New Geography

Category: Policy

  • Shrinking the Rust Belt

    An article in the London Daily Telegraph suggesting that President Obama might back a major program of bulldozing parts of cities in the Rust Belt has put so-called “shrinking cities” back in the spotlight. Many cities around the country, especially in the Rust Belt have experienced major population loss in their urban cores which has sometimes spilled into their entire metro area. They have thousands of abandoned homes, decayed infrastructure, environmental challenges, and no growth to justify a belief that many districts will ever be repopulated.

    Cities in the Rust Belt grew in an era when large scale manufacturing required large amounts of labor. Today, productivity improvements mean that the United States can set new industrial production records with a fraction of the workforce of yesteryear. With much of its traditional labor force no longer as in demand in the modern economy, many Rust Belt cities lack an economic raison d’etre. Some may transform themselves for the modern economy, but many will be forced to accept the reality of a significantly diminished stature in the 21st century.

    In this world, size can prove a liability. One of the biggest problems in turning around Detroit is the sheer size of the region. The metro area has a population of 4.5 million – not including nearby Ann Arbor or Windsor, Canada. Is there really any need in the modern day for a city the size of Detroit in Southeastern Michigan? It seems doubtful. As I’ve argued before, transforming that city’s economy would be much easier if the region were smaller.

    One challenge is that a decline in population, which is already occurring naturally, doesn’t shrink the area of urbanization or the accompanying infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Indeed, although it is losing population and can’t support the infrastructure it has, Detroit still wants to build more, such a new regional rail transit system. And legacy debts such as pension liabilities don’t get smaller just because people leave. As with leverage, scale economics works in declining places as well as on the growing ones. The people who operate new transit systems or police who secure expanded areas must be paid. Roads, sewers, and water lines need to be maintained. In many places that are losing people, jobs, and tax base, such fixed costs could prove ruinous over the long run.

    Under such conditions, Rust Belt cities require both outside help and a program of managed shrinkage. The first challenge will be getting these cities, especially larger ones like Detroit, to admit that they need to do it on a regional basis. Medium sized cities like Flint and Youngstown have been more willing to face up to challenges. In contrast, places like Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo still see themselves as important national cities. Pride is blocking the effort to undertake a major managed shrinkage program. Instead of adjusting to reality, these cities continue to pour hundreds of millions into projects that vainly attempt to restart growth. .

    What would a federally assisted managed shrinkage program look like? No one can say for sure since this is a new field in America. Clearly, study of what has happened in Europe, particularly in Germany, where managed shrinkage has long been on the agenda, is warranted. But these ideas can’t just be transplanted via lift and drop. We need to create a distinctly American program informed by the best practices of elsewhere. That program should include the following elements:

    1. Education. Raising educational attainment not only makes people more employable in the new economy, it makes them more mobile.
    2. Relocation Assistance. Many people in the Rust Belt might want to move but be unable to do so because they are upside down on a mortgage or can’t sell their house. As more people leave, that will put downward pressure on the housing market. Hence, some government relocation assistance to help buy out people who want to move might be helpful.
    3. Shrinking the Urban Footprint. The quantity of urbanized land needs to be reduced so that the excess housing and infrastructure can be retired and the cost of servicing it eliminated. This means painfully identifying areas which will not receive reinvestment, and encouraging and assisting the people and businesses that remain to relocate. This will be difficult as these neighborhoods are still the locales for people’s homes and they have a strong emotional sense of ownership. Sensitivity is clearly called for. We need to increase localized density in areas targeted for redevelopment and convert other areas to non-urbanized uses such as nature preserves or agriculture. This will be a long process.
    4. Financial Restructuring. Older cities are often hobbled by mountains of debt, underfunded pensions, overstaffed payrolls, and too many municipal fixed assets. The government needs to be right-sized. Federal assistance may be needed to take over pensions and to give cities some tools to restructure unsustainable debt loads outside of bankruptcy.
    5. Development Restrictions. In return for federal assistance, there ought to be a real insistence that these cities sign up to the shrinkage programs. This might include enforceable restrictions on their ability to adopt policies that are oriented towards servicing growth such as restrictions on the ability to use federal funding for net new infrastructure. For example, if Detroit wants to build a federally funded rail system, it should retire an equivalent amount of other infrastructure elsewhere to offset it.

    Participation would be voluntary, but the federal government should make it clear that it will not finance futile attempts by these cities to try to recapture the glory of their pasts.

    This is of course only a conceptual outline of a program. Significant thought, analysis, and research would be needed to develop a program. Given our lack of experience in the field, experiments should be encouraged, flexibility granted within broad parameters, and real world feedback continuously incorporated back into the program. Clearly, we will not get everything right the first time around. We need to have the courage to learn from our mistakes and not forge headlong into failure simply because it would look like a political retreat.

    This won’t be pleasant or easy. It is not a path anyone wants to take. But given the condition of much of the Rust Belt, the only viable options appear to be painful ones. As local blogger Tom Jones recently said, “Too often, dealing with urban problems in Memphis is like the stages of grief. Just this once, maybe we can move past denial, anger, bargaining and depression, and unabashedly move to acceptance and develop the kinds of bold plans that can truly make a difference in the trajectory of our city.”

    Aaron M. Renn is an independent writer on urban affairs based in the Midwest. His writings appear at The Urbanophile.

  • Did Homeowners Cause The Great Recession?

    The person who caused the current world recession can be found not on Wall Street or the city of London, but instead could be you, and your next-door neighbor–the people who put so much of their savings and credit to buy a house.

    Increasingly, conventional wisdom places the fundamental blame for the worldwide downturn on people’s desire–particularly in places like the U.K., the U.S. and Spain–to own their own home. Acceptance of the long-term serfdom of renting, the logic increasingly goes, could help restore order and the rightful balance of nature.

    Once considered sacrosanct by conservatives and social democrats alike, homeownership is increasingly seen as a form of economic derangement. The critics of the small owner include economists like Paul Krugman and Ed Glaeser, who identify the over-hot pursuit of homes as one critical cause for the recession. Others suggest it would be perhaps nobler to put money into something more consequential, like stocks.

    Homeowners also get spanked by leading new urbanists, like Brookings scholar and urban real estate developer Chris Leinberger. He lays blame for the downturn not on unscrupulous financiers but squarely on aspiring suburban home buyers. “Sprawl,” he intones, “is the root cause of the financial crisis.”

    If only we built more high-density, transit-oriented housing–which, incidentally, is not exactly thriving–the crisis could be happily resolved, he believes. This approach is echoed by big-city theoreticians like Richard Florida, who believes that both homeownership and the single-family house “has outlived its usefulness.” In his “creative age,” we won’t have much room for either single-family homes or owners. Instead, we will be leasing our ever-more-tiny cribs–just like yuppies with their BMWs–as we wander from job to job.

    To be sure, many people who bought homes in the last few years should not have qualified. Weak lending standards, promoted by both unscrupulous industry figures like Countrywide’s Angelo Mozillo as well as Congress–including the many “friends” receiving cut-rate loans from the disgraced mortgage firm–clearly made things worse.

    Yet the recent real estate debacles should not obscure the tremendous positives associated with homeownership. Widespread and diffuse ownership of property has been a critical element in successful republics, from early Rome and the Dutch Republic to the foundation of the United States. Jefferson held that “small land holders are the most precious part of a state.” In the ensuing generation, progressives embraced widespread ownership of property as central to democratic aims. Lincoln’s Homestead Act stands out as a prime example.

    Even by the 1940s, this model was only partially realized. Barely 40% of the population owned their homes. Homeownership remained confined largely to small-town denizens and the urban upper classes. No one in my mother’s family–growing up in the tenements of Brownsville, Brooklyn–even considered homeownership an achievable goal. It was hard enough simply to pay the rent and put food on the table.

    Yet by the 1960s, rising prosperity and government-subsidized loans helped most of my numerous aunts and uncles own their residence.

    Presidents from Roosevelt to Clinton all identified homeownership as a critical social goal. Government loan programs exploded as housing starts doubled in the post-war era. By 2005, the homeownership rate was approaching 70%.

    This trend also took place in other advanced countries, from the U.K. and Australia to Canada and Spain. It reflected what the Italian urbanist Edgardo Contini once referred to as “the universal aspiration.” In some cases, such as Japan, societies that had been divided between landlords and peasants for millennia now boasted a huge, and growing, cadre of small owners.

    In virtually every country, this was largely a suburban phenomenon. People bought houses where land was cheaper, stores and schools newer. Here, too, people could transcend the often confining social limits of the old neighborhood. It was also, as the novelist Ralph G. Martin, noted “a paradise for children.”

    Through all this, the chattering class never lost its contempt for homeowners and their suburban refuges. Old gentry long disliked the idea of dispersed ownership of property–even if many got rich selling their own estates to developers. Aesthetes disliked the seemingly banal housing tracts “rising hideously,” as Robert Caro put it, from the urban periphery. This critique was applied not only to Queens and Long Island but also to places like Milton Keynes or Basildon outside London, and greater Tokyo’s Chiba prefecture.

    Along with the fashion police, the new owners also took criticism from their urban betters, many of them also owners of country homes, for deserting the city. Some on the left feared the homeowners as a bastion of conservative politics. Architects, planners and developers identified them as opponents of their grand plans to refashion suburbia into a denser, more rental-oriented environment.

    Yet, despite the disdain, the dream of homeownership survived. Many boomers, who in their 1960s radical phase denounced suburban tracts as sterile and racist, meekly ended up buying homes there. So, increasingly, did middle-class minorities, whose rates of homeownership rose faster after 1994 than that of whites.

    To be sure, the financial crisis has led to a sharp drop in levels of homeownership, as occurred in the last big recession of the early 1990s. In the future, some suggest that aging boomers will force the home market to collapse even more due both to the current mortgage meltdown and changing demographics.

    Yet there are limits to how far homeownership will drop. Urban boosters, apartment-builders and greens–all advocates of expanding the renter class–tend to ignore several key facts. For one thing, the vast majority of boomers are holding onto their mostly suburban homes far longer than ever suspected. Many will remain there until forced into assisted living, nursing homes or the cemetery.

    Then we have the X generation, who, if anything, has favored large homes and exurbs in large numbers. In addition, behind them lie the large cohorts of millenials, who according to surveys conducted by generational chroniclers Morley Winograd and Mike Hais, prioritize the ownership idea even more than their boomer parents do.

    No doubt, the weak economy will slow this generation’s push into the home market. However, by the next decade, as this generation enters the late 20s and early 30s, they will find their economic footing and be ready to enter the market for houses in a big way.

    The real question then will become which companies and regions will meet the expanding demand. Over the past decade, we saw the demand for housing push middle-class families toward destinations as varied as Las Vegas and Phoenix, Austin, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta. Others have started heading to more affordable markets in the nation’s heartland, to the metropolitan areas like Kansas City, Des Moines and Sioux Falls.

    Rather than a source of economic weakness, this renewed quest for homeownership could underpin a sustainable recovery. As prices fall to reasonable levels, more people will qualify for reasonable loans. First, the empty houses and somewhat later, the condominiums now on the market will find buyers, in most places in a matter of a few years.

    This shift will create huge opportunities for a diverse set of geographies. For urban areas like New York or Los Angeles, there will be a unique–perhaps once in a generation–chance to induce middle-class people to settle down in big-city homes or condominiums. If they become homeowners, they will be more likely to stay than move elsewhere to the suburbs or other regions when the time comes to buy a home.

    Other, more affordable, less regulated and often more economically dynamic places like Texas and the Great Plains may realize even greater gains. Over time, we will likely see a recovery in some now-suffering parts of the Sunbelt. The renewal of home demand could also help revitalize many of our hardest-hit sectors, including construction and manufacturing.

    Sadly, some policymakers in Washington seem less than enthusiastic about this prospect. Many close to President Obama seem to dislike single-family homes and suburbs. Some embrace the policy which the British called “cramming,” essentially forcing people into ever smaller, denser units. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently praised the notion of small apartments with numerous people. “You know, body heat keeps a lot of the apartment warm,” he suggested. You can’t do this in a big apartment with a few people.”

    My suspicion is that most Americans are not quite ready to become their own heaters, any more than modern farm families like having farm animals live with them–although they, too, generate warmth. Instead, we should explore less unpleasant ways to cut energy use though such things as incentives for decentralizing work, promoting home-based labor, more tree planning and effective insulation.

    An administration that places itself at odds with the “universal aspiration” that has driven growth in the advanced world for over a half-century could delay a full recovery unnecessarily. Advocacy of what amounts to declining living standards and a return to feudalism might also prove a less than successful political strategy.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin early next year.

  • Amid Obama’s Change is More of the Same

    The Obama administration has been, so far, hierarchical and even conservative in its thinking. Following and even surpassing the Bush administration’s reliance on an M.B.A.-trained elite, which drove the country nearly to ruin, the Obama approach seems to boil down to finding the smartest guy in the room, rather than utilizing people with hands-on experience or acquired wisdom.

    This fixation on hierarchy has been unexpected for an administration whose stock sold on the notion of being something other than the same old, same old. Yet as it turns out, the Obamanians seem to be as narrow, if not narrower, than their much-disdained predecessors.

    Early on, President Barack Obama’s magical mystery tour gained power in places you would not expect it to — winning critical victories in overwhelmingly white, socially conservative Great Plains and Midwestern states. Yet today, he has built one of the narrowest administrations, both ideologically and regionally, in recent memory.

    This trend became apparent in a new National Journal study of the administration’s top 366 officials. To be sure, the Obama team has more Hispanics, African-Americans and women than its predecessors. But beyond gender and color, the Journal reports, this is an administration of remarkable sameness.

    For one thing, people with practical business experience — outside of finance — have little role in formulating economic policy. This differs from the Bush administration’s tilt toward traditional autocracies; this is more rule by the cognitive elites. A history of real problem solving seems to matter less than the quality of university pedigrees; the Obama team appears to be a bit like a giant law review, drawing on only the best and brightest from places such as the University of Chicago, Oxford, Harvard and Stanford, as well as some elite think-tank denizens.

    This narrow gauge is even clearer geographically. There are few people around the president who come directly from exurbs or small towns; virtually all the inner circle hail from a handful of locales — Washington, Chicago, New York, Boston and the Bay Area. Remarkably, according to the National Journal, only 7 percent worked last year in a state carried by John McCain. Red appears to be one color that does not pass diversity muster for this administration.

    The danger here is not so much inexperience but a vision clouded by similar experiences and prejudices from the liberal wing of the baby boomer generation. The president remains broadly popular with the young, yet his administration is actually older than that of President George W. Bush. Obama may be a millennial matinee idol, but his administration appears boomer-dominated in its point of view.

    This may explain why Obama has focused so much on the old obsessions of left-leaning boomer elites — health care, civil rights, pacifistic foreign policy — and less on the issues, notably job and wealth creation, that matter most to those younger than 50. Even on the environment, an issue with great appeal to millennial Americans, his approach has been less community-based and consensual and more dogmatically and centrally directed than might appeal to a generation shaped by social networking and the Internet.

    Of course, Obama still could change course and evolve into the bold, innovative leader needed for these fast-changing times. However, to get there, he must be more than merely articulate. This president needs a surer and more current approach to dealing with epochal challenges whether on the public squares of Tehran or on this country’s Main Streets.

    This article first appeared at Politico.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin early next year.

  • America’s Energy Future: The Changing Landscape of America

    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.

    History will record that the tectonic plates of our financial world began to drift apart in the fall of 2008. The scale of this change may be most visible in who controls the energy that powers our world.
    ***********************************

    May 2008 brought with it the highest price on record for Brent Crude Oil – $148 per barrel. At the pump that translated into prices in excess of $4.00 per gallon. A sixteen gallon fill-up of a Toyota Prius in Los Angeles cost its owner $72.00 and a fill-up of a twenty-five gallon Cadillac Escalade set its owner back more than $100.00. The largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind was underway and consumers were feeling the pinch.

    The countries that border the Persian Gulf produce and export 20,000,000 barrels of oil per day. At its peak in May of 2008, the Persian Gulf producers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar and the U.A.E) were receiving $3 billion per day, $90 billion per month and $1 trillion per year in revenues from the industrialized nations of the world, including the EU, North America and, most importantly, the rising powers of India and China.

    These Persian Gulf nations are mostly monarchies controlled by individuals, royal families or at best a few power brokers. American consumers abandoned their love affair with the SUV and Detroit’s assembly lines began to grind to a halt. New car sales which peaked at 17 million units in 2007 plummeted to a rate of 9.2 million within six months. The inventory of unsold vehicles built up and led inexorably to the bankruptcies of Chrysler and General Motors.

    At the same time, the airlines began charging for checked bags and discontinued the ubiquitous bag of peanuts as they reeled under the cost of jet fuel. Bellicose despots in oil rich lands outside the Middle East used their new found wealth to rattle their sabers. Russia, the world’s second largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia, began flying their venerable Backfire bombers to the American coast. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, the world’s ninth largest oil producer, used his oil wealth to turn himself into an icon of the anti-gringo sentiment always beneath the surface throughout Latin America.

    Politicians, who placed America’s coastline off limits for drilling, were forced to recant their precious moratorium under the growing chorus of “Drill here and drill now”. Environmentalists, who destroyed the nuclear power industry with fearmongering over its safety, were increasingly on the defensive. T. Boone Pickens invested millions of his own money to promote wind farms – and more importantly natural gas – across America’s heartland. Sales of little known Jatropha seeds, a plant indigenous to India that produces an oil clean enough to run a diesel engine, skyrocketed. By the fall of 2008, the financial markets were buckling under the strain.

    As the economies of the world contracted, demand for oil plummeted and the price of crude collapsed. Terrified by the apparent mismanagement of the economy by the Republicans, Americans elected an untested junior Senator to the most powerful position in the world. Predictably, plans for alternative energy withered as prices plummeted and gas dropped to $1.50 per gallon. Russia, whose cost to develop crude is $50 per barrel, lost its swagger as its currency and stock market collapsed with the price of crude. The collapse of oil to $35 per barrel even silenced Hugo Chavez, at least for a moment.

    Sadly, the America public lost interest in energy as they were distracted by a 40% loss in their 401ks, corporate bankruptcies and the growing numbers of lay-offs. Politicians quickly shifted their focus from drilling, nuclear energy and independence from imported oil and began espousing the Obama administration mantra of “green energy” and “green collar jobs”. Unfortunately, these words are just a chimera since they are likely, even with massive subsidy, to produce only a small fraction of the nation’s energy for at least decade or two.

    These ephemeral goals only mask the real problem: America’s dependence on imported oil. The world demand for oil averages 85 mbd (million barrels per day). In the darkest days of the global financial crisis during the spring, when we stood at the abyss of The Great Depression, demand dropped to just 82.3 mbd. Conversely, world oil supply peaked at 87 mbd in 2007. This relative parity between supply and demand eliminates the elasticity that puts some control on prices. With literally no elasticity, speculators know that buyers will purchase every barrel of oil and prices rise. The proof of this market force is visible at the pump where gasoline has crested $3.00 per gallon in California and more than $2.66 per gallon nationwide. The United States consumes 20,000,000 barrels of oil per day or 24% of the world’s supply. In previous decades this was not a problem because the United States was a major producer of oil. But our peak production was reached in the 1970s when the US imported just 35% of its oil. Today we import more than 66% and no longer can influence the price of black gold. That price is now determined by despots in the Persian Gulf, Russia and Venezuela.

    This problem is not going away soon. According to the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. Government, the world demand for oil will require an additional 44 million barrels of oil every day to meet projected demand. The increase of demand is not going to come from the American or European markets. The developed nations through conservation, fuel standards, a reinvigorated nuclear power industry and, over time, the push for alternative fuels will actually reduce their consumption over the next twenty years. The push will come from India, Russia, Brazil, and of course China.

    India, with a population over one billion, has announced its version of the Interstate Highway System that opened America to its great Middle Class. After the acquisition of Jaguar and Land Rover, Tata Industries has begun production of the Nano, a car that sells for $2,000 in India. The demand for oil to power the cars for an educated and increasingly affluent Indian society will keep pressure on oil prices for years to come. India uses just 2.7 mbd today but expects that demand to grow to 4.5 mbd by 2030.

    There are now more than a billion Chinese. China consumed just 2 mbd of oil in 1990. Oil consumption jumped to 7.6 mbd in 2007 and is projected to grow to 15 mbd in 2030. The Chinese automobile industry grew at 21% last year while the US auto industry contracted by 40%. China displaced Germany as the third largest auto producer and will soon eclipse the damaged US auto industry which is contracting to a mere shadow of its former self. Chinese brands such as Chery and Geely, unknown to American consumers, may soon become as well known in America as Nissan or Hyundai.

    Demand will push oil over $100 barrels again. Vast capital will pour into the Persian Gulf, Russia and Venezuela once again. Into this tempest comes America with a thirst for 20,000,000 barrels each day. The major oil producers in the Middle East, Russia and Venezuela are not America’s friends. Russia will use its oil wealth to thwart the US and veto in the United Nations any effort to subdue the North Koreas and Irans of the world. China, with its surplus of US dollars, will continue to harvest natural resources around the world, and forge strategic alliances with the likes of Iran as it secures the flow of oil and natural resources to its industries for years to come.

    Meanwhile our politicians ignore our growing dependence on unfriendly nations and our weakening credit rating in the world to chase the chimera of green collar jobs and a green economy. Wind and solar will never power more than a minuscule fraction of America’s engines. America needs the equivalent of the Apollo moon project, a national challenge to move America off its dependence on foreign oil. We need simultaneous development of domestic oil and natural gas drilling, nuclear power, development of hydrogen fuel cells and clean coal technologies along with wind and solar power plants.

    A year from now the landscape of America will be forever changed. Five years from now, will American find the fortitude to grasp its energy independence? Or will our weak politicians in both parties keep their heads buried in the sand until China and India emerge to deny us what we are no longer in a financial position to demand?

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

    This is the third in a series on The Changing Landscape of America. Future articles will discuss real estate, politics, healthcare and other aspects of our economy and our society. 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 HOMEBUILDING INDUSTRY (June 2009)

  • Why Attitude Matters: How Nebraska is Reaping the Stimulus

    In what are tough times for most states, conditions for business remain surprisingly good in Nebraska. Like other states in the “zone of sanity” Nebraska is especially supportive of small businesses.

    Nebraska is one of a series out of mid-American outliers. In 2008 – a year of a severe national contraction – the state experienced a 3.6 percent growth in gross domestic product. Its current unemployment rate of just 4.4 percent stands at less than half the U.S. rate of 9.4 percent (latest available from Bureau of Labor Statistics).

    The state itself is in good financial shape, with a cash reserve over $500 million (including a $20 million to $30 million operating surplus every year since 2001). I believe there are two important factors fundamental to Nebraska’s health. The first lies in cooperation across levels and borders – which was described in my piece on regional cooperation in the Omaha World-Herald. This positive attitude toward growth and economic development in Nebraska extends through every level – you find it at the state, regional, county and city level. A supportive attitude toward development plays an important role in making things work.

    The second and perhaps more important factor critical to fostering an environment supportive of growth and prosperity lies with a broad acceptance of the benefits of on-going economic development as a source of continued quality of life. This attitude can be described – as opposed to the traditional NIMBYism seen so often in more crowded, coastal states – as “Yes, In My BackYard” or YIMBYism. Nebraska has pockets of pro-development populations, like Sarpy County, on the southern border of the city of Omaha.

    Before moving to Omaha, my business was based in Santa Monica, California. With a population of about 89,000, Santa Monica is a beautiful city consisting of smart people who often make foolish choices. Many residents in Santa Monica, like those in Portland and other NIMBY-areas of the country, oppose development in their neighborhoods.

    Many who live in million-dollar single-family homes in Santa Monica were opposed to building new middle-class jobs and homes in their neighborhood, although they often favor building homes for the poor, albeit somewhere not in their bailiwick. This promotes a “haves versus have-nots” social order, and also doesn’t make sense from a personal point of view. Whenever the growth debate was on the table (which it often is in Santa Monica), I would tell people, “Wouldn’t you like to build jobs and housing so your children can work and live in Santa Monica, too? Do you want your grandchildren to move to Texas? Because I assure you they are building middle-class jobs and housing in Texas.”

    In contrast I’ve found some pro-growth Nebraskans who relentlessly seek making development happen. For the mayors of the United Cities of Sarpy County, the emphasis is on cooperation as a path to success. Recent developments around my adopted hometown of Bellevue, Nebraska – home to Offutt Air Force Base and U.S. Strategic Command – provide a simple, straight-forward example of how YIMBYism works in practice.

    About seven years ago, the City of Bellevue, along with the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, funded an economic development plan that could be used to set a community agenda for growth. The resulting plan highlighted several locations where development was feasible, desirable and likely to lead to greater growth. One of the initial designated areas is a 6.5 mile corridor along Fort Crook Road. “Fort Crook Road,” says Megan Lucas, President of the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce, “is the spine of Bellevue. Other nodes of economic development will fill-in around Fort Crook when it is ready to move forward.”

    The City and the Chamber then devised a development plan specific for the Fort Crook Road Corridor. The Fort Crook Road Plan was approved as part of a new comprehensive plan for City development – with zoning updated to accommodate retail development along the entire length. The long-range plan is to shift the road west, closer to an existing active railroad line, and to create a linear park along the median strip to connect two existing trail systems – the Lewis & Clark in the north and the Bellevue Loop of the Keystone Trail on south end.

    Two points make this specific example interesting. The foresight in developing the comprehensive plans for the area positioned it perfectly for the current environment. A good chunk of the Fort Crook Road Corridor is currently occupied by an abandoned concrete production facility. These blighted structures need to be demolished to get the property ready for development. But since the City already owns the property and a comprehensive development plan is in place, the project is “shovel ready” – those magic words that qualify any development project for federal stimulus funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

    In contrast, there are hundreds of worthy projects in every state that will not qualify for Stimulus money because they fail to meet the “shovel ready” requirement. Part of the Fort Crook Road Plan made it through the initial review stages for stimulus funding in Nebraska. The project ranked in the top three in the state for eligibility and suitability. According to Mayor Ed Babbitt, some stimulus funding has been allocated to revise traffic signals in the corridor; funding to remove blighted structures will likely come later this year from an environmental clean-up fund.

    The second point that makes the Fort Crook Road Corridor an interesting example is that one of its biggest proponents – Megan Lucas – lives in the Corridor. The development and expansion of Fort Crook Road is in her backyard. She and many other residents in Bellevue are saying, “Yes, In My Backyard.” Even more recently, three cities in Sarpy County vied to be the location of a Triple-A ballpark to be built in cooperation with the Omaha Royals of the Pacific Coast League. YIMBY-ite residents far out-numbered the NIMBY-ites at every public forum on the choice of location. A positive attitude toward economic development has emerged as a major factor in getting ready for the stimulus – something many in the Obama bastions in the blue states might want to consider.

    Susanne Trimbath, Ph.D. is CEO and Chief Economist of STP Advisory Services. Her training in finance and economics began with editing briefing documents for the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. She worked in operations at depository trust and clearing corporations in San Francisco and New York, including Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of DTCC; formerly, she was a Senior Research Economist studying capital markets at the Milken Institute. Her PhD in economics is from New York University. In addition to teaching economics and finance at New York University and University of Southern California (Marshall School of Business), Trimbath is co-author of Beyond Junk Bonds: Expanding High Yield Markets.

  • NGVideo: Reviving Plotlands

    Everybody knows we urgently need to build more homes in Britain, but how, when and where will this happen? WORLDbytes interviewed Ian Abley, an architect and manager of Audacity at the plotlands in Dunton, Essex where from the 1920s East End working class couples built cheap homes themselves. Could we do this now? Ian Abley argues we should collectively break the Town & Country Planning law of 1947 which made buying and building on redundant farmland, like the plotlands, illegal.

    More information and related resources are available here.

    This video and its description are derived from original content by WORLDbytes.org with the express permission of their authors. To see the original full-length video, visit this page.

  • Smart Growth Bill Vetoed

    Texas Governor Rick Perry has vetoed a bill that would have created a state level “smart growth” program. The veto message is below.

    June 19, 2009

    Pursuant to Article IV, Section 14, of the Texas Constitution, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, do hereby disapprove of and veto Senate Bill No. 2169 of the 81st Texas Legislature, Regular Session, due to the following objections:

    Senate Bill No. 2169 would create a new governmental body that would centralize the decision-making process in Austin for the planning of communities through an interagency work group on “smart growth” policy. Decisions about the growth of communities should be made by local governments closest to the people living and working in these areas. Local governments can already adopt “smart growth” policies based on the desires of the community without a state-led effort that endorses such planning. This legislation would promote a one-size-fits-all approach to land use and planning that would not work across a state as large and diverse as Texas.

    IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have signed my name officially and caused the Seal of the State to be affixed hereto at Austin, this the 19th day of June, 2009.

    RICK PERRY
    Governor of Texas

    Reference: http://governor.state.tx.us/news/veto/12632/

  • How Phoenix Will Come Back

    I have heard Paul Krugman say that ‘the end is nigh’ so many times that it seemed like the only sensible way to think about the housing market. It was identified as a bubble, and that could only mean that it would eventually burst. A steady diet of NYT editorials and Economist charts leave you with one conclusion — this is not going to end well.

    This certainly seems to be true in Phoenix. Even though I’ve lectured for years about ‘the growth machine’, how the economy in a city like Phoenix depends on building more homes, I did not expect the whole thing to collapse quite so precipitately, and with so many repercussions. The number of passengers going through the airport here is down 10% from last year; numerous restaurants, stores and other services have gone out of business, the State is trying to stare down a $3 billion deficit, the universities have fired hundreds of people—so the cycle keeps spreading like a slow motion disaster.

    Also predictable is the response. Local politicians are planning to slash the State budget and get government off people’s backs, once and for all. If we used foreign phrases such as ‘chutzpah’ around here, that would have to qualify. After all, it takes balls to watch the market behave like a bunch of drunks kicking Humpty Dumpty about, and then blame government for trying to put him back together again.

    Yet, at least here in Phoenix, it turns out that Professor Krugman hadn’t really got it figured out after all. As a rational man, he was distracted by the irrational exuberance of the market, the unsupportable ramping up of property prices, the NINJA loans, and the cynical exploitation of those arriving late to the party, those doomed to buy at the top of the market and be left holding fake mortgages on homes with phony values. The solutions seem simple. More oversight from Big Brother and everything can be fixed. Or, if you prefer to listen to the bizarro-world script over on AM radio, the black helicopters are about to start landing on Wall Street as the UN takes over to install European-style socialism.

    Yet much of this commentary is laughably wrong. The housing market debacle was not just predictable but actually utterly unavoidable. Some of this is simply a matter of money circulating around, which as Niall Ferguson’s book The Ascent of Money makes clear, this is as old as capitalism itself. The difference now is that digital technologies have made the speed of trading and transfer shift. The same rules apply, except that everyone must work harder to keep that cash flowing.

    What I now realize is that the entire economic system is based upon finding more risk. Without more risk in which to invest, the economy can’t keep moving. In other words, this wasn’t a series of calamities or errors or criminal mistakes — it is the market at work, no more, no less. And that is not going to change.

    What I thought I knew is not really so. I thought a bigger banking sector was not just more mysterious but was somehow more efficient and therefore safer; after all, health insurance works best if the risks are spread across larger and larger groups. Yet in reality finance is more like a vast Ponzi scheme. We should, in fact, let Mr. Madoff out of jail, as he was doing nothing particularly wrong — his only crime was that he wasn’t being clever enough in hiding his scheme in sufficiently obscure mathematics.

    What happens to the cities, towns and suburbs left devasted by the financial schemers? As James Surowiecki recently observed in the New Yorker, “banking grew bigger and more profitable but all we got in exchange was acres of empty houses in Phoenix.” So? Isn’t that a small price to pay? Given a choice, what would we rather have: a buoyant capital market and a few distant suburbs and downtown condos without any residents, or what we have today in some cities — double digit unemployment?

    There are real policy issues at work here. We were taught years ago, by the Marxists no less, that the purpose of a capitalist economy is to reproduce itself and the purpose of governments is to make sure that happens. So we make credit available to people; first to buy Model Ts, then to live in Levittown, then to play golf in Cancun, and so forth. And for this to work there has to be more risk in which to invest, an endless supply of new things. Housing has served us well in this regard; people live in condos and McMansions, people sell them, people build them, people manufacture the fixtures and fittings. This is how the growth machine, particularly in places like Phoenix, works.

    An economy like Phoenix is like a shark – it can’t stop, it can’t even run slow. We have to find more buyers — or perhaps we just build the homes now and fill them in the future when the population increases. Or, in line with a previous posting, we should have solved the immigration problem, and the need to sell more homes, by legalizing the Latino population and making them creditworthy.

    In this sense, maybe all this focus on the Valley’s 65,000 foreclosures is a mistake. As I argued last year, perhaps they should just be turned over to rentals and let the market sort it all out; predictably, rents are now coming down in apartment complexes as more families find affordable homes to rent.

    What we need is not to stop the market from repairing itself but we need to do it in a more creative way. Some of those suburbs are looking a bit down at heel, and the homes weren’t that sturdy to begin with — so let’s bulldoze them and do some serious brownfield redevelopment. Perhaps build them right, more sustainably, and less dependent on distant employment centers

    We can all get back to work, we can all feel virtuous as no new desert is being bladed, the infrastructure is already paid for, the journey to work costs will be less, the density perhaps a little higher with more jobs, offices and retail located closer to the houses.

    This approach will let us build more homes and get some more risk back into that market. Let’s repurpose the land. Then we can go back to business as usual, and if I was a betting man, that’s exactly what we are going to do.

    Andrew Kirby is the editor of the interdisciplinary Elsevier journal “Cities.”This is his 20th year as a resident of Arizona.

  • GM, Business, and The Age of Small

    At its peak, General Motors employed 350,000 people and operated 150 assembly plants. It defined “big business” for America and the world.

    But GM was not always big. It grew through the acquisitions that it made in the early decades of the twentieth century. In those days, the automotive industry was populated by entrepreneurial small businesses led by people like Ransom Olds and Henry Ford. There were more than 200 automobile companies in the United States in 1920. By 1940, only 17 had survived.

    As with all businesses, success and failure was measured by a company’s ability to manage and adapt to change. Change in consumer expectations and demographics. Demands for lower prices and more features. Underlying all of this was the need to constantly improve, to challenge core assumptions, and attend to customer needs. The early automobile companies that could not adapt were driven out of business or forced to merge. In the end, we had the “Big Three” in control of all major American automotive brands.

    And so it was, but only for a time. Our economy is dynamic. It is always changing. This is why consumer products are always adding “new and improved” to even their most popular and profitable labels, and why companies produce competing products — like laundry detergents and cereals — within their brand. Control of shelf space is vital in retail, and an expanded offering of products maintains a company’s all-important market share.

    In a free economy, “Big” has some advantages. It has more resources and reach. “Big” companies can define a market and, to a point, control entry into it. But “Big” also has many disadvantages. It is unwieldy, bureaucratic, inflexible, slow to react and unresponsive to small events. This is why in a dynamic free economy “Big” gives birth to “Small”, which forces innovation and change, and ushers in the next Big Idea.

    Apple was started in a garage to challenge the giant IBM. Microsoft was founded by a college dropout who ran with a platform (Windows) that Xerox created and discarded. Hechinger’s was the first big box hardware store. It was overtaken by The Home Depot, which pioneered a better way to service clients with an even bigger box.

    America is all about good, better, best. Google is now the dominate internet search engine. A small part of its success has been its ability to become part of the vernacular. How many of us have said, “Let me Google that?” Microsoft is not sitting back and accepting Google’s success as a given. It recently launched “Bing”, with features not available on Google. Is Bing the next newer, better search engine? The market will determine if it is, once consumers take it out for a search or two and decide whether or not they like the results.

    The American automobile industry has reached the end of “Big.” GM recently sold its Saturn brand to Roger Penske, a former auto racer turned entrepreneur. Penske will likely bring new energy and focus to a brand that was only a small cog in a giant corporation. I bet that the brand will reemerge stronger in the marketplace. A Chinese company bought Hummer. SAAB is still looking for a new home. The remaining GM brands, including Cadillac and Buick, will be part of a newer and smaller company. This is the natural economic cycle. It is what would have taken place months ago, and saved the American taxpayer billions of dollars had we simply let GM go into an orderly Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

    The problem is that our federal government is attempting to control this process in order to achieve a desired result. Yes, looking at saving GM as a short term federal jobs program is a valid argument (albeit a God-awful expensive one). But we should not let these actions, taken in the midst of a crisis, instill the belief that government control of markets is a viable alternative to free markets that respond to consumer demand.

    The natural flow of our economy is big to small to big again. We are now entering an ‘Age of Small’ throughout our economy. It is an era in which new ideas will drive innovation, and the nimble will overtake the weak. The only thing that can derail this process is the permanent entry of big government into the mix.

    Government is the antithesis of a market economy. It is unwieldy, bureaucratic, inflexible, slow to react, and unresponsive to small events and to its own consumers.

    It is Big when we are at the right moment for Small.

    Dennis M. Powell is president and CEO of Massey Powell, an issues management consulting company located in Plymouth Meeting, PA.

  • Europe: No Longer A Role Model For America

    For decades many in the American political and policy establishment–including close supporters of President Obama–have looked enviously at the bureaucratic powerhouse of the European Union. In everything from climate change to civil liberties to land use regulation, Europe long has charmed those visionaries, particularly on the left, who wish to remake America in its image.

    “There is much to be said for being a Denmark or Sweden, even a Great Britain, France or Italy,” wrote political scientist Andrew Hacker in his 1971 book The End of the American Era .This refrain has been picked up again more recently by the likes of Washington Post reporter T.R. Reid and economist Jeremy Rifkin. Just last year, international relations scholar Parag Khanna shared his vision of a “shrunken” America lucky to eke out a meager existence between a “triumphant China” and a “retooled Europe.”

    But the tendency to borrow from the European toolbox may be somewhat questionable, particularly given that a growing number of Europeans are either uninterested–barely 40% bothered to vote in E.U. Parliament elections last week–or in open revolt against their own system of government. In the elections, for example, parties generally opposed to expanding E.U. power gained ground in countries as diverse as Hungary, Slovakia and the Netherlands. In Britain, the relatively small U.K. Independence Party, which even opposed membership in the U.N., out-polled the Labour Party and trailed only the Conservatives, who announced their own shift toward a more euro-skeptic point of view.

    Although the E.U.’s current top-down bureaucratic approach is clearly losing support, these recent events don’t necessarily mean the E.U. is doomed. It’s just that people who might be happy to accept a customs union and perhaps even a common currency are simply proving loath to hand over land use controls and environmental standards, much less foreign policy, to Brussels-based bureaucrats. At its root this move represents both a cry against control and a cry for greater autonomy.

    For the Obama administration, there may be some significant lessons here. Compared with Europeans, Americans are disposed to dislike too much central control. Turning Washington into a new Brussels, with regulations to cover virtually any human activity, could backfire both on the president and his party.

    But it’s also critical not to see Europe’s new tilt as affirming Reaganite cowboy capitalism. Many European countries, particularly the northern ones, are justly proud of the “social” models of capitalism they embrace. There are many policies–such as Danish incentives for industrial firms to greenify themselves, efficient universal health care and tough fuel economy standards for cars–that should be discussed and perhaps even adopted in some form in the U.S.

    In one sense, we should understand that Europeans are trying to protect their preferred standards when it comes to culture, social structure and lifestyle. They remain, if you will, fundamentally conservative in their efforts to preserve their well-established welfare states.

    But overall the anti-E.U. vote should make it clear that Europe’s overall economic system makes for a poor role model for our country. When the current economic crisis first hit, many European leaders–and their American fans, like Harvard economist Ken Rogoff–saw vindication for the E.U.’s economic policy and a much tougher road for the U.S. over the next year or two. Yet in reality, Europe already has suffered as much as we have from the downturn, and recovery there may also be even slower to emerge. In some countries, such as Greece and France, social unrest has been far more evident than here in the U.S.

    Simply put, European models do not necessarily work better–and when they do, they have occurred in part due to shifts away from strict welfare-state policies. As Sweden’s Nima Sanandaji and Robert Gindehag have argued the recent return to growth in places like Sweden came only after some modest reforms in both taxes and social benefits.

    Yet at the same time, even successful European countries–as well as the whole E.U.–generally experience slower growth than the U.S. with respect to measures like gross domestic product and job growth. This makes it an example of limited utility for America, a country that needs strong economic growth in order to maintain both its quality of life and overall social sustainability.

    The biggest source of divergence between the U.S. and the E.U. lies in demographic trends. For the most part, Europe is aging far more rapidly, and its workforce is shrinking. As demographer Ali Modarres notes, America’s population over the second half of the 20th century grew by 130 million, essentially doubling, while the populations of France, Germany and Britain together increased by 40 million, or 25%.

    As a result, there is virtually no European equivalent for cities like Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas or Atlanta. American cities sprawl–and will likely continue to do so–because they are newer and because they are growing much faster in a country that is much vaster. Even with 100 million more people, the country will still be one-sixth as crowded as Germany.

    These differences will only become more stark. Opposition to immigration–from both Muslim countries and the E.U.’s own eastern periphery–is growing even in historically tolerant places like Great Britain, Denmark and Holland. Over time, migration into Europe is destined to slow. In Barack Obama’s wildly multicultural America, strong restrictionist sentiments have not gained much political ground, and, at most, efforts are directed not at reducing legal immigration but rather shifting it toward a more meritocratic model.

    So we can expect America’s population to continue growing at close to the highest rate in the advanced industrial world while Europe remains among the most rapidly aging places on earth. America’s fertility rate is 50% higher than Russia’s, Germany’s and Italy’s. By 2040, for example, the U.S. could have a greater population than the first 15 member nations of the European Union. Compare that prediction to 1950, when America had only half the population of Western Europe.

    These numbers point toward separate destinies for the U.S. and the E.U. Throughout history, low fertility and societal and economic decline have been inextricably linked, affecting such once-vibrant civilizations as ancient Rome, 17th-century Venice and, now, contemporary Europe.The desire to have children also reflects a fundamental affirmation of faith in the future and in values that transcend the individual. This is particularly true in affluent societies, where it is socially acceptable to remain childless and technology has made the decision not to have children easier to enforce.

    The U.S.’ demographic vitality will allow it to emerge from the current economic doldrums with more rapid growth than Europe–continuing a trend that has generally held for most of the past two decades. Innovation, largely a product of youthful indiscretion, also will continue to emerge more quickly stateside. Indeed, according to one recent European Commission survey, at the current rate of innovation, it would take 50 years for the E.U. to catch up to the U.S.

    Largely thanks to these demographic pressures, we could see an American economy twice the size of the E.U.’s by 2050. Unlike Europe, we have better prospects for growth, since there’s really no sustainable alternative for our society. In contrast, 40 years from now Europe’s economic growth rate is expected to fall 40%, due directly to the shrinking size of both its labor force and its internal market.

    We can ultimately expect two very different courses to develop. In America, the emphasis needs to be on sustained growth to prevent a massive decline in living standards. In contrast, Europe may be able to maintain a steady level of prosperity–even with lower growth, since its population will be either stagnant or declining–at least until the looming costs of maintaining a welfare state impose onerous economic burdens.

    Environmentally, Europe will become a “green” hero–because lower economic growth means a natural reduction in energy consumption and dreaded greenhouse gas emissions. Americans, on the other hand, will need to depend more on technological fixes–some of them from Europe–and embrace less economically damaging paths to growth. (These include promoting such things as working close to or at home and developing more fuel-efficient cars.)

    Neither Europe nor America–particularly given a much-reduced E.U. bureaucracy–has a better or worse model. We just have to recognize that these are, in the end, increasingly different societies: The former is focused on preservation of its hard-won peace and prosperity; the latter is challenged more by constant, major and sometimes even frightening change.

    Some may still hold out the hope that wise men in the old continent will present us with a road map to the future. But given the revolt going on against this mega-European ideal, we should understand that even many across the pond are having second thoughts about a future controlled by Brussels. Perhaps it’s better to recognize that most solutions to America’s problems–now and in the future–will be concocted not in Brussels, Berlin or Paris, but at home.

    This article originally appeared at Forbes.

    Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History. His next book, The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, will be published by Penguin early next year.