A Study of Masterful Linguistic Deception
And I get a new role in creating the new informational infrastructure!
I am an optimistic person, I don’t often get depressed but the other day I was descended upon by gloom and discouragement. At first, I couldn’t connect where the feeling came from as I had a very pleasant meeting with a new friend the day before and should have felt optimistic. Eventually, I concluded it was the accumulated effect of LD 2004/HP 1489, a law that uses the housing shortage to cap workers’ incomes and nearly dictates what types of businesses small homeowners can operate in newly allowed additional structures designed to overcrowd our traditional New England neighborhoods.
The uses of accessory dwelling units are favored to serve an industry through which the government collects a higher-than-usual sales tax. The homeowners as STR landlords become the instruments of the state, delivering its payload in the 9% sales tax derived from the transient rental industry, using their property as encouraged by the state, employed in the industry the state and local ordinances allow to be in a home, while the local leaders do nothing to protect the local communities from the theft of self-governance.
The lack of recognition for municipal constitutional rights is the long incremental effect of the great wealth concentration and redistribution industrial complex that keeps every level of governance on a string, also provided in the law.
The way this has evolved is a study in the linguistic art of deception
Observe that the Boothbay Register article states that accessory dwelling units address Maine’s Housing shortage, but which housing shortage is it?
“LD 2003 was enacted in 2022 with the intent of creating more affordable housing in Maine. It required changes to local ordinances to address Maine's housing shortage by permitting accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on properties. source Boothbay Register
The study began with a specifically stated intent to ensure that new housing units produced using the recommendations from the study are used primarily as permanent, year-round housing for Maine residents. source The commissioner’s study
In Boothbay, planning board chair Bruce Bowler summarized the town's ordinance. "We have said that if you have a dwelling unit as a result of this ordinance the shortest rental you can have is one month," he said. source Boothbay Register
The Study vs. the Law
If the law's intent were as said in the study, the words “year-round” would be found in the law. A search of LD 2003 establishes that the words “year-round” are not to be found in the law.
The term “less than thirty days” is not found in the study.
Throughout the study, the housing shortage is referred to as affordable housing. Short-term rentals are mentioned at the beginning when they are dismissed from the study, and in the last paragraph of the study.
The law treats short-term rentals as rentals that are for “less than thirty days” leaving the definition of “permanent full-time residence” to be defined as anything greater than thirty days, by default.
Accessory Dwelling Units are introduced in the study as a solution to the housing shortage which is identified as the affordable housing shortage throughout the study.
The unit is called a “dwelling unit” consistent with being a solution to the housing shortage, which shifts from the clearly stated purpose of the study as a shortage of permanent year-round housing to “not less than thirty days” housing by the time the solutions derived from the study are enacted into law and municipal leaders are planning new ordinances around the law.
But who reads studies? The purpose of the study Is to effect an enactment and so the study must appeal to those that have the power to enact laws, the elected legislatures. By the time the law is processed at the municipal level, the study is likely no longer being read. At that point, decisions are based only on what is in the law, and the supposed reason for conducting the study is altogether forgotten.
After announcing that a study of the effect of short-term rentals required an in-depth study and therefore would not be included in the study, at all, the commissioners then declared that the housing shortage was caused by the underproduction of housing.
Had the commissioners asked why there was an underproduction of housing, they might have heard that a commonly attributed cause is a shortage of building supplies.
If the commissioners had studied the reason for the underproduction of housing they might have factored in the alleged shortage of building supplies and concluded that to ensure the availability of full-time residential housing, transient rentals must be curtailed.
Instead of asking the reason for the alleged underproduction of housing, the commissioners mandated state-wide production of housing in every municipality and permitted Accessory Dwelling Units for single-family homes. They further mandated that the use of the ADUs as short-term rentals cannot be prohibited by municipal ordinances nor could the ordinances require the owners to provide parking spaces and no one within the whole system has mentioned a plan for dealing with the inadequate parking provisions of LD 2003. Nor does the study explain why there is a provision in the law that allows developers to short the residents on the minimum needed parking spaces.
The study acknowledges remote workers, a subset of businesses in a home.
However, the growing demand for suburban and exurban living may be a more enduring shift, particularly if working from home becomes common practice. If freed from the requirement to commute every day, many more households (including those from out of state) will seek out lowercost housing away from employment centers source The comissioner’’s study
But the commissioners seem to think the only consideration for a choice of location is the cost of housing, and from that it follows that you can make housing lower priced by overcrowding and eliminating all personal relationship to the land on which the housing is occupied, and by making the unit sizes smaller.
Portland has implemented changes in several zoning districts to allow for greater housing creation, including adjusting the dimensional standards in several neighborhoods and corridors, to allow for smaller lots and higher residential densities. These provisions have generally been targeted towards higher density residential zones and mixed-use zones well-served by transit, on the grounds that they create opportunities for housing development in areas of the city that are particularly well-prepared for them. These include areas of Portland’s peninsula, but also strategic locations throughout the entire city. (emphasis by author)
In late 2020, Portland adopted expanded Accessory Dwelling Unit standards, making it substantially easier to create small increments (up to two ADUs per lot) of new housing on residential properties across the city. Source-Report submitted to the study by CITY OF PORTLAND Planning & Urban Development Christine Grimando
Doesn’t remote working require larger units to accommodate the working space that was once in corporate headquarters and is now located in the home? The smaller units are suitable only for those working in corporate headquarters which now includes our public school system which is being transformed into workforce training facilities complete with “making spaces” which is the politically correct language for “design and production spaces”
Contradicting the recognition that housing is being transformed by remote working, the study recommends housing designed for a corporate workforce that has no need for working space in the home. LD 2003 allows Accessory Dwelling Units but does not encourage the units to be used for productivity. Homeowners are encouraged to increase their income by becoming landlords, specifically landlords of STRs.
But there is room for interpretation in the law. The law provides that the owners of ADUs do not have to provide parking spaces which favors the ADUs being used by the owners rather than transients since there is no need for additional parking if the owners are also the “dwellers” in the units. “Dwelling” can be interpreted as intended for “any type of housing”. The study recognized that dwelling is increasingly inclusive of working in the home. While LD 2003/HP1489 transgresses the US Constitution by prohibiting municipalities from referencing “overcrowding” “overpopulation” or “character of location” it does not prohibit municipalities from creating local traffic ordinances which can make the use of ADUs as transient dwelling units highly impractical.
The only explanation given for why parking space requirements need to be ”relaxed” is by including parking restrictions in what is characterized as “exclusionary zoning”
Creating incentives that support a diversity of housing sizes and types, as appropriate based on whether dealing with rural or urban areas, such as reducing the minimum lot size or relaxing parking requirements. 54 source The commissioner’s study
The commission originally envisioned this proposal as a standalone recommendation but the majority (14-1) of the commission concluded it was more appropriate to fold the proposal into other recommendations in the report. Commissioner Levine disagreed, and continues to support this as a standalone recommendation because these types of parking requirements limit housing development, either intentionally or unintentionally, and are often excessive with respect to the actual parking need. However, Commissioner Levine does not recommend implementing actual State-wide parking maximums, as developers and communities should still be free to discuss the appropriate parking level without a one-size-fits-all approach. source The commissioner’s study
Recommendation #5. Create density bonuses in all residential zones throughout the State, giving low- to middle-income housing projects 2.5 times the density of the existing zone, with a parking requirement of no more than .66 spaces per unit for the additional units, and with the requirement that those units be protected as affordable for a specific period of time. (Vote 14-1)55
55, Support: Senator Craig. Hickman, Speaker Ryan Fecteau, Senator Matthew Pouliot, Dan Brennan, Hannah Pingree, Kate Dufour, Dana Totman, Heather Spalding, John Napolitano, Jeff Levine, Madeleine Hill, Erin Cooperrider, Cheryl Golek, Anthony Jackson; Opposed: Representative Arata
The study calls the traditional New England zoning “exclusionary zoning,” claiming the policies were meant to exclude certain uses of land and, in effect, persons of low or moderate income from a municipality. (source The commissioner’s study)
This reasoning frames the downgrading of working-class living standards as the norm, as it has been since the state started centrally managing the economy in 1976. The reasoning is that if houses have yards then they are not for low-income people and therefore not overcrowding housing excludes low-income people.
The commissioners berate traditional New England villages by branding them as being motivated by “exclusionary policies” which the commissioners then associate with racism.
The exclusionary zoning polices are often accomplished through low-density regulation, large minimum lot sizes, parking requirements, height restrictions, explicit population growth controls, and sometimes excessive bureaucratic procedures and delays. These exclusionary zoning laws have disproportionately affected people of color.” (source The commissioner’s study)
What makes housing with those attributes exclusionary? Are traditional New England villages racist because people of color can only live in housing projects that some might say are comprable to modern-day slave barracks? Is it any more extreme to make such a comparison than to call urban designers such as Lewis Mumford racist because Mumford believed that human communities need to be integrated with nature?
Is it not exclusionary to create overcrowded housing zones for income-capped residents that exclude the workforce from enjoying the benefits of rural living, herded into housing projects that are as densely packed as city blocks, while the traditional New England villages and homes are reserved for wealthier folks and wealthier transient populations?
Is it not exclusionary to progressively design housing for income-capped residents where each income-capped community is segregated from the others which are collectively segregated from those who do not live in income-capped housing?
Amy Bradstreet Arata Assistant Republican From New Glouster summed it up well:
Representative Arata noted in her opposition to this recommendation her concern that focusing solely on density and affordability may result in a lower quality of life for low-income individuals. For example, additional units may be exceedingly small or the lack of parking, may impact a person’s ability to commute to work. These factors are particularly concerning if the density bonuses result in the segregation of lowincome housing or if there is only partial implementation of the density bonuses and they are not applicable in all residential zones. Additionally, if the density bonuses require that the incomes of those occupying the units remain below a certain level, there could be a risk that some people could lose their housing if they are promoted or obtain a higher paying job.
A New Opportunity Appears
The next day after my dismal state of mind, I responded to an invitation on LinkedIn to apply for an independent contractor position as a Remote AI Writing Evaluator (Tier 1) for a company called Outlier. This struck me as something I would be interested in doing so I spent the day working on my resume and cover letter, applied, and was soon accepted.
I have been reading all the legal and training documents which is quite a lot. It’s great to know that research and fact-checking are required skills to be an AI evaluator. That means the informational infrastructure that is being developed at this dawning of the Age of Informationalization has ethical standards that are needed to combat the era of disinformation that has redefined the cultural landscape. The legal agreement requires one to maintain confidentiality but the job description is public knowledge so I can say that I get to write prompts for AI for reference docs that I select from diverse approved resources that include legislation and organizations such as The World Economic Forum which unlike all levels of government and the major foundations in Maine, allows individuals to participate in the conversation. You do not have to be an organization to join! You just have to be a human! Very radical!
I have already done similar work as an AI evaluator in my post Job Training AI. How Am I Doing? Now I can continue any line of questioning and research as long as it is within the parameters of the instructions, and get paid for it. By definition independent contractors are self-directed. It’s a heterarchy!
The work merges seamlessly what I have already been pursuing, as an unpaid independent contractor, contracted and directed by myself.
I haven’t gotten through the training and onboarding yet but I am really excited about the job, It is very overwhelming just thinking about organizing it all.
Being an AI evaluator connects my various endeavors.
The papers I have been reviewing for HSSC have been focused on Big Data and informationaliztion, the equivalency of industrialization in the Industrial Revolution. I receive papers to review that appear to be written by someone for whom English is a second language. I find myself addressing the writing skills needed to communicate their ideas properly. Since the papers are often from China, I also encounter cultural differences in language terms used for similar ideas, such as the term “manpower” corresponding to the “workforce” used in the USA.
AI is the linguistic infrastructure of the future.
In reviewing a paper about informationalization, I suggested that the author organize his writing as data sets, and I imagined that it must be how AI is programmed. I think I was onto something as the AI training instructions resonate with my approach to writing. I have read the training docs several times over because I want the instructions imprinted in my mind eliminating the need for referring back to them, but it seems barely necessary because everything I read is what I already do.
Being an AI evaluator requires research and fact-checking just as I do here in this newsletter. As I write this newsletter I am processing what my research projects will be.
I have been reviewing many papers about informationalization and now I will be a paid practitioner in the informationalization process. I got here by pursuing a self-directed purpose that I am continually discovering with every post I write.
I have read arguments that corporations exploit independent contractors with low pay and no benefits. I have read other articles about paid corporate workers being pressured and expected to work overtime for no pay, so who has the better deal?
The independent contractor has the better deal because the independent contractor owns himself. An independent contractor is not a slave! My relationship to Outlier is constructed as an independent contractor. The company has a code of ethics that is constructively positive. Our goal is to make models that are better than the state-of-the-art models. That is a very excellent goal, especially considering what some of the state-of-the-art models look like! (See LD 2003) .I will not be making comparative models but I will be participating in creating AI definitions and that is a building block of the new Age of Informationalization. The goal is to create a model that is better than the State of the Art Model. We must be creative and so I can creatively adapt what I have been doing to this new endeavor.