August 2025 – Looking askance

(Re)turning the tables

(Reading time: 4 minutes)

I don’t pretend to be a business genius, having come to running one only late in life, after decades of working for others. But I’ve always been interested in how a business works, and I’ve seen enough to know when a business decision is short-sighted, self-defeating or just plain ignorant.

Take Bed, Bath & Beyond, one of those themed big-box stores that once aspired to dominate a market segment but which went into bankruptcy a couple of years ago, shuttering its stores in Waynesboro and Harrisonburg and all across the country. Its assets were subsequently purchased by Overstock.com, but as with so many things, the company lived on as a digital ghost, marketing its wares on the internet.

That’s how we came to order a new kitchen table, paying less attention to the source than to the fact that it had the right combination of size, color and price. And boy, was the response prompt! Two days after I’d placed the order, and much to my wife’s delight, two men in a FedEx truck lugged a large, 78-pound box box into our hallway. After assuring myself the carton was intact, I was ready for the relatively simple task of attaching the legs to the tabletop.

But no. When I sliced open the tape and peeled back the box cover, I saw that one of the long frame pieces had broken in half and part of it was separating from the top itself. The break wasn’t catastrophic; had it been a bone, it would have been a simple rather than a compound fracture. A repair would have been as simple as tapping the separated half back into place, perhaps with a spot of carpenter’s glue where it met the table top, then screwing in a reinforcing one-by-three on the inside of the break, where it couldn’t be seen from the outside. That would have been a serviceable fix, leaving only a relatively minor cosmetic blemish where the two halves came together—but did I want to do that? Doing so might be less work than reboxing the whole thing and going through the hassle of contacting BB&B to replace the table, but still, did I want to pay full price for damaged goods?

I did not. And so, girding myself for a long telephone joust and arming myself with pictures of the damage, I called Bed, Bath & Beyond and eventually spoke to a very polite, very efficient and heavily-accented woman. I’ll spare you the details. Suffice to say that my bottom line was that I was willing to keep the table as is, in return for a substantial discount—say, 40% to 50% off my original purchase price of $330. My counterpart, even after a full explanation of the situation and a review of the photographs I sent her, was unable to reward me with any more than a $73 store credit. Not a refund, mind you, but a credit, which presumed I would be rushing back to buy more of BB&B’s wares. Somehow, I wasn’t tempted.

I wound up sending back the damaged goods, for which BB&B had to pay the shipping. BB&B sent me a replacement table, for which it also had to pay the shipping. And then, of course, BB&B now has a broken table in its inventory that it has to figure out how to dispose of. Given that, I think a $132 refund would have been a bargain. And given the company’s inability to recognize that simple math, I think that perhaps this post-bankruptcy revival is not going to end well, either.

P.S. I subsequently learned that Overstock.com has been rebranded as Beyond Inc., which is owned by Marcus Lemonis, star of stage and screen—well, screen, as in appearances on “The Profit” and “The Celebrity Apprentice.” That puts him in the company of people like Donald J. Trump, another businessman who talks bigly but delivers far less.

Lemonis reportedly plans to continue BB&B’s resurrection by opening new storefronts around the country—but not in California, which he faults for having created “one of the most overregulated, expensive and risky environments for businesses in America.” Maybe, maybe not. But it’s not unlike Lemonis to blame others for his mismanagement of a business, as I learned when I was a campground owner and watched him run Good Sam Enterprises into the ground. His other day job, as the CEO of Camping World, isn’t looking much better. So—no surprise here that BB&B has such a self-defeating business model.

P.P.S. When our new table arrived, it was again delivered by FedEx—but with only one man on the truck to manhandle the box. Which he dropped. Which mildly crunched a table corner.

We kept it anyway. But there’s another story to be written about the way FedEx is understaffing its trucks and abusing its employees.

What if ‘urgent care’ was like this?

(Reading time: 6 minutes)

When it comes to the problem of housing affordability—which is to say, to the insufficient supply of such housing—those without a home at all tend to get the shortest shrift. Most of the public fretting is about people being forced to pay 30% or 40% or more of their already meager incomes for shelter. Or about the shelters themselves, which despite their high price tags too often are poorly maintained, inadequately insulated and ringed by sketchy neighbors. Meanwhile, those who sleep in cars, or in tents tucked into patches of vegetation behind shopping centers or supermarkets, simply drop out of sight and out of mind.

Consider, for example, the Staunton Housing Workgroup, which labored mightily over the past year to produce a list of “strategies” to put the city on the “pathway to affordable housing and housing for working families.” We apparently must gird ourselves for a long and arduous trek. As explained by city planner Rebecca Joyce when she presented the group’s strategic vision to city council a few weeks ago, “This is a plan for a start, not a plan for completion”—and oh, by the way, an additional strategy had been added belatedly to the original ten, to provide services for unhoused persons.

Why the late insertion? Because homelessness had not been discussed by the workgroup, despite such a condition being the natural consequence of unaffordable housing.

Just how sluggish and tone-deaf the city can be on the subject can be seen in the workgroup’s proposed timetable for meeting the needs of the homeless, laid out in a six-step approach divided into neat three-month segments. Step one, to run through the end of September: “Compile current list of resources and organizations that serve unhoused community members in the City.”

That should make for a busy morning.

Meanwhile, step six, scheduled for October through December of 2026, proposes to “conduct assessment of current state of needs of unhoused community members in the City and create an action plan of next steps.”

One might think that talking to the people you want to help would be a first step, not the last, but as the rest of this “strategy” makes clear, the city’s focus is on helping organizations, not individuals. As step two explicitly prescribes, for example, “Survey organizations that serve unhoused community members in the City regarding their most pressing needs [emphasis mine].” Steps three, four and five , which are identical, are all about helping organizations apply for funds.

Another example of kicking the can down the road was exhibited at the city council’s last meeting, when city manager Leslie Beauregard reminded everyone that the last budget had appropriated $50,000 for the council to use “at its discretion.” The council had been so discreet that none of the money had been spent. Perhaps the council should revisit the matter and use the funds in a productive manner? Perhaps, as had been previously discussed, some portion—$30,000 had been mentioned—of that unappropriated fund could go toward a WARM day center for the homeless “as part of a broader housing strategy”?

As summarized in the session’s minutes, “Council members agreed on the urgency in supporting the day center but questioned the need to allocate funds immediately,” which suggests the council has a creatively relaxed definition of “urgency.” The council instead tabled the proposal and “expressed desire to invite a representative from WARM to present a proposal and budget for the day center at a future council meeting.” One can only hope that “desire” will translate into action.

The underlying problem all this illustrates is a lack of urgency or assertive leadership by city officials and staff in addressing a problem that has festered for years. Staunton’s default position is one of passivity rather than initiative, waiting for someone to bring up an issue rather than proactively intervening in something everyone knows is awry. Somnolent staff can propose an 18-month timetable for the city to reach out to “unhoused community members,” and council members uncritically accept that as reasonable. Meanwhile, WARM will start operating its emergency overnight shelters in less than three months, but the “urgent” need for a day center will have to wait for the thinly staffed and inadequately resourced agency to get an invitation from the council to appear in its chambers.

Would it be too much for the city, having recognized a problem, to reach out to WARM directly? This week? To sit down with WARM staff and find out what’s needed, how much it will cost and who will be running the show?

Staunton’s laissez-faire approach to social needs is just as pronounced on the supply side as it is on the demand end of things. Lydia Campbell, at the Valley Community Services Board (VCSB), has been peppering the internet with emails pleading with local municipalities and social service agencies to apply for a Homeless Reduction Grant. Such grants, which date back to 2013 as part of Virginia’s Housing Trust Fund, are intended to “ensure homelessness is rare, brief and non-recurring.” Eligible projects include “rapid rehousing for literally homeless households, innovative projects for unaccompanied homeless youth or older adults experiencing homelessness, and rental assistance and stabilization services for chronically homeless households residing in permanent supportive housing.”

The response has not been encouraging.

True, as such things go this is not a wealthy program, disbursing just $12.9 million across all of Virginia in 2023, the most recent full accounting available. But that amount underwrote 69 projects that year, serving 3,997 people. Among them was (and is) Hope House, a rapid rehousing project in partnership with the Shenandoah LGBTQ Center that serves unaccompanied homeless youth, ages 18-24. On the other hand, over the past five years only one other program application has been filed (albeit not awarded) in our four-county region, according to Campbell.

In other words, when it comes to free money to address homelessness, local governments, non-profit organizations, housing developers (yes, developers, both profit and non-profit alike) and single purpose organizations—all of whom are eligible to file applications—can’t be bothered.

The current application period has a Sept. 12 deadline, but to date Campbell has not received any requests for a letter of support, which the state requires from VCSB to prevent duplication of services. Given the late date, that seems unlikely to change, although it’s always possible that Staunton staffers have been working feverishly but unobtrusively to . . . nah. Just kidding.

Here’s a final irony. Staunton’s 2023 legislative program, an annual exercise in which the city’s governing body communicates its priorities to the Virginia general assembly, urged an increase in funding for permanent supportive housing. “The Governor’s Housing Trust Fund should become a consistent funding stream for these individuals,” council members contended.

“Just don’t make us ask for it,” they could have added.

The main question: why the break?

(Reading time: 4 minutes)

Last Wednesday I posted about the million-gallon water tank that’s being erected alongside I-81, principally to provide an adequate amount of water and pressure to supply a proposed data center at Staunton Crossing. In that column I questioned the wisdom of chasing after such a resource-hogging industry, contrasting the $10 million+ cost of the tank and its associated plumbing with the $40 million+ cost of replacing a century-old pipeline that supplies Staunton with most of its drinking water.

The next day, an unexplained break in a 16-inch water main above Stocker Street left the city and parts of Augusta County without potable water. As I write this the city has just lifted a four-day-long “boil water advisory,” which required boiling any water we could end up ingesting, as in preparing meals, adding ice cubes to our drinks or brushing our teeth. The effects of this break were significant. Schools were closed for two days, disrupting the lives of working parents. Restaurants either closed or significantly reduced service—half of Cranberry’s was in the dark Sunday morning, which was rather eerie—and businesses generally took a hit.

The city’s response to all this was admirable, as it issued frequent advisories via email, its website, Facebook and other social media, and it quickly provided free bottled water at three dispersed locations in the city. The break was repaired within hours, and much of the subsequent disruption was due to flushing the system and mandated repeat tests of the water for residual chlorine and bacteria. I’m sure that the response was an all-hands-on-deck affair, leaving little time or resources to address less immediate concerns.

But now that the worst of this incident is behind us, we really need to get a description of what actually happened. Nowhere in the city’s communications has there been any attempt to explain why a major water main suffered such a disastrous break—in the middle of the summer, not in the winter, when freezing often accounts for such mishaps. Was this the result of a tree uprooting? A karst topography-related ground collapse? A heavy truck rolling over an inadequately buried pipe?

Or was this a critical-point failure?

If the root cause (no pun intended) was a one-off incident, such as those I just listed, okay. Regrettable, to be sure, but also fitting squarely within the “stuff happens” matrix. But if it was the latter, if this was the inevitable result of aging infrastructure and the predictable collapse of a system long past its due date, then the implication is that this sort of thing can—and will—happen again. The only things we don’t know for sure in that case are when, and where.

As with the unanticipated but equally predictable closure of parts of the Wharf parking lot because of an eroded system of pipes and tunnels, the power of water to overwhelm our attempts to funnel, channel and exploit it requires constant attention and care. Without it, we court disaster. Yet because those attempts are largely buried underground, and therefore unseen, and because they’re so frickin’ expensive to maintain and upgrade as needed, it’s easy to devote what money we have to the next shiny thing rather than to spend it on something we already have that seems to be working just fine. Until it isn’t.

We can’t say we haven’t been warned. Staunton’s capital improvement budget, approved just a few months ago, quite explicitly listed 13.4 miles of 16-inch and 20-inch pipeline that should be replaced, at an estimated cost of $41.5 million, but the budget neither scheduled nor funded such a project. Similar unfunded nods to the necessity of such an undertaking have been made for at least the past five years, the price tag growing larger with each iteration, yet with no apparent follow-through.

It’s unclear at this date whether last week’s pipeline break lies within this stretch, although its comparable size suggests it is. But if that’s not the case, the even more troubling implication is that there’s much more work to be done than the city has acknowledged to date.

* * * * *

On a related but equally timely note, I want to call attention to today’s substack post by Paul Krugman, who despite being an astute economist has an extraordinarily accessible writing style.

While my focus last week on the resource-sucking depredations of data centers was on their thirst for water, Paul today writes about their vampire-like need for ever more electricity. Thanks to the enormous and exponentially increasing power needs of “the cloud,” artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, none of which are in huge demand from the general public, the electric grid and the power plants that support it face a rapid build-out that will be underwritten by, yes, the general public.

That means much higher electricity rates for homeowners and small business owners, who won’t see any return on that investment. Just one more reason, it seems, to revisit the Staunton Crossing master plan and ask ourselves just what we’re trying to achieve with it.

Let’s not send water into the cloud

(Reading time: 7 minutes)

Sometimes it’s hard to grasp just how quickly the world is changing, and how slow we can be in adjusting. Perhaps that’s not a big deal on a personal level. Tell people you don’t use a cell phone or go on social media and they’ll just think you’re quirky, or old. But being out of step becomes a really huge deal when it involves spending millions of dollars and making decisions that will have a ripple effect for decades.

Case in point: that ambitious effort to attract investment dollars, currently marked by a towering column just 350 feet off I-81, known as Staunton Crossing. By this time next summer the concrete pillar will be crowned by a ginormous billboard advertising the city, painted onto a 1-million-gallon water storage tank that will be 70 feet in diameter and, at its top, 240 feet above the ridge on which it sits. A critical structural failure would make one helluva splash on the highway below.

The aesthetics of such boosterism come down to a matter of taste and judgment, but there should be less subjectivity regarding the water tank itself, which together with its ancillary plumbing carries a hefty $10 million price tag. Who knew a cistern in the sky could be so expensive? For context, $10 million is enough to replace approximately one-fourth of the 13 miles of pipeline that supply Staunton with its drinking water—including, ironically, the water that will fill the new tank. Replacing the pipeline is becoming a critical issue because it’s more than a century old, but where the city will obtain $41.5 million to do the job, or an additional $8 million to drill backup wells, is anybody’s guess.

Meanwhile, although there are plausible reasons to build a new water storage tank on the east end of the city, the primary impetus for this massive venture is Staunton Crossing itself. And, more specifically, a desire by city officials to include a so-called “data center” on its freshly primed real estate. Why the scare quotes around “data centers”? Because the label, while conveying a cutting-edge sense of cleanliness and efficiency, obscures the fact that these contemporary data factories are voracious consumers of power and water, more accurately described as resource vampires.

Offices and manufacturing plants—the development’s other proposed tenants—also need water and electricity, of course, but data centers really need them. The master plan for Staunton Crossing calls for 375,000 square feet of data center space, projected to require 187,500 gallons of water a day. That compares to more than twice as much proposed square footage for manufacturing, which would require only 12% more water—or a proposed 605,000 square feet of office space, using a mere 60,000 gallons a day. (Moreover, most of the data center water evaporates, which means less is available for recycling—good for the sewer system, but not so good for water conservation.)

The planners who conceived this project knew all that, of course, which is why their top infrastructure priority was water. “Prospects need to know that pressure and capacity are adequate for their needs,” they wrote. “Nothing else matters more than water, particularly in the area of manufacturing and data center pursuits.” Ergo, the water tower, enabling the city to assure business prospects that it can deliver 2 million gallons a day, as well as 4.2 megawatts of power.

But that was six years ago, and as noted at the top of this column, the world is moving ever more quickly. What seemed like a reasonable concept in 2019 has become increasingly outdated, as computer users from the smallest to the largest increasingly turn to “the cloud”—an ethereal marketing term for data centers—for their data storage needs. More recently, the post-Covid ascendance of energy-hungry artificial intelligence (AI) has blown up all previous forecasts of national power consumption.

Based on their projections for Staunton Crossing, the planners were envisioning a 10-megawatt data center, which at that time was an average size for the centers that were sprouting up in northern Virginia. But the reason why Ashburn, for example, today has 133 data centers is because these smaller centers need to cluster around a high-speed network infrastructure to reduce latency, a critical aspect of a seemingly seamless “cloud.” On this side of the Blue Ridge, on the other hand, we still have areas without decent internet service, never mind the kind of fiber connections that would enable cloud computing.

AI’s massive energy needs, meanwhile, require hyperscale centers measured in the hundreds of megawatts. One such center currently in development in Culpeper, for example, will have 1.4 million square feet providing initial support for 216 megawatts of critical load, eventually expandable to 432 megawatts. That’s clearly a whole new ball game, in which Staunton Crossing can’t compete.

These limitations suggest that the Crossing’s quixotic pursuit of a data center won’t get out of the starting gate, too small for a hyperscale center but too isolated to plug into the cloud network. Indeed, it’s worth noting that while much of the marketing strategy behind Staunton Crossing has been to emphasize its proximity to two interstate highways, a railroad and Virginia’s inland port in Winchester, absolutely none of it addresses virtual connectivity. So: nothing to worry about, right? Unless, of course, it’s to fret about the time and money wasted on ill-fated marketing efforts, or on building a possibly over-engineered water tank.

Still, there’s always the danger that these sorts of projects take on a life of their own, lurching onward long after someone should have cut off their heads. And putting a data center in Staunton, while of debatable value in 2019, makes even less sense today. Although we’ve had a relatively wet spring and early summer, Staunton had repeated drought warnings and advisories the previous several years, underscoring the city’s vulnerability to water shortages in an age of ever more extreme climate change. Meanwhile, the 4.2-megawatts of electricity that Staunton Crossing currently promises won’t begin to address the energy needs of a data center (or a serious manufacturing plant, for that matter), which means Dominion Power will be expected to build a new transmission line—with construction costs distributed among current users.

What would Staunton get in return? Once a data center is up and running, relatively little. Local employment, as measured by vehicle trips per day, would be a scant 375, as laid out in the master plan—compared to more than 5,000 a day for a manufacturing plant, and 6,400 to 11,000 a day for office workers. More vehicle trips, more local employment. The other potentially significant upside could be the tax revenue generated by such a capital-intensive project, were it not for the fact that taxing data centers has become a race to the bottom. Or as Staunton Crossing’s planners advised the city, slashing taxes for data centers would signal the industry “that it is specifically desired in Staunton.” Maybe that’s a signal we shouldn’t want to send.

At the very least, it would be prudent for the city to revisit the Staunton Crossing master plan and determine if changing circumstances have rendered some of it obsolete. Ditch the idea of having a data center. Perhaps revisit the idea of incorporating housing into the plan, a concept that was part of the original planning but then inexplicably dropped, and one that subsequently has become more urgent. Safeguard a precarious water supply.

We’d still be left with one of the state’s biggest billboards, so it won’t have been a total loss. (Sorry, Lady Bird.)

If you don’t sell it, it won’t sell

(Reading time: 5 minutes)

Here’s how self-fulfilling prophecies work.

A couple of weeks ago, alarmed by the Trump administration’s decision to eighty-six every possible renewable energy incentive so we can continue burning the residue of dead plants and animals, I visited our local GM dealership. We had installed solar panels when we bought our Staunton home four years ago, and it had been my plan at that time to eventually buy an electric vehicle as well. But now, with passage of the Big Ugly Bill (no, not Trump’s cellmate), I realized that the $7,500 federal tax credit for U.S.-built EVs was about to expire. Time to get a move on!

I did my homework online, then visited the showroom. “Can I help you?” asked a helpful salesman as I strolled in. “Sure,” I replied. “Can you show me your Blazer EVs and Equinox EVs.” Silence, then, “I’d like to, but we don’t have any.”

That was a surprise for at least two reasons. Number one, the Obaugh Chevrolet dealership has scores, if not hundreds, of new vehicles on its lot; could it be that not one of them was from the nameplate’s two top-selling SUV EVs? And number two, I had walked right past a brand-new white Equinox EV parked in front of the showroom. Could it be that this car had already been sold and was simply there for servicing?

As it turned out, the Equinox was a) the only SUV EV on the lot; and b) was indeed unsold and l0oking for a buyer. But the fact that the salesman did not know his inventory was only the tip of the iceberg: he also did not know anything about the vehicle itself, resulting in a mutual journey of discovery as the two of us figured out how to take a test drive. Nor was he in some way unusual, as became achingly clear when I returned to the dealership a couple of days after buying the solitary Equinox with just one of the many questions for which I couldn’t find an answer.

The plastic key fob, as is true of all new cars with remote door openers, incorporates a thin metal key that can be withdrawn and inserted into a door handle for access in case the battery goes dead. That’s helpful. What’s not helpful is the lack of any guidance on where that insertion should be made, since the Equinox door handles are flat and recessed and don’t have any holes, obvious or otherwise. (Trust me: I looked a long time before making a fool of myself by returning to the dealership with so silly a query. I shouldn’t have worried.)

What ensued looked like a Keystone Kops segment, with first one, then a second, than a third and fourth dealership employee converging on the Equinox in response to their co-workers calling for help. Two frantically scrolled through their cellphones, while one leafed through the scanty documentation that GM now grudgingly provides for its vehicles. The fourth peered at the emergency key with the kind of fascination with which early primates pawed at the obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The 20-page booklet, with less information than comes with a new microwave, clearly showed how to fit the key—if you were trying to get into a Cadillac Lyriq, which in addition to having a much heftier price tag has door handles that aren’t as cool as those on the Equinox; they have key holes.

Eventually, after about 20 minutes, the mystery was solved. The Equinox’s mystery key hole is nowhere near the handles it unlocks. It’s in the back, on the bottom left edge of the trunk lid, visible only if you lie on the ground and look up. It’s covered by a plastic cap that must be pried off. What could be less intuitive?

Early on, while filling out the purchase papers, I commented to the person taking my money, “Well, I guess you don’t sell many EVs.” “No,” he replied, “we just don’t have much demand for them.”

I can see why. Reminds me of the probably apocryphal story of the shoe company, looking to expand its market, sending two salesmen to different parts of Africa. The first quickly wired back (this is an old story), “Wasted trip! No one here wears shoes.”

The second took a little longer, but eventually wired: “Crank up production! Great market—no one here wears shoes.”

P.S. The Equinox is a wonderful car, although making the switch to an EV takes some getting used to: it’s basically a computer and large battery on wheels. But it’s super quiet, handles well, accelerates briskly and has a range of more than 325 miles on a full charge. Best of all, after the tax rebate, a $1,000 discount because of my Costco executive membership and an additional $1,500 dealer discount, the bottom line was less than $27,000. That’s really hard to beat—but the federal tax credit expires at the end of September.

As for my other questions, I realized trying to get them answered by the dealership is a waste of time, since it knows as little as I do. I did find and download a 361-page manual online, though.