Inequality and segregation

This paper explores the manner in which race and income interact to determine patterns of residential location in metropolitan areas. We use a framework in which individuals care about both the level of affluence and the racial composition of their communities, and in which there are differences in income both within and between groups. Three main findings emerge. First, conditional on income, black households experience lower neighborhood quality relative to whites at any stable equilibrium. Second, extreme levels of segregation can be stable when racial income disparities are either large or negligible, but unstable in some intermediate range. Third, there exist multiple stable equilibria with very different levels of segregation when racial income disparities are sufficiently small. These results hold even when preferences are pro-integrationist, in the sense that racially mixed neighborhoods within a certain range are strictly preferred by all households to homogenous neighborhoods of either type.

Bertrand-Edgeworth equilibrium: Manipulable residual demand

In this paper we seek to provide a resolution of the Edgeworth paradox for the case where firms are free to supply less than the quantity demanded, the residual demand function is {\it manipulable} (a generalization of the proportional one) and prices vary over a grid. We demonstrate that a unique equilibrium in pure strategies exist whenever the number of firms is sufficiently large. Interestingly, the equilibrium involves excess production. Moreover, depending on the parameter values, the `folk theorem' of perfect competition may or may not hold. The results go through even if the firms are asymmetric, or produce to order.Bertrand equilibrium, pure strategy, manipulable residual demand

A Sustainable Assessment of the Codes and Plans for South Shore Central of Austin’s Lady Bird Lake

This project report provides valuable information surrounding the socioeconomic climate of Austin. Demographic and economic descriptions are coupled with plans for environmentally conscious future city development.The City of Austin has recognized that Lady Bird Lake (formerly named Town Lake) is a precious recreational resource in the heart of the urban core, which could be quickly overwhelmed if development along its shores is not carefully planned and regulated to provide a balance between accommodating growth in the urban core and preserving the character of the lakefront. The adoption of the 1985 Town Lake Corridor Study established foundational policies which were codified with the 1986 Waterfront Overlay Combining District (WOCD) ordinance. The ordinance established fifteen sub-districts (now sixteen sub-districts) within the overlay in order to calibrate the code to various locations along the 5.4 mile -long town lake corridor. The overall purpose of the ordinance was established “. . . to provide a more harmonious interaction and transition between urban development and the parkland and shoreline . . .” In 2007 the City Council appointed a Waterfront Overlay Taskforce to review the adequacy of the current waterfront ordinance in light of changes that had been made to the original ordinance over the years and to increasing development pressure along the shoreline. The Waterfront Task Force Report, 2008, made several recommendations, including the re-establishment of a Waterfront Planning Advisory Board (WPAB) with responsibilities that include recommending potential changes to the Waterfront Overlay Combining District ordinance, with particular instructions to develop bonus provisions that create clear, predictable methods for increasing development entitlements in exchange for clear, predictable community benefits, and to develop improved design standards. The WPAB has conducted this work since its appointment two years ago, but has had to carry out this task with limited support resources and without the benefit of consultant assistance The SDAT will provide an outside, professional review and assessment of the WPAB’s work to date and assist with recommendations for moving forward. Additionally, the SDAT process will help convene local resources and engage stakeholders to inform and assist with the work. In order to sharply focus the review and assessment process, the SDAT study will concentrate on one of the sub-districts of the Waterfront Overlay – South Shore Central – which is arguably the area along the waterfront most likely to face potential redevelopment prospects, and the adjacent sub-districts to the west and east which, respectively, introduce a major park land (Auditorium Shores) and an area with commercial transitioning to residential uses (Travis Heights). The South Shore Central sub-district is also adjacent to established neighborhoods. This area concentrates the issues of how to promote urban excellence while maintaining, enhancing, and connecting to parkland and neighborhoods.Waller Creek Working Grou

Pilot Conservation Commission Circuit Rider Program

The purpose of this pilot project was to increase the effectiveness of the three Conservation Commissions in the Exeter River watershed. The Towns of Kensington, Kingston, and Sandown were selected based on their interest in the program and their need for professional planning assistance. Rockingham Planning Commission staff attended monthly meetings of each Conservation Commission to discuss and implement short-term and long-term projects. The three Conservation Commissions selected two natural resource protection projects to work on with RPC assistance. The scope of these projects ranged from very basic, such as establishing a process for record keeping in Kingston, to more advanced, such as indepth discussions on protecting wildlife habitat in Kensington and development of several land use regulations in Sandown. With just several hours of professional assistance each month, each Commission was able to complete projects that will increase their community’s ability to protect natural resources

Planning and Proof Planning

. The paper adresses proof planning as a specific AI planning. It describes some peculiarities of proof planning and discusses some possible cross-fertilization of planning and proof planning. 1 Introduction Planning is an established area of Artificial Intelligence (AI) whereas proof planning introduced by Bundy in [2] still lives in its childhood. This means that the development of proof planning needs maturing impulses and the natural questions arise What can proof planning learn from its Big Brother planning?' and What are the specific characteristics of the proof planning domain that determine the answer?'. In turn for planning, the analysis of approaches points to a need of mature techniques for practical planning. Drummond [8], e.g., analyzed approaches with the conclusion that the success of Nonlin, SIPE, and O-Plan in practical planning can be attributed to hierarchical action expansion, the explicit representation of a plan's causal structure, and a very simple form of propo..