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