Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

TMT AND BALANCED COMMUNITIES

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

In the 47th comment on the TRAGEDY OF TRICKLE DOWN string, TMT posted a question unrelated to Trickle Down but on an important topic:

The optimum location for the evolution of Balanced Communities.

Jim Bacon posted a responding comment that is on target but TMTs post provided an opportunity to nail down some flapping issues and misunderstandings (aka, misunderestimations).

We have reproduced TMTs comment here and interlined comments. That is the fastest way to deal with the issues.

“Maybe I’m still missing something – wouldn’t be the first time and won’t be the last.

“But assuming, for the moment, that Balanced Communities are the “natural” or “intended” way.”

Perhaps “most efficient” or “most likely to meet the needs of the largest percentage of the population at the lowest total economic, social and physical cost” would be a better way to characterize a sustainable New Urban Region composed of Balanced Communities.

“My question is then: How are balanced communities to be implemented?”

Jim Bacon outlines three good principles in his post. In The Shape of the Future, EMR lays out six Overarching Strategies that provide a comprehensive context for achieving Balance.

The first step is to understand that achieving Balance will be to everyone’s benefit and the failure to achieve Balance will result in Collapse.

“Having lived in the Midwest and Great Plains for many years, I know from personal observation that there is plenty of room in many states to the west of the Eastern Seaboard and to the east of the Left Coast.”

Here is the first issue that needs to be nailed down: There is “plenty of room” not just in the Midwest and the Great Plains but right here in the National Capital Subregion. There is a vast amount of vacant and underutilized land for which the public has already provided infrastructure. Check out Blueprint.

EMR prepared a PowerPoint on this topic (“Five Critical Issues”). No one has (nor could they) dispute the calculations. All they can say is “I would rather not live in a dwelling in the patterns and at the density that the market demonstrates is in the greatest demand.” This pattern is, by the way Balanced at the Alpha Community scale and it functions / performs well.

Jim Bacon and EMR say: “Live where you what and as you want so long as you pay the fair cost.” The 12.5 Percenters do not like it but 87.5 percent is a majority and if they do not want to go with the majority, all they have to do is pay the cost.

“Should it be the policy of the United States to push population and even job growth to “Fly-over Country”?”

No, No, No. The markets shows the vast majority do not want to live in Fly-over Country. That is why it is Fly-over Country.

Some do want to live there and there is no reason they cannot build Balanced Communities there. However, it should not because “policy” pushes them there.

There is another reason besides the value of free choice. That reason is that the cost of contemporary society is vastly more than anyone is now paying. That is why there is huge debt — public and private — but what is being paid plus what is being barrowed now is not nearly the total cost. If ‘policy’ starts pushing citizens where they do not want to go it will cost far more.

“What if it would be much less expensive to triple the population of North Dakota than to build a mixed use Tysons Corner?”

No, not even close. How much would they have to pay you to move to Fargo? OK you are from Fargo and want to return but only 1 out of 7,346 are in that situation. The market says; the Creative Class says; common sense says: Go to the best places.

“Should immigration reform be tied to “settling the great open middle”?

No, no, no. There is no need “settle” anyplace. Over 95 percent of the population is Urban and to house the entire Urban population of the US of A requires less than 5 percent of the total land area of the Lower 48 at MINIMUM densities.

“For example, just as with homesteading in the 19th century…”

You could have a lot of that homestead land right now for NonUrban activities – really cheap. If you want to use it for Urban purposes the cost will be huge.

“… should Obama propose “amnesty” to any person who lived here illegally for five years or more, but only if she/he lives in a place such as Iowa or Wyoming for five more years?”

Of course not.

“Should new immigration permits be conditioned on settling in Montana or Arkansas?”

Only if the immigrants have skills that will evolve Balanced Communities in Montana and Arkansas and that is where they want to go.

“Should Congress enact a law that says 50% of federal agency staffs must be located in either the Central or Mountain Time Zones?”

No, see note on cost above.

That does not say that for some Agency purposes it would be more efficient to have facilities in small New Urban Regions or in Communities in Urban Support Regions but the function should dictate the location. And be prepared to pay bonuses to those who do not end up in desirable Communities and the most desirable Communities are Balanced Communities.

“Should Fairfax County simply say, “We’ve grown as big as we are going to get. The next big building boom must occur in Fairfax, Minnesota or Fairfax, Ohio.”

Fairfax County’s problems are rooted in settlement pattern dysfunction and lack of Balance, not over-population. Over-population is what dysfunction looks like to those who do not understand human settlement patterns and have let an inequitable allocation of costs line the wrong pockets.

“If we recoil at all or some of these programs as being violative of free choice, why is so-called ‘Smart Growth’ being rammed down people’s throats?”

So far as EMR is aware no “smart growth” policy or program has been established in any jurisdiction where the elected representatives did not believe that the majority of the citizens supported those policies. There may be cases where the governance practitioners believe that the majority would support these policies if they knew what was good for them but by the time “smart growth” is an issue, the majority do support it. Yes, most want the change in someone else’s Neighborhood, not theirs but few favor “dumb growth.”

“Is “Smart Growth” just an alliance between those who hate autos and suburbs and the landowners/developers who want to make money, but don’t want to move west, or south or wherever?”

You know the answer to that. But if it is the case, then the alliance is the majority in the jurisdiction where it occurs.

EMR

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

11 responses to “TMT AND BALANCED COMMUNITIES”

  1. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Perhaps “most efficient” or “most likely to meet the needs of the largest percentage of the population at the lowest total economic, social and physical cost” would be a better way to characterize a sustainable New Urban Region composed of Balanced Communities. “

    OK, I’ll buy that, it sounds sensible, and it could be arranged as fair.

    “The first step is to understand that achieving Balance will be to everyone’s benefit and the failure to achieve Balance will result in Collapse.”

    Sounds like the The first step is to understand you don’t have any choice.

    “There is a vast amount of vacant and underutilized land for which the public has already provided infrastructure.”

    Except as we have just seen on River road and other places much of that infrastrucure is obsolete, or needs rebuilt. Much of that vacant land is vacant for a reason, and it belongs to someone. Once you start buying that land on the open market, creating balance becomes an expensive proposition. I don’t see how you can interfere in that market (even if it is inefficient, for now) and claim to be in favor of free markets.

    “The 12.5 Percenters do not like it but 87.5 percent is a majority and if they do not want to go with the majority, all they have to do is pay the cost. “

    So you are in favor of mob rule and unilateral confiscation of funds. You see no reason that the government has an OBLIGATION to protect minorities? I suppose the 78.5% get to decide what the cost is, too.

    “The markets shows the vast majority do not want to live in Fly-over Country. That is why it is Fly-over Country.”

    You think it would be any different if there were any jobs in flyover country besides raising hogs? Los Alamos is arguably in flyover country and it is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation. Smart people line up to live and work there. Aren’t there plenty of places other than Tysons that have residential infrastructure in place, that are unbalanced mainly by lack of jobs, that could be ficed for a fraction of what Tysons is going to cost.

    And work better and have less congestion when they are done?

    “However, it should not because “policy” pushes them there.” But it is OK to have a policy to prevent sprawl and push people to live in Tysons (by raising the cost 10x everyplace else).

    “There is another reason besides the value of free choice.” That’s enough reason, why not leave it at that?

    “That reason is that the cost of contemporary society is vastly more than anyone is now paying.” So you think we need higher taxes all around. That ought to sell well.

    “If ‘policy’ starts pushing citizens where they do not want to go it will cost far more.” Well, on that we can agree.

    “No, not even close. How much would they have to pay you to move to Fargo?” OK, so North Dakota is a stretch. You have not made the case that there isn’t a cheaper way to house a similar number of people than whatever Tysons is going to cost.

    And as you point out the cost of contemporary society ( a la Tysons) is vastly more than anyone is now paying, and more than the developers are likely to pay.

    “Over 95 percent of the population is Urban ” Not according to official government figures. You can claim any definition you like, but then you have to go out and make the measurements in the real world, and you need conversion factors to the other measures. Without all of that it si YOUR definition and YOUR measure that is useless.

    You have not proven this premise, nor run a census. You probably can make your argument using government figures but the answer would not be quite as extreme. Why not go with values you can back up and which are widely accepted? You’d have a much better chancce of success and understansing.

    Your claim is like saying Avogadros number is 4.14 instead of 3.14. And it applies to Math not Chemistry. Good luck withthat.

    “You could have a lot of that homestead land right now for NonUrban activities – really cheap. If you want to use it for Urban purposes the cost will be huge. ” So it is the use that defines the cost, not the market, and the use is defined by whom? Government, usually.

    Oh yeah, and the cost for urban purposes will be huge. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying the last four years? That urban spaces have higher costs and higher taxes, not to mention higher crime, crummy schools, and a bad attitude about city hall?

    “Should Congress enact a law that says 50% of federal agency staffs must be located in either the Central or Mountain Time Zones?”

    Actually, I’m not sure thats such a bad idea. Your cost argument isn’t made because there ae already communities out there which could be more balanced with the addition of jobs. Besides the Middle Of America pays taxes too, why should only NOVA benefit?

    Already we are seeing agencies move out of downtown, why does it matter how far they move. We scatter government contrracts all over for reasons of benefit sharing, why not Agencies too?

    “Fairfax County’s problems are rooted in settlement pattern dysfunction and lack of Balance, not over-population.” That is your opinion, but there was a big ruckus last year over boarding houses, which some see as evidence of over population. We can agree tht it is POSSIBLE for Fairfac to absorb a lot more people, despite its current status as a nonattainment area, etc, etc etc etc.

    All of those etc’s. are minor engineering problems that can be overcome with enough concrete and steel. And money. Let’s build a square mile platform over the Metro station and put a new city there. Lots of infrastructure already in place there.

    The questions are whether it is desirable, economical, or necessary to increase the population of Fairfax when there is , as even you point out, lots more space in other places.

    I can’t see any reason to suggest that desireable, nececessary or economical fit the description in (at least parts of) Fairfax. I certainly don’t see any experience that suggests we can make it so, just because we decide to spend the huge amounts yu say it will take to use the space for urban purposes.

    “Over-population is what dysfunction looks like to those who do not understand human settlement patterns and have let an inequitable allocation of costs line the wrong pockets.” So you are telling me that if it looks overpopulated to me then I don’t understand settlement patterns and I’m responsible for lining the “wrong pockets”.

    I’m sorry, there is a logic there that escapes me. I don’t see how my aesthetic regarding population translates to lining pockets.

    It does fit your usual pattern of attacking profits somewhere, somehow.

    “So far as EMR is aware no “smart growth” policy or program has been established in any jurisdiction where the elected representatives did not believe that the majority of the citizens supported those policies.” That’s the nice thing about being an elected representative. Once you are elected you are pretty much free to believe anything you like, as in “torture is OK and effective”.

    But lets face it: representatives are elected by a majority of the voters, not a majority of the citizens. Therefore there is no way for you to be aware of any policy, smart growth aside, which whid isn’t supported by a majority of citizens.

    Neither you nor government practitoners WANT to know what citizens think. When was the last time a government official actually went out and sought unbiased statistical information? I haven’t got any questionaires lately.

    Your statement of not being aware is true, but meaningless. No one is aware because we really have not gone out and asked.

    “Yes, most want the change in someone else’s Neighborhood, not theirs….” see, we do agree so
    metimes. But how about if we take out the emotionally charged titles like smart and dumb and stick to desired, necessary, and cost effective?

    ““Is “Smart Growth” just an alliance between those who hate autos and suburbs and the landowners/developers who want to make money, but don’t want to move west, or south or wherever?””

    I do not know the answer to that. It does appear that way, because the same arguments are phrased so exactly the same from one group to the next and one state to the next. Either no one in these groups has thughts of their own or they are suffering from terminal groupthink. They even use the same or similar (sometimes misleading) graphics in their brochures.

    What I do know is tht they hate it when someone like me shows up and asks embarassing questions. Not because the questions are embarassing, but because they don’t have the answers.

    “But if it is the case, then the alliance is the majority in the jurisdiction where it occurs.”

    Not necessarily. We just went over that. As you just pointed out all that is necessary is that the elected officials believe it is a majority. Once elected, they can believe whatever they like.

    Again you are saying that mob rule is OK, that government has no OBLIGATION to protect the minority. No obligation to protect minority property rights with the same vigor and diligence as they protect the majority property rights.

    This mob rule argument goes right back to what you said was the first point “You don’t have any choice.”

    I’m sorry, but if you cannot see the serious ethical lapse your argument is presenting, then any hope of fixing the flaws in the ret of your argument are moot.

    We never did get around to the second point.

    RH

  2. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: “mob rule”

    In the US, we call these elections and referendums and we prefer these to having benevolent dictators or even the one’s that are not.

    But EMR has failed repeatedly and miserably IMHO to lay out a clear and articulate path for citizens to understand what a Balanced Community is (and is not) – and what changes they should support via elections and referendum and current development proposals (like Tysons) to move in that direction.

    The mantra continues – “change or collapse”… “repent now or burn in heck”… with most folks standing around and saying “how should we change?” – what are the specific things we should be advocating for – right now – for Tysons and development proposals like it?

    TMT asked about Balanced Communities in the context of Tysons – which is an opportunity – for citizens to advocate for a better.. more balanced Tysons since the proposal is on the table and likely to go forward.. at some point.

    What exactly should folks like TMT advocate for?

    What things should citizens advocate for – to use the Tysons proposal as a model for more Balanced Communities?

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “In the US, we call these elections and referendums “

    We do not have referendums or recall in Virginia.

    EMR was claiming a “majority of citizens” in his argument. I merely point out that this is a whole lot different than a majority of the electorate.

    If governemtnet really wanted to find out waht the majority of citizens think there are ways to do that, BUT NONE OF THEMARE IN COMMON USE.

    Instead, it is just as EMR says, and elected official chooses to believe whatever he wants about what “the majority think”.

    Even if you have a majority that wants somethng, government has an OBLIGATION to protect the minority.

    RH

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    While I intended to use some extreme examples to illustrate a point, the reality is government is using coercion to achieve balance or mixed use or enrich the guys who fuel campaign coffers.

    The feds, the Commonwealth and Fairfax County are all ramming an elevated rail line through Tysons Corner to keep Dulles Transit Partners, LLC (DTP), a joint venture of Bechtel Infrastructure, Inc. and Washington Group International, happy, along with the Flippers, those landowners simply want the Fairfax County BoS to approve mega-density for their properties once the federal dollars are appropriated. Most everyone else, be they a strong rail supporter or strong rail skeptic, don’t want the elevated line, at least not until a bid proves it infeasible.

    I’ve seen the telephone poll results where a majority of the residents of McLean (who were polled by John Foust’s campaign for supervisor) said that they would rather have nothing built than an elevated line. West Group and its executives, who at least want to build something at Tysons, rather than just flip their property, sunk millions into Tysons Tunnel. But elected officials, from Tim Kaine to John Warner to Frank Wolf to Jim Moran, all gave the bird to their constituents. Aren’t they coercing the public into accepting something that they don’t want?

    The Tysons Task Force has been pushing for quick and dirty approval of the mega-density before proper staff and Planning Commission review can be conducted. Isn’t this coercion?

    The same Task Force wants to establish a private club of landowners to control infrastructure revenues, some of which would be raised from their competitors — commercial landowners from around Fairfax County. Isn’t this coercion?

    I don’t see much difference, except in degree, between my previous examples and what is occurring with Dulles Rail – Tysons Corner. Coercion is coercion.

    What would be built, both in terms of mass transit infrastructure and urban buildings at Tysons Corner if lobbyists would not have been able to harness the coercive power of federal, state and local government? Probably not what will likely be built because of the coercive power of government.

    TMT

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If your poll statement is correct, that’s a good example. Government KNEW it had a problem,and went ahead anyway.

    Obvioulsy in order to get anything done, someone is going to have to make a decision, but the way we o aout it with hearings and public comment is largely a charade to give lip service to the public at at large, by substituting a parade of special interests.

    Just as obviously there will always be some jerk who is never happy, no matter what. He should have easy access to a jury of his peers to hear his complaint. Likely, 12 reasonable people will tell him to shut up and go away.

    At present zoning issues are all but excluded from the courts. Partly , this is historical, because one reason for zoning was to limit the number of nuisance suits.

    We would have been better off with the suits, because they would eventually become a body of case law explaining what you can expect and what you cannot expect.

    WE would have been closer to settling our disputes “at the dooryard”.

    RH

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    TMT, I totally agree with you. The process for redeveloping Tysons Corner is an abomination — as I spent considerable time detailing a year ago. While I am sympathetic to some of the aims, I totally oppose the process.

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    it’s easy (and probably justified) to condemn the process.

    the question remains – using EMR’s thesis – is there a better process and approach …OR.. is the concept of densification itself per EMR – not practical or feasible – under any circumstances?

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “We do not have referendums or recall in Virginia.”

    we do.

    what we don’t have in Virginia is citizen-initiated referenda

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    “Even if you have a majority that wants somethng, government has an OBLIGATION to protect the minority.”

    indeed we do – and it’s laid out in law and constitution – and it does not include most of the areas that you say should be “protected”.

    If you have a referenda proposal for say.. spending a bunch of money for State Parks and a tax increase to fund it – and a majority of people vote for it….

    then are you saying that the minority rights were not “protected” as a consequence of having the referendum?

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and it does not include most of the areas that you say should be “protected”.

    Acrtually, it does. Specifically on environmental issues. “No individual or group should bear an undue burden due to the enactment, implementation, enforcement or failure to enforce environmental regulations.”

    But as a rule protection of minorities is observed mainly in he breach. And as I have pointed out over and over again: we make some policy, whatever it is for the public good. If it is actually for the public good there is NO REASON the winners cannot pay off the losers, ans still come out ahead.

    All we have to do is apply the principles of Kaldor-Hicks efficiency.

    Say the Northern end of Fauquier wants a big park. People in the poorer southern end migh object to paying for it. But you would’t be building the park unless you could show a social benefit. We know what the utility of parks is as a function of distance: that has been measured over and over. Therfore the northern parks advocates OUGHT to be willing to make an accommodation, based on known facts.

    But,as long as they have the votes, they will just say screw you.

    I call that stealing.

    On the other hand, there might be no complaints and we could assume that we have general agreement.

    All you need is one complaint to blow that theory.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Goodness knows, President-elect Obama has his legislative hands full. Maybe that explains why he has taken the idea of increasing gasoline taxes off the table, saying that Americans had enough economic burdens at the moment. Nominees like Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who will become Energy Secretary, dutifully echoed Obama’s view even though in Chu’s case he has long supported higher fuel taxes.”

    So here is an example of a government practitioner who, once elected, chooses to believe whatever he likes.

    Not only that, but his hired experts who are known to (have beleived) otherwise, now think the same as their boss.

    ARRRGHHHH.

    RH

Leave a Reply

Read More