I started learning these lessons watching my father, Harry Jew, who owned the New Chinatown Restaurant - but not the land it occupied. My dad made hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments on a loan he took out to tear down the old restaurant and build a new one… on the property taxes… and all the upkeep on the building. If he had owned the property, he would have built up hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity over New Chinatown’s forty-plus years of existence. Our family sold the business shortly after my father passed away.

    My father’s life circumstances were very different from mine. He was an adopted child who immigrated to America, by himself, from China, at the age 15, with only $5 in his pocket. He felt very lucky to be here and to own a business. Owning the land was not important to him; but I saw all that equity being thrown away every month and decided that ownership was important to me.

    Of course, ownership is not for everyone. But if you want to own property, here are some helpful hints:

1. Buy in the right area; your property will appreciate over time. My mother Jean, brother Stan and I bought a building on Girard for the first Kim Jew Photography studio in 1985. Our brother, Paul, who is based there, needs more space for his School Division and lab and is buying another building.
   
   We have received a firm purchase offer; the property is located in a stable neighborhood and its value has increased considerably. Our biggest concern now is the capital gains taxes (a good problem).
    
2. Equity has advantages. If you own property, have equity in the property and need a loan, it will be much easier for you to get the money if your bank can use this equity as collateral.
    
3. Consider a private financial arrangement. The majority of small-business commercial transactions are not financed through banks because it is not that easy to borrow large sums of money – especially in today’s credit climate.
   
   When I purchased property for our Eubank studio three years ago, the owner helped finance the transaction by carrying the real estate contract. This arrangement is advantageous to the seller, because by spreading out the payments, he avoids high capital gains taxes.
    
4. Consider an SBA-guaranteed loan. Because I needed working capital to make extensive renovations to the Eubank building, I sought and received an SBA-guaranteed loan from a bank specializing in such lending. I only had to pay 10% down on the property (normally, it’s 20%) and the interest rate was lower.
    
5. Leverage your relationships. I made the financial arrangements for the Eubank property fairly quickly because our CPA knew and trusted a mortgage broker, who in turn had a relationship with a bank that works closely with the SBA.
   
   These associations helped me obtain a second SBA-guaranteed loan to purchase and renovate property in the heart of Corrales – which replaces the space I was leasing on Coors for our West Side studio.

    Historically, land has appreciated in Albuquerque at an annual rate of 6-7%. While current economic conditions have flattened these figures, I have no doubt that, over time, property (in the right area) will continue to appreciate. So if you buy: remember that you can trade up if your business grows, and you will have something tangible to pass on to your children.

    With the proliferation of high-speed data networks and their convergence with telephone systems, many of the solutions that used to be “Oh-My-Gosh-expensive” have become more cost effective. Many of these solutions can help your business increase its efficiency AND bottom line. Here are a few scenarios that are easily accomplished with today’s technology:

• A small office with outside sales or service representatives has trouble getting calls to the right place - are the staff at their desk phones or their cell phones? Modern systems can ring both at the same time, and they can answer either phone without fooling around with Call Forwarding or dialing codes.
   
• Your receptionist needs to answer all incoming calls but still be able to transfer calls among three widely dispersed branch offices. Using virtual private data channels, everything can be tied together to form a single virtual telephone system, with the equipment located at the main office. Each branch has access to any telephone on the system, and can even transfer individual voice mail messages to other users as if they were in the same physical location.
   
• You are discussing a complex order with your customer, and you wish you had some way to record the conversation so it can be reviewed while the order is being written. Using the RECORD feature of voice mail, you can do just that. Play the message when needed and use REPLAY and BACKSPACE to make sure you have got it right. With some systems, you can even have the voice mail email the WAV file of the conversation to you so you will have an archived copy.
   
• Due to explosive growth, you have had to lease space for your sales staff offsite. They need access to your data network and phone system more than ever, and you really don’t want to go through the hassle and expense of leasing a telephone line. With wireless point-to-point capability, offices up to 10 miles apart can be linked together, and the same link can be used for computers and telephones. Multiple locations can be linked with the main office, and you will have no monthly leased line charges from the phone company.
   
• Even though the customer service group is only five agents, you need to track the number of calls they receive, customer hold time, abandoned calls, and how many calls went to voice mail. One of those big Call Center systems is just too expensive. Flexible software allows us to add Call Center features to phone systems of almost any size at a very affordable price.

    Designing a communication system should be a collaborative project involving you (the user), your telecom vendor, and perhaps your IT manager. As details are gathered, several options usually emerge and are presented for your approval. Because widespread advances in modern technology have eliminated many of the barriers to resolving communications problems, today we are primarily limited only by our imagination and our ability to think outside the box while designing your system.

    Your communication system provider shouldn’t force a pre-determined solution on you, but instead should ask you what problem you need solved and then offer several suitable solutions. Now, wouldn’t that be a lot more fun?

Clark Brooks is President of Brooks Communication, Inc. He can be reached at 505 888-2929, or at http://www.brookscommunication.com.

    We have accumulated this evidence after 23 years of working on four continents with stewards of large land holdings to heal damaged land, improve biodiversity and food production and reverse desertification, which yields a “triple bottom line” of sustainable environmental, economic, and social benefits. 30 million acres worldwide are currently under Holistic Management.

    Holistic Management^® practitioners have used animals – especially goats – to mitigate the risk of fire damage, especially in areas where urban areas and wild lands meet. Goats reduce the natural “fuel ladder” – vegetation less than eight feet in height that allow wildfires to rush up the trees and into the canopies.”

    Holistic Management^® practitioner and rancher Bill Burrows, who manages 40,000-acres in the western part of the Sacramento Valley near Red Bluff, California, has learned from practical experience that these animals are especially beneficial in California for three reasons:

First: It’s very difficult to have prescribed burns because of strict air pollution laws.
Second: Mechanical methods are very expensive and cannot be used on steep terrain.
Third: Chemicals are not acceptable to remove unwanted vegetation because we have no idea of their long-range effect.

    Animals, the only tool we have left, provide at least six benefits beyond reducing unwanted biomass:

• Their hoof action adds organic matter (their dung and urine) back into the soil.
• The soil is enriched and prepared for planting grasses and other desirable plant species.
• Healthy soil encourages root growth, which makes plants healthier.
• Healthy plants sequester more carbon from the atmosphere and hold more moisture in the soil, promoting more biodiversity.
• Live biomass is less susceptible to burning than dead fuel is.
• Grazing animals are the cheapest removers of biomass around. Goats, for example, cost $18.44 per acre, or $144 per ton of biomass removed.

    A 2004 Federal Emergency Management Administration report confirms that goats effectively decrease hazardous ladder fuels and are an attractive alternative to prescribed burns, because they do not produce slash piles that must be removed or burned later.

    Of course, we can’t just throw the goats on the land and hope for the best. A grazing herd has to be managed so that the animals can systematically cover the vulnerable area.

    As it happens, federal and state grants are available for individuals and municipalities to pay part of the expense of purchasing and using goats to clear flammable vegetation. I myself once received a grant to obtain 500 goats to cut a firebreak around a 239-home community in Northern California

    While there’s no “one-size-fits-all” solution to the increasing risk of wildfire in the West, using animals to ameliorate the fire hazard costs significantly less than the millions spent on fire suppression, and actually improves the land so that it is less likely to suffer damage from future fires.

    The sub-headline in this news release, “Reform is Less Costly than the Status Quo,” would lead us to believe that any of the reform models that Mathematica Policy Research studied would be less costly than the current system. However, that is not what the study concluded.

    The findings were that only one reform model currently costs less than the current system, and that model is the Health Security Act.

    The press release also quoted Lt. Gov. Diane Denish as saying, “In the long run, making no change in the current health care system would be more costly than moving forward with some type of reform.”

    We regret to note that the Lt. Gov.’s statement is also inaccurate.

    Mathematica found that even after five years of operation, only the Health Security Act costs less than the current system, and the other reform models still cost more than the current system. In fact, by 2011, the Health Security Act has estimated savings of $698 to $887 million and every New Mexico resident has coverage.

    Mathematica found that the Health Security Act costs the least and saves the most money because it covers most New Mexicans under one cooperative plan with comprehensive benefits. This model also shifts the role of the insurance companies to provide supplementary insurance, just as they did under the original Medicare.

    We have to ask:

1. Why are the Governor and Lt. Governor making inaccurate statements about the actual results of the Mathematica study? .
    
2. Why, after spending over $300,000 of taxpayers’ money on the Mathematica study, are Governor Richardson and his Health Coverage for New Mexicans Committee (which is chaired by Lt. Gov. Denish) ignoring the unambiguous findings and the strong public support for the Health Security Act, which is endorsed by 128 organizations and 25 New Mexico counties and municipalities?
    
3. Why is Governor Richardson insisting that the private insurance system is broken only for the uninsured?
    
4. Why are the Governor and his Health Coverage for New Mexicans Committee ignoring the evidence - that is piling up day after day - that the private health insurance system is completely broken?

    The Governor has stated that he wants the private insurance industry to maintain its dominant role in health insurance coverage.

    The policy recommendations that the Governor sent to the Committee, and which the Committee’s proposals mirror to a great extent (including establishing a so-called health insurance authority), will not solve the problem of rising health care costs or simplify an extraordinarily complex health insurance system, and are meant to bind us to this failing system for years to come.

    Continuing to invest public dollars in the broken private insurance system makes absolutely no sense. With the clear results of the Mathematica study now before us, we believe that New Mexico has an opportunity to choose one of two very different paths.

    We can continue to try to fix the failed private insurance system with ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer dollars, or we can go in a new direction. The Health Security Act, by establishing a cooperative health plan, enables New Mexicans – not the insurance companies - to develop a realistic, cost-effective and comprehensive solution to our health care crisis.

    The path we take will have a serious impact on all New Mexicans. We are the ones who need to make that choice and communicate our views to the Governor and our legislators.

    The news stories did not pose or answer questions about why livestock are consuming corn-based feed in the first place. The answer would be that our industrial livestock industry confines the animals to pens and barns; therefore, they have to consume manufactured food.

    It wasn’t always this way.

    In the 19th century, animals grazed and were sustained on the Great Plains, which were grasslands that covered almost 40% of North America. Only about 1% of the original ecosystem exists today because it has been converted to agriculture or is degraded and abandoned.

    While the Great Plains did support millions of grazing animals and pack-hunting predators that fed on the grazers, the grasslands remained healthy because of the symbiotic and holistic relationship between the land and the animals.

    The presence of predators kept the grazing animals on the move; and their hoof action worked the soil so that their manure was quickly absorbed. The soil’s organic matter was increased, thereby fertilizing it and keeping it healthy.

    Would it be possible to return to a more “natural” way of raising livestock? Our organization, Holistic Management International, has accumulated abundant evidence - over 23 years of working internationally with farming and ranching families - that this is actually possible. Today, 30 million acres around the world (including the United States) are successfully cultivated using Holistic Management.

    To change the paradigm of how we raise livestock, we would have to be willing to free up the acreage, grow the grass and restore the grasslands with the animals present, and manage their grazing in such a way that replicates the behavior of those wild grazers of yesteryear and permits enough time to elapse for the roots of the plants to rest and recover.

    If we could bring animals back to the land in a holistically managed way - and restore the grasslands - then:

• Vast amounts of carbon would end up in plant roots instead of in the atmosphere. This would have a positive effect on global warming.
• We would increase the water resources of the land, in underground aquifers and in the prairie. regions (covered soil retains significantly more water than bare ground does).
• The overall habitat for wildlife would be improved.
• Outbreaks of pests and weeds would decrease, along with the attendant use of herbicides and pesticides.
• We could reduce the amount of methane that is produced by livestock in confined feeding operations.
• We could produce a high-quality, clean protein product for human consumption.
• We could create another source of biofuels. Research conducted at the University of Minnesota and reported in the December 2006 issue of Science magazine, indicated that biofuels derived from grassland plants yield up to twice as much energy per unit of land as corn-based ethanol does. This exciting development could hold the key to the future of alternative energy production.

    In the end, we would also improve our rural economies.

back to top

    Premiums are rising… health insurance is increasingly unaffordable… employers, physicians, and the public are frustrated. 26% of New Mexico’s under-65 population is uninsured, despite years of trying to expand coverage.

    We are at a crossroads: Do we continue investing public and private dollars in programs that subsidize a failed private insurance system? Or do we take a different path – one that shifts the role of private insurance, as Medicare did?

    The New Mexico Health Security Act proposes a plan that changes the costly complex private insurance system, whose hundreds of policies negatively impact hospital and physician overhead. Instead, most New Mexicans would be in one simple, old-fashioned insurance pool – like a cooperative. This makes good economic sense because everyone who is covered shares the risk.

    The plan guarantees freedom of choice of provider, even across state lines, and a comprehensive benefit package. As with Medicare, private insurers can offer supplemental insurance. Federal retirees and active-duty and retired military retain their health insurance. The tribes and entities that self-insure may choose to join once the plan becomes operational.

    The Health Security Act is financed by combining existing taxpayer dollars already being spent on health care (e.g., Medicaid) with capped premiums from individuals and capped employer contributions. A three-year development period is required – with opportunities to call a halt if we find that the plan is unaffordable or unworkable before it is up and running.

    Thousands of New Mexicans have had input into this homegrown plan. 128 organizations and 25 counties and cities have endorsed it.

    The Health Security Act offers several advantages to businesses. Employers won’t spend time and money shopping around and evaluating different health plans. With guaranteed health coverage and a healthier work force, businesses will experience greater stability, lower employee absenteeism and higher productivity. Premiums will be reduced for workers compensation and auto insurance policies with large medical components.

    Will placing most New Mexicans into one health risk pool stop the never-ending rise of health care costs? The answer, according to a recent study, is a definitive “yes.”

    Last summer, Governor Richardson set up the Health Coverage for New Mexicans Committee to select several models to achieve universal health coverage, hire a consultant to perform a cost analysis, and make recommendations.

    The Health Security Act was one of three models selected. The other two, Health Choices (creating a voucher-based purchasing alliance) and Health Coverage (the current system with expanded Medicaid programs), mandate that all New Mexicans - including employers -purchase private insurance.

    On June 21, Mathematica, the consultant, released the final results of its $350,000 study, confirming findings by other state and national studies, including one in New Mexico in 1994: a model like the Health Security Act is the most cost-effective approach and provides everyone with comprehensive coverage.

    According to Mathematica, the Health Security Act is the only model that costs less than the current system in the first year of operation. By 2011, it is still the only model that costs less than the current system, with $700 to $900 million in estimated savings.

    Prior to the study’s release, the Governor stated that he did not like any of the models. On June 21, his health policy adviser issued a statement saying that he doesn’t think the private health insurance system is broken. He wants to focus only on the uninsured, and plans to introduce an “omnibus bill” in the 2008, 30-day legislative session to create a health insurance “authority” to pool existing public plans along with Medicaid and to require the uninsured to purchase private health insurance or (if they are eligible) to sign up for Medicaid.

    Continuing on the current path when the private insurance system is failing does not make sense. Moreover, the Governor is ignoring the results of the $350,000 taxpayer-funded study; disregarding the strong public support for the Health Security Act; and planning to use taxpayer dollars to help the uninsured pay for private insurance – with no cost control provisions. Offering additional policies creates more small insurance pools and even higher costs for hospitals and physicians – already overburdened with administering our complex system.

    Isn’t it time to pay attention to the results of so many studies, which reveal that the private insurance system will not solve our health care crisis? Patching up this failed system with piecemeal efforts and taxpayer dollars simply has not worked.

    The road we need to take is clearly marked.

    The Health Security Act - designed by New Mexicans for New Mexicans - is the only approach that provides a realistic, cost-effective, comprehensive solution to our health care crisis. Now that’s a real solid investment!

    The Health Security for New Mexicans Campaign is a statewide coalition of 128 organizations and hundreds of individuals and businesses that support the Health Security Act. For more information, call the Campaign at 505-897-1803.