|
We
are back from a refreshing sabbatical and ready
for “Campaign 2006,” invigorated with new
goal: Creating broad understanding that
functional human settlement patterns are
necessary to create Balanced Communities in
sustainable New Urban Regions. You expected
something different?
This
column will introduce issues upon which we will
focus over the next year in support of Campaign
2006. The 73 “Shape of the Future” columns
we have written over the past three plus years
have explored events and issues related to
mobility and access (“Regional
Rigor Mortis,” June 6, 2005) and
affordable and accessible housing (“Solutions
to the Shelter Crisis,” July 25, 2005) in
the context of the theses, principles and
understandings found in our book “The Shape of
the Future.”
The
Conceptual Framework and Vocabulary laid out in
the book will help citizens understand how to
evolve Balanced Communities in sustainable New
Urban Regions. “The Shape of the Future”
columns have explicated also the failure of the
current governance structure both to achieve
mobility and access and to ensure affordable and
accessible housing. These failures highlight the
need for Fundamental Change in governance
structure to achieve Fundamental Change in human
settlement patterns.
A
Few Choice Words
We
returned from our sabbatical more convinced than
ever that finding a way to communicate the
importance of Vocabulary is a sine qua non for
understanding human settlement patterns. Without
a robust Vocabulary, it is impossible to hold
meaningful discussions of topics related to
human settlement patterns, such as Regional
Rigor Mortis and the Shelter Crisis.
Our
discussion of Vocabulary spotlights a few choice
words posted on the Road to Ruin Blog by
a long-time friend. We will use these words to
explore several aspects of why Vocabulary is
critical. (See End
Note One.)
On
Feb. 26, Jim Bacon posted an item on the Road
to Ruin titled “The
Story Less Heard.” Jim Wamsley later added
a comment on this post that demonstrates why
“debating” “land use/transportation
issues” is worse than meaningless without an
effective Vocabulary. (See End
Note Two.) For the complete
picture you will need to read the whole string
on the Road to Ruin blog, but here is
what Jim Wamsley said about one aspect of the
transportation funding debate:
“This
is all a side issue. The main question is who
gets the taxpayers’ transportation dollars.
Rural areas that need pork, counties that need
roads to support new development, or urban
areas where congestion is stifling economic
growth.”
Jim
Wamsley is absolutely right that most of the
discussion about transportation and
transportation funding “is all a side issue”
but not just for the reason I believe he was
trying to articulate.
The
statement: “Rural areas that need pork,
counties that need roads to support new
development, or urban areas where congestion is
stifling economic growth,” is catchy, contains
more than a whiff of insight and solicited a
round of Atta Boys from later commenters.
However, this statement, when carefully
considered, is profoundly misleading.
Let
us be clear on the facts: Every urban area in
the Commonwealth falls within one or more
counties (and/or cities). As far as we can
determine every one of those municipal
jurisdictions has an “economic development”
agency and economic growth objectives that are
linked to “new development.”
Further,
all nonurban (Countryside) areas in the
Commonwealth fall within one or more counties.
Almost all of those municipal jurisdictions also
have “economic development” agencies and
economic growth objectives that are linked to
“new development.”
Because
of these two facts, every acre of the
Commonwealth that Jim tries to identify fall
into two of the three sweeping alternative
categories that make Wamsley’s statement
notable and catchy. (See End
Note Three.)
If
citizens think about or try to discuss land
use and transport issues in terms of existing
governance jurisdictions and simplistic
catchall area generalizations they are lost
before they start.
You
have heard this before but a careful examination
of Jim W’s language brings the issue of
terminology into sharp focus. As we have also
noted in the past, even the use of specifically
defined, but no longer meaningful or relevant,
terms like “Central City” are confusing. One
step worse is the use of popular catchall terms
like “suburban,” “suburbia” or
“exurban” which are profoundly confusing.
Misuse of the term “city” (that is using the
word “city” for anything except as part of
the official title of one form of municipal
government) causes problems as noted in our late
2005/early 2006 three-part series of columns on
Vocabulary. (See “The
Foundation of Babble,” Nov. 28, 2005, “Deconstructing
the Tower of Babel,” Dec 12, 2005, and “Babble
Postscript,” Jan. 3, 2006.)
The
inadequate vocabulary showcased by Jim
Wamsley’s statement is made more critical by
the fact that the borders of state legislative
districts and county supervisory districts have
been gerrymandered to support the goals of
political parties and do not respect or
represent the interests of citizens in the Beta
Communities, subregions or New Urban Regions of
the Commonwealth. This is true whether the
citizens live and work in Alpha Neighborhoods
and Alpha Villages with functional patterns and
densities or in non-places with dysfunctional
settlement patterns.
Until
citizens and their appointed and elected
governance practitioners agree to describe human
settlement patterns by their generic, organic
components and recognize the need to evolve
Clear Edges and Balanced Communities in
sustainable New Urban Regions, every discussion
of these issues is “a side issue.” We will
further explore aspects of this reality in an
upcoming column, “The Book With No Name.”
Potential
Restatements to Achieve Wamsley’s Intent
A
fair question is: So, how does one express the
conflicting interests which Wamsley noted about
programs to achieve access and mobility without
creating more confusion? In this section we
outline two ways to restate what may have been
Jim Wamsley’s intent. Here is the first:
“A
critical question is how to effectively spend
taxpayers transportation dollars. This issue
is complicated by confusion about which group
appears to benefit from transport spending.
“In
municipal jurisdictions and legislative
districts where low-density areas predominate
and where those who directly benefit from
scattered urban development control the
governance process, the critical question is:
Which specific parcel of land benefits from
the new roadway? In other words, who gets the
pork that drives the existing political
system? (See End
Note Four.)
“Higher
density areas are the generators of regional
and subregional prosperity. In these areas
traffic congestion is stifling economic
growth. Almost no one disagrees with this
fact.
“Because
the settlement patterns within the borders of
all municipal jurisdictions are dysfunctional
and the borders of these jurisdictions are
unrelated to the organic components of human
settlement patterns, the roadways intended to
support ‘economic growth’ via new
development turn out to generate travel demand
that thwarts positive, prosperous
economic activity.”
Yes,
these four paragraphs are longer than the
original but it is far more clear on the points
that (we believe) Jim was trying to make.
Another
way to state the problem is:
“There
is a conflict between public policy/programs/
regulations/educational actions to accommodate,
incentivize and subsidize “economic
development” on one hand and the access and
mobility impact of public and private location
decisions on the other. The result of current
policy/programs/regulations/educational actions
is that actions intended to promote “economic
growth” result in settlement patterns that
cannot be provided with mobility and access.
Because of this, these actions end up stifling
prosperity.”
Neither
of these statements have the flair of Jim’s
original words. However, citizens need to
understand that conventional language even when
it is catchy or stylish is not up to the task of
communicating the economic, social and physical
impact of spacial (aka, locational) decisions.
Use of confusing words results in simplistic,
misleading statements which upon careful
examination make no sense whatsoever.
These
two restatements also make it much easier to
understand that the root cause of transport
dysfunction is the failure of state, regional
and municipal agencies to agree on a
Commonwealth- wide plan/strategy/program that
balances vehicle travel demand generated by
the settlement pattern with the capacity of
the transport system.
In
the field of medicine a statement such as “an
ouchie in the tummy leads to an ouchie in the
toes or a nick in the noggin” would be given
no serious consideration as the basis for
medical action. Similar statements should not be
given serious consideration in the field of
human settlement patterns.
Never
Use “Rural”
Jim
Wamsley’s words are a good example of why we
council never using the word “rural” under
any circumstance. The use of “rural” always
leads to confusion. Just searching for
alternative ways to express the reality that the
lower density areas of the Commonwealth are
low-density urban areas makes a contribution to
evolving a more functional Vocabulary.
With respect to the issue Jim Wamsley framed it
is clear that:
-
There
is a very small percentage of the 25
million-plus acres of land in the
Commonwealth where the state or municipal
economic growth/development agencies will
not subsidize a new chip factory, a new
distribution center or a new call center
regardless of the impact on regional and
subregional settlement patterns.
We
call nonurban areas “Countryside” because
there are no “rural” areas in the
Commonwealth. Few areas that could be termed
“rural” based on widely accepted definitions
remained in Virginia following the dramatic
shifts in population and economic activity that
occurred during and after World War I. No
“rural” areas remained after similar shifts
during and following World War II. (This is not
a condition unique to the Commonwealth; the same
is true even in states like Montana.) Over 96
percent of the population in the Commonwealth
derives the preponderance of its livelihood from
urban activities. Areas with low or very low
density are not “rural” -- they are low or
very low density urban areas. Using the term
“rural” invokes a confusing Neural
Linguistic Framework.
No
One Has Noticed the Whale on the Beach
There
is another shortcoming of Jim Wamsley’s
statement examined above. Jim is far from alone
on this one. As we predicted, no one associated
with the MainStream Media or with the current
legislative process in the Commonwealth noted
the whale on the beach during the Devil’s
Dance (aka, the 2006 General Assembly Session).
The whale looks like this in print:
No
amount of money, regardless of how it is
distributed will alleviate community-scale,
subregional-scale or New Urban Region-scale
mobility and access dysfunction unless there
is Fundamental Change in human settlement
patterns so that a balance between vehicular
travel demand and transport system capacity
can be achieved.
An
Even Bigger Concern
There
is one other issue raised by Jim Wamsley’s
words which will be a focus of Campaign 2006:
At
some point citizens must come to realize that
on a small planet with finite resources
everyone needs to shift from pursuing
“development and growth” –
especially growth in population and
consumption – and focus on the pursuit of
“prosperity and happiness.”
The
Major Roadblock to Achieving Consensus on
Vocabulary
Before
wrapping up this examination of Vocabulary, it
is important to address one other aspect of the
issue. This is the intentional misuse of words,
including quibbling about words as a means of
obfuscating communication.
During
the sabbatical we posted several notes on the Bacons
Rebellion blog. One addressed the continuing
flap over the New London takings case (Kelo v.
New London) decided by the Supreme Court last
year.
In
the posting “On
Takings and Overarching Solutions” (Feb.
5, 2006) we used the words “Henry George” as
shorthand for a policy -- taxing land, not
improvements -- that he was famous for
propounding. This is one way to help equitably
distribute the cost of location-variable
services. The fair allocation of
location-variable costs also would dry up the
prospect of unconscionable windfalls sought by
dog-in-the-manger hold outs during the evolution
of vacant and underutilized land to more
functional settlement patterns. The point of
raising this strategy in the post was to
identify a way to avoid use of eminent domain.
(See End Note
Six.)
Those
who follow the postings on Bacons Rebellion
blog may recall that one commenter attempted to
sidetrack the discussion of fair allocation of
costs as a way to avoid using eminent domain by
focusing on what Mr. Henry George may have
believed about unrelated topics. The use of
“Henry George” was not an attempt to
incorporate by reference his entire body of
thinking but to identify the strategy of taxing
land and not improvements inside the Clear Edge
for which he is best known.
In
his comment under “On Takings and Overarching
Solutions” Jim Bacon suggested that the
“tax-the-land-only” strategy might be
renamed the “Australian” system or the
“Kiwi” system – referring to two countries
where his ideas have been put into effect -- to
avoid getting hung up on any other of Henry
George’s views and ideas. Groups advocating
the shift to taxing land, not improvements, also
have called this tactic the “two tier” or
“split rate” tax strategy. To some, this
sounds like two taxes. It is clear that more
work needs to be done to identify the right
terminology.
To
avoid confusion we could convene a broadly
representative focus group on the topic. The
group might come up with a new phrase: The
“Ben and George’s Kiwi Split Downunder
Strategy.” “Ben and George’s Kiwi Split
Downunder Strategy” establishes a solid Neural
Linguistic Framework and should keep even the
mean spirited from attempting to misconstrue the
intent. (See End
Note Seven.)
We
came up with “Ben and George’s Kiwi Split
Downunder Strategy” to illustrate that if True
Believers and those who have an Economic Dog in
the fight want to confuse the use of language
because they do not like the outcome, it is easy
to accomplish their objective. For this reason,
the topic of Vocabulary must be carefully
introduced within the education process on human
settlement patterns. Vocabulary cannot be
suggested as a way to solve a problem in the
abstract.
And,
of Course, the MainStream Media
As
might be expected, there were great examples of
the misuse of words with the inevitable result
of reinforcement of Geographic Illiteracy in the
MainStream Media while we were gone. (See End
Note Eight.)
Perhaps
the most damaging, and the one that represents a
significant lost opportunity, was an op-ed by
Lee Hockstader in the WaPo’s March 6,
2006 edition. Mr. Hockstader reported on
development and transportation issues in the
Metro section of the Post for a number of years.
He is now a member of the editorial page staff.
His appointment was widely viewed by those
concerned with creating functional settlement
patterns as a significant improvement over the
editorial page staffer who previously covered
land use and transportation issues.
Hockstader’s
March 6 op-ed entitled, “We Need to Be
Dense,” shows how little can be accomplished
even with good intent and relevant experience if
confusing words are used.
First
the headline: One has to be quite dense to use
the word “dense” to headline an op-ed that
purports to document the need for fundamentally
different (and functional) settlement patterns.
As
far as we can tell, Hockstader is trying to
provide a positive and useful examination of an
important topic. He quotes
Richard Florida, who is familiar to Bacons
Rebellion readers. Florida noted that “the
only way we’ll really add to our prosperity is
to add to our density.” That is good
information as those who have read “Five
Critical Realities that Shape the Future,”
Dec. 15, 2003, know. There is, however, nothing
to place this idea in a solid geographic
context.
The
core problem is that Hockstader uses seven Core
Confusing Words a total of 14 times in the
op-ed. He could have used alternative words that
everyone would understand and they would have
made the points far more clearly. The net result
is another “An ouchie in the tummy leads to
... ” statement.
Hockstader
coined a new geographic unit in the op-ed: The
“cranny.” A cranny is apparently at least
6,000 acres in size. There would be about 55
crannies in Loudoun County and at the density of
the cranny profiled there would be room for over
four million people in the jurisdiction.
Pointing this out would have been very useful.
If the vacant and underutilized land inside
Radius=20 Miles were developed at this density,
six million more citizens could live near the
core of the National Capital Subregion. They
would have 40 percent open space, etc.
This could have been done without expanding the
existing urbanized area, as documented in "Five
Critical Realities that Shape the Future."
Think how helpful that would have been to
readers.
Perhaps
the most scary perspective on Vocabulary is a
March 18, 2006, WaPo front-page story by
Candy Sagon. It is titled “Cooking 101:
Add 1 Cup of Simplicity; As Kitchen Skills
Dwindle, Recipes Become Easy as Pie.” The jump
page has a headline of “Easier-to Understand
Recipes Aren’t a Half-Baked Idea.”
Sagon
reports that “Basic cooking terms that have
been part of kitchen vocabulary of centuries are
now considered incomprehensible to the majority
of Americans. Despite the popularity of the Food
Network cooking shows on cable TV, and the
burgeoning number of food magazines and gourmet
restaurants, today’s cooks have fewer kitchen
skills than their parents – or grandparents
– did.”
If
contemporary society cannot prepare citizens to
feed themselves without dumbing down the
vocabulary, how can we expect to get these same
citizens adopt a Vocabulary robust enough to
facilitate intelligent discussion and decision
making with respect to human settlement patterns
in the voting booth and in the marketplace?
Where
to From Here?
So,
where do we start? As a hunting partner once
advised: “Shoot Newt, the sky is full of
pigeons.” We will start by addressing the
topics noted above. In addition there will be a
focus on consumption and energy production and
conservation as well as on land management and
food production.
When
the Devil’s Dance (aka, the 2006 session of
the Virginia General Assembly) is over, we will
be launching the next phase of PROPERTY
DYNAMICS. The PROPERTY DYNAMICS program will be
available via the Bacon's Rebellion
website.
In
addition we are working with Jim Bacon to crate
a Bacon's Rebellion Glossary to help
readers get up to speed on a Vocabulary
developed to describe the components and
relationships that constitute human settlement
patterns. The Glossary will be based on an
update of the section on Vocabulary from “Handbook.”
“Handbook”
is in the process of being revised. When
reviewing Section 4 on Vocabulary we were
reminded that one of the guideposts developed in
“Handbook” is that before citizens can make
plans for the future they must have an agreed-to
Vocabulary. This is a prerequisite for creating
goals and objectives, the first step on the
Three-Step process outlined in the “Handbook”.
There
are new tools available to help achieve the goal
of Campaign 2006. “The Shape of the Future”
is now available at www.baconsrebellion.com. The
CD that contains the third printing of “The
Shape of the Future” also includes PowerPoint
programs that illustrate the in need for
Balanced Communities with access and mobility as
the fulcrum.
--
March 20, 2006
End
Notes
(1.)
Let me make it clear: I have known Jim Wamsley
for years and worked with him on a number of
projects. I admire his work and his thinking. I
also agree with much of what I think he meant to
say. I’m just not certain what he meant to
say, and that is the problem.
(2.)
Of equal importance is a Comprehensive
Conceptual Framework with which to consider
them. “The Shape of the Future” outlines a
candidate Conceptual Framework.
(3.)
We get to use of the word “rural” below.
(4.)
Lower density areas where those who directly
benefit from scattered urban development control
the governance process are ones with large
percentages of land that is vacant and
underutilized and where amateur and professional
speculators are a driving force in scattering
urban land uses to create short-term profits
from this scatteration.
(5.)
The only exceptions to the
“we-will-subsidize-your-
investment-anywhere”
mantra are the areas that are protected from
urban development by private covenant or public
regulation. An example of the later are areas
that are called “wilderness.” A close look
at these areas puts a sharp point on why it is
misleading to use the word “rural” for any
land in the Commonwealth.
When
one goes to places that are called
“wilderness” those citizens who one
encounters are urban citizens. They are
seeking recreation and/or temporary solitude,
they are not engaged in full time pursuit of a
“rural” lifestyle. They are almost
never among the 4 percent of the citizens who
make their livelihoods from extensive uses of
land – farmhands, loggers, hunter / gatherers.
Loggers and farm hands are most likely to spend
their free time in a local watering hole for
some “face-to-face.” They get enough
solitude being alone on the job. Now and
then you will run into a ginseng digger but they
mainly poach where they can ride on ATVs.
(6.)
Another strategy to achieve equitable
distribution of location-variable costs is to
shift from ad valorem taxes on property to the
imposition of fees that reflect these costs. As
Jim Bacon has pointed out this shift requires a
whole new set of procedures, regulations and
actions, and thus the advantage of the “Henry
George” tactic.
(7.)
In the phrase “Ben and George’s Kiwi Split
Downunder Strategy,” “Ben” is for Ben
Franklin because of the widespread application
of the
“tax-the-land-already-provided-with-services-to-support
urban-land-uses” in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. A focus group might consider
“Will and George’s” with “Will”
standing for William Penn but Ben is known for
prudent money management and when coupled with
George in “Ben and George’s...” the word
“Ben” causes one to jump to pleasant
thoughts of ice cream deserts.
That
Neural Linguistic Framework is reinforced by
“Kiwi” (which in this case is for New
Zealand and not the fruit) but reinforces the
ice cream idea. “Downunder” has risque as
well as Australian implications. But when
the phrase ends with “Strategy” one has to
go back to square one and ask: “What is going
on here?”
This
is just exactly the “gotcha” that Father
Mark Ambrose says is needed to implant new ideas
as noted in “Deconstructing the Tower of
Babel,” Dec. 12, 2005.
(8.)
In a fit of Disaggregated Beta Community media
obliviousness that feeds on and reinforces
Geographic Illiteracy, Monty Tayloe in the March
1, Fauquier Times Democrat story titled,
“The Unique Luxury of The Inn at Little
Washington,” makes a big thing of how some are
foolish enough to consider Washington, Virginia
where the Inn is located to be in the
“Metropolitan Area.” “Now, despite
the tiny town’s location almost two hours from
the District of Columbia, the Inn routinely tops
lists of Metropolitan Area” best restaurants.
The Inn at Little Washington has moved the
mountains of Rappahannock County inside the
Beltway, at least in the minds of restaurant
critics.” The New Urban Region is defined by
the summation of economic realities such as
this. To suggest the Metropolitan area ends at
the Beltway is beyond comprehension.
Tayloe also call the hills “mountains” and
uses the word “rural.”
There
are other notable MainStream Media
transgressions noted during our sabattical:
Virginia
Business illustrates a March 2006 story
titled “Rural counties beginning to attract
high-paying jobs” with a picture of a hilly
panorama of Russell County. In the
foreground is a cluster- scale agglomeration of
urban houses. The editors do not seem to
understand that if the area has “high-paying
jobs” they are urban jobs or that one of the
95%/5% Guidelines apply and the area is urban,
not “rural.”
Progressive
Farmer makes the same mistake in the text
supporting its 2006 list of the 200 “Best
Places to Live in Rural (sic) America.” Twelve
are in Virginia and include such “rural”
places as Albemarle and Fauquier Counties!
Anthony
Faiola, Akiko Yamamoto and Sachiko Sakamaki
reporting from a place they call the “city”
of Tokyo in WaPo for March 11 and try to
convince readers that developers are building
several “cities” within Tokyo for the ultra
rich on sites of 25 acres +/-.
The
story is accompanied by a low oblique photo that
depicts perhaps 10,000 acres of urban landscape
with no indication where these places may be.
Talk about confounding “Geographic
Illiteracy.”
On
March 14 Michael Alison Chandler in a front-page
Metro story in WaPo tried to make that
case that Waterford in Loudoun County
(Georgetown prices in a small package) is in a
“rural” area. To dispel this myth try to buy
land and make a profit on any extensive use of
land anywhere in Loudoun County.
On
March 16 on the front page of WaPo,
D’Vera Cohn and Amy Gardner review the latest
census figures and use “suburbs” (including
Loudoun County two days before had been
described as “rural”) and “Growing
Exurbs” to confuse readers. They present
useful data but only if one translates the
terminology into a intelligent Vocabulary.
On
March 17 Steven Pearlstein demonstrated that
Cohn and Gardner had succeeded in confusing not
only readers but a business section columnist.
Pearlstein cited data in their story and
suggested it meant that “Washington’s Got
Enough Growth to Share.” His “solution?”
Ship jobs to “Baltimore” and to
“Richmond.” He demonstrates no familiarity
with the pattern and density or minimum
sustainable density of the National Capital
Subregion, with the fact that Baltimore is
already part of the Washington-Baltimore New
Urban Region or with the reality that a massive
federal government-related job relocation to
“Richmond” would transform the relevant
region into the
Washington-Baltimore-Richmond New Urban Region.
That is something no one we know would like to
see happen. (See “Five
Critical Realities that Shape the Future.”)
Finally,
think how much more useful and educational even
threshold Geographic Illiteracy and functional
Vocabulary would have made two stories in the
first section of WaPo for March 19:
Page
A1, Ruane, Michael E. “Maryland
Street’s Soul Hasn’t Strayed Far From Roots:
Neighbors Avoid Problems That Define Many Inner
Suburbs.”
Page
A3, Pomfret, John “Where Did All the Children
Go? In San Francisco and Other Big Cities,
Costs Drive Out Middle Class-Families.”
|
