The Higher Bar for Land Use

Albemarle County Board of Supervisors had an unusually full house earlier this week when they discussed their land use tax relief policy.  Under the policy, land that is in agricultural production or forestry is taxed at a lower rate than the standard rate.  As several supervisors took pains to point out, the property owner is paying the full rate on their residence and the two acres that surrounds it.

The Supervisors agreed to review and likely implement a self certification program to make sure all those land owners receiving land use taxation are using the property according to the rules.  The specifics of the certification program have not yet been worked out but The Free Enterprise Forum believes any such program must be user friendly and not require outside assistance to fill out.

In the more heated discussion, Albemarle County Supervisors decided to take a look at, as Supervisor Dennis Rooker put it, “raising the bar” on the land use program.  To be fair, not one supervisor indicated a desire to completely eliminate the program but Supervisor David Slutzky seemed to be the most adamant about changing the participation parameters. 

One option Mr. Slutzky mentioned was providing land use taxation only to those parcels under conservation easement.  This option failed to receive support of the Board.  In the end the Board of Supervisors agreed to hear back from staff regarding ”Option 2″ which would require land owners to enter into a contractual agreement with Albemarle County that they would not develop their land for a period of time between 4 and 10 years.  The motion passed 4-2 with Chairman Ken Boyd and Supervisor Lindsey Dorrier in the minority.  

Staff indicated the re-validation discussion would move forward in June and the discussion of possible changes to the land use participation parameters would follow shortly thereafter.

While The Free Enterprise Forum is in support of a reasonable re-validation program, we believes the proposed participation parameter change will unintentionally accelerate the conversion of farm land to residential.  Example:  Farmer John Smith has 150 acres of land in land use with 8 development rights on the parcel.  If he runs into a tough year, major medical issue, or other financial hardship, he can split off a section of his parcel and sell that section to make ends meet.  If he had signed the proposed participation agreement (that like a conservation easement would go with the land) he would be forbidden to sell a small portion and could be forced to sell the farm.  It would be likely the purchaser of the farm land would calculate the carrying costs of the land until the agreement lapsed and the cost of 5 years of back taxes and reduce the amount available to Farmer Smith.  This is a bad policy.

Currently, when land moves out of land use the landowner is responsible for the current year and five years of back taxes at the prevailing rate.  The proposed participation parameters amount to local government looking to gain more control over land.  With over 60% of Albemarle County in Land Use (not including those in conservation easements) we believe the program is working. 

“Raising the Bar” will generate great distrust with little or no benefit to Albemarle County residents.

 

One Saturday in May

Over the weekend, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) held a community forum for the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan (UNJAM 2035).  The UNJAM forum was designed to provide the TJPDC with ideas that will set the course for the region’s future transportation development.  According to The Daily Progress, ”50 or so attendees hashed out ideas in small groups”.

The keynote speaker for the forum was Reid Ewing, a research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland . Professor Ewing is also the co-author of “Growing Cooler: the Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change“.  His remarks spoke to the need for our communities to be designed differently to better integrate all aspects of our lives.  He was strongly in favor of mixed use development as a part of the solution to global warming.

The Free Enterprise Forum has written extensively about mixed use development and new urbanism.  The concept clearly has merit and likely has a growing niche in the market.  That being said, we are most curious about the make up of the audience at the TJPDC UNJAM forum.  

Does the TJPDC believe this was a representative sample of the concerned public?

How many of those attending the meeting were staff members or elected officials from the various municipalities?  While it is critically important that staff and elected officials attend these meetings, it is of equal importance that John Q. Citizen is also represented. 

In a previous iteration of the UNJAM meetings, the TJPDC held a series of evening meetings to allow a schedule challenged citizens multiple opportunities to review the presentation and interact with staff.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes holding such an important meeting on the Saturday of Mother’s Day weekend was a mistake.  This scheduling decision was detrimental to gaining both public involvement and public support of the TJPDC’s grand transportation vision.  Too often, we find these meetings not to be about generating true public engagement but more about the satisfaction of a grant requirement for public meetings.  

A careful review of the meeting agenda, keynote speaker and small group work seem all be designed with a specific outcome in mind.  After watching five years of such meetings, The Free Enterprise Forum believes the TJPDC is involved in building a Group Think mentality.    

Tim Borcher of Minnesota State University - Moorhead describes the groupthink as “a concept that was identified by Irving Janis that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions. — Negative impacts of such groupthink:

• Examining few alternatives
• Not being critical of each other’s ideas
• Not examining early alternatives
• Not seeking expert opinions
• Being highly selective in gathering information
• Not having contingency plans “

While I am convinced the TJPDC is guilty of promoting groupthink and thus poor decision making,  I less certain the groupthink environment the TJPDC is providing is deliberate.  The Free Enterprise Forum is very concerned the UNJAM 2035 plan will move forward without significant comment from the majority of the community. 

To their credit, the TJPDC is accepting public comment until 30 June via the UNJAM website.  The Free Enterprise Forum strongly encourages residents of Albemarle, Charlottesville, Greene, Fluvanna and Nelson to visit the website and make your voice heard. 

If the TJPDC remains open to public comment on the UNJAM 2035 plan and receives no such comment, the blame for this lack of involvement can not rest just on one poorly scheduled meeting.  Such blame must be shared by all in the community to busy to zip the TJPDC an e-mail regarding your thoughts on the plan.

Those members of the public who choose not to speak up and make their voice heard, agree to be ruled by those few who are willing to do so.  

Who will speak up?

 

How is an Office Building like a Cow?

How is an office building like a cow? — Neither goes to school

How is a cow different than an office building?  - The office building pays higher taxes [and no one ever stepped in an office pie].

This Wednesday, The Greene County Chamber of Commerce hosted Dr. Gerald L. Gordon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Economic Development Authority in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Dr. Gordon was a delightful speaker and highlighted that Fairfax County is in the top ten nationally for office space.  A minor factoid in his remarks included his Authority, which is completely government funded, operates on a budget of 7 million dollars with about 50 employees. 

The reason Fairfax County continues to dedicate such resources into business development is they can see the return on their investment. 

One question Dr. Gordon is often asked is “How do we achieve the success of Fairfax without becoming, well you know – Fairfax?”  He replied that localities should be selective and aggressive about the types of businesses they wish to locate in their jurisdiction.  He highlighted information technology specialist who could obtain security clearance as a current need in the market. 

Of equal importance, Dr. Gordon highlighted the need for political stability in the locality.  He cited his neighboring county Loudoun which has had huge ideological shifts on their Board of Supervisors every four years creating an unstable environment to place a business.  He considers the relative calm the Fairfax Board of Supervisors has achieved to be a selling point for Fairfax County.  Businesses are looking at a much longer window than 4 years when contemplating an expansion or corporate headquarters move.

I would take Dr. Gordon’s point one step further to suggest that environment that is established by the residents and their elected representatives [read regulatory environment] has a great deal to do with the overall economic vitality of the region. 

Today’s technology has decreased the importance of physical location of a business.  Business owners are freer than ever to locate their businesses wherever they want to live.  This region is a great place to live with a great quality of life.   

Our region is well represented by the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development as the regional economic development catalyst.  Their new Executive Director, Michael Harvey, has initiated a significant strategic planning process designed to involve the majority of stakeholders in determining what type of economic development (if any) the region would welcome.  As a participant in one of these sessions, I was struck by the variety of views of economic development held by stake holders.  In addition I found that the concerns about big business coming in far outpaced the understanding of the benefits of such new business development. 

It is important to note within our region, and within the state, some localities are more advanced than others in being proactive wanting business to come in to their locality and encouraging growth and development of the existing businesses. 

The Free Enterprise Forumbelieves businesses provide far greater rewards beyond the positive tax revenue.  Without fail businesses provide sponsorships for ball teams, all-night-long parties, volunteer hours on non profit boards and much more.  That being said we believe tax dollars spent on economic development must be viewed as an investment and regularly evaluated as such.  We do not forsee the need for a budget the size of Dr. Gordon’s but some government spending on economic development is warrented.

Until voters recognize the significant benefit businesses provide to the community and welcome new and expanding businesses, our region will not be ”in the game” for the most adventagous business development opportunities.   

The Dredging Distraction

Often in local public policy, an indirect opposition approach is used to distract the public from the true agenda.  The Free Enterprise Forum fears this may be the case in the current dredging discussion occurring in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County at this time.

A well known engineering firm has come in and raised a number of questions with the assumptions another well known engineering firm used to develop estimated costs for dredging the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.  The high cost (combined with the less than needed increase in holding capacity) were two of the factors that took the dredging option out of play for the proposed 50 year community water supply solution. 

The firm providing the second opinion has stated to fully develop an estimated cost and resulting yield of a full dredging operation will require a contract of $277,000.  The firm did determine based on its preliminary work that direct pumping the siltation to the airport is not an option.

In what may be the understatement of the week, the firm stated dredging is a complicated business with many unknowns.

Based on our discussions with industry contacts, The Free Enterprise Forum believes both firms are eminently qualified for their tasks and (despite outcry to the contrary) neither firm has introduced significant prejudice of one proposal over another to the process.

More importantly is the subtle shift The Free Enterprise Forum perceives in the community water supply discussion.  More and more we are hearing that there may not really be a need for a 50 year community water supply solution. 

Why not have a 10 year solution?

Why should we look that far ahead?

Or my favorite: We can have a plan but really we don’t have to really mean it or fund it.

This blog has highlighted the need to eliminate water supply as a growth control tool.  If a community’s comprehensive plan calls for a certain amount of growth, the community water supply should be available to accommodate that growth.  If the community wishes to change that part of the comprehensive plan, there is an ongoing process to facilitate that change.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes the process RWSA used to come up with the community water supply solution was inclusive and exhaustive.  The public meetings were well run and well attended.  While we did not endorse the solution, we did endorse the process used to reach a solution.

Make no mistake, the Dredging Distraction is not really about the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir.  It is really about two very different agendas:

1) Delaying/Reducing the scope/eliminating the 50 year Community Water Supply solution

2) Mitigating how much City residents will need to pay for the increased water supply.

This evening at 5:00 pm Charlottesville City Council will see the dredging presentation and hear discussion from many intimately involved in the process.  Listen carefully and see if you are able to hear the groundwork for what we perceive as the real agenda.

 

 

Where Do Rights Come From?

Over the weekend, I was reading a lecture given by Constitutional scholar Charles R. Kesler, a professor at Claremont McKenna College and editor of the Claremont Review of Books. 

The lecture, titled “Limited Government: Are the Good Times Really Over?” presented many interesting perspectives but one passage posed by the lecture captured my imagination, especially as it relates to the Free Enterprise Forum’s local government focus:

          A new theory of the Constitution corresponded to this new theory of rights. FDR put it memorably in his 1932 Commonwealth Club Address: Government is a contract under which “rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights.” According to this view, we give the rulers power and the rulers give us rights. In other words, rights are no longer natural or God-given, but emerge from a bargain struck with the government. And it is up to liberal statesmen or leaders to keep the bargain current, redefining rights constantly-adding new rights and subtracting some of the old ones-in order to keep the living Constitution in tune with the times. Entitlement rights-rights created and funded by government-replace natural rights. Given this new relationship of people and government, we don’t need to keep a jealous eye on government anymore, because the more power we give it, the more rights and benefits it gives us back-Social Security, Medicare, prescription drug benefits, unemployment insurance, and on and on.

This statement buried near the end of the lecture caused me great pause as it relates to local government control of land use issues. 

I have often highlighted that it was John Locke in his Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government who first developed the concept of natural rights including “life liberty and property (or estate)”.   Our own Thomas Jefferson, one of many of our aristocratic forefathers who read Locke’s work, altered the language importantly in our Declaration of Independence:

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The differences between FDR’s 1932 speech at The Commonwealth Club and The Declaration of Independence are as subtle as they are important.  In the Declaration, governments derive their power by consent of the governed.  In FDR’s speech, rights are doled out by government so as to create a condition for the governed to consent.

Local land use across our region falls more toward the Commonwealth Club address than the Declaration position.  In countless planning commission and Board of Supervisors meetings I have heard the phrase “we are not taking away any rights since we gave them to you in the first place”.

Interestingly, in the 1932 Commonwealth Club Speech FDR also provided his rationale for individual property rights:

          Every man has a right to his own property; which means a right to be assured, to the fullest extent attainable, in the safety of his savings. By no other means can men carry the burdens of those parts of life which, in the nature of things afford no chance of labor; childhood, sickness, old age. In all thought of property, this right is paramount; all other property rights must yield to it. If, in accord with this principle, we must restrict the operations of the speculator, the manipulator, even the financier, I believe we must accept the restriction as needful, not to hamper individualism but to protect it.

The Free Enterprise Forum believes any market that is highly regulated by government will be less agile to respond to consumer demands and thus will be less competitive than a less regulated market. 

Where do rights come from?

We tend to agree with Jefferson and Locke.  Men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Property and the pursuit of Happiness. 

Government should serve the people to protect these Creator given rights. 

At the end of the day, this really does not seem like such a radical position.

 

The Not So Hidden Cost of Regulation

The Charlottesville area news outlets have been widely reporting the eviction of 30 families from a trailer park in Fluvanna County. NBC 29 has a copy of the Eviction Notice. The Daily Progressreporter Brian McNeill has the story.

According to the news outlets, Property owner Robert Glass is shutting down his Fluvanna trailer park rather than fix the central wastewater treatment system that is producing higher than allowed levels of zinc and copper into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  Reports indicate the upgrade to the system serving 30 families in the 41 year old trailer park would be between $500,000 and $750,000.

The purpose of this post is not to question the environmental regulations designed to protect and revitalize The Chesapeake Bay but to identify these evictions as a cost associated with achieving this benefit. 

In addition, The Free Enterprise Forum does not have a position regarding what the landowner has chosen to do with their land.  Rather it is important to highlight the conflict between the desire for affordable housing options and the environmental need.  Too often, environmental (and other) regulations are adopted without a clear statement of economic and socioeconomic impacts of the regulation. 

There will be some that will suggest the landowner should have chosen to build the wastewater treatment plant at a cost of $500,000 to $750,000.  Of course, he could.  He would likely review the payback period of such an infrastructure improvement.  After this analysis, he would like weigh his options and the rate of return on the investment.

Thus the community cost benefit analysis for this property:  October 31, 2008 the level of copper and zinc being added into the Chesapeake Bay system will be reduced and 30 of Fluvanna’s low income families will need to find a new place to live. 

Are High Gas Prices the End of America’s Automobile “Addiction”?

In recent weeks, the main stream media has been touting the many lifestyle and commuting changes Americans are making now that we are faced with the very real prospect of $4.00 a gallon gasoline. 

NBC Nightly News this past week profiled a young man who has hung up the keys of his spanky new BMW for the city bus (except on dates). 

A recent BusinessWeek article “Suddenly its Cool to take the Bus” cited the private bus service Microsoft provides [roomy coaches with wifi access] to employees has become so popular their software engineers hacked into the bus service reservation system and filed it up one bus before the route was even announced.

In the same May 6, 2008 BusinessWeek, one headline announced ”Gas May Finally Cost Too Much“.  The article highlights many statistics how Americans are handling the change in energy costs: down-sizing vehicles, combining trips, carpooling and increased transit usage.  The article also mentions the important demographic shifts that may also be driving down gasoline consumption.  Baby boomers are now exiting their prime driving years.

Increased fuel costs are changing consumer patterns far beyond just gasoline.  Local REALTOR and Blogger Jim Duncan highlighted the increased attention buyers are placing on their commute as a factor in their home buying decision.  He goes further to suggest in his headline that the solution to sprawl is high gasoline prices.

Depending on Jim’s definition of sprawl, this may or may not be the case in the long term.  What we are seeing are increasing economic pressures on those workers who choose to live further from their place of business.  The commuting cost (on the pocketbook, on family life, quality of life) is one factor of consideration.  This economic factor may tip the scales for some on the fence families but just as better transit operations will only capture a larger portion of the choice riders (those who have a choice), higher gas prices will only impact one cohort of the home buying population. 

The public is increasingly aware, and building business is consistantly responding to, environmental and energy efficency concerns.  The increase in energy costs positively changes the dynamics of the payback model of some of the higher cost enery efficenicies that can be built into new buildings.  Clearly this, too, will enter into buying decisions.

Randal O’Toole highlights another concern regarding the benefits of autoownership (or gasoline dependency):      

“Those who fervently wish for car-free cities should take a closer look at New Orleans. The tragedy of New Orleans isn’t primarily due to racism or government incompetence, though both played a role. The real cause is automobility — or more precisely to the lack of it.”The white people got out,” declared the New York Times today. But, as the article in the Times makes clear, the people who got out were those with automobiles (http://tinyurl.com/adgjx). Those who stayed, regardless of color, were those who lacked autos.

What made New Orleans more vulnerable to catastrophe than most U.S. cities is its low rate of auto ownership. According to the 2000 Census, nearly a third of New Orleans households do not own an automobile. This compares to less than 10 percent nationwide. There are significant differences by race: 35 percent of black households but only 15 percent of white households do not own an auto (see http://tinyurl.com/bpw4z).But in the end, it was auto ownership, not race, that made the difference between safety and disaster.”The evacuation plan was really based on people driving out,” an LSU professor told the Times. On Saturday and Sunday, August 27 and 28, when it appeared likely that Hurricane Katrina would strike New Orleans, those people who could simply got in their cars and drove away. The people who didn’t have cars were left behind.Critics of autos love the term “auto dependent.” But Katrina proved that the automobile is a liberator. It is those who don’t own autos who are dependent — dependent on the competence of government officials, dependent on charity, dependent on complex and sometimes uncaring institutions.”

The question that remains is, Are Americans rethinking their auto addition?  Or phrased a different way, Is America’s Automobile love affair over?

The automobile represents freedom and mobility to Americans.  Even those riding the Microsoft Bus have free access to a ZipCar for running errends while at work.  Just because Americans are rethinking their energy use, America’s love affair with the automobile is not about to end.  The standard garage will continue to hold at least two cars. 

Economic Development Role of Government

In the general, most folks are in favor of economic development as a concept.  The idea of increasing business revenues (and thus relieving some of the homeowner tax burden) is very close to apple pie on the political spectrum.  The difficulty comes in when one starts to discuss what economic development looks like.

Should local economic development activities be restricted to business retention?  If we fail to retain even some existing businesses, shouldn’t we have a plan for attracting new ”replacement” enterprises? 

Two years ago, there was a thirty minute discussion at the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the proper title for a new position in the county charged with business vitality - especially in the growth areas.  There was significant reluctance on the board to call this position an Economic Development officer, in the end they determined a business facilitator would better suit the duties of the position.

Next week, Susan Stimart, Albemarle County’s business facilitator will start work sessions with the Planning Commission on the Economic Development chapter of their comprehensive plan.  Buried in the text of the 50+ page chapter of the comp plan are significant decisions for the Planning Commission regarding the need for larger tracts of light industrial land the related exodus of small vibrant service companies from Albemarle County.

One question The Free Enterprise Forum routinely asks regards the proper function of government (if any) in a market segment.  At this time when both Greene and Fluvanna are updating their comprehensive plans and Albemarle is working on their Economic Development chapter, it is approriate to look at where government should and should not interceed.

The economic development environment is directly tied to the quality of life of the citizens.  Rather than looking toward a single large employer to woo to your locality, the Free Enterprise Forum believes government should focus on making business/government interaction minimally invasive and highly efficent.  In addition, government should regularly work with business as members of the Chamber of Commerce, Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development and other civic activities.  

Business must be a partner in this process as well.  Our region’s businesses have regularly pulled together to improve the quality of life of our residents (who are their employees and customers).  Business must work to have a seat at the table for discussions of local issues and be a strong voice for the importance of economic vitality. 

Perhaps the toughest thing for some government and quasi-government practitioners of economic development to understand is many businesses want to be good citizens and want government to simply  get out of the way.  Too often, localities layer ordinance on top of ordinance without recognizing the increase cost of complexity they are passing on to the businesses charged with complience.  If each locality required a cost/benefit analysis of each new regulation and a clear understanding of who is paying the cost (and the impact on that business), this would go a long way to building the economic vitality of the locality and the region.

 

Using a Sledge Hammer to Kill a Fly

Last night, Albemarle County’s Planning Commission, in a knee jerk reaction to an application plan it reviewed last week, (Charlottesville Tomorrow has the story here) approved a Resolution of Intent - to amend a section of the zoning ordinance. 

The Readers’ Digest version of this story is that last week the Planning Commission was very frustrated that the did not have the legal power to halt a plan they did not like, so this week they took immediate steps to garner this authority.  

While this may seem like waay inside baseball, I raise the issue because rarely does such knee jerk regulatory action result in positive public policy.

The section the Planning Commission is seeking to amend provides owners of Planned Districts (Neighborhood Model, Planned Urban District, Historic District, Rural Preservation District, etc.) the option of having their plans reviewed utilizing the regulations that were in force at the time of their district designation or the regulations in place the day of the review.

In last night’s meeting, the Free Enterprise Forum raised the concern that this proposal had not properly been vetted for the scope of its potential application.  We also called for stakeholder roundtables prior to drafting the ordinance.

In subsequent testimony, Valerie Long of Williams Mullen cited Biscuit Run, Northpointe, The University of Virginia Research parks, Martha Jefferson Hospital, and Monticello as just a few of the projects that could be impacted by this amendment. 

In response to our comments, one commissioner deftly turned the burden of proof of over regulation to those being regulated.

The Albemarle County Planning Commission sees this amendment as closing a loophole in the ordinance.  Based on the manner in which ordinances are drafted in this community I am certain there was careful thought in the creation of this loophole.  The genesis of this section of code was not discussed in detail last night.

 

At no point were metrics provided regarding the number of applications that had utilized this section of code.  It was clear this proposal was a way for staff to answer the concerns raised by the Planning Commission in the previous week without any critical analysis [or staff report] to support the action.  

IMHO this is using a sledgehammer to kill a fly.  Since 2002, I can only think of two projects that utilized this provision in the code. 

Albemarle County staff has taken great pains to express their concerns with the ever increasing workload being placed on their department, which has been decimated by frozen positions.  I fear that since this is a pet project, either items higher on the priority list may be moved down the pecking order or, more discouraging, the planning commission attempts to move this proposal through with all deliberate speed at the cost of stakeholder involvement. 

The optimist in me hopes staff will be able to dedicate the appropriate time to evaluate if this ordinance change is really needed and not be pressured into wasting limited staff time drafting an ordinance whose primary mission may be to soothe a frustrated commission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Education by Giving Away Money

 

 

A few years back, I was pained to have a discussion with a number of very bright students who did not know the first thing about free markets or how the free enterprise system provided very structure required for the great American experiment of democracy to succeed.  I am not looking for students to have a working knowledge of supply side economic theory but I do believe the understanding of free markets and how they interact with political systems is helpful in preparing our youth for the global economy. 

 

 

The Free Enterprise Forum intentionally does not comment or cover school boards and education issues.  We do however promote the concept of economic education in our schools.   I am always amazed at the multitude of intersections between politics, economics and our lives.  Each quarter, when the Charlottesville Association of REALTORS©cites the supply of homes and number of sales on thier blog, many of our students are not equipped to analyze the impact this report will have on the market and the ripple impacts on other important economic sectors (banking, durable goods, home improvement, etc.). 

I was lamenting this lack of understanding with members of the business community when, in a brilliant but brief moment of free market clarity, the Free Enterprise Forum Economic Opportunity Essay Contest was born.  Rather than petitioning the schools to include economic education in their classrooms, let’s provide a learner incentive [read cash money] to go above and beyond the normal level of school work. 

 

All entries must be post marked by May 1^st 2008. 

The Free Enterprise Forum believes a better economic understanding builds better citizens.  Please encourage any middle or high school students you know to participate. The deadline is fast approaching.