Proposed sale of public land

The governor recommends amending Article 11 to permit the sale of all public land now under lease by hotels and golf resorts Marianas-wide. He said a lot of money could be collected if his proposal is turned into an initiative and subsequently approved by the people.

Though the recommendation may be Candle in the Wind, it merits discussion to probe if the proposed solution would make major inroads to improving the ZNMI’s long-term economic future. The economic disaster demands more reasoned and productive solutions beyond land sale. The instant soba mindset (evasive quick fixes) isn’t the answer either.

Paying off the deficit without earmarking a good portion of the revenue to address and resolve the long-term economic needs of the NMI would be demagoguery. You only absolve yourself of the deepening debt crisis but then what’s next? Wait for another round of unbridled wasteful spending genuflecting to another weak-kneed pitch to sell more public land?

Obviously, the proposal raises a lot of questions. Though there’s also the upside of the issue: It permits real estate developers the opportunity to purchase public land, develop self-contained residential area for all who qualify for affordable housing. It puts a positive twist to the fate of over 4,000 homestead applicants awaiting residential lots. Some $23 million in federal housing funds is available for this purpose. But I smell the unbearable stench of a rat, making this proposal one of special interest disguised in a bundle I’d explain later.

That an island economy is highly vulnerable to shocks from any and all global economic shifts, i.e., slow recovery and growth, makes it mandatory that the CNMI spends most of the projected income on critically reasoned and productive solutions to grow its economy. The CNMI can’t afford another shock with bankruptcy.

Planning is imperative on how the projected income would be spent. Otherwise, the constellation of risks attributable to insatiable and unbridled spending would blossom into an ugly fossilized creature we can ill afford at this juncture. We’d be digging larger holes.

Depleting resources versus mounting obligations have exposed and made brittle existing safeguards or once durable protective system. The demise of the Fund is a perfect example of this mind numbing experience. It’s on its way into the land of bankruptcy. The health corporation, left to sink or swim, is following close behind, not to mention CUC.

Deliberative discussion to amend Article 11 should include repeal of Article 12. Both have outlived their usefulness. Our people are sophisticated enough to make full disposition of their land. It’s about time that private landowners are given full ownership of their property.

Conditions being what they are leave a perfect setup to rein in modern dystopia or a place full of hardship, devoid of hope. The fireworks of a myriad of increases makes one wonder if this is a microcosm of our future. Well, you be the judge.

Ironic how proponents of Article 12 wish to “protect” loss of privately owned land by denying landowners full disposition of their property. Simultaneously, they wear the oxymoronic hat of total contradiction by bravely recommending sale of public land. This conflicted viewpoint is embarrassingly asymmetrical.
[B] SNAP advantageous over NAP[/B]

Our Washington Office commissioned an economic impact study on the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program, SNAP. It says that the current Nutrition Assistance Program, or NAP, shows an average monthly benefit of $302 per month for a family of four.

“Under SNAP the benefit level per month of four average $668 nationally and $985 on neighboring Guam. The implication is that CNMI recipients would get about triple the amount for food assistance over the present NAP system.”

While there are issues about the additional cost of operation of some $650,000 to bring in SNAP, the economic benefits are more than sufficient to make up for what the CNMI spends. Recipients would get some $19 million in 2013, and $24 million in 2014 through subsequent years, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

The total economic impact of $12 million to $24 million in additional SNAP benefits for CNMI beneficiaries would range from $21.48 million to $42.96 million annually using the SNAP multiplier. The domino effect of the multiplier rate simply means more help for recipients and more revenue for the local government.

You could demonize and jab SNAP as a major factor on dependency, but experts who have analyzed the issue beyond a set of figures say it provides critical support for millions of working Americans and serves as a tool for economic recovery. It also increases the food purchasing power of struggling households in order to alleviate hunger and malnutrition.

According to Moody’s Investors Service, “food stamps rank number one as an economic stimulus provision. For every $1 in SNAP, $1.73 returns to the economy.” The USDA’s Economic Research Service estimates that “each $1 billion of retail demand by SNAP generates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value added and 3,300 farm jobs.” SNAP also “supports low-wage workers in making ends meet and assures that families are financially better off working than on welfare, all the while creating economic stimulus in a time of prolonged economic recession.”

It’s a plus for employees of both sectors whose work hours have been reduced. It would grant them the opportunity to claim against work hour cuts to make up the family purse, at least on dietary sustenance. It’s better by a large margin than the current program. The CNMI is headed into a prolonged recession, if not depression, and you can’t deny the multitude their needs to avoid hunger and malnutrition while staying employed or out searching for meaningful employment.

****
[I] Delrosario is a regular contributor to the [/I]Saipan Tribune’[I]s Opinion Section.[/I]