VILLAINS ON HALLOWED GROUND?

In his column “Missing the Point” (30 April 2007) and in his Blog post “Conservatives Should Embrace, Not Trample, Journey Through Hallowed Ground” (30 April 2007) Jim Bacon appropriately challenges the unfounded spins that has been placed on the Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) project. These attempts to discredit JTHG are driven by hyper-ideological fantasy unrelated to the facts.

There are potential negative impacts from Journey Through Hallowed Ground, especially if the project is very successful. These issues need to be carefully examined and addressed. Jim notes most of the important ones at the end of “Missing the Point.” There are however, no grounds for attacks on the project based on the political, ideological and personal scarlet herrings tossed up to date.

While Jim takes on the ideologues, we would like to go back to the prior assaults on JTHG that were posted on Bacon’s Rebellion Blog in response to Jim Bacon’s earlier column “Honoring Hallowed Ground” (16 April 2007) and the Blog post “Saving the Countryside” of the same date. These unfounded attacks were launched by an individual blogger. The comments were perhaps well-intended but badly misinformed on both facts and context.

The blogger vituperated in several posts concerning supposed disingenuous actions of the president of JTHG. There are no substantive grounds for these attacks on Cate Magennis Wyatt. While those familiar with the situation know there is not basis for the comments and while Ms. Wyatt is fully capable of defending herself, there is a larger point that impacts all discussion of human settlement patterns.

We have known Ms. Wyatt for nearly three decades and have a first hand experience based understanding of her role in eastern Loudoun County development projects along the VA Route 7 Corridor – Countryside, Landsdown, etc. – and her work in Governor Wilder’s administration.
There is no justification for suggesting her role in JTHG is less than an honorable endeavor or that it is inconsistent with her work in Loudoun County two decades ago. It would be just as silly to say she was responsible for Russia cutting off natural gas supplies to the Ukraine as it would be to suggest she paid for a Millennium party at Cheops with illicit gains from development in eastern Loudoun County. There is, however, the larger issue: Developers as villains.

The blogger who attacked Ms. Wyatt described the transformation of eastern Loudoun County over the past three decades in graphic terms. Many would agree with his assessment. At the multi-Beta Community scale, the VA Route 7 corridor is settlement pattern dysfunction squared.

Even if Ms. Wyatt was “the John (Til) Hazel of eastern Loudoun” – which she was not – what happened in eastern Loudoun County is not the fault any developer or of “developers” in general.

As we document in The Shape of the Future, there are no villains in the agglomeration of dysfunctional settlement patterns on the scale of eastern Loudoun County.

There is blame to be assessed and it must be widely distributed but it is collective blame. The root problem is the cumulative impact of billions of decisions by millions of individuals, households, enterprises, agencies and institutions. Almost all of these decisions are made in the mistaken belief that the actions that were taken were in the best interest of the actor.

If one set out to establish a hierarchy of culpability, elected officials egged on by political donations intended secure favored actions are perhaps first in line. Governance practitioners at the municipal, county, state and federal level are right behind them because they knew – or should have known – the negative cumulative impact of these acts.

Of course developers, builders and their corporate and institutional partners share blame for the end result. They were driven by the desire to optimize short term profit. However, they were playing the hand they were dealt given in a context established by overarching forces over which they had little control. Most importantly, they were catering to the assumed demand of an uninformed market without functional feedback systems in place. In this case the feedback system would be all the actors having to pay the full cost of their location decisions.

When all the actors are lined up, most of the blame – for the context and the results – rests with citizens and their uninformed and unintelligent actions in the market and in the voting booth. Right next to them is MainStream Media which has failed to provide the information upon which more intelligent decisions could be based. MainStream Media has also failed to attack Geographic Illiteracy / Locational Obliviousness for reasons we explore in our current column “Recent Clippings.”

By in large all the actors were doing what they thought was in their best interest – specifically their immediate, short term interest. There are bad apples in every category. Some knew, or should have known that what they were doing would hurt others but In response to Jim Bacon’s earlier column “Honoring Hallowed Ground” (16 April 2007) and the Blog post “Saving the Countryside” of the same date.

If any of the actors had paid attention to intelligent analysis of human settlement patterns that have been carried out over the past 80 years all would have known they were taking actions that would have a negative cumulative impact on every individual, household, enterprise, agency and institution. That, however, does not make any of them “villains” who are the proximate cause of existing conditions.

As we note from time to time those who profit from (or hope to profit from) the continued trajectory of Business-As-Usual especially those who call themselves “conservationists” are the closest to being villains but even they do not deserve a red “V” on their forehead.

Any attempt to single out villains rather than working to understand what drives the evolution of dysfunctional settlement patterns in places like eastern Loudoun County only generates conflict and divisiveness. This finger pointing just makes matters worse.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

4 responses to “VILLAINS ON HALLOWED GROUND?”

  1. Jim Bacon Avatar
    Jim Bacon

    Ed, I totally agree, the public loves to have villains to blame for dysfunctional real estate development, but there are remarkably few people who would truly qualify as villainous. People who give and accept bribes or otherwise break the law would qualify, but, as Ed notes, most everyone else is just pursuing his individual self interest within the rules and parameters set by society. Responsibility for our current predicament is broadly diffused.

    That’s why, in this blog, we don’t spend a lot of time on personal attacks. The vast majority of people I have encounter — even those I disagree with, even, yes, Sen. John Chichester!! — are motivated by a vision of what’s best for the common good. I don’t think much good is accomplished by attacking them personally.

    Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Having untainted motives is not enough. People also require insight and understanding. It *is* entirely legitimate to criticize someone else’s ideas and utterances — all in the sake of improving understanding.

  2. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    If Mr. Bacon asks me to stop blogging on this topic or to leave this board – I will do so. However, until then:

    1. A person who publicly seeks government legislation for the establishment of a land sanctuary is no longer just a private citizen. That person has entered the public arena and it is fair for taxpayers and citizens to ask hard questions. These questions may legitimatley involve questions regarding a person’s motivations and prior actions.

    2. EMR criticizes the MainStreamMedia for failing to call to the public’s attention the problems created by the over-development of Eastern Loudoun and Fairfax Counties (among others). Meanwhile, The WaPo and Bacon’s Rebellion have no issues with the establishment of a land preserve to be granted by federal act and supervised by a “management entity”. There are apparently also no issues with the establishment of an REIT as part of the land preservation structure. To Mr. Bacon’s credit, he did publish a contrarian view of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground. However, that alternate analysis was pretty quickly dismissed.

    3. To take an extreme case – Hillary Clinton has recently had her honesty called into question. Apparently, she once claimed that she was named Hillary based on the world famous explorer Edmund Hillary. However, that does not seem possible since Edmund Hillary became famous four years after Ms. Clinton was born and named. So, a mistake or “little white lie” from the past becomes a matter of credibility in regard to a person who has willingly put herself in the public eye. She must address the questions if she hopes to succeed in her public endeavors. People who publicly testify in favor of government sanctioned land use decisions also put themselves on the public record and in the public eye. When those land use decisions involve land in the same geographic area as the person lives there must be scrutiny. When those land decisions involve the establishment of a potentially (possibly?) profitable Real Estate Investment Trust there must be scrutiny. When that person is now publicly trying to oppose a set of actions in which he or she used to engage there should be scrutiny.

    4. EMR’s list of villian’s with developers near the bottom is (in my opinion) ridiculous. WalMart operates completely within its legal rights while employing a huge number of people. However, that company also receives a great deal of public complain regarding its business practices. Developers who work within the law but hurt the communities which they develop also deserve top billing in the legitimately long list of villians. Sorry, EMR, but that’s just how I see it. They seem to always be the people who profit the most and they are the people who should be held accountable for what they have done and what they now propose to do. This has nothing to do with Russian oil. It has to do with people reversing direction on land use decisions without being asked about that reversal.

    4. If my criticisms have been too personal on this topic – then I apologize. I was living in Northern Virginia 48 years ago before the chaos wrought by developers, politicians tiedd to the developers and the voters who let them stay in office. It is an emotional issue to me. This is my home and I believe that many (if not all) of the developers who were involved in large scale building in Northern Virginia were all to willing to put their personal profit ahead of the community good. Did they follow the law? Most probably did. Did they follow the right path? No.

    5. I am disappointed by the “thin skinned” response in your article. Recently, Roger Provo and I put forth our belief that handguns should be banned. We were aggressively and (in some cases) personally criticized for this proposition. For example, here is one response (of many):

    Jim Bacon – Thanks for making an attempt at discussing a better way, for trying to inject a smidgen of reason and rationality into this. It’s a shame that even after waiting an appropriate time and presenting a good starting point for discussion, the lunatics swarm on to paste their screeds.

    Yes, they are lunatics. At no time in the history of the earth have firearms restrictions reduced the violent crime rate. In every US jurisdiction where it’s been enacted, murders and other violent crime increase.

    I guess being called a lunatic twice in two paragraphs would qualify as a personal attack. No?

    and I’m just a little old blogger not somebody publicly testifying on behalf of federal legislation.

    In closing this point about personal attacks, let me make two points:

    1. I don’t see your shock at personal attacks leveled at people who advocate gun control but you certainly are upset over wht you see as personal attacks on people publicly involved in the JHG effort.

    2. Being called a lunatic didn’t bother me. I put forth my position and I fully expected to hear the wrath of the gun guys in response. It’s what happens when you express a strong opinion – whether that opinion is over gun control or the sequestering of land in a preserve forever to be run by a “management entity” with a REIT somehow involved.

    To Ms. Wyatt – please accept my sincere apologies if I have personally insulted you. I honestly mean that. I still wonder about some things regarding the JHG effort but I apologize for the personal nature of my rhetoric.

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    EMR:

    One more thing (while I am still allowed on the site):

    Your sentence –

    “These attempts to discredit JTHG are driven by hyper-ideological fantasy unrelated to the facts.”.

    Driven by hyper-ideological fantasy?

    Isn’t that something of a personal attack?

    And, regarding hyper-idelogoical fantasy, what was it you have been saying about dysfunctional human settlement patterns on the clear edge of a new urban area?

    At least my fantasies can be understood.

  4. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “However, they were playing the hand they were dealt given in a context established by overarching forces over which they had little control. Most importantly, they were catering to the assumed demand of an uninformed market without functional feedback systems in place. In this case the feedback system would be all the actors having to pay the full cost of their location decisions.”

    Well gee, Ed, why not create an argument only you can win?

    “…they were playing the hand they were dealt given in a context established by overarching forces over which they had little control.”

    Agreed.

    “Most importantly, they were catering to the assumed demand of an uninformed market without functional feedback systems in place.”

    Not so. Your assumption that the marketplace is uninformed goeas against the very foundation of a free market system. It may very well be that one person’s ideas of what represent a good deal are uninformed. But taken across the entire market this cannot be so, by definition. Just because the market does not agree with you does not mean the market is uniformed. The reverse might be possible.

    “In this case the feedback system would be all the actors having to pay the full cost of their location decisions.”

    That would be great except for three things. 1) No one one knows what the full cost is of anyone’s locational decisions. 2) What hppens if the costs change over time? You act as if costs were a fixed quantitiy. Suppose we built your ideal society and then we discovered nonobtainium, making all your “Natural Laws” moot? What do you do about someone whose locational decisions were made a hundred and fifty years ago, from a real, practical, family, and economic standpoint? 3) Who in their right mind would elect someone who proposed such a platform? The whole idea is to tax the guy behind the tree. If a big enough proportion of the market sucessfully lobbies to have their portion of the market subsidized, then that is a triumph of both the market and democracy.

    Whether it makes environmental sense is something else again, but those are costs none of us can avoid, eventually. In a very real, if tragic, sense we are all paying our full locational costs, and other costs as well.

    You tell me. Is it really OK to rationalize driving an SUV because you only drive 12K a year, or does that mean you are still not paying your full environmental costs? If someone else drives twice as far, per year, in a car that gets three times the mileage, is that better or worse?

    Suppose everyone reduced their mileage by 20%. Would that mean we needed 20% fewer roads, or that the maintenance was 20% less? What if everyone reduced the weight carried by 20%? Would that make a 20% difference in cost?

    I don’t think so. We have large fixed costs, and marginal marginal costs. Putting excess focus on the marginal costs is simply a clever way of creating distortion.

    Over all, I have to fall in line with Groveton on this, except for the following:

    “EMR criticizes the MainStreamMedia for failing to call to the public’s attention the problems created by the over-development of Eastern Loudoun and Fairfax Counties (among others). “

    It is my observation the EMR thinks Fairfax has not been developed nearly enough.

    Like Groveton, I was living in Northern Virginia years ago before the chaos wrought by developers, politicians tied to the developers and the voters who let them stay in office. It is an emotional issue to me. This is my home and I believe that many (if not all) of the developers who were involved in large scale building in Northern Virginia were all too willing to put their personal profit ahead of the community good. Did they follow the law? Most probably did. Did they follow the right path? No. Whose fault is that?

    Ours. We are the voters who let the bureaucrats remain in office who did this to us. Now we are the voters who are about to let the bureaucrats send us the bill (tolls etc.) for what they have done. People like EMR are egging them on,urgineg them to charge us “our full locational costs” for decisions that were made under rules they developed at our request.

    I am unwilling to paint “the developers” as the only villain here. To the extent that each of us wishes to improve out condition (environmental issues aside), we are all developers.

Leave a Reply