of China while retaining its capitalist economy and partially democratic political system during the 50-year transition period. Activists argue that China has eroded freedoms and punished dissent, leading to major protests in 2014 and 2019.
Yet, as Jimmy Lai's imprisonment shows, economic prosperity cannot persist unless the country also respects civil liberties. Lai has been detained since August 2020. In February, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for colluding with foreign forces under the region's national security law. At age 78, civil rights groups have rightfully called this a "death sentence." He has been held in solitary confinement, where he has experienced substantial weight loss and health deterioration.
Recently, the Hong Kong government has attempted to confiscate over HK$127 million ($16 million) from Lai, alleging that the funds are linked to his crimes. When a government does not respect civil liberties, economic prosperity reaches only as far as its leaders allow.
Lai represents the change occurring in Hong Kong, from a city that embraced freedoms consistent with British and American systems to one struggling to maintain what it once had. Hong Kong may be thousands of miles away, but the values that Lai and other activists are fighting for are the same ones that Americans believe in: freedom to participate in governance, critique politicians and their decisions, and publish views without fear of retribution. These values should not feel foreign to Americans.
President Trump is set to meet with Xi again next month. The Chinese government's willingness to free Pastor Jin gives reason to hold onto optimism for Lai, though Trump is correct that it will be "tough" to secure his release. But the United States cannot give up on him. Lai is a hero who has put his own life at stake so that others can continue to fight for our shared values of freedom and human dignity.
* * *
Rachel Chiu is a recent graduate of Yale Law School and a Young Voices contributor focused on online speech and technology policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/true-courage-in-hong-kong/
* * *
True Courage in Hong Kong
What Jimmy Lai teaches us about free markets and free speech.
-
As Jimmy Lai's imprisonment shows, a country's economic prosperity means very little if it fails to preserve civil liberties.
In May, President Trump met with Xi Jinping in Beijing, marking the first US presidential visit to China since 2017. Trump returned with agreements to strengthen US-China relations and cooperate on major foreign policy issues. One of the most ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 15 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by Yale law student Rachel Chiu: * * * True Courage in Hong Kong What Jimmy Lai teaches us about free markets and free speech. - As Jimmy Lai's imprisonment shows, a country's economic prosperity means very little if it fails to preserve civil liberties. In May, President Trump met with Xi Jinping in Beijing, marking the first US presidential visit to China since 2017. Trump returned with agreements to strengthen US-China relations and cooperate on major foreign policy issues. One of the mostnotable post-meeting developments was the speedy release of Pastor Ezra Jin Mingri, who was detained in October 2025 for leading an underground Christian church. While Jin's homecoming is a significant victory for religious liberty, Trump was unable to secure the release of another prominent political prisoner: Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong businessman (and British citizen) who has been in jail for over five years for running the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper.
Lai, a self-made entrepreneur and billionaire, had the opportunity to flee before his arrest, but chose to stay to encourage millions of Hong Kongers to keep fighting for the freedom and autonomy that the region has had for decades. His plight resonates strongly with me because of my family's experiences during the Chinese Communist Revolution, but it should be just as meaningful for every American who believes in the virtues of economic and social freedoms.
In recent years, China has complicated the long-held belief among classical liberals that free markets are key to economic prosperity. Although the country has embraced central planning, it has become the world's second-largest economy after the United States. Hong Kong is situated in a fragile position: the island has been under British influence and, at times, control since 1842. In 1997, Britain's lease on the territory ended, and Hong Kong was handed back to China. The "one country, two systems" policy promised that Hong Kong would become part of China while retaining its capitalist economy and partially democratic political system during the 50-year transition period. Activists argue that China has eroded freedoms and punished dissent, leading to major protests in 2014 and 2019.
Yet, as Jimmy Lai's imprisonment shows, economic prosperity cannot persist unless the country also respects civil liberties. Lai has been detained since August 2020. In February, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for colluding with foreign forces under the region's national security law. At age 78, civil rights groups have rightfully called this a "death sentence." He has been held in solitary confinement, where he has experienced substantial weight loss and health deterioration.
Recently, the Hong Kong government has attempted to confiscate over HK$127 million ($16 million) from Lai, alleging that the funds are linked to his crimes. When a government does not respect civil liberties, economic prosperity reaches only as far as its leaders allow.
Lai represents the change occurring in Hong Kong, from a city that embraced freedoms consistent with British and American systems to one struggling to maintain what it once had. Hong Kong may be thousands of miles away, but the values that Lai and other activists are fighting for are the same ones that Americans believe in: freedom to participate in governance, critique politicians and their decisions, and publish views without fear of retribution. These values should not feel foreign to Americans.
President Trump is set to meet with Xi again next month. The Chinese government's willingness to free Pastor Jin gives reason to hold onto optimism for Lai, though Trump is correct that it will be "tough" to secure his release. But the United States cannot give up on him. Lai is a hero who has put his own life at stake so that others can continue to fight for our shared values of freedom and human dignity.
* * *
Rachel Chiu is a recent graduate of Yale Law School and a Young Voices contributor focused on online speech and technology policy.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/true-courage-in-hong-kong/
Health Foundation: Historic Underinvestment in GP Funding Puts Government's Neighbourhood Health Agenda at Risk
LONDON, England, Aug. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk
General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report.
The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams.
The Health Foundation has warned that the ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Aug. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report. The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams. The Health Foundation has warned that thegovernment's ambitions to move care into the community and realise its vision for a neighbourhood health service are at risk without a sustained focus to shift the proportion of NHS spending towards general practice.
Between 2015/16 and 2024/25, despite repeated government commitments to shift funding from secondary to primary care, the proportion of money spent by NHS England and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) on primary medical care fell from 8.8% to 8.3%. Over the same period, the share spent on acute services, such as hospitals, increased from 38.4% to 42.6%.
Under the current Labour government, the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts have provided a boost in funding. The 10-Year Health Plan committed to shifting the share of NHS investment going into primary and community care. But current policies, proposing the introduction of Integrated Health Organisations - most likely to be led by large NHS trusts - risk shifting the focus back towards hospitals. The report warns that a clear policy commitment is needed to increase the share of investment going into general practice so it can deliver the central role expected of it in the government's neighbourhood health agenda.
Practices provide the vast majority of first contact and ongoing care to the public throughout the year, yet the amount allocated to general practice per patient per year is substantially below the average cost of a single ambulance or emergency care episode. In 2026/27, for pound sterling219 per patient on average, practices will typically provide 5 to 6 appointments per patient per year, carry out all non-patient facing work and meet the costs of running a practice, such as staffing and overheads.
The report also calls for a review of all general practice funding streams, not just the Carr-Hill formula (which accounts for three fifths of payments made to practices and is currently undergoing a review). It finds that the way funding is distributed between practices may contribute to inequities, with the overall mix of payments playing an important role. Although the current Carr-Hill formula directs more funding to practices in more deprived areas and rural communities, this may not be sufficient. And once all funding streams are combined, these favour practices serving less deprived populations, underlining the need for government to look at all payments collectively.
The report, the first to provide a comprehensive picture of GP funding in England, also finds marked variation in GP earnings over time and between GPs. GP contractors' - also known as partners - income per session was nearly double that of salaried GPs, and a gender pay gap, disadvantaging female GPs, exists among both contractor and salaried GPs even after accounting for reported working hours.
The Health Foundation urges policymakers to commit to a clear multi-year investment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, which could be achieved through a minimum investment standard. This should be accompanied by a review of all funding streams and of where unwarranted variation in GP pay exists. This will be necessary to ensure any additional investment supports access, improves continuity of care, addresses inequalities and strengthens workforce sustainability.
Dr Luisa Pettigrew, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'General practice is the foundation of the NHS. Yet its funding has not kept pace with the role that recurrent governments have expected it to play. While the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts provided a boost in funding, this followed a decade in which the share of NHS spend going to general practice had fallen.
'The government consultation on proposed Neighbourhood Provider models states that there will be 'no new national funding'. But if the government are serious about delivering better neighbourhood health services and strengthening care outside of hospitals, more money will be needed in general practice. A clear, multi-year commitment to increasing investment is needed, alongside a review of all funding flows into general practice and of how they are used to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and efficiently.
'Without this, general practice and neighbourhood health ambitions are being set up to fail, and aspirations to shift care closer to home and reduce costly, avoidable pressure on hospitals will be left unrealised.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/upload/publications/2026/Health_Foundation_General%20practice%20funding%20in%20England.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/historic-underinvestment-in-gp-funding-puts-government-s-neighbourhood-health-agenda-at-risk
* * *
Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk
General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report.
The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams.
The Health Foundation has warned that the ... Show Full Article LONDON, England, Aug. 14 (TNSrpt) -- The Health Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Historic underinvestment in GP funding puts government's neighbourhood health agenda at risk General practice funding failed to keep pace with hospital spending in the decade to 2024/25, despite repeated commitments to shift care closer to home, according to a new Health Foundation report. The health charity calls for a clear multi-year commitment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, alongside a review of all GP funding streams. The Health Foundation has warned that thegovernment's ambitions to move care into the community and realise its vision for a neighbourhood health service are at risk without a sustained focus to shift the proportion of NHS spending towards general practice.
Between 2015/16 and 2024/25, despite repeated government commitments to shift funding from secondary to primary care, the proportion of money spent by NHS England and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) on primary medical care fell from 8.8% to 8.3%. Over the same period, the share spent on acute services, such as hospitals, increased from 38.4% to 42.6%.
Under the current Labour government, the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts have provided a boost in funding. The 10-Year Health Plan committed to shifting the share of NHS investment going into primary and community care. But current policies, proposing the introduction of Integrated Health Organisations - most likely to be led by large NHS trusts - risk shifting the focus back towards hospitals. The report warns that a clear policy commitment is needed to increase the share of investment going into general practice so it can deliver the central role expected of it in the government's neighbourhood health agenda.
Practices provide the vast majority of first contact and ongoing care to the public throughout the year, yet the amount allocated to general practice per patient per year is substantially below the average cost of a single ambulance or emergency care episode. In 2026/27, for pound sterling219 per patient on average, practices will typically provide 5 to 6 appointments per patient per year, carry out all non-patient facing work and meet the costs of running a practice, such as staffing and overheads.
The report also calls for a review of all general practice funding streams, not just the Carr-Hill formula (which accounts for three fifths of payments made to practices and is currently undergoing a review). It finds that the way funding is distributed between practices may contribute to inequities, with the overall mix of payments playing an important role. Although the current Carr-Hill formula directs more funding to practices in more deprived areas and rural communities, this may not be sufficient. And once all funding streams are combined, these favour practices serving less deprived populations, underlining the need for government to look at all payments collectively.
The report, the first to provide a comprehensive picture of GP funding in England, also finds marked variation in GP earnings over time and between GPs. GP contractors' - also known as partners - income per session was nearly double that of salaried GPs, and a gender pay gap, disadvantaging female GPs, exists among both contractor and salaried GPs even after accounting for reported working hours.
The Health Foundation urges policymakers to commit to a clear multi-year investment to increase the proportion of NHS spend on general practice, which could be achieved through a minimum investment standard. This should be accompanied by a review of all funding streams and of where unwarranted variation in GP pay exists. This will be necessary to ensure any additional investment supports access, improves continuity of care, addresses inequalities and strengthens workforce sustainability.
Dr Luisa Pettigrew, Senior Policy Fellow at the Health Foundation, said:
'General practice is the foundation of the NHS. Yet its funding has not kept pace with the role that recurrent governments have expected it to play. While the 2025/26 and 2026/27 GP contracts provided a boost in funding, this followed a decade in which the share of NHS spend going to general practice had fallen.
'The government consultation on proposed Neighbourhood Provider models states that there will be 'no new national funding'. But if the government are serious about delivering better neighbourhood health services and strengthening care outside of hospitals, more money will be needed in general practice. A clear, multi-year commitment to increasing investment is needed, alongside a review of all funding flows into general practice and of how they are used to ensure that funding is allocated fairly and efficiently.
'Without this, general practice and neighbourhood health ambitions are being set up to fail, and aspirations to shift care closer to home and reduce costly, avoidable pressure on hospitals will be left unrealised.'
* * *
REPORT: https://www.health.org.uk/sites/default/files/upload/publications/2026/Health_Foundation_General%20practice%20funding%20in%20England.pdf
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/media-office/press-releases/historic-underinvestment-in-gp-funding-puts-government-s-neighbourhood-health-agenda-at-risk
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary Entitled 'Can't Afford a House?'
DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by David Youngberg, professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland:
* * *
Can't Afford a House?
Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is.
-
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse.
One provision stands out as particularly ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by David Youngberg, professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland: * * * Can't Afford a House? Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is. - The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse. One provision stands out as particularlydamaging: Section 1001, haughtily titled "Homes Are for People, Not Corporations." Big companies, the argument goes, are buying up houses, and that's why rent and home prices are so high. The section recycles President Trump's executive order from earlier this year banning institutional investors from owning single-family homes, a tactic Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have called for even earlier. While the ROAD Act's exceptions and definitions of "institutional investor" and "single-family home" allow for some workarounds, its nice-sounding solution actually exacerbates America's dysfunctional housing market.
The ban on institutional investors is as misguided as it is bipartisan. Such investors own a tiny percentage of the total single-family home inventory. Even in the metro areas where they are most concentrated, their share of total ownership doesn't even crack the double digits. To blame them for high housing costs is, to put it kindly, a stretch.
But even if big companies owned a large portion of single-family homes, they still wouldn't be the culprit behind the high cost of housing because homes are for people and corporations. Institutional investors don't buy homes to have them sit empty. They buy them so they can rent them out--that's the point of the whole enterprise--resulting in no net loss of housing. One might as well try to ban grocery stores because "food is for people, not corporations." As I've previously argued, institutional investors are middlemen and, like all middlemen, they improve efficiency and drive prices down, not up. Two recent studies confirm exactly that.
Examining the Atlanta metro area, where institutional investors have the biggest presence, economists Felipe Barbieri and Gregory Dobbels found that these investors bring rents down by 2.3%. It's not a huge amount, but it's directionally opposite to what critics claim.
Why does this happen? The authors note that because many of these rental homes are similar to each other and located close together, large investors rent homes more efficiently than small-time landlords. Maintenance costs are much lower when repairs involve comparable equipment in the same area.
At the same time, the market for single-family home rentals is still competitive. Even a sizable presence of Wall Street investors must compete with one another, as well as mid-sized investors and mom-and-pop landlords, not to mention duplexes, townhomes, and apartments. All that competition means that much of the savings gets passed on to renters.
But that's not the only reason big investors bring rental prices down. A study by economist Joshua Coven, which found a similar decrease in rent, pointed out another explanation that's both often ignored and painfully obvious: investment boosts construction.
When investors start buying single-family homes, these homes get a tiny bit more expensive. (Coven makes it clear that this is nowhere near enough to explain rising housing prices.) Developers respond to these higher prices and build more homes, resulting in a much smaller increase in prices than there would be otherwise. And the supply effect is huge: for every four homes institutional investors buy, builders add another house.
It's worth noting that Coven's study also covers the Atlanta metro area, which has one of the nation's least restrictive zoning laws, and is thus most responsive to changes in housing demand. Even a small increase in price generates a lot of construction. It's why despite Atlanta's surge in population, and with incomes similar to those of the average American, housing costs are about half those of the rest of the country.
Atlanta allows markets to work. The resulting affordability is a big reason people want to move there, and the resulting growth is why the area has enjoyed so much Wall Street investment.
High housing prices stem from government barriers to construction, not from investors buying homes. Zoning laws, environmental restrictions, parking requirements, historic preservation barriers, and NIMBY petitioners all make it so difficult to build that even big increases in prices fail to spur much construction. The end result is a doubling of housing costs.
That's why there are virtually no institutional investors in the expensive metro areas of San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. People are fleeing the high housing prices of these regulation-choked cities. Investors, always a forward-looking bunch, see those dwindling populations and steer clear.
Los Angeles's sluggish recovery after the Eaton Fire last year illustrates how burdensome these barriers can be: 18 months after the disaster, just 1% of the 13,000 homes destroyed have been rebuilt. Delay is unavoidable to a certain extent--the fire left some soil toxic--but time-consuming and expensive regulations needlessly keep thousands of lots vacant and their owners without a home. The "accelerated" approval process the city created to encourage recovery only applies to homeowners who want to rebuild exactly what was there. Any new build that alters the footprint, size, or use must endure fees and approval delays. These problems get many times worse if the owner dares to add more units to the lot, which is exactly the kind of denser construction that the undersupplied city needs most.
The City of Angels could've treated the disaster as an opportunity to reinvent its housing policy and cut out the myriad regulations that block construction. Deregulation would've attracted much-needed investment and sparked a boom that would've transformed its devastated neighborhoods into affordable housing examples for the rest of the country. It could've allowed markets to work. But the city instead chose the familiar snail's pace of overregulation, and thousands remain displaced a year and a half after they lost their homes.
Government, not investors, is the root problem of housing prices. Rather than take on barriers to construction, politicians find it easier to blame Wall Street. America is short millions of housing units, and scapegoating won't build a single one. We need more housing investment, not less.
* * *
David Youngberg is professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/cant-afford-a-house/
* * *
Can't Afford a House?
Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is.
-
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse.
One provision stands out as particularly ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Aug. 14 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary by David Youngberg, professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, Maryland: * * * Can't Afford a House? Big investors aren't the reason for high housing costs. The government is. - The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law last month the way bad ideas often do: quietly, and with a name that sounds like the opposite of what it does. At best, it is largely innocuous, and at worst, it will make America's frustrating housing market even worse. One provision stands out as particularlydamaging: Section 1001, haughtily titled "Homes Are for People, Not Corporations." Big companies, the argument goes, are buying up houses, and that's why rent and home prices are so high. The section recycles President Trump's executive order from earlier this year banning institutional investors from owning single-family homes, a tactic Democratic Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have called for even earlier. While the ROAD Act's exceptions and definitions of "institutional investor" and "single-family home" allow for some workarounds, its nice-sounding solution actually exacerbates America's dysfunctional housing market.
The ban on institutional investors is as misguided as it is bipartisan. Such investors own a tiny percentage of the total single-family home inventory. Even in the metro areas where they are most concentrated, their share of total ownership doesn't even crack the double digits. To blame them for high housing costs is, to put it kindly, a stretch.
But even if big companies owned a large portion of single-family homes, they still wouldn't be the culprit behind the high cost of housing because homes are for people and corporations. Institutional investors don't buy homes to have them sit empty. They buy them so they can rent them out--that's the point of the whole enterprise--resulting in no net loss of housing. One might as well try to ban grocery stores because "food is for people, not corporations." As I've previously argued, institutional investors are middlemen and, like all middlemen, they improve efficiency and drive prices down, not up. Two recent studies confirm exactly that.
Examining the Atlanta metro area, where institutional investors have the biggest presence, economists Felipe Barbieri and Gregory Dobbels found that these investors bring rents down by 2.3%. It's not a huge amount, but it's directionally opposite to what critics claim.
Why does this happen? The authors note that because many of these rental homes are similar to each other and located close together, large investors rent homes more efficiently than small-time landlords. Maintenance costs are much lower when repairs involve comparable equipment in the same area.
At the same time, the market for single-family home rentals is still competitive. Even a sizable presence of Wall Street investors must compete with one another, as well as mid-sized investors and mom-and-pop landlords, not to mention duplexes, townhomes, and apartments. All that competition means that much of the savings gets passed on to renters.
But that's not the only reason big investors bring rental prices down. A study by economist Joshua Coven, which found a similar decrease in rent, pointed out another explanation that's both often ignored and painfully obvious: investment boosts construction.
When investors start buying single-family homes, these homes get a tiny bit more expensive. (Coven makes it clear that this is nowhere near enough to explain rising housing prices.) Developers respond to these higher prices and build more homes, resulting in a much smaller increase in prices than there would be otherwise. And the supply effect is huge: for every four homes institutional investors buy, builders add another house.
It's worth noting that Coven's study also covers the Atlanta metro area, which has one of the nation's least restrictive zoning laws, and is thus most responsive to changes in housing demand. Even a small increase in price generates a lot of construction. It's why despite Atlanta's surge in population, and with incomes similar to those of the average American, housing costs are about half those of the rest of the country.
Atlanta allows markets to work. The resulting affordability is a big reason people want to move there, and the resulting growth is why the area has enjoyed so much Wall Street investment.
High housing prices stem from government barriers to construction, not from investors buying homes. Zoning laws, environmental restrictions, parking requirements, historic preservation barriers, and NIMBY petitioners all make it so difficult to build that even big increases in prices fail to spur much construction. The end result is a doubling of housing costs.
That's why there are virtually no institutional investors in the expensive metro areas of San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. People are fleeing the high housing prices of these regulation-choked cities. Investors, always a forward-looking bunch, see those dwindling populations and steer clear.
Los Angeles's sluggish recovery after the Eaton Fire last year illustrates how burdensome these barriers can be: 18 months after the disaster, just 1% of the 13,000 homes destroyed have been rebuilt. Delay is unavoidable to a certain extent--the fire left some soil toxic--but time-consuming and expensive regulations needlessly keep thousands of lots vacant and their owners without a home. The "accelerated" approval process the city created to encourage recovery only applies to homeowners who want to rebuild exactly what was there. Any new build that alters the footprint, size, or use must endure fees and approval delays. These problems get many times worse if the owner dares to add more units to the lot, which is exactly the kind of denser construction that the undersupplied city needs most.
The City of Angels could've treated the disaster as an opportunity to reinvent its housing policy and cut out the myriad regulations that block construction. Deregulation would've attracted much-needed investment and sparked a boom that would've transformed its devastated neighborhoods into affordable housing examples for the rest of the country. It could've allowed markets to work. But the city instead chose the familiar snail's pace of overregulation, and thousands remain displaced a year and a half after they lost their homes.
Government, not investors, is the root problem of housing prices. Rather than take on barriers to construction, politicians find it easier to blame Wall Street. America is short millions of housing units, and scapegoating won't build a single one. We need more housing investment, not less.
* * *
David Youngberg is professor of economics at Montgomery College in Rockville, MD.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/cant-afford-a-house/
FFRF: Michigan Police Department Must Remove Prominent Bible Passage
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads.
A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encountering ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room. "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads. A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encounteringan explicitly Christian message inside a government law enforcement facility made them feel like an outsider.
"As an atheist . . . I was offended by witnessing a violation of the separation of church and state in the city of Battle Creek Michigan Police Department waiting room," the resident reported to FFRF. "I personally felt discriminated against when observing the bible verse on display in a government building, concerned for the bias towards atheists and those of non-Judeo-Christian faith."
FFRF has sent a missive to the Police Department pointing out the constitutional transgression.
"Posting a bible quote on government property fails to respect this constitutional mandate of neutrality," FFRF Patrick O'Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude writes to Police Chief Shannon Bagley. "This posting promotes religion over nonreligion and Christianity over all other faiths."
People interact with and rely on law enforcement officers during some of the most urgent and vulnerable times of their lives, FFRF reminds the police chief. Battle Creek residents belonging to minority religions or with no religion at all, such as FFRF's complainant, should not be made to feel excluded because the local Police Department promotes a particular religious group's beliefs, implying official support for Christianity. Sectarian Christian displays marginalize community members among the 38 percent of Americans who are non-Christians, including the 31 percent of Michigan residents who are religiously unaffiliated.
"Imagine the outcry were a Quranic verse about peace posted at this Police Department. When a police department prominently displays New Testament Scripture, it sends a troubling message about whose beliefs are favored by those entrusted to safeguard citizens and enforce the law," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every Battle Creek resident, Christian or non-Christian, religious or nonreligious, should be able to walk into their police department confident that they will be treated equally and will not be confronted with bible verses."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members across the country, including over 1,000 members in Michigan, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-michigan-police-department-must-remove-prominent-bible-passage/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room.
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads.
A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encountering ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF: Michigan police department must remove prominent bible passage The Freedom From Religion Foundation is demanding that the Battle Creek Police Department in Michigan take down a Christian bible verse in large lettering from its public waiting room. "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. -- Matthew 5:9," the display reads. A concerned Battle Creek resident recently alerted the state/church watchdog to the display, explaining that encounteringan explicitly Christian message inside a government law enforcement facility made them feel like an outsider.
"As an atheist . . . I was offended by witnessing a violation of the separation of church and state in the city of Battle Creek Michigan Police Department waiting room," the resident reported to FFRF. "I personally felt discriminated against when observing the bible verse on display in a government building, concerned for the bias towards atheists and those of non-Judeo-Christian faith."
FFRF has sent a missive to the Police Department pointing out the constitutional transgression.
"Posting a bible quote on government property fails to respect this constitutional mandate of neutrality," FFRF Patrick O'Reiley Legal Fellow Charlotte R. Gude writes to Police Chief Shannon Bagley. "This posting promotes religion over nonreligion and Christianity over all other faiths."
People interact with and rely on law enforcement officers during some of the most urgent and vulnerable times of their lives, FFRF reminds the police chief. Battle Creek residents belonging to minority religions or with no religion at all, such as FFRF's complainant, should not be made to feel excluded because the local Police Department promotes a particular religious group's beliefs, implying official support for Christianity. Sectarian Christian displays marginalize community members among the 38 percent of Americans who are non-Christians, including the 31 percent of Michigan residents who are religiously unaffiliated.
"Imagine the outcry were a Quranic verse about peace posted at this Police Department. When a police department prominently displays New Testament Scripture, it sends a troubling message about whose beliefs are favored by those entrusted to safeguard citizens and enforce the law," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Every Battle Creek resident, Christian or non-Christian, religious or nonreligious, should be able to walk into their police department confident that they will be treated equally and will not be confronted with bible verses."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members across the country, including over 1,000 members in Michigan, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-michigan-police-department-must-remove-prominent-bible-passage/
[Category: Religion]
FFRF Urges North Carolina: Don't Install Billy Graham Monument at Capitol
MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument.
Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds feature ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr. The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument. Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds featuremonuments relating to the world wars, the Vietnam War, prominent presidents or those from the state and governors of North Carolina -- all included for secular reasons. A statue of Billy Graham can have no secular purpose and should not be placed at the seat of state government, FFRF emphasizes. The state/church watchdog is therefore asking that the Legislative Services Office use its discretion to refrain from using official government resources to promote a divisive religious figure and honor a single faith's leader.
"Although remarks by those who proposed the monument say that this monument would be to 'honor those people who have done great things for the people of this state,' the fact is that Graham lived his life in service to his evangelical Christian religion and the bible that he believed was an infallible reference manual," FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker write.
The question is not whether Graham was influential. He plainly was. The question is whether the seat of North Carolina government should permanently honor a figure whose influence was overwhelmingly religious and sectarian in nature, and whose public record included disparaging atheists, opposing LGBTQ+ equality, making antisemitic remarks and working to inject his evangelical beliefs into government.
Graham had a checkered history that included antisemitism, disdain for atheists and other alienating and divisive views. A released Watergate tape from 1972 caught Graham telling President Nixon that Jews had a "stranglehold" on the news. His career was additionally devoted to revivals, Christian conversions, hellfire preaching and the insertion of his brand of religion into what is supposed to be a secular country governed by a godless Constitution barring establishment of religion or governmental preference for religion.
Graham also notably lobbied Congress to pass a law declaring an annual National Day of Prayer, saying he wanted to "see the leaders of our country kneeling before almighty God in prayer." Unfortunately, Congress, in 1952 (with a minor amendment in 1988), did his bidding. This law enacted at Graham's behest has entangled religion and government, spawned countless inappropriate prayer breakfasts, prayerful governmental events and prayer resolutions at all levels of government, sending for generations a message that evangelical Christians are "insiders" and non-Christians and the nonreligious are "outsiders."
FFRF's freethinking North Carolina membership has been feeling estranged that the leaders of the state have chosen this outsized honor for Graham, especially given his years of advice columns deriding the nonreligious. In a column published on Aug. 7, 2010, by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Graham opined that "a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or to behave sacrificially toward others."
Graham vociferously opposed gay rights and marriage equality, saying that "we traffic in homosexuality at the peril of our spiritual welfare." Even in 1993, Graham's views offended public opinion so much that, after once suggesting that AIDS could be a "judgment" from God, he was forced to withdraw the remarks. He belonged to a denomination that refused to ordain women, including his own daughter, who defied the convention against preaching. The "Billy Graham" rule directing a man not to be alone with a woman other than his wife continues to influence evangelicals.
Billy Graham believed fervently in Christianity and people listened to him. But that is not worthy of a spot on the North Carolina Capitol grounds, which must serve and welcome all citizens, whether Christian, non-Christian, atheist or LGBTQ+. Graham sought to undo the only sure way to guarantee freedom of religion: a government free from religion. Giving him this unearned honor excludes those among the 31 percent of North Carolinians who are non-Christians, including the 26 percent of adult North Carolinians who are atheists, agnostics or religiously unaffiliated.
"North Carolinians are free to admire Billy Graham, and churches and religious organizations are free to build as many monuments to him as they wish," Gaylor and Barker state. "But the state Capitol is different. It should be a civic space that welcomes everyone, not a platform for the government to elevate an evangelical preacher whose life's work and public positions excluded and demeaned many of the people the state represents."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including almost 1,000 members and a chapter in North Carolina, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-urges-north-carolina-dont-install-billy-graham-monument-at-capitol/
[Category: Religion]
* * *
FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument.
Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds feature ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Aug. 14 -- The Freedom From Religion Foundation issued the following news release: * * * FFRF urges North Carolina: Don't install Billy Graham monument at Capitol The Freedom From Religion Foundation is calling on North Carolina officials to reverse course on a planned monument of the controversial religious figure Rev. Billy Graham Jr. The North Carolina General Assembly passed a state budget bill that included funding for a monument honoring Graham. There was no chance for public input or debate about the monument. Currently, the North Carolina Capitol grounds featuremonuments relating to the world wars, the Vietnam War, prominent presidents or those from the state and governors of North Carolina -- all included for secular reasons. A statue of Billy Graham can have no secular purpose and should not be placed at the seat of state government, FFRF emphasizes. The state/church watchdog is therefore asking that the Legislative Services Office use its discretion to refrain from using official government resources to promote a divisive religious figure and honor a single faith's leader.
"Although remarks by those who proposed the monument say that this monument would be to 'honor those people who have done great things for the people of this state,' the fact is that Graham lived his life in service to his evangelical Christian religion and the bible that he believed was an infallible reference manual," FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker write.
The question is not whether Graham was influential. He plainly was. The question is whether the seat of North Carolina government should permanently honor a figure whose influence was overwhelmingly religious and sectarian in nature, and whose public record included disparaging atheists, opposing LGBTQ+ equality, making antisemitic remarks and working to inject his evangelical beliefs into government.
Graham had a checkered history that included antisemitism, disdain for atheists and other alienating and divisive views. A released Watergate tape from 1972 caught Graham telling President Nixon that Jews had a "stranglehold" on the news. His career was additionally devoted to revivals, Christian conversions, hellfire preaching and the insertion of his brand of religion into what is supposed to be a secular country governed by a godless Constitution barring establishment of religion or governmental preference for religion.
Graham also notably lobbied Congress to pass a law declaring an annual National Day of Prayer, saying he wanted to "see the leaders of our country kneeling before almighty God in prayer." Unfortunately, Congress, in 1952 (with a minor amendment in 1988), did his bidding. This law enacted at Graham's behest has entangled religion and government, spawned countless inappropriate prayer breakfasts, prayerful governmental events and prayer resolutions at all levels of government, sending for generations a message that evangelical Christians are "insiders" and non-Christians and the nonreligious are "outsiders."
FFRF's freethinking North Carolina membership has been feeling estranged that the leaders of the state have chosen this outsized honor for Graham, especially given his years of advice columns deriding the nonreligious. In a column published on Aug. 7, 2010, by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, Graham opined that "a true atheist has no real reason to believe in right and wrong, or to behave sacrificially toward others."
Graham vociferously opposed gay rights and marriage equality, saying that "we traffic in homosexuality at the peril of our spiritual welfare." Even in 1993, Graham's views offended public opinion so much that, after once suggesting that AIDS could be a "judgment" from God, he was forced to withdraw the remarks. He belonged to a denomination that refused to ordain women, including his own daughter, who defied the convention against preaching. The "Billy Graham" rule directing a man not to be alone with a woman other than his wife continues to influence evangelicals.
Billy Graham believed fervently in Christianity and people listened to him. But that is not worthy of a spot on the North Carolina Capitol grounds, which must serve and welcome all citizens, whether Christian, non-Christian, atheist or LGBTQ+. Graham sought to undo the only sure way to guarantee freedom of religion: a government free from religion. Giving him this unearned honor excludes those among the 31 percent of North Carolinians who are non-Christians, including the 26 percent of adult North Carolinians who are atheists, agnostics or religiously unaffiliated.
"North Carolinians are free to admire Billy Graham, and churches and religious organizations are free to build as many monuments to him as they wish," Gaylor and Barker state. "But the state Capitol is different. It should be a civic space that welcomes everyone, not a platform for the government to elevate an evangelical preacher whose life's work and public positions excluded and demeaned many of the people the state represents."
* * *
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is a U.S.-based nonprofit dedicated to defending the constitutional principle of separation between state and church and educating the public on matters relating to nontheism. With more than 41,000 members and several chapters across the country, including almost 1,000 members and a chapter in North Carolina, FFRF is the largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics and humanists) in North America. For more information, visit ffrf.org.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrf.org/news/releases/ffrf-urges-north-carolina-dont-install-billy-graham-monument-at-capitol/
[Category: Religion]