New Geography

Category: Urban Issues

  • Washington, DC: The Real Winner in this Recession

    No matter how far the economy falters, there is always a winner. And no city does better when the nation is at the brink of disaster than Washington, DC. Since December 2007, when the current recession formally began, the nation has lost approximately 6 million jobs. Only two states, Alaska and North Dakota, have lost a smaller percentage of jobs than Washington, DC, which has seen a job loss of 0.6%, or 4,400. Simply put, Washington has done better in this recession than 48 of the fifty states when it comes to job performance.

    This is not the first time that Washington flourished while the rest of the nation suffered. For the first few, largely prosperous decades of the 19th Century, the district was a backwater, growing more slowly than the national average. It was widely reviled as fetid, swampy place with little in the way of commerce, industry or culture. Even its great buildings were compared to “the ruins of Roman grandeur.”

    It was only during arguably our greatest national tragedy – the Civil War – that the District of Columbia grew into an urban center, more than doubling in population from 1860 to 1870. Soldiers from the northern states flocked to the District of Columbia before going to battle, a new military force was established to guard against a Confederate attack, and the management of the war itself became a major federal enterprise. Slavery was abolished in Washington prior to emancipation, and freed slaves added to the District’s growing population.

    During the 1930s, FDR created an entirely new set of federal agencies designed to create jobs by financing projects across the country. At the same time, to prevent abuses on Wall Street, Congress created new regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, which hired droves of young accountants and lawyers unable to find work in other cities across the country.

    The Second World War and the Cold War also played to Washington’s advantage, as a vast military-industrial complex rose to the fore. So it’s not surprising that now, with the nation in the midst of its worst downturn since the Great Depression, that Washington appears about to indulge in yet another orgy of growth.

    Washington has always been a one industry town: that’s why it has an intrinsically self-absorbed monotonic culture. Everyone there depends on government for their livelihood. It is fundamentally not a city of competitive industries, but a giant taxpayer-funded office park, surrounded by museums and memorials. The great presidents: Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson, have their own monuments, while more recent leaders have concert halls and office buildings named after them.

    Today Washington, DC appears much as the twenty-first century version of a gold mining town, even if the gold, so to speak, is coming from taxpayers as well as foreign buyers of our increasingly debased US currency. The Bush Administration kicked off this boom when it created the third largest cabinet department, the Department of Homeland Security, (by consolidating unrelated federal agencies into one super-sized department) and made it the employer of airport baggage and security inspectors across the nation. A new federal agency deserves a new headquarters, of course. DHS is now rising on the site of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in southeast Washington DC, a pre-stimulus stimulus for the District of Columbia.

    The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act may be only slowly stimulating the nation’s economy but it is already working wonders in DC. Everyone wants a piece of the action. There is a surge in the lobbying industry, with every school board, regional transit agency and county government hiring a lobbyist to guide them through the new federal grant programs.

    Tourism may be temporarily down in DC, but the hotels are filled with local law enforcement officials, university bureaucrats, and housing advocates all trying to create jobs with federal dollars. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the US Department of Agriculture have just nineteen months to spend $4.7 billion on broadband communications.

    To evaluate the thousands of proposals for federal funding, expert panels will convene in Washington, DC. Where else? Communities across the country may receive grants, but the hotel and restaurant industry in the nation’s capital will also prosper from this new federal program.

    The same process will follow other Obama initiatives. Health care and climate change legislation will produce the same rounds of hearings, a growing cadre of regulators and the corps of tassel-shoed lobbyists who will try to influence them.

    The heightened emphasis on transparency in government has compelled every federal department to build sophisticated websites to engage the public, to distribute information, and to conduct the entire process of awarding grants and contracts. The demand for website designers and managers has grown so quickly that a Los Angeles-based interactive advertising agency, “Sensis,” a minority owned and operated corporation, recently opened an office in the District of Columbia just to “capitalize on the federal government’s new interest in digital communications.”

    There is one unambiguous measure that signals the growth of business activity within a city. Until recently, taxi fares in the nation’s capital were based on zones. These made it very inexpensive for members of Congress to go to and from the Capital. Today, every DC taxi has a meter and the old-fashioned zone-based system has been abolished. Both the municipal government and taxi drivers understand that there are more dollars to be made from those seeking to influence government than those who actually make the laws.

    Ben Smith of Politico.com has recently pointed out that five new Washington-based reality television shows are in the planning stages, with Bravo ready to launch “The Real Housewives of Washington, DC.” It is no accident that the entertainment industry has discovered the District of Columbia. A city that thrives in a recession may become the Fantasyland of our generation.

    Mitchell L. Moss is Henry Hart Rice Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at NYU Wagner School of Public Service.

  • Enviro-wimps: L.A.’s Big Green Groups Get Comfy, Leaving the Street Fighting to the Little Guys

    So far, 2009 has not been a banner year for greens in Los Angeles. As the area’s mainstream enviros buddy up with self-described green politicians and deep-pocketed land speculators and unions who have seemingly joined the “sustainability” cause, an odd thing is happening: Environmentalists are turning into servants for more powerful, politically-connected masters.

    On March 3, voters shot down Measure B, a controversial solar energy initiative pushed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and endorsed heartily by many prominent environmentalists. The stunning defeat in this liberal city came after critics accused the mayor and his friends of secret deals that rushed the measure onto the ballot as a favor to a city union whose workers be guaranteed almost all of the resulting solar jobs.

    Then, on April 29, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder placed a temporary injunction on part of the “clean trucks” program at the Port of Los Angeles, whose air pollution is so foul that the EPA warns its emissions cause cancer in suburbs like Cerritos, miles upwind of the port. Judge Snyder rejected efforts by Villaraigosa and the Teamsters to force port truckers to give up their independence and work for companies – spun as a green rule, but ridiculed as a move to pressure the truckers to become Teamsters.

    Today, labor unions, big businesses, and politicians are embracing a green economy to solve their own political and financial woes. And the green agenda – repairing a damaged planet and protecting the local environment in which we live – is at risk of ending up an after-thought.

    “I don’t think the traditional environmental organizations are up to speed,” says Miguel Luna of Urban Semillas, a grassroots environmental group. Alberto B. Mendoza, president of the Coalition for Clean Air, concurs: “If we don’t become more modern in our approach, we’ll become obsolete.”

    In Los Angeles, developers now market, or “green wash,” big new buildings as “sustainable” – meaning healthy for the planet over the long term. The city of Los Angeles requires large buildings to follow “LEED” rules – low flush toilets, on-site renewable energy and the like. But do these projects cause more congested streets filled with idling cars, for example, than the energy they claim to save? In truth, nobody knows. “If you have a project that would normally be four stories high and now it has 20 stories,” says Hollywood activist Bob Blue, there’s a “net increase in power, water, sewer, traffic, pollution – and impact.”

    Yet among many greens, LEED is a closed debate – and represents a profound shift. In the 1990s, greens like Marcia Hanscom, Rex Frankel, Bruce Robertson, Cathy Knight, Sabrina Venskus, and Patricia McPherson took on Los Angeles City Hall, preventing it from wiping out the Ballona Wetlands to erect a vast housing development, Playa Vista. Those greens publicly trounced the pols and their speculator friends over absurd “sustainability” claims — including an effort to count the grassy median strips as “open space.”

    Nowadays, though, Los Angeles enviros are sliding toward the argument that big development is good for the air, land and water – and small bits of green are enough. Environmentalists rarely engage in the city’s intense development hearings. “Maybe one time an environmentalist showed up,” Blue says, “but it was on the behalf of the developer.”

    Within the green movement, Andy Lipkis, the founder of Tree People, and Mark Gold, executive director of Heal the Bay, have reputations as heavyweights with access to Villaraigosa and other politicians. Neither of them, though, wants to jump into rough-and-tumble politics. Lipkis, a likeable and dedicated activist, proudly says he is politically “naive.” Gold, a smart and equally dedicated environmentalist, says he is not “even a little” worried that politicians, labor unions or speculators are hijacking the greens’ issues.

    But today, developers regularly peddle their proposed apartments near L.A. freeways as “sustainable” – claiming they bring workers closer to jobs. The developments are backed by Villaraigosa and the L.A. City Council – to the horror of health experts. Researchers now know, for certain, that children living in these projects are burdened with often lifelong lung disease. “They are putting individuals at risk,” says USC professor Jim Gauderman, whose 2007 study confirmed it.

    Heavily focused on lowering emissions region-wide to fight global warming, greens now praise freeway-adjacent housing projects, utterly forgetting about the young humans involved. Incredibly, city Planning Commissioner Michael Woo, a Villaraigosa-appointee, hasn’t heard a word of opposition from them. Two years after USC’s study, he says, “I’m not sure there’s a political will to stop housing projects at these locations.”

    Grassroots activist Marcia Hanscom, who has never gotten anything by staying quiet, worked for years with other environmentalists to save the Ballona Wetlands. In 2003, that relentless effort paid off – the state bought more than 600 acres to protect and restore. But now, she says, the environmental movement in L.A. has lost its way. It’s time to talk openly about a “mid-course correction.”

    L.A. politicians “sometimes call me as if I’m one of their staff members,” she notes, “and I’m supposed to do what they say. They have their roles mixed up. I’m here to advocate for the environment, not to advocate for them.”

    Pro-green politicians control the office of mayor, almost every Los Angeles City Council seat, every Los Angeles Unified School Board seat, and, for years, have controlled the legislature. Yet the greens seem oddly incapable of asserting power. Mark Gold of Heal the Bay, for example, went out of his way to endorse solar power Measure B, even though Villaraigosa clearly dissed him by dreaming it up utterly without Gold’s input. What L.A. union boss would stand for that?

    Stefanie Taylor, interim managing director interim of the Green L.A. Coalition, a group of over 100 organizations, says, “We have to make sure we’re at the table when these decisions are made about the new green economy.” But right now, says enviro-lobbyist John White, environmentalists are “more like the menu.”

    The stark difference between the daily work of Hanscom, the grassroots environmentalist, and Jonathan Parfrey, the political insider and mainstream environmentalist, is instructive. When the Weekly talked with Hanscom, she was in the middle of an almost surreal battle to keep glaring, Vegas-style digital billboards, made up of 480,000 piercingly bright LED light bulbs, from being allowed adjacent to the blue herons and wildflowers of the Ballona Wetlands.

    Says Hanscom, “The city has the Ballona Wetlands as a part of a billboard ‘sign district?’ It’s outrageous! I even had [developer] lobbyists and lawyers ask me what they were thinking.”

    As Hanscom aimed her firepower at City Hall, environmentalist Parfrey, one of Antonio Villaraigosa’s newest political appointees, was getting ready to visit a Department of Water and Power wind farm way out of town, with the idea of creating “educational tours” for environmentalists. Nothing wrong with that, but it sounded like a public relations campaign for the big utility.

    It’s hard to escape the fact that Los Angeles power brokers regard the environmental movement not as a passionate force they can tap to improve the quality of life and to clean the air, water, and open spaces, but, increasingly, as just another jobs program. And some of the greenest greens have begun to wonder if their own leaders are taking part in the movement’s demise.

    Patrick Range McDonald is a staff writer at L.A. Weekly, and this piece appears in full at www.laweekly.com. Contact Patrick Range McDonald at pmcdonald@laweekly.com.

  • Why Rapid Transit Needs To Get Personal

    Innovation in urban transportation is the only long-term correction for expensive environmental losses and energy waste. Why, then, isn’t there a US plan for more vigorous exploration and demonstration of new systems using advanced technologies, particularly automation? Where is the Personal Rapid Transit — PRT — in US transportation policy?

    PRT utilizes automated, energy efficient, very lightweight four seat vehicles that operate on narrow, electrified, dedicated guideways. PRT vehicles reduce pollution and conserve land use. The system preserves the benefits that have made automobiles our current dominant transportation mode: personal, on-demand, fast travel directly to arbitrary destinations. For non-drivers, it’s a form of public transportation that upgrades travel to the personal level now available with the automobile. It allows travelers to avoid the slow, stop and go, repetitive service schedule which has prevented meaningful acceptance of conventional mass transit in all but a few very dense cities.

    PRT works like this: At an off line station, a rider goes to a waiting group of personal cars, inserts a card, punches in a destination and joins the main line for the automatically controlled trip directly to his or her destination.

    By direct use of electric energy to power very efficient drive motors, the limitations and inconvenience of batteries are primarily avoided. In some cases, when complete area coverage for the guideway net is not completed, dual mode cars with minimum battery use can deliver the “last mile” to destinations. Of course, current programs for significant automobile improvement should continue until PRT operations are ready to supplant them.

    There is a safety bonus, since these very light weight, energy efficient cars are segregated from the mixed flow of heavy cars and trucks.

    The simpler, lighter PRT vehicles would use significantly less energy than hybrids or battery powered cars. PRT offers the most potential for deep cuts in greenhouse gases in a few decades, without restricting the mobility necessary for regional productivity.

    Community-useful PRT coverage is not possible “overnight”. But PRT and other emerging technologies can stimulate whole new job producing industries while reducing dependence on both fossil fuels and conventional autos for personal transportation.

    Billions are being spent on mass transit installations that few travelers want. Meanwhile, urban congestion increases. Urban “streamlined” mass transit is seldom faster than 100-year-old trolleys. No really new concepts have appeared, since government has not prioritized new systems. Instead, it supports minor changes in existing models. Look at the military’s successful history of taking advantage of risky new technologies. Imagine if it overlooked a comparable potential; it’s equally difficult to fathom telecommunications companies still offering “Ma Bell” style dial phones.

    There is some limited evidence that the concept and hardware are being adopted. Heathrow airport near London is about to open on-demand personal ground travel between parking and terminals. Masdar is a United Arab Emirates new city which will replace automobiles with PRT. In the US, completely automatic on-demand travel on a small, funds-limited basis has been operating successfully at the University of West Virginia for thirty years.

    Some investigators hope that private funding — perhaps an office park, or a campus — can give PRT its initial boost. Maybe a city would be willing to start such a system in a congested area.. Certainly, the automobile revolution started in piecemeal ways. The commitments that are needed today are larger, however. Today’s climate of regulation and progressive income tax discourage risk capital at the needed levels.

    There are signs that the Federal government realizes that transportation policy has lost direction. A recent National Transportation Policy Project report proposes performance-based investment decisions for economic productivity. Compared to other vital infrastructure and private enterprise accomplishments, truly new concepts in transportation have been missing for many decades. With an opportunity to stimulate the economy, and create new job producing industries of global significance, hopefully this new form of vital personal transportation can be the win-win basis for national economic health and efficient urban transportation.

    For more on PRT vehicles, see the Liberator Car by MonoMobile or the British/Swedish/Korean Vectusport-Vectur Transport.

    Walter Brewer is a retired Vice President of a concepts and management center supporting military missile and space programs.

  • Telecommuting And The Broadband Superhighway

    The internet has become part of our nation’s mass transit system: It is a vehicle many people can use, all at once, to get to work, medical appointments, schools, libraries and elsewhere.

    Telecommuting is one means of travel the country can no longer afford to sideline. The nation’s next transportation funding legislation must promote the telecommuting option…aggressively.

    The current funding legislation, called SAFETEA-LU, is set to expire on September 30. On June 24, a House subcommittee approved a discussion draft of the new funding bill: the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. U.S. Representatives James L. Oberstar (D-MN) and John L. Mica (R-FL), Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Transportation Committee are now sparring with the Obama Administration about just when Congress should focus on reauthorizing SAFETEA-LU; the lawmakers say now; the Administration says 18 months from now. Regardless of the timetable adopted, the measure the House and Senate ultimately pass must maximize the powerful benefits of internet-based travel.

    Whereas the infrastructure for cars, buses and trains consists of roads and rails, the infrastructure required for telecommuting is broadband. Fortunately for the framers of the new transportation package, the stimulus legislation already provides significant funding – over $7 billion – to expand access to broadband. The transportation legislation should provide more. It should also expressly encourage the use of that broadband to telecommute.

    Some Congressional leaders have called on their colleagues to recognize telecommuting as a full-fledged transportation mode. On May 14th, twelve members of the House wrote to both the House Transportation Committee and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, requesting that they consider including some pro-commuter reforms as they design the nation’s new transportation and energy laws. Among their requests were initiatives to incentivize telecommuting.

    One strategy these lawmakers proposed for encouraging telework was to condition federal grants to states and localities for transportation infrastructure on their creation of bold incentives for telework. Why impose this condition? Telework limits the wear and tear on new roads and rails, as well as the demand for further construction. Thus, it protects the federal investment in such infrastructure and mitigates future costs.

    There is precedent for insisting that the recipients of federal funding for infrastructure focus on telework’s potential to reduce the need for that infrastructure. Federal law provides that executive agencies, when deciding whether to acquire buildings or other space for employee use, must consider whether needs can be met using alternative workplace arrangements such as telecommuting. Requiring state and local governments that seek federal aid for new roads to include telecommuting in their transportation plans would demonstrate the same kind of fiscal responsibility.

    Other lawmakers have introduced legislation specifically linking broadband and more conventional kinds of transportation infrastructure. Representative Anna G. Eshoo, a Democrat from California, together with Democratic Representatives Henry A. Waxman from California, Rick Boucher from Virginia and Edward J. Markey from Massachusetts, has sponsored the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act, a bill that would require new federal highway projects to include broadband conduits. Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, Blanche L. Lincoln from Arkansas and Mark R. Warner from Virginia have introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

    The proposal set forth in the two bills makes economic sense. It would be an unconscionable waste of taxpayer dollars to dig up roadways, expand and repave them and then dig them up again to lay the broadband pipes the stimulus bill made possible. If the pipes are installed while the roadways are under construction, they will be available when broadband providers are ready to get communities online.

    If passed, the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act would only strengthen the case that funding for infrastructure projects should be conditioned on state and local government efforts to facilitate telework. If, as they finance highway projects, American taxpayers also fund broadband, they should not then have to struggle to telecommute. They should be able to help contain transportation costs and, at the same time, easily make the greatest possible use of the broadband access they financed.

    What kind of steps to promote telework should states and localities be required to take if they want to qualify for federal transportation funding?

    Congress should insist that they provide telework tax incentives for both employees and employers; eliminate tax, zoning and other laws that are hostile to telework; and offer both public and private sector employers technical help in developing and implementing robust telework programs. The government grantees should be required to create such programs for their own employees. They should also be required to designate certain high traffic and high pollution days as telework days — days when employees are specifically urged to take the web to work — and to conduct public awareness campaigns about the benefits of telework.

    These benefits go beyond transportation infrastructure savings, emissions reductions, and congestion management. Telework can help businesses and government agencies reduce real estate, energy and other overhead costs and use the savings to avoid job cuts or to hire new staff. It can increase employers’ productivity by 20% or more, and enable them to sustain operations if an emergency, such as the recent swine flu outbreak, compels significant absenteeism.

    Telework enables Americans who cannot find work in their own communities – and cannot sell their homes – to look for more distant positions. It can help those still employed to lower their commuting costs and juggle competing work and family obligations. It can help older Americans who cannot afford to retire to continue working even when they no longer have the stamina for daily commuting. And it can help disabled Americans with limited mobility join or re-enter the workforce.

    When Congress finalizes its new transportation policy, it must exploit the tremendous mileage it can get from encouraging web-based travel. Conditioning funding to state and local governments on investment by those governments in pro-telework measures – and offering meaningful federal funding to promote telecommuting – is a dual strategy that would yield a greener and leaner transportation system.

    In the process, this strategy would advance crucial energy, economic, quality of life and contingency planning goals. A clear emphasis on the need for telework in the new transportation bill is essential to help the nation get to where it needs to go.

    Nicole Belson Goluboff is a lawyer in New York who writes extensively on the legal consequences of telework. She is the author of The Law of Telecommuting (ALI-ABA 2001 with 2004 Supplement), Telecommuting for Lawyers (ABA 1998) and numerous articles on telework. She is also an Advisory Board member of the Telework Coalition.

  • Who Killed California’s Economy?

    Right now California’s economy is moribund, and the prospects for a quick turnaround are not good. Unable to pay its bills, the state is issuing IOUs; its once strong credit rating has collapsed. The state that once boasted the seventh-largest gross domestic product in the world is looking less like a celebrated global innovator and more like a fiscal basket case along the lines of Argentina or Latvia.

    It took some amazing incompetence to toss this best-endowed of places down into the dustbin of history. Yet conventional wisdom views the crisis largely as a legacy of Proposition 13, which in effect capped only taxes.

    This lets too many malefactors off the hook. I covered the Proposition 13 campaign for the Washington Post and examined its aftermath up close. It passed because California was running huge surpluses at the time, even as soaring property taxes were driving people from their homes.

    Admittedly it was a crude instrument, but by limiting those property taxes Proposition 13 managed to save people’s houses. To the surprise of many prognosticators, the state government did not go out of business. It has continued to expand faster than either its income or population. Between 2003 and 2007, spending grew 31%, compared with a 5% population increase. Today the overall tax burden as percent of state income, according to the Tax Foundation, has risen to the sixth-highest in the nation.

    The media and political pundits refuse to see this gap between the state’s budget and its ability to pay as an essential issue. It is. (This is not to say structural reform is not needed. I would support, for example, reforming some of the unintended ill-effects of Proposition 13 that weakened local government and left control of the budget to Sacramento.)

    But the fundamental problem remains. California’s economy–once wondrously diverse with aerospace, high-tech, agriculture and international trade–has run aground. Burdened by taxes and ever-growing regulation, the state is routinely rated by executives as having among the worst business climates in the nation. No surprise, then, that California’s jobs engine has sputtered, and it may be heading toward 15% unemployment.

    So if we are to assign blame, let’s not start with the poor, old anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis (who helped pass Proposition 13 and passed away over 20 years ago), but with the bigger culprits behind California’s fall. Here are five contenders:

    1. Arnold Schwarzenegger

    The Terminator came to power with the support of much of the middle class and business community. But since taking office, he’s resembled not the single-minded character for which he’s famous but rather someone with multiple personalities.

    First, he played the governator, a tough guy ready to blow up the dysfunctional structure of government. He picked a street fight against all the powerful liberal interest groups. But the meathead lacked his hero Ronald Reagan’s communication skills and political focus. Defeated in a series of initiative battles, he was left bleeding the streets by those who he had once labeled “girlie men.”

    Next Arnold quickly discovered his feminine side, becoming a kinder, ultra-green terminator. He waxed poetic about California’s special mission as the earth’s guardian. While the housing bubble was filling the state coffers, he believed the delusions of his chief financial adviser, San Francisco investment banker David Crane, that California represented “ground zero for creative destruction.”

    Yet over the past few years there’s been more destruction than creation. Employment in high-tech fields has stagnated (See related story, “Best Cities For Technology Jobs“) while there have been huge setbacks in the construction, manufacturing, warehousing and agricultural sectors.

    Driven away by strict regulations, businesses take their jobs outside California even in relatively good times. Indeed, according to a recent Milken Institute report, between 2000 and 2007 California lost nearly 400,000 manufacturing jobs. All that time, industrial employment was growing in major competitive rivals like Texas and Arizona.

    With the state reeling, Arnold has decided, once again, to try out a new part. Now he’s posturing as the strong man who stands up to dominant liberal interests. But few on the left, few on the right or few in the middle take him seriously anymore. He may still earn acclaim from Manhattan media offices or Barack Obama’s EPA, but in his home state he looks more an over-sized lame duck, quacking meaninglessly for the cameras.

    2. The Public Sector

    Who needs an economy when you have fat pensions and almost unlimited political power? That’s the mentality of California’s 356,000 workers and their unions, who make up the best-organized, best-funded and most powerful interest group in the state.

    State government continued to expand in size even when anyone with a room-temperature IQ knew California was headed for a massive financial meltdown. Scattered layoffs and the short-term salary givebacks now being considered won’t cure the core problem: an overgenerous retirement system. The unfunded liabilities for these employees’ generous pensions are now estimated at over $200 billion.

    The people who preside over these pensions represent the apex of this labor aristocracy. This year two of the biggest public pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTERS, handed out six-figure bonuses to its top executives even though they had lost workers billions of dollars.

    Almost no one dares suggest trimming the pension funds, particularly Democrats who are often pawns of the public unions. Some reforms on the table, like gutting the two-thirds majority required to pass the budget, would effectively hand these unions keys to the treasury.

    3. The Environment

    Obama holds up California’s environmental policy as a model for the nation. May God protect the rest of the country. California’s environmental activists once did an enviable job protecting our coasts and mountains, expanding public lands and working to improve water and air resources. But now, like sailors who have taken possession of a distillery, they have gotten drunk on power and now rampage through every part of the economy.

    In California today, everyone who makes a buck in the private sector–from developers and manufacturers to energy producers and farmers–cringes in fear of draconian regulations in the name of protecting the environment. The activists don’t much care, since they get their money from trust-funders and their nonprofits. The losers are California’s middle and working classes, the people who drive trucks, who work in factories and warehouses or who have white-collar jobs tied to these industries.

    Historically, many of these environmentally unfriendly jobs have been sources of upward mobility for Latino immigrants. Latinos also make up the vast majority of workers in the rich Central Valley. Large swaths of this area are being de-developed back to desert–due less to a mild drought than to regulations designed to save obscure fish species in the state’s delta. Over 450,000 acres have already been allowed to go fallow. Nearly 30,000 agriculture jobs–held mostly by Latinos–were lost in the month of May alone. Unemployment, which is at a 17% rate across the Valley, reaches upward of 40% in some towns such as Mendota.

    4. The Business Community

    This insanity has been enabled by a lack of strong opposition to it. One potential source–California’s business leadership–has become progressively more feeble over the past generation. Some members of the business elite, like those who work in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, tend to be too self-referential and complacent to care about the bigger issues. Others have either given up or are afraid to oppose the dominant forces of the environmental activists and the public sector.

    Theoretically, according to business consultant Larry Kosmont, business should be able to make a strong case, particularly with the growing Latino caucus in the legislature. “You have all these job losses in Latino districts represented by Latino legislators who don’t realize what they are doing to their own people,” he says. “They have forgotten there’s an economy to think about.”

    But so far California’s business executives have failed to adopt a strategy to make this case to the public. Nor can they count on the largely clueless Republicans for support, since GOP members are often too narrowly identified as anti-tax and anti-immigration zealots to make much of a case with the mainstream voter. “The business community is so afraid they are keeping their heads down,” observes Ross DeVol, director of regional economics at the Milken Institute. “I feel they if they keep this up much longer, they won’t have heads.”

    5. Californians

    At some point Californians–the ones paying the bills and getting little in return–need to rouse themselves. The problem could be demographic. Over the past few years much of our middle class has fled the state, including a growing number to “dust bowl” states like Oklahoma, Texas and Arkansas from which so many Californians trace their roots.

    The last hope lies with those of us still enamored with California. We have allowed ourselves to be ruled by a motley alliance of self-righteous zealots, fools and cowards; now we must do something. Some think the solution is reining in citizens’ power by using the jury pool to staff a state convention, as proposed by the Bay Area Council, or finding ways to undermine the initiative system, which would remove critical checks on legislative power.

    We should, however, be very cautious about handing more power to the state’s leaders. With our acquiescence, they have led this most blessed state toward utter ruin. Structural reforms alone, however necessary, won’t turn around the economy’s fundamental problems and help California reclaim its role as a productive driver of the American dream.

    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.

  • Death of the Suburbs: Part Nauseum

    For decades, those who know best have been chronicling the death of the suburbs. In every new announcement of demographic data, they find evidence that people are “moving back” to the core cities, even though they never moved away. The coverage of the latest Bureau of the Census city population estimates set a new standard. “Cities Grow at Suburb’s Expense During Recession” was the headline in The Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News headlined “Census Shows Cities are Growing More Quickly than Suburbs.”

    Robert E. Lang, co-director of Washington’s Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech noted that inner suburbs that have developed transit systems grew more last year and that others will begin to grow faster in the future. Lang specifically cites the Washington, DC suburbs of Alexandria and Arlington. William Frey of the Brookings Institution told Time magazine that the cities are “a lot better” able to withstand the “ups and downs” in the economy.

    This is something for which no evidence was reported, but it was the “inside-the-beltway” (Washington) spin that Time and other media have been eager to adopt. Even the latest government numbers still showed the suburbs with a growth rate more than 20 percent above that of the core cities.

    Premature Death Syndrome?

    Despite the spin, an analysis of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population indicates that the nation’s suburbs are in no danger of being displaced as growth leaders by the central city. To start with, suburbs represent nearly 75 percent of the nation’s major metropolitan population. Further, the overwhelming evidence is that people continue to move out of the core cities in far larger numbers than they are moving in (net domestic migration).

    In 2008, the core cities accounted for 23 percent of growth in the largest metropolitan areas. This is up from the decade annual average of 16 percent (Note 1). But this improvement is not the result of more people moving to the core cities but a huge decline in domestic migration, which has driven suburban growth for decades. Thus, the story in the latest census estimates is not that the cities are growing faster. It is rather that people are generally staying put amidst the steepest economic decline since the Great Depression. Stunted hopes, not a sudden enthusiasm for urban living, have driven the relative change.

    Table 1
    Metropolitan Area, Suburban and Core City Population: 2000-2008
    Metropolitan Areas Over 1,000,000
      Metropolitan Area Suburbs Core City
    Metropolitan Area 2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change 2000 2008 Change Share of Growth
    Atlanta       4,282       5,376       1,094       3,861       4,838          977          421          538          117 11%
    Austin       1,266       1,653          387          602          895          293          664          758            94 24%
    Baltimore       2,557       2,667          110       1,909       2,030          122          649          637          (12) -11%
    Birmingham       1,053       1,118            64          811          889            77          242          229          (13) -21%
    Boston       4,402       4,523          121       3,813       3,914          101          589          609            20 16%
    Buffalo       1,169       1,124          (45)          877          853          (24)          292          271          (21)
    Charlotte       1,340       1,702          362          770       1,014          244          570          687          117 32%
    Chicago       9,118       9,570          452       6,222       6,717          494       2,896       2,853          (43) -9%
    Cincinnati       2,015       2,155          141       1,683       1,822          138          331          333              2 1%
    Cleveland       2,148       2,088          (60)       1,671       1,655          (17)          477          434          (43)
    Columbus       1,620       1,773          154          904       1,018          114          716          755            39 26%
    Dallas-Fort Worth       5,196       6,300       1,104       4,006       5,020       1,014       1,190       1,280            89 8%
    Denver       2,194       2,507          313       1,638       1,908          270          556          599            43 14%
    Detroit       4,458       4,425          (32)       3,512       3,513              1          945          912          (33)
    Hartford       1,151       1,191            40       1,027       1,066            40          124          124            (0) 0%
    Houston       4,740       5,728          989       2,761       3,486          725       1,978       2,242          264 27%
    Indianapolis       1,531       1,715          184          749          917          168          782          798            16 9%
    Jacksonville       1,126       1,313          187          390          505          116          737          808            71 38%
    Kansas City       1,843       2,002          159       1,442       1,563          122          401          439            38 24%
    Las Vegas       1,393       1,866          473          909       1,307          399          484          558            74 16%
    Los Angeles     12,401     12,873          472       8,697       9,039          342       3,704       3,834          130 28%
    Louisville       1,165       1,245            80          613          687            74          552          557              6 7%
    Memphis       1,208       1,224            16          518          554            36          690          670          (20) -130%
    Miami       5,027       5,415          388       4,663       5,002          338          363          413            50 13%
    Milwaukee       1,502       1,549            47          905          945            40          597          604              8 16%
    Minneapolis-St. Paul       2,982       3,230          248       2,599       2,847          248          383          383              0 0%
    Nashville       1,318       1,551          233          772          954          183          546          596            51 22%
    New Orleans       1,316       1,134        (182)          832          822          (10)          484          312        (172)
    New York     18,353     19,007          653     10,338     10,643          305       8,016       8,364          348 53%
    Oklahoma City       1,098       1,206          108          590          654            64          508          552            44 41%
    Orlando       1,657       2,055          398       1,464       1,824          360          193          231            37 9%
    Philadelphia       5,693       5,838          146       4,179       4,391          212       1,514       1,447          (66) -46%
    Phoenix       3,279       4,282       1,003       1,952       2,714          762       1,326       1,568          242 24%
    Pittsburgh       2,429       2,351          (78)       2,095       2,041          (54)          334          310          (24)
    Portland       1,936       2,207          271       1,406       1,650          244          530          558            28 10%
    Providence       1,587       1,597            10       1,413       1,425            12          174          172            (2) -23%
    Raleigh          804       1,089          284          514          696          182          290          393          102 36%
    Richmond       1,100       1,226          126          902       1,024          121          198          202              4 3%
    Rochester       1,042       1,034            (8)          822          827              5          219          207          (13)
    Riverside-San Bernardino       3,278       4,116          838       3,020       3,821          800          258          295            38 4%
    Sacramento       1,809       2,110          301       1,399       1,646          247          409          464            55 18%
    St. Louis       2,724       2,841          116       2,378       2,486          109          347          354              7 6%
    Salt Lake City          973       1,116          143          791          934          143          182          182            (0) 0%
    San Antonio       1,719       2,031          312          555          680          125       1,164       1,351          187 60%
    San Diego       2,825       3,001          176       1,597       1,722          124       1,228       1,279            51 29%
    San Francisco       4,137       4,275          137       3,360       3,466          106          778          809            31 23%
    San Jose       1,740       1,819            79          841          871            29          899          948            50 63%
    Seattle       3,052       3,345          292       2,489       2,746          258          564          599            35 12%
    Tampa-St. Petersburg       2,404       2,734          329       2,100       2,393          293          304          341            37 11%
    Tucson          849       1,012          163          359          470          111          489          542            52 32%
    Virginia Beach       1,580       1,658            78       1,346       1,424            78          234          234            (0) 0%
    Washington       4,821       5,358          537       4,249       4,766          517          572          592            20 4%
    Total   152,409   166,323     13,914   109,318   121,097     11,778     43,090     45,226       2,136 15%
    Population in 000s                    
    City share column blank where both metropolitan area & city lost population          
    Metropolitan areas are named after their largest city or cities. The first city listed is the core city, except in Virginia Beach where the core city is Norfolk.
    Italization indicates that core city was largely built out in 1960 and has annexed little or no territory.
    Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data for county based metropolitan areas  

    On close examination, the recent better relative performance of the cities stemmed from three factors, none of which involved people moving to them from the suburbs or anywhere else in the nation.

    (1) Decline in Domestic Migration

    Suburban growth has declined because the economic downturn has reduced the number of residents moving from one part of the country to another (domestic migrants). In 2008, net domestic migration fell to 30 percent below the decade average. The suburbs and exurbs were the largest gainers from domestic migration in past and have thus declined the most. This is not surprising, given the fact that a major part of subprime mortgage crisis that precipitated the Panic of 2008 (or the Great Recession) was the granting of mortgages to under-qualified households who stretched their financial resources to move to places where housing was the least expensive. Many of these households defaulted on their mortgages, were forced out of their houses and moved away.

    Nonetheless, as a new Bureau of the Census report indicated, in each of 12 large metropolitan areas analyzed the percentage growth in the exurbs was greater than in the core city. So even in the worst of times, the basic claim by the “inside-the-beltway” analysts and the media were totally off-base.

    The slowdown in net domestic migration also has pushed up city population growth. Fewer people moved away from the core cities than in the past. This, however, is different from people moving into the cities from the suburbs.

    It seems likely that stronger domestic migration gains will be restored to the suburbs when the economy improves. In the meantime, the growth rates of both the core cities and the suburbs have converged toward the natural rate of growth (births minus deaths).

    (2) Net International Migration

    County level data indicates that net international migration was only 9 percent below the decade average in 2008. The core cities have routinely attracted more international migrants than the suburbs. This, combined with a decline in domestic migration among metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population helped to improve the growth rate of the core counties relative to the suburbs.

    (3) Not Adding Up: City Estimates

    Putting it frankly, the births minus deaths, plus domestic migration and international migration fall far short of the increases being reported in the core cities. This can be shown by examining the only core cities for which full “component of population change” data is available (natural increase, net domestic migration and net international migration). The Bureau of the Census does not release component data at any level of government below counties or their equivalents. In five cases, cities are fully consolidated with counties.

    The consolidated city-counties are New York (an amalgamation of five counties, or boroughs), Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore and Washington (DC). Some places referred to as consolidated city-county governments are not genuine amalgamations, because some separate cities remain, such as in Miami, Jacksonville, Louisville and Indianapolis. An examination of the components of population in the five genuinely consolidated city-county jurisdictions reveals huge unallocated discrepancies (the Bureau of the Census term is “residuals”).

    Combining the births, deaths, net domestic migration and net international migration all of the five cities produces a population loss. The difference is the unallocated residual, which is huge in four of the five city-counties and a number of others and is small in most places that are not core cities.

    This unexplained “residual” is largely the result of the Bureau of the Census population “challenge” program. Four of the five consolidated cities have mounted successful challenges to their estimates and have thus added significantly to their populations. In San Francisco and Washington, the challenges added more population than the 2000-2007 gain (2008 challenges are yet to be filed). In New York, the challenges amounted to 80 percent of the 2000-2007 growth (Table 2).

    Table 2
    Unallocated Residuals & Estimates Challenges : 2000-2007
    Fully Consolidated City-County Jurisdictions
      Change in Population: 2000-2007 Unallocated Residual: 2000-2007 Successful Census Challenges: 2000-2007
    With Successful Challenges      
    Baltmore               (8,400)            34,700                 56,400
    New York            294,500          325,000               236,100
    San Francisco              21,700            37,400                 34,200
    Washington              16,100            19,900                 31,500
    Subtotal            323,900          417,000               358,200
    No Successful Challenges      
    Philadelphia             (65,200)             (6,800) 0
    Unallocated Residual: Population Change not accounted for in births, deaths, international migration or domestic migration
    Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data.  

    This is just the beginning of the story. More than one-half of the core city growth in the decade has been attributable to similar challenges. In contrast, only three percent of suburban population growth has been attributable to challenges. It does seem curious that the Bureau of the Census that has produced such erroneous estimates in places like New York (230,000), Atlanta’s Fulton County (110,000) and St. Louis (40,000), missed not a soul Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland, Phoenix and a host of other core cities and thousands of counties. The next census (2010) may be a good gauge of the challenge program’s accuracy, although it is not beyond imagining that anti-suburban elements may seek to politicize the results.

    Inner Suburbs

    Further, the theory of inner suburban growth is left wanting, even in the Washington area. Despite their transit improvements, between 2000 and 2008, Arlington and Alexandria lost 45,000 domestic migrants, both losing in every year except 2008 (in both cases, additions due to challenges were greater than the 2000-2007 population increase). Washington’s other inner suburbs, Fairfax County, Montgomery County and Prince Georges County are served by the same transit system (largely paid for by the taxpayers around the country), yet between them have lost another 240,000 domestic migrants between 2000 and 2008. On the other hand, the second ring suburbs have gained 112,000 migrants and the exurbs have gained 104,000 (See Figure). During the last year, the inner suburbs grew at approximately one-third the rate of the outer suburbs. And despite the subprime induced distress in the exurbs, the inner suburbs could achieve no better a rate. Analysts may trade anecdotes at coffee houses about people moving to the city or the inner suburbs from the exurbs or beyond. However, the Bureau of the Census data is clear. For every anecdote that that moves in, more than one moves out.

    The Numbers Tell it All

    When the 2008 county and metropolitan area population estimates were published a few months ago, we showed that the central counties (Note 2) continue to lose residents at a rapid rate. Among the metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population, central counties lost 4.6 million domestic migrants, while suburban counties gained 2.0 million domestic migrants between 2000 and 2008. Over the past year, the core counties lost a net 314,000 domestic migrants while the suburbs gained 197,000 (Table 3).

    Table 3
    Domestic Migration: Core and Suburban Counties: 2000-2008
    Metropolitan Areas over 1,000,000 Population
      Latest Year: 2007-2008 Decade: 2000-2008
    Metropolitan Area Suburban Core Total Suburban Core Total
    Atlanta          32,925          10,126          43,051        395,836          (1,749)        394,087
    Austin          24,216          10,825          35,041        156,890          41,142        198,032
    Baltimore          (6,000)          (6,352)        (12,352)          32,952        (67,923)        (34,971)
    Birmingham            5,658          (2,356)            3,302          48,700        (25,755)          22,945
    Boston          (2,889)          (5,372)          (8,261)      (154,086)        (99,006)      (253,092)
    Buffalo             (358)          (4,127)          (4,485)          (5,933)        (48,232)        (54,165)
    Charlotte          21,327          13,060          34,387        125,223          93,513        218,736
    Chicago               921        (43,031)        (42,110)        160,765      (667,507)      (506,742)
    Cincinnati            3,803          (7,372)          (3,569)          65,905        (85,538)        (19,633)
    Cleveland               861        (15,757)        (14,896)          14,726      (141,445)      (126,719)
    Columbus            3,325             (826)            2,499          64,211        (40,624)          23,587
    Dallas-Fort Worth          62,022        (18,847)          43,175        514,011      (254,016)        259,995
    Denver          13,940            3,932          17,872          86,262        (50,881)          35,381
    Detroit        (17,020)        (45,140)        (62,160)        (53,478)      (273,695)      (327,173)
    Hartford               379          (4,065)          (3,686)          10,789        (21,639)        (10,850)
    Houston          38,559          (1,835)          36,724        279,389        (89,222)        190,167
    Indianapolis          11,747          (5,040)            6,707        113,378        (51,262)          62,116
    Jacksonville            8,723          (3,955)            4,768        101,954          20,185        122,139
    Kansas City            4,908          (3,495)            1,413          57,007        (34,481)          22,526
    Las Vegas (*)
    Los Angeles        (12,033)      (103,004)      (115,037)      (232,281)   (1,006,985)   (1,239,266)
    Louisville            4,281               818            5,099          38,420          (9,798)          28,622
    Memphis            5,986        (10,533)          (4,547)          49,979        (52,412)          (2,433)
    Miami        (18,598)        (28,399)        (46,997)          31,551      (252,098)      (220,547)
    Milwaukee               939          (7,382)          (6,443)          13,987        (86,392)        (72,405)
    Minneapolis-St. Paul            1,179          (4,619)          (3,440)          61,162        (86,920)        (25,758)
    Nashville          17,172             (547)          16,625        128,921        (19,094)        109,827
    New Orleans          (2,520)          22,856          20,336        (72,561)      (233,021)      (305,582)
    New York        (68,081)        (76,018)      (144,099)      (672,435)   (1,118,025)   (1,790,460)
    Oklahoma City            5,707             (226)            5,481          42,399        (10,302)          32,097
    Orlando          10,495          (7,342)            3,153        174,428          55,611        230,039
    Philadelphia          (9,639)        (12,209)        (21,848)          36,553      (144,849)      (108,296)
    Phoenix          22,614          28,463          51,077        117,550        411,697        529,247
    Pittsburgh            1,169          (3,601)          (2,432)            5,221        (60,564)        (55,343)
    Portland          10,641            7,355          17,996        106,163          (4,247)        101,916
    Providence          (3,983)          (6,643)        (10,626)        (13,399)        (34,136)        (47,535)
    Raleigh            6,030          23,238          29,268          35,263        132,769        168,032
    Richmond            5,625               937            6,562          76,608          (4,095)          72,513
    Riverside-San Bernardino (*)
    Rochester             (425)          (3,325)          (3,750)          (7,121)        (36,181)        (43,302)
    Sacramento            8,255          (3,731)            4,524          97,304          34,798        132,102
    St. Louis               561          (6,253)          (5,692)          17,988        (57,090)        (39,102)
    Salt Lake City            1,407          (1,164)               243          10,191        (41,646)        (31,455)
    San Antonio          10,850          11,941          22,791          69,824          84,409        154,233
    San Diego (*)
    San Francisco            4,092            1,414            5,506      (269,093)        (80,543)      (349,636)
    San Jose             (528)          (2,097)          (2,625)          (6,119)      (221,378)      (227,497)
    Seattle            7,894            3,975          11,869          61,244        (38,132)          23,112
    Tampa-St. Petersburg            8,610          (2,100)            6,510        169,346          91,106        260,452
    Tucson (*)
    Virginia Beach        (11,093)          (4,430)        (15,523)            7,486        (15,941)          (8,455)
    Washington        (16,637)          (1,622)        (18,259)        (77,894)        (43,457)      (121,351)
    Total        197,017      (313,875)      (116,858)     2,015,186   (4,645,051)   (2,629,865)
    * Indicates no suburban county(ies)
    Calculated from US Bureau of the Census data for county based metropolitan areas

    There is a simple test that the reporters and the analysts can apply. When the cores experience net domestic migration gains and the suburbs experience net domestic migration losses, only then can it be claimed that people are moving to the cores are gaining at the expense of the suburbs. The reality is that between 2000 and 2008, there was not a single instance out of the 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population where there was suburban net out-migration and core county net in-migration. There was one case in 2008, but it was an anomaly. The suburbs of New Orleans lost a modest number of domestic migrants, while the city gained strongly. This occurred because people moved back to the city in large numbers, after more than half left due to Hurricane Katrina.

    Spin can change perceptions, but not reality. People are not moving from the suburbs to the core cities. The reverse continues to be true, even in the worst of times.

    Note 1: Excludes New Orleans due to significant population variations from Hurricane Katrina.

    Note 2: Counties are the smallest jurisdiction for which the Bureau of the Census publishes migration data.

    Reference: Demographia 2000-2008 Metropolitan Area Population & Migration: http://www.demographia.com/db-metmic2004.pdf

    Wendell Cox is a Visiting Professor, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers, Paris. He was born in Los Angeles and was appointed to three terms on the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by Mayor Tom Bradley. He is the author of “War on the Dream: How Anti-Sprawl Policy Threatens the Quality of Life.”

  • Lessons from the Left: When Radicals Rule – For Thirty Years

    Contrary to popular notions held even here in southern California, Santa Monica was never really a beach town or bedroom community. It was a blue-collar industrial town, home to the famed Douglas Aircraft from before World War II until the 1970s.

    When I first lived there in the early ’70s, the city was pretty dilapidated, decaying and declining (except for the attractive neighborhoods of large expensive homes in the city’s northern sections). I remember a lot of retirees, students, and like me and my wife, renters of small apartments in old buildings. The tiredness of the place was incongruous with its great location and weather. But then the first of several spectacular rises in real estate values took off. Rents started rising precipitously as well, and in a city where 80% of residents were renters, a political earthquake shook the establishment: in 1979 voters passed rent control and soon after that elected a slate of politicians backed by the SMRR – Santa Monicans for Renter Rights – to a majority on the city council. It has now been 30 years that the city of Santa Monica has been dominated by the politics and politicians of SMRR. What have they wrought?

    There have been some momentous battles. Property owners, denied the full use and fair value of their property, came to calling the place “the People’s Republic of Santa Monica.” As economists would predict, rent control resulted in the loss of rental units (and therefore the number of renters), slowed construction of new units, led to the deterioration of existing units as landlords deferred maintenance, decreased the city’s diversity, and increased its exclusivity. These were all opposite effects the original intentions of the new radical rulers.

    But rent control was not the only “social justice” concern on the SMRR agenda; “homeless friendly” policies led to an explosion of homeless people in the city, which comedian Harry Shearer reminds the nation every week on his NPR radio show is “The Home of the Homeless.”

    Other battles fought over the years have involved traffic issues, a living wage ordinance, preferential parking zones, McMansions, development and redevelopment, planning, zoning, schools, affordable housing requirements, and the height of fences and hedges – a thousand things big and small one would expect in a city of 85,000 residents and an annual budget of over $500 million. At some point in the 1980s, the SMRR-dominated City Council, once anti-development, realized that development could generate millions of dollars for city government necessary for funding its political agenda. Massive rezoning and redevelopment were approved.

    One might think that inconsistent policies often causing opposite effect of their intentions would have weakened the left. But two large factors have come into play over time. First, SMRR does not rule without consent and consensus – many, perhaps more than half, of home owners have supported the progressive politics and policies of the SMRR-controlled city council. Secondly, despite the concerns of some property owners and economists, Santa Monica has prospered. Despite powerful regulation, hotels, arts, jobs, and restaurants continue to flow into the city. Opponents on both sides concede most of the population is content and satisfied with the status quo.

    This has been accomplished with pragmatism and a willingness to change policies that were not working. The worst effects of rent control are in the past due to a state law that allowed vacancy decontrol. Same with homelessness: residents wanted to be “progressive” but realized that being kind to the homeless only increased their numbers. The city still overdoes it on permits, regulations, etc., but homeowners and business want to be “progressive,” so they go along with it (and they like regulation when it benefits their interests).

    The city decided to make itself a tourist destination, and it is, but when it looked like nothing but hotels would be built, voters passed a proposition to halt hotel development. On the other hand, last November voters defeated Prop T, which would have limited most commercial development in the city to 75,000 square feet a year for the next 15 years.

    Santa Monica Place, a huge indoor shopping mall, outlived its usefulness, so now it’s being rebuilt as an outdoor mixed-use development. A living wage law was passed by the City Council, and then repealed by voters.

    SMRR is a political machine that has dominated the city for 30 years, using money, favors, jobs for the connected (and bupkis for those not) to build voting blocs for power and control. It inserts its people onto all the boards and commissions with input into policymaking. Their power ultimately comes from persuading renters, who are still a big majority of the city’s inhabitants, that they need SMRR for protection from “greedy landlords.”

    So SMRR dominates political life in the city of Santa Monica, but it does so with the consent of many homeowners, property and business owners, as well as renters. Santa Monica is green, PC, insufferably “tolerant,” self-satisfied, etc., but still doing well for itself. Taxes, rules, regulations and restrictions are onerous, but people and businesses still want to be there.

    I have lived through and observed the political battles of the last 30 years as a renter, homeowner and briefly as a landlord (never again, thanks). The transformation of Santa Monica reflects an interesting story: left-leaning activists who realize they can bend the establishment by controlling it from the inside. They then become the new establishment, but like in today’s left-leaning academia, work to make sure they themselves are never similarly deposed. And yes, I wonder if it holds lessons for the nation, with President Obama and the Democrats now in control and looking to implement a left-leaning agenda.

    What might those lessons be? One, particularly difficult for conservatives to accept, is that the time-tested machinations of leftist political machines sometimes work. They work for the powerful and the connected (who get to have their cake and eat it too: financial reward with a patina of progressivism), and they are perceived to work for the powerless and unconnected (however deleterious in reality). And that the left can come to power and rule with the consent of the governed, if it doesn’t “push the envelope” beyond a certain point, changes course when warranted, rewards cronies and allies, co-opts opponents where possible (and freezes them out where not). It worked for Tammany Hall, it has worked for Mayor Daley, and it seems to be working for Obama. Saul Alinsky would be proud of his protégé.

    Perhaps at the heart of its success is that like all successful political machines, SMRR “fixes potholes.” Frank Gruber, who writes a weekly column about life and politics in Santa Monica for The Lookout News, calls this “squeaky wheel government.” SMRR council members try to turn every complaining resident – and there are many – into happy SMRR voters. Whatever the aims of SMRR, they have created a popular government.

    Gruber, who considers himself an “old leftie” of the “jobs, housing, education, environment” school, takes SMRR to task for putting the needs of comfortable voters (traffic, for instance) ahead of the needs of the larger community (such as jobs for minority youth). (A collection of Gruber’s columns has recently been published in a book called, fittingly, Urban Worrier: Making Politics Personal.)

    In the 2008 elections, in which Santa Monicans voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, all four incumbents of the City Council won easily. SMRR seems as entrenched as always. In at least this paradisiacal portion of Southern California, left-wing government appears to be working – even if sometimes at odds with its own old radical objectives.

    Dr. Roger Selbert is a trend analyst, researcher, writer and speaker. Growth Strategies is his newsletter on economic, social and demographic trends; IntegratedRetailing.com is his web site on retail trends. Roger is US economic analyst for the Institute for Business Cycle Analysis and its US Consumer Demand Index, a monthly survey of American households’ buying intentions.

  • Downtown Character and Street Performers

    By Richard Reep

    Carmen Ruest, Director of Cirque de Soleil, recently revealed her start as a street performer, or busker, in Canada. The interviewer did not hesitate to contrast this with the current state of Downtown Orlando, which forbids street performers. Eliminating this ban will improve Orlando’s urban consciousness, both downtown and elsewhere, and improve the city in general.

    The Downtown Development Board (an arm of city government) has long stated its mission to promote arts-based businesses downtown. In the nineties, this board even had special incentives for independent creative enterprises to encourage a local arts scene. Only later did the city give in to the temptation to go for the big box retailers, and all bets were suddenly off.

    Meanwhile, street performers continue to provide local color that graces cities of Europe, Canada, and elsewhere in the United States. Often, tales of tourists include encounters with creative street performers that make the trip; willingly parting with some money for a brief but engaging performance can be a bit of spice in an otherwise overstimulating experience. Such spontaneity is not allowed in Orlando, which ranks among the world’s top tourist destinations.

    The street performer connects with the pedestrian in a unique way: not in the safety of the theater, not in a venue where tickets are taken, and not at a scheduled time. Instead, the performer seeks the audience, and gives the performance first, then hopes for compensation. This puts the onus on the performer to be compelling, original, and brief. In short, the performer has got to have soul. There is no better training ground for future actors and entertainers than the street.

    Meanwhile, Orlando’s downtown arts scene is slowly gentrifying, with a variety of galleries and even artist’s studios. On the third Thursday every month, artists and art lovers from Avalon tour galleries up Pine Street, along Orange Avenue to the City Arts Factory, and some are even brave enough to filter up Magnolia Street to Redefine Gallery.

    However, for anyone who has visited other downtowns, this can be a rather antiseptic experience. If Orlando is serious about Downtown as a tourist venue, perhaps the city should focus a little more on the quality of the experience.

    Right now, spontaneity is missing from Downtown Orlando. The notion of public space is founded on the ability of citizens to express themselves within this space, and by encouraging positive forms of self-expression. If Orlando follows this venerable tradition downtown, the city might be surprised to find the benefits may far outweigh any disadvantages.

    Certainly with the city’s budget cuts, the Police Department has more important places to prioritize cops’ time rather than busting illegal street performance. By legalizing this activity, the shrinking resources of law enforcement can be spent elsewhere, thus improving the general safety and security of the city.

    To encourage the art scene, Downtown has instituted Third Thursdays, an art walk that mimics the ones popularized in the nineties in Scottsdale, Arizona and elsewhere. To experiment with street performers, the pathway taken by the Third Thursdays crowd would be an excellent place to start. If the city were to license street performers and monitor the activity along Pine Street and Orange Avenue, it could be a testing ground for this idea. Given the crowd’s affinity for art, street performers could become another attraction in itself. After all, the walk between galleries includes a lot of blank sidewalk time.

    For Downtown Orlando, it is time to fight fire with fire. Disney is successful because it recreates that lost-in-time feeling of walking in an urban environment and encountering balloon artists, saxophonists, mimes, and other characters. But at Disney and other theme parks this is all carefully choreographed and timed. If the downtown folks were to provide a spontaneous alternative, the city would have a new parking problem as people come to experience this. This proposal is not as ambitious as all that; it is simply to try it for the art walk. That’s once a month on three or four blocks. The city might even collect a license fee, and then let them do their thing.

    For lovers of performance art, the City of Orlando has proposed a new Performing Arts venue to be financed by bond money. However, the City’s Performing Arts Center boosters cannot find anyone else interested in funding this huge trophy. There may be some karmatic justice in the relationship between the City’s distaste for street performers and the City’s evaporating dream of a Performing Arts Center. By allowing and regulating street performers, the City might find itself with a newfound interest in performing arts in general.

    The urban consciousness of the city can be measured in many ways, and one way to measure it is how the citizens of the city use its public spaces. Orlando, with its torpid downtown, has little to lose by experimenting with street entertainment. Perhaps this will help the soul of the city come back to life, and create what has always been missing – an authentic sense of place for the region.

    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.

  • 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.