Von Allan's official website

Stargazer and Graphicly

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:06:00 PST

I recently signed a deal to have Graphicly digitally distribute both volumes of my all-ages series Stargazer. The first volume of is available for free on the Graphicly website at http://graphicly.com/von-allan-studio/stargazer-v1. Volume 2 is available for 99 cents at http://graphicly.com/von-allan-studio/stargazer/v2.

You can learn more about Stargazer by visiting the official website at http://stargazer.vonallan.com

Two lovely reviews for my graphic novel Stargazer

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 06:46:00 PST

First up is Marc Schuster's review of both volumes of Stargazer at Small Press Reviews. He writes:

"While Stargazer certainly evokes “little girl lost” tales a la Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz, Allan puts a new twist on the formula by sending three friends into the mysterious realm on the other side of the proverbial looking glass. In so doing, he gives his characters the opportunity to come of age even as they bump up against the limits of their friendship. In this sense, the graphic novel is a spiritual and emotional cousin to Stephen King’s “The Body” in that it’s as much about growing up as it is about exploring the unknown.

Overall, Stargazer is an excellent graphic novel by an artist whose talent is only rivaled by his heart. Perfect for readers of all ages, particularly those with a love for the fantastic."

The full review is at http://smallpressreviews.wordpress.com/2011/12/30/stargazer-vols-1-and-2/

The Midwest Book Review recently reviewed Volume Two and wrote the following:

"'Stargazer' is the second volume of graphic novels from Von Allan, following Elora and her two best friends Sophie and Marni as they journey to a tower, making friends with robots and other creatures who at first don't seem so friendly. Through friendship and their own creativity, they will have to see themselves back home for adventure and much more. A fine pick for younger readers who often have daydreams of their own, "Stargazer" is an excellent and much recommended pick, not to be overlooked."

The full review is over at http://midwestbookreview.com/sbw/jan_12.htm#Comix/GraphicNovel

Additional reviews from a wide variety of sources can be found at http://stargazer.vonallan.com/2010/05/reviews-for-stargazer.html

Site news

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 06:41:00 PST

Ok, I think the site should be back up and that any broken links have been corrected. There may be a few small issues, but the site overall the site migration to the new server went pretty smoothly. I probably could have done it even faster, but there were a few other things to do in the meantime.

Now I just need to scan some new artwork and get it uploaded. Soon!

Merry Christmas to one and all!

Switching Servers and Site Hiccups

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:05:00 PST

I'm just finalizing a move to a new web host and that means there will be a few hiccups and broken images and links in the process. I'm slowly but surely catching them, but it may take a few days or weeks before I finally track 'em all down. So please bear with me as I get it all sorted out.

Today's the Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 06:38:00 PDT

Yes! The concluding volume of Stargazer, Volume 2, is now available world-wide. It's 110 pages long and, I think, will surprise people. One of the things I tried very hard to do with the story is make a comic featuring kids exciting, scary, and hopefully the ending will catch at least some people by surprise. A full list of retailers that are known to be carrying it can be found at the Stargazer mini-site at http://stargazer.vonallan.com/2010/05/retailers-who-are-carrying-stargazer.html. This list includes both comic shops and book stores that I know are carrying Stargazer plus links to a wide variety of online retailers who are also stocking it. And since it's available through a wide-variety of distributors, ordering a copy is very easy for individuals, retailers and libraries. In other words, tracking down a copy should be very simple. If you run into any trouble, though, just drop me an email and I'll see what I can to do help!

If you're not sure where a local comic shop in your community is, you can always use the very handy Comic Shop Locator Service to track one down. If they happen to be out of stock for whatever reason, it's very easy to re-order a copy. Just let them know the item code (it's AUG111259) and the ISBN (it's 978-09-781237-4-1). I also want to take a moment and express my thanks to the comic book stores that have supported my work. While the industry is dominated by Marvel and DC, many of these stores still take chances on independent creators and that's remarkable. The medium of comics is incredibly diverse and there's some fantastic work out there by creators you may not have even heard of. A well-stocked and well-run comic shop will help you find them. All you have to do is ask.

Minimum Wage and the Prices of Comics

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:35:00 PDT

“The truth is people are leaving anyway, they’re just doing it quietly, and we have been papering it over with increased prices...We didn’t want to wake up one day and find we had a bunch of $20 books that 10,000 people are buying.”

Dan Didio, co-publisher of DC Comics, Los Angeles Times, August 22nd, 2011.

A number of comments have been written about DC's upcoming relaunch of their superhero universe. There have been articles on gender inequality (notably DC Women Kicking Ass and Laura Hudson's editorial on Comics Alliance) , Brian Hibbs has touched on the sales challenge Direct Market retailers face, and Corinna Lawson has spoken passionately about the marketing (or the lack thereof) over on Wired's Geekdad blog. I wanted to take a broader look and examine the role of pricing in the current comic book climate and why I think that pricing, more than anything else, will restrict DC's ability to grow their audience during the relaunch. In examining this, I'll be looking at the entire Direct Market and not simply DC's current plan and hopefully come to some conclusions that may surprise you. They certainly surprised the hell out of me.

Prices of comics in context

My thesis here is pretty simple. Many people have written and spoken about the high price of comics over the years. This can range from the "I remember when..." type comments to more contemporary concerns about the health of the entire Direct Market. The problem with a lot of these statments is that there's no context to the arguments. Are comics more expensive than they used to be? Sure, but then so is bread, rent, cars, movies and many other things. The issue isn't whether things have become more expensive (everything has), but to try and see the price increases in the context of something else. Whatever that is, it has to be consistent for it to be relevant. When we look at the history of comic book pricing, it turns out there is something we can compare it to. And that's the history of the Federal Minimum Wage in the United States.

Actually, it's an ideal metric. The Federal Minimum Wage was signed into law in early 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act. At almost the same time, Action Comics #1 hit newsstands featuring, of course, the first appearance of Superman. In other words, comic books and the US Federal Minimum Wage have existed at the same time since the birth of the Golden Age. Due to this, it's a perfect way to examine comic book pricing. Context is everything and this gives an excellent context to what has happened with both prices and minimum wage over the past 70 years.

Minimum Wage and the Pricing of Comics

Let's get right into it. In 2010, the US Federal Minimum Wage was $7.25 per hour. Figuring a 36 hour work week (factoring in unpaid lunches), it meant that someone working a minimum wage job was earning $261.00 per week before paying any taxes. In 2010, the average cover price for a typical 32 page superhero comic was $2.99 (1). In other words, to purchase ONE comic would cost 1.15% of someone's weekly income. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it represents one of the highest price points in the history of comics. I'll show this more concretely as we go forward, but for now I wanted to compare that to another key benchmark in the history of comics: the publishing of Fantastic Four #1 in 1961. This is especially timely since the Fantastic Four just celebrated their 50th anniversary. FF #1 was cover priced at 10 cents US. The US Federal Minimum Wage in 1961 was $1.15 per hour and, figuring the same 36 hour work week, a person would have earned $41.40 per week. To purchase the first issue of Fanastic Four, a person working minimum wage would have spent only 0.24% of their pay cheque. That is a stunning difference in price. To put this even more plainly: it represents a 379.2% increase in the price in relation to minimum wage from 1961 to 2010.

Note carefully that I'm not talking about inflation. Rather, I'm talking about the nominal price not adjusted for inflation. This is critically important to understand. Real wages and real prices (i.e.: wages and prices adjusted for inflation) is a separate argument to the one I'm making here. If I do a sequel to this piece, I will explore it because it's very clear that things are worse when you factor these in.

One more example before we get to the meat of things. Action Comics #1 was published in 1938 and also had a cover price of 10 cents. The US Federal Minimum Wage for 1938 was 25 cents per hour (PDF) or $9.00 for a 36 hour work week. That means purchasing Action Comics #1 would have cost someone 1.11% of their weekly income. That's quite a lot and you'd be right to say so. BUT...Action Comics #1 (and most comics published during this period) had a much higher page count then current comics. Action Comics #1 was 64 pages long, double the current standard of 32 pages. In other words, to compare it to today means we would need to make an adjustment to reflect the higher page count. When we do that, we see that Action Comics #1 would have cost approximately 5 cents if had been 32 pages long. That would have put it at 0.59% of someone's weekly pay cheque, still quite a bit higher than when Fantastic Four #1 debuted some 25 years later but not nearly as high as where things are now. Did the sales reflect that? They sure did. As John Jackson Miller pointed out on his Comichron blog, the print run for Action Comics #1 was only about 200,000 copies. Another key point: 0.59% of weekly US Federal Minimum Wage was the highest comics would cost until 1986. 48 years. Amazing.

1938 to 2010

The two charts below illustrate this visually. The first chart shows the unadjusted page counts. It wasn't until approximately 1955 (2) that comic books had shrunk to the page counts we now know so well. Both charts are identical from 1955 through 2010, but from 1938 to 1954 I adjusted the second one to reflect a typical 32 page count comic.

1938 through to 1969 saw a remarkable change occur in pricing in relation to the weekly US Federal Minimum Wage and you can see this in the chart below. Throughout this period there was a continued downward pressure on prices. Comics became cheaper in relation to the minimum weekly wage. A teenager getting his or her first job at, say, a fast food restaurant in the 1960s could easily afford a few comics per week. In fact, in 1968 and 1969 comics were only 0.21% of the weekly US Federal Minimum Wage. Is it any wonder that a comic book was considered disposable?

From the 1970s to today

The Direct Market rose to prominence in the late 1970s and the entire decade was marked by price fluctuations and stagflation that differentiated it from previous recessions. Comics were not immune to this and they would never return to the low price ratio that we saw in 1968 and 1969. Comics were cover priced at approximately 12 cents in 1968 but by 1974 were up to 25 cents. While that is a significant increase in cover price (108.3%), minimum wage was also increasing and that helped keep the ratio of cover prices to weekly minimum wage relatively low. By 1979 a single comic book still cost only 0.38% of the average weekly US Federal Minimum Wage. In context of where prices are today, it's pretty remarkable. That said, it's important to remember what was happening during this period. Tom Spurgeon and John Jackson Miller had a good discussion about it a few years ago and Miller correctly points out that the 1970s were a period of constant change. He noted, "Retail was changing in the 1970s -- comics, which had been a loss leader for convenience stores, drugstores and the like, needed to become more profitable as the mom-and-pop store gave way to the big chains (7-Eleven, Walgreens, later Wal-Mart, etc.). The print-three to sell-one model pinched comics all the more in a period of high inflation and paper and transport price increases -- and so the structure of comics sales at the time made us more exposed to external forces."

Comics continued to increase in price throughout the 1980s, crossing their most expensive point regardless of page count in 1986. The Direct Market was firmly established and some amazing comics were made during this period. Spiegelman's Maus. Love and Rockets by Los Bros Hernandez. Moore and Gibbons' Watchmen. Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Simonson's Thor. Sim's Cerebus was in its prime. This was also a time where the speculator bubble really started in earnest. Prices rose to reflect the craze, reaching cover prices of 75 cents in 1986, $1.00 by 1990 and $1.50 by 1994. Much has been written about how the bursting of the speculator bubble destroyed much of the comic book industry and I won't recap that here. The numbers are staggering, however, and The Amazing Spider-Man is a typical example. John Jackson Miller's website has detailed postal records on it going back to 1966. This is considered to be "Average Total Paid Circulation." 1991 saw total paid circulation of 544,900 and 1992 rose to 592,442. As the bubble burst, sales decline dramatically. 353,025 in 1994, 234,290 in 1995, 216,779 in 1996 and 159,950 in 1997. The numbers have never recovered. The most recent data is from 2008 and total paid circulation was 105,948.

What's interesting to me, though, isn't so much the collapse of the speculator market but what happened to prices during the aftermath. I started this essay with a quote from Dan Didio that I think is highly relevant here. Didio said, "The truth is people are leaving anyway, they’re just doing it quietly, and we have been papering it over with increased prices." At no point from the sales collapse in 1994 to the present have prices ever been reduced. Ever. The cover price has continued to increase in an attempt, as Didio mentioned, to deal with the decline in sales. The math is pretty simple. If a comic priced at $1.00 was selling 350,000 copies, then that's $350,000 in gross revenue. If, 10 years later, you're seeing sales of only 125,000 copies, then you're in trouble. The supposed solution is to raise the price to try to regain the lost revenue. But that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy: the higher prices drive people away, especially since the US Federal Minimum Wage has not risen by the same percentages. The chart below shows this clearly.

Movies and Comics

I can hear you, though. Everything has become expensive, right? Movie tickets are a typical example. I wanted to drill into that a bit and compare film ticket prices and comic book prices in relation to minimum wage. Movie ticket prices are a little harder to come by, mainly because there are regional differences that can really affect pricing. Fortunately, Box Office Mojo keeps a history of average movie ticket prices that goes back to 1980. The National Association of Theatre Owners has data going back a bit further. We can examine and make direct comparisons from the time period covering 1974 to the present. The results are eye-opening. Film prices have always been between 2.63% and 3.53% of the US Federal Minimum Wage throughout this period. While the price ratio has gone up, the trend line is not as sharp. The chart below shows it visually:

Let's me put this in even more context. It's May 1977 and Star Wars has just arrived in theatres. You work full-time at a minimum wage job. You'd have been earning $2.30 per hour or $82.80 for a 36 hour work week. You're willing to spend about 6% of your pay on comics and movies. A ticket to see Star Wars was, on average, $2.23 or 2.69% of your pay. That's quite a bit but you still had 3.31% left over. Comics were, on average, 30 cents. You could have bought nine of them and it would have only cost you $2.70. Or 3.26% of your pay cheque. You can see Star Wars and still buy all those comics and you're just under budget.

Fast forward to May 2010. Same situation. This time you want to go see Iron Man 2. That would cost you $7.89, but you're now earning $7.25 per hour or $261.00 per week. Iron Man 2 will set you back 3.02% of your weekly pay. Not bad, not bad, especially in comparison to 1977. You also want to buy some comics. A comic now costs $2.99 or 1.15% of your pay. Two comics will cost you 2.29% of your pay. You might be able to squeeze a third one in, but you're going to go over budget to do it. Ouch.

This may go a long way in explaining something else. Namely, why haven't fans of superhero movies crossed over into becoming new comic book readers? Price may be an issue. In 1978, the first Superman movie arrived in theatres. Average film price was $2.34 and the weekly US Federal Minimum Wage was $95.40. A ticket cost you 2.45% of your weekly pay. A comic was 35 cents or 0.37% of your pay cheque. When the Tim Burton Batman film came out in 1989, movie tickets were priced pretty high ($3.99 or 3.31% of a weekly US Federal Minimum Wage of $120.60). A comic was still around 0.76% of your weekly pay. By the time Sam Raimi's first Spider-Man film arrived in theatres, things had changed. Ticket prices were $5.80 and the weekly US Federal Minimum Wage was at $185.40. Or 3.13%. Comics? They were now $2.25 or 1.21%. It was becoming harder and harder for people earning minimum wage to make the transition from movies to comics. Even if they wanted to, they can't afford to.

People wonder why comics aren't selling the way they used to? Come on. I'm not arguing that convulted storylines, "waiting for the trade" mentalities, crossovers, and the like haven't hurt comics. I'm also not saying that movies, video games, and the like haven't hurt comics, either. I think all of these things and probably more have taken their toll. But...the simplest explanation regarding what has happened to the popularity of comics is what's happened to their prices in relationship with minimum wage. They were cheap and now they're not. That's done an incredible amount of damage. It's not just that the same readership base is simply purchasing less comics, though that may be part of it. As the population in the United States has grown over the past 25 years, the readership has declined. New readers aren't being created, at least not for periodical comics.(3) Why? The answer is price in relationship to an ordinary person's pay. Price in relation to the weekly US Federal Minimum Wage.

DC's 52 Relaunch

So, here we are, at the crux of the issue. As Didio noted, DC recognizes that sales have fallen. The reboot/relaunch is an attempt to correct that. I'm pretty confident that they'll see a sales spike for at least a few months. In fact, there are already reports that the new Justice League #1 has had pre-orders of over 200,000 copies. The big question, though, is where will things be, say, 24 months after the relaunch? How about 48? I think we can now make an educated guess. 48 of the 52 titles are priced at $2.99. The other four are all $3.99. If you're working a minimum wage job and want to buy 'em all in a given month, this is what you're facing:

The 48 cheaper titles will cost you $143.52 while the other four will add $15.96 for a grand total of $159.48 before any taxes. If you're earning $261.00 per week that means you're earning $1,044.00 per month. To buy all 52 titles will cost you 15.28% of your pay. Back in 1977, to buy 52 comics during the course of a month would have cost you $15.60 (at 30 cents each). You would have been earning $82.80 per week or $331.20 per month, but all 52 comics would have cost you only 4.71% of your income. That's it. Game over. Lower wage earners will find it impossible to purchase all of these comics. They'll find it impossible to purchase half of them. It's not financially doable.

What would have worked? Here's a thought: a price drop combined with the relaunch, backed by an aggressive attempt to put comics into more venues and an advertising campaign that would have spread the good news. What would the news have been? Fresh and affordable comics that anyone can read. What did we get? A DC gamble that the new "issue number ones" combined with a simplified universe will be the draw. Perhaps they're right, but based on what I've outlined here I think the odds are really stacked against them. What should the price have been? I don't know. I think there's room for experimentation, though, and I'm disappointed that DC didn't seize the opportunity to try. Take Wednesday Comics as an example. Instead of launching a 14" x 20" broadsheet at $3.99 US that was in an entirely different format that a typical comic, why didn't they try launching a couple of monthly titles on the same newsprint but priced much lower? Say $1.50? A "done in one" type story so that everything stands alone? Something like All-Star Superman might have exploded in popularity at a price point like this. It was not to be and I, for one, find the lack of any experimentation with the 52 relaunch deeply disappointing.

Digital

Pricing is also why I don't think digital is a threat to brick and mortar retailers. At least if the prices remain comparable to print comics. The Wall Street Journal published an article back in the spring that detailed who exactly is purchasing Apple's iPad. At the time, 7.8 million people owned iPads but only 6.4% of them earned purchased an iPad while earning less than $25,000 per year. Only 11.9% purchased an iPad while earning between $25,000 and $49,999 per year. Meanwhile, 49.4% of iPad owners earned more than $100,000 per year. Simply put, those earning minimum wage (and please remember that if you're earning $261.00 per week your annual salary is $13,572.00) will not be purchasing digital comics for the iPad. They can't afford to. As Chris at the ComicShop.net recently wrote, "If you really think comic shops are slowly dying off because of the demand for digital, your privilege is showing. Comic shops are dealing with a tough economy because comic books are a luxury—the first thing that gets cut when people are trying to save money. Food or comics? There’s no app for that." He is exactly right.

The Future?

This is a tough one. Prices have never fallen. In fact, both companies are now flirting with $3.99 price points and, based on the history I outlined here, there's no doubt in my mind that will become the new benchmark in the nearish future. That would be 1.53% of a $261.00 weekly pay cheque. For one comic. Man. It's certainly no way to grow a readership. Is there a way forward? Well, it's tough. If the answer is to keep battling declining revenue by raising prices, then the answer is no. Well, unless they can figure out a way to raise the Federal Minimum Wage at the same time! Seriously, though, comics are a tricky beast. Perhaps Marvel and DC feel that the answer is to turn it to a hobby that only affluent people can afford and keep upscaling things in accordance with that. Maybe. In the meantime, people will still continue to see superhero films and publishers, retailers, and media will wonder why the millions of tickets being purchased somehow doesn't translate into more comics being sold. Well, we know why and that's something. Not much, but something. And then DC and Marvel will reboot/relaunch once again, as they've done so often in their histories.

Shameless Self-Promotion

I have a new graphic novel coming out in October 2011 called Stargazer Volume Two. There's a preview up on my main Stargazer website. Go check it out, ok? Stargazer Volume Two has Diamond Item Code of AUG111259 and an ISBN of 978-09-781237-4-1. You can find reviews, ordering information, and the like at http://stargazer.vonallan.com

Footnotes

1. Average Cover Prices of Comics: Figuring out average cover prices is a bit of a chore. What I did was use "typical" comics in a given month and average the price from there. I mostly focused on Marvel mainly because DC went through a phase, especially in the 1970s and 1980s, where they experimented quite a bit with page counts. I'll try to get this up on Google Docs so that you can better see what I was doing.

2. Page Counts: I used Action Comics to show the historical changes in page counts. A good overview can be found on Comics.org. Note that they include the front cover, the back cover, the inside front cover and the inside back cover to the total page count. This is why they note that Action Comics #1 was, for instance, 68 pages long rather than 64 pages.

3. Readership: I stress periodical comics here, because the one key thing that has grown the industry is the graphic novel. Getting firm numbers is tricky, but the growth of "book form" comics has developed new markets in both bookstores and libraries. That has helped a lot.

Shop for Von Allan's books and art

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:17:00 PDT

The second and concluding volume of Stargazer is available world-wide beginning on October 12th, 2011. A list of known "brick and mortar" retailers who are carrying Stargazer is over on the Stargazer subsite (http://stargazer.vonallan.com). If a comic bookstore close to you isn't on the list, you can certainly use the Comic Shop Locator Service to inquire with various comic book shops. It's also available through a wide-variety of online retailers and some purchasing links for each volume are included below. My first graphic novel, the road to god knows..., is also available. Please click here for information on how to order it. Stargazer Volume Two:

Stargazer Volume One:

Stargazer is also available on Barnes & Noble and Chapters/Indigo, too! the road to god knows..., is also available! There is a subsite for the road to god knows... at http://trtgk.vonallan.com with a full list of retailers who are carrying the book. Links to order through online retailers are below: the road to god knows...:

Stargazer Teaser Print.
Measuring 11" by 17" and printed on Strathmore 500 Series Bristol (100% cotton fiber, acid-free archival bristol on a Plate (Hot Press) surface). The entire print is treated with a coating to protect the colours from UV light. In addition, I'm offering free shipping for a limited time. The print will be packaged flat against backing board and wrapped in a special protective plastic. Price is $25.00 US.

Stargazer Volume Two - it's coming!

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sun, 31 Jul 2011 10:10:00 PDT

Very soon now! I'm holding the proof copy from the printer! For information and updates, please visit Stargazer's dedicated website at http://stargazer.vonallan.com

Quick little pin-up

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:11:00 PDT

Quick little pin-up that was done for fun. Once I've finished volume two of Stargazer, I'm hoping to do more of this kind of thing as I begin work on my next project.

OC Transpo - A Modest Proposal

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:26:00 PDT

In my last post, I mentioned how empty I found the "efficiency argument" being made by those proposing the cuts to OC Transpo's operating budget. What I didn't argue was alternative ways that the City of Ottawa could raise the necessary funds to cover the budget deficit. This is a critical component to any budgetary issue; it's one thing to criticize the powers that be that are making the cuts, but without proposing alternative methods to address the budgetary issue, these criticisms may fall on deaf ears.

Before we get into that, though, I need to address how municipalities across Ontario raise revenues. The primary ways are as follows:

Property Taxes
Development Charges
User Fees
Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (i.e.: Transfer Payments)
Other Revenues (including investment income, fines, property sales, and penalties and interest)

Out of all of these, Property Taxes make up the bulk of most major munipality budgets. In Ottawa's case, the 2011 budget counts property taxes as 54% of the operating budget. To put a firm dollar amount with it, the total tax supported revenue for Ottawa is $2.367 Billion (that's $2,367,000,000.00 - the city has an annoying habit of expressing the totals "in millions" rather than showing all of those pesky zeroes) and that funding breaks down as follows:

Property Taxes: $1,263,000,000.00 (54%)
Payments in Lieu of Property Taxes: $172,000,000.00 (7%)
Federal and Provincial funding: $434,000,000.00 (18%)
Fees and service charges: $419,000,000.00 (18%)
Reserves: $28,000,000.00 (1%)
Miscellaneous revenue sources: $51,000,000.00 (2%)

Now, this brings up a very critical point. There is not just one class of property tax. As the City's website notes, "Properties or portions of a property are classified according to the property's use. Each category represents a different tax class. In Ottawa there are 13 tax classes, residential making up 60% of the total tax revenue coming into the City. The other classes include Commercial, Office Building, Shopping Centre, Parking Lot, Industrial, Large Industrial, Multi-Residential, New Multi-Residential, Managed Forest, Farmland, Pipeline, and Professional Sports Facility." Note carefully: Municipal tax rates are set by local municipalities and may differ for each property class. Education tax rates are set by the Province. I'm going to say that again: Municipal tax rates are set by local municipalities. They are not set by the Province, the federal government, or the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. In Ottawa's case, the property tax rate is set by City Council every year when it approves the budget. The next critically important point: each municipality sets its tax rate, but it does not determine the actual value of each property. That is determined by the aforementioned Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), a crown corporation of the Government of Ontario. As its website notes, "MPAC is responsible for determining the property classifications and current value assessments for all properties in Ontario." Its "about" page is more specific: "Every municipality in Ontario is a member of MPAC, a non-share capital, not-for-profit corporation whose main responsibility is to provide its customers - property owners, tenants, municipalities, and government and business stakeholders - with consistent and accurate property assessments." So, MPAC determines the value of each property throughout Ontario in an attempt to create and enforce province-wide standards, but it's up to each municipality to determine its own tax rate. As MPAC's website notes, "Each year, local governments (e.g., municipalities/local taxing authorities, counties, regions) determine the amount of money they need to provide services, such as public transit, police services, parks and libraries...Property taxes are not a fee for service, but rather a way of distributing the cost for local services and programs throughout the municipality." As I mentioned, the City of Ottawa uses 13 tax classes to make up its property tax component. What's interesting is that the City of Ottawa doesn't break down the total Property Tax revenue they receive ($1,263,000,000.00) by each of their 13 tax classes (see Budget 2011 Factsheet (PDF)). I don't know how much tax revenue comes from each tax class and it's impossible to make any determinations based on that. All we know is that the residential portion makes up "60%" of the total. I'd like to see the City correct that as soon as possible. At any rate, for the purposes of this proposal, I'm going to ignore 12 of those tax classes and focus on just one: residential. This does not mean that I believe the others shouldn't be examined carefully. It doesn't mean I think they're alright as it is. I think that they should be examined carefully, but it's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do here. This brings up the next critical point: no matter how much MPAC determines the worth of an urban residential property, the City of Ottawa's tax rate is exactly the same. If you're keen, you can muck around with this by using the handy Property Tax Estimator on the City's website. Note that my assumptions are as follows: Year is 2010, Property Class is Residential (RT), the Transit Zone is Full Service (T), Fire Services are Full Service (FSU), and Solid Waste/Garbage is Curb Pick-up (C). Additional surcharges are left blank. Now, no matter what you enter as your assessment amount, the tax rates are as follows:

City Wide: 0.569744%
Ottawa Police Services: 0.165692%
Capital Tax Levy: 0.000000%
Conservation Authority Levy: 0.007326%
Transit Zone: 0.178898%
Fire Services: 0.091666%
Solid Waste\Garbage: FIXED
Sub Total: 1.123891%
Education: 0.241000%
Total Estimated Taxes: 1.254326%

Now, while I don't know how much tax revenue each tax class generated, I do know that the average urban home property assessment is $295,300.00. Here's a screen cap from the Property Tax Estimator of what that average urban home would owe Ottawa in property taxes: Now, on an urban property worth $1,000,000.00, here's a screen cap of what the home owner would owe: Each tax rate is exactly the same! No matter how much your home is worth, you will pay the exact same rate in property taxes. Rich or poor, if you own an urban home the tax rate is the same. My argument here is simple: Ottawa's property tax is a regressive property tax, not a progressive one. Why? Lower-income urban home owners pay proportionally more of their income for property taxes than those with a higher income. The average full-time salary in Ottawa in 2005 was $58,682.00. If that person owns the average urban home ($295,300.00), then they pay 6.46% of their salary in property tax ($3,793.02/$58,682.00). That's a good chunk of change for anyone! Now, let's compare it to the one million dollar property. It's impossible to know what a very wealthy person's average full-time salary is, but let's say (for arguments sake) that a millionaire is a person whose annual salary is actually $1,000,000.00. The property tax they pay on their property is $12,632.26. That means this millionaire is only paying 1.26% of their salary on property taxes ($12,632.26/$1,000,000.00). That's only 19.54% (1.26%/6.46%) of what our average full-time salary earner is paying! Whoa! So, my modest proposal goes like this. If the City of Ottawa can and will set the property tax rates every year, than I propose that they create two additional classes. Everyone who owns an urban property assessed at under one million dollars pays the current tax rate. Anyone who owns an urban property assessed between $1,000,000.00 and $2,500,000.00 will pay a slightly higher tax rate (let's call this Residential Class B). And anyone who owns an urban property assessed at over $2,500,000.00 will pay a bit more than the previous one (call it Residential Class C). How would this beakdown? Take a peek:

Residential Class B: Property Tax Rate for Assessed Urban Homes between $1,000,000.00 and $2,500,000.00

City Wide: 1.709232%
Ottawa Police Services: 0.497076%
Capital Tax Levy: 0.000000%
Conservation Authority Levy: 0.021978%
Transit Zone: 0.536694%
Fire Services: 0.274998%
Solid Waste\Garbage: FIXED ($89.00)
Sub Total: 3.371673%
Education: 0.241000%
Total Estimated Taxes: 3.280978%

Residential Class C: Property Tax Rate for Assessed Urban Homes over $2,500,000.00

City Wide: 2.278976%
Ottawa Police Services: 0.662768%
Capital Tax Levy: 0.000000%
Conservation Authority Levy: 0.029304%
Transit Zone: 0.715592%
Fire Services: 0.366664%
Solid Waste\Garbage: FIXED ($89.00)
Sub Total: 4.498564%
Education: 0.241000%
Total Estimated Taxes: 4.294304%

While these two new classes are taxed at a higher rate than everyone else, this is less regressive. Interestingly, it's not perfect. At a new estimated tax rate of 3.280978%, our millionaire is paying more in property taxes, but not much more. The old bill, as we have seen, would be $12,632.26. The new bill, based on the new tax rate would be $32,898.78 ($1,000,000.00 x 3.280978% + $89.00 for Solid Waste/Garbage). That raises the proportion of their salary paid in property taxes from 1.26% to 3.29%, which is still lower than our average full-time salary earner's 6.46%! Still, it would be at least a step in the right direction. Now, I don't know how many properties in Ottawa are in my new Class B ranking. However, we have a very good idea of how many would be in Class C. Why? In the January 19, 2009 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, Michael Prentice wrote an article about Ottawa's 25 Highest-Assessed Homes. The summary is below and is based on 2008 MPAC assessments: Those top 25 properties as assessed by MPAC of a total value worth $117,260,000.00. That's a lot of money. Under the current City of Ottawa urban residential property taxes, here's what they collectively pay: $1,470,911.66 is also a lot of money. However, under my new Class C rate for properties assessed at over $2,500,000.00, the tax rate would not be 1.254326%. Rather, it would be 4.294304%. That would be a property tax bill of $5,035,500.87 ($117,260,000.00 x 4.294304%), about 3 and a half times higher than it currently is. But...this is only 25 properties. And the top wealthiest properties in Ottawa. I think it's fair that they shoulder more of the burden. In other words, for these 25 properties alone, the City of Ottawa would have an additional $3,564,589.21 ($5,035,500.87 - $1,470,911.66). Now, I don't have access to how many million dollar urban properties are in the City of Ottawa. This is a guess on my part, but there are probably at least a few hundred urban residential properties in Ottawa that are worth between $1,000,000.00 and $2,500,000.00. Let's say there are 300 properties in Ottawa that have been assessed at exactly $1,000,000.00 each (so $300,000,000.00 total). At my new tax rate of 3.280978% (Class B), the property taxes raised would be $9,843,023.00 ($300,000,000.00 x 3.612673% +$89.00). The current taxes would be $3,763,067.00 ($300,000,000.00 x 1.254326% + $89.00), so the new revenue would be $6,079,956.00. In other words, by effecting 325 owners (the top 25 plus my guess of 300), the city would raise an additional $9,644,634.20 ($3,564,589.21 + $6,079,956.00). That's almost half of the $22,000,000.00 budget shortfall that the OC Transpo is facing. And I'm only guessing at 300 urban properties. If there are double that, say 600, then the City is almost there! As Ottawa Citizen columnist and blogger Kenneth Gray has noted, Mayor Jim Watson is "a nominal Liberal, but a fiscal conservative." As Watson himself has noted on Twitter, "my job is to provide options for savings tax dollars." By not exploring other budgetary options that are fully within Ottawa's City Council's mandate, Mayor Jim Watson and the Councillors are ignoring possible revenue streams. What's worse, there is not even a debate about this. And I haven't explored any of the other 12 tax classes, either. Further, there can be room for even more debate. Perhaps the property taxes on all urban properties assessed at under $1,000,000.00 should be lowered and my two new tax classes should be higher. Maybe commercial property taxes should be lowered for small businesses (less than 3,000 square feet) and raised for larger commercial businesses. And so on. As I noted, the current property tax system that the City of Ottawa uses is regressive. Don't believe me? Statistics Canada has an essay by Boris Palameta and Ian Macredie that comes to the same conclusion. They note, "Property taxes in Canada are regressive because household incomes are distributed more unequally than the assessed home values on which property taxes are based. This means that households in lower income brackets pay a share of tax that is larger than their share of income; the reverse is true for households in higher income brackets." My plan inconveniences a very small percentage of Ottawa residents. Watson and the rest of City Council are inconveniencing a large number of Ottawa residents, especially the elderly, the poor, single moms, the sick, etc... Kelly Egan noted in an Ottawa Citizen article that "City councillors broke into a standing ovation when they approved a modest tax increase in this year's budget." Budget 2011 delivers a tax increase below 2.5% - 2.45% for urban home owners and commercial properties and 2.40% in rural areas. This is not something that should be celebrated, especially when other revenue options were available for discussion. Lastly: Jason Spezza, who plays for Ottawa's NHL franchise, has a salary of $8,000,000. The assessed value of his house (2008 MPAC) is $2,316,000, but it just missed being included in Prentice's Top 25 article. At a current property tax rate of 1.254326%, his tax bill is $29,139.19 ($2,316,000 x 1.254326% + $89.00). That's only 0.36% of his annual NHL salary ($29,139.19 / $8,000,000). My plan would put him into Class B and he'd have a property tax bill of $76,076.45 ($2,316,000 x 3.280978% + $89.00). That would more than double his bill, but it would still only be 0.95% of his annual NHL salary! Compare that to our annual average salary earner who's property tax bill is 6.46% of his salary. Does anyone really believe that Ottawa's current property tax system is working?

OC Transpo and Efficiency

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 11:50:00 PDT

Due to mayor Jim Watson and Ottawa's freshly elected City Council promises not to raise municipal taxes by more than 2.5%, OC Transpo announced on March 22, 2011 that in an effort to trim its budget by 22 million dollars, it was going to have to cut and/or modifiy 100 bus routes and dramatically roll-back schedules in some areas. While the company and the City of Ottawa are acccepting public input, any changes must be "cost-neutral." As a CBC article notes, the "updated bus service, which is expected to affect tens of thousands of commuters, was billed by city officials as an "optimization" plan to fix costly inefficiencies." An Ottawa Citizen article by Joanne Chianello on March 25 says this will effect at least "11,000 OC Transpo" riders, about 7% of total ridership. More alarmingly, and despite the promise of public consultation, these decisions seem to have been made well in advance. The OC Transpo Business Plan (PDF) that's on the City of Ottawa's website is dated February 16, 2011, and confirms Chianello's data:

"Efficiencies in this area will help us save money with the smallest impact to our customers. In fact, many of these changes will enable an improved customer experience. The vast majority of trips will be more direct and quicker. About 94 per cent of customers will enjoy either unchanged or improved service as a result. Approximately 1 per cent of peak customers will have to walk a short additional distance, but once they get on the bus their overall trip time will either stay the same or decrease due to more direct routing. During off-peak periods, about 6 per cent of customers will have a short additional walk to catch the bus with similar improvements in travel time. As a result, the new service delivery model will attract more than 98.6 per cent of the potential transit ridership predicted, but at only 80 per cent of the costs to operate after the opening of the light rail line."

Let's talk about efficiency for a sec. We read, see and hear about efficiency all the time. Efficiency is used to justify governmental decisions over and over again, both at the municipal, provincial and federal level. To my mind, it's a hammer that is used to end arguments and not continue them. Why? Simple: it is impossible to know and understand all of the effects of a particular decision or policy, both on the immediate department or body (like OC Transpo) and also on the greater community as a whole. It's also impossible to know what the effect these decisions will have in the future. We cannot know every eventuality for every decision. Policy makers can come to a conclusion based on whatever criteria they happen to be choosing, but that conclusion will always be limited. Note carefully, though, that they won't say so. They'll argue that the "cost/benefit analysis" clearly shows that this plan is better than that plan. In other words, they'll take all of the positives (saving money, saving tax payer dollars, saving the environment, you name it) and balance that against all of the costs (higher prices, increased taxes, etc...). If the benefits outweigh the costs, than that's your answer. It's the most efficient. It has to be the most efficient because the cost/benefit analysis says it is. Efficiency arguments eliminate public debate.

Back to Jim Watson, Ottawa's City Council, and OC Transpo. At no point does the 2011 OC Transpo Business plan address anything else that will be effected by this decision. The plan's advantages are argued purely from a cost/benefit point of view. To quote again from the plan: "Only about 6 per cent of daytime off-peak transit users would have a slightly longer walk to the bus, and in most of these cases, the walk would be limited to one or two additional blocks. At peak periods about 1 per cent of transit users would have a longer walk to the bus." Well, of course the percentage would be smaller since more people use the service at peak rather than at off-peak periods. Since the plan does not state either the actual number of people effected or even average daily ridership, the percentages are difficult to quantify. As I mentioned, Joanne Chianello's Ottawa Citizen article indicates this will be around 11,000 OC Transpo riders, but that number isn't sourced in her article. The American Public Transportation Association states that OC Transpo's average weekday ridership (PDF) is 535,600, so 6% of that would be 32,136. Regardless of what the number is, we're clearly talking about a lot of people. As the Plan goes on to state, "network optimization efforts will aim at meeting the existing Council-approved policy standard of 95 per cent of urban households within a 5-minute walk." It adds, though, that "most of the possible route changes described below would increase walking distance or would increase the number of transfers" without stating how much increased walking time would occur for the routes involved. While a walk of one or two additional blocks doesn't sound like much, the plan is actually very vague on this point, noting only that various routes are "under review for consolidation to reduce duplication" while others are considered to be removed due to "inefficient Local Loops and Crescents." While the plan does state which route numbers are "under review," nothing is concrete. You have to do some further digging to discover, on OC Transpo's main website, that the proposed route reductions will mean that some buses will now stop running by 8:00 or 10:00 PM in the evening, others will have "limited trips," and others would have their "service removed" at certain times.

Now, let's talk about what's not in the plan. As I mentioned above, actual concrete numbers of the amount of people effected isn't there, but we do know it's quite a few people. Here are some hypothetical questions:

What happens if, say, 9,000 of them start driving to work in cars? There seems to be an assumption in the Plan that most people will just adjust to OC Transpo's new route structure without seeking any alternatives. What does that do to Ottawa's traffic congestion? The impact to the environment of smog? Safety concerns with more vehicles on the road? This point isn't explored in the plan.
What if, as a result of people having to walk "one or two additional blocks," assaults go up? Well, on this we can speculate a bit. As Steph Willems notes in a piece on the EMC Barrhaven website, "In Nepean, nine route changes are proposed, with the 111, 117, 158 and the 3 being dropped, and other routes being changed or added to take up the slack. In Trend-Arlington, changes are proposed for routes 172, 173 and 174, while Bells Corners could see a revised route 97, 152 and 166." This area, for the most part, is covered by Ottawa's College Ward (Ward 8). In the Ottawa Police Service's 2008/09 crime statistics for Ward 8 (PDF), there were 237 assaults (including sexual assaults) in 2008 and 215 in 2009. What are the social costs if, say, as a result of these route changes, 25 assaults are added per year? The person costs to the assault victim? Their friends and family? If the elimination and/or restructuring of some results results in the need for a higher police presence, those costs will have to be paid for. Since the Ottawa Police Service isn't mentioned in the OC Transpo Business Plan, it's unclear if they were even consulted with the proposed route changes.
Or how about this: what if, say, 3,000 of these effected riders now have to spend an extra one hour per day commuting to and from work? While the plan assures us that "shorter travel times" will be the result, it's unclear how they determined this. If shorter travel times while on the bus do not offset the longer commute times to a bus stop, it's quite possible that riders will actually face longer total commute times. What does this do to their job situation? Their education? Their family and social life?
Or how about access to hospitals, walk-in clinics, and the like, especially in off-peak hours? It's unclear what, if any, the proposed route changes will have on easy access to these facilities. Zev Singer attempted to address some of these social costs in an Ottawa Citizen article from March 30th.
Or what about demographics? The plan does not mention how the proposed route changes will affect seniors, children, single moms, new immigrants, the poor and so on and so forth. There is not even a mention of any of these groups in the plan! As Kelly Egan notes in today's Ottawa Citizen, "I've not heard many references this week to the demographics of OC's ridership. It isn't clear they have a precise handle on it themselves." Egan goes on to rhetorically ask, "So, are councillors picking on a group of people who tend to be poorer, own less property, are more transient, and, by nature, don't organize into a lobby with any power?" I wonder this point myself as does Jessica Dean, who wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen noting "that the proposed list of changes to OC Transpo’s routes seems to particularly target riders in areas with higher proportions of lower-income residents."

Enough. My point here is this: the most efficient solution, according to the City of Ottawa and OC Transpo, is to cut the OC Transpo budget by $22 million. Fiscal restraint is the order of the day. While they promise public consultation, their 2011 OC Transpo Business Plan is dated February 16 and is, I believe a fait d'accompli. It's efficient because, based on their own paramaters, they tell us it is. It's a hustle, plain and simple. Look, I'm not saying you don't evaluate, tweak, modify and whatnot. OC Transpo does evaluate ridership and route structure all the time. But to make decisions purely based on so-called efficiency planning, thinking that this is the beginning and end of the discussion, is unethical.

On coalitions and Canadian Federal Politics

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 10:16:00 PDT

So, the Canadian federal government has fallen and we'll be heading into a spring election. The fallout of this was discussion about the idea of a coalition government between the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP, and the Liberals. Stephen Harper immediately launched into his "hidden agenda" rhetoric, noting that "They’ll do it after the election if they can get away with it. They’re still trying to keep the door open because they’ll do it if they get the chance." Harper is clearly trying to label a coalition as somehow "wrong" or even immoral. This is frustrating to me because it is a profound misstatement of how our parliamentary system works. Canada's system is the Westminster System. In practice, we actually don't vote for parties. And we certainly don't vote for Prime Minister, either. We vote for a person in our geographical area (our "riding") that we think can best represent our area's needs in parliament. Once elected, the person who won their riding becomes known by the official term "Member of Parliament." Guess what? All of these Members of Parliament are supposed to work together in a (gasp!) coalition to best represent both their ridings and Canada as a whole. The very idea that coalitions are immoral is a vast misstatment of the truth.

To put it another way, remember that political parties themselves are not required to make our government work. Pretend for a moment that there were no parties; Members of Parliament would still be elected as normal. Once elected, they would vote amongst themselves to determine who, out of their members, they feel would make the best Prime Minister. There's no need for a party for this. The same process would work for individual ministers, too. Votes would be held to chose those who all Members of Parliament feel have the best experience to handle each portfolio. Still no need for a political party. So again, Members of Parliament need to work together to accomplish all of this. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be tension, arguments, debates and whatnot. Of course there would be. Coalitions would form between various Members who share similar ideals and similar philosophies. There's nothing wrong with this at all. Parties, by their very nature, are coalitions of like-minded people. Think about how Harper's former party, the Canadian Alliance, grew out of the Reform Party and then formed a new party, a new coalition, with the Progressive Conservatives. Coalitions are part of our political landscape. Stephen Harper knows this, but he would prefer it if you don't think about it because once you do, you clearly see how poor his arguments about the current situation are. It's a scare tactic, plain and simple. Of course, our media is not pointing this out and they should be.

In the last election, Harper's Conservatives only received 37.65% of the popular vote. This result is somehow more democratic than a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP and the Liberals? Please.

the road to god knows... and Stargazer

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:16:00 PDT

Just a quick note regarding my two graphic novels. the road to god knows... deals with a teenage girl's struggle to cope with her mom's schizophrenia while Stargazer is an all-ages story dealing with the death of a young girl's grandmother and how it effects her.

More information about the road to god knows... can be found at http://trtgk.vonallan.com

More information about Stargazer can be found at http://stargazer.vonallan.com

Pinup of a cute girl

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:32:00 PDT

Done for fun on a bit of a "feeling pokey" day. Having drawn children for so long (for my graphic novel Stargazer), it's fun to break off of that and do something very different. I also love slick brush inking and this is a chance to stretch those muscles a bit. I think brush inking is a bit of a lost art, but I love doing it.

Public Inquiry into G20 Summit Security (for Ontario residents)

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 06:51:00 PST

I just emailed the following note to my MPP and I cc'd the other political parties, too. If you're an Ontario resident, I would urge you to do the same. Most of the language is cribbed from The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (http://www.ccla.org/), but I wanted to add comments from the Ontario Ombudsman and Steve Paikin to help round it out. Mainly because I consider this to be an election issue.

"I am writing to urge the federal and Ontario governments to establish a joint public inquiry into security measures implemented in association with the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto.

In the days and months following the G20 Summit, it has become clear that widespread violations of Charter rights and civil liberties occurred during the policing of this event, some of which are documented in the Breach of the Peace Public Hearings report recently released by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and National Union of Public and General Employees. These transgressions have raised many questions which remain unanswered and done significant damage to public confidence in Canada's police services. It is essential that public order policing measures be planned and implemented in a manner that is respectful of Charter rights, including freedom of expression, assembly and association. Unfortunately, security measures during the G20 Summit fell short of this standard.

As André Marin, Ombudsman of Ontario, noted in his Ombudsman Report titled Caught in the Act, "Regulation 233/10, passed to enhance security during the G20 summit, should never have been enacted. It was likely unconstitutional. The effect of Regulation 233/10, now expired, was to infringe on freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society. Specifically, the passage of the regulation triggered the extravagant police authority found in the Public Works
Protection Act, including the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain people and to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Even apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legality of Regulation 233/10 is doubtful. The Public Works Protection Act under which it was proclaimed authorizes regulations to be created to protect infrastructure, not to provide security to people during events. Regulation 233/10 was therefore probably invalid for having exceeded the authority of the enactment under which it was passed. These problems should have been apparent, and given the tremendous power Regulation 233/10 conferred on the police, sober and considered reflection should have been given to whether it was appropriate to arm officers with such authority. This was not done. The decision of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to sponsor the regulation was unreasonable." (http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/media/157555/g20final1-en.pdf)

Steve Paikin, veteran Canadian journalist and host of TVO's The Agenda, details his experiences while attending the G20 Summit in an interview and I believe they are worth mentioning here. "I've been watching protests in this city for thirty years. I've been covering events in this city for thirty years. This was not a great day for democracy in Toronto. I saw things that I've never seen before. I saw things that, frankly, should not have happened. And people will come to their own conclusions about what they believe the state of democracy to be in Toronto and in Canada as a result of what happened. It was a sad, bloody day I'll tell you that much." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCWNqMV4Bgs)

In a democratic country, such as Canada, the mass arrest of more than 1100 people is an event that must not pass by without proper review and scrutiny. Canadians are entitled to accountability for G20 security excesses and your governments have an essential role to play in providing it. Establishing a comprehensive public inquiry would help address outstanding concerns about G20 security, help restore public confidence in Canadian policing and provide a more respectful framework for future public order policing operations. I implore you to take prompt action to ensure that an inquiry is called. I consider this to be an election issue.

Thanks very much for your time.

P.S.: Please note that I've cc'd the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the Green Party of Ontario, and the Ontario New Democratic Party."

Interview on Poplitiko

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:57:00 PST

Richard Caldwell, who did a lovely review of Stargazer for Zedura magazine a few months ago, was nice enough to do an interview with me. Part one is now up on the Poplitiko website. Just click the following link or the image below: http://poplitiko.blogspot.com/2011/01/americanauts-von-allan-pt-1-of-2.html.

Photos from the book launch of Stargazer

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Thu, 11 Nov 2010 15:40:00 PST

The book launch for Stargazer took place at Ottawa's Perfect Books on Sunday, November 7th. Turnout was pretty good if I do say so myself and the bookstore seemed quite pleased with the sales. That's win-win, I think! What follows are some photos that were taken from the launch. My wife took the first four and the rest were taken by the "The Phantom Photographer."

Photo by "The Phantom Photographer"

Photo by "The Phantom Photographer"

Photo by "The Phantom Photographer"

Stargazer!

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 16:14:00 PDT

Well, things are happening on the Stargazer front. If you aren't familiar with it, Stargazer is my all-ages graphic novel that has just been listed in Diamond's November Previews catalogue. And they gave it a spotlight, too:

In addition, I'm formally launching the book at Ottawa's Perfect Books on Sunday, November 7th. There'll be quite a bit of media to do this week and I'll actually be on TV (Ottawa's A Morning) on Wednesday, November 3rd.

If you'd like to learn more, there's a dedicated website for my graphic novel at http://stargazer.vonallan.com.

Space, Jupiter, Voyager and dreaming

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 07:30:00 PDT

I have to say that I love space exploration. I really do. Both manned and unmanned really fire my imagination. My favourite author may just be Arthur C. Clarke and I still regularly re-read his Space Odyssey series. And I still get goosebumps regarding the two Pioneer space probes (10 and 11) and the two follow-ups, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. This piece just tries to capture the wonder of it. Completely fictional, of course, but fun all the same.

Daytime Ottawa on Rogers TV

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:17:00 PDT

Here's an interview I recently did on the Rogers Television program "Daytime Ottawa." Co-host Derick Fage and I chat about the Lulu Awards controversy, my graphic novel the road to god knows... and the launch of my new graphic novel Stargazer at Ottawa's Perfect Books.

Say it ain't so, Dr. Ben Bova!

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 15:41:00 PDT

Ben Bova, famed sci-fi writer, recently wrote an article that touches on the future of literacy. This is something he's spoken about before; I seem to recall an interview he gave way back on Prisoners of Gravity. At any rate, he laments the loss of shelf space in bookstores, writing "Go into a typical bookstore and look around. The shelf space devoted to books shrinks every year, while more and more space is devoted to audio books, graphic novels (comic books), music, videos, greeting cards."

That, on the face of it, is probably a legitimate observation, though somewhat empirical and difficult to qualify (i.e.: Dr. Bova doesn't back it up with actual data). However, he continues forth with a nasty comment about graphic novels:

"Take the idea of graphic novels. Essentially, these are comic books for adults. Some of the works are quite striking and even powerful. But War and Peace they’re not. They’re not even Valley of the Dolls." (my emphasis added).

Yikes. While they are certainly graphic novels that one could be snarky about (YMMV, of course), vast generalizations never help anyone. And the implication that graphic novels are somehow less than their prose cousins is insulting. It also implies that the reading of graphic novels does not require a great level of literacy. To borrow from Wikipedia's entry on literacy, 'The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defines literacy as the "ability to identify, understand, interpret, create, communicate, compute and use printed and written materials associated with varying contexts. Literacy involves a continuum of learning in enabling individuals to achieve their goals, to develop their knowledge and potential, and to participate fully in their community and wider society."' Huh. From where I sit, that sounds very much like the skills one needs to read a graphic novel.

While I applaud Dr. Bova for pointing out how critically important literacy is, I wish he wouldn't pick on other literary forms in an effort to strengthen his argument.

Von

On the Sony Reader, the Sony Reader Store, and, of course, how they fail

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:02:00 PDT

As some of you know, I like reading ebooks. Oddly, perhaps, I don't read full length novels or non-fiction titles. I do, however, read a great amount of articles, blog posts and essays in a variety of formats. PDF and ePub are my two main formats of choice, partially because of how easy they are to read from and partially because I use the fantastic Calibre ebook management program to convert a lot of documents from my laptop to my trusty Sony Reader PRS-300.

For those who don't know, the PRS-300 uses e-ink technology to render text and graphic elements into very readable text. The beauty of e-ink is that it only needs to use electricity when the screen initially refreshes. That maximizes power and ensures that on a single charge the battery lasts for weeks. And I use it pretty much daily and I don't recharge it regularly at all. The other big advantage is that the screen is not back lit. That means you can read it in broad daylight and in direct sunshine without any of the glare issues that a typical monitor screen has. Ever try to look at your cell phone or iPod in direct sunlight? Notice how hard it is to see anything? Not an issue with e ink.

Now, comics can be read on the Sony Reader and other portable devices, but until the iPad reading them was a frustrating experience. It's very difficult to read the full page and the generally requires reading on a panel by panel basis. ComiXology has, I think, led the way in creating reflowable graphics on devices like the iPhone and iTouch, but the equivalent doesn't exist for the Sony Reader. For comic creators like myself, the only answer is to create unique and specific formatted comics for devices like the Sony Reader. Frankly, it is a crazy amount of work. I design and draw my comics for print. To reformat a page so that it is readable on a device like the Sony Reader means that I have to digitally break-up the page and reformat each panel. The problem is that a particular panel may have been meant to be read quickly or otherwise skimmed over while another panel on the same page has much more importance. In comics, artists show this importance by using relative sign. This is one of the unique characteristics that make comics

comics

and is fundamentally different to other visual mediums like film or TV. With the Sony Reader, each panel becomes a screen and each screen has exactly the same dimensions. The headache this presents can't be underestimated. And this doesn't go into re-lettering and the like. Yikes!

The examples below, all from Stargazer, hopefully show what I mean.

Original page from Stargazer:

Modified pages for the ebook:

See what I mean? LOADS of work.

Now, the print edition of Stargazer is slowly but surely making its way into distributors and stores worldwide. It is already distributed by companies like Ingram, Follett and Brodart. And Diamond, the largest comic distributor in the world, recently agreed to distribute it to comic book stores. On the ebook front, things have been slower. Much slower. I did get the first part of it converted and uploaded for Kindle users. And, being a fan of the Sony Reader, I contacted the Sony Reader Store regarding distribution of an ebook version optimized for the Sony Reader.

I didn't hear back for awhile. Then I received the following form letter from them via the Sony Reader Store today:

Nice, huh? Now, Sony obviously has the right to select any publisher they'd like to work with and reject the rest. However, a couple of factors need to be considered. Firstly, Smashwords uses a process called "meat grinder" to convert uploaded files into various formats. Meat grinder, unfortunately, is terrible at handling graphics (see comments). On top of it, there's a 5 meg upload cap; that's a lot for a text-based ebook but unsuitable for graphics intensive ebooks like comics and graphic novels. Owner Mark Coker has indicated that this might change one day, but as far as I know they are not close to coming up with a solution.

Author Solutions is even worse. They are the parent company of vanity POD publishers AuthorHouse and iUniverse. There are a lot of concerns about all three groups online (some samples are here, here and here). I'll leave it to each of you to come to your own conclusions about them.

More to the point, I am my own publisher. I've registered my business and conduct business under the Von Allan Studio name. I've secured my ISBNs for both the print and ebook versions of my work and I have distribution agreements with some of the largest companies in the world. While I'm small, the two suggestions that were in the Sony Reader Store email are both unsuitable for me for logistical and ethical reasons. Unfortunately, Sony does not allow any further dialogue. The email address that they used to send me the form letter included the following note at the end, "Please do not attempt to reply to this email message. This mailbox will not accept incoming messages." From their point of view, that's that. From mine? Well, it's tough. Form emails that don't further a discussion are somewhat rude and unprofessional from where I sit. Not to mention cold.

Worse, I don't get a sense at all that they evaluated my work on its own merit. They aren't rejecting the content of what I'm submitting. They're rejecting me because of my size. Now, in the past when the logistics of publishing was larger and more complex, I could easily see why something like this could happen. I've been a book retailer and I'm keenly aware of the costs and problems of distribution. Note carefully, though, that ebooks are changing this rapidly. The files are digital. The digital housing costs minimal. Yes, the accounting side of it is still complex. However, not so complex that the Ingram's and Diamond's of the world don't want to deal with me.

Unfortunately, with the door closed to further communication, I'm left scratching my head. The ball is in Sony's court. I would encourage them to talk with me rather than to me. And realize that both Smashwords and Author Solutions are not solutions at all.

Ballpoint pen and ink sketches

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:24:00 PDT

Mucking around with ballpoint pen is a handy way to sketch, mainly because the lines aren't erasable. When I first stated playing with it, that fact made me very cautious. As I loosened up, though, and got into it, I realized I didn't care. Being gestural and loose is far more important than worrying about how permanent the lines are.

And it's damn fun, too. A great way to warm up with quick thumbnail type gesture sketches and a different take on doing lifedrawing. Sometimes I will work from photos very quickly, as the images below show, and other times I'll be more methodical. Regardless, ballpoint pen really opens up some doors to creativity.

Stargazer trailer

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 07:57:00 PDT

The trailer for Stargazer, my new graphic novel, is now available.

More information about Stargazer can be found on the official website at http://stargazer.vonallan.com

Supergirl Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Von Allan) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:31:00 PDT

These are a few more illustrated pinups featuring Supergirl. I really enjoy drawing and inking pinups that act as individual little stories and I think these two pieces fit the bill. And it gave me a chance to illustrate vehicles, something I don't often do. The first piece features F14 fighter jets and while they may be antiquated now, I have a soft spot for the design of these aircraft. The second piece features what's probably my favourite car in the entire world - a '69 Dodge Charger. Damn, I love that car. Modern cars may be the safest yet, but design-wise they leave me cold. There's just something missing with today's cars. This is going to sound odd, but car design today reminds me of how sterile post-World War II car design was. Safe? Sure. Inspired? No way.

Some other Supergirl drawings can be found at http://www.vonallan.com/2010/06/supergirl.html