Just wondering….

From a friend’s email about Spring Webflow:

I determined that it would be difficult to integrate client-side behavior with webflow, which seemed tied to the concept of a server round-trip being a common operation to move from page-to-page in a traditional webapp.

After some thought, I realized that since we wanted to move to a Ajax-type paradigm, where round-trips to the server are the exception and not the norm, it would not be a good fit.

We did decide to use SpringMVC as the core web framework of choice, however. It was very customizable, and works well for validation on the server-side, and form submissions where its validation, request-binding-to-command-object and error handling allow us to achieve cool things whether the request was AJAX/XMLHttp or old-style plain HTTP. (POHTTP??)

Also, alot of the flow they were talking about we can now implement with cool Javascript objects on the client-side, without the need to visit the server (e.g. wizards with multiple forms).

I am looking at my own application and I am kind of on the fence. Check out the dojotoolkit. The latest version has this concept of templates. Basically sample html+css templates can be used to create the entire page programatically. very cool. And it leaves me wondering if any page generation on the server-side makes sense any more.

I ask this question at javaone and the only reason I got back was that for users who are using browsers for the sight-impaired would have problems on the website.

But taking that aside, I am really leaning toward simple servlets that deliver/receive nothing but JSON objects. This would allow for those same servlets to be hook to something other than a browser.

So no Tapestry, JSF, or SpringMVC….

This really becomes back to the future of client-server.

I spent the last 12 hours working through some issues with dojotoolkit but I think I got them worked out enough that I can do up my app with it. I will let you know how it goes.

(An article I wrote for the Loma Prietan):

One of the key public transportation issues in Santa Clara County is whether to extend BART to San Jose. Not only is it a huge project, but it may do more harm than good.

San Mateo County’s experience with the SFO extension is illustrative. Original projections were pretty good. For $1.2 billion, 62,000 riders per day would get out of their cars. The line would have so many people it would turn a profit, and that money could be used to help fund other public transportation.

It hasn’t turned out that way. The project was two years late and $300 million over budget, and the 12,000 to 13,000 net new riders is a fraction of the predicted 62,000. Few riders means less fares, so the extension has run large deficits, forcing huge cuts to bus service in San Mateo County. Those bus service cuts have resulted in a loss of 22,000 riders per day. That loss is almost twice the anticipated gain from building the BART extension in the first place.

Low ridership, service cuts, and loss of existing systems are the reasons the Sierra Club and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition opposed the first tax to fund the proposed BART-SJ extension. Santa Clara County could suffer the same damage as San Mateo.

Just as the SFO extension has had very low ridership, the San Jose extension does not look promising. Public transit advocates at the Transportation and Land Use Coalition have raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the VTA’s projections. For example, the number of riders per station is predicted to rival that of San Francisco. With no Bay Bridge or parking shortages to limit driving, and far less office space, this seems unlikely.

Even the Federal Transportation Authority has raised doubts, openly questioning the methodology used in preparing the VTA estimates. Those doubts are the primary reason the project was withdrawn from consideration for federal funding.

The BART financing plans also threaten to damage VTA bus operations. (Buses may not be flashy, but our bus systems carry far more riders than do our rail systems.)

The contract between the VTA and the BART system grants BART $48 million per year and the right to take away VTA bus funds to get it. So far, funding has not been identified to make these payments to build the extension. The potential loss of $48 million per year is about a quarter of the VTA’s bus budget.

The other risk to VTA bus operations comes from the financing to build BART. The current plan to finance BART is to borrow against our bus operating funds. That gives New York banks the right to take our bus funds if the financing plan goes awry.

The final question about BART to San Jose is whether it would be better than the systems it would replace. There are two trains that run from Fremont to San Jose, the Altamont Commuter Express and the Capital Corridor. Both are popular and have strong ridership: actual riders, not just projections.

The sidebar highlights the top 10 commutes into Santa Clara County. Eight of these commutes represent 85 percent of the total number of commuters and have nothing to do with linking Fremont to San Jose. Interestingly, all but one of the top 10 commutes would be well served by improving Caltrain, ACE, or Dumbarton Rail.

For riders who just want to get to work, this means BART-SJ doesn’t add much. We would do better just to expand service on the systems we already have.

When you add it all up, the current plan for extending BART to San Jose just doesn’t make sense. For the sake of projected riders who may never appear, it risks tens of thousands of existing riders. All to build a train that isn’t any faster or more direct than the ones we have today.

Here is the latest on SB1291 (Alquist):

First of all notice that:

EXISTING LAW requires entities engaged in manufacturing, research & development, telecommunications, software production, printing, biotechnology or pharmaceuticals that purchase, lease or rent equipment and other supplies to pay sales or use tax on their purchases of tangible personal property. But purchases of tangible personal property that become ingredients of an item to be resold are exempt from tax.

So much for Elaine Alquist’s claim that her bill is to reduce “double-taxation” to the poverty-striken manufacturers.

But what about the jobs?

It is unclear whether any incentive could make a difference in job growth in the manufacturing sectors of the economy due to the macroeconomic trend of outsourcing. This bill’s predecessor, the Manufacturers Investment Credit, offered a 6% income tax credit for purchases of manufacturing equipment for use in California. There is little evidence that this credit actually created many new jobs. The MIC’s sunset provision, based on growth in jobs, eventually allowed the MIC to sunset due to too few new jobs.

So the jobs are imaginary but the cost is not:

Based on Board of Equalization data, estimated state revenue loss from the bill would be about $1.75billion annually starting in 2006.

You just got to love the Mercury News editorial. They continue to push the June 6 Measure A, but the reasons they offer become more and more strained as they dance closer to the truth. VTAWatch helps them out a little here.

So it is time to help them out a little.

Nobody likes paying taxes.

Hmmm.. actually no. For the record, I personally don’t mind paying taxes when the common wealth of those taxes are used for the common good.

I do mind paying taxes that used on overpriced, goldplated projects whose only purpose is to provide a ribboncutting ceremony for one of the five most powerful in Santa Clara to attend. In a word, I am frugal and I expect my government to be the same.

And when it comes to our quality of life — our health, our safety, our ability to travel where we need to go — we get what we pay for.

I love this tired phrase, “you get what you pay for”. Yes and sometimes you get less than what you paid for, which is unfortunately the case here. Remember the county only needs a 1/4 cent sales tax to cover all of their social services needs for as long as the county projected. It is for this reason that Sup. Blanca Alvarado called this a “wink-and-nod” tax:

Alvarado said that although she would support a quarter-cent tax increase to fund regular county programs such as health care, she said she would not back a half-cent increase that with a “wink-and-a-nod” would also be used to pay for BART and VTA’s other projects.

(One minor correction here: It would just be BART there would be no other projects, road or otherwise)

So that means that if voters approve this “wink-and-nod” tax, then everybody from undocumented worker to software geek will be paying double what they really needed to pay. (But come on tell me, you don’t really mind paying twice as much as you had to do you?) But don’t worry, SVLG’s got the manufacturers’ back. Thanks to SB1291 (analysis here).

The Mercury continues:

There is a back-room deal, [opponents] say, to divide the money between transportation projects and the county’s health and welfare services.

Excuse me, Blanca also called it a backroom deal. O.k. well she didn’t use those exact words, but “wink-and-nod” tax doesn’t sound like everything is out in the sunshine either does it?

A little later the Mercury almost approaches the truth:

There is no legally binding requirement for current or future supervisors to spend a penny on Valley Medical Center or … [insert your favorite social services here]

Here is a pop quiz “What happens if San Jose has the downtown streets torn up trying to build BART, and is goes overbudget by 1% ($40-70million)?” What is the likelihood that there will be a lot of sad talk as social services get the ax to fill the hole through downtown?

In the biggest bit of misinformation:

Opponents of Measure A dismiss all that, using copious figures to claim the Valley Transportation Authority is a disaster and the county is exaggerating its challenges. But they sometimes misinterpret, or misrepresent, their statistics. A judge forced them to rewrite their inaccurate No-on-A ballot argument.

Of course what this means is that everything on the ballot “No on measure A” has been vetted and agreed as 100% accurate by the proponents of this tax. (we don’t even have to get into the minor issue of there not being significant changes or the fact that VTA is ranked near the bottom nation-wide of all transit agencies)

Non-profits are very different than businesses. Business exist to generate capital for their owners where as non-profits exist to generate social environmental change that their members agree is desirable. At the end of the day all non-profits are political. Churches try to change members’ world view which will influence elections and their dealings with public officials. Breast cancer foundations will try to influence government research dollar allocations. Chambers of Commerce change laws.

Non-profits can be categorized based on three dimensions:

• Goal Scope
• Resource Scope
• Influence Scope

Goal Scope

Goal Scope should not be confused with Influence Scope. Goal Scope is concerned with how the nonprofit defines victory. This dimension has 3 values:

• Single Issue, defined end
• Single Issue, indeterminate end
• General Area of Concern

Examples:

• “Vote No on A” – Single Issue, Defined End
  Once the election is over, the group disbands.
• “Cure Breast Cancer” – Single Issue Indeterminate End
  No one knows when breast cancer will be cured.
• “Global Warming” – General Area
  Because this issue involves everything from transportation to appliance energy efficiency this is general area of concern.
• “Free Nelson Mandela” – Single Issue, Defined End
  Once he was released, the goal was been achieved.

Notice that in the case of Mandela, the Influence Scope brought to bear was international, even though the goal was very local in nature.

Resource Scope

This measures the resources in time and money available to the non-profit. Resources directly affect a non-profit’s Influence Scope.

In most cases, money can buy time but the reverse is not true. Money will allow paid staff to be hired and physical resources to be purchased. However, volunteer time can be used as a replacement for paid staff, but cannot be used to “buy” postage for a mass-mailing.

Resources are used to achieve the goal or to help the organization survive.

Important resources to achieve goals:

• Money to communicate with sympathetic individuals known to have interest (internal newsletters).
• Money for mass-mailings to voters to influence an election.
• Time to monitor public meetings and public officials.
• Time for Lawyers (if pro bono, otherwise money).
• Time to mobilize large numbers of people.

Important resources to insure organization’s continuity and survival:

• Fundraising seed money for appeals for money (mailings asking for donations).
• Time to acquire new members.
• Time to educate new volunteers (or staff).

I purposely left membership size out of this section. Unless the money or time exists to monetize that membership or to inspire or communicate to those members, a large body of non-donating, non-volunteering “members” is not significant.

Influence Scope

This is a measure of the non-profit’s ability to mobilize and concentrate resources.

Some metrics:

• Access: how quickly and how high up into government can an organization get a decision-maker to take a meeting or phone call.
• Geographic Membership Density: what percentage of the population in a given locale are members of this group.
• Membership size: overall world-wide membership.

Notice the difference between “Membership Density” and “Membership Size”.

Membership Density determines the likelihood that the organization can influence an election or the allocation of government resources without the expenditure of large sums of cash.

Membership Size determines how large a pool of potential donors is available to draw on for money (usually) or time.