What the current system of land acquisition wants to do is take this productive land and pour concrete on it. A simple question is: If the most fertile land in the country produces cars and chemicals, what do we eat.

[Source: DNA India] Harini Calamur writing for DNA India rightly identifies the misplaced priorities in land acquisition for development. However, her conclusion is a little misplaced. The question is not whether we should pour concrete on fertile land but rather who gets to decide that we do. She points to the ‘throwaway prices’ that the government acquires these lands and hands them over to large companies, which may be at the core of most of these protests around India rather than the location of these industries.

I believe if the government stepped out of the equation and let these large companies deal directly with the farmers, the animosity toward such development would be far less. Critics may point toward price gouging in terms of land pricing but companies can always point to or head to better deals elsewhere in the state or the nation as a way of negotiation. The government can always step in to provide supporting infrastructure after such deals have been finalized.

In a large country like India, not all fertile land seeks to be paved over and in fact, innovations in agricultural technology may do more in increasingly yields from less land rather than preserving the amount of fertile land (cue anti-Malthus arguments). The amount of land is and has remained finite but the ways to make it more productive (and fertile) have always improved.

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

The U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood announced a major shift in policy and attitude toward making urban transit bike-friendly.

Pfizer said it would pull 1,400 jobs out of New London within two years and move most of them a few miles away to a campus it owns in Groton, Conn., as a cost-cutting measure. It would leave behind the city’s biggest office complex and an adjacent swath of barren land that was cleared of dozens of homes to make room for a hotel, stores and condominiums that were never built.

This decision by Pfizer to Leave New London, Connecticut is going to profoundly impact future eminent domain cases and gives a major boost to libertarians. The landmark SC ruling was unique in the sense that it acquired private land that included a built home to hand over to another private party for the “public good”. Without conditions to ensure that Pfizer would indeed add 1,400 jobs to the New London as promised, its decision to leave after just eight years is not surprising. Pfizer’s decision to move away puts paid to New London’s hopes of revitalizing the area around Kelo’s home by building an “urban village” to attract shoppers and tourists. So in effect, is Pfizer really responsible for making the city assume that they would stay forever? But Susette Kelo’s pink house still stands after it was moved across town by preservationist Avner Gregory who bought it for $1.

Research by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that since 1995 federal funding for low-income housing assistance has dropped by over 20 percent, both as a share of GDP and non-military discretionary spending. Meanwhile, the number of low-income renters spending more than half of their income on housing costs has increased by over 33 percent since 2000.

In the current housing crisis, low-income homeowners continue to face the brunt.

LaHood is a conservative Illinois Republican with little transportation expertise and almost no administrative experience, who has earned a LCV lifetime voting score on critical environmental issues of 27 percent, and who maintains deep financial connections to the very industries he’s now supposed to regulate.

Everything is not perfect, right? Alex Steffen at WorldChanging comments on the disappointing choice of Transportation Secretary after other notable selections. As Alex writes, transportation is not a department you want to skimp out on especially in wake of crumbling infrastructure and Obama’s promise of rebuilding America.

Carrion is a well-liked, pro-development official who has tried to enhance his limited power through an alliance with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and gives the New York mayor — whose aide was just appointed HUD Secretary — another ally in the White House, and suggests a New York-centric urban policy.

After eight years of hands-off policy from the Feds, it remains to be seen how a progressive administration fares toward urban policy.

Carrion was an important figure in the development of the Bronx Terminal Market & Hunts Point Vision projects and was responsible for bringing George Steinbrenner of the Yankees and the City to the table for negotiations in the development of the new Yankee stadium. On urban transportation, he was a vocal supporter of New York’s congestion pricing plan.

“Because he [Obama] began as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, he understands at the local level is really where you can impact change and that local government can play a vital role as we try to jump start our economy. So having somebody in the White House, because there are so many different agencies that really can impact urban America and to have one person whose job it is to really pull all of that together, is really a critical position. And there are plenty of terrific candidates for that spot.”

The Obama transition co-chair Valerie Jarrett has announced that the new President-elect will have a White House chief of urban policy.

But it might be too early to declare success. Perhaps comparison to school populations with pre-Katrina demographic mix would be a better indicator either in New Orleans or elsewhere.