• Obligatory Post about Land Use in Augusta, Ga.

    I’d never given much thought to human settlement patterns in Augusta, Ga. I don’t follow golf, so the city is no more likely to enter my consciousness than, say, Minsk or Ougadougou. But I do make it a habit to observe what I can of human settlement patterns wherever I go. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised. The neighborhoods near the August Country Club are quite beautiful. There are many handsome houses lining impressive thoroughfares. Augusta loves its trees and landscaping, and this is the season for the dogwoods and azaleas.

    In most respects, Augusta displays the same human settlement patterns that pervade the United States: segregation of residential and commercial land uses, and segregation of neighborhoods by income. There was, however, one small, delightful surprise.

    We took a “short cut” yesterday through a neighborhood to avoid the awful morning traffic near the golf course and managed to get quite disoriented by all the windy, hilly roads. (In other words, we got lost.) But the neighborhood was stunningly beautiful. It was heavily wooded, with steams, stone bridges and immaculately landscaped gardens . For all its beauty, though, the neighborhood appeared to be a monoculture of detached, single-family dwellings, all in the same narrow price range ($1 million or so, applying Richmond valuations).

    Then, to my surprise, we rounded a curve, and there was an apartment building, a structure with eight or so units. Solid brick, tastefully done, not out of character with the houses nearby. Then, a little further, we encountered a long row of townhouses. These “multiple-family dwellings” fit seamlessly with the single-family houses.

    Now, this wasn’t exactly “workforce” housing. Instead of limiting itself to the top one percent of income earners, these dwellings might have opened up the neighborhood to the top 25 percent of the region’s income earners. But, hey, it was income diversity of a sort.

    I can fully understand why homeowners might want to keep their neighborhoods free of crack houses and halfway houses. But I never understood the need to segregate housing within the same narrow income band. Why not open up the neighborhood to households of smaller size and somewhat different incomes? This neighborhood in Augusta, Ga., did so successfully. Try it, you might like it.


  • Yes, I Did See Tiger Woods

    To answer the obvious question: Yes, I did see Tiger Woods. We camped out around the 11th hole yesterday, and we made a point of staying there until Woods played. As much as I have zero use for celebrity worship, I couldn’t come to the Master’s golf tournament and miss seeing him. And trust me, Woods is a massive celebrity, even among this crowd of mostly affluent, Southern, white, middle-aged men.

    Woods wasn’t playing particularly impressively at that point in the afternoon. He had racked up a succession of par rounds, even as a legion of lesser talents were smoking past him. But when Woods showed up in the fairway behind us, all heads swiveled away from the mere mortals who were teeing off on the 12th hole back toward Woods, who was doing nothing, just leaning casually against his golf stick and waiting for the group ahead to finish. A whole sea of people — investment bankers, corporate attorneys, building contractors, the business elite — stood up from their seats just to get a better glimpse of the Mighty One.

    Woods was cool — relaxed, almost nonchalant, showing no stress at falling three shots off the leadership pace. He played solid golf on the 11th hole, finishing up with another par. He had a chance at scoring a birdie, but he took a long putt that missed the hole by an inch or two. And then he was on to the next hole. No showmanship, no swagger. Very understated, very civilized. Woods, I would suggest, is one of the few celebrities who deserve the idolatry bestowed upon him.

    That was my brush with Woods worship. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt with the Master’s logo.

    I get to stay in our guest house today, getting some work done, while my father-in-law, an avid golfer, uses my pass. The Master’s is a world-class event, and I’m pleased that I had a chance to witness it. The grounds were immaculate and beautiful. I soaked up impressions of a sub-culture to which I had never been exposed. But I’ll tell you this, as boring as golf is to watch on television, it’s even more excruciating to watch in person. At least the television cuts from player to player — no long waits between “action” sequences. In person, one must endure interminable intervals between golfing groups. Golf makes baseball look like a non-stop, fast-action thriller of a sport. On television, there is no trouble seeing where the golf ball travels. In person, you might be lucky enough to see the ball immediately after it’s hit, but you lose it in the sky and can’t see it again until it plunks down on the ground. Booooring.

    But, hey, it would be a dull world if everybody liked the same thing. If people love golf, good for them. I’ve got other things to do with my life. … Like blog.


  • Part Three on Supercapitalism

    This post is about the Have Nots in the workplace in the Supercapitalist (Robert Reich’s term) economy.

    Previously I posted about the conditions that frame the individual person’s economic condition. Those conditions can be improved substantially in Virginia by increasing capital. Lower taxes, personal and corporate, create Commonwealth Trust Accounts, reform health care (not addressed in detail), increase supply of energy, etc.

    Now, what is a person, let’s call him or her – Miss Have Not, to do when there are very few opportunities to move up a notch on the economic ladder? And, the jump up several notches requires new skills, education or successful entrepreneurship. Furthermore, Miss Have Not’s employer is constantly squeezed to keep her labor costs down and to push her productivity up.

    Let’s say the persons who feel trapped or left behind in this Have Not end of the normal curve – or economic ladder – are 40% of the citizens of Virginia. (I’m not including illegal aliens).

    First, the personal savings posted earlier, created from existing taxes, build significant security for health care and retirement.

    The next step is very hard to do. (It will likely undo many of the Republican Party credentials I’ve built over 16 years. What the hey, I was a Populist Christian the whole time – anyway. Still a Conservative)

    You can find money for redistribution from corporate good works and in executive salaries. You can share profits in stock and stock options.

    1. Corporate good works (the Breast Cancer ladies are going to hate this – and many others) come from the corporate bottom line. It is a zero sum game in the closed system of one business tally sheet, so corporate good works compete with wages.

    Encourage corporations to stop doing good works, public service, community relations, etc. and put the money into wages. Or, tax good works heavily and put that tax money into individual Commonwealth Trust Funds for persons in the lower 40% of income.

    Change the laws to tax non-profit organizations incomes as income or tax their distributions. It is capital that has avoided the ‘tax once’ rule. Recycle the tax money to the individual Commonwealth Trust Funds of the lower 40%. (I am okay with taxing my tithe to my church or taxing my church’s distributions – if it doesn’t cross the first Amendment line of establishing or prohibiting religion and I’d like to know the legal precedents back to the Roman Empire on what the ability to tax means – really)

    2. Encourage corporations to share their profits in company stock, stock options, or direct profit-sharing for small business that comes directly off corporate taxes. Or if we actually have a zero corporate tax rate, then make those corporations that don’t share profits pay corporate tax – which increases their risk and reduces their competitiveness.

    3. (Deep breath) I actually thought of this in the early 90s. Look at the maximum ratio of the highest paid person to the lowest paid person. Is it, or in your mind, should it be, 7:1, 10:1, 100:1 or 1000:1 or what? I call that ratio the “Greedcap”.

    The rationale is this. The CEO or management, (and I am paid a management salary), reflects how much money, value-added, the persons add to profit. (I’ve made my companies far more money than they have paid me – like a professional athlete… just not as well!). Yet, at some point the increased profit of a corporation is the result of everyone’s better work. I don’t know that number empirically. But, I know it exists.

    Enter labor unions or shareholders. Leverage must be brought to bear when the highest pay is over the Greedcap. Every dollar paid over the Greedcap should be split (say 50:50) with 50 cents going to a person and 50 cents going to the stock, stock options, profit sharing, health benefits or retirement fund, whatever, shared by all employees. Note, if the Government, Federal or Commonwealth, establish the Greedcap and try to regulate this it will be a screaming disaster. It falls to unions, non-union workers and shareholders and moral suasion to make this work. A key point here is that you aren’t taking capital from corporations but redistributing capital allocation within the corporation or small business. (And don’t forget anyone – medical professionals, lawyers, authors, movie stars, athletes, university presidents, non-profit management, union leaders, etc. They all make their money in a community of co-workers or employees)

    Next installment…dealing with the restructured economy, or… what about Walmart?


  • A Brief Hiatus from our Usual Blogging

    Well, Baconauts, I find myself in sunny Augusta, Ga. — except it’s not very sunny around 8 a.m. this morning: The town is covered with a thick fog. Anyway, I’m here to observe what has become one of the nation’s largest sporting events. At its peak, up to 150,000 people will crowd the fairways to watch a procession of middled-aged white guys — plus Tiger Woods — swing long sticks at little balls.

    I’ve never played a single round of golf, and at 55 years old, I don’t intend to begin. I’m here because my wife likes golf and in a fit of madness bid on some tickets at the Collegiate school auction — and won. As ignorant as I am of the sport, I doubt I will have anything useful to say. If you want insight into the tournament, turn on the television!


  • Our Energy Future: Subsidies, Incentives and Regulatory Obstruction

    There are some interesting tidbits buried in Greg Edwards’ story in the Times-Dispatch today about a Washington, D.C., conference on nuclear power. One of the panelists was Eugene Grecheck, Dominion’s Vice President for nuclear development.

    • Dominion would never have proposed building a highly controversial coal-burning plant in Wise County purely on the technical merits of the location. As Edwards paraphrases him, the decisive factor was “General Assembly support for the plant and incentives state lawmakers had offered a company willing to build a plant in the state’s coal fields.” Bacon’s Bottom Line: It’s all about the pork, baby!
    • Among all the electric utilities applying to build new nuclear power plants in the United States, Dominion Virginia Power is likely to be the very first to get the go-ahead. Grecheck based that appraisal on a permitting schedule posted on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s website. BBL: Has anyone calculated how economically competitive the nuclear plant would be without federal subsidies?
    • Other than the Wise County plant, another coal plant is not an option for Dominion Virginia Power “because of the economics of building a coal facility and the permitting difficulties.” BBL: Translation: The environmentalist foes of the Wise County project have done their job well. Who wants to lay odds that their next target is the nuclear plant?

    Final question: Is it even possible to build energy sources in this country any more without economic signals distorted by subsidies, incentives or obstructionists? Do we even know which the most economical energy sources are?


  • Kaine Plots Transportation Strategery

    Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has met with top Democratic lawmakers and his personal pollster to talk transportation. According to Jeff Schapiro’s report in the Times-Dispatch, the governor is seeking “a transportation solution that is simple, statewide and sufficient to meet our transportation needs.”

    Oh, boy, we’re in big trouble.

    The idea that there is a “simple” solution to Virginia’s transportation needs is a non-starter. If there were a “simple” solution, someone in the 50 states or the dozens of industrialized nations around the world would have found it. Transportation systems are inseparable from human settlement patterns, global energy economics, demographics and governance structures. They are among the most complex systems known to man.

    In this case, “simple” is a code word for a simple-to-administer tax. I can only conclude that the governor is leaning towards a hike in the statewide gasoline tax, or possibly a hike in the state sales tax.

    Now, I’m a big proponent of the gasoline tax as a funding mechanism for road and highway maintenance — the gasoline tax is indeed a simple, statewide and sufficient solution for that particular purpose. I might even be prevailed upon to raise gasoline taxes enough to ensure that Virginia has sufficient state matching dollars to qualify for full federal transportation funding. But I oppose gasoline taxes as a mechanism for financing new road construction. Let us remind ourselves of two things:

    • The transportation “crisis” is not a statewide phenomenon. It is limited mainly to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads (although, given the accelerating spread of dysfunctional human settlement patterns in the smaller metro areas, it could well become a “crisis” elsewhere in a decade or two). It makes no sense to raise taxes statewide to solve regional problems. One of two things will happen: Either (a) regions outside NoVa and HR will wind up taxing more and building more than they really need, with lots of money dumped into projects of dubious value or (b) excess funds money will be transferred to NoVa and HR from the rest of the state.
    • In the absence of Fundamental Change, pouring more money into a broken system will not “fix” the problem. It will propel the old jalopy a few more miles down the road, at which point it will be obvious that it’s still broken, and the politicians will be crying for another round of taxes.
    • There is no protection against the General Assembly raiding raid the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) to pay for non-transportation priorities, as it has done in the past. Gov. Kaine has totally dropped the ball on his campaign promise to pass a constitutional amendment to protect the TTF. Heck, he hasn’t dropped the ball. He’s spiked the ball in the safety zone and done a victory dance!

    We know what is needed: a user-pays system for financing roads, sweeping reforms to land use, a mechanism to coordinate transportation and land use planning, and a restructuring of the powers of state and municipal government. Without Fundamental Change, we’re just spending more money, we’re not “solving” anything.


  • Part Two on SuperCapitalism

    In the first installment of Supercapitalism Redux I listed what I thought were Robert Reichโ€™s key correct findings. Here are my suggestions on what we should do in Virginia about those findings for the common good in the Commonwealth.

    Everyone has more money and stuff than 30 years ago. Our American poor are richer, materially, than they were three decades ago. They are considerably poorer, spiritually and in quality of life, than the poor from the 70 years ago โ€“ because of the destruction of the family.

    Yet, the middle class has thinned out considerably. The squeeze increased the number of upper middle class and wealthy (is rich a better term?) folks. Likewise, the number of lower middle class people increased. If these folks donโ€™t get new competitive skills or go into business, successfully, for themselves, they will not progress to the middle class. Ever.

    What to do for the people at the bottom economically?

    First, donโ€™t destroy capital. Reich agreed (p. 4) that โ€œCapitalismโ€™s role is to enlarge the economic pie.โ€ Build capital. Build capital as fast as it can โ€“ grow the economy just shy of cross-over point of inflation. Tax capital once โ€“ period.

    The 3% growth in total tax burden in Virginia since the 70s means about $157 a month for the median family (earning $51k in ROVa and more in NoVa). Lower personal taxes.

    Expand the supply of energy, as much as Virginia can, to lower the price. The cost of rising oil prices destroys the discretionary income – and even pushes into mortgage failure – too many working families. Build the double refinery capacity at Yorktown, build new nukes, build sea-based tide and windmills, etc.

    Provide individual supported by community, not government, opportunities for the big expenses โ€“ health, retirement, job insecurity, and education โ€“ that will break marginal income families. I wrote in Baconโ€™s Rebellion about Commonwealth Trust Accounts for lifelong individual savings. Return the bogus $1.5 B sales tax increase (2004) into individual accounts ($200 @)) for all 7 million Virginians. Give generous tax cuts for folks who contribute to other folksโ€™ accounts.

    Elect Representatives and Senators to the Federal government who will morph Social Security into individual, personal accounts. Elect politicians who will morph Medicare, Medicaid and the drug benefits into sustainable health insurance accounts. But, donโ€™t wait for the Federal government to reform to take action in Virginia.

    The social pathologies that plague families of every income canโ€™t be solved by government. Government shouldnโ€™t promote the pathologies, like welfare did.

    Coming up nextโ€ฆwhat to do about corporate excesses.


  • The Elliston Intermodal Facility: Institutional Gridlock?

    Norfolk Southern wants to build a $35.5 million intermodal facility in Montgomery County to transfer shipping containers from trucks to rail in an initiative that could remove 150,000 trucks a year from Virginia’s highways. Not only that, but the project could create as many as 2,900 jobs over a 14-locality area from Radford to Lynchburg, generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity, and plunk down between $17 million and $71 million in taxes.

    Wow, sounds like a winner. The project relieves traffic congestion. It’s good for the environment. It creates jobs in a section of the state where unemployment is still a problem. And it adds to the tax base. What’s not to like?

    Well, apparently residents of the Elliston area, where the transfer center would be located, are worried that the project will adversely impact their quality of life by increasing traffic and noise, and degrading air and water quality. Now, Montgomery County, which endorsed the project in 2006, opposes it. (See coverage in the Roanoke Times and Times-Dispatch.)

    There are two ways to approach problems like this. One way is to fight bitterly, refusing to yield an inch. The other way is to seek reasonable compromises in pursuit of the common good. I don’t know which path the people of Elliston will follow, but the situation does not look positive. Maybe Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, who is trying to organize a regional meeting, can pull off a deal that makes everyone happy.

    The residents of Montgomery County would do well to talk to the Piedmont Environmental Council, which backs the construction of new railroad sidings in Fauquier County. The rail link between Manassas and Front Royal is “the major chokepoint” on Norfolk Southern’s New York-to-Texas corridor, according to an article in the Spring 2008 Piedmont View. The residents of Fauquier are just as concerned about the impact of increased rail traffic as the residents of Montgomery County — this is the region, remember, where citizens are fighting a proposed high-voltage transmission line tooth and nail — but they are displaying a very different attitude.

    The PEC acknowledges the public benefits of shifting container traffic from truck to rail. A train can haul one ton of freight up to five times further than a truck on the same amount of fuel, while emitting only a third as much carbon dioxide. Additionally, as the Piedmont View quotes The Plains resident Megan Gallagher, rail yards are “so much less destructive than a 500-foot roadbed with hundreds of thousands of vehicles.”

    Accordingly, PEC has chosen to work with Norfolk Southern to craft an outcome acceptable to piedmont residents. Priorities include:

    • Helping landowners get a fair deal in negotiations with the railroad
    • Reducing noise by adding gates at road crossings so that trains don’t have to blow their whistles
    • Diverting construction away from land under conservation easement, where possible
    • Offsetting the loss of conserved land through the protection of nearby properties of comparable size

    Let us all hope that the residents of Elliston take such a constructive approach.

    Update: The Roanoke Times reports that the state might have to contribute more money than originally thought to the project: an additional $10 million to $15 million to build the “Ironto Connector” between the rail yard and Interstate 81.

    (Map credit: Adapted from “Answers.com.” Blue dots show approximate location of proposed Montgomery County and Fauquier Count facilities.)


  • Does This Go On My Permanent Record?

    Re: Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy and Everyday Life by Robert B. Reich.

    Jim Bacon asked his writers to read and report on this book by former Clinton cabinet official, Robert B. Reich. Here is my homework in several installments.

    Reich describes the changes in America, and across the world, caused by the transformation from the Industrial Era to the Information Era. And, for the Third World from the Agrarian Era to the Industrial and Information Era at the same time. His findings of economic trends and facts, believe it or not, were the basic same things predicted by the long range study (the last of the Army 21 studies) I lead in 1990-92 for the period 2005-2015.

    Interestingly enough, our study said the key to the future, domestically and abroad, was โ€œthe political perception of economic change.โ€ And, that a โ€œGandhi with gunsโ€ could articulate the grievances of the Have Nots as a cultural identity issue.

    Consequently, I reject Reichโ€™s dichotomy of Democracy vs. Supercapitalism (Reichโ€™s name for the new phase of economics). Every โ€˜governmentโ€™ that makes rules, executes rules and adjudicates rules from the tiniest tribe to the greatest civilization โ€“ ever – has its hands in the economy.

    One of the best courses I took in grad school #1 was โ€œGovernment and Business in a Mixed Economyโ€ taught by the late Dick Darman and Roger Porter. The course showed how intertwined government and the business are. Was, are, is and will be โ€“ forever. So, I reject Reichโ€™s basic assumption. Yet, many of his findings were spot on. Those that werenโ€™t, Iโ€™ll just ignore for now.

    His findings include the following items Iโ€™d agree are valid:
    โ€ข Widening inequality in incomes
    โ€ข Reduced job security
    โ€ข Plethora of products and services appealing to our basest desires
    โ€ข Large companies spend on lobbyists, lawyers, experts, public relations specialists and donations to โ€˜drownโ€™ out the voices and values of citizens

    The result is โ€œAmericans are losing confidence in democracyโ€ (Reichโ€™s word for our government).

    Also, the GDP grew threefold (300%) from 1973 to 2006 โ€“ adjusted for inflation.

    Productivity grew by 80%.

    CEO incomes went from 66 times the โ€˜typicalโ€™ worker (1968) to 900 times the โ€˜typicalโ€™ worker (2005).

    And, ta da, the gains in real income from 1974 to 2004 are by quintile

    Lowest 5th โ€“ 2.8%, 2nd lowest โ€“ 12.9%, middle โ€“ 23.3%, 2nd highest โ€“ 34.9%, and highest โ€“ 61.6%.

    Chew on those finding fellow Virginians. Iโ€™ll post in another installment what I think are better answers of โ€œwhat must be doneโ€ than Reichโ€™s. IMHO.


  • Responding to McSweeney et al

    It looks like Norm Leahy is not the only one who wants to take a swat at the “Conservative Transportation Alternative” signed by Patrick McSweeney and other conservative activists. A former contributor to Bacon’s Rebellion, who must go unnamed, was so riled up by the “Alternative,” that he submitted a rebuttal. It was substantive enough that I thought it warranted its own post on the blog. So, here goes… (–Jim Bacon)

    Responding to the McSweeney, et. al. “Conservative Transportation Alternative” Paper.

    The first overall comment is that the authors completely ignore 20 years of inflation. You would think 2007 and 1986 dollars were the same in purchasing power or in economic cost to the taxpayer. The authors know better than this, of course, but adjusting figures for inflation would undermine their premise that transportation spending has soared from $1.2 billion in 1986 to $4 billion last year. In reality, per capita, adjusted for inflation, state transportation funding has barely risen. And as has been well documented, construction funds are dropping.

    JLARC’s most recent state spending report has a chart on actual expenditures (Appendix E) that shows state transportation spending rising 160 percent (in unadjusted dollars) from 1986-2007. In the same period total state spending rose 310 percent, education spending rose 275 percent and individual and family services spending rose 326 percent. Transportation spending has been flat since 2002 at $3.4 billion per year. (That is in actual dollars, meaning that real spending declined 2002-2007.) The infusions of General Fund money the authors cite have left us, like Aliceโ€™s Queen, running faster to stay in the same place.

    The second major comment is specific and goes to the heart of the debate…. (click on “comments” to read the rest of this missive.)

    Update: Pat McSweeney has written extended remarks in response to this post. Click on “comments” and scroll down to the 12th comment (12:54 p.m.) to read them.


  • Chesterfield Looks at TND Zoning

    It was probably the shortest staff-written article in the Sunday Times-Dispatch, and I can’t even find it posted online, but the story headlined “New zoning district proposed” may be the most significant article in the newspaper yesterday. Chesterfield County, long the poster child for dysfunctional land use patterns in the Richmond metro region, is getting close to creating a Traditional Neighborhood Development zoning category.

    The zoning category would streamline the application and approval process for New Urbanism-style development, writes Wesley P. Hester, by putting a single label on what now requires a complex mix of zoning categories. And just in time, too, because many of the big new projects proposed for Chesterfield, the fastest growing jurisdiction in the Richmond region, are built around mixed uses, traditional city blocks with alleyways, and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. The more development that takes the form of TND neighborhoods, as opposed to the old helter-skelter development, the better off the county and its residents will be.

    As I’ve long argued in this blog, TND development in well-planned projects makes far more efficient use of land and infrastructure than scattered, single-use development. Of course, the new zoning category is only a first step on a long road to recovery for Chesterfield, which has smeared growth inefficiently over a vast expanse of territory — and continues to see growth gravitate to the metropolitan edge toward the recently constructed U.S. 288. Even so, good development in the wrong location beats bad development in the wrong location. If approved, the measure will represent progress of a sort.


  • Swatting the Hornet’s Nest

    I told Jim when I sent him the draft copy for my latest column that it might generate some vigorous discussion. Good soul that he is, my editor replied that while the writing was good, the conclusions were off base. This pleased the contrarian in me no-end.

    In part it’s because I take issue with the Conservative Transportation Alternative, which made a minor splash a few days ago. What a great idea — bold, daring, and with graphs, too! It can’t be bad, right?

    But is this really a conservative document? Many of the folks (some of whom I know and respect) who signed on to it are conservatives, even libertarians. The title says it is conservative. And here and there are strains of conservative orthodoxy (Barnie Day’s “dog whistles”). But the conclusions they reach (or at least those the paper’s writer reaches) strike me as not conservative at all, but more along the lines of a central planner — one who seems to think that homes breed people and roads create cars…who thinks that controls are essential, because individuals simply cannot be trusted to make their own decisions…and who ultimately believes that these same people are an increasing inconvenience to both bureaucrats and their budgets.

    Is that conservative? Eh…no.

    Now bring on the brickbats.


  • Creating a New Segregation

    The Valentine Richmond History Center is to be commended for its new exhibit that opened April 4, โ€œBattle for the City: The Politics of Race 1950s-1970s.โ€ This modest show (the size of one big room), has the usual materials โ€“ a Ku Klux Klan robe, pictures of sit ins by young African-Americans and displays of school segregation.

    Whatโ€™s truly interesting in the show is that it takes pains to explain how the most densely populated and, in some cases, the most culturally rich African-American neighborhoods were ripped apart by new toll roads planned by the white establishment because that was the trend in land use planning (or โ€œhuman settlement patternsโ€ if you are so inclined).

    As many as 7,000 African-Americans โ€“ 10 percent of the cityโ€™s total black population –were forced from their homes from 1955 to 1957 to make way for the Richmond Petersburg Turnpike, now Interstate 95. The Downtown Expressway forced another 900 mostly black residents from their homes later.

    To be sure, building big new expressways in city centers was the favorite mode for land use planning at the time. But it served to re-segregate Richmond, foster unwieldy suburban sprawl and exacerbate racial tensions that are still being felt today. See column โ€œCreating a New Segregation.โ€

    Peter Galuszka


  • How to Build a Village

    Claude Lewenz, an American-turned Kiwi, has written a fascinating book, “How to Build a Village,” in which he envisions how to build a small community — a “village” of some 5,000 to 10,000 people — that is prosperous, environmentally sustainable and enables a high quality of life. On Waiheke Island, outside Auckland, on the far side of the world, Lewenz has elaborated many of the same principles propounded on this blog. He offers a capitalist, market-driven alternative to Business As Usual.

    The central feature of the Lewenzian village is this: It has no cars or trucks. Within the village perimeter, people get about by walking, bicycling or using small electric vehicles. To many, the idea will sound ludicrous. But drawing upon real-world examples of Medieval Italian cities and Greek island villages, Lewenz makes an intriguing case. He would organize his villages around Italianate plazas and link them with pedestrian streets and lanes of various widths; cars, to be used only for travel outside the village, would be banished to a garage on the village edge.

    The scheme would work because getting rid of the cars eliminates the need for the vast apparatus of streets, highways and parking lots that consume so much urban space. As a result, everything is closer together. Thus, trips are shorter. (As a bonus, Lewenz envisions using the savings in asphalt to invest in underground utilities, recycling and waste systems, organizing and promoting locally grown foods, and other village enterprises.)

    While Lewenz sees his village located in the countryside, demarcated by a village wall from the fields and woods (what Ed Risse would call a “clear edge”), he acknowledges that variations of the auto-free zone could be applied in urban environments through in-fill and re-development projects. Just imagine the impact in Virginia if our major metropolitan areas developed strings of car-free villages, linked by arterial roads and mass transit, in which some 50 percent to 80 percent of all “trips” took place on foot or on bicycle.

    As Lewenz notes, America already has large car-free zones. We just don’t realize it. We cover them with roofs and call them malls. We just need to make them bigger: integrating shops with houses, offices, public buildings and other amenities…. and removing the roof.

    In “First, Shoot All the Cars,” I focus mainly on how a Lewenzian village would function without cars, but I allude to many of his other ideas for building more livable, sustainable communities. If you find the column intriguing, buy the book. It is lavishly illustrated with color photographs from Lewenz’s travels around the world — well worth the hefty purchase price.


  • Wreaking Havoc upon Complacency and Torpor

    The Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine publishes again. The April 7, 2008, edition skewers the forces of ignorance and lethargy. Check it out at db4.dev.baconsrebellion.com. Don’t miss a single issue — sign up for your free subscription here.

    We’ve got a great line-up this week:

    First, Shoot All The Cars

    While Virginians seem hell bent upon raising taxes and building roads, Ameri-kiwi Claude Lewenz envisions a different path to a superior quality of life: Auto-free villages.

    by James A. Bacon


    Newseum
    The D.C. attraction opening this week celebrates freedom of the press, the rise of the news and the decline of the newspaper.

    by Doug Koelemay


    Space to Drive and Park

    Cars consume huge amounts of space for roads and parking, which disaggregates human settlement patterns, co-opts transportation alternatives, and… increases dependence upon cars.

    by EM Risse


    Two Spheres of Fraud

    While the media salivates over the subprime lending fiasco, journalists are overlooking the main reason why Americans can’t afford housing: the building of the wrong kind of housing in the wrong places.

    by EM Risse


    How to Save $1 Billion Without Even Trying

    Think Virginia lawmakers are serious about restraining state government spending? Consider this: Simply freezing 7,627 vacant positions could have saved $1 billion in the next two-year budget!

    by Mike Thompson


    You Call This Conservative?

    A self-proclaimed “conservative” transportation plan appears to be animated by the conviction that Virginians really don’t know what’s good for them. When did conservatives become central planners?

    by Norm Leahy


    Creating a New Segregation

    When Richmond combined Jim Crow with urban planning in the 1940s, the result was expressways, the destruction of African-American neighborhoods and white flight.

    by Peter Galuszka


    Reaching the Promised Land

    In his lifetime, Martin Luther King empowered African-Americans. By his death, he stimulated Southern, evangelical whites to search their hearts and embrace all children of God.

    by James Atticus Bowden


    Nice & Curious Questions

    Bottled Poetry: Wine Trails of Virginia

    by Edwin S. Clay III and Patricia Bangs