Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A QUICK RESPONSE TO LYLE

—

by

James A. Bacon
in , , ,

On the IT WILL TAKE MORE THAN LINT

At 3:19 PM, Lyle said…

Ed, let me express the foundation for my optimism on your two concerns.

1: A number of excellent ideas are brewing, being tested, and implemented. Congestion pricing is one of them, but there are many, many more such as local food systems, cradle to cradle design, green public revenue shifts (which includes congestion pricing), cutting inefficient subsidies, and improving civic participation with publicly financed elections, proportional representation, instant runoff voting, choice voting, citizen councils, and so on.

YOU ARE VERY RIGHT, THESE ARE GOOD IDEAS. ALL THESE AND MORE HAVE BEEN ON THE TABLE SINCE THE EARLY 90S WHEN WE FIRST FOCUSED ON THE NEED TO ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE TRAJECTORY FOR CIVILIZATION

In desperation, our politicians and business leaders will look for easy solutions and pick those that can best be implemented. Onward the slapdash evolution of our society goes, in constant fear of Fundamental Change, but constant struggle towards it.

THERE IN LIES THE PROBLEM. SO FAR WE GET ABUSER FEES, ADVICE TO GO SHOPPING IN THE FACE OF TERRORIST ATTACKS AND A FAILURE TO ENFORCE LAWS OR REBUILD INTELLIGENTLY AFTER NATURAL DISASTERS.

UNLESS THERE IS AN OVERARCHING CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK SUCH AS FUNCTIONAL HUMAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS – OR SOME OTHER THAT YOU OR OTHERS ARTICULATE IN DETAIL – THE LEADERSHIP OF BUSINESS-AS-USUAL WILL CHERRY PICK THIS AND THAT.

THUS OUR CONCERN FOR AN AGENDA FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE AND OUR CONCERN THAT THERE WILL NO RESOURCES LEFT TO ACHIEVE THAT CHANGE WHEN IT BECOME OBVIOUS THAT THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

AS I TELL MY OPTIMIST FRIEND JAMES A BACON: EVERY GOOD IDEA IS SEEN AS “SOLUTION” THAT GIVES BUSINESS-AS-USUAL AND EXCUSE TO DELAY FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE

2: We use a tiny percentage of the solar energy that reaches this planet.

VERY TRUE BUT READ WITH CARE OUR DISCUSSION OF THE “THICK / THIN” PROBLEM OF SOLAR (AND ALL “RENEWABLE” ENERGY SOURCES) IN OUR COLUMN “THE CONSERVATION IMPERATIVE” OF 19 JUNE 2007.

We use a tiny percentage of the potential wind energy.

THAT IS TRUE TOO AND THE SAME LIMITATIONS APPLY TO SOLAR, WIND AND EVERY “NATURAL / RENEWABLE” SOURCE VIS A VIS CREATING FUNCTIONAL HUMAN SETTLEMENTS FOR A TECHNOLOGY DEPENDENT URBAN SOCIETY.

NATURAL SOURCE STRATEGIES ARE GREAT. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT REA SHOULD HAVE DEVELOPED FOR NONURBAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS INSTEAD OF STRINGING WIRES. THE NONURBAN POPULATION IS 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL.

INTERREGIONAL BIG GRIDS, INCLUDING NONURBAN DISTRIBUTION, WASTE MORE ENERGY IN GENERATION, TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION THAN THEY DELIVER TO END USERS.

We still have a hundred years or so of coal,

BUT DO WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO USE IN WAYS THAT DO NOT CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS? ARE YOU PLANNING TO GO TO BEIJING FOR THE OLYMPICS?

and several decades at least of oil.

NOT ONLY THAT BUT WE HAVE SYNTHETICS TO REPLACE OIL BUT AT WHAT COST? WHO WILL BE ABLE TO PAY FOR THESE “SOLUTIONS?” NOT ENOUGH WILL BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEM TO ELECT A STABLE GOVERNMENT.

Thin film solar promises to revolutionize that industry, and I fully expect other innovations in other areas.

I EXPECT YOU ARE RIGHT BUT AT WHAT COST AND WILL THESE NEW INNOVATIONS PROVIDE EQUIVALENT PROPERTIES TO THOSE PROVIDED BY THE NATURAL CAPITAL WE ARE BURNING UP? FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT WILL POWER LARGE, PRIVATE VEHICLES WHICH ARE IMPERATIVE TO ACHIEVE MOBILITY AND ACCESS? MORE ON THIS IN “THE PROBLEM WITH CARS.”

Most urgently, we have vast expanses of government subsidized waste to tap, should we require the juice.

BUT HOW DOES ONE TAP THAT WASTE WITH THE EXISTING GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE? HOW DO YOU CHASE AWAY ALL THOSE WHO ARE FEEDING AT THE TROUGH. WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE WHO ARE CHANTING: WHAT? ME WORRY?

If we decide to act within the next decade,

A DECADE IS THE RIGHT TIME FRAME BUT IN THAT PERIOD CITIZENS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS MUST BE TAKING DECISIVE ACTION, NOT JUST DECIDING TO DO “SOMETHING.”
AND THUS OUR TWO CONCERNS:

1) LACK OF AN OVERARCHING STRATEGY

2) TAKING INTELLIGENT ACTION BEFORE THERE ARE NO RESOURCES LEFT

we have fabulous resources to do so. Still, I do agree that urgency is appropriate.

Thank you for your good work and inspiration.

YOU ARE WELCOME, THAT IS OUR JOB

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

20 responses to “A QUICK RESPONSE TO LYLE”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    According to the 1990 census 75.2% of the population lived in Urban areas. A number of countries have conducted extensive studies to recalibrate how they define Urban and rural, notably England and Wales.

    I don’t think a nonurban number of 5% is credible under any recognized disriminator.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RESPONSE TO RH / RAY HYDE

    You really need to stop the nitpicking attempts to discredit Dr. Risse.

    He will not respond to you so it is up to people like us to point out that:

    If you carefully read “Shape of the Future” books, columns, posts, etc., you would realize that your questions demonstrate your ignorance, not his.

    He has repeatedly noted that the 5% number is the population of Households with nonurban endevors as their primary economic activity.

    The reason that the population of territory that, based on gross density, is termed “nonurban area” is lower than 95% because of the Helter Skelter Crisis.

    The Census “urban areas” as well as MSAs, PMSAs and CMSAs are disdorted for reasons he has spelled out in detail.

    Now that The GLOSSARY is on line, there is no excuse for further nitpicking.

    The Helter Skelter Crisis is growing worse and worse because land owners like you want to profit from creating more and more dysfunctional settlement patterns.

    From time to time you offer useful insights based on your personal experience but the continuing attacks on Dr. Risse are uncalled for.

    Anon Zeus

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Anon Zeus:

    You might have also pointed out that the 1990 Census is not 17 years out of date and the number now used for those living in “urban areas” both in New Urban Regions and in Urban Support Regions is 85% +/-.

    These numbers also confirm that only a small percentage of the Households contribute most to dysfunctional settlement patterns.

    Anon Zoro and Zora

  4. BROKEN LADDER Avatar
    BROKEN LADDER

    Instant Runoff Voting is not a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. Better and simpler methods than IRV exist – and IRV is lethal to third parties, because voting for a non-major-party candidate is statistically more likely to hurt you than help you. The world needs Range Voting or its simplified form of Approval Voting. Here’s why.

    Consider this hypothetical election using IRV.

    #voters – their vote
    10 G > C > P > M
    3 C > G > P > M
    5 C > P > M > G
    6 M > P > C > G
    4 P > M > C > G

    C is the clear Condorcet (condor-SAY) winner, meaning he is preferred by a landslide majority over all his individual rivals. C is preferred over G, P, and M all by an 18-10 margin.

    But… M wins, even though he also has fewer first-place votes (6 voters) than C with 8.

    Also:

    1. P is preferred to M by 22 of the 28 voters, yet he’s the first candidate eliminated.
    2. G also has more first-place votes (10) than M’s 6.
    3. So M either loses pairwise to, or has fewer first-place votes than (or both) every rival, but still IRV elects M.

    The example above was intended to be “realistic,” perhaps somewhat resembling the situation in the (now evolving) 2008 US presidential race with G=”Green”, M=McCain, C=Edwards, and P=Paul. But if you are willing to drop realism and construct artificial election scenarios, then this demonstrates how to construct arbitrarily-severe election examples of this kind: http://rangevoting.org/IRVamp.html#bad

    IRV sounds initially appealing, because people picture a weak third party candidate who loses in the first round. The myth is that this takes away the fear of voting for your sincere favorite candidate, and gives third parties a fair chance to grow; but if that candidate or his party ever grows to be a contender, he is statistically more likely to hurt the party closest to his own than to win. It doesn’t matter how unlikely you imagine the above scenario to be – it’s still _more_ likely than the odds “Green” will win. And so third party voters will learn to strategically vote for their favorite major-party candidate, because it will more often be a good strategy than a bad one. You don’t have to buy my math; you can look at decades of IRV usage in Australia’s house, and Ireland’s presidency. Both use IRV, and have been two-party dominated. So much for the myths that IRV allows you to “vote your hopes, not your fears”, and eliminates spoilers. Now you can see why the Libertarian Reform Caucus calls IRV a “bullet in the foot” for third parties, and why Australian political analysts at AustralianPolitics.com say that IRV “promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.” Ironically, most of the many countries in the world who use a genuine _delayed_ runoff have broken free of duopoly. Yet third parties just worked to help replace that system with IRV in Oakland, CA. This can be chalked up to a result of massive public ignorance, largely perpetuated by groups such as FairVote and the League of Women Voters (http://RangeVoting.org/Irvtalk.html).

    Electoral reform advocates (especially third parties!) should be demanding Range Voting – score all the candidates and elect the one with the highest average. Its simplified form, Approval Voting, is probably the most feasible to implement. It simply uses ordinary ballots, but allows us to vote for as many candidates as we like. Consider the benefits:

    * More resistant to strategy: As we see above, IRV strategically “forces” voters not to top-rank their sincere favorite; the general strategy with IRV is to top-rank your favorite of the front-runners (typically the major party candidates). But with Range Voting and Approval Voting, this _never_ happens. The worst a voter may do is exaggerate his sincere scores to the max and min scores allowed. But with Range Voting, a vote for your favorite candidate can never hurt you, or the candidate, whereas with IRV it can hurt both. — http://RangeVoting.org/StratHonMix.html

    * The previous fact helps to explain why IRV results in two-party duopoly, just like plurality voting. — http://RangeVoting.org/TarrIrv.html

    * Spoiler free: Whereas IRV merely _reduces_ spoilers. — http://rangevoting.org/FBCexecSumm.html

    * Decreases spoiled ballots: Since voting for more than one candidate is permissible, the number of invalid ballots experimentally goes down with Range and Approval Voting. But IRV typically results in a seven fold increase in spoiled ballots when we started using IRV. — http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html

    * Simpler to use: In 2006, the Center for Range Voting conducted an exit poll experiment in Beaumont, TX. There were 5 gubernatorial candidates, and voters were allowed to rate them 0-10 (or “abstain”). They all seemed to find the process as simple and intuitive. There were no complaints of complexity, or any questions for clarification. And the fact that spoilage rates go down with Range Voting, but up with IRV, shows that there is some objective sense in which RV is simpler. Voters literally make fewer mistakes.

    * Simpler to implement/tabulate: A simple one-round summation tells us the results, whereas IRV’s potential for multiple rounds can cause long delays before the final results are determined. A positive side-effect of Range Voting’s simplicity is that it makes the necessary transition to manual counting, and away from voting machines, more feasible. And Range Voting can be conducted on all standard voting machines in the interim. Whereas IRV’s complexity leads most communities implementing it to purchase expensive and fraud-conducive (electronic!) voting machines, the fraudster’s best friend. — http://RangeVoting.org/Complexity.html

    * Greater voter satisfaction: Using extensive computer modeling of elections, a Princeton math Ph.D. named Warren D. Smith has shown that these methods lead to better average satisfaction with election results, surpassing the alternatives by a good margin. But IRV turns out to be the second _worst_ of the commonly proposed alternatives. This mean that all voters will benefit from the adoption of either of these superior voting methods, regardless of political stripe. — http://RangeVoting.org/vsi.html

    * Reduces the probability of ties: While they are not extremely common, they do happen. IRV statistically increases them, but Range Voting decreases them. — http://RangeVoting.org/TieRisk.html

    * In case you’re going to say, “But IRV has more _momentum_ than Range Voting”, you should consider this. — http://RangeVoting.org/IRVsplitExec.html

    * In case you wonder why groups like FairVote and the League of Women Voters support IRV, maybe you should consider all the misleading and even patently false claims they’ve made about it. — http://RangeVoting.org/Irvtalk.html

    Get the facts at RangeVoting.org and ApprovalVoting.org

    And if you’re in the market for a better system of proportional representation (http://RangeVoting.org/PropRep.html) than the antiquated STV system, check out Reweighted Range Voting and Asset Voting.

    http://RangeVoting.org/RRV.html
    http://RangeVoting.org/Asset.html

    Clay Shentrup
    San Francisco, CA
    415.240.1973
    clay@electopia.org

  5. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Mr. Shentrup / Broken Ladder:

    Thank you for the information.

    Perhaps I was hasty is embraseing all the ideas as “good.”

    The points you make underline the need to move ahead on the path to Fundamental Change.

    No jurisdiction in the Commonwealth that I am aware of is exploring Fundamental Changes and all the alternatives need to be considered before any decision is made.

    Your post highlights the complexity of moving past the least common path of Business-As-Usual.

    EMR

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    His statement here was “THE NONURBAN POPULATION IS 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL.”

    And that is what I was responding to. Whatever he says elsewhere is irrelevant in this context. That statement is simply wrong, by almost any measure, even recognizing that there are different definitions of urban and nonurban areas.

    I have read “Shape of the Future, etc. and what I find there is a lot more disinformation similar to this. If what he meant was that 5% of the population is supported by nonurban endeavors, that isn’t what he said here. That statement, I might not have argued with, even if I think it is a silly distinction.

    EMR chooses to create his own vocabulary so that, in his words, he is always right. He may be correct, that there are distortions in the official statistics, but he does not improve the situation by creating distortions of his own. Having created the distortions, he can’t expect to paint them over with glossy glossary paint.

    I stated the date time and source for my data. If you have a date time and source for your statement that “…..that the population of territory that, based on gross density, is termed “nonurban area” is lower than 95%….” or “the number now used for those living in “urban areas” both in New Urban Regions and in Urban Support Regions is 85% +/-“, and if that source is from anyone other than EMR, then I will gladly admit I am wrong and apologize.

    Until then, I prefer to base my view of reality on generally accepted sources of data and follow generally understood english meanings. Absent a preponderance of evidence otherwise, there is no reason to assume that EMR’s interpretation is any better than mine or the Census bureau.

    My attacks are not on Dr. Risse, but on the fact as he chooses to presents them. Yet you attack me by assuming that I want to profit from more dysfunctional settlement patterns. This is simply not true. I would readily agree that the situation I am in is as dysfunctional as it can be.

    I would like to profit, yes; but only by making the situation better, not worse. If Dr. Risse, the county planning board, or anyone else comes to me with a plan that will work better than what I have now, I’m willing to listen. If this is the best possible situation, I’d like to hear why, and for whom.

    The cold hard truth is that, at present, I could present the planning board with the best opportunity they have ever seen, guaranteed to turn a profit to the county and not require more infrastructure or services, and not pollute a bit, and I would still be turned down cold.

    They want things to stay as they are. They want want I have, in other words. They wish to profit at my expense, and they freely admit as much, publicly, and frequently.

    I believe that part of the reason for this dead end situation, which benefits no one, is that people who think like EMR distribute misinformation that poisons the minds of those who don’t care to think, and prefer to believe what they wish to believe.

    RH

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mr Hyde.

    You should give up before you dig yourself any deeper.

    “If you have a date time and source for your statement that “…..that the population of territory that, based on gross density, is termed “nonurban area” is lower than 95%….”

    This statement is not in conflict with what you posted, it notes the reason why the data is not relevant. Any Census from 1800 on shows this area has a percentage of the population “lower than 95%…”

    “or “the number now used for those living in “urban areas” both in New Urban Regions and in Urban Support Regions is 85% +/-“,

    Try Brookings “metropolitian population” quoted in any of their reprots or take the the sum of Census total population for MSAs, PMSAs, CMSAs and Micropolitian Areas as a percantage of the toal US population in 2000 or more recent estimates.

    “and if that source is from anyone other than EMR, then I will gladly admit I am wrong and apologize.”

    You have had to apologize a number of times in the past but that does not keep you from continuing to lash out.

    The remainder of your comment of 2:55 makes it clear that your personal campaign to subdivide the remainder of your wife’s families farm clouds you reasoning.

    There is no way you could have read Dr. Risse’s material and come to the conclusions you espose vis a vis his data and facts.

    Anon Zeus

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I do not understand what you said.

    If you have a source that says the nonurban population is 5% of the total, I don’t see it.

    Making a different statement and saying it is not in conflict does nothing to resolve the situation. first you interpret his statement to mean whether they are supported by rural endeavors, and now you want to take the sum of a bunch of areas compared to the total.

    We first have to agree on what is urban and rural, which as I pointed out is under serious study. If EMR’s definition is close to any of those that are usually used, then his definition gains some credence.

    Once we agree on that, we can argue about the numbers, if it is important. If the numbers also confirm, as you say, that only a small percentage of the Households contribute most to dysfunctional settlement patterns, then the rest must be reasonably functional.

    What’s the problem?

    I simply made a quote from the census. along with the observation that the definition of rural and urban is subject to discussion and study. I stand by it.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The remainder of your comment of 2:55 makes it clear that your personal campaign to subdivide the remainder of your wife’s families farm clouds you reasoning.”

    You really don’t get it, do you? My wife’s farm is not going to be subdivided, whether I wanted it to or not. I accept that. It has been that way for years, and it isn’t going to change. I just use the farm as allegory, to explain conditions based on what I know best.

    What I don’t accept is the fact that public officials repeatedly and publicly admit that my wife and others like her are paying more than their fair share. That others are taking benefits at my expense. At the same time, EMR suggests we should be paying even more.

    Yeah, I have a problem with that.

    Suppose you had to go to work every day, and pay your boss for the privilege. I don’t imagine you would like that, or wish to continue.

    And suppose that if you quit working you will continue to pay your boss, even more.

    And suppose you are paying your boss for the privilege of working more than he is paying you back for the work.

    That is not a situation that can very well continue. OK, you could maybe sell your job to someone else who would work under the same conditions, but who would buy it? Only someone who has so much other income that he can do the work for fun, or pay someone else to do it.

    My government only wants rich people here, preferably people without children, and they don’t even hide the fact. I think it is wrong.

    So, Consider it an open invitation. You come here and work along side of me any weekend, if you can stand it, and I’ll pay you what I get paid. Since what I get paid is a negative amount, you’ll have to pay me.

    Then tell me if my reasoning is clouded.

    —————————–

    I have read EMR’s material, and I have reached my conclusions. I reached those conclusions by looking around and comparing what he says to what I see.

    The way I see it, his data and facts don’t (all) fit reality. He’s got his glossary, and I’ve got my glasses, we each use our own tools to inhabit our own reality.

    He and his employers/clients are actively promoting policies that I sincerely believe will do more damage than good, and not just to me.

    All I’m promoting is fairness, honesty, and transparency, Anon Zeus.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Following is a quote from a brokings institution report: “Tracking Metropolitan America into the 21st Century: A Field Guide to the New Metropolitan and Micropolitan Definitions”

    OMB determines the composition of metro areas by analyzing commuting patterns within a given region, along with population and employment levels. In contrast, the Census Bureau defines urban areas, which reflect a physical (rather than functional distinction, mostly at a smaller scale, where urban or urbanized areas are required to pass population size and density
    thresholds.

    7 Most metropolitan areas,
    then, contain both urban and rural
    territory, as do most parts of the country that are located outside of metropolitan areas. In 2000, approximately 12 percent of the nation’s metropolitan population was rural; and approximately
    41 percent of its nonmetropolitan
    population was urban. Nonetheless, practitioners and even federal agencies have commonly applied the term “urban” to metropolitan
    areas and “rural” to all nonmetropolitan territory.

    8 It is likely that this
    practice will continue under the new standards, although the new micropolitan areas (designated in this publication as MicroSAs) may blur the line between urban and rural. In like manner the term “suburban” is often
    applied to portions of metropolitan
    areas that lie outside of major cities despite the fact that neither the old nor new OMB standards makes reference
    to the terms “suburban” or “suburb.”

    9 Researchers are also likely to use the new standards—with new “principal cities” defining major cities—to distinguish
    suburban populations.

    —————————

    “In 2000, approximately 12 percent of the nation’s metropolitan population was rural; and approximately 41 percent of its nonmetropolitan population was urban.”

    Now, that ought to make it perfectly clear.

    Neverhteless if you accept the fact that “practitioners and even federal agencies have commonly applied the term “urban” to metropolitan
    areas and “rural” to all nonmetropolitan territory, then the population of all the metropolitan areas adds up to only
    82.6 percent of the population.”

    But if you accept the rest of the Brookings figures then you wind up with a population that is 17.5% truly rural.

    According to this report the old CMSA’s, MSA’s, and PMSA’s are no longer used.

    I concede I was wrong in using 1990 data.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    RH — Ray Hyde:

    Give it up.

    When you use the word “rural” you step off the deep end and make arguments unrelated to Dr. Risse’s work.

    You do not seem to understand that Dr. Risse has established a new Conceptual Framework and a new, comprehesive Vocabulary because the traditional sources of information with respect to human settlement patterns rely on a flawed Conceptual Framework and a confusing Vocabulary — as you demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    You would have more support addressing the Flat Earth question.

    Anon Zeus

  12. Lyle Avatar
    Lyle

    EMR-Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

    Agreed, the recent track record of domestic policy responses to dysfunctional settlement has ranged from puny to ineffective to counterproductive overall.

    In matters of major social and political change, I subscribe to Catastrophe Theory, that long periods will pass with no visible shift but increasing pressure, until a break happens and the system reorients in a new pattern. I believe that’s what we are experiencing right now. I believe that settlement that is not just functional but healthy, sociable, and productive is the inevitable result of this process. Really, this is a point of faith in humanity, but I see little profit in questioning our enormous capacities except perhaps to put a fire under our collective behinds. I agree with you that the status quo cannot persist much longer.

    I firmly agree that there is a need for a common vision of what we want to see. From my analysis of Smart Growth, New Urbanism, your own work, and communities seeking Sustainability, there seems to be a great deal of agreement about urban form, preservation of rural and environmental assets, pedestrian friendliness, a wealth of transportation alternatives: in short, the same things we’ve been talking about since before cars were fashionable, though not in those terms. I think there are common land use values in our society to build upon, based in our history, culture, needs, and wants. Unfortunately, the market is temporarily out of sync with many of those values.

    I agree that ideas are adopted to preserve the status quo: that’s a central concern for any system. However, those ideas can agglomerate and create synergies that pull the system towards a radically different state. I’ll dig up some good illustrations of this principle.

    The thick and thin distinction is interesting; I haven’t looked at it in this way. However, there is still more than adequate capacity to transition to a functional system, which will necessarily create efficiencies and profits along the way, if we begin that transition within the next ten or so years. The labor, materials, and energy exist plentifully to set us on a sustainable course. In my view, the only challenge is backwards policies that drive the market against our own collective and individual interests.

    I agree that renewables are a no brainer for nonurban settlement. The market never would have done what REA did, even with ridiculous energy subsidies.
    Still, the nonurban population is, as you note, a very small slice of the pie. My research into factory farming suggests that the labor-conserving strategies that dominate modern farming are unsustainable and will likely result in a surge of population back out of the cities and on to the farm as fuel and fertilizer become more expensive. This brightens up the picture a bit for the utility of thin power. Efficiency goes a long way toward reducing the burden of urban power needs. I include here siting and lifestyle decisions in addition to technical efficiencies. The former potentially has much greater capacity than the latter, though these are more difficult to quantify.
    I suppose the most effective thick energy source in the long run is bio-fuel, to be supplemented locally with thinner sources. I am aware of some of the problems with industrial ethanol, but have heard better things about bio-diesel, which can be produced regionally.

    I could not believe the amount of waste in generation and distribution of power when I learned of it. We cannot help but improve on that system with rational policies encouraging sustainable regional and local power generation.

    As currently framed and pursued, I have very little interest in clean coal. If it could produce energy with all pollutants captured and put back into the economy productively in the Cradle to Cradle concept, fantastic. Some clever people are working on that, but it may be decades before the technology is there. For now, we’re just moving pollution around, if we can even manage that. However, coal is cheap if one can ignore its disastrous health and environmental effects. But there is again, plenty of dirty coal to put us on a path towards a greener future. I like to think of hydrocarbons as nature’s booster rockets to reach a sustainable technological society.

    Right, to replace oil we have synthetics as well as electric cars for urban use. Mass transit and walking too as we move forward. As we transition over, compounding efficiencies will temper increasing costs.

    Innovations will come at higher costs, which will drive more innovation and efficiency. Large private vehicles will remain as an option, but will lose favor to superior alternatives as they develop and land use shifts.

    Agreed, the existing governance structure in America poses the most significant challenge to sensible adaptation. This is ironic, because it’s the exact opposite of how the Founders intended for our democracy to work. I see the solutions as a comprehensive strategy to restore democratic systems through improved voting systems (thank you for the excellent information on that topic, Clay), move philosophically away from two battling parties towards a constant collective questioning of how to best serve us all, and eliminate the need for the sanctioned bribery system of campaign finance through public financing of elections.
    In short, I see a straightforward Good Governance agenda as the only likely remedy for political inaction.
    What scares away trough feeders is public scrutiny, and an engaged public with the fantastic information tools currently available can offer that, even absent professional investigative journalism.

    I agree that choosing an overarching strategy and taking timely, rational steps in line with it are essential.

    Who would be an appropriate convenor for the creation of such a strategy and series of steps? Ideally, I would like a nonpartisan President or Congress to do so, but would do with a broad coalition of nonprofits, think tanks, and such. I’m thinking here of the Project for a New American Century. One may argue that their ideas have not produced good results, but they have certainly been effective in getting things done. Perhaps they’re the ones to talk with? Perhaps such steps can be taken here in Virginia first?

    Thank you for this opportunity to talk holistically about these issues. Too often I find myself caught up in the minutiae of positive change and miss the big picture.

    Best Regards,

    Lyle Solla-Yates

  13. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Lyle Solla-Yates:

    Thank you for taking the time consider our thoughts.

    It is refreshing after fending off attacks for being both a socialist and a fascist for the same ideas.

    I agree with your perspectives, including that there are ground for optimism — but only if a Fundamental Change in trajectory is acheived soon.

    You stated:

    “Who would be an appropriate convenor for the creation of such a strategy and series of steps? Ideally, I would like a nonpartisan President or Congress to do so, but would do with a broad coalition of nonprofits, think tanks, and such.”

    I am of the opinion that in a democracy with a market economy only a critical mass of well informed citizens can create the environment where Fundamental Change can take root.

    That is the basis for PROPERTY DYNAMICS which we will be summarizing in the third book of TRILO-G.

    “I’m thinking here of the Project for a New American Century. One may argue that their ideas have not produced good results, but they have certainly been effective in getting things done. Perhaps they’re the ones to talk with? Perhaps such steps can be taken here in Virginia first?”

    Any ideas of how to proceed are welcome and I suspect supported by those who have joined Bacon’s Rebellion. Jim Bacon has been with me through Friends of Virginia’s Future and now PROPERTY DYNAMICS. Groveton who posts here, I do not know who he is yet, has some action thoughts.

    Virginia is a place to start, but it will not be easy. But then, it will not be easy anywhere.

    EMR

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “My research into factory farming suggests that the labor-conserving strategies that dominate modern farming are unsustainable and will likely result in a surge of population back out of the cities and on to the farm as fuel and fertilizer become more expensive. This brightens up the picture a bit for the utility of thin power. Efficiency goes a long way toward reducing the burden of urban power needs.”

    This will necessarily mean that we have a new class of serfs, working for next to nothing in order to support the urban areas needs. There is no way to replace our current use of fuel and fertilizer with human power without a drastic reduction in the wealth of workers.

    If that is what you call brightening up the picture with respect to thin energy, then God help us.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “We cannot help but improve on that system with rational policies encouraging sustainable regional and local power generation.”

    Agreed. All we have to do is stop NIMBYISM.

    How do we do that? Make zoning easier to change and reduce the number of public hearings where anyone with a supposed beef gets equal say with someone who may have invested millions in a plan.

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “…only a critical mass of well informed citizens can create the environment where Fundamental Change can take root.”

    Agreed. However, that same critical mass is also going to have their own self interests in mind, first and foremost. There is no way to create that critical mass while docking their profits and property. If fundamental change is going to take root, it is going to have to be fertilized with profits. Those profits will be meaningless without strong property and personal rights to protect them.

    RH

  17. Lyle Avatar
    Lyle

    EMR: I agree that it won’t be easy anywhere, but it’s happening/needs to happen everywhere.

    RH: Wow, I hope we don’t see a new serf class, although we’re seeing something like that with the use of migratory labor for harvest. What Joel Salatin is working on over at Polyface Farm in the Shenandoah Valley is more what I had in mind. His operation uses no migratory labor, chemicals, or government subsidies, while building the soil, cleaning the air, and treating the animals with dignity. Also, the food is excellent, and cheaper than a lot of what you’ll find at Whole Foods. And he isn’t just some isolated crackpot, he’s a paid consultant for a variety of companies in the food industry. This is happening.
    As far as NIMBYism, I like the frame I’m hearing a lot: Now I Must Become Involved. Around where I live, all the politicians first got involved in local politics because of some project that they felt threatened by. The way to move projects through faster is with better information and feedback. It makes for a lot fewer lawsuits and bonehead mistakes. And I’m not just talking about public hearings, which by your comments I suspect you’ve seen firsthand. That model takes a lot of time to alienate and anger the public and the private citizen or company, while eliminating any real chance for collaboration and partnership in the early stages of the project. I’m working on an alternative model similar to what Andre Duany and the New Urbanists have been doing with their charette process. In that scheme, all the stakeholders – public, private, nonprofit, government – get together in the same room over a few days and hash out a plan together that they’re all happy with. The idea is all the fights happen up front, and then a good plan sails through permitting with no legal disputes. The results have been promising, though I am critical of the narrow scope of the charettes, which remain driven by a previously established development agenda which may not be the best use for the land.
    And I absolutely agree about profits and rights. Too many good ideas are cast aside or mangled horribly because they are implemented in a way that fails to respect the profit incentive and fundamental rights. I am especially thinking of Cincinatti’s proposed transit system, which would have used already constructed but unused subway lines. The proposal was a good one, using existing unused public assets, and could have done wonders for encouraging better development. However, it was married to an absurd sales tax hike that would have required the general public in Hamilton County, OH to subsidize transit riders and developers. And of course, as a sales tax, it would have fallen disproportionately hard on the poor. Amazing.

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “What Joel Salatin is working on over at Polyface Farm in the Shenandoah Valley is more what I had in mind. His operation uses no migratory labor, chemicals, or government subsidies, while building the soil, cleaning the air, and treating the animals with dignity. Also, the food is excellent, and cheaper than a lot of what you’ll find at Whole Foods.”

    Good for Him, and I sincerely hope it works out.

    However, I see a lot of such stories. Lerner over at Ayershire Farm also promotes what she calls sustainable agriculture. One result of that is tukey at $6 a pund. Having seen her farm, and knowing that she has substantial off farm resources, I have to wonder how sustainable it is, even with turkey at $6 lb.

    Not having access to the financial records, I can’t say whether Joel is a success,or another version of Ayreshire.

    As I said, I see a lot of such feel-good stories,and no doubt some of them are accurate and complete. Still, there are a lot of niche markets. There are a lot of struggling farmers, too. Frequently we see a niche market (Earthworms, Emus, Llamas, Longhorn Steers, etc. etc.) where someone makes a foothold. When manyopthers rush in the market is saturated, and then things don’t look so hot.

    Then there is the matter of ROI. Evenif Joel is making a substantial operating profit on his farm operations, the price of land is such that he may be getting a perfectly pitiful ROI on his total investment. It might very well be (and probablyis the case) that he could make more money by selling the land and doing nothing but collecting the interest.

    Lerner has a fabulous home at Ayershire. No doubt she would have a fabulous home, anyway. So the fact that she has what EMR would call an Urban existence on the farm doesn’t make any difference to her financially. She has the luxury of considering the cost of her lifestyle as seprate from the sosts of running the farm.

    I’d still have to ask, how big is the niche market for $6 turkey, and how much of it do you have to sell to get a decent ROI on that much land? She (and maybe Joel) don’t have to care, but a lot of other people do have to.

    This is a consideration that is seldom if ever covered in such stories.

    ——————————-

    “That [public hearing]model takes a lot of time to alienate and anger the public and the private citizen or company, while eliminating any real chance for collaboration and partnership in the early stages of the project.”

    Precisely. Unfortunately, for a lot of people ho show up for those things, collaboration and partnership is the last thing on their mind.

    “You are bringing something new, I don’t want new, I like things the way they are, I don’t want change, it will seem strange to have anything different, I’m used to what I have and I like it that way. It was so nice when I first moved here, then everybody else came.”

    I can think of a few individuals who will never be happy with any plan. They camp out at those meetings, and show up at every one, whether it affects them or not. With sufficient viuperation and lots of practice, they can change the tenor of an entire hearing with one statement. Whether you agree with them and their agenda or not, they are very effective.

    “I am critical of the narrow scope of the charettes, which remain driven by a previously established development agenda which may not be the best use for the land.”

    Who decides what that is? If someone has the proof that some other use is better, and the authority to enforce it,then they really should become partners and stakeholders. And they should bring money.

    I don’t see any point in attempting to have a conversation to put together a plan that everybody is happy with, as long as only one stakeholder is at financial risk. “Too many good ideas are cast aside or mangled horribly because they are implemented in a way that fails to respect the profit incentive and fundamental rights.”

    ——————————

    “The proposal was a good one, using existing unused public assets, and could have done wonders for encouraging better development. However, it was married to an absurd sales tax hike that would have required the general public in Hamilton County, OH to subsidize transit riders and developers. And of course, as a sales tax, it would have fallen disproportionately hard on the poor. Amazing.”

    In Cincinatti, nothing has changed. My father was mayor of a small town in Clermont County. At that time Cincy had a commuters tax. Part of that tax was to be rebated to the surrounding towns, but Cincy collected the money and kept it: built a new ballpark and racetrack, I thnk.”

    My father formed a coalition of small town mayors and sued the city. There was a lot of intimidation: burly men in big cars parked outside our home. Shots fired at the house. Finally someone came into my father’s office building in the city and pulled a gun on him.

    We moved away to Massachusetts the same weekend. A public official once invited me to leave the county “if I didn’t like the rules.” I was not the least bit amused.

    Anyway, how is what happend in Cincy any different from what is happening with Metro here? People who won’t use it, and won;t even benefit from less traffic on accountof it, are still going to get to pay for it.

    Undoubtedly that ws worked out in a meeting designed to eliminate any real chance for partnership and collaboration, early in the project.

    If “collaboration” is not weighted according to the financial investment and gain from the project, then it is no longer collaboration: it is finagling.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How does Cincy have constructed but unused subway lines? Did they once have a subwy and close it? Are the lines no longer used because they are in disrepair? If so, how can they be called constructed but unused?

    If the subway system was shut down once before, isn’t that cause to ask why it is a better idea now that it was then?

    RH

  20. Lyle Avatar
    Lyle

    RH:

    The six dollar a pound problem is important. My take on it is that sustainable family farming is such a small share of total agriculture production that most businesses don’t include them in their supply chains. I was talking to a buyer from Sam’s Club last night about Virginia wine, and small producers just can’t supply enough consistent product to keep a massive retailer like Sam’s in stock.
    I believe that gap between sustainable family farming and industrial style farming will narrow in coming years as the two styles of farming form a synthesis, providing healthy affordable food without inputs like foreign labor, harmful chemicals, or government subsidies, using existing regional supply chains. Appalachian Sustainable Development is a good model of what I see happening. They’re a nonprofit that works with former tobacco farmers to market their organic food. It wouldn’t work as a for-profit model yet, but it works for the farmers, and it’s a big step in the right direction. On the other end, we see Big Organic using the same production systems, foreign labor, and distribution systems as big agriculture, and making plenty of money doing it, though they are commanding a premium. I’m drawing a lot of this from Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, which I highly recommend. It changed the way I ate.

    “Unfortunately, for a lot of people ho show up for those things, collaboration and partnership is the last thing on their mind.”

    Absolutely! I’ve been to a lot of these things, and most people attending are afraid and angry. Sometimes it’s just as you say, they just don’t want anything, sometimes they’re upset that their property values might go down, sometimes they have aesthetic concerns, and sometimes they have concrete health, safety, and welfare issues. All of that is important and should be addressed by government. Once all that is hashed out, private enterprise should have a speedy and smooth process to do what makes sense.
    This is the whole purpose of the urban planning profession, of which I am a member, but actual planning process rarely provides so effectively for the public good. Usually, bad planning process leads to bad zoning and code, which leads to bad development decisions that make people angry and result in costly delay of projects that serve an important public need, often siting those projects where they don’t make much sense in the long term, all considered. I get upset about this.
    In my view, those confrontational public meetings are designed to be failures. All of that conflict should have been dealt with long before, often before development was even considered. Planning is still a relatively new profession, and most practice isn’t very good, but does carry the weight of law, meaning a lot of waste.

    The best use of the land, theoretically, is the most profitable use in a free market with perfect information. I use the term free market in the technical sense, meaning a market supported by a body of laws with low barriers to entry and exit and no distortionary taxes or subsidies. I advocate collaborative planning process because I believe it is the best way to get all the information on the table. Unfortunately, we don’t have a system that makes this much sense yet, so development decisions are often high risk, exposed to regulatory and legal challenges. Some developers have realized that a risk management strategy of collaborating with neighbors and other stakeholders makes sense to ease the process and potentially get a better product. This isn’t common though, which is why I think that local government should take on this role ahead of time, essentially subsidizing information to make better law and set up developers for success instead of conflict.
    I’ll have more on how to do this in the near future.

    I’m sorry to hear about what happened to your family. I’m glad you could get out.

    I’m not familiar with how Metro is financed. Is it subsidized out of general revenue? If so, it’s a clumsy and inequitable way of doing things. And I agree that such a system would have been put in place in the way you describe.

    I agree with your distinction. My agenda is to see that private interests are aligned with the public good up front in a collaborative process, and then let free to pursue profit. I’m specifically thinking of how form-based code works, in specifying the types of development that are desirable in an area and fast-tracking those with no public meetings. Public meetings aren’t needed if developers are doing what the public asked for in a good process.

    Cincinnati converted an industrial canal in the Twenties to a subway with a road over it. Before they bought the tracks and the cars, the Depression hit and the money they were going to use could no longer cover the cost. They couldn’t get any more money at the time, so they sealed the subway. After World War II, subways were out and highways were in, so part of the right of way became I-75. One terminal was used briefly as a bomb shelter. A water main was routed through part of it. That’s it, it’s still there under Central Parkway.

    Lyle

Leave a Reply

Read More