New Geography

Category: Policy

  • Green Jobs Sink Down Under

    Remember when President Obama declared that insulation was sexy? In the wake of the global economic downturn, a “green jobs” formulation has been launched, not just here, but in every major world capital. While the White House’s financial and rhetorical commitments to the creation of green jobs are significant, no administration has made these policies as central to their government as that of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in Australia. The results there should provide a cautionary tale for President Obama, whose trip “Down Under” is currently scheduled for June.

    The creation of “green jobs” fits a simple (if not simplistic) Keynesian/Van Jonesian paradigm: Let’s pay people to retrofit their homes and offices for greater energy efficiency, and in doing so drive down unemployment and green house gas emissions in one fell swoop.

    In Australia, a hastily assembled $2.7 billion(AUS) plan to insulate over two million homes started in July has led to thousands of lay-offs, the electrocution deaths of four insulation installers, almost 100 house fires, and the demotion of Australia’s Environment Minister – former “Midnight Oil” frontman Peter Garrett. It stretches the imagination to think of a national public policy going any more wrong.

    It all seemed so straightforward last summer. In a nation where around half the homes have little to no insulation (partially due to the country’s temperate climes) and emit a significant portion of overall green house gases, the idea of giving Australians a $1,600 credit towards insulating their houses made perfect progressive sense – both ecologically and politically.

    Rudd’s Administration made the insulation plan the centerpiece of a $4 billion “energy efficient homes” package. Treasurer Wayne Swan, in his first address after Australia’s stimulus bill was passed, trotted out Craig Langstone, the owner of a small insulation company. In disturbingly glowing terms, Swan predicted happy days with the green jobs program: “Thinking of Craig Langstone makes me think about what we can do together if we try, the jobs we can create and the jobs we can save.”

    Within a month of the program’s start, problems arose. At their root was a profound breaking of central economic tenets: the laws of supply and demand. The massive and immediate Federal intrusion into the insulation marketplace created significant shortages in supply of materials, as well as of qualified labor, with deadly results. Along with this, it incentivized a huge market for scamming (or “rorting,” as the Aussies say).

    Supplies of standard, paper-backed “pink” insulation sold out across the country, leaving installers to use the much more dangerous foil-based reflective insulation. Stapling this insulation into the tight and dark attics of older homes with exposed wiring became a cruel game of “Australian Roulette”. In October following the first electrocution death of an installer using foil insulation, Malcolm Richards, president of the nation’s Master Electricians Association, forecast more danger ahead based solely on the government program: “In the normal course of events, foil products would not be used,” but with the inflated demand, workers were “grabbing whatever they can lay their hands on.”

    Meanwhile, an international con operation emerged, prompted by the opportunity to earn a quick $1,600. Installers who couldn’t even spell insulation telephoned unsuspecting Australians, urging them to remove their insulation, even though many did not qualify for the program. The Herald Sun recently interviewed a resident of Mount Martha, who received a call from an offshore telemarketer who claimed to work with the Australian Government: “I could barely understand them. They just said they were authorized by the Government. I said I already had insulation, my home was only built in 1995. But they wouldn’t take no for an answer, they said it didn’t matter.”

    There have been hundreds of cases where predominantly older Australians have been duped into having good insulation removed, only to be replaced by an inferior – and, in some instances dangerous – product. Some of these “cowboy” installers paid for their shoddy work and inexperience with their lives, others paid with their “client’s” houses; nearly one hundred homes suffered electrical fires caused by the foil insulation. A recent Federal audit revealed that 16% of homes insulated under the program do not meet government standards, while at least 8% have been made “unsafe”.

    The Rudd government’s initial response to the debacle was deflection, blaming both the installers and even the installation process. After the third installer was electrocuted in early February, Minister Garrett laid the responsibility at the feet of the dead: “Metallic foil is conductive, and when installed incorrectly, without undertaking the mandatory risk assessments and in breach of clear program requirements, this product can be dangerous.”

    Another senior administration official, Robyn Kruk, testified: “With all respect, the strategies were put in place in an industry that has inherent risk,” adding, with words which perhaps deserved more serious deliberation last spring: “There is probably only one way of ensuring a risk free environment in this regard and that is not to go into ceilings to put in place insulation.”

    The fiasco has resulted in the program’s suspension with a possible re-authorization in June.

    And as for the green jobs? Experienced insulation installers have, ironically, been swept up in the program’s failure. Insulation company owners like Tony Arundell of Eureka Insulation in Sydney find themselves on the verge of bankruptcy, having horded evermore costly supplies, which now sit in warehouses, and hired dozens of workers who now must be laid off. In a recent interview for Australia’s ABC News, Arundell, who’s run the business for almost three decades, cited the debt he’s incurred due to the Federal program. “Now we’re held with stock and Yellow Pages commitments that we can’t get out of to the value of $250,000. It’s hit us pretty hard.” He and others have let go thousands of workers who may not be available if the program re-initiates in June.

    Most disturbing is that the full deleterious impact of the program – both in safety and financially – has yet to be realized. Environment Minister Garrett recently commissioned the inspection of thousands of newly insulated homes to assure their safety at the cost of tens of millions of dollars. It is believed that almost 1,000 homes may be unsafe. Joe Hockey, spokesman for the Opposition Treasurer forecast that government costs due to future lawsuits could top $1 billion.

    For the recently fired installers, Rudd has announced a new $41 million fund for re-training. Some are understandably suspicious. Michael Tempny – another insulation company owner, interviewed by Australia’s The Age newspaper , demurred, ‘‘If it was something that was going to help my employees then I would definitely look at it, but if it’s just a way that we can re-employ them to do nothing, then that doesn’t really work.”

    All this said, the story of the Rudd government’s insulation program is not simply one of incompetence – though it is certainly that – but a tale of how an ideology clouded the minds of senior government officials in the creation of the program itself, causing them to run through a number of red lights in the pursuit of “green jobs”. A singular theme of recent attacks on both the Prime Minister and Environment Minister has been criticism of their repeated dismissals of contrarian studies and voices leading up to the bill’s passage. Garrett’s job hangs in the balance because an April 2009 independent risk analysis which warned of “major fall-out” due the rushed launch date apparently didn’t make it to his desk until February.

    Rudd turned a deaf ear to industry experts who called for better accreditation guarantees for installers, and a more customized and focused approach to the program rather than the blanket $1,600.00 credit. Last October, Opposition climate change spokesman Greg Hunt, accused: “It appears that his industry consultations made it absolutely clear that a figure of $1000 to $1100 would have been appropriate as a cap for the [insulation] rebate. Most significantly, he [Rudd] and Mr. Garrett appear to have been warned that if they over-inflated the price by fifty per cent, retailers would simply lift the price to the $1600 figure.” That’s exactly what happened.

    In light of these actions, it is difficult to view the Rudd government as anything other than a progressive bull in the policy china shop. To continue the bovine imagery, the implosion of the insulation program gores progressive oxen from Keynesianism to “green jobs.”

    But the principal of centralized decision-making must also come under severe inspection. Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for the right-leaning Australian puts it best: “Here is a textbook lesson in what happens when government throws money at industries they don’t understand and have no business being in. In short, we are learning that the bigger the government, the bigger the problems.”

    At each stage in the policy-making process, when administrative officials were presented with options, they leaned towards the most expensive, the broadest, and the fastest course with the least amount of local input or oversight. Maybe when President Obama steps off Air Force One in Sydney later this month his first words to the Australian Prime Minister should be, “Heckuva job Rudd-y.”

    Pete Peterson is executive director of Common Sense California, a multipartisan organization that supports citizen participation in policy-making (his views do not necessarily represent those of CSC). He also lectures on state and local governance at Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy.

    Photo:

  • Ruining our Cities to Save Them

    Latching onto Kevin Rudd’s call for “a big Australia” and forecasts that our population will grow by 60 per cent to 35 million in 2050, urban planners are ramping up their war against suburbia. In paper after paper, academics across the country have been pushing the same line. Climate change, peak oil and the financial crisis mean we can’t go on driving and borrowing for low-density housing. Choices must be narrowed to buying or renting compact homes in high-density, multi-unit developments along public transport corridors, preferably rail lines.

    Underlying it all is a radical vision of suburban doom. “That is one of my themes”, said Professor Peter Newman, anti-car activist and head of Curtin University‘s Sustainable Policy Institute, “that we stop cities developing into eco enclaves surrounded byMad Max suburbs”.

    The alarming truth is that planners are blasé about prosperity, living standards and choice because they see them as second-rate issues. The point is to save us from eco-apocalypse.

    And their voice grows louder by the day. The mantra of green urbanism has long been heard on ABC radio programs like Background Briefing and Future Tense, but matters reached a crescendo in January when ABC TV’s 7:30 Report rounded up the usual suspects for a four-part series on preparing our cities for the population boom. Framed by scary graphics and a menacing soundtrack, the series delivered a stream of breathless dialogue from talking heads like Newman, who declared that “if we just roll out those suburbs one after the other, making a more and more carbon intensive world in our cities, then we’re stuffed.”

    This current of thought has always lurked beneath the Rudd Government’s “nation building” agenda. But last October it burst open when the prime minister announced his plans to wrest control of urban policy from the states.

    Rattling off tenets of the planning ideology, Mr Rudd said “we must ensure that communities are not separated from jobs and services”, that “increasing density in cities is part of the solution to urban growth”, that “forms of development need to be fully integrated with current and future transport networks”, that “climate change requires a whole of government response”, and that “we must make long-term investments in transport networks that minimise carbon emissions.” It’s all a question of government action, if he is to be believed.

    That too was the message from infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese at the recent launch of State of Australian Cities 2010. Little wonder that he appointed Newman to the board of Infrastructure Australia.

    Defying urban laws of gravity

    “Cities are an immense laboratory of trial and error, failure and success” said the great urbanist Jane Jacobs, but today’s planners seem to think they’re as pliable as dough. Just tweak a couple of variables, say transport modes and population densities, and everything falls into place.

    As a discipline, urban planning never emerged from behind Berlin Wall of command economics, albeit with a green face. Early hopes that the financial crisis would shift public sentiment in this direction have faded, and climate change hasn’t registered as an issue for commuters and home buyers.

    Despite this, planners show no sign of losing confidence in their power to abolish fundamental laws of supply and demand. They’re still apt to dream up grand schemes for zoning, development and infrastructure controls with barely a thought about the impact on land values and bid-rents, two price inputs with far-reaching implications for urban commerce.

    Nor have they managed to repeal the law of unintended consequences. Year after year, the Demographia housing affordability survey confirms the link between “more prescriptive land use regulation” and high median house prices. This is elementary economics. Restricting the supply of land for development, a starting point for all green planning, combined with rising demand from population growth, will ratchet up values, with knock-on effects for the whole economy. The survey continues to rank all of our capital cities, and some of our regional centres, in the “severely unaffordable” category. No amount of “cutting-edge design” or “more imaginative” planning can counter this effect.

    The claim that concentrating development in dense “activity centres”, “urban villages” or “transport corridors” will ease the problem is a sham. Development controls will always drive up the price of land. When planners talk about affordability in this context, they really mean inferior housing in terms of space, amenity and title, even if it’s dressed-up as “design innovation” or “green rated building”.

    But inferior quality may not be enough to compensate for escalating land values, so consumers get less housing for higher prices. And more are stuck renting instead of buying. Large numbers of low to middle income earners will be shut out of the housing market

    Interestingly, Perth appears in Demographia’s “severely unaffordable” category along with Sydney and Melbourne, despite having only around a quarter of the population. Newman neglected this detail while praising the city’s rail network on the 7:30 Report.

    Though Perth can fall back on the resources boom, south-eastern cities aren’t so lucky. They are service-based regions with very dispersed patterns of employment, even by world standards.

    Writing in a publication of the 2008 9th World Congress of Metropolis, Sydney University’s John Black observed that “apart from some noticeable peaks, employment density is quite uniform across the [Sydney metropolitan] region”. According to the NSW Department of Transport, only 12 per cent of Sydney’s jobs are in the CBD and second tier centres like North Sydney, Chatswood, Parramatta, Hurstville and Penrith have less than 2 per cent each. David McCloskey, Bob Birrell and Rose Yip of Monash University (demographers, not urban planners) report the same about Melbourne. The CBD hosts around 20 per cent of jobs and the rest are scattered all over the metropolitan region.

    Platitudes like “we must locate people close to where they work”, or “we must locate jobs close to where people live”, have little basis in reality. They infringe another immovable law of economics, relating to economic rents or bid-rents. This mechanism determines how industries and firms are distributed. Put simply, a parcel of land will go to whichever use delivers the highest profits. Centrally located land (near major transport or infrastructure hubs) commands high prices, and goes to the most profitable uses. Peripheral land goes to less profitable or marginal activities.

    Over the last thirty years, economic deregulation, flexible transport, advanced communications and population growth have raised up a sector in the latter category, extracting value from cheap outer-metropolitan land and low rents. It includes industries like transport and distribution, building and construction, food, consumer products, personal services, wholesale and retail. They depend on favourable location costs and proximity to urban markets and labour pools. According to the Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board, “prime industrial land with direct access to transport infrastructure is 75% cheaper [in GWS] than other areas of Sydney”.

    Ultimately, green planning will phase out cheap urban land, undermining this sector and destroying jobs in the process. Breakthroughs in automotive and energy technologies offer the prospect of adaptation to a distant future of expensive oil. There’s no way to adapt to rising land values.

    Green rated chaos

    Many are in denial about this, recycling visions of the “concentric ring model” of urban form. This relic of pre-war sociology allocated industry to the core, or cores, and residences to the periphery. Take the Sydney Morning Herald sponsored Long Term Public Transport Plan, recently released with great fanfare. Authored by a committee of green-tinged experts and academics, the plan proclaims, according to a Herald feature, that “Sydney retains a strong centre-based structure, with nearly 40 per cent of the city’s jobs and most of its major retail, educational and entertainment facilities located within 26 key centres”. This is an essential precondition for the proposed network of denser rail infrastructure.

    But the plan’s own figures don’t add up to Sydney having a “strong centre-based structure”. A hefty 60 per cent of jobs aren’t centralised and the plan actually cites 33 “centres” flung all over the Sydney region, from Norwest Business Park in the north, to Penrith in the west and Hurstville in the south. Apart from the CBD with 12 per cent, none of the centres have more than 1.8 per cent of Sydney’s jobs.

    Concentrating housing in a city of dispersed jobs means horrendous traffic congestion, the costs of which loom large in State of Australian Cities 2010. Currently, around 72.3 per cent of Sydney’s people drive to work. No configuration of public transport will be efficient, leaving motorists to converge on dense localities. This is a city projected to explode from today’s 4.2 million people to 7 million in 2050. In Melbourne’s case, McCloskey, Birrell and Yip state plainly that raising densities along tram and train lines will end in chaos. Of the 1.4 million people who work outside central Melbourne, only 4.4 per cent use public transport.

    On the other hand, attempts to concentrate jobs will throw thousands onto the dole queues. At least this is a type of solution: the unemployed don’t commute.

    Ironically, some thriving “centres” in the Herald plan wouldn’t exist without the expansion of Sydney’s arterial road network. Examining the “edge city” phenomenon in Sydney, Peter Murphy and Robert Freestone conceded, way back in 1994, that the jobs-rich “global arc corridor” owed a lot to strategic road junctions like the intersection of Lane Cove Road with Epping Road in North Ryde and with the Pacific Highway in Gordon.

    “The most prestigious development has overwhelmingly favoured the middle-ring northern and north-western parts of Sydney in centres easily accessible by car …” say Murphy and Freestone, having explained that “there are now diversified employment centres in the suburbs which have grown up almost despite, rather than because of, traditional land-use planning policies”. These days the NSW Government bows to green intimidation, failing in its new Metropolitan Transport Plan to complete the highly successful Orbital Motorway Network, leaving M4 West, the F3 link and duplication of the M5 tunnel in limbo.

    Demands that at we reshape our cities to fight climate change are illogical. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that there’s a case to cut Australia’s 1.4 per cent contribution to global carbon. Even the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Consumption Atlas ranks urban settlement patterns well below the general level of consumption as a factor in emissions. And general consumption is a function of living standards, not urban form. Since the world is far from putting constraints on consumption, calls for a transformation of settlement patterns are baseless.

    But it’s worse. The Consumption Atlas and an analysis by Demographia’s Wendell Cox disclose that emissions across affluent inner-urban areas exceed those on the fringe. By focusing on settlement patterns rather than consumption levels, green planners engage in a form of class discrimination. The costs of climate change are heaped on outer-suburban working people, who lose jobs, mobility and housing amenity, while the affluent emerge unscathed.

    This article first apeared at The New City Journal

    Photo by Amit (Sydney)

  • Will a Dying City Finally Turn to Immigrants?

    Cuyahoga County Treasurer Jim Rokakis, who is based in Cleveland, estimates that new census numbers might show Cleveland’s population to be 325,000, a whopping 153,000 drop in 10 years! That would be an average of 15,000 people leaving Cleveland every year.

    That’s 1,250 people jumping ship every month,

    312 people fleeing the wreckage every week,

    45 people evacuating every day, or

    2 people running out of Cleveland every hour, 24/7, the whole year, for 10 straight years.

    Even conservative estimates have us losing 10 percent of our population this decade, the fastest rate of decline of any major American city (except New Orleans). And still, remarkably, we hear no alarm bells from City Hall, no calls of urgency, just a commitment to stay the course and manage the decline.

    While the extent of the exodus is debateable, it’s obvious that Cleveland, a city that once boasted 1 million residents, is not on the bright path to rebirth.

    Maybe we don’t really understand the problem.

    New York City and Chicago, like most major cities, see significant out-migration of their existing residents each year. What is atypical is that Cleveland does not enjoy the energy of new people moving in.

    Put simply, the city needs the fresh optimism and pluck of new immigrants, the most likely source of New Clevelanders.

    New immigrants are inherently mobile,and can move to Cleveland as part of secondary migration from New York City or other gateway cities. Many would be excited to pursue their American Dream right here on the shores of Lake Erie. In part due to the presence of immigrant language cable television and the internet, they can come to Cleveland and still retain ties to their native culture. Immigrants are moving to far more isolated places, such as Fargo, North Dakota.

    The great shame is that this was once proud city of immigrants (nearly 1/3 foreign-born in the early 20th century). But it now only 5% of its population is foreign-born, well-below the national average of 12%.

    But none of this impresses Mayor Frank Jackson who summarily dismisses immigrant-attraction initiatives like those in Philadelphia and those being discussed now in Detroit. Yet the basic reality is that immigration provides the only way for cities like Cleveland to generate the kind of numbers needed to make up for decades of mass out-migration.

    In numerous cities around the country, economic development professionals and foundations are looking at ways to tap the immigrant market. This will not only counter local depopulation and stabilize local the housing market, but will also attract a new wave of urban entrepreneurs, investors and consumers.

    They also realize that a globally diverse city would act as a magnet for the young, international and minority professionals leading the New Economy. These people could help catalyze a transformation to a more entrepreneurial, globally-connected and innovation-based local economy.

    Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter announced his plans to recruit 75,000 newcomers within five years to fill the city’s abandoned homes. And he’s targeting immigrant newcomers who have recently arrived in New York City.

    In Detroit, the New Economy Initiative (a $100 million regional fund for economic development), the Skillman Foundation, and the Greater Detroit Chamber of Commerce are conducting a community-wide discussion about ways to rebuild the city by attracting immigrants and international resources and promoting new intercultural partnerships for the benefit of all its citizens.

    Other cities consider immigrant-attraction strategies, but Cleveland City Hall ignores the very people most likely to move to Cleveland: immigrants looking to own their first homes and to start their new businesses.

    Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group conducted a study on Northeast Ohio’s economy and concluded that that the region is likely to suffer even after the rest of the country recovers from the recession. PNC’s Senior Economist and author of The Econosphere, Craig Thomas, found that attracting immigrants would help the region’s economy through investments in housing stock and start-ups.

    “As people leave, it really does take international folks to come in, open up stores and fill up neighborhoods,” Mr. Thomas told Crain’s Cleveland Business.

    But Mayor Jackson insists that efforts like those in Philadelphia and supported by economists like Mr. Thomas are not for Cleveland. As he began his second term, he said that he is positioning the City to compete in the global economy by building from within by using what he calls “self-help.”

    But not many are left to help. And by the time the policy is seen as a failure, even more will be gone.

    As people leave, so do businesses, from neighborhoods and many parts of downtown where vacancy rates have skyrocketed.

    As Cleveland’s downward spiral continues, the local leadership appears clueless on how to stop it.

    Richard Herman is the co-author of Immigrant, Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker) (John Wiley & Sons, 2009). Herman is the founder of an immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio, which serves a global clientele in over 10 languages. He is the co-founder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon Valley by immigrants from India. For more information on immigrant entrepreneurship and rust belt revival, see www.ImmigrantInc.com ; www.youtube.com/user/Immigrantinc2010 ; www.ohio.tie.org . Contact Richard at richard.t.herman@gmail.com or 216-696-6170.

    Photo by ScallopHolden.com

  • Forced March To The Cities

    California is in trouble: Unemployment is over 13%, the state is broke and hundreds of thousands of people, many of them middle-class families, are streaming for the exits. But to some politicians, like Sen. Alan Lowenthal, the real challenge for California “progressives” is not to fix the economy but to reengineer the way people live.

    In Lowenthal’s case the clarion call is to take steps to ban free parking. This way, the Long Beach Democrat reasons, Californians would have to give up their cars and either take the bus or walk to their local shops. “Free parking has significant social, economic and environmental costs,” Lowenthal told the Los Angeles Times. “It increases congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Scarily, his proposal actually passed the State Senate.

    One would hope that the mania for changing how people live and work could be dismissed as just local Californian lunacy. Yet across the country, and within the Obama Administration, there is a growing predilection to endorse policies that steer the bulk of new development into our already most-crowded urban areas.

    One influential document called “Moving Cooler”, cooked up by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Urban Land Institute, the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Protection Agency and others, lays out a strategy that would essentially force the vast majority of new development into dense city cores.

    Over the next 40 years this could result in something like 60 million to 80 million people being crammed into existing central cities. These policies work hard to make suburban life as miserable as possible by shifting infrastructure spending to dense areas. One proposal, “Moving Cooler,” outdoes even Lowenthal by calling for charges of upwards of $400 for people to park in front of their own houses.

    The ostensible justification for this policy lies in the dynamics of slowing climate change. Forcing people to live in dense cities, the reasoning goes, would make people give up all those free parking opportunities and and even their private vehicles, which would reduce their dreaded “carbon imprint.”

    Yet there are a few little problems with this “cramming” policy. Its environmental implications are far from assured. According to some recent studies in Australia, the carbon footprint of high-rise urban residents is higher than that of medium- and low-density suburban homes, due to such things as the cost of heating common areas, including parking garages, and the highly consumptive lifestyles of more affluent urbanites.

    Moreover, it appears that even those who live in dense places may be loath to give up their cars. Over 90% of all jobs in American metropolitan regions are located outside the central business districts, which tend to be the only places well suited for mass transit.

    Indeed, despite the massive expansion of transit systems in the past 30 years, the percentage of people taking public transportation in major metropolitan regions has dropped from roughly 8% to closer to 5%. Even in Portland, Ore.–the mecca for new wave transit consciousness–the share of people using transit to get to work is now considerably less than it was in 1980. In recent months overall transit ridership nationwide has actually dropped.

    These realities suggest that densification of most cities–with the exceptions of New York, Washington and perhaps a few others–cannot be supported by transit. Furthermore, drivers in dense cities will be confronted with not less congestion, but more, which will likely also boost pollution. The most congested cities in the country tend to be the densest, such as Los Angeles, Sen. Lowenthal’s bailiwick, which is in an unenviable first place.

    Then there is the little issue of people’s preferences. Urban boosters have been correct in saying that until recently there have been too few opportunities for middle-class residents to live in and around city cores. But over the past decade many cities have gone for broke with dense condo and rental housing and have produced far more product, often at very high cost, than the market can reasonably bear.

    Initially, when the mortgage crisis broke, the density advocates built much of their case on the fact that the biggest hits took place in suburban areas, particularly on the fringe. Yet as suburban construction ended, cities continued building high-density urban housing–sometimes encouraged by city subsidies. As a result, in the last two years massive foreclosures have plagued many cities, and many condominiums have been converted to rentals. This is true in bubble towns like Las Vegas and Miami; “smart-growth” bastions like Portland and Seattle; and even relatively sane places such as Kansas City, Mo. All these places have a massive amount of high-density condos that are either vacant or converted into lower-cost rentals.

    Take Portland. The city’s condo prices are down 30% from their original list price. The 177-unit Encore, one of the fanciest new towers, has closed sales on 12 of its units as of March, while another goes to auction. Meanwhile in New York half-completed structures dot Brooklyn’s once-thriving Williamsburg neighborhood, while the massive Stuyvesant Town apartment complex in Manhattan teeters at the edge of bankruptcy.

    Finally, it is unlikely that cities would be able to accommodate the massive growth promoted by urban boosters, land speculators and policy mavens. Aaron Renn, who writes the influential Urbanophile blog, says that most American cities today struggle to maintain their current infrastructure. They also have limited options to zone land for high-density construction, due in part to grassroots opposition to existing residential neighborhoods. Overall they would be hard-pressed to accommodate much more than 10% of their region’s growth, much less 50% or 60%.

    Given these realities, and the depth of the current recession, one might think that governments would focus more on basics like jobs and fixing the infrastructure–in suburbs as well as cities–than reengineering how people live. Yet it is increasingly clear that for many “progressives” the real agenda is not enabling people to achieve their dreams–especially in the form of a suburban single-family house. It is, instead, forcing them to live in what is viewed as more ecologically and socially preferable density.

    In the next few months we may see more of the kind of hyperregulation proposed by the likes of Sen. Lowenthal. It is entirely possible that a hoary coalition of HUD, Department of Transportation and EPA bureaucrats could start trying to restrict future housing development along the lines suggested in “Moving Cooler.”

    Yet over time one has to wonder about the political efficacy of this approach. Right now Americans are focused primarily on simply economic growth–and perhaps a touch less on the intellectual niceties of the “smart” form. In addition they are increasingly skeptical about climate change, which serves as the primary raison d’etre behind the new regulatory schema.

    Given the zealousness of the density advocates, perhaps the only thing that will slow, and even reverse, this process will be the political equivalent of a sharp slap across the face. Unless the ruling party begins to reacquaint itself with the preferences and aspirations of the vast majority of Americans, they may find themselves experiencing repeats of their recent humiliating defeat–manufactured largely in the Boston suburbs–in true-blue Massachusetts.

    Americans–suburban or urban–may resist a return to unbridled and extreme Republicanism, whether on social issues or in economic policy. But forced to choose between Neanderthals, who at least might leave them alone in their daily lives, and higher-order intellects determined to reengineer their lives, they might end up supporting bipeds lower down the evolutionary chain, at least until the progressive vanguard regains a grip on common sense.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

    Photo: Creativity+ Timothy K Hamilton

  • Scenario Two: An Optimistic view of the United States future

    This is the second in a two part series exploring a pessimistic and an optimistic future for the United States. Part One appeared yesterday.

    A positive assessment of US prospects rests on at least seven propositions. First, the current crisis is not inherently more threatening than many others, most notably the Civil War, the Great Depression, and two World Wars. Quality leadership, building on the resilient political and economic institutions of the country, will prove sufficient to bring about needed sacrifices and transformations. We have seen this many times in the past from the Progressive Era to the New Deal, the Second World War and the winning of the Cold War, which was a uniquely bipartisan triumph.

    Second, despite the ongoing problems of racial inequality and tensions about immigration, the United States has been uniquely successful in having peacefully achieved a truly multi-racial and multi-ethnic state. It has welcomed waves of diverse immigrants, and integrated them into a broader, ever changing society. This process has culminated symbolically and literally in the election of a multi-racial president, Barack Obama.

    Third, economic corruption and financial crises have been recurring phenomena, and the nation has emerged out of these because of the sheer magnitude of talent and natural resources. This has been aided by a deep entrepreneurial capacity and willingness to take risks, and, overall, a willingness of most to work hard to improve life for themselves and their families.

    Fourth is the existence of a large and literate population, willing to work, certainly the world’s finest university system and research establishment, over and over again engendering innovations that create future economies: e.g., the computer revolution. American secondary education is still in need of great improvement, but the US University remains a beacon to talent from around the world.

    Fifth, despite the noise and uproar, despite the continuing clash between the traditional and the modern or secular, the nation, through its independent courts and helped by governmental decentralization, e.g. the Federal system, the country remains the freest society in human history. Despite the appearance of power of the religious right under the Republicans since the 1970s, serious erosion in freedom of thought has been kept to a minimum. Similarly, the cult of political correctness, although annoying, has become, if anything, less potent and increasingly the butt of jokes.

    Sixth, and perhaps most important, we have to consider demography. Despite current unemployment and despite the imminent retirement of the baby boomer generation, the United States, alone among the richest economies, will continue to have a relatively favorable ratio of wage earners to the elderly. This will enable us to afford social security and Medicare. The new generation – known as millennials – will constitute a large source of new labor, innovation and entrepreneurs needed to propel our economy.

    Finally, there are a few positive trends, including modest recovery in housing and in auto sales, hints of some pulling back from the out-sourcing of services, and continuing innovation and marketing of new products and services. On the political side, although the current anti-incumbent mood will likely reduce Democratic margins in Congress and in several states in 2010, the sheer lunacy of the “tea party“ activists, many of them unreconstructed “know nothings” may actually hurt the Republican party more than the Democrats. People are constantly being reminded why, for all the failings of the Democrats, they tossed the Republicans from power in the first place.

    An optimistic scenario rests on the historical precedent of muddling through crises and then creating new waves of innovation in products and services, and on the presence of a large labor force willing and able to work. A vital question is whether the President and Congress will have the courage to ask voters to make short-term sacrifices: higher income taxes on the rich and reduced subsidies to entrenched interests across the board that will be needed to restore fiscal health. And finally there is the big question, are the American people ready to do with less today to build a better future for the next generation?

    Richard Morrill is Professor Emeritus of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Washington. His research interests include: political geography (voting behavior, redistricting, local governance), population/demography/settlement/migration, urban geography and planning, urban transportation (i.e., old fashioned generalist).

    Photo: elycefeliz

  • Deconstruction: The Fate of America? – The Changing Landscape of America

    America is at a crossroads. Its current path is unsustainable. The deficit for fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2009 was $1.42 trillion. The National Debt is $12.5 trillion with the debt ceiling just raised to $14.9 trillion. The National Debt has increased $4 billion per day since September 28, 2007. The Obama Administration projects trillion dollar deficits for years to come. It has bailed out GM and Chysler, the banks “too big to fail” , and state governments that cannot manage their budgets. They have given away billions for clunkers and caulkers, and rewarded homeowners who bit off more than they can chew. We owe China $894 billion, Japan $764 billion and the Oil Exporters another $207 billion. It is uncertain how long foreigners will continue to finance our debt.

    There comes a breaking point at which the financial model is unsustainable and can no longer continue. For you and I, it is called bankruptcy. If we screw up financially, we are forced to declare bankruptcy. The courts offer protection until we can get our house in order but we are forced to stop spending. We solve our problems under Chapter 7 (liquidation) or Chapter 11 (reorganization).

    DECONSTRUCTION

    Cities can also be forced into Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy. The City of Vallejo, California, population 120,000, filed for bankruptcy in 2008 after its politicians went fiscally berserk, paying the city manager $400,000 per year and its fireman an average annual wage of $175,000. Cleveland, Ohio declared bankruptcy in 1979 after defaulting on $15 million of bonds. (Seems trivial in this era of trillion dollar deficts). New York City avoided bankruptcy in 1975 when the teachers union forked over $150 million at the eleventh hour. These cities were forced to remedy their reckless spending.

    States cannot declare bankruptcy. Nor can they print money like the federal government. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates California has unfunded pension obligations of $237 billion. California is flirting with junk bond status. If it loses its credit rating, it will no longer be able to fund its bloated operations. The Golden State then will become the first failed state. They will be forced to dismantle their regulatory bureacracy. California has over 500 agencies and many are overlapping. They have 250,000 state employees. Thousands will lose their jobs as the financial community imposes cuts the legislature will not make. Such down-sizing will become known as deconstruction. California may be the first state to deconstruct its government services but it will not be the last. The Pew Center for the States reported that state governments have more than a trillion dollars in unfunded pension obligations.


    There is no better example than the City of Detroit. Once the home of Henry Ford and the American automobile industry, Detroit has fallen on hard times. Its population has fallen from nearly 2 million residents to less than 900,000 today. With a budget deficit of $300 million per year, Detroit can no longer provide basic services to its own residents. There are 33,500 empty homes and 91,000 vacant residential lots. More than 300,000 buildings are vacant or in shambles. It is estimated that 40 square miles of Detroit lies abandoned.

    Twelve years ago, British urban historian Sir Peter Hall wrote in “Cities in Civilization” that Detroit “has become an astonishing case of industrial dereliction; perhaps, before long, the first major industrial city in history to revert to farmland.” Hall may have been prescient. This week, Mayor David Bing released the “Neighborhood Revitalization Strategic Framework,” a landmark document that suggests that vast sections of Detroit be razed and returned to farmland, open space and nature. The report suggests the first organized and orderly deconstruction of a major American city.

    The report envisons replacing entire neighborhoods with “Naturescapes” (meadows), “Green Thoroughfares” and “Village Hubs” that require fewer city services. But, it will require hundreds of millions of federal aid to finance such a major transformation, money the federal government no longer has to give.

    In an era of trillion dollar federal deficits, there are no longer easy solutions. The shift of tectonic plates caused by the Great Recession have exposed hopelessly unsustainable city and state budgets. Swollen payrolls, duplicative agencies and inefficient municipal services can no longer be afforded. The deconstruction of government services seems inevitable.

    In five years, will Detroit remain a cratered landscape of vacant buildings, broken promises, and smashed dreams? Or will a smaller, safer, more efficient city evolve out of its ruins? If deconstruction is successful in Detroit, it could serve as a model for many other governments as well, from City Hall to state capitols and all the way to the most bloated disaster of all, Washington, DC.

    ***********************************

    During the first ten days of October 2008, the Dow Jones dropped 2,399.47 points, losing 22.11% of its value and trillions of investor equity. The Federal Government pushed a $700 billion bail-out through Congress to rescue the beleaguered financial institutions. The collapse of the financial system in the fall of 2008 was likened to an earthquake. In reality, what happened was more like a shift of tectonic plates.

    ************************************

    This is the eighth ninth in a series on The Changing Landscape of America written exclusively for New Geography

    Robert J. Cristiano PhD is a successful real estate developer and the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, CA.

    PART ONE – THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY (May 2009)
    PART TWO – THE HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY (June 2009)
    PART THREE – THE ENERGY INDUSTRY (July 2009)
    PART FOUR – THE ROLLER COASTER RECESSION (September 2009)
    PART FIVE – THE STATE OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (October 2009)
    PART SIX – WHEN GRANNY COMES MARCHING HOME – MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSING (November 2009)
    PART SEVEN – THE FATE OF DETROIT: GREEN SHOOTS? (February 2010)
    PART EIGHT – THE FAILED STATE OF CALIFORNIA (March 2010)

  • Jerry Brown: Machiavelli Or Torquemada?

    For more than one-third of a century Jerry Brown has proved one of the most interesting and original figures in American politics–and the 71-year-old former wunderkind might be back in office in 2010. If he indeed wins California’s gubernatorial election, the results could range from somewhat positive to positively disastrous.

    Brown is a multi-faceted man, but in political terms he has a dual personality, split between two very different Catholic figures from the 15th century: Machiavelli and Tomas de Torquemada. For the sake of California, we better hope that he follows the pragmatism espoused by the Italian author more than the stern visage of the Grand Inquisitor.

    Like a good Jesuit, Brown certainly can be flexible. Back in 1978, for example, he worked against Howard Jarvis’ Proposition 13, which capped real estate taxes. But once the measure was passed, Brown embraced it as his own. Indeed, he was so enthusiastic about the tax-cutting measure that Jarvis actually voted for Brown’s re-election late that same year. A month after the vote a Los Angeles Times poll revealed most Californians thought Brown actually supported 13.

    Brown also has shown his flexibility by throwing even loyal allies under the bus. Elected largely due to the electoral coalition constructed by his father, Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, Brown made a point of tweaking and restraining the expanding bureaucracy largely created by his father. He also took on the University of California and the welfare bureaucracy as well as agriculture, residential real estate and manufacturing giants.

    This Oedipal battle reflected Brown’s personal crankiness. He came into office, recalled top aide Tom Quinn, “questioning the values of the Democratic Party.”

    Ascetic and even monk-like, he rejected his father’s “build, build, build” philosophy and embraced E. F. Schumacher’s “small is beautiful” ideology. Like the 15th-century Florentine Catholic monk Girolamo Savanarola, he came to rid Sacramento of suberbia and luxuria.

    Brown was also ahead of his time. His early embrace of green politics–particularly energy conservation and renewable fuels–foreshadowed that of later Democrats, particularly Barack Obama. His strong outreach to Latinos and other minorities expanded his political base among California’s fastest-growing populations.

    Yet Brown understood that economic prosperity–not civil rights or environmental zealotry–was key to political ascendancy. Eastern journalists dismissed him as “Governor Moonbeam,” but they ignored his Machiavellian skill in recognizing and reaching out to rising economic forces, notably the high-tech entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley and across Southern California. The growth of this sector, along with rising trade with Asia and the military boom after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, set the pace for the state’s strong rebound from its early 1970s doldrums.

    But Brown’s inquisitorial side surfaced again as he prepared a second run–he had made a charmingly eccentric assault in 1976–for the White House. Perhaps the prospect of facing a man of infinite flexibility, Bill Clinton, pushed him over the top, but Brown re-invented himself as a high-octane and, at times, shrill populist.

    After some years in the political wilderness, he reemerged in 1998 as Mayor of Oakland, a tough job even in good times. Although he remained predictably arrogant and aloof, the job of managing a working-class city seemed to have brought him to his senses. Like the ideal politician in The Prince, Brown governed with something approaching strategic precision, pushing economic development, embracing the police and supporting new infrastructure spending.

    Brown’s newfound reputation as a canny realist helped him win the election as attorney general in 2006. Yet once back in statewide politics, the inquisitorial side found expression. Convinced about the impending threat of global warming, Brown used his new powers to push the Gorite agenda with the passion of a Torquemada.

    Although Brown was not quite torturing heretics, he certainly applied the legal equivalent of thumbscrews to anyone–developers, cities, counties–who did not follow his prescriptions about “carbon neutrality.” Even proposals for sensible, relatively dense “in fill” development were turned aside in favor of utopian, economically unsustainable ideas about forced density and transit friendliness.

    Today, with California’s economy is in tatters–its unemployment well over 12%–and Brown’s crusade seems likely to make it worse. Onerous regulation threatens everything from the construction of new single-family homes to new employment tied to anything that releases demon carbon–including manufacturing, oil drilling and large-scale agriculture.

    All this has made Brown widely feared in much of California’s fractured, traumatized business community. Even worse, he has emerged as the standard-bearer of the public employee unions, the very force whose political power and pensions are bringing the state to the verge of economic ruin. The fact that Brown’s campaign is funded largely by these unions makes it, at least on the surface, unlikely to challenge the hegemony of our putative “civil servants.” They are said to be ready to spend up to $40 million on “independent” campaigns to help beat back any chance of a GOP victory.

    This is worrisome given Brown’s role in fostering the expansion of public-sector unions during his term, a group whose ascendancy has become arguably the single biggest factor in the state’s precipitous decline during his last gubernatorial reign. As author Steven Greenhut has pointed out, unfunded pension liabilities in excess of $50 billion are one key element driving the state toward ever more depressed bond ratings and possible bankruptcy.

    Under normal circumstances, Brown’s ties to the public sector, his fickle nature and his dubious accomplishments would spell political doom. But amazingly, Brown’s long, if mixed, record might actually prove an advantage against his most likely opponent, former eBay executive Meg Whitman, who is running as an outsider.

    The problem for Whitman or any GOP candidate lies with the miserable legacy of another nominally Republican outsider, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Terminator’s record of ineptitude and empty blather stands as a mega-advertisement against inexperience. Compared to the former body builder’s amateurish blundering, Brown’s wealth of knowledge of government looks appealing.

    Whitman, or her main challenger Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, also must struggle with a Republican Party out of sync with an increasingly multi-racial and socially liberal state. As long-time political analyst Allan Hoffenblum notes, for the first time there is not one congressional, state senate or assembly district with a GOP majority.

    So in the end, California’s fate may end up resting on which Jerry Brown emerges after the election. If he continues on his inquisitorial assault on carbon-creators, you can pretty much expect California’s middle class to continue diminishing while the state’s aspirational appeal ebbs ever further. The state could end up resembling Kevin Starr’s description of his native San Francisco– “a cross between Carmel and Calcutta.”

    But given his history, Brown could still surprise us. Stuck with responsibility for a decaying economy and fiscally burdened by the voracious public unions, Brown could do a “Nixon in China,” imposing controls on pensions and salaries. He could recognize that “green jobs” can not save California from the abyss and that a new “era of limits” must apply to the public sector as well as the rest of us. With the passionate climate-change constituency shrinking, he might even decide to accept a modicum of carbon heresy as a necessary evil.

    Brown should heed Machiavelli’s advice for rulers to be “merciful and not cruel” and “proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity.” If in his old age Brown adopts the Italian writer’s credo of tactical flexibility, reason and tolerance, the Golden State may yet revive itself, and with it restore the legacy of its most storied political family.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.

    Photo: Troy Holden

  • The Failed State of California – The Changing Landscape of America

    The Golden State is not so golden anymore. California is broke. With a $20 billion dollar deficit and tax revenues down 27% from last year, Governor Schwarzenegger looks to Washington D.C. for a bail-out to rescue the state from financial ruin. Like the executive passing a beggar on a street corner, Washington looks the other way. Unemployment is statistically 12.3%, but functionally, it runs closer to 20% of the work force. Nowhere is unemployment more tragic than in the Central Valley, the fruit and vegetable producer of the world. The unemployment rate in arguably the most fertile land on the planet is near 30% as residents line up in bread lines to feed their families. How did this happen? What happened to the Golden State?

    California is a victim of its own success.

    For decades following WWII, people flooded into the golden state in search of weather, opportunity and the good life. California delivered. Under Governor Pat Brown in the 1960s, California had wonderful weather, plentiful water, new highways, and the best public school systems in America. Every student had access to a strong community college system and top students were guaranteed admission to the University of California. Agriculture, Hollywood, aerospace and construction provided more jobs than workers.

    The 1970s brought harbingers of California’s future. The environmental movement muzzled a robust real estate industry with alphabet agencies like AQMD, CEQA, EIR and CCC. Building moratoriums raised home prices along the coast. Aggressive land use controls pushed development inland creating urban sprawl and long commutes as residents sought affordable housing inland. Governor Jerry Brown quipped, “If we do not build it, they will not come” and shut down highway construction, public school construction and added layers of new regulations. The people came anyway.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 dealt California a cruel blow. The peace dividend meant the end for many high paying aerospace jobs and defense contracts. The recession that followed was felt far deeper than in the rest of the country. California climbed out of its recession led by wave after wave of new millionaire software developers during the dot com revolution.

    In 2001, the dot come bubble burst. The politicians in Sacramento, emboldened by an endless supply of money from the dotcommers to state coffers, spent over $100 billion while revenues fell to just $70 billion. They ran up a $38.2 billion deficit in 2002 under Governor Gray Davis – more than the other 49 states combined. The people recalled Davis in 2003 and replaced him with the Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    The politicians learned nothing.

    California survived the bursting dot com bubble with yet another round of real estate escalation (the housing bubble) that lifted home prices by 20% per year. Spending escalated in line with home prices. More regulations were added to burden industry. Taxes were raised. Tuition increased. California added “The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” as if California alone could stem global warming. In response to 9-11, politicians passed SB 400, a feel good law that allowed cops and fireman to retire at 50. It was budgeted to cost “just $400 million” per year. Last year it cost $3 billion. Then, they passed SB183 the next year, applying the same benefits to non-safety state employees like billboard inspectors. When the housing bubble burst in 2007, California found itself with a $20 billion deficit – again.

    This time, California will not climb out so easily. Federal regulators, implementing the Endangered Species Act that was invented in California, diverted water from the farms of the Imperial Valley to the ocean to protect the engendered Delta Smelt. This tiny fish, with no commercial value, threatens the well being of tens of thousands of agricultural workers and contributes to unemployment figures worse than the Great Depression. California’s schools now rank 49th in the nation. They no longer generate the brilliant minds that fueled past economies. California’s 11.6% income tax has forced many high income earners to no income tax states like Florida or Nevada. The housing industry that created 212,960 units in 2006 was only able to build 36,000 units in 2009.

    Former state librarian and California historian Kevin Starr talks about the potential of California being the nation’s first failed state. John Moorlach, Orange County Supervisor says, “We better start talking about this. What are we going to do when the entity (state government) above us crumbles? I think we are already technically bankrupt.” He should know: Orange County went bankrupt in 1994. The City of Vallejo, population 120,000, was forced into bankruptcy in 2008 by commitments by its politicians to pay its City Manager $400,000 per year and its fireman an average of $175,000 annually.

    The biggest obstacle facing California’s recovery is a dysfunctional pension system created by politicians indebted to the public employee unions. The pension obligation is now $17 billion per year. California has 260,000 state employees and 38,000 are paid more than $100,000 per year. The University of California employs another 250,000 and 19,000 are paid over 100,000 annually. These generous salaries have been converted into lifetime annuities. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the unfunded pension obligations of California to total $237 billion. In an era of retiring baby-boomers, this trajectory is clearly unsustainable. With tax receipts down, huge pension obligations and a state budget deficit of $20 billion, the vast majority of municipalities in California are suffering deficits and facing the prospect of Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy.

    A train wreck is coming.

    Schwarzenegger, once the Terminator but now a Termed-Out lame duck, told the Sacramento Press Club, “No single issue threatens the fiscal health of this state more than our exploding pension obligations. Over the last 10 years, our pension costs have gone up by 2,000 percent from $150 million per year to $3 billion a year (for state government workers). That means hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities and it means the $3 billion we are spending now will go up to $10 or $12 billion.”

    In October, state Treasurer Bill Locker told lawmakers they needed to reform the pension system or “it will bankrupt the state.” The California Public Employees’ Pension System chief actuary has described the current pension system as “unsustainable.” Adam B. Summers, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation and author of “California Spending By The Numbers: A Historic Look At State Spending From Gov. Pete Wilson to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger” warns, “I think we are starting to approach a tipping point.”

    Do the politicians in Sacramento want to do something about the train wreck that is coming? The answer as of now is clearly no. There is no evidence that they are willing to curtail spending and reform the pension laws that cover 500,000 state employees. They know the State of California cannot go bankrupt under existing laws. However, if they will not act, the people may act for them. Just as they did in 2003 with the recall of Gray Davis, the people are taking the initiative. They are sponsoring the Citizens Power Initiative to curtail the ability of unions to use payroll deductions for campaign purposes. Another initiative would make California’s full-time legislature part-time. In the meantime, the California economy continues to grind to a halt. Will the people of California shock the nation like the people of Massachusetts did with the election of Scott Brown? Or will the unions buy another election and drive the Golden State over the edge, making it the First Failed State?

    ***********************************

    During the first ten days of October 2008, the Dow Jones dropped 2,399.47 points, losing 22.11% of its value and trillions of investor equity. The Federal Government pushed a $700 billion bail-out through Congress to rescue the beleaguered financial institutions. The collapse of the financial system in the fall of 2008 was likened to an earthquake. In reality, what happened was more like a shift of tectonic plates.

    ************************************

    This is the eighth in a series on The Changing Landscape of America written exclusively for New Geography

    Robert J. Cristiano PhD is a successful real estate developer and the Real Estate Professional in Residence at Chapman University in Orange, CA.

    PART ONE – THE AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY (May 2009)
    PART TWO – THE HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY (June 2009)
    PART THREE – THE ENERGY INDUSTRY (July 2009)
    PART FOUR – THE ROLLER COASTER RECESSION (September 2009)
    PART FIVE – THE STATE OF COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE (October 2009)
    PART SIX – WHEN GRANNY COMES MARCHING HOME – MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSING (November 2009)
    PART SEVEN – THE FATE OF DETROIT: GREEN SHOOTS? (February 2010)

  • Biotech Research No Silver Bullet for Florida

    By Richard Reep

    Until recently, Florida was the king of growth, agriculture, and tourism. Growth – at 900 immigrants a day from other states – characterized Florida’s landscape for over 30 years, and growing cities were in perennial battle with agriculture up until the watershed year of 2009. As a tourist destination, Florida claimed world-class status, which once served the state just fine. Now, gasping for breath and facing financial uncertainty, Florida’s leadership frantically seeks a new silver bullet to create jobs, focusing on biomedical research. This focus is timely and important, and can truly move the state in a new direction, and the state leadership’s resolve to diversify the economy should stay strong, even with a short-term lack of results.

    Thanks to the Florida State Legislature’s 2006 Florida Capital Formation Act, It is now home to new facilities for Torrey Pines, Scripps, Max Planck, Nemours, the Miami Institute for Human Genomics, SRI International, the Vaccine & Gene Therapy Institute, and Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. However, the Millennial Depression has slowed growth and delayed the much-needed spinoffs that the state was counting on for job creation. Now, with the state’s coffers empty, the lack of instant job growth is causing a search for another, new instant success instead.

    Seven world-class life science research institutes in three years actually constitutes a remarkable achievement. Two are already off the ground and operational: Max Planck Institute and Torrey Pines. As they enter the operational phase, the laboratories are discovering that there is tough competition to attract top research scientists to Florida, with its noted lack of cultural amenities and its reputation for being, well, not exactly a progressive state in terms of education, culture, or environmental values.

    In January, however, the state legislature’s own analysis office recommended dropping life sciences research investment, because the return on this investment is measured in years. The politically correct unit of measurement today is apparently months or even minutes. In a published report, this office complained that its investment – all of three years old – had “not yet resulted in the growth of technology clusters”. It then recommended that Florida shift focus from research institutes to attracting biotech manufacturing companies, perhaps shortening the payback cycle.

    Only in our current times is failure defined as the lack of instant success. The report cites a lack of private venture capital as the reason for failure in Florida, yet digs no further into the reasons why Florida is low on the list of venture capital firms. This, along with government and large non-profit investment, is historically the only true source of funding for pure research, and is usually tightly tied to the region in which the research is to occur.

    As Thomas Edison’s winter home, Florida has always had a reputation among scientists and inventors as a vacation spot, rather than a real research venue. Venture capitalists prefer to cluster their investments around known quantities, and like most other investors, associate the unknown with high risk. By 2002, the Progressive Policy Institute ranked Florida 49th in employment of scientists and engineers, hardly news in a state dominated by service workers, construction laborers and immigrant farm labor.

    Unfortunately, scientists and their families tend to like the things that Florida is not good at: sensitivity towards the natural environment, excellent, competitive schools and universities, highly trained workforces and public philanthropy for arts and cultural activities. When it comes to private research grants, scientists tend to find their homes in places like San Diego, Boston, Berlin, and London. Beaches and theme parks just don’t appear on their radar screens.

    Thus, the state’s massive injection of capital has yet to produce any spin-off laboratories or manufacturing facilities around these new facilities. Private venture capital is simply shy to develop add-ons, knowing it will be a real hard sell to the main class of research scientists so desperately needed. And this fact, in these tough times, is what calls into question the whole investment strategy. On the surface, the state’s ambition to become king of research appears to be ludicrous.

    Yet, this lunacy may have method in it: Florida has many factors that do, in fact, favor life science research. It does have specific, although lightly funded, university research in biotech and medical study already in place. The state also has a gerontological population that provides a natural study base for much of the growing research in aging.

    Also, the scientific community is as diverse in its leisure and cultural choices as anybody, and Florida’s mild climate and recreational activities have already contributed to the attraction of new researchers. Unlike other, more established clusters in places like Boston and San Diego, Florida is also highly affordable, an important factor given the compensation levels to which many science professionals are accustomed. This is one reason Southern California gained an early foothold in aviation and science research and has maintained the lead in these areas.

    And lastly, sometimes it’s good to be the new kid on the block, for the competitive politics within other clusters has yet to develop in Florida. Even Florida’s former governor Jeb Bush expressed surprise at how “the state’s universities have played so well together” to gain its early foothold in science research. Florida has shown great energy and creativity in attracting these new research venues, and can continue to outperform the established, stable locations if it keeps its eye on the long-term goal and uses its natural advantages to sell the state to the scientific community worldwide.

    The strategic payoff is a more stable, educated state population that can ride out the boom/bust employment cycle better. This payoff, however, can only come if Florida’s leadership quits seeking a magic “silver bullet” to fix things in the next fifteen minutes, and does the hard work to attract and retain venture capital, invest in its educational system, and keep its collective eye on a long-term goal to become competitive in more than just a cheap place to live and vacation. Florida’s business and political leadership made some good choices to create a state-funded venture capital arm in 2006, and should stick to their commitments. If they pay their dues, eventually they may just find themselves a new crown to wear.

    Richard Reep is an Architect and artist living in Winter Park, Florida. His practice has centered around hospitality-driven mixed use, and has contributed in various capacities to urban mixed-use projects, both nationally and internationally, for the last 25 years.

    Photo: alternatePhotography

  • Decentralize The Government

    From health care reform and transportation to education to the environment, the Obama administration has–from the beginning–sought to expand the power of the central state. The president’s newest initiative to wrest environment, wage and benefit concessions from private companies is the latest example. But this trend of centralizing power to the federal government puts the political future of the ruling party–as well as the very nature of our federal system–in jeopardy.

    Of course, certain times do call for increased federal activity–legitimate threats to national security or economic emergencies, such as the Great Depression or the recent financial crisis, for example.

    Other functions essential to interstate commerce–basic research, science education, the guarantee of civil rights, transportation infrastructure, as well as basic environmental health and safety standards–also call for federal oversight. Virtually every modern president, from Roosevelt and Eisenhower to Reagan and Clinton, has endorsed these uses of centralized government.

    But what is happening now goes well beyond the previously defined perimeters of the federal government’s powers. Obama seems to possess a desire not so much to fix the basic infrastructure of the country but to re-engineer our entire society into the model championed by liberal academia.

    There also seems to be a conscious design to recreate the country as a European-style super-state. Forged by an understandable urge to minimize chaos after a century of conflict, the super-state generally favors risk management through centralization of authority. This has traditionally been accomplished by ceding regulatory powers to national capitals, though lately more and more powers have been ceded to the European Union.

    Initially the administration had hopes of imposing similar controls through acts of Congress. However, with the shifting political mood, this seems less and less possible. With its latest action the administration sends the message that it will now impose the desired results through the bureaucracy. Under the proposal, private firms that do not raise wages will be bullied into doing so through the manipulation of federal contract awards.

    This marks a departure from our basic traditions. For most of our history the burden of expanding opportunity has rested with the private economy, albeit in conjunction with often necessary protections for workers and consumers. Now the overall control of the economy is shifting to Washington–from government contracts to ownership shares in companies like General Motors and much of the financial sector.

    This new order would transform the very nature of American capitalism. Now the economic winners will not be those working for the most agile or profitable companies, but those who gain the blessings of the federal overlords. In some senses this extends the corrupt, largely failed political economy of Chicago politics to a bastard American form of French dirigisme.

    Climate change provides another critical and necessary rationale for the expansive federal role. With the “cap and trade” system all but dead, the administration now wants to regulate energy and land use through the gentle graces of a largely unaccountable EPA apparat. As a result, we may see energy use, land use and transportation–as is increasingly the case in California–controlled by the whims of the unelected bureaucracy.

    Such command and control approaches have their advantages in making people do what the mandarins demand. This is one reason there are so many admirers of Chinese autocracy now. In that regime, unlike our messy democracy, you can be forced to be green in precisely the way they tell you. There are always firing squads for those who go off the program.

    Of course, even the most passionate centralists don’t advocate adopting the Chinese model. But the notion of an enlightened super-state has long appealed to those disgusted with American-style muddling through. In some ways, the current fashion recalls Americans’ attraction for the Soviet Union or even fascist Italy during the troubled 1930s.

    Fortunately, most Americans do not appear ready for unbounded autocracy. This is particularly true outside the coastal urban centers. The Tea Party may have some cranky–even ill-advised–ideas, but they reflect a genuine–and broader–American preference for solving problems at the state or local level.

    Indeed, Americans, including some on the left, are instinctive decentralists. We express this tendency physically, first in our decades-old movement to the suburbs, and increasingly to smaller towns and cities as well as rural areas. Even in cities like New York or Los Angeles, local neighborhood identity trumps ties to more grandiose visions of City Halls or regional bodies. The rise of the Internet and social networks has enhanced this decentralizing trend by providing instant linkages and helping ad hoc organization among neighbors.

    Economic evolution mirrors this trend. Over the past few decades U.S. employment has shifted not to mega corporations but to smaller units and individuals; between 1980 and 2000 the number of self-employed individuals expanded 10-fold to include 16% of the workforce. The smallest businesses–the so-called micro enterprises–have enjoyed the fastest rate of growth, far more than any other business category. By 2006 there were some 20 million such businesses, one for every six private sector workers.

    America’s entrepreneurial urge, in contrast to developments elsewhere, has actually strengthened. In 2008 28% of Americans said they had considered starting a business–more than twice the rate for French or Germans. Self-employment, particularly among younger workers, has been growing at twice the rate of the mid-1990s.

    The remarkable volatility within even the largest companies has exacerbated this trend. Firms enter and leave the Fortune 500 with increasing speed. More and more workers will live in an economic environment like that of Hollywood or Silicon Valley, with constant job shifts, changes in alliances between companies and the growth of job-hopping “gypsies.” Although hard times could slow new business formation, historically recessions have served as incubators of innovation and entrepreneurship.

    Much of the most dynamic and meaningful change takes place under the radar of both big business and government. The shift to greater localism can be seen in the growth of local, unaffiliated community churches, regional festivals and farmers markets. Bowling clubs and old men’s clubs may be fading, but volunteerism has spiked among millennials and seems likely to surge among baby boomers. In 2008 some 61 million Americans volunteered, representing over a quarter of the population over 16.

    No other major country exhibits this kind of localized, undirected activism. Such vital grassroots may become even more important as the country becomes more diverse. In the coming decades we will have to accommodate an expanding range of locally preferred lifestyles, environments, ethnic populations and politics. One size determined by mandarins in Washington increasingly will not fit all. South Dakotans and San Franciscans will prefer to address similar problems in different ways. Within the limits of constitutional rights, we should let them try their hand and let everyone else learn from their success (or failure).

    Ultimately, we do not want to recreate the expansive mandarin state so evident in many foreign countries. Instead, we should focus more on family, community, neighborhoods, local jurisdictions and voluntary associations–what Thomas Jefferson called our “little republics”–as the most effective engines driving toward a better future.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.com.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in Febuary, 2010.