First Phone Blog Post

This is a test of the cutie patootie broadcasting system.

This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!

Fast Times at the Savannah Board of Equalization

Walking into the lobby of the Savannah Board of Equalization, I harkened back to the last book I read, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and the hairs on the back of my neck rose. Regardless, I was there to protest the 105% rise in the assessed taxable value of my home over the year 2007.

I decided to utilize the negotiation framework in order to prepare for the hearing, which involved identifying the objectives of the players, considering our ZOPA, or zone of possible agreement, through an analysis of alternatives, and setting my reserve price, a real estate value which justifies my time and expenses in this ordeal.

My objectives:

• lower the taxable value of my home as much as possible to reduce my taxable burden,
• establish a precedent for my neighbors in the Lincoln Plaza Homeowners Association,
• be a good President for said LPOA by helping them reduce their taxes, and finally,
• avoid screwing up and raising my taxes , or worse, losing my homestead exemption.

Having not dealt with the BOE before, I reasoned their objectives:

• to help property owners get a fair value for their taxable burden,
• to assist the Savannah Property Appraiser understand the implication of his/her decisions,
• to raise the value of their own properties through defending the PA's higher valuations,
• to feel a sense of contribution, worth or power in their position on the Board.

To assist me in my negotiation, I had to create the zone of possible agreement and reserve prices:

• my property was valued at $290K. (how it appreciated from $135K in 2000 is beyond me) Worst case, if I was smart, my taxes are maintained at the $290K valuation.
• I wanted to reduce my taxes by at least as much as it took my time and resources, which amounted to a valuation revision of about $55K. (Multiplied by the millage rate, it gives me cash money in my pocket. ) If I got a revalue at $235K, I'd stand up, say thank you, and leave.
• the board's worst case is...wait! They have no worst case; no best case either for that matter! This is not a negotiation, rather a plea for mercy. Oh well, let's see what jedi tricks I can pull off to persuade them.

Reasoning (some good, some bad) why the board should reduce my valuation:

• The past two years have seen price declines of about 20% in the Savannah downtown area,
• There is over a year of inventory in the condo market,
• The current price level is that of 2004 of which I have LOTS of comps,
• It's difficult to value a property in such an old and variable city as opposed to a suburban subdivision,
• If they reduced my valuation, there would be many more who would forgo a protest (aka the other 10 owners of LPOA.)

Let's just say it didn't go as well as I had hoped. I did succeed in reducing my valuation to $268K and initiating a relationship with my PA, who gladly accepted my comps research. So, $22K times the millage rate equals out to about $220/year in tax savings, or about $155 after my tax credit is backed out. Not a horrible take. Plus hopefully my LPOA owners will benefit in years to be and not kick me out of office.

But back to this Board of Equalization concept. The real question is, "what should these board members be focusing on?" Obviously there is a position in the city government which fully compensates an individual for valuing properties. The position is titled Property Appraiser. Is this board merely an amateur set of homework checkers?

Do we really want our BOE to be composed of questionably trained/educated volunteers who think their main function is to uphold the PA's decisions, or do we want a compassionate "jury of our peers" who will consider the objectives of the taxpayer on a case-by-case basis and provide a check-and-balance for the seemingly all-powerful Board of Assessors?

Methinks the former is easier, and therefore, the path of least resistance. Another government dollar well spent. But I prefer latter.

But don't take my word for it. Another citizen was so dismayed by his experience that he wrote a letter to the Editor of the Savannah Morning News.

More insight to the Board of Equalization and the ilk it attracts can be found in this article seeking volunteers for the Board.

Just added some file storage space.

Because Blogger won't let me store files on their site, I've created "robfeltus the group." I'll link to my files from here, so you probably won't even need to go to the group page. You're welcome. :)
http://groups.google.com/group/robfeltus-the-group/files

And here's robfeltus the photo gallery:

http://picasaweb.google.com/robfeltus

High School Rugby Coaching Strategy

I blogged about being a rugby coach in my B651P Decision Modeling course portfolio last year, and I'm happy to report that this coming season will be Campbell High School's fourth consecutive year with a rugby club. And with me as a coach...yay!

In my post, Decision Making in Sports 1: To Pick and Pop or To Hit and Rip, I proposed an application of a continuity decision tree that I posted on my old site. Alarming how much it looks like a sequential game tree turned on its side. Don't bother downloading the one on the link, I've created a new SDA Continuity Decision Tree which also includes a model of the Collective Action game that happens twice a week when we're practicing during the season. Every practice's attendance is based on the perception of the number of attendees at that practice. There are two equilibria (places where the line passes the 45-degree red line) which represent the 5 or 6 die-hard core rugby players which keep the team going, and the other occurs at the 22-man mark where it's harder to concentrate on individuals' form and accomplishments. The players really crave constructive feedback, especially since they're just learning the game. My job as a coach is to build numbers early in the season to get to that second equilibria, then balance fun games versus skill building to offset injuries and dropouts while maintaining our competitiveness.

I eventually intend to use this PPT in conjunction with some techniques I learned from Paul Turner and Leigh Jones from Newport Gwent Dragons last summer when they visited the Atlanta area. They developed a form of practice planning that incorporates three or four "units" per practice involving "bible skills," essentially the non-decision boxes in blue. In rugby our coaching mantra is

A skill is a technique practiced over and over until it becomes a reflex. Employing skill in strategy and creativity is when rugby really becomes the ultimate game.

Chris Dicken needs Revision: Dividing the Check

On everyday game theory and "Dividing the Indivisible:"

This blog references another blog called Mind Your Decisions, something I stumbled upon while researching some SDA class concepts. Presh Talwaker does an excellent job, and in fact conducts a quite thorough analysis of discussing the topic of Dividing the Restaurant Bill among a group of people.

I love to look at the faces of my friends or coworkers and at their "confused, yet insistent on finding a solution quickly" expression when the server asks "are you guys ready for the check?" Often we are dining in a time-limited manner and need to get back to work, or to the Georgia Tech - Miami Thursday night football game where the 'canes got whipped 41-23, and we need to get outta Dodge.

We learned that divisions can only ever meet two out of the three E's: Equitable, Efficient, and Envy-Free. Toward the middle of the blog post, Talwaker makes a similar comparison when "thinking about an ideal outcome." He reasons that the following are best at exactly one trait, but with my Goizueta-induced interpretation we find two:

• Splitting the bill is efficient and equitable, but not envy-free. Who really want's to pay for someone else's prime rib when all he got was some fried mushrooms. Mmmm, fried mushrooms.
• Paying for what you ordered is efficient and envy-free, but not equitable. There's alway some sorry sop who ends up getting stuck with the tip or moree due to someone else's dishonesty,
• Separate checks is envy-free and equitable, but not efficient. The server always has to spend time tallying up everyone's meals, often inaccurately and needing correction.

In his blogging fury, Talwaker suggests a solution which is frankly a buzz kill--limiting people's options and assigning multiple clerical and leadership jobs to, if they're my friends, lazy bums who want to trudge through life the easiest way possible. (No offense ya big lugs.)

A reader proposes the "Chris Dicken" method which covers a lot of the issues but which leaves out the crucial detail of how exactly the check is divided other than by specifying a general "unit." Without blogging redundantly on the method, the "unit" rule of thumb should be:

• Score your meal on a scale of 1-10 with regard to how much you enjoyed your meal, adding a point for each "exotic" beverage. The tally becomes the dividing unit, and the total plus tip is distributed to each group member according to his score.

Equity arrives in the form of each person paying an equal "dollars per enjoyment" portion of the meal; Efficiency is achieved by anyone with a cell-phone calculator (usually me,) and here's the final rub: Envy-Free-ness comes from the satisfaction that you got what you paid for, plus a free review of the other guys' meals. Cheating is discouraged by having to publicly state how much you valued your selection. (Really, the prime rib was a little rare for your liking? Poor baby...) It works even better if everyone knows the rules before they order.

I know that I appear to claim to overcome the impossibility of achieving all three E's. But I don't quite get there either. There is efficiency to be lost in the process if everyone hates each other and just wants to eat, pay and get out of the restaurant as quickly as possible. But as social creatures, surely we can find a way to have fun with this method. After all, why are you there in the first place?

Caltech Physicists--amateurs.

Big Three Stand Together

Few of you need an introduction to the current ailing state of the US's dominant automakers for the last century or so. At the congressional hearing in which the automakers plea for a slice of the $700 Billion Bailout deal created to stimulate the US Economy.

I stumbled across the Senate Banking Committee's website where they have a streaming media broadcast of all 262 minutes (that's over four hours!) of the recorded hearing. If you are having trouble sleeping or don't know what to do with yourself over the holiday break, click this link below:

Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee SD-538

From a strategic perspective, the CEOs of Ford, Chrysler and GM have their work cut out for them. They must be able to change the metagame:

• Unite cooperatively against the probing and humiliating questions of the Senate. As opposed to the "here, take all you want" posture of the Fed injecting $25 Billion dollars EACH into AIG and Citibank, the interrogators never miss an opportunity to remind the automakers that they are severely behind in the competition for US market share. It almost seemed as if the congressmen thought they knew how to run the auto companies better themselves;
• Smartly divide the $25 Billion dollar request between the three firms. I felt the automakers planned poorly before coming before the Banking Committee, and they will likely have to circle the wagons again before they are to convince the committee that their individual requests for chunks of exactly $25 billion are justified. One of the first questions the automakers were asked was, "how much does each of you need?" After some stumbling and bumbling, "aah, all of us? $25 bill--oh umm, we figured we'd split it according to our proportional market share..." GONG! Wrong answer guys. Although proportionality is considered a measure of fairness in many distributions, it was not acceptable for the Senators.
• Use "jedi tricks" to guilt, woo and appeal to the committee members for mercy. Alan Mullaly of Ford proposed a personal salary of $1 for 2009. Rick Waggoner drove all the way from Detroit to Washington, DC in a hybrid Malibu. GM had to rely on showcasing their all-electric Chevy Volt just to convince the committee that they could compete with the foreign automakers Accusations were made that the government was prejudiced against blue-collar workers and favored the white-collar ones. "Autoworkers on Main Street work just as hard if not harder than those on Wall Street...don't they deserve a bailout too?" Are any of these justifiable proof that a bailout is required? No, but it helps...

Stay tuned sports fans. This could get ugly. Who knows, the Big Three could become a Big Two or worse, the Big None.

Fun With Condorcet

I challenge you to a game of:
ROCK PAPER SCISSORS LIZARD SPOCK

It's a new spin on an old favorite. Based on a voting method developed by The Marquis de Condorcet, Rock, Paper, Scissors is a popular way of settling disagreements.

I bet you never thought you'd hear "Rock, Paper Scissor" and "Condorcet" in the same sentence. :) The rules are easy:

• Scissors cuts Paper
• Paper covers Rock
• Rock crushes Lizard
• Lizard poisons Spock
• Spock smashes Scissors
• Scissors decapitates Lizard
• Lizard eats Paper
• Paper disproves Spock
• Spock vaporizes Rock, and as always...
• Rock crushes Scissors.

It's fun because 1) I'm a dork and 2) like the original, there is still no dominant strategy. We in election mechanism refer to this as Condorcet's paradox, and it guarantees that no player has a structural advantage. If you still don't understand, watch below.