Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

BY DEFINITION

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

In a comment following the 18 March post “ON THE ECONOMY” Anon 12:00 PM said…

“Functional human settlement patterns will solve all our problems – by definition.”

He / she was, perhaps, doing a funny but they have a point.

We are painfully aware that many – ranging from advocates of remineralization; to vegetarians; to enforcers of family values; to those who advocate the right to carry concealed weapons into PTA meetings – suggest if everyone would just do as they suggest “all our problems will be solved.”

That is why we spent over a decade writing The Shape of the Future and why PART TWO (Chapters 5 thru 14) spellS out in detail the economic, social and physical impacts of dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

So far no one has disputed the reality of these impacts. They have disputed the collective will of citizens to do anything about them.

It is silly to say functional human settlement patterns will solve “all our problems.” It is accurate to say that functional settlement patterns will facilitate solving many problems like the Mobility and Access Crisis and the Affordable and Accessible Housing Crisis that underlie the current financial market turmoil.

What is more, as documented by Chapter 23 of The Shape of the Future, evolving functional human settlement patterns is the first step on the road to creating a sustainable trajectory for civilization.

Even with functional human settlement patterns there are some complicating factors such as human genetic proclivities and the question:

Will the genetic proclivities that got humans to this point keep them from going farther?

And, what IS “farther?”

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m glad you enjoyed the humor and picked up on idea of the failures associated with the balkanization of single issue politics.

    “Theories provide questions.
    Data provides the answers.”

    RH

  2. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    EMR –

    It would be very interesting to pick a real (pretty dysfunctional) place like Tyson’s or Springfield and outline how more functional settlement patterns would work. What does it look like and how does it work vs. what should it look like and how should it work?

    Just an idea.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Anonymous 2:03, I deleted your comment for the use of inappropriate language. I appreciate the fact that you like my posts, but I do insist that you maintain a civil attitude toward all the contributors. If you don’t like someone’s post, you are more than welcome to explain why — but in civil terms. Thanks.

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    I have a post outlined that deals with the Congestion Pricing posts of the last few days.

    I hope to have time to get it up this weekend. I will try to tie in your question.

    The key is Balance at all the component scales.

    The execution is “easy” once all the particpants (Agencies, Enterprises, Institutions and citizens / Households) understand that functional settlement patterns will benefit their short and long term interests.

    I looked at the two alternative plans for Tysons to come out next month yesterday. A lot of good ideas but nothing on Balance.

    All “grid streets” and “pedestrian friendly” without quantification to calibrate Balance.

    EMR

  5. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “The execution is “easy” once all the particpants…”.

    There are no easy answers but there are simple answers.

    I wish I could take credit for that comment myself, but I can’t.

    Today’s quiz: Whose quote is it?

  6. Michael Ryan Avatar
    Michael Ryan

    And for all of us left wondering just what in the world you are talking about (re: The Shape of the Future) for only $35 from amazon.com…

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That would be Ronald Reagan’s quote, which I suspect was adapted from H.L. Menken’s :

    “There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat,
    plausible, and wrong.”

    Which I have alse seen restated as

    “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple–and wrong.”

    And then there is the famous misquotation of it which reads:

    “Complex Problems have simple, easy-to-understand wrong answers”

    RH

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: fundamental change and WHERE dense development occurs (and where it does not)

    One of the most important things that is necessary for density of the scope and scale for balanced communities is public water and sewer.

    We often tend to take this for granted in terms of geography but the reality is that water/sewer cannot be located independent of receiving streams and more to the point – how much sewage such streams can accommodate.

    What this means is that the number of household units is directly limited by the amount of discharge that is allowed. (Most planners use about 300 gals per household per day).

    But read this:

    “Warrenton development company offers to build 2.5 million-gallon sewerage plant for Culpeper County”

    [Culpeper is an outlying suburb of NoVa]

    …”officials say will serve the county’s needs for the next 50 years.”

    ….” [private company] says it can do the job for about $90 million and get its original investment back–plus interest at an as-yet-undetermined rate–from future sewer taps. Those taps would cost at least $25,000 each.”

    http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/032008/03232008/365500/index_html?page=2

    Here’s some things that we also know:

    * – Virginia’s DEQ granted a specific wastewater allocation that is the basis of the proposal.

    That allocation has the effect of PRECLUDING other allocations in this same geographic area.

    In other words – a decision has been made to target dense growth here vice somewhere else.

    That decision to develop in this specific place was driven by two things

    * – the availability of the allocation

    * – a “developable” location currently undeveloped

    BR Blog discussions about location-specific subsides and costs in often range far and wide but one of the elemental “enablers” of density ..IS… the availability or non-availability of water/sewer…

    One cannot just put a mark on a map… geography and existing development direct WHERE.

    Virginia’s DEQ has a bigger role in where water/sewer is allowed that is commonly understood.

    As important.. is the idea that places like NoVa can further “boost” their current density by Transit Oriented Development – almost as if there were no limiting factors with regard to water/sewer availability.

    Which is not true.

    How much “more” NoVa can develop is not only limited by it’s road network and congestion (HOT lanes or no).. it is limited by it’s sewage allocation which.. by the way.. is operated by an unelected regional authority (I thought I’d throw that in for “free”).

    To conclude: Balanced Communities, NURs, and the like can not be plopped down anywhere. Further.. they cannot be expanded while outer jurisdiction “farmland” is “preserved” because if you pick the right “place” – you can indeed receive an allocation for water/sewer in outer jurisdictions ..at the same time.. that increases of water/sewer may be capped or limited in places like NoVa.

  9. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    further fodder for Sunday:

    “Do-it-Yourself Sewage Treatment
    the Wave of the Future?”

    ….

    The entire system carried a $37,000 price tag,

    http://www.gradingandexcavation.com/ow_0511_do.html

    This is not pie-in-the-sky technology. Read the article.

    This is technology currently in use in places that do not have access to municipal water/sewer and a septic field is not possible.

    Consider also – that such systems could be where water supplies are limited also..

    The 37K price is only 12K more than what the Culpeper developer though he would receive for a per-home hook-up.

    Now the article was entitled: “the Wave of the Future” but I would ask EMR if it could have been entitled: “The SHAPE of the future”.

    But I would also ask all the property rights folks – if this technology could be the answer to the proverbial “zoning is the wrong approach to land development” question?

    Think about this in terms of steep slopes and impermeable soils….

    Think about Transit Oriented Development.. independent of water/sewer availability….

    Question: how important or unimportant is the concept of zero-discharge sewage systems to Fundamental Change?

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, Larry, but it is possible, with today’s technology, to clean sewage water to drinkable condition before it is released. One California jurisdiction is already doing it.

    There is plenty of technology available for home or small scale sewage treatment systems. They are limited primarily by regulation and classification.

    Frequently they are classified as “experimental” or some such. this means they can’t be used enough to ever become un-experimental, and really, it is a way to keep the monopoly for the water and sewer district or limit growth.

    We are eventually come around to the recognition that property rights and property responsibilities go hand in hand. We cannot go around taking away property rights and enforcing more responsibilities indefinitely.

    RH

  11. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Groveton:

    You said:

    “The execution is “easy” once all the particpants…”.

    There are no easy answers but there are simple answers.

    In general I would agree with you about no easy answers but in this case it applies because getting to that point will not be easy.

    I was hoping to wrap an answer into another item but ran out of time.

    As to Tysons a first step in evolving functional settlement patterns would be to get the majority of the citizens of all the components of Greater Tysons Corner to agree they were part of the potential Alpha Community and thus need to be part of the process and solution.

    The majority of the citizens in the Beta Village of McLean think they are a lower density version of Georgetown and are most closely associated with K Street, Capital Hill and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Those in the Beta Village of Vienna think…

    Hope you get the drift. Just do not have time to persue this but if we could get the broad understanding we suggested, the solution would be “easy.”

    At least easier than what is being attemped.

    EMR

  12. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    “Now the article was entitled: “the Wave of the Future” but I would ask EMR if it could have been entitled: “The SHAPE of the future”.”

    We do not have time to address this fully either but…

    The self contained system is not new.

    If you look at the end of the info / ad you cited there is a picture of the apparatus.

    Not a lot of folks want to deal with this sort of technology: composting waste in the basement, grey water lines running around the house, etc.

    Where this system would work very well would be on a three acre parcel half a block off Main Street. Put in 30 dewlling units over a two level parking garage. Give the owners a thirty year warrenty and a maintainace agreement paid for by an HOA fee.

    The infill would generate no more waste than the two houses and the parking lot that now occupy the space.

    Infill, refill, backfill!!

    Evole functional settlement patterns inside the Clear Edge.

    When the full cost of failing septic tank / cesspool is allocated to account for the external impact, some may retrofit but this technology will not “shape” the future.

    EMR

  13. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    One of the high-profile benchmarks that differentiate so called civilized settlements from 3rd world settlement patterns is the provision of a public water supply and the treatment of waste.

    In fact, the earliest attempts a urban patterns of settlement were directly threatened by the failure to deal effective with waste.

    EMR’s NURs and Balanced communities are totally dependent on the concept of waste treatment and the availability of a safe public water supply.

    Without them – dense urban settlement would result in unfit living conditions.

    The question is – is this a location variable issue?

    and if it is – then are we saying that paying significant money for water/sewer in urban areas is NOT a subsidy?

    or are we saying that well&septic for “scatterization” IS a subsidy?

    I say that neither of them are and that in both situations you need them.

    and yet..it appears to be that we use a double-standard in assessing the need for water/sewer.

    It would appear to me that as long as urban areas are dependent on rivers for dumping sewage effluent that we cannot locate urban areas anywhere that we want – like so many lego components.

    We are, in fact, without total recycling of water/sewer depending on a geographic location variable in making decisions about urban settlement patterns.

    no?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “are we saying that paying significant money for water/sewer in urban areas is NOT a subsidy?

    or are we saying that well&septic for “scatterization” IS a subsidy?

    I say that neither of them are and that in both situations you need them.

    and yet..it appears to be that we use a double-standard in assessing the need for water/sewer.”

    Thank you, Larry. Well said.

    We can clean up sewage effluent until it is clean enough to dump anywhere, or reuse. We can create clean water out of unusable water. but all of this takes a lot of energy.

    We ship energy from places where there is a surplus to places where there is excess demand. We ship food and other materialas form places where there is a surplus to places where there is excess demand. These are places that cannot meet their own needs, and we call them cities. Then, after we ship them all they need, and haul away the refuse, clean their sewage, provide heroic transportation systems, etc. etc. we claim that such places are energy efficient.

    Double standard? I’d say so.

    Such a claim is just a ruse the real intention of which is the prevention of “sprawl”. But, when you see sentiments like TMT’s “Save Fairfax, Pave the Piedmont.” you also see there are limits to what people will put up with.

    RH

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Sorry that my last response to you was rushed and therefore not complete.

    I have tried to be more comprehensive in dealing with your follow-up statements and questions:

    At 9:30 AM Larry Gross said:

    “One of the high-profile benchmarks that differentiate so called civilized settlements from 3rd world settlement patterns is the provision of a public water supply and the treatment of waste.”

    Very true, urban patterns depend on water and sewer services plus energy and information and another 36 +/- to meet contemporary urban needs.

    “In fact, the earliest attempts a urban patterns of settlement were directly threatened by the failure to deal effective with waste.”

    I love it when you talk history! You are right. Also note that from around 3,000 BC onward there are written records of rules and regulations on how to treat waste. Roman Planned New Communities had model systems and model regulations…

    As we recall, in 16th century England a commoner could be beheaded for violating air pollution and dumping regulations…

    “EMR’s NURs and Balanced communities are totally dependent on the concept of waste treatment and the availability of a safe public water supply.”

    Very true — and along with the other location-variable necessities of contemporary life — it cost 10 times as much per dwelling to live outside the Clear Edge when all costs are fairly allocated.

    “Without them – dense urban settlement would result in unfit living conditions.”

    Not just “dense.” Dumping trash and failed septic system overflow “over the bank” from a 2, 5, 10, 50 or 100 acre lot and into the stream is “unfit,” especially for those down stream.

    “The question is – is this a location variable issue?”

    Very much so because of the total cost of shared vs stand alone systems.

    “and if it is – then are we saying that paying significant money for water/sewer in urban areas is NOT a subsidy?”

    It is a “subsidy” in the global sense but as with all urban services it is a cost that is required to create safe, happy citizens and thus one that has been deemed worth paying, especially over the past 13,000 years.

    “or are we saying that well&septic for “scatterization” IS a subsidy?”

    Well and septic without fair allocation of total cost is a subsidy for individuals with no benefit for society in general because for urban citizens there is a far (10 times) cheaper alternative.

    “I say that neither of them are and that in both situations you need them.”

    And we say if they are paid for and there are no externalities that is fine.

    For those involved in nonurban activities — farmers, foresters hunter / gatherers creating safe, healthful recycling alternatives to which the nonurban citizen contributes time and effort the cost can be quite low.

    For urban citizens who lack the interest, time and expretees and so require regular services and to be sure they do the job completely an inspection system the cost is far higher.

    This is where our prior answer was not complete.

    It is a matter of cost. The package system you cited costs far more if it has to be supported.

    That is why we suggest it is a great Main Street solution (i.e. inside the Clear Edge) not a Countryside solution. And for this reason will not, if costs are fairly allocated, “Shape the Future.”

    See note at end with clipping from yesterday’s WaPo.

    “and yet..it appears to be that we use a double-standard in assessing the need for water/sewer.”

    Not if full costs are allocated.

    “It would appear to me that as long as urban areas are dependent on rivers for dumping sewage effluent that we cannot locate urban areas anywhere that we want – like so many lego components.”

    There can be full recirculation systems that require no “dumping” but they cost much more than collective ones that do have effluent.

    “We are, in fact, without total recycling of water/sewer depending on a geographic location variable in making decisions about urban settlement patterns.”

    Yes but that is not a problem because there is already far more land devoted to urban land use that can be used by any population that could be supported with foreseeable technology.

    The challenge is to rebuild and reuse that urban land in functional patterns and densities.

    “no?”

    Sorry, “NO.”

    For a fresh take on the issue see “Supervisors Consider Banning Alternative Sewage Systems” in WaPo for 27 March 2008 re Loudoun County.

    The story is muddled by failure to understand the above realities and typical He Said, She Said “Journalism” but you will get the drift.

    Bottome line is that inside the Clear Edge the cost is 10 times lower per household for all location variable goods and services.

    Rational policy would dictate that citizens provide urban services as effeciently as possible.

    For those who want to pay the full cost, go for it!

    However, do not expect subsides to pay for direct or indirect (e.g externalities) impacts.

    This is a hard lesson for the 12 1/2 Percenters but it is reality.

    EMR

  16. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Via e-mail Larry Gross responded on 28 March:

    “Thanks Ed…. good answers…

    “so … the liquid waste that is dumped in rivers – including hormones and the solid waste (the sludge) that has to be trucked to the landfill and/or spread on fields… is “cheaper” than a well & septic system?”

    Yes, far, far less expensive because the cost of sperating out the part deemed harmful and just dumping it into the ground water, and inspecting the system to be sure it is working is not in the current cost of a well and septic system. It is treated as an externality.

    “Most water/sewer hookups now days run 10-30K… most septic systems can be constructed on the low end of that…”

    When you add the full costs for individual systems, regardless of the technology the cost is far higher.

    “Without full recycling of water/sewer .. aren’t urban areas “subsidized” by the pollution that rivers have to absorb?”

    No, the public system costs are far lower for the same level of protection of the surface and ground water systems.

    EMR

Leave a Reply

Read More