Saturday, August 23, 2008
Family Cottages and Newspapers
I recently spent a pleasant week in a cottage on a lake in Michigan. The lake is near Traverse City. The cottage is jointly owned by members of the family of my late sister's husband. He has a 1/7 share of the cottage and the property. The other six children of his parents each inherited a similar share. By now most of the original heirs have died and bequeathed their shares in the cottage to their children. Some of the children have 1/21 share each of the property.
At first all the heirs shared in the upkeep of the cottage. They still share in paying the property taxes owed each year to the county and the township in which the cottage is situated. However, many of the heirs now live in distant States: California and Nebraska and others. These distant heirs rarely if ever visit the cottage and are annoyed at the prospect of having to share in paying the utility bills, let alone painting and other repairs needed on a regular basis because of the harsh winters in Michigan. The task of maintenance falls on the two heirs who still live in Michigan.
Sooner or later the time will come when the family will decide collectively that maintaining the cottage is too much bother for a family and will decide to sell the cottage and the land it occupies. I suspect the new owner will raze the cottage and replace it with a more modern dwelling.
A similar fate seems to overtake newspapers that are owned privately. The original creator of the paper started with a small weekly and gradually expanded it into a daily paper. He or she worked hard to build up a news staff and a business staff to solicit advertising. Eventually the paper became one of the leading news sources in the nation.
Meanwhile, the original owner died and bequeathed the newspaper to his children. They in turn bequeathed it to their children, and so on. The newspaper was a good source of revenue for the family, and excess money was invested in other enterprises. The family became wealthy.
Finally, the family found that they could no longer agree on how to manage the newspaper. They decided to convert it to a publicly held corporation and sold shares of stock. For a while members of the family retained ownership of a majority of the shares, but eventually they decided to invest their money in something more profitable. Another news corporation took over the paper and discovered that the return on the investment was lower than the average return on other shares traded on Wall Street. The new owners undertook to cut costs by getting rid of some of the members of the news gathering staff. This started a downhill path for the paper. Less news meant fewer readers. Fewer readers meant fewer advertisers. Fewer advertisers meant less money. Costs were cut again by laying off more news staff. And so it went.
By now you may have guessed that the newspaper in question is the Los Angeles Times. It has been acquired by the Tribune Company and is experiencing the decline described above.
The moral is, family ownership of a cottage or a newspaper is fine as long as the family is interested in maintaining the cottage or newspaper. When the family loses interest, the property is sold and the new owners demolish the property (cottage or newspaper) and sell the remainder (the lot or the building and equipment of the newspaper).
Sic transit gloria mundi.
At first all the heirs shared in the upkeep of the cottage. They still share in paying the property taxes owed each year to the county and the township in which the cottage is situated. However, many of the heirs now live in distant States: California and Nebraska and others. These distant heirs rarely if ever visit the cottage and are annoyed at the prospect of having to share in paying the utility bills, let alone painting and other repairs needed on a regular basis because of the harsh winters in Michigan. The task of maintenance falls on the two heirs who still live in Michigan.
Sooner or later the time will come when the family will decide collectively that maintaining the cottage is too much bother for a family and will decide to sell the cottage and the land it occupies. I suspect the new owner will raze the cottage and replace it with a more modern dwelling.
A similar fate seems to overtake newspapers that are owned privately. The original creator of the paper started with a small weekly and gradually expanded it into a daily paper. He or she worked hard to build up a news staff and a business staff to solicit advertising. Eventually the paper became one of the leading news sources in the nation.
Meanwhile, the original owner died and bequeathed the newspaper to his children. They in turn bequeathed it to their children, and so on. The newspaper was a good source of revenue for the family, and excess money was invested in other enterprises. The family became wealthy.
Finally, the family found that they could no longer agree on how to manage the newspaper. They decided to convert it to a publicly held corporation and sold shares of stock. For a while members of the family retained ownership of a majority of the shares, but eventually they decided to invest their money in something more profitable. Another news corporation took over the paper and discovered that the return on the investment was lower than the average return on other shares traded on Wall Street. The new owners undertook to cut costs by getting rid of some of the members of the news gathering staff. This started a downhill path for the paper. Less news meant fewer readers. Fewer readers meant fewer advertisers. Fewer advertisers meant less money. Costs were cut again by laying off more news staff. And so it went.
By now you may have guessed that the newspaper in question is the Los Angeles Times. It has been acquired by the Tribune Company and is experiencing the decline described above.
The moral is, family ownership of a cottage or a newspaper is fine as long as the family is interested in maintaining the cottage or newspaper. When the family loses interest, the property is sold and the new owners demolish the property (cottage or newspaper) and sell the remainder (the lot or the building and equipment of the newspaper).
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Labels: family ownership, Los Angeles Times, Michigan, Tribune Company
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hillary may pull it off
California, along with several other "large" States, moved its presidential primary election up from the first Tuesday in June to a Tuesday in February. The excuse was that voters in California were tired of voting in a presidential primary late in the season when one candidate had already accumulated enough delegates to win the nomination at the convention. We Californians are still frustrated that our big State didn't have a decisive effect on choosing the nominee of the Democratic Party. Now we are wishing that we hadn't gone to the trouble of holding the presidential primary in February. If we had not yet voted, our State could be the one to decide the nominee.
Aside from that, we are left to watch the maneuverings of the two candidates, Clinton and Obama. Clinton seems to be better at back-room gutter-level politics than Obama. Take the case of Michigan. Michigan broke the rules set by the Democratic National Committee by voting before February 5. Clinton and Obama at the time agreed to the rule. Obama honorably did not enter his name in the balloting that did take place. Clinton had her name on the ballot. Michigan voters were given the choice of "Clinton" or "Other." Of course "Other" could have been any of several candidates: Obama, Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, Dodd, etc. "Clinton" received about 55 percent of the votes cast. Nobody believes that the vote represents a clear choice of Michigan Democrats for Clinton. If other names had been on the ballot, her vote would probably have been lower. According to the rules of the Democratic National Committee, the vote in Michigan shouldn't count.
Now Senator Clinton is insisting that it should count. She claims that she "won" Michigan and delegates chosen by the process in Michigan should be seated at the convention. To me, agreeing to ignore the vote in Michigan, then insisting that it be counted amounts to an example of underhanded gutter politics. More than one Democrat of my acquaintance is disgusted with Clinton.
The real reason for holding the primary elections early in the year, with several large States voting in February was to select the candidate early. The various Democratic elected officials favored Clinton early on and agreed to the early vote with the expectation that she would be able to gather enough delegates in February to clinch the nomination. It didn't work out that way. Upstart Obama came along and acquired a lot of delegates, too many to let Clinton claim the nomination after the February primary elections.
It's clear that the Democratic "machine" favored Clinton and probably still does. Democratic voters incline toward Obama. Clinton spent years working the "machine" and massaging the elected officials to grease the skids toward the nomination. She is one tough, determined lady and isn't going to give up the prize without an awful fight. She will do whatever it takes - reneging on promises and agreements, among other things - to gain the right to campaign against the Republican opponent in the fall.
All of this gutter politics may not dissuade dedicated Democrats like myself from voting for her if she does indeed become the Party's nominee. It will turn off some of the independent or non-partisan voters that we must depend on to win the general election next fall. Will enough of these independent voters support the presumably squeaky-clean and honest McCain rather than Hillary Clinton? This is a thought that I wish Hillary herself would consider and do some soul-searching about.
Aside from that, we are left to watch the maneuverings of the two candidates, Clinton and Obama. Clinton seems to be better at back-room gutter-level politics than Obama. Take the case of Michigan. Michigan broke the rules set by the Democratic National Committee by voting before February 5. Clinton and Obama at the time agreed to the rule. Obama honorably did not enter his name in the balloting that did take place. Clinton had her name on the ballot. Michigan voters were given the choice of "Clinton" or "Other." Of course "Other" could have been any of several candidates: Obama, Kucinich, Edwards, Gravel, Dodd, etc. "Clinton" received about 55 percent of the votes cast. Nobody believes that the vote represents a clear choice of Michigan Democrats for Clinton. If other names had been on the ballot, her vote would probably have been lower. According to the rules of the Democratic National Committee, the vote in Michigan shouldn't count.
Now Senator Clinton is insisting that it should count. She claims that she "won" Michigan and delegates chosen by the process in Michigan should be seated at the convention. To me, agreeing to ignore the vote in Michigan, then insisting that it be counted amounts to an example of underhanded gutter politics. More than one Democrat of my acquaintance is disgusted with Clinton.
The real reason for holding the primary elections early in the year, with several large States voting in February was to select the candidate early. The various Democratic elected officials favored Clinton early on and agreed to the early vote with the expectation that she would be able to gather enough delegates in February to clinch the nomination. It didn't work out that way. Upstart Obama came along and acquired a lot of delegates, too many to let Clinton claim the nomination after the February primary elections.
It's clear that the Democratic "machine" favored Clinton and probably still does. Democratic voters incline toward Obama. Clinton spent years working the "machine" and massaging the elected officials to grease the skids toward the nomination. She is one tough, determined lady and isn't going to give up the prize without an awful fight. She will do whatever it takes - reneging on promises and agreements, among other things - to gain the right to campaign against the Republican opponent in the fall.
All of this gutter politics may not dissuade dedicated Democrats like myself from voting for her if she does indeed become the Party's nominee. It will turn off some of the independent or non-partisan voters that we must depend on to win the general election next fall. Will enough of these independent voters support the presumably squeaky-clean and honest McCain rather than Hillary Clinton? This is a thought that I wish Hillary herself would consider and do some soul-searching about.
Labels: Barack Obama, Democratic elected officials, Hillary Clinton, Michigan
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Housing Patterns
This morning (Saturday) I began to wonder about my addiction to my computer and to the internet. The thought that came to me was that writing articles and comments and posting them was a way of socializing and communicating with other human beings. We humans are sociable animals. We get along best in groups of about ten. I guess that's because we're descended from social animals. Our closest relatives among the animals are the great apes of Africa: the chimpanzees, the gorillas, and the binobos. (I hope I have the spelling correct.) These animals live in groups or families in which each member is a close biological relative of the others.
Even though we Americans live in housing units that emphasize the isolated nuclear family as the organizational unit of society, we have a hankering for belonging to larger groups. Many of us participate in annual family reunions where we organize ourselves for the day in the age-old manner of the great apes: the dean or grandparent, surrounded by immediate relatives and descendants, with less close relatives enjoying theselves at a small distance from the family leader. Many of us belong to organizations, such as churches, political clubs, sports clubs, the Sierra Club, the Masons, the Elks, the Oddfellows, and the like.
I'm trying to find a point in all of this musing. I think one point is that we secretly rebel against the isolated nuclear family model that our housing patterns tend to impose on us. We have not always lived in this way. When I was much younger, most of my relatives lived on farms. A man and his wife would live on and work a farm that had belonged to his or her parents. Perhaps a surviving parent would live with them. Brothers and sisters would live on other farms in the neighborhood. As time went on and I grew older, farmers acquired machinery that made their work more efficient. Large families were no longer needed to do the work. Children who weren't able to inherit or buy a farm went to work in a city, perhaps in a furniture factory in Grand Rapids, perhaps in a foundery, perhaps in an automobile plant in Lansing, Flint, or Detroit. These individuals were used to living in houses (farm houses) and tended to live in houses in the city. Cities became clusters of houses surrounding areas where people worked. Although jobs were plentiful they weren't necessarily permanent. A worker had to be ready to change jobs and move to a new location. Family ties became weak.
And so on, and on. I'm not going to try to emulate the work of the famous anthropologists. You can go to their books and read all about it. Instead, I'll make a few comments about my own situation.
My father was a child who did not inherit or buy a farm. His father had been a farmer, but had sold his farm and bought a small area, five acres, just within the village limits of Kent City in Michigan. Grandfather used some of his money to buy a franchise to sell International Harvester farm machinery to farmers in the area. When Grandfather died, my father's sister inherited some money. She and her husband bought a farm near Mesick. My father's older brother inherited the five acre spread, including a house and barn, where my grandparents had lived. My father inherited the International Harvester franchise. Grandfather died in 1925.
My father lost the franchise in the great depression of 1929-1930. He was able to keep the building. The franchisor, International Harvester, forced all its dealers to buy farm equipment at the same rate as before the depression. They couldn't sell the stuff. As a result, they enjoyed the blessings of bankruptcy while International Harvester stayed in business.
My father found work in the local farm bureau cooperative in Kent City. The cooperative provided services to farmers who grew various grain crops: oats, wheat, rye, and corn. They could have some of their grain ground to form cattle feed, chicken feed, etc. They could have some of their grain stored and later shipped. The Pere Marquette Railroad provided a siding for cars to contain the grain and for cars that contained coal. The co-op sold coal to villagers for use in their furnaces and stoves.
Finally, in 1933 my father received an appointment as Postmaster of the village.
I won't bore you with more details of my early life. I grew up having only a vague memory of what life is like on a farm. Occasionally I would spend some time on a farm, particularly my Aunt Ruth's farm near Mesick. I got a little taste of farm life, more of the pleasant part than of the hard part. Except for living in a dormitory during my stay at Michigan State College (now University) and for living in an apartment for four years in New York City, I have spent my life in a single-family house. Correction: while working in Washington, DC and while studying in graduate school, I lived in rented rooms. I have lived far from close relatives and have not attended very many family reunions. My own socializing involves people with similar political or recreational ideas: Democratic clubs, bridge clubs, etc.
Even though we Americans live in housing units that emphasize the isolated nuclear family as the organizational unit of society, we have a hankering for belonging to larger groups. Many of us participate in annual family reunions where we organize ourselves for the day in the age-old manner of the great apes: the dean or grandparent, surrounded by immediate relatives and descendants, with less close relatives enjoying theselves at a small distance from the family leader. Many of us belong to organizations, such as churches, political clubs, sports clubs, the Sierra Club, the Masons, the Elks, the Oddfellows, and the like.
I'm trying to find a point in all of this musing. I think one point is that we secretly rebel against the isolated nuclear family model that our housing patterns tend to impose on us. We have not always lived in this way. When I was much younger, most of my relatives lived on farms. A man and his wife would live on and work a farm that had belonged to his or her parents. Perhaps a surviving parent would live with them. Brothers and sisters would live on other farms in the neighborhood. As time went on and I grew older, farmers acquired machinery that made their work more efficient. Large families were no longer needed to do the work. Children who weren't able to inherit or buy a farm went to work in a city, perhaps in a furniture factory in Grand Rapids, perhaps in a foundery, perhaps in an automobile plant in Lansing, Flint, or Detroit. These individuals were used to living in houses (farm houses) and tended to live in houses in the city. Cities became clusters of houses surrounding areas where people worked. Although jobs were plentiful they weren't necessarily permanent. A worker had to be ready to change jobs and move to a new location. Family ties became weak.
And so on, and on. I'm not going to try to emulate the work of the famous anthropologists. You can go to their books and read all about it. Instead, I'll make a few comments about my own situation.
My father was a child who did not inherit or buy a farm. His father had been a farmer, but had sold his farm and bought a small area, five acres, just within the village limits of Kent City in Michigan. Grandfather used some of his money to buy a franchise to sell International Harvester farm machinery to farmers in the area. When Grandfather died, my father's sister inherited some money. She and her husband bought a farm near Mesick. My father's older brother inherited the five acre spread, including a house and barn, where my grandparents had lived. My father inherited the International Harvester franchise. Grandfather died in 1925.
My father lost the franchise in the great depression of 1929-1930. He was able to keep the building. The franchisor, International Harvester, forced all its dealers to buy farm equipment at the same rate as before the depression. They couldn't sell the stuff. As a result, they enjoyed the blessings of bankruptcy while International Harvester stayed in business.
My father found work in the local farm bureau cooperative in Kent City. The cooperative provided services to farmers who grew various grain crops: oats, wheat, rye, and corn. They could have some of their grain ground to form cattle feed, chicken feed, etc. They could have some of their grain stored and later shipped. The Pere Marquette Railroad provided a siding for cars to contain the grain and for cars that contained coal. The co-op sold coal to villagers for use in their furnaces and stoves.
Finally, in 1933 my father received an appointment as Postmaster of the village.
I won't bore you with more details of my early life. I grew up having only a vague memory of what life is like on a farm. Occasionally I would spend some time on a farm, particularly my Aunt Ruth's farm near Mesick. I got a little taste of farm life, more of the pleasant part than of the hard part. Except for living in a dormitory during my stay at Michigan State College (now University) and for living in an apartment for four years in New York City, I have spent my life in a single-family house. Correction: while working in Washington, DC and while studying in graduate school, I lived in rented rooms. I have lived far from close relatives and have not attended very many family reunions. My own socializing involves people with similar political or recreational ideas: Democratic clubs, bridge clubs, etc.
Labels: Great Depression, International Harvester, Michigan, nuclear family
