richardhowe.com

A recent post by fellow blogger and downtown resident Kad Barma which showed fragments of a broken beer mug in a downtown doorway got me thinking about a book called “Ghost Map” by Steven Johnson. Subtitled “The story of London’s most terrifying epidemic – and how it changed science, cities and the modern world”, “Ghost Map” tells of an 1854 outbreak of cholera in London that killed more than 600 people and terrorized the population. At the time, top medical authorities maintained that cholera was spread by “miasma” or unhealthy air. One doctor, John Snow, suspected that it was a water-borne disease and set out to prove his theory by plotting on a street map the place of residence of each person who died from the disease. The completed map showed that most of the deaths were clustered around a single public water pump located on Broad Street. Although not fully convinced of Snow’s theory, the authorities removed the handle from the pump and the disease soon abated. Through this statistical and visual analysis, Snow was able to localize the problem and appropriate and effective action was taken.

Which brings me back to Kad Barma’s photo. In a recent post I advocated the widespread use of video cameras as a deterrent or at least as a way of identifying those who misbehave in downtown after dark. Nothing like that happens quickly, however, so why not create a “Ghost Map” equivalent in the meantime. Each morning following a night of street-level carousing, residents could roam around and photograph the damage – the broken glasses, puddles of vomit and all the other leavings of the problem-causers. These photos would then be plotted on a Google map (of the type I created last year for “The Fighter”). Perhaps the Downtown Neighborhood Association or some less formal coalition of residents could create the map and oversee its updating. Such photographic evidence would not only bring more attention to the situation, but the plotting on the map might tend to identify those establishments whose patrons are the biggest offenders.

At the end of each month on the LowellDeeds blog I do a post that compares that month’s recording statistics with the same month a year earlier. Today’s post shows that January 2011 was a better month than January 2012 for deeds, mortgages and foreclosures. But today I also looked at the figures in a slightly different way: I combined the last three month’s statistics and compared them to the three prior months, reasoning that this might identify trends over time. Here’s an exerpt of what appeared on LowellDeeds on this topic:

Now for the three month comparison. I took the same document types for the last three months (January 2012, December 2011 and November 2011) and compared their totals to the totals for the prior three months (October, September and August of 2011). Here’s what I found:

The number of deeds recorded in the last three months was down 6% from the prior three months (1354 to 1273); the number of mortgages recorded was up 20% (3129 to 3753); the number of foreclosure deeds was up 5% (111 to 117); and the number of orders of notice was up 8% (154 to 167). The total number of documents recorded rose 12% (15015 to 16742).

While deeds are down and foreclosures are up, those changes are only slight. The positive number that jumped out at me was the 20% increase in the number of mortgages recorded. This suggests that more homeowners are refinancing which would be a huge benefit to the economy. Interest rates are so low that anyone who can refinance now will probably save herself a couple of hundred dollars each month in lower mortgage payments. That money will almost all be injected right back into the economy in a type of non-governmentally funded stimulus program. Because interest rates have been low for a while, this recent increase suggests either that prices are starting to rise somewhat, thereby allowing previously underwater homeowners to now qualify for loans. It could also mean that lenders are becoming more liberal about who they’ll loan money to. Either way, it’s a positive development.

The behavior of (some) late night occupants of downtown Lowell has been a trending topic in Lowell’s blogosphere with kad barma writing about it here and here; Left in Lowell here and here; and our own post here. The police have increased their presence which is a good thing; a high density of officers in uniform creates a deterrent and making arrests where appropriate at least might keep those defendants under control for a while. But the police can’t be everywhere all the time.

Is it time for the city to bring video surveillance cameras to downtown? I’m not sure I like the idea because it would be a bit of an invasion of privacy of the vast majority of law-abiding citizens, but life is all about trade-offs. If cameras could help apprehend those who destroy property and soil our sidewalks and doorways and provide the police with a valuable tool in enforcing the law, then might that level of intrusion be worth it? I’m guessing that the acquisition costs for such a system would be tolerable, certainly within the budget of a typical regional public relations campaign that gets washed away by a single widely-covered crime.

Perhaps the time has arrived to have a public discussion on video surveillance cameras for downtown Lowell.

John Edward, a resident of Chelmsford who earned his master’s degree at UMass Lowell and who teaches economics at Bentley University and UMass Lowell, contributes the following column.

The story has been around so long it is hard to know if it is a myth. A little old lady walks into a bank to open an account. She has only $100. The bank treats her very well. She walks out satisfied. She returns later that day to deposit her life savings of a million dollars.

Could that happen today? I decided to put banks to the test.

In my most recent column, I talked about low savings rates among low-income households. One reason they do not save is that with small balances they often lose money.

The Boston Globe recently reported on banks raising fees on accounts that drop below minimum balance requirements. One example they gave was Citizens Bank. They have a monthly fee of $50 on a money market account when the balance falls below $1,000. Money market funds are not earning much interest right now. The fees will wipe out the account in less than two years.

The profit model for banks has changed. They used to follow the 3-6-3 rule. Pay 3 percent interest on savings, charge 6 percent interest on loans, enjoy the profit on the difference and be on the golf course by 3:00 P.M.

A few years ago, a Federal Reserve study reported “fee income has more than doubled as a share of commercial bank operating income since the early 1980s.” Interest is now only about half of bank income.

I visited nine banks with local branches. I told them I wanted to open checking and savings accounts with a low balance. read more »