Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A NOTE ON GROVETON’S OBSERVATION

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Groveton travels a lot, observes a lot and offers a number of good perspectives.

On 6:09 PM 6 March in a comment on Jim Bacon’s post “Virginia’s Nuclear Power Cluster Just got Bigger, Groveton noted:

“4. In the early part of America’s history Virginia was the most populous colony / state. It was an economic, political and intellectual center in the US. However, after peaking in about 1790, Virginia started a steady decline in power and importance. None of that decline had anything to do with the location of Washington, DC. It was simple sloth and neglect combined with Jefferson’s misbelief that cities were evil places that should be avoided and discouraged. He didn’t get many wrong – but he sure got that one wrong.”

Some may not understand how important this reality is to Virginia’s chance of achieving a sustainable economic, social and physical trajectory.

One manifestation of the historical context Groveton articulates is that Virginia has always ended up favoring individual freedom over community responsibilities. Sustainability requires a Balance between the two in an urban, much less Global, society. The last nonurban society disappeared in New Guinea years ago – or was the last one in Brazil?

The second manifestation of Groveton’s observation is that there has been and continues to be an anti-urban bias build into the Commonwealth’s Constitution, governance structure, legislation and especially the infrastructure.

I recall a dinner in Richmond where members of several of Main Street’s leading families – and thus Richmond’s leading families as this was 25 years ago – each identified themselves by the plantation / hamlet in the Countryside with which their family (or their spouse) was associated before the Civil War.

In an urban society a nonurban orientation is not springboard for success.

Something to think about on a rainy weekend.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Oh, boy, I can see a most vigorous debate arising from Groveton’s characterization of Virginia’s historic decline and Ed’s gloss on it. I would take issue with both.

    Groveton attributes Virginia’s relative decline to “sloth and neglect” and an anti-urban bias.

    I would attribute Virginia’s relative decline in the first half of the 19th century to the institution of slavery. In the northern, free states, the combination of free labor and abundant land gave rise to rural labor shortages, which in turn spurred the rapid mechanization of farms. Thus, we saw that the world’s first harvesting machine was invented by Cyrus McCormick in the Shenandoah Valley, but McCormick moved to Chicago (I believe) and founded International Harvester. Because farm labor was scarce, northern farmers substituted capital for labor. Thus, northern farms became the most productive in the world. There were some highly productive farms in Virginia as well, particularly in the Valley, which was known as the breadbasket of the Confederacy during the Civil War, so it’s not as if this process entirely passed Virginia by. But, to the extent that plantations in Virginia’s tidewater and piedmont were wedded to slavery, they did not participate in the surge of agricultural productivity. To recap: the problem was slavery, not some vague “sloth and neglect.”

    Meanwhile, industrialization did, in fact, take root in Virginia. Richmond, in particular, boomed during the ante-bellum era as a center of industry. There were flour mills, iron foundries and many other manufactures. Richmond was a railroad hub, and coal was mined in nearby Midlothian. For those who suffer from historical amnesia, Richmond was the largest, most important manufacturing city of all the Southern states at that time. That’s why the Confederate States of America moved their capital there, and that’s why so much of the Civil War revolved around the North’s effort to capture the city. Bottom line: As of 1860, Virginia had lost relative standing to other states, but it still was one of the more populous and wealthy states in the country — it was the wealthiest state of all the slave states. The reason that it was the wealthiest of the slave states was not that it owned more slaves but that it had developed the largest non-slave economy.

    Now, let’s examine what happened by 1865. Virginia had been a battleground for four years. The slaves, a major source of wealth, had been emancipated. Richmond, the major industrial center, had been burned to the ground. Virtually every farm and plantation had been stripped bare — hogs and cows eaten, horses conscripted, fences burned for firewood. A large segment of the working-age male population had been killed during the war; many of those who survived had limbs amputated. Furthermore, the Commonwealth of Virginia had accumulated massive war-related debts. Unlike many (most?) other states, which repudiated their war-related debt, Virginia honored its debt. The debt issue was huge during the mid-late 1800s. Paying off that debt obligation was a massive burden and drag on the economy. Call it what you will, but that determination to honor the war debt cannot be attributed to “sloth and neglect.”

    Needless to say, a war-devastated Virginia saddled by massive debt was not well positioned to prosper during the Guilded Era that created so much wealth elsewhere in the country. The problem Mr. Groveton, sir, was neither “sloth and neglect” nor a nostalgic aversion to urbanity.

    Although slavery no long exerted a drag on the economy, Virginia still struggled with its aftermath, the rise of the Jim Crow laws that relegated the African-American population to the economic margins. But that was tied to issues of slavery and race, not a general lassitude.

    Virginia’s economy eventually did recover. But the post-Civil War era represented the nadir of the state’s history. It’s been a long, hard slog since then… more than 140 years. (I will spare you a recap of Virginia’s economic history over that period, but the Commonwealth had several bursts of entrepreneurial vitality in places as unlikely as Danville, Martinsville and the far southwest coalfields, now considered economic backwaters.) Over that time, Virginia has crawled its way back up the ladder of prosperity. Per capita incomes now rank 9th or 10th in the country.

    Now, some may contend that Virginia owes its high standing in the national averages to Northern Virginia. And that is true to a significant degree. But one must ask, why is so much of the wealth and prosperity radiating from the nation’s capital in Washington D.C., located in Virginia, not Maryland? If wealth radiated equally in all directions, Maryland would have captured two thirds of it. But a disproportionate share radiated to the southwest: into Virginia. Could there be something about the business climate of Virginia — lower taxes, less regulation, a business-friendly climate arising from all that sloth and neglect — that made Virginia more attractive than its neighbor to the north?

    Now, to move on to Ed… EMR notes that Virginia has a tradition of favoring individual rights over community responsibilities. I think that’s true, if by “community responsibilities” he means government power. Virginia communities have always had strong civicinstitutions, and strong traditions of people collaborating for the common good. For instance, the volunteer fire brigade movement started in Virginia (somewhere in the Roanoke area, as I recall). I would contend that the existence of strong, vital civic institutions, as compared to relatively weak government authority, has been one of Virginia’s historic strengths.

    Insofar as Virginia, like most other states, has developed dysfunctional human settlement patterns, the problem can be traced to the baleful influence of government. Government power mandated the separation of land uses through zoning. Government power created VDOT and the system of building roads to open up the countryside for the enrichment of developers. Government power created tax exemptions for home ownership, subsidized Fannie Mae and stimulated the excessive investment in home ownership and single family dwellings. Government empowered NIMBYs who block the recycling of aging neighborhoods and commercial centers. As government grew increasingly powerful, private interests figured out they could make more money faster through rent seeking — manipulating the system to their advantage — than through innovation and genuine wealth creation.

    When Ed refers to the balance of private good/public good tilted in favor of the private good, I suspect he refers to the state’s devotion to private property rights. I would like to see his explanation of precisely how strong property rights has contributed to dysfunctional and unsustainable human settlement patterns. Any such explanation would have to explain the fact that most functional human settlement patterns that exist in Virginia today — places like Old Town Alexandria, Ghent in Norfolk, Church Hill and the Fan in Richmond — were put into place before the rise of powerful municipal governments.

    My sense is that the commitment to property rights, fiscal discipline and free markets have been Virginia’s greatest strengths. It is the rise of powerful municipal governments and rent-seeking behavior of business elites that has led to dysfunctional and unsustainable human settlement patterns.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’ll take individual freedom over constrained city lfe any day.

    As for the anti-urban bias, maybe it is because the legislature knows that urban spaces are more expensive and more difficult to maintain.

    RH

  3. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “EMR notes that Virginia has a tradition of favoring individual rights over community responsibilities. I think that’s true, “

    I don’t have the same view. Further I don’t think the folks that “did” Richmond “did” NoVa at all. I think, instead, quite a few of the folks that “did” NoVa did not come from Virginia .. to Virginia’s benefit…. because if NoVa ended up a clone of Richmond.. I’m not sure that it would walk and talk like NoVa does.

    Compare and contrast EMR and JB remarks with the following:

    * – Massive Resistance and the timeline for truly equal access to a public school education in Va especially with regard to how it impacted individuals and institutions.

    * – the Dillon Rule concept of the monied aristocratic elite in Richmond dictating what localities and citizens can and cannot do regardless of how the local taxpayers and citizens feel. (Compare to Home Rule).

    * – the fact that Virginia, unlike many other states simply does not allow Citizen-initiated referenda – not even a strict form that requires sufficient signatures to keep the fringe folks at bay.

    for example – just imagine how far … consideration of.. Abuser Fees would have gotten if citizens had the right of referenda. My point is that the GA would have NEVER passed it to begin with in that circumstance.

    Further, the GA is OWNED ..lock,stock, and barrel by business interests.

    Imagine how Virginia would be Governed if citizens could offer referenda on money and lobbying in the GA…

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Good answer Jim Bacon. Anytime you zero out all the capital, then it takes generations to rebuild capital.

    I enjoy taking visitors to Messick Point at the end of Poquoson. I point out that it was a working tobacco port in 1630, the year that Boston was founded. (I’ve lived around Boston). And I ask them which represents more progress – Boston today or Messick Point?

    Google Poquoson and look at the end by The Bay.

    I’ll take Messick any day over Boston.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    A couple of comments here really capture the smug hypocrisy that rattles through this blog. The preference for the ‘individual freedom’ and ‘progress’ of the rural vs urban.

    Clearly, if you fancy yourselves thinkers who can gin up something like good policy, you’re going to need to drop the priority you put on your personal preferences. So what if farm living is the life for you. Some of us just adore a penthouse view.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    There should be penthouses for those that want them, and other kinds of urban dwellings as well, for those that want them.

    EMR beleives we would all be better off and save a lot of unused land (otherwise called open space) if we set reverse subsididies which effectively require people to live in urban areas.

    He calls this paying full locational cost, and he is willin to downplay individual freedom (or promote higher social responsibility, if that is how you choose to name it) to do so.

    My argument is simply that if we find it is to our best interests to have more peole live in urban environments, then we need to mke it a lot more attractive, to a lot more people.

    That means better schools, effective trash pickup, safe streests, more urban play areas (urban open space), and lower home prices, and transportation that works (including more that just public or mass transit).

    It is going to cost a lot of money. It may cost so much we decide it is not really in our interest to do it.

    My personal preference is to live and let live. Don’t tell people what they should do, and don’t allow others to tell you what you should do. If you want something done, go do it – don’t ask someone else to pass alaw for you.

    RH

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Hey Jim:

    I thought you were on vacation!! That was the longest comment I can remember you writing. It was also a bit of GA-apologist in my opinion. Your characterization of Virginia as a “war victim” misses several important points:

    1. Virginia’s leadership was anti-urban long before the Civil War. For the moment, let me cite Wikipedia’s entry on Thomas Jefferson:

    “Jefferson’s vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. It stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption.”.

    The Jefferson / Hamilton philosophical rift had a lot more to do with Virginia’s decline than honoring war debts.

    2. Virginia’s leadership in the Civil Was was an example of both sloth and negligence. It was moral sloth to support slavery. Again, the actions of Washington and Jefferson are telling. On his death, Washington freed all his slaves and gave them some of his land in what is now Fairfax County. While this is a far cry from the much more moral action of opposing slavery in his lifetime it is a whole lot better than the author of “all men are created equal”. Jefferson could not even see his way clear to free his slaves after his death. This was true despite his long time love affair with Sally Hemmings and the now-proven fact that he fathered a number of children with Sally Hemmings. Virginia’s involvement in the Civil War also represents negligence in that it was a war that the South could not win. There were a number of times early in the war when the South had won some battles and could have sued for peace. However, much like the Japanese in WWII, the South was arrogant and convinced of their superiority in spite of the obvious industrial strength of their advesary. Whatever bad happened to Virginia because of its voluntary involvement in teh Civil War is definitiely an example of sloth and neglect.

    3. By your logic, Atlanta does not exist. The people of Georgia were every bit as involved in the stupidity of the Civil War as the people of Virginia. Sherman’s march to the sea is a matter of fact. However, Atlanta is a major US metropolis while Richmond is a secondary city by almost any reasonable measure. You could also look at the cirumstances of Charlotte, Memphis, New Orleans, Dallas, Houston, etc. to see cities in the South that overcame their own inexcusable participation in the Civil War.

    4. The Civil War did not end Virginia’s idiotic racism. A hundred years after the end of the Civil War Virginia’s state legislature was still persecuting black men and women. This elimination of a huge percentage of the intellectual base of the population was, again, sloth and negligence.

    I am firmly with EMR and Larry Gross – Virginia’s fall from prominenece is no accident of history. It was the inevitable conclusion of a series of incompentent and largely immoral decisions made by the legislature acting on behalf of the people of Virginia.

  8. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Well the rain is gone and the initial comments are in:

    Most of the comments are perfect examples of the importance of Vocabulary and a comprehensive Conceptual Framework for any discussion of human settlement patterns.

    The comments may also present an argument for coming up with a new word for “urban” since that is clearly a Humpty Dumpty word for many. Many have found that just not using “rural” is very useful. But that leaves “nonurban.”

    We have tried to avoid coming up with an alternative to “urban” for the reasons spelled out in APPENDIX TWO – CORE CONFUSING WORD of The Shape of the Future and because the standard dictionary definition is sound and useful.

    I am sorry if I got Groveton into something he did not intend but I would call our observations something more than just a “gloss?”

    Groveton has spoken for himself but for us, a good way to describe slavery is that it is as a way for those at the top of the economic food chain to exhibit “sloth and neglect” and to exploit those over whom they have control.

    I do not disagree with much in Jim’s overview of 1607 to 1865 . I did not see a note on depletion of the soil and the brain / ambition drain from 1790 to 1900. It was not just McCormack who left.

    Many of those farmers, craftspersons and merchants in the Ohio Valley, the Upper Mid West and the Plains also moved from Virginia. Perhaps because of the “sloth and neglect” of those in control?

    Groveton’s rejoinder rounds out his view.

    As to the “anti-urban bias,” that is so well documented that I am surprised anyone would take issue. They did, so let us look at this again. We will not repeat the Jefferson / Hamilton issue raised by Groveton but that is clearly an important element.

    To be sure I do not miss any points we will do a line-by-line on Jim Bacon’s notes:

    “Now, to move on to Ed… EMR notes that Virginia has a tradition of favoring individual rights over community responsibilities. I think that’s true, …”

    OK, lets stop there! No? OK, then on with the line by line.

    “… if by “community responsibilities” he means government power.”

    Lets take those words out of my mouth and put in the intended meaning:

    Since completing THE ESTATES MATRIX we try to always use the word “Agency” and not “government” to describe the First Estate. Before that we used “governance structure.” The First Estate is the function of society responsible for managing the governance structure.

    The phrase “individual rights and community responsibilities” is the mantra of the Communitarian movement. These words, by the way, were included as specific planks in both the Elephant Clan and the Donkey Clan presidential platforms in 1992. Because we thought they were so well recognized, we have dropped using the “quotes,” perhaps that is mistake.

    We use the word “community,” (with a small “c”) in its most broad interpretation – any collection that has one or more thing in common.

    In this context “community” has a number of things in common. Here we mean the Agencies, Enterprises, Institutions and Citizens (individuals and Households) who carry out urban or nonurban activities in a specific geographic area.

    “Virginia communities have always had strong civic institutions, and strong traditions of people collaborating for the common good.”

    I am not sure that this was not limited by class and race more in VA than other places that were founded on the principle of equality. Yes, Planters cooperated, Blacks in Herndon cooperated,… but it was always limited to the specific sphere of interest with Agencies representing the interests of the Second Estate more than in other places – see 1837 and 1870 time-frames in THE ESTATES MATRIX.

    “For instance, the volunteer fire brigade movement started in Virginia (somewhere in the Roanoke area, as I recall).”

    This may be something like which Beta Community has the “largest mall in the country.” I seem to recall that claim from somewhere in Western Mass, from somewhere in Upstate NY… I also recall that function in city states on the Baltic and in Tuscany in the 12th century…

    At any rate it is an interesting example because Jim, you often comment on “the fire marshal problem.” One of the key thorns in the side of rational governance in areas just inside and just outside the Clear Edge is fights between “volunteer” fire and rescue units and how much Agency funding they should get, the standards for training, etc., etc. In short, this area provides a prime example of obfuscation of “The Tipping Point” See “Burned Out,” 10 July 2006 for other examples.

    “I would contend that the existence of strong, vital civic institutions, as compared to relatively weak government authority, has been one of Virginia’s historic strengths.”

    What you are saying is that there have been strong Third Estate Institutions, I say the Second Estate trumped them in the policy set for Agencies (the First Estate). That is especially true since 1973 when I have been here to watch.

    “Insofar as Virginia, like most other states, has developed dysfunctional human settlement patterns, the problem can be traced to the baleful influence of government.”

    No argument here. But who controlled the Agencies? Reich says it has become money from the Second Estate and I agree.

    “Government power mandated the separation of land uses through zoning. Government power created VDOT and the system of building roads to open up the countryside for the enrichment of developers. Government power created tax exemptions for home ownership, subsidized Fannie Mae and stimulated the excessive investment in home ownership and single family dwellings. Government empowered NIMBYs who block the recycling of aging neighborhoods and commercial centers. As government grew increasingly powerful, private interests figured out they could make more money faster through rent seeking — manipulating the system to their advantage — than through innovation and genuine wealth creation.”

    All great examples of why to evolve functional and sustainable human settlement patterns we need Fundamental Change in governance structure.

    “When Ed refers to the balance of private good/public good tilted in favor of the private good, I suspect he refers to the state’s devotion to private property rights.”

    I did not say “private good / public good.”

    I say the enlightened self-interest of citizens and households requires much more attention to the good of all those in the Dooryard, Cluster, Neighborhood, Village, Community, New Urban Region and Urban Support Region.

    “I would like to see his explanation of precisely how strong property rights has contributed to dysfunctional and unsustainable human settlement patterns. Any such explanation would have to explain the fact that most functional human settlement patterns that exist in Virginia today — places like Old Town Alexandria, Ghent in Norfolk, Church Hill and the Fan in Richmond — were put into place before the rise of powerful municipal governments.”

    Yes, those places evolved when the market had more impact. They also evolved when there was a more fair allocation of the cost of location decisions. You and I agree on the value of Henry George allocations of cost inside the Clear Edge.

    As to the long term self-interest of citizens, we beat this topic to death re the New London hotel issue.

    What citizens need is a fair, democratic process for weighing individual and community interests. As Reich points out, that democratic process has been bought out. Your list of “problems” above suggests that you agree too.

    “My sense is that the commitment to property rights, fiscal discipline and free markets have been Virginia’s greatest strengths. It is the rise of powerful municipal governments and rent-seeking behavior of business elites that has led to dysfunctional and unsustainable human settlement patterns.”

    I am with you on the need for all but am not sure the Virginia has contributed much to the understanding of how to get to a sustainable Balance from the current condition.

    At 8:52 AM Larry Gross said…

    “EMR notes that Virginia has a tradition of favoring individual rights over community responsibilities. I think that’s true, “

    “I don’t have the same view.”

    Larry, I hope you agree more with our view now that the intent of our words is more clear.

    I tend to agree, as did Groveton, with your examples of Agency and top of the food chain / Enterprise transgressions that put Virginia in less than favorable light.

    At 9:12 AM James Atticus Bowden said…

    “Good answer Jim Bacon. Anytime you zero out all the capital, then it takes generations to rebuild capital.”

    That was not the point of Groveton’s original post – nor mine – the issue is why was the capital zeroed out?

    One of the great things about the US of A is that you can choose to live in the Hampton Roads New Urban Region (NUR) or in the Boston NUR.

    You may not agree that because there are four times as many who have chosen to live in the Boston NUR that this means the Boston NUR is four times as good a place to live as Hampton Roads NUR.

    You will, I hope, agree that there are many who feel just as strongly as you do about the Village-scale enclave where they live in the Boston NUR.

    There are, of course, some who do not like to live in the NUR were they do now or in any NUR.

    My point was that 96 percent of the population has chosen to live urban life-styles and it would be good to transition to settlement patterns that support those life-styles without massive consumption of nonrenewable resources.

    By the way when you say “Boston” what are you thinking?

    Lewisburg Square? the Charles River waterfront? the entire NUR that stretches into four states or one of the out of the small urban agglomerations like Poquson?

    Anonymous 9:30 said…

    “… Clearly, if you fancy yourselves thinkers who can gin up something like good policy, you’re going to need to drop the priority you put on your personal preferences. …”

    Well put!

    EMR

    As to the other comments:

    Use of core confusing words like “city” and attempts distort EMR’s views add nothing to the discussion.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It would be good to transition to settlement patterns that support those life-styles without massive consumption of nonrenewable resources. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, urban lifestyles are energy intensive. As we move to more urban lifestyles we need to recognize what the true environmental footprint is, so that we can ensure such places pay their true locational costs.

    Good policy is going to be drawn with a priority on meeting everyone’s personal preferences, otherwise it will be a policy with little broad support.

    RH

  10. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Ray:

    You’ve made the point that urban lifestyles are energy intensive a number of times. I have no reason to question your assertion but I’d like to know a few more of the details. Do you have a cite or source for this belief? I am somewhat surprised that urban dwellers – on a per capita residential basis – are more energy intensive that suburban or rural dwellers – also on a per capita residential basis. It seems logical to me that those who live in smaller dwellings in the city where they work would be less energy intensive. However, I imagine that you have your soures so I’d like to see where my logic is failing.

    EMR – Your article did not drag me into something I would rather have avoided. Just the opposite. I believe that Virginia’s state legislature has a long history of making decisions that are somewhere between inept and catastrophic. As a strict Dillon Rule state (one of only 5) the state legislature and governor must take responsibility for the failures they have produced. Pointing fingers at the municipal governments would be logical if not for the strict Dillon Rule construct. When you have all the power you have to take responibility for both the good and the bad that is created through that power. I believe that the GA has done considerably more harm than good for Virginia over the years. Nowadays, I think the GA is still doing more harm than good although they seem to be able to avoid the truly catastrophic mistakes of the past.

    Regarding cities (apologies to EMR for my historical vocabulary) – I do not think any state should be “all city” and none are. However, I believe that encouraging a major city (or two) within a state is good policy. Illinois has Chicago. Maryland has Baltimore. I believe that both states are better off for having those cities. Yet both states also have a substantial rural area and culture. This is not either / or. It is both. Both a major city and rural areas and culture. Richmond has always seemed to be the place where Virginia could produce a first class city but it just has not happened. I think it’s time for Virginia to move on. There are other possibilities – Roanoke (and before anyone says “BS” – look at Charlotte’s history), Tidewater (think Jacksonville), Fairfax (think St Paul or Ft Worth). I am sure there are others.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Groveton – re Dillon Rule – I was told by Vince Callahan that the last time the state constitution was being revised on a large scale, there was a proposal to gut the Dillon Rule in favor of Home Rule. However, according to Callahan, the local governments did not want Home Rule.

    The Dillon Rule provides local government with an excuse, with a scapegoat. With Home Rule, local governments could not kiss the feet of developers and claim that they had no alternative.

    TMT

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Groveton absolutely NAILED it.

    on two counts:

    First RH needs to provided authenticated sources to prove his unsupported assertion that on a per capita basis that urban settlement patterns are more energy consumptive than less dense, less urban settlement patterns.

    If RH is correct (which I doubt) then the whole idea of urban density is so wrong that we all have to wonder why we still have cities….

    the second thing that Groveton nailed… is the concept that the Virginia Legislature …via the Dillon Rule – professes to know what is best for localities across Va and ‘will provide” solutions…

    ..until it comes to transportation.. at which point.. it says that it is up to the localities to “do transportation”.

    So.. the GA is ALL force telling localities what they can’t do with respect to property tax relief…and is all knowing when telling them how proffers and impact fees should be done.. but they run off and hide when it comes to transportation…
    nd cannot do…

    So which is it?

    Are we a Dillon Rule state… ONLY when suits business interests but not when the time comes to provide real solutions… ???

  13. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    At the risk of encouraging Groveton in his grossly misconceived notions about Virginia history, I feel it my obligation to point out a body of evidence that supports his misbegotten thesis. It can be found in Doug Koelemay’s most recent column, Walking Ahead of the Times”.

    Koelemay cites a newly published work by Susan Dunn of Williams College, “Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison and the Decline of Virginia.”

    To quote Doug:

    Dunn documents how what once was a state that produced a dynasty of colonial leaders and early presidents slipped steadily downhill in the first decades of the 19th century. Observations of visitors and residents, alike, detail a Virginia of isolated towns, depleted soil, low land value (the value of farmland in Virginia was less than one-third of that in Pennsylvania), few industries (Virginia exports were half those of Maryland), poor and illiterate citizens (illiteracy among whites was four times higher than in other mid-Atlantic and New England states), a slow growing population, even Mount Vernon and Monticello in disrepair.

    Those who did rise to leadership after Virginia’s founding generation, Dunn concludes, were “a dismal failure” who “possessed neither (George) Washington’s inclusive continental vision, nor Jefferson’s passion for democracy and equality, nor Madison’s nationalism, nor John Marshall’s faith in the Constitution.”

  14. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    A couple of notes for Groveton

    “I am somewhat surprised that urban dwellers – on a per capita residential basis – are more energy intensive that suburban or rural dwellers – also on a per capita residential basis.”

    You should be surprised. It is not true.

    If the City of New York were a state it would have the lowest per capita consumtion of energy of any state in the US of A.

    Those who argue the other side are often land speculators or those who hope to benefit from land speculation. They intentionally leave out most of the data in any calculation they put forth.

    Both Richard Register and I have come to the same conclusion using different paths:

    Functional settlement patterns are an order of magnitude less consumtive that scattered distributions.

    Our calculations are at the Alpha Neighborhood scale. (The 10 X Rule).

    On the other hand many patterns and densities in the New York New Urban Region are more consumptive that that because of the Cost of Services Curve.

    “EMR – Your article did not drag me into something I would rather have avoided. Just the opposite.

    “I believe that Virginia’s state legislature has a long history of making decisions that are somewhere between inept and catastrophic.”

    There is growing agreement on this reality.

    “As a strict Dillon Rule state …”

    I have to agree with TMT, Larry Gross and others here.

    The Dillon Rule is an excuse. The problem is more basic:

    Gerrymandered, safe districts as even G. Bush and the WaPo editorial staff now admits that…

    But the real problem is, as Reich points out Enterprise money destroying democracy.

    “Regarding cities (apologies to EMR for my historical vocabulary) …

    Forgimve me Groveton but I have tried to understand what you are saying here but I am not sure.

    Further I just do not have time to try to translate into current reality the use of Core Confusing Words.

    As with the use of “Boston” (you will note that above I said “The City of New York” that is a leagal entity with clear borders) by James Atticus Bowden and the use of “rural” by Larry Gross it is just not worth the effort.

    In fact this morning I have decided that I will just have to stop responding to posts that intetionally use Core Confusing Words.

    From what I can decern, I would guess that you have some good ideas on this topic. But you use Tidewater, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Chicago, Richmond, etc. and I have no idea which of the many things those words could mean that you are talking about.

    The last “city” as classicly defined (Some municipal Agecies have the word in their title but that does not change the economic, social and physical realtiy) disappeared before Autonomobiles were invented.

    One final point, the fact that the urban enclaves called “city” before the Industrial Revolution (and before the Civil War in the US of A) were not allowed to grow and come to be the Agency that governs New Urban Regions is another problem caused by legislatures. See our discussion of “Cities Without Suburbs” by Rusk in “The Shape of the Future.”

    EMR

  15. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Jim Bacon:

    Forgive me but I see no conflict between what Doug quotes and Groveton’s “Sloth and Neglect”

    EMR

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    You and I were both born in Washington, DC. You and I both grew up in Virginia. You and I both attended the University of Virginia. You and I both live in Virginia today.

    The big difference in our perspectives is that I see Virginia as not just a willing participant in the Confederacy but a willing leader in the Confederacy. Given that, I see any and all problems suffered by Virginia as a result of the Civil War to be self-inflicted. Virginia had a choice (as the good people of what is now West Virginia proved). However, as usual, Virginia made the wrong choice.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “First RH needs to provided authenticated sources to prove his unsupported assertion that on a per capita basis that urban settlement patterns are more energy consumptive than less dense, less urban settlement patterns.”

    I don’t know why I should have to sow that any more the EMR should have to show his data.

    Just take a look at Gapminder. Plot the percentage of urban population against CO2 production, and set the clock in motion. Every country at every state of development produces more co2 and uses more energy as it becomes more urbanized.

    Why does this happen? Why do we continue to have cities? Because the use of energy is also closely related to wealth.

    Since those urban places are not producing anywhere near as much energy as they use, or paying to support the land that will, they are not paying their full locational costs. As long as they can et away with it, it will continue.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I am somewhat surprised that urban dwellers – on a per capita residential basis – are more energy intensive that suburban or rural dwellers – also on a per capita residential basis. It seems logical to me that those who live in smaller dwellings in the city where they work would be less energy intensive. However, I imagine that you have your soures so I’d like to see where my logic is failing.”

    I didn”t get it at first, either.

    EIA publishes summaries of energy use by household for various regions. Rural households use more energy per household, but about the same when bsed on number of memers or sq ft.

    On a personal basis the numbers are not so different. But then think about the collective numbers. Outdoor lighting and security lighting. Elevators and escalators. Electric trains. More police patrols, more nightlife. Traffic signals. Advertizing signs.

    RH

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If it IS true that urban energy use per capita is higher than “scatterization” development then the whole idea of “smart growth” and “balanced communities” is certainly seriously undermined.

    But we’re not comparing urban to rural.

    We’re comparing “sprawl” to urban – right?

    and you need to be comparing apples to apples…

    We know that per capita electricity usage is much lower in most European locations than American locations (except for California which is more comparable to Europe if not mistaken).

    But then again.. I’m not sure I’ve heard the term “scatterization” applied to Europe.. as the alto-ego of urban or “new urban” either.

    But I would point out that density is very hard on the environment.

    Impervious surfaces lead to nasty stormwater runoff.. no doubt about that.

    And the more sewage you dump in a river from a dense settlement… the more expensive it is to cut the concentration of the effluent such that does not overwhelm the receiving stream.

    And NOW.. we’re finding out that sewage treatment does not remove the substances in prescription drugs… which is not only harmful to humans but even more so to the critters that live in the river..and the things that eat those critters…

    It’s obvious that the answer is going to require even more expensive treatment of waste-water.

    I think it WOULD be helpful if we actually could see some meaningful comparisons beyond musing assertions…

    At this point.. if someone were to ask to by what percentage new urban regions were more efficient than dysfunctional “scatterization” settlement pattersn, I doubt that there would be any data to show that…

    I think most folks intuitively believe that dense means more efficient.

    We hear it all the time that a 7 story apartment on one acre is much more “efficient” than one house on one acre.

    okay.. but by how much – on a PER CAPITA basis comparison.

    and are we comparing ONLY the habitation use of energy or are we comparing the total lifestyle use of energy?

    It’s obviously the latter..but again.. no much data.. and I would think.. if one wanted to make a compelling case for density – this would be a good first place to start.

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We’re comparing “sprawl” to urban – right?”

    Semantics. EMR would say if it isn’t really rural, then it is urban.

    I think my argument holds. In rural spaces people are home at night and the lights are mostly out. They have windows they can open and use less AC.

    We know they travel slightly more, but pay less for transportaion. They drive less expensive vehicles, and drive them at economical speeds, and pay less for insurance. All things considered, less money spent means less resources used.

    But, the more you move from sprawl to urban conditions, the more community assets you have to add to the mix. Urban churches and libraries are open every night. You have batting cages, miniature golf, the wave pool and on and on and on.

    Yes, the even story apartment is a little more efficient, but not as much as you think. If it was really efficient, it would cost less. Again, money is a proxy for resources used (if not yours, then the landlords). The apartment needs constant mechanical air conditioning or heat: it is unliveable otherewise. But thereal story is that the apratment dweller uses a lot of othe energy than what shows up on his power bill. Lights in the parking garage, rec room or gym, maybe the pool. Garbage disposer instead of cmpost pile.

    It has to be the total lifestyle use, or the urban(ized) rural(ized) discussion is meaningless. It is a whole system of life support to be measured.

    —————————

    Yep, some European nations use less energy, but pick one and watch it on gapminder. They ALL use more energy as they become more urbanized – no matter what level they operate at.

    The good news is that the US uses so much energy, it isn’t increasing much. How much more could we possibly need?

    But, France, Spain, and Italy and Greece are all gaining fast.

    ——————————

    They say our water is full of antidepressants, but officials tell us not to worry about it.

    —————————–

    As a chemist I’ll tell you a secret. When you start looking in the part per trillion range, you can find anything, anywhere. The biggest problem is finding a standard pure enough to measure with – one that isn’t contaminated.

    RH

  21. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “They ALL use more energy as they become more urbanized – no matter what level they operate at.”

    per capita?

    let’s get some actual per capita data supplied to back up what you are claiming.

    How about it?

    making assertions without providing at least some evidence if not a waste of bandwidth is certainly more yammering than substantive discussion on the merits – would you not agree?

    how about some data?

  22. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “As a chemist I’ll tell you a secret. When you start looking in the part per trillion range, you can find anything, anywhere. The biggest problem is finding a standard pure enough to measure with – one that isn’t contaminated.”

    but it’s not about what you can measure or in what quantity that you can measure it..

    there are THOUSANDS of substances that can be measured and 99% of them are not of concern because they are not known to cause harm..

    it’s the substances that WE KNOW cause harm.. no matter if they are only present in parts per quadrillion…

    it’s not the concentration.. it’s whether or not the substance in that concentration – causes harm even in infinitesimal amounts…

    and in this case.. the impacts of prescription drugs.. in the water supply appear to be significant not only to humans but to wildlife as we are seeing reproductive problems with aquatic life and the other critters in the food chain that eat things that have those drugs in their tissues.

    so this is not about being a chemist discussing how infinitesimal a substance might occur .. i.e. at the parts per gazillion level.. this is about the harm that can result even if it is in only infinitesimal amounts.

    It could be just as harmful as trace amounts of ddt… or dioxin or other deadly substances that can cause great harm in even the tiniest amounts.

    but to bring this back to settlement patterns…

    it APPEARS that homes with septic tank systems .. would tend to sequester these drugs whereas water/sewer systems.. actually further propagate them…

    which is an irony…

    because.. density.. depends on water/sewer…

    which is a VERY location-specific issue ALSO…

    and because these substances find their way into the environment through biological paths – i.e. “through” humans that excrete them in toilets…

    there will not be an easy (cheap) way of sequestering these substances in traditional water/sewer systems -upon which – as stated above – dense settlement patterns require.

    so it’s pretty ironic.. that three of the hallmarks of civilization – density, water/sewer and prescription drugs could ultimately be responsible for great harm to humans…and the environment…

    the solution could well end up being closed water/sewer systems with distillation required.. very energy intensive…

  23. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “They say our water is full of antidepressants, but officials tell us not to worry about it.”.

    That’s pretty funny! Was it meant as a joke? We’re all guzzling anti-depressants but the governement says not to worry about it. Is it even possible that we are worrying about it – given the anti-depressants?

    Ray says there is even measureable Viagra in the water. This could explain why I have 5 kids.

    Seriously, I wonder what quantity of these drugs could possiby be in the water and what harm they could do to anybody or anything. Somewhere somebody is taking these medications. They are ingesting these drugs at millions of times the strength found in drinking water. If it harms people and animals in the water doesn’t it kill the people who ingest it directly?

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry Gross is right – show us the numbers.

    Plus, RH is suggesting that what would fix this allegedly excessive energy demand by urbanites is giving up their wave pools, late-night libraries and churches, and miniature golf? So it’s not density itself that is the issue, it’s that we don’t all live like dairy farmers? Good grief. I thought you folks were all for private-sector solutions. The private sector thinks we need more putt-putt at night. Guess we really are the shining city on the hill, huh.

  25. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    EMR, You are quite correct, Susan Dunn’s book (and Doug K’s paraphrasing of her thesis) do seem to back up Groveton’s argument regarding the “sloth and neglect” of Virginia’s ruling class in the early 1800s. I entered Doug’s column and Dunn’s book into evidence just to show what a big-hearted, broad-minded guy I am — knowing full well that it would undermine the argument I had previously made.

    As a sometimes student of Virginia history, I shall have to order the book and read it. The fact that Virginia entered a relative decline in importance is undeniable. It requires some explanation. My question in this thread is the extent to which that decline can be attributed to Jeffersonian vision of small government, and/or some cultural proclivity towards “sloth and neglect.”

    I will throw a couple of additional factors into the hopper for consideration.

    First, soil depletion. Tobacco cultivation had a tremendous deleterious effect on soil fertility — unlike any other crop cultivated in the 19th century U.S. Tobacco cultivation crippled Virginia’s agricultural productivity. That was a fact of nature unrelated to philosophies of governance or cultural attributes. The question then becomes, how did Virginians respond to the challenge? I’m no expert on this era of Virginia history, but I do know that Virginia did spawn an agricultural reform movement, presumably to deal with this very problem. Edmund Ruffin (known primarily for firing the first shot at Fort Sumter) published a journal dedicated to scientific farming. As I recall, he introduced the practice of applying certain fertilizers to soils to improve yields.

    I suspect that the record will show that Virginians also adapted by shifting to wheat cultivation on a widespread scale. That would account for the rise of flour mill and flour exports from Richmond. I also recall reading that Oatlands plantation in Loudoun County also raised wheat (which probably was shipped along the Potomac). I would hypothesize that Virginia’s agricultural economy rebounded once planters and farmers figured out how to adapt to the tobacco-induced decline in soil fertility. (It would be interesting to see if Maryland’s tobacco culture also underwent similar shifts.)

    The other factor that needs to be considered is the tariff. The federal government financed itself by means of protective tariffs designed to encourage northern industry. The tariff was a major cause of discord between northern manufacturing states and southern states which relied upon agricultural exports. The tariff created a major inter-regional transfer of wealth — very much like the inter-regional transfers of wealth that our friend Groveton abhors when Fairfax County is the on the short end of the transfer. I’m not sure when these tariffs were enacted, but I suspect that there could be a connection between their enactment and the early-19th century living standards in Virginia.

    Over and above these factors, there was of course the institution of slavery — an institution which, Groveton and I would agree, exercised a debilitating effect on the entrepreneurial instincts and business acumen of Virginia’s landed aristocracy. Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, it is worth nothing, both died in debt. Brilliant though they may have been as statesmen, Virginia’s planter class was not particularly adept at business. Slavery had pernicious effects not only upon the slaves but upon the masters. As Dunn suggests, slavery supported an aristocratic lifestyle and mindset antithetical to the entrepreneurial innovation that was so pervasive in the north.

    But someone needs to explain the rise of Richmond as a significant manufacturing center, the construction of the Kanawha-Haxall Canal along the James River, and the rise of a major railroad network in the state. Virginia was not entirely devoid of entrepreneurial instincts.

    As for Groveton’s argument that the devastation Virginia suffered from the Civil War as self-inflicted (for siding with the South instead of the North) that is irrelevant to the initial question. The fact is, the devastation occurred, whether self-inflicted or not, and it goes a long way to explaining Virginia’s decline in the late 1800s as an economic player on the national scene. And it has no bearing whatsoever on Virginia’s relative decline before the Civil War, whether from a Jeffersonian bias to rural settlement patterns and small government or sloth and neglect.

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “So it’s not density itself that is the issue, it’s that we don’t all live like dairy farmers?”

    I didn’t set the issue.

    The often repeated claim is that those living in more desnly populated areas use less energy. The reasons cited are that they drive less and heat smaller spaces.

    My observation is that less personal use doesn’t mean less total use. If some of those uses are also associated with urban spaces, then the claim that urban spaces cause less energy use is spurious. As you point out some of that is life style, but there are also necessary additional urban uses, like street lighting, security lighting, garage lighting, advertising lighting, elevators, escalators, public spaces like train stations, lobbies etc. If density makes the life style possible and affordable, then at root density is still the variable that counts most.

    Look again at the gapminder graph. It doesn’t matter what country you choose or what level of life style. More urbanization is associated with more energy use. Even after you adjust for more population.

    If the real issue is how do we go about using less energy, waste less resources, andlive a more renewable lifestyle, then maybe we need to consider both lifestyle and urbanization without bias.

    If we rearrange our habitation patterns to be more urban and then discover the right answer is to be more like dairy farmers, then what?

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I read another article that compared cities “greenness” with their building and development restrictions.

    Those with the highest building and development restrictions were the most green, but it is hard to move there because of the restrictions. Consequently more people move to places that are less green and have lower restrictions, which leads to more overall pollution.

    Gee, I’m glad people are working to protect our environment.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “it’s not the concentration.. it’s whether or not the substance in that concentration – causes harm even in infinitesimal amounts…”

    No, Larry, it is the cost. If it causes harm in infinitesimal amounts, it may cost an infinite amount to remove or prevent it.

    The real problem is with bioaccumulators, which are another matter.

    But for regular products like these that are eliminated, whether it is antidepressants or dioxin, there comes point below which it is just not worth worrying about.

    Worry more about what DOESN’T pass through and recycle.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “”They ALL use more energy as they become more urbanized – no matter what level they operate at.”

    per capita?”

    Yep, per capita. Consider my argument. EIA data show that household energy use varies only a little for urban vs rural households. It is the additional “communal” energy use over and above those initial values that make a difference, and that communal use is associated with increasing urbanization.

    You can visulize it yourself on a per capita basis on gapminder, if you care to try. Or, go get some data and plot xyz graphs ubanization vs population vs energy use.

    —————————-

    I don’t see what difference it makes. We know population is increasing and urbanization is incrasing. We can see energy use increases with urbanization.

    Therefore, if there are any benefits from urbanization, they are insufficient to outweigh population. Thereofre suggesting that we can solve allour problems through increased urbanization is false.

    RH

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Perfect. Let’s talk fixed costs.

    If the advertiser insists on lighting his billboard all night, does he do that only when the population in his city passes 100,000? 500,000?

    No. So all those extra people don’t increase the cost of his lighting.

    So, accepting that these, uh, ‘communal’ costs are going to occur at a certain point, then the population growth that continues afterward is, economies of scale, right?

    Because the population is going up. What I enjoy about RH’s words is that they lean against the private-sector way of growth. You know, lights, advertising, business signs, computers humming through the night.

    Plus – it’s a cheesy rhetorical pose to say someone claims a way to “solve all our problems.” Who said that? RH?

    You put the false choice out that we’re trying to decide whether to live rural vs urban. As you know, that horse is out of the barn. Damn that’s the perfect analogy isn’t it.

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I’m not pushing one choice over another. I’m only suggesting maybe the folklore that says urban spaces are more energy efficient ain’t so. If we are going to make a choice, lets make it on correct data.

    Suppose we do find that more urbanization leads to more energy use. We might change our minds about how much we want to shift the “subsidies” from sprawl to urbanization.

    I’m not saying it is so, just that it is worth thinking about seriously, and not giving it the pre-ordained, enviromental pooh-pooh, brush off, just because it doesn’t meet the save open space dogma.

    —————————–

    You make a good point with fixed costs. Once the advertizer elects to light up his sign, then the more the place is urbanized, the less the sign costs for each person who looks at it.

    But, no matter how small his cost is per viewer, the fact remains that the cost in electricity usage is additioanl to the cost of eectricity for the viewers home.

    And without that first increment of people, he would never light the sign, because it isn’t worth it. And, the more people the more venders the more buyers the more competition – and the more signs.

    So, I’d suggest that after each increment of fixed costs, economies of scale come into play. But the more urbanization the more increments of fixed cost that will appear, and all of them are additional to individual usage.

    Whatever that level is, we should account for it, unless we decide it is tiny in comparison to everything else.

    ——————————-

    “it’s a cheesy rhetorical pose to say someone claims a way to “solve all our problems.”

    Point taken. That was over generalized. I sometimes feel that certain policies are promoted with claims to prevent every ailment from heart disease, to obesity, to air pollution. My comment was aimed at this general proclivity for putting wild claims on the benefits of snake oil. This is a habit that predates environmentalists, and isn’t exclusive to them.

    Some of these claims are valid, or partially so. I just don’t think we do ourselves any credibility favors when we go too far in any direction, whether it is cleanup, prevention, recycling, or salesmanship.

    But then you have, for one example, EMR. I think you will agree that he frequently claims that the only solution is….

    I’m not sure I see the difference between saying there is only one solution, and saying it is the solution for everything.

    I don’t suggest I have a solution for anything. All I offer is a way to evaluate costs. We might all go down the environmental black abyss, but at least we can play on a level field, and play fairly. We can evaluate all costs and not just the ones we like.

    Larry points out that isn’t realistic, and he is right. When push comes to shove we will steal what we want, with votes, then coercion, and then force.

    RH

  32. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Jim:

    “The other factor that needs to be considered is the tariff. The federal government financed itself by means of protective tariffs designed to encourage northern industry.”.

    Wouldn’t these same tariffs have protected Virginia industry – if there was any? As I recall, the tariffs were on imports. So, American made products were a lot cheaper in the American market whcih allowed the American manufacturers to sell more and grow. I’ll have to stretch my memory here but I recall the British passing laws forbidding America from manufacturing during the colonial period. The Brits loved American raw materials but wanted to keep the maunfacturing “on shore”. After the revolution some areas industrialized and some did not. By and large, Virginia did not. I believe this had a lot to do with leadership philoophy. Hamilton saw the future and (in this particular case) Jefferon did not.

    I assume your description of Jefferson’s debt was an explanation as to why he didn’t free his slaves in his will. Maybe. I see Jefferon as a genius but a serious elitist as well. I think it goes beyond debt.

    As for the poverty of planters – what was George Washington’s occupation. Wasn’t Mt Vernon a plantation? Why wasn’t he broke? OK – he might have married some money. But he made more money as time went on, not less. At one time I believe he made and sold more rum than anyone else in America.

    As for the Civil War – if you hit yourself in the head with a hammer you can’t complain about headaches. Virginia could have taken a more neutral stance like Maryland or Kentucky. Virginia could have seen the light and joined what is now West Virginia in the Union cause. Instead, they led the Confederate cause. Then they (inevitably) got their butts kicked.

    From glory in the early days of the United States to self-inflicted destruction to immoral mass resistance, Virginias history from 1800 (or so) – 1965 (or so) was a pretty sad story. The big question is whether it is still a sad story. The newest chapters of that story are being written right now by Gov. Kaine and the GA.

  33. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Groveton, the tariff probably did help stimulate the growth of Richmond as a manufacturing center, just as it stimulated manufacturing in other parts of the United States. But that doesn’t change the fact that overall, the tariff transferred wealth out of Virginia, which, despite the rise of Richmond as a middle-tier manufacturing center, had an economy predominantly based on agriculture. The tariff explains — to some degree — the relative decline of Virginia economically compared to other states.

    The other major explanatory factor, as I think we both would agree, was slavery.

    Virginia prospered insofar as it shook off the shackles of the slave economy, and it stagnated insofar as it continued to embrace it.

    Looking back from our current frame of reference and current value systems, we can condemn the early 19th-century Virginians who fell far short of our ideals, and even the ideals they articulated during the American Revolution. On the other hand, as dispassionate historians, we can also observe that it is virtually unprecedented in the history of mankind for the ruling elite of any society to voluntariy dispossess itself of its source of wealth and status. Indeed, as Karl Marx rightly observed, ruling classes throughout history have developed ideologies that buttressed and justified their privileged positions. Extremely rare in human history, Virginians developed an ideology at odds with their social and economic privilege, and they agonized over that conflict.

    Name me any group of people before or since (as in a ruling elite, not an isolated individual) that voluntarily relinquished its source of wealth and prestige even to the limited extent that circa-1800 Virginians did.

  34. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I think the claim that cities are less efficient per capita than other settlement patterns can be demonstrated with existing data – which has not yet been supplied to back up the assertion.

    If this is true – then the entire concept of “smart growth” and New Urbanism is severely undermined because even though EMR claims more than 30 location variable factors, certainly in the short list would be per capita energy consumption – as well as automobile use.

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I think the claim that cities are less efficient per capita than other settlement patterns can be demonstrated with existing data – which has not yet been supplied to back up the assertion.”

    Wow.

    The big if, is, as you say, is IF this is true.

    As far as I can tell, no one is asking the right question yet.

    Even Glaeser, who is highly regarded, is looking at personal consumption as opposed to total percapita consumption.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More