Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

GOVERNANCE TRANSFORMATION

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

WaPo

is the Subregional print medium of record serving the Subregion that is the location of the capital of the US of A. Fulfilling its role, WaPo serves up a regular diet of federal Agency misdeeds.

Today it is SBA on the front page – billions in contracts awarded to the wrong size Enterprises. Name a federal Agency that has not violated laws and regulations is the past few years – EPA, Interior, Defense, FERC, FEMA, DHS, ICE, the legislature, the court system – the list is exhaustive and exhausting.

These violations of law and regulations are not problems of BIG government, they are problems of BAD government and dysfunctional governance structure.

These violations of law and regulations are not violations of some abstract philosophical ideology of governance, they are violations the laws establishing the Agencies and the regulations they promulgate and are responsible to implement.

Neither the Elephant Clan nor the Donkey Clan have shown they can govern under the current structure. Polls indicate that citizens believe the current administration is the worst in since modern communications made widespread knowledge of “national events” accessible to the majority in the Ziggurat.

Nothing will change until there is a Fundamental Transformation in governance structure and that requires citizen understanding of the organic structure of human settlement patterns so that governance structure can reflect economic, social and physical reality.

Without Fundamental Transformation the future of democracy with a market economy is bleak. The current trajectory is unsustainable.

Did someone say that banks were going to use the bailout money to expand rather than unfreeze credit?

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

15 responses to “GOVERNANCE TRANSFORMATION”

  1. Rabbit Avatar
    Rabbit

    “These violations of law and regulations are not problems of BIG government, they are problems of BAD government and dysfunctional governance structure.”

    I disagree to the extent that big gov’t is part of the problem. Whenever administration of a function is removed so far from function, the overhead begins to exceed productivity.

    Where does this Fundamental Transformation kick off? What can your readers do to instigate the uprising? Personally, I’m working on building a sustainable settlement outside the city to serve as a model for better management of resources.

  2. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Name a federal Agency that has not violated laws and regulations is the past few years – EPA, Interior, Defense, FERC, FEMA, DHS, ICE, the legislature, the court system – the list is exhaustive and exhausting. “

    You ever try to get anything bought or sold under government procurement regulations? There are frequently conflicitng requirements. It’s no wonder suppliers and buyers bend the rules: otherwise you can’t get anything done.

    This falls in the category of The Little Prince: “If I order you to jump over the moon, and you do not do it, then whose fault is that?”

    The reason that the list of “violators” is so long is that the regualtions are exhaustive, and exhausting.

    Rabbit has it exactly: you get to where the overhead and transaction costs are more than the value received out of the regulation. It might have been a good and noble idea to ease lending standards to prevent redlining, but now we can see that the cost of unintended consequences far outweighed the value of that reg.

    But, since we have proven over an over again that we can’t trust humans, we have no choice but to trust to the regs.

    RH

  3. Rabbit Avatar
    Rabbit

    “But, since we have proven over an over again that we can’t trust humans, we have no choice but to trust to the regs.”

    Could be, RH, but I’m convinced the answer lies in EMR’s “New Urban Region” model. The city gov’t here in Richmond isn’t the most effective, but there’s a helluva lot more accountability when I have elected officials I can talk to on the telephone, see on the street, and have much closer dealings with government entities. Expand the city to encompass the effective regional area, divorce our economy from the failing federal model as much as possible, and rely on the feds as little as possible… become a sustainable, self-supporting region with a robust base of economic and civic activity.

    When EMR talks about “Fundamental Transformation” I think of shifting power from the wasteful federal gov’t model to more efficient regional governments.

    It starts with transparency, and that’s also a whole lot easier to achieve on a regional level than a federal one. Federal gov’t should exist for those needs for which there is consensus among constituent regions. Note I say “consensus” and not “majority vote”. The fewer nationwide directives, and the more supported those directives are, the more efficiently they will be carried out.

    If Virginia, South Carolina, and Arizona’s populous urban regions want to go to war with Iraq, but no other regions do, then let the proponents coordinate the work and foot the bill. Consensus is a powerful conservative force, and there’s little enough conservation in our governments.

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Generally speaking, I agree with you. More smaller entities are more efficient than one big one. More places. Network vs Mainframe. Up to a point.

    Transparency is key, that means we need real metrics, and a lot less spin.

    But here is the problem, inefficient as the federal model is, it still has far more HP. It can get more done, even if there is more waste in the process.

    We would be waiting a long time for Richmond to launch the Space Station (and maybe rightfully so, but that’s a different issue.)

    And don’t forget, getting concensus is a hugely wasteful process. One of the things I consider when eveluating the risk of a project is the number of organiations and individuals involved.

    I’ve suggested that concensus means more than a majority vote. Even a small supermajority requirement, like 60% would mean that control would require concesnsus, and it would eliminate a lot of waste, feel-good projects, and pork.

    RH

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    rabbit said:

    "I disagree to the extent that big gov't is part of the problem."

    I do not think we disagree. It depends on ones defintion of "BIG" :>)

    If you mean by "BIG" the "highest level uber alles," then you are right.

    You will recall a first principle with SYNERGY is that the level of control (level of final decision) should be the level of impact.

    When there are multi-levels of impact — which there often are — there needs to be an intelligent sharing of decision making, not highest level wins.

    That is why the Community and the Region are so important. In the last analysis, for most Agency functions, what the levels above the Regional scale need to do is help Regions, not dictate or decide.

    What I find unfounded is the attack on the function of governace (Agency responsiblity) at all levels with "starve the beast / governemnt is bad" rhetoric.

    "Whenever administration of a function is removed so far from function, the overhead begins to exceed productivity."

    That is another good way to state what we mean.

    Your second post seems to me to be right on track.

    What readers can do is just what you are doing, and what I will be doing when TRILO-G is complete, working at the grass roots level.

    We have recently had some interesting conversations with elected who have been reading our work.

    Good luck with your work to create more functional governance.

    EMR

  6. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Whenever administration of a function is removed so far from function, the overhead begins to exceed productivity.”

    I can agree with that too, but the other kind of overhead is even worse: when you have too many levels, and every level has to sign off, out of fear of “losing power”. Hence Dillons Rule.

    RH

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Good discussion.

    but I'll point out a few things that folks often overlook when speaking of the wisdom of local governance and the evils of big government.

    Prescription Drugs – uniform standards, efficacy, labeling

    Automobiles – safety standards

    Food labeling and what kinds of contaminants can be in it at what levels

    Environment – remember when the big polluters would go to the states and localities with the most lax laws and the pollution would then flow through air and water to other localities who had no choice? a big equity issue.

    My point here is to just demonstrate some of the big government things that we take for granted.

    And even EMR would want a higher level Governance to have some control over the lower-level Regional governances.

    He would want and expect certain Dillon-like controls so that local Governance would not be able to "choose SPRAWL" as their preferred settlement pattern.

    And to a certain extent – every time a locally-elected BOS approves a low-density .. run-of-the-mill, cul-de-sac SFH on 1/2 acre…. you actually HAVE …. Local Governance…

    What EMR has not made clear (among quite a few things) is whether a "higher authority" would be needed keep a locally-elected BOS from approving inefficient settlement pattern proposals.

    For instance, EMR decries the higher government use of MSA designations…

    but what would you replace it with? local roll-your-own designations of what constitutes urban enclaves and where they can be or not be?

    Local Governance would be the mirror opposite of a Command & Control Governance…

    so.. we have EMR saying, in effect, that the local citizenry will rise up and demand that local BOS – no longer approve 1/3 acre subdivisions.

    On what planet will this happen?

    Bottom Line – I bet that no one from EMR down would REALLY want NO form of Federal or State Government.

    Can you just imagine getting a Prescription for a Drug that has different names and potencies in different localities?

    When you go to the Drug Store in Philadelphia you expect the same exact Prescription that you get in Appomattox Virginia – right?

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    To further add to this discussion.

    In the 1968, Virginia delineated and designated Planning Districts in Virginia.

    A Planning District Commission is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth chartered under the Regional Cooperation Act.

    The purpose:

    …””…to encourage and facilitate local government cooperation and state-local cooperation in addressing on a regional basis problems of greater than local significance. The cooperation resulting from this chapter is intended to facilitate the recognition and analysis of regional opportunities and take account of regional influences in planning and implementing public policies and services.

    The planning district commission shall also promote the orderly and efficient development of the physical, social and economic elements of the district by planning, and encouraging and assisting localities to plan, for the future.”

    http://www.vapdc.org/aboutpdcs.htm

    In 1992, the Feds codified a regional approach to transportation and indirectly, land-use planning) by creating MPO (Metropolitan Policy Organizations) and TMA – Transportation Management Areas and unlike the Va approach are arbitrarily designating mostly through Geography, the Feds had a much more precise and definitive approach that also recognized that urban agglomerations span political jurisdictional lines including State lines.

    “MPOs and TMAs are designated based on urbanized area population (50,000 threshold for MPOs and 200,000 threshold for TMAs). The Census Bureau plans to issue a Federal Register notice by February 2001 recommending a new definition of urbanized areas and urban clusters. (and a minimum density of 1000 people per acre).

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/c2000mem.htm

    Now, I would submit that the basis for Regional Governance already exists and the criteria for designation – fair game for folks like EMR to argue changes.

    In fact, what frustrates me about EMR is that he has the opportunity to compare and contrast his approach with the existing approaches to regional governance – after all it’s not like there is no approach at all – there is.

    and they use specific criteria – like thresholds of 50,000 and 200,000 people and densities of 1000 people per acre.

    I’d very much like to hear from EMR – why these criteria are not correct .. AND… if he were King – what criteria he would use and also .. what is it about the current Regional Governance Models for MPOs, TMAs and PDs (in Virginia) that is deficient and how he would change and improve them.

    This approach would provide a baseline that everyone could understand as a starting point and give EMR the perfect opportunity to further educate folks on the changes they should be advocating to these governance models as all of them do encourage and receive comments to improve their functionality.

    And a footnote.

    Mary Peters, the current Bush Administration Cabinet Head for the Department of Transportation advocates returning all Federal Gas Tax Revenues to the States and MPOs for them to locally decide the best use of those fuel tax revenues.

    She essentially agrees with Rabbit’s and EMR’s premise that regional governance does move decision-making closer to the folks who pay the taxes.

    Now.. I did not include RH in the above because while he agreed with the “idea” of moving decisions closer to the folks who pay – he also supports Federal and State taxing of fuels and advocates raising those taxes even if people are opposed to them.

    So… he needs to explain that contradiction.

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Excellent, Larry.

    RH

  10. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    Im afraid I would have to fall back on EMR’s old saw that people are not sufficiently educated. Virtually every econometrician extols the virtues of increasing fuel taxes to reduce auto usage and pollution, and fairly distribute the costs of road maintenance by usage and weight.

    People are opposed to it because they do not yet undersand that the alternatives will cost them far more. Plus their opposition is based on widely promoted and often believed total fallacies such as the idea that a relative handfull of long distance commuters are responsible for rush hour woes.

    As long as we have people deseminating agenda driven drivel to obscure the facts, we will never be able to omake good decisions, regardess of how many levels of government we install (and pay for).

    I will say this, there are also econometricians who extol the (theoretical) market virtues of congestion pricing. I don’t think they have considered all of what that will mean, or what it will cost. We can make either road taxes or fuel/energy taxes work, and work fairly, if we decide to, but that isn’t what we are doing. What we are doing is attempting to tax only the other guy.

    Government has a terrible time admitting when it is wrong. We are going to have 99 year leases for HOT lanes, and when we eventually figure out it was a mistake it will take 30 years to turn it around.

    I came from a town meeting form of government, and I recognize the value of being closer to you rrepresentatives. I’ve also seen the problems that can result: family control of a town, for example.

    If I was pushing for a fundamental change it would be this: ALL of my taxes go to my local government. Then if the state needs money, they can get it from them. When the feds need money they can get it from the state.

    Instead of having the inefficiency of six governments and twenty agencies coming after me individually.

    RH

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Not needed if costs are fairly allocated and there is comprehensive citizen education.”

    What if the vast majority remain clueless and fair allocation of costs turns out to support sprawl over compound-complex development?

    Shouldn,t we have a plan that plays to the forseeable odds instead of the fantastic and improbable?

    RH

  12. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry:

    Our post of 1:29 – the time stamp is an hour off – was filed in haste due to a 1:30 meeting.

    Here is an edited version that should be more clear.

    You repeatedly state that you do not understand EMR. Why then do you try to put words in his mouth?

    Here are some examples from your recent comment on this post:

    “I’ll point out a few things that folks often overlook when speaking of the wisdom of local governance and the evils of big government.”

    When did we overlook these?

    ………..

    “And even EMR would want a higher level Governance to have some control over the lower-level Regional governance.”

    There are many cases when a multi-Regional / MegaRegional / nation-state / continental or even Global standardization would be in the best interest of any New Urban Region. In other cases the multi-regional interest may over ride the New Urban Region interest. What have you seen by EMR that would suggest otherwise? Level of control at level of impact with a democratic process when multi-levels are impacted.

    …………..

    “He would want and expect certain Dillon-like controls so that local Governance would not be able to “choose SPRAWL” as their preferred settlement pattern.”

    The use of “local” a Core Confusing Word makes this sentence meaningless. What level of governance are you referring to?

    …………….

    “And to a certain extent – every time a locally-elected BOS approves a low-density .. run-of-the-mill, cul-de-sac SFH on 1/2 acre…. you actually HAVE …. Local Governance…”

    Two “locals”.

    Without a fair allocation of location-variable costs and a governance structure that reflects economic, social and physical reality any discussion of what is reasonable or functional is an abstraction.

    …………..

    “What EMR has not made clear (among quite a few things) is whether a “higher authority” would be needed keep a locally-elected BOS from approving inefficient settlement pattern proposals.”
    EMR has made this very clear if you read the material referenced when you first asked this question the first time.
    ………..

    “For instance, EMR decries the higher government use of MSA designations…”

    No, again we believe a structure that reflects economic, social and physical reality would be much different than the current arbitrary, municipal border and state line designations.

    …………

    “so.. we have EMR saying, in effect, that the local citizenry will rise up and demand that local BOS – no longer approve 1/3 acre subdivisions.”

    “On what planet will this happen?”

    Two more “locals” On no planet until citizens have a rational governace structure a fair allocation of costs and a comprehensive Conceptual Framework with a robust Vocabulary with which to come to an understanding of their own best interest.

    When you set up strawpersons they are easy to burn down.

    ………………

    “Bottom Line – I bet that no one from EMR down would REALLY want NO form of Federal or State Government.”

    Where do you find a statement that would support this attack on EMR?

    Larry, you need to read what EMR says about governance structure from Global to Cluster in “The Shape of the Future” before you attack. The MSA, CMSA, MPO, PDC, Zip Code, Area Code, data base issues are also addressed.

    As we said, you repeatedly state that you do not understand EMR then you put words in his mouth and wonder why they do not make sense.

    Have a nice day.

    EMR

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    EMR continues his fan dance.

    We already have a democratic governance with respect to settlement patterns.

    EMR does not agree with the current approach …

    We have “locally-elected” governance and no matter how many times EMR states that “local” is a core confusing word – it IS, in fact, the vernacular of most folks including those whose professions deal with decisions that affect settlement patterns.

    I provided some existing examples of regional governance that already exist – and the criteria that they use and wondered why these existing bodies are not, in fact, appropriate places to start if we think more regional approaches to settlement patterns are desired.

    Instead of responding – on the topic – on the subject – comparing and contrasting the existing regional bodies verses the ones that EMR advocates – he.. as usual.. chooses NOT to use that opportunity to show those who read here – the differences between how we do business now and what changes need to be made…

    … which is the kind of information that citizens would need if they want to seek changes … what EMR blathers on …. “fundamental transformation” and citizens rising up and demanding more functional settlement patterns.

    In other words, what specific things should citizens “demand” to their elected officials and which ones?

    or… should citizens be advocating a more regional perspective on settlement patterns – as the State via PDs and the MPOs via MSAs have pursued.

    All EMR can manage is to slam questions about his concepts and how they related to current conditions … he considers questions – “attacks” … rather than opportunities to answer questions, compare and contrast and take the discussion to higher levels where folks have a better understanding of what he advocates .. and more important, how to advocate for changes in the current kinds of governance.

    I’m coming to the conclusion that he has his ideas but he is basically clueless on how to reconcile his concepts with the current situation in terms of change.

    For instance, I keep asking him.. where does the private automobile fit into his concepts – especially if it is an electric one that does not depend on foreign oil, and, in fact, may be powered from GREEN energy.

    his answer? ZIP… back to the fan dance

  14. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    If he ever drops the last fan, its going to be ugly.

    RH

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I think the basic logic behind what EMR espouses is readily apparent and most folks would agree – a desireable goal.

    But there are implementation issues especially with regard to how to transform the existing built environment – like what the Tysons Task force is trying to accomplish – at least their stated mission.

    EMR then posits that it is "too late" for Tysons… but he really does not go into the reasons why it is "too late" nor does he offer contrasting information about other places that where it is not "too late" and they are still viable candidates for transformation.

    Then he starts getting into all of this stuff about how cars are a big problem (true) but he will not answer the question about what the role of the private automobile (a GREEN fuel auto) might be (or not) in functional settlement patterns.

    So he leaves out major parts of his vision that would help others better understand exactly what he is advocating – whether they might agree or not with him – they would know what he is advocating….

    … and in the longer run, a better collective understanding – AND, perhaps as important, contributions from others on different ways to approach the "sticky wickets" that are tougher nuts to resolve.

    I don't think EMR ..even when he uses the "we" has all the answers worked out so instead of saying so… admitting it…it, at least appears that, he chooses to not talk about it… and I think he owes the folks who take the time to read what he writes – to respond with further details including the implementation issues that are not yet fully resolved.

    It certainly would be helpful to have some idea of what the private automobile's role might be in a Functional Settlement pattern.

    Knowing that would help everyone understand just how near (or far away) functional settlement patterns might be and the gradual steps that may be necessary in the interim.

    But I'm not a fan of gloom & doom scenarios as the anticipated answer to some issues.

    For instance, as bad as oil and coal are in some different respects, the reality is that they are going to be around for a long, long time.

    Just think how much longer oil will be around if we double the average gas mileage of cars by converting them to hybrids or even plug-ins….

    so cars.. are simply not going to go away anytime in the next 100 years and probably longer than that.

    so does that mean that functional settlement patterns will have to wait for the demise of the auto to "work"?

    No.

    But it does mean you have to deal with their existence in any more optimized settlement pattern scenario – which is what the Tysons Task force is struggling with.

    So.. I believe that true/better solutions will acknowledge and accept the inevitable role of the auto and also the fact that even if "oil" as a fuel becomes scarce or even runs out that the basic functional mobility of automobiles will remain valuable and maintain strong appeal as long as it is possible to have "fuel" for them and it seems clear to me that they provide personal mobility – to go whenever you want to wherever you want and I just can't see people willingly giving up such personal mobility unless there are just no was to have it at all.

    Any functional settlement pattern that is PREDICATED exclusively on ONLY non-private multi-passenger vehicles is fantasy IMHO.

    If EMR AGREEs then I would like to hear from him as to what he sees .. as the role of the private automobile…

Leave a Reply

Read More