New Geography

Tag: Obama’s America

  • Twenty-first Century Electorate’s Heart is in the Suburbs

    Even as the nation conducts its critically important decennial census, a demographic picture of the rapidly changing population of the United States is emerging. It underlines how suburban living has become the dominant experience for all key groups in America’s 21st Century Electorate.

    While suburban living was once seen as the almost exclusive preserve of the white upper-middle class, a majority of all major American racial and ethnic groups now live in suburbia, according to the newest report on the state of metropolitan America from the Brookings Institute. Slightly more than half of African-Americans now live in large metropolitan suburbs, as do 59% of Hispanics, almost 62% of Asian-Americans, and 78% of whites. As a result the country is closer than ever to achieving a goal that many thought would never be achieved: city/suburban racial/ethnic integration. This is particularly so in the faster growing metropolitan areas of the South and West.

    The trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. A majority of Millennials live in the suburbs and 43% of them, a portion higher than for any other generation, describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live.”

    The nation’s one hundred largest metropolitan areas have grown twice as fast as the rest of the country in the last decade. That growth was heavily concentrated in lower density suburbs, which grew at three times the rate of cities or inner ring suburbs. At the same time, one third of the nation’s overall population growth was due to immigration. As a result about one-quarter of all children in the United States have at least one immigrant parent. In 2008, non whites became a majority of Americans less than eighteen years old, a demographic milestone that underlines just how fast and how dramatically the country is changing. Any political party that wants to build a lasting electoral majority must align its policy prescriptions with these new demographic realities to attract the votes of a younger, more ethnically diverse population, most of which now lives in the suburbs.

    Economic opportunity continues to be the major driver in determining where people want to live and work. Five of the six fastest growing metropolitan areas in the last decade were also among the top six in job growth according to data from the Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics analyzed by the Praxis Strategy Group. The same five metropolitan areas – Phoenix, Riverside (CA), Dallas, Houston and Washington, D.C – also ranked high in the diversity of their population, differing only in the degree of educational attainment their residents have achieved.

    With America experiencing the first decade since the 1930s in which inflation adjusted median income declined and job creation slowed to levels not seen in decades, this movement to where the jobs are located is likely to intensify, as current migration to economically buoyant Texas cities and Washington, DC suggests. This crucial factor is often overlooked by urban planners who argue that cultural amenities and sport complexes are the key to attracting new residents. In fact, metropolitan areas that focus on job creation for Millennials (young Americans born 1982-2003) and minorities have the best chance of gaining population in the next decade.

    Clearly providing higher quality public education experiences is a key part of any such economic strategy. The arrival of stealth fighter parents at local school district meetings across the country only reflects the passion among young families about the quality of education their children receive. They are unwilling to allow Boomer ideological debates to delay the changes needed to properly prepare their children for a higher educational experience that increases the odds of economic success. The traditional separation between municipal partisan politics and nominally non-partisan schools is increasingly outdated when so much of a city’s economic success depends on the quality of the education its residents receive.

    Safe neighborhoods of single family dwellings with a surrounding patch of land continue to attract families of every background to the nation’s suburbs. Metropolitan areas that provide such an environment to all of their residents are the furthest along in achieving a more integrated society. Los Angeles, for instance, which is often decried by non-residents as simply an aggregation of suburbs with no central core, has a suburban population whose demographic profile almost exactly matches the city’s population. The fact that most of its housing reflects the tract developments of the 50s and 60s, as well as the city’s low crime rates – down to levels not seen in five decades – are two key reasons for this polyglot profile.

    Rather than fighting this desire on the part of America’s 21st Century Electorate to live comfortably in the suburbs, politicians of all stripes should find ways to embrace it and advocate policies that reflect our new economic realities. For instance, rather than insisting on higher density housing and light rail systems as the only answer to the nation’s appetite for foreign oil, the federal government should adopt tax incentives that encourage telecommuting and continue policies to foster more energy efficient automobiles. If all Americans worked from home, as many Millennials prefer to do, just two days a week, it would cut that portion of our nation’s gas consumption by more than a third. The FCC’s recently announced broadband policy will help put in place the infrastructure required to make such a lifestyle possible and even more productive.

    Three out of four commuting trips involve a single individual driving their car to work and this isn’t likely to change in the foreseeable future. But putting as much emphasis on making our nation’s highways “smart” as in creating a smart electrical grid would make it possible for the existing highway system to shorten commuting time and reduce the quantity of fuel used in such trips. Recent developments in mobile technology makes this a practical, near term solution if state and local governments are prepared to invest in upgrading an infrastructure that is already designed and deployed to connect people’s homes to their workplace.

    Aligning the message at the heart of a party’s programs with the values and behaviors of America’s 21st Century Electorate is the best road towards achieving political victory –for either party – or years to come.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

    Photo by delbz

  • Santa Fe-ing of the World

    This is part one of a two-part piece. Read Part two.

    Human settlements are always shaped by whatever is the state of the art transportation device of the time. Shoe-leather and donkeys enabled the Jerusalem known by Jesus. Sixteen centuries later, when critical transportation has become horse-drawn wagons and ocean-going sail, you get places like Boston. Railroads yield Chicago – both the area around the “L” (intraurban rail) and the area that processed wealth from the hinterlands (the stockyards). The automobile results in places with multiple urban cores like Los Angeles. The jet passenger plane allows more places with such “edge cities” to rise in such hitherto inconvenient locations as Dallas, Houston, Seattle and Atlanta and now Sydney, Lagos, Cairo, Bangkok, Djakarta, and Kuala Lumpur.

    The dominant forms of transportation today are the automobile, the jet plane, and the networked computer. What does adding the networked computer get you? I think the answer is “the Santa-Fe-ing of the World.” This means the rise of places where the entire point of which is face-to-face contact. These places are concentrated and walkable, like villages. Some are embedded in the old downtowns – such as Adams Morgan in Washington, or The Left Bank of Paris, or the charming portions of what in London is referred to, somewhat narcissistically, as “The City.” Some are part of what have traditionally been regarded as suburbs or edge cities, such as Reston, Virginia, or Emeryville/Berkeley, California.

    Santa Fe, New Mexico, is a remarkable example of this trend. Home to a world-renowned opera, charming architecture, distinguished restaurants, great places to buy used boots, quirky bookstores, sensational desert and mountain vistas and major diversity, it is also little more than a village of 62,000, far from the nearest major metropolis.

    This “Santa-Fe-ing” means urbane well beyond the current definition of urban. It means aggregation and dispersal. As with all innovation, its impact is first seen among people with enough money to have choices.

    The logic of this hypothesis starts with the question: “In the 21st century, is there any future for cities of any kind?”

    After all, some would have us believe that with enough bandwidth, each of us can wind up on his or her own personal mountaintop in Montana, being lured down into the flatlands only to breed.

    That’s a preposterous view of human nature, of course. There’s a reason solitary confinement is a punishment. We are social animals. But still, many of the historic reasons for human concentration are gone. It’s been a century since you’ve had to live within walking distance of your factory. Today, you often don’t even need be within driving distance of your office – as anyone with a cell phone knows. You certainly don’t need a metropolis to acquire anything a dot-com is willing to sell – which is a very big deal now and growing exponentially.

    Absent a cataclysm of biblical proportions, I think this means the one and only reason for congregation in the near future is face-to-face contact. Period. Full stop. The places that are good at providing this will thrive – think Oxford, England. The ones that are not will die. Cities are not forever. You have not heard much lately from the Babylon chamber of commerce.

    There are nearly 100 classes of real estate out of which you build cities, according to William J. Mitchell, the former head of the architecture and planning department at MIT. They are all being transfigured. The classic example is bookstores. If all you want to do is exchange money for a commodity, the path with least friction is often Amazon. In backwaters where, just ten years ago, buying or even borrowing a non-best-seller was a chore that took weeks, hundreds of thousands of titles are now within one click. Does this mean bookstores have disappeared? Of course not. The half of them that have survived and even grown since the ‘90s, however, have morphed. The critical elements are no longer the shelves. They are the couches, cappuccino machines, and cafes. Bookstores have become places to loiter, face-to-face, among like-minded people.

    What about grocery stores? What happens when it becomes cheaper for the supermarket to deliver your toilet paper to you than it is to heat, light and pay rent and taxes on its store? Under what circumstances would you ever again get in your car to drive to market again? For me, the answer is that I want to have face-to-face contact with my tomatoes – or anything else you might find in a social setting like a farmers’ market. I’m not sure I’d trust the kid at the dot com to pick out my spare ribs. If the grocer wants to ship me my barbecue sauce, however, I won’t mind. Ninety-five percent of everything one finds in a supermarket is flash-frozen, shrink-wrapped, and nationally advertised. We are in the midst of a burgeoning freight revolution, in which the stuff is coming to us, rather than us going to the stuff – as anybody who has Christmas shopped lately may have noted. In fact, I can’t think of anything in an entire Wal-Mart that I would regret having delivered to me in a big brown van. Visiting a Wal-Mart doesn’t give me enough of a psychic boost to justify a drive now. Of course, if big-box retail migrates into the digital ether tomorrow, we’ll have an enormous challenge figuring out the adaptive re-use of their buildings. What will we make of them? Roller skating rinks? Greenhouses? Non-denominational evangelical churches? Artists lofts? Whatever the answer, I doubt their passing will be mourned.

    What about college campuses? Is there any future for those? After all, the University of Phoenix, the online learning establishment, became one of the hottest growth stocks of the early 21st century. Internet MBAs abound from some of the world’s most distinguished schools. Why bother ever getting out of your pajamas to learn?

    Again, the answer is face-to-face contact. After all, distance learning is nothing new. Benjamin Franklin engaged in correspondence classes. The United States military is awash in senior officers with advanced degrees from the University of Maryland, which has pioneered its outreach programs to people in remote locations.

    However, distance learning will always be everyone’s second choice. It works best for people who do not have the time or money for the conventional academic experience. First choice remains the traditional universities. Getting into them has become insanely competitive and expensive. Why are they so desirable? Because sitting in class absorbing information from a lecturer is only a tiny part of the college experience. College is where many people meet their first spouse. It’s where they develop a network of friends that they’ll likely maintain for life. It’s an entertainment center and an athletic center. Oh, and as for learning – most of the stuff that has stuck with me came out of dorm sessions at one in the morning, engaging in face-to-face contact with smart people.

    As we shall see, the impact of face-to-face on urban calculations includes office space, and even home locations. But why is this transformation occurring now?

    It all starts with Moore’s Law, first stated by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore As the core faith of the entire global computer industry, it has come to be stated this way: The power of a dollar’s worth of information technology will double every 18 months, for as far as the eye can see. Sure enough, in 2002, with a billion-transistor chip, the 27th doubling occurred right on schedule. The 30 consecutive doublings of anything man-made that we have achieved at this writing – an increase of well over 500 million times in so short a time — is unprecedented in human history. This is exponential change. It’s a curve that goes straight up.

    For sure, railroads also changed everything they touched. They transformed Europe. North America was converted from being a struggling, backward, rural civilization mostly hugging the East Coast into a continent-spanning, world-challenging, urban behemoth. New York went from a collection of villages to a world capital. Chicago went from a frontier outpost to a brawny goliath. The trip to San Francisco went from four months to six days. Distance was marked in minutes. Suddenly, every farm boy needed a pocket watch. For many of them, catching the train meant riding the crest of a new era that was mobile and national. A voyage to a new life cost 25 cents.

    Of course, as railroad expansion ran out of critical fuel – including money and demand for the services – things leveled off, and society tried to adjust to the astounding changes seen during the rise of this curve. The last transcontinental railroad completed in the United States was the Milwaukee Road in 1909. In part, that was because of the rise of a new transformative technology: The one millionth Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1915.

    In contrast, the curve predicted by Moore’s Law did not stop. The computer industry still regularly beats its clockwork-like 18-month schedule for price-performance doubling.

    The effect of Moore’s Law on the built environment is and will become ever more profound.

    For example, will we ever need offices outside our homes? After all, haven’t we all heard plenty about telecommuting?

    Sure, but how many of us have discovered with some chagrin that the most productive five minutes of our work day has occurred around the shared printer? Somebody asks what we’re working on. Conversations ensue. “Oh really? Did you know that Jane was working on something like that?” “There’s this guy you’ve got to talk to; I’ll send you his phone number as soon as I get back to my desk.” “I was just reading about that very subject; I’ll ship you the name of the book.”

    This kind of casual face-to-face contact is irreplaceable no matter how cheap or immersive video technology gets. Humans always default to the highest available bandwidth that does the job, and face-to-face is the gold standard. Some tasks require maximum connection to all senses. When you’re trying to build trust, or engage in high-stress, high-value negotiation, or determine intent, or fall in love, or even have fun, face-to-face is hard to beat.

    This would seem to argue that some old patterns endure, and that’s true. But think of the twists suggested by this new premium on human basics. Suppose you decided that you could get all the face-to-face you needed two days a week. Would that influence where you lived? Would the mountains or the shore start looking good to you? Suppose you decided that you could get all the face-to-face you needed three days a month. Would the Caribbean start looking good to you?

    Residential real estate is being transformed for these reasons. In the U.S., the explosive growth is in places far beyond any metropolitan area, like the Big Sky Country of Montana, the Gold Country of the California Sierras, the Piedmont of Virginia and the mountains and coasts of New England. For eons, when we’ve visited a nice place on vacation, we’ve asked ourselves, “Why am I going back?” Now, however, we have a new question: “Why am I going back?” Santa Fe is more than 800 miles from Los Angeles, yet it is only semi-jokingly referred to as L.A.’s easternmost suburb. To find out why, check out the nearest airport – in this case Albuquerque – any Monday morning.

    Joel Garreau is Lincoln Professor of Law, Culture and Values at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at Arizona State University. He is a fellow at The New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., and author of several best-selling books including Radical Evolution, Edge City and The Nine Nations of North America.

  • Immigration Is U.S.

    You can sing about sea to shining sea or amber waves of grain, but it’s immigration that provides America’s basic rhythm. Nothing distinguishes the American experience from that of other nations more than the mass migration of people from elsewhere to here. We are truly a nation of immigrants: Close to 90% of the population–excluding Native Americans and those who were forced here in shackles–moved here out of their own volition.

    Not that this has made things any easier for immigrants. In the 1850s the nativist Native American Party–reacting to a wave of Irish Catholic and German immigrants–declared that America faced “an imminent peril” from immigrants “of an ignorant and immoral character.” California in the late 19th century tried to ban Asian immigration and land ownership. In 1924 immigration from everywhere outside northern Europe was severely restricted.

    The current wave of immigration, largely from Asia and Latin America, has once again sparked nativist fears. (Witness Arizona’s recent, harsh immigration law.) Yet America needs immigrants now more than ever. The U.S., like virtually all advanced countries, produces insufficient native-born children to prevent it from becoming a granny nation-state by 2050.

    Only immigration can provide the labor force, the expanding domestic markets and, perhaps most important, the youthful energy to keep our society vital and growing. Many bustling sections of American cities–the revived communities along the number 7 train line in Queens, N.Y., Houston’s Harwin Corridor, Los Angeles’ San Gabriel Valley–are dominated by immigrant enterprise. In contrast, the cities without large-scale immigration, such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, have stagnant and even declining populations.

    In the future successful immigration will distinguish America from most key competitors. Globally, resistance to immigration or any form of linguistic, religious or ethnic diversity has become more commonplace. Over the past few decades Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Russia, Indonesia and the nations of the former East Bloc have constricted their concept of national identity. In Malaysia, East Africa and even the province of Quebec preferential policies have led successful minorities such as Jews, Armenians, Coptic Christians Indians and Chinese to find homes in more welcoming places, often in the U.S.

    In recent decades Europe has received as many immigrants as the U.S., but it has proved far less able to absorb them. The roughly 20 million Muslims who live in Europe remain marginalized. In Europe, notably in France, unemployment among immigrants–particularly those from Muslim countries–is often at least twice that of the native born; in Britain as well Muslims are far more likely to be out of the workforce than either Christians or Hindus.

    But in the U.S. immigrant workers with lower educations are more likely to be in the workforce than their nonimmigrant counterparts. And most American Muslims are comfortably middle class, with income and education levels above the national average. The newly crowned Miss America is from a Detroit-area Shiite immigrant family from southern Lebanon.

    Our 21st-century economy will be shaped in large part by these immigrants and their descendants. Much is made of the movement of poor, largely uneducated immigrants from south of the border, but more than half of all skilled immigrants in the world come to the U.S., too. Even with its slow-growing population, Europe continues to be a major source of American immigrants, particularly skilled workers. By 2004 some 400,000 E.U. science and technology graduates were residing in the U.S. Barely one in seven, according to a European Commission poll, intends to return to their home continent.

    Of course, the majority of the nation’s immigrants, both undocumented and legal, come from developing countries: China, India, Mexico, the Philippines and the Middle East. Since roughly four in five immigrants come from nonwhite countries, by 2039, due largely to immigrants and their offspring, the majority of working-age Americans will be “minorities.”

    Even if immigration slows down dramatically, particularly with a weak economy, these groups will grow in significance as we approach mid-century. In 2000 one in five American children were already the progeny of immigrants; by 2015 they will make up as much as one-third of American kids. Many demographers predict that by 2050 non-Hispanic whites will be in the minority. America’s racial and ethnic dye is already cast, and permanently shaped, by immigration.

    By embracing, and being embraced by, immigrants, America follows the path of history’s most successful civilizations. The Roman civilization, which started in a tribal city-state, gradually opened citizenship to all Italians, and by the third century made citizenship available to free men throughout the “multi-nationed” empire; less than half the Senate came from Italy. “Rome,” wrote a Greek writer in the second century, “is a citadel which has all the peoples of the earth as its villagers.”

    In this sense the American model of immigration and ethnic integration, for all its many flaws, forms a critical pillar for the nation’s future global leadership. Even those who return home will retain strong familial and business ties to the U.S. They will confirm America’s unique status as the world’s one great global civilization.

    This article originally appeared in Forbes.com.

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

    Photo by telwink

    May 21, 2010

  • Arizona’s Short-Sighted Immigration Bill

    Arizona’s recent passage of what is widely perceived as a harsh anti-immigrant bill reflects a growing tendency–in both political parties–to focus on the here and now, as opposed to the future. The effort to largely target Latino illegal aliens during a sharp recession may well gain votes among an angry, alienated majority population, but it could have unforeseen negative consequences over time.

    In terms of the Arizona law, this is not simply a case of one wacko state. The most recent Gallup survey shows that more Americans favor the law than oppose it, with independents and Republicans showing strong support. Despite the negative coverage in the media, the Arizona gambit could somewhat pay off in November. A weak economy tends to exacerbate nativist sentiments, something that has been constant throughout much of American history.

    But there is a distinct danger for the GOP here, not only in Arizona but in the rest of the country as well. As Bill Frey of the Brookings Institute points out, there is a growing gap between the electorate, which is still largely white and older, and the much younger, far more rapidly growing Latino population. In Arizona Frey says the “cultural generation gap” between the ethnicity of seniors and children is some 40%, meaning that while 83% of senior are white, only 43% of children are. Nationwide, Frey estimates the gap in the ethnic composition of seniors and youths stands at a still sizable 25 points.

    Arizona’s large disequilibrium in the ethnicity of its generations is a product, in part, of the state’s historic pull to white retirees. Yet its formerly booming economy, based largely around construction and tourism, required a massive importation of largely Latino, low-wage labor, much of it illegal. As a result over the past two decades, Arizona’s Latino population has grown by 180%, turning what had been a 72% Anglo state to one that is merely 58% white.

    You don’t have to go very far–in fact just across the California border–to see what awaits Arizona’s nativist Republicans. The Grand Canyon state’s future has already emerged there. In the 1970s and 1980s California’s generally robust economy made it a primary destination for immigrants from both Asia and Latin America. Comfortable in their Anglo-ness, papers like the Arizona Republic were dismissing California as a “third world state,” particularly in the wake of the 1992 LA riots.

    Like their Arizona counterparts today, many white Californians then were sickened by pictures of mass Latino participation in looting during the riots. Many were also concerned with soaring costs of providing social services to a largely poor immigrant population. Sensing an opportunity, in 1994 Gov. Pete Wilson–locked in tough re-election battle amid a deep recession–endorsed Proposition 187, a measure designed to prevent illegal aliens from accessing public services. The measure passed easily, with support from both whites and African-Americans. The strong backing among Independents and even some Democrats helped Wilson win re-election with surprising ease.

    But the long-term consequences of 187 reveal the longer-term consequences for the GOP. During the Reagan era and even the first Wilson term, Latino voters split their votes fairly evenly between the parties. But after 1994 there was a distinct turn toward the Democrats, with the GOP share at the gubernatorial level falling from nearly half in 1990 to less than a third in subsequent election. In some cases, right-wing Republicans garnered even smaller portions of Latino voters.

    This is a classic case of the past waging war on the future. Since 1990 Latino and immigrant population has continued to grow. Overall, the percentage of foreign-born residents, according to USC demographer Dowell Myers, has grown from roughly 22% to 27%. One-third of Californians in 2000 were Latino; Myers projects Latinos will constitute almost 47% of the state’s population in 2030.

    The political consequences will only get worse for Republicans. Latino population voting power already has doubled from roughly 10% of the total in 1990 to 20% in 2006.

    This Latino population will become increasingly active and engaged. It is, for one thing, ever more English-fluent, and increasingly dominated by the second and third generations. This group could become permanently estranged, like African-Americans, from the GOP. If that happens, notes longtime Sacramento columnist Dan Weintraub, Republicans could “all but become a permanent minority party in California.”

    And the rest of the country will feel these trends; between 2000 and 2050, the vast majority of America ‘s net population growth will come from racial minorities, particularly Asians and Hispanics. Already one out of every five American children–tomorrow’s voters–is Hispanic.

    Of course, as Latinos integrate and intermarry, they may become less particular in their world view and share more in common with other middle-class Americans. Yet memories of slights against a particular group can overcome even economic self-interest. Blood often proves thicker than bank accounts. The tendency of Jews, a largely affluent and entrepreneurial tribe, to back often harshly anti-business Democrats has its roots in old world scars left from the pogroms in czarist Russia as well as the right-wing genocide in Nazi Germany. Some older voters recall the rabid anti-Semites once prominent in the American far-right as well as the more genteel exclusionism practiced by more refined upper-class Republicans.

    In the future, today’s images of shrill, anti-immigrant right-wing activists could resound for coming generations of Latinos as well as Asians and other newcomer groups. It could essentially deprive the Republican Party of voters who might otherwise consider the GOP option, handing the Democrats a permanently expanded base, not only in southwest but in much of the country.

    None of this is necessary or good for the country. Political competition for ethnic groups is a healthy thing for national interests and for the individual groups. Lock-step support by African-Americans may make them powerful within the Democratic Party, but it also means they can also be taken for granted when push comes to shove. And, of course, when they are in power, Republicans have little real political stake in confronting the serious issues facing black America.

    All this is particularly disturbing since competition for Latino voters should be intense. Heavily employed in construction and manufacturing industries, they have been badly hurt in the recession and their interests were not particularly addressed in the Obama stimulus plan. Many are also socially conservative, supporting, for example, California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

    In coming months other proposed steps by the administration and its congressional allies, such as the proposed cap-and-trade legislation, could prove very tough on industries that tend to employ Latinos. Climate change-inspired moves against single-family homes–already in place in California–conflict directly with the aspirations of many Latinos as well as other immigrants who, unlike the usually affluent, homeowning white population, are still seeking the chance to buy their own home.

    But instead of fighting for their economic interests, the Arizona law has handed the Democrats a golden opportunity for to engage their own demagogy on race issues. Instead of having to defend their plans to restart the economy and reorient them to middle and working class needs, Democrats now can play to narrow racial concerns among Latinos while further bolstering the self-righteousness of their affluent, white, left-wing base.

    The reversion to racial politics prompted by the Arizona law ultimately does no good for anyone except “base-oriented” partisan campaign consultants, nativists and ethnic warlords. With all the long-term economic and social challenges that face this growing country, Phoenix’s folly marks an unfortunate step backward to our more shameful past and away from a potentially promising future.

    This article originally appeared in Forbes.com.

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

    Photo by Caleb Alvarado

    May 4, 2010

  • A Carbon Added Tax, Not Cap and Trade

    Paul Krugman devoted a recent lengthy New York Times Magazine article to the promotion of a disastrous “cap and trade” regime for reducing carbon emissions. Though he doesn’t outright endorse it, he strongly suggests that the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House would be acceptable to him. Krugman then proceeds to pooh-pooh the carbon tax idea, one that I believe has far more merit.

    Cap and trade would be a debacle for a slew of reasons. The most important is that it won’t even reduce carbon emissions. Two of the EPA’s own San Francisco attorneys dismissed the Waxman-Markey cap and trade regime as a “mirage” that would not reduce carbon because of the ability of polluters to obtain fictitious carbon offsets, among other problems.

    Even if cap and trade would require American producers to reduce carbon emissions, it would do nothing about overseas polluters. An American manufacturer could escape cap and trade simply by moving production to China. Given China’s massive coal-based electricity infrastructure and other notoriously polluting practices, carbon emissions would likely only get worse as a result, in addition to the US jobs lost.

    Krugman suggests this can be fixed with a carbon tariff, but that’s dangerously naïve. There’s no guarantee a carbon tariff would be put in place after cap and trade passed. In effect, it requires two completely separate policy mechanisms be put in place and kept synchronized over time, which seems dubious. Our trading partners would surely chafe at any carbon tariff, which would be vulnerable to challenge under international trade treaties.

    Cap and trade also has huge distortive impacts within the United States. The Brookings Institution crunched the numbers and found that cap and trade costs vary widely across the country. Compliance costs would be minimal in California and rest of the West and Northeast, while the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and the South get pummeled. It should come as no surprise that it is California Rep. Henry Waxman who’s pushing the bill. One can’t help but suspect these regional disparities are the real implicit goal of the bill. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels denounced cap and trade as “imperialism”.

    Perhaps the most diabolical part of cap and trade is in its very name. The operative word is “trade”. Who do you think will be doing the trading? Why, none other than the very people who got us into the economic mess we’re in today. Cap and trade is a gigantic giveaway to Goldman; it’s yet another instrument for speculation; it’s another way for the profiteers on Wall Street to line their pockets at our expense.

    So in a sense it’s also another way that, perhaps unintentionally, the richest sectors, the upper classes, and the financial centers like New York, Boston and San Francisco are being favored over the poor Main Street rubes who have taken it on the chin during this recession without a bailout. If you think things are bad now, just wait until CDS stands for “carbon default swap”. It’s pouring fuel on the fire of inequality between the haves and have nots.

    Cap and trade is nothing more than another tranche in the never-ending merry-go-round of bailouts for the financiers. And didn’t we learn anything from Enron’s electricity trading shenanigans? When an Iowa farmer opens up in his electric bill that’s suddenly spiked, or has to pay double to fuel his farm equipment, it’s not too much to ask that it be in the service of actual carbon reduction, not houses in the Hamptons, owned by people to whom the added cost is not material given their wealth.

    There is a better way, and that’s the Carbon Added Tax. Similar to a European-style Value Added Tax, a CAT tax would directly tax the quantity of carbon emissions added to the atmosphere in each stage of the production cycle. The tax could be set at a level that would provide certainty of price such that investments in lower carbon technologies are financially feasible right now, not decades from now.

    Also, similar to the US income tax system, the CAT would apply to the carbon emitted globally, not just in the United States. A deduction would be permitted for any bona fide carbon taxes paid in a foreign jurisdiction, up to the level of the US tax. A true-up on the carbon tax due would be paid at the point of import into the United States. That is, an importer would have to pay the CAT on products brought into the country, less any deductions for foreign carbon taxes paid, at the port of entry.

    While this global approach is a widely, and correctly, maligned feature of the US income tax code, it has important benefits from a carbon reduction perspective. First, it is location neutral. Since the tax is the same whether the carbon is emitted in China or the United States, it doesn’t encourage business to move offshore. But it also doesn’t discriminate against foreign producers. (Like any anti-carbon regime, it would raise costs in the US, affecting both domestic consumers and the competitiveness of exports).

    The CAT is also functionally equivalent to a carbon tariff, but is a unitary regime. That is, you don’t have to figure out how to bundle in or pass a separate carbon tariff as part of implementing a domestic cap and trade system. You simply pass a CAT on global carbon emissions and you are done.

    And this system allows each country to decide on its own level of carbon taxation. If countries like China want to have no tax, that’s their choice. Or, European countries could decide to have a higher tax. The complexity would come in figuring out the allowed deductions for emissions in countries that adopted other schemes like cap and trade, but this should be a readily solvable technical issue.

    There will still be divergent regional domestic impacts under a CAT. This is unavoidable in a nation where carbon emissions are unevenly distributed. But by preventing the financiers from skimming off the top, the total burden is reduced, and a CAT is a more location neutral, transparent mechanism for carbon reductions.

    A Carbon Added Tax is a far superior way to reduce carbon emissions than a cap and trade system only a Wall Street trader could love.

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

    Photo by Gilbert R.

  • Growing America: Demographics and Destiny

    Over the next four decades, American governments will oversee a much larger and far more diverse population. As we gain upward of 100 million people, America will inevitably become a more complex, crowded and competitive place, but it will continue to remain highly dependent on its people’s innovative and entrepreneurial spirit.

    In 2050, the U.S. will look very different from the country in 2000, at the dawn of the new millennium. By mid-century, the U.S. will no longer be a “white country,” but rather a staggering amalgam of racial, ethnic and religious groups, all participants in the construction of a new civilization whose roots lie not in any one country or continent, but across the entirety of human cultures and racial types. No other advanced, populous country will enjoy such ethnic diversity.

    The implications of this change will be profound for governments-perhaps in ways not now commonly anticipated. Many “progressives” believe a more diverse, populous nation will need more guidance from Washington, D.C., but a more complex and varied country will increasingly not fit well into a one-size-fits-all approach.

    Although the economic crisis of 2008 led to a rapid rise of federal power, there has been a stunning and largely unexpected push-back reflected, in part, by the tea party movement. Some states have passed laws that seek to restrict federal prerogatives on a host of issues. More importantly, public opinion, measured in numerous surveys, seems to be drifting away from major expansions of government power.

    Of course, most Americans would accede to the federal government an important role in developing public works, national defense and regulations for health and safety. But generally speaking, they also tend to believe that local communities, neighborhoods and parents should possess the power to craft appropriate solutions on many other problems.

    This also reflects our historical experience. From its origins, American democracy has been largely self-created and fostered a dispersion of power; in many European countries, and more recently in parts of Asia, democracy was forged by central authorities.

    Other periods of massive government intervention, most notably after the New Deal and the Great Society, also elicited reactions against centralization. But the current push-back’s speed and ferocity has been remarkable. Yet the often polarizing debate about the scope of federal power largely has ignored the longer-term trends that will promote the efficacy of an increasingly decentralized approach to governance.

    Perhaps the most important factor here is the trajectory of greater growth and increasing diversity of who we are and how we live. Not only are Americans becoming more racially diverse, but they inhabit a host of different environments, ranging from dense cities to urbanized suburbs, to smaller cities and towns, that have different needs and aspirations.

    Americans also are more settled than any time in our history-partially a function of an aging population-and thus more concerned with local developments. As recently as the 1970s, one in five Americans moved annually; in 2004 that number was 14 percent, the lowest rate since 1950. In 2008, barely one in 10 moved, a fraction of the rate in the 1960s. Workers are increasingly unwilling to move even for a promotion due to family and other concerns. The recession accelerated this process, but the pattern appears likely to persist even in good times.

    Americans also prefer to live in decentralized environments. There are more than 65,000 general-purpose governments; the average local jurisdiction population in the United States is 6,200-small enough that nonprofessional politicians can have a serious impact on local issues. This contrasts with the vast preference among academic planners, policy gurus and the national media for larger government units as the best way to regulate and plan for the future.

    Short of a draconian expansion of federal power, this dispersion is likely to continue. Roughly 80 to 90 percent of all metropolitan growth in the last decade took place on the periphery; at the same time, the patterns of domestic migration have seen a shift away from the biggest cities and toward smaller ones. As Joel Garreau noted in his classic Edge City, “planners drool” over high-density development, but most residents in suburbia “hate a lot of this stuff.” They might enjoy a town center, a paseo or a walking district, but they usually resent the proliferation of high-rises or condo complexes. If they wanted to live in buildings like them, they would have stayed in the city.

    Attempts to force major densification in these areas will be fiercely resisted, even in the most liberal communities. Some of the strongest anti-growth hotbeds in the nation are areas like Fairfax County, Va., with high concentrations of progressives-well educated people who might seem amenable to environmentally correct “smart growth”-advocating denser development along transit corridors. As one planning director in a well-to-do suburban Maryland county put it, “Smart growth is something people want. They just don’t want it in their own neighborhood.”

    The great long-term spur to successful dispersion will come from technology, as James Martin first saw in his pioneering 1978 book, The Wired Society. A former software designer for IBM, Martin foresaw the emergence of mass telecommunications that would allow a massive reduction in commuting, greater deconcentration of workplaces and a “localization of physical activities … centered in local communities.”

    Technology would allow skilled people to congregate in communities of their choice or at home. Today not only knowledge workers but also those in construction trades, agriculture and other professions are home-based, conducting their operations out of trucks, vans or home offices.

    Many leading-edge companies now recognize this trend. As much as 40 percent of IBM’s work force operates full time at home or remotely at clients’ businesses. Siemens, Hewlett-Packard, Cisco, Merrill Lynch and American Express have expanded their use of telecommuting, with noted increases in productivity.

    At the same time, employment is shifting away from mega-corporations to smaller units and individuals; between 1980 and 2000, self-employed individuals expanded tenfold to include 16 percent of the work force. The smallest businesses, the microenterprises, have enjoyed the fastest rate of growth, far more than any other business category. By 2006 there were some 20 million such businesses, one for every six private-sector workers.

    Hard economic times could slow this trend, but recessions have historically served as incubators of innovation and entrepreneurship. Many individuals starting new firms will have recently left or been laid off by bigger companies, particularly during a severe economic downturn. Whether they form a new bank, energy company or design firm, they will do it more efficiently-with less overhead, more efficient Internet use and less emphasis on pretentious office settings. In addition, they will do it primarily in places that can scale themselves to economic realities.

    Simultaneously the Internet’s rise allows every business-indeed every family-unprecedented access to information, something that militates against centralized power. Given Internet access, many lay people aren’t easily intimidated into accepting the ability of “experts” to dictate solutions based on exclusive knowledge since the hoi polloi now possess the ability to gather and analyze information. Even the powerful media companies are rapidly losing their ability to define agendas; there are too many sources of information to mobilize mass opinion. The widespread breakdown of support for climate change is a recent example of this phenomenon.

    Once the current drive for centralization falters, support for decentralization will grow, including progressive communities that now favor a heavy-handed expansion of federal power. Attempts to impose solutions from a central point will be increasingly regarded as obtrusive and oppressive to them, just as they would to many more conservative places like South Dakota. In the coming era, in many cases, only locally based solutions-agreed to at the community, municipal or state level-can possibly gather strong support.

    This drive toward dispersing power will prove critical if we hope to meet the needs of an unprecedentedly diverse and complex nation of 400 million. New forms of association-from local electronic newsletters to a proliferation of local farmers markets, festivals and a host of ad hoc social service groups-are already growing. Indeed, after a generation-long decline, volunteerism has spiked among Millennials and seems likely to surge among downshifting baby boomers. In 2008, some 61 million Americans volunteered, representing more than one-quarter of the population older than 16.

    It’s these more intimate units-the family, the neighborhood association, the church or local farmers market-that constitute what Thomas Jefferson called our “little republics,” which are most critical to helping mid-21st-century America. Here, our nation of 400 million souls will find its fundamental sustenance and its best hope for the brightest future.

    This article originally appeared in GOVERNING Magazine.

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

    Photo by slynkycat

    May 3, 2010

  • We Need a New Ross Perot

    Is it time to bring back Ross Perot? Not the big-eared, chart-crazed egomaniac and his Texas cigar boat, but a nascent movement like his among independents that can transform today’s stale and essentially self-destructive debate between two equally bankrupt parties.

    Independent politics outside the established main parties has been on the upswing around the world, from Europe to the Tea Parties here at home. Perhaps the most stunning case has occurred in the United Kingdom, where Nick Clegg, leader of the perennial also-rans, the Liberal Democrats, was widely judged as the winner of the second in three debates with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Conservative challenger David Cameron.

    Helped by good looks and an affable manner, Clegg is emerging as a real threat to the long-established Labour and Conservative parties. He has risen in the polls since early April from below 20 percent to above 30 percent. As my London-based colleague at the Legatum Institute, Ryan Streeter, observes, Clegg may himself be an Establishment figure—educated at elite schools and married to a Spanish lawyer—but his rise is based largely on “anti-government, anti-political sentiment.” His appeal is particularly strong among 18- to 34-year-old voters.

    This revolt of the independent middle is not unique to the U.K. Last year Japanese voters threw out the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party for a newly cobbled together Democratic Party. French voters this year also bolted away from established parties to support independent, smaller groupings on both left and right.

    Independents matter even if they fail to take power. Clegg may not make it all the way to 10 Downing Street, but his stronger showing could transform British politics, forcing both Tories and Labourites to find ways to counter his appeal.

    This occurred here with the Perot movement in the early 1990s. Looking back, one can almost say it was Perot who ultimately shaped the times. Challenging both Bill Clinton and George the First, Perot gave voice to a deep-seated national concern—particularly among the older adult middle class—about out-of-control spending, a rising deficit, and declining national competitiveness. By focusing on these issues, he made George Bush and his cynical deal with the religious right seem both diversionary and divisive.

    The Perotista base, not wildly dissimilar from today’s Tea Parties, helped drive the first Bush from the White House by splitting the center-right vote. Two years later, upset with perceived Clintonian overreaching, particularly on health care, these same middle-class independents handed the Congress to the Republicans. In the end, we got the best of both worlds: a fiscally responsible government without the moralistic clatter and reflexive militarism of the GOP right.

    Over the next few years, we could use a Perot-like person who would challenge both the slavishly pro-greed Republicans and the crony capitalism of our Chicago machine government. The time seems right: Both Democrats and Republicans are losing support and, more important, respect from an increasingly alienated mainstream middle.

    The rise of new political forms across both Europe and America reflects some of the new realities of contemporary media. With the rise of the Internet, the ability of large parties to use the press as their obedient propaganda corps has been greatly diminished. Similarly, establishment consensus on issues—for example, on climate change—is no longer easy to enforce. The Internet is too protean and easy to penetrate to be corralled by either the power of money or lobbyist influence-peddling.

    The current political unrest also reflects a growing sense among the middle class in advanced countries, particularly those employed in the private sector, that the dominant parties are simply not interested in their fate. In the U.S., this view has been reinforced around the two biggest issues facing Congress this year, health-care and financial reform.

    On health care, the Republicans, ever subservient to their corporate donors, refused to address the fundamental issues—such as eliminating exclusions for pre-existing conditions, portability of coverage, or provisions allowing small businesses and sole proprietors to buy reasonably priced coverage—that matter to middle-class voters. Their inability to do something significant when in control of Congress and the White House opened the door to Obamacare.

    That said, the Democratic alternative, as Rodney Dangerfield would put it, proved no bargain either. Their plan ended up suiting insurance companies, Big Pharma, and those, mostly union members, holding “Cadillac” health plans. The losers were, as usual, members of the entrepreneurial middle classes who will now be subject to ever higher taxes in exchange for what could prove even worse coverage.

    The bankruptcy of the existing parties is, if anything, even more evident in the financial-reform debate. Desperate to win back their wayward constituency on Wall Street, most Republicans oppose regulation of even the dodgiest practices. At the same time, they are correct to call out the Democrats’ embrace of “too big to fail” institutions, which in essence would allow big banks to operate with the patina of guaranteed federal support.

    So in the end, we have something akin to a shouting match in a whorehouse over who gets to cavort with the best-endowed john. The Democrats may play a populist tune, but they take in far more money from the likes of Goldman Sachs—the firm was the largest corporate donor to the 2008 Obama campaign—than the more obviously craven GOP. A former Obama White House counsel, Gregory Craig, even serves on the pirate firm’s legal defense team.

    All this suggests the Democrats stand largely for the expansion of crony capitalism, the melding of corporate power and state. The Dodd bill, as Representative Brad Sherman, an independently minded California Democrat, has suggested, will give the kind of “unlimited executive bailout authority” that the Wall Street interests “desperately want but doesn’t dare ask for.”

    The Republicans, for their part, talk of adherence to conservative principles but, with a sly wink, are engaged in a giant “come-on” to the financial elite. Instead of too big to fail, they embrace the unfettered right to cheat and dissemble. In the end, the losers are the smaller banks and the middle class, who are forced to choose between corporate vultures and an ever more arrogant, clubby government-business alliance.

    Ultimately, the only way to rein in these awful people is to develop new independent political movements outside the Beltway. This category can include the Tea Partiers but also can extend to budget-conscious, grassroots Democrats like Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Although we could conceivably see the emergence of a new Perot-like figure, the independents may flex their muscle this time in a more grassroots, multifaceted manner.

    Something certainly needs to arise to force the parties to abandon policies that will lead to the destruction of the middle class—one party by unbridled corporations, the other by over-expansive government. In this respect, for all his goofiness, Ross Perot and his movement are looking better all the time.

    This article originally appeared at The Daily Beast.

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

    Photo: Leia

    April 24, 2010

  • Leading a Los Angeles Renaissance

    Surprisingly, despite the real challenges Los Angeles faces today, the city is out in front of many of its urban competitors in transforming its capacity to provide a safe place to raise and properly educate children, exactly the criteria Millennials use in deciding where to settle down and start a family. It is the kind of challenge that cities around the country must meet if they wish to thrive in the coming decade.

    LA’s biggest win in this respect derives from the political courage of former Mayor James Hahn. It was Hahn who appointed Bill Bratton as police chief, who then deployed his COMPSTAT process for continuously reducing crime. During his tenure as the city’s Police Commissioner under both Mayor Hahn and his successor, Antonio Villaraigosa, Bratton achieved the same improvement in LA as he did previously in New York,– in a city with many of the same societal problems but about one-fourth the police resources and a much larger area to patrol. Even as unemployment soared in 2009 during the Great Recession to 12.3 percent in Los Angeles County, the city saw a 17 percent drop in homicides, an 8 percent reduction in property crime and a 10 percent drop in violent crime. This is a first great step in restoring Los Angeles, once the destination for families, back to its historic promise. Today, Angelinos feel safer than they have in decades.

    COMPSTAT is above all a vehicle for changing bureaucratic cultures. In his initial dialogue with the brass of the New York Police Department (NYPD) Bratton told his management team that he planned on holding them accountable for the crime reductions he had promised Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

    Citing the FBI’s national crime reports, they responded by telling Bratton that since crime “is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police,” it was completely unfair to hold them accountable for reducing it. Since the police department was not responsible for the city’s economic vitality, its housing stock, its school system, and certainly not its racial and ethnic tensions, all of which were the root causes of crime, the managers felt it was unreasonable to expect them to actually reduce crime.

    When Bratton asked them what they could be held accountable for, the leadership replied that they were prepared to accept responsibility for the “perception of crime in New York City” and that their existing tactics of high profile drug busts, neighborhood sweeps, and the like were effective ways to manage that perception. Bratton adamantly refused to accept this definition of accountability from his team and went about creating a system that placed accountability for crime reduction on the NYPD’s leadership, something that also worked its way down through the ranks of every precinct in the city and into the fabric of the department’s culture.

    This fully captures the type of cultural change that every part of any city’s bureaucracy must undergo to become a Millennial city.

    During Mayor Hahn’s tenure in Los Angeles, for example, he expanded the COMPSTAT process to all departments in order to hold General Managers accountable for their performance under a program called “CITISTATS.” Some departments, such as Street Services, Sanitation, and Street Lighting, are still using the lessons learned in that experience to continuously improve the cost and quality of their services.

    But Los Angeles’s recovery has often been blocked by the City Council which has proven reluctant to cede its traditional right to intervene in department operations and to direct resources to specific projects or programs in their Councilmanic districts regardless of the overall city’s needs. When Villaraigosa ascended to the Mayor’s office he removed the potential irritant to his relationship with the Council by disbanding CITISTATS. That decision has deprived Los Angeles of key insights that could have been used to help deal with its current budget challenges.

    It also removed one of the more promising vehicles for Neighborhood Councils to hold city bureaucrats accountable for the services they deliver. The Councils, although far from perfect, remain one of the city’s best hopes for fulfilling Millennials’ desire for direct, locally-oriented involvement.

    In contrast, Mayor Villaraigosa’s determination to hold the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) accountable for the performance of its students has begun to pay dividends. Recently the board voted 6-1 to adopt a policy mandating competitive bids eventually be issued for the management of all 250 “demonstrably failing schools” as defined by federal education law. The parent revolution that spurred this new approach would not have been successful without the support of LAUSD board members that the Mayor had helped to elect.

    Including parents armed with new information on student performance in the process of reforming LAUSD’s schools promises to produce schools that deliver superior results at lower costs and to create a new, decentralized, parent-controlled, educational decision-making system that will be especially attractive to Millennials and their parents.

    Now that the Great Recession has brought single family housing back to affordable levels in many parts of Los Angeles, the building blocks of safer streets and better schools give the metropolitan area an opportunity to establish an environment that can attract large numbers of Millennials just as they enter young adulthood. To take advantage of this opportunity, however, all members of the city’s leadership will need to learn one more Millennial lesson.

    Unlike the Baby Boomers running the Los Angeles City Hall today, Millennials aren’t interested in confrontation and debilitating debates focused on making sure one side wins and the other loses. They want what business people term “win-win” solutions that take into account everyone’s needs and produce outcomes that benefit the group or community as a whole. Los Angeles, a city built on the expectations of the last civic GI Generation that came to LA in the 1940s, must realign itself to the tastes of the emerging next civic generation, the Millennials.

    Finding such solutions, given the many challenges LA faces, will not be easy. LA continues to be run by Boomer politicians, like those in Congress, who know how to play up divisive issues, but haven’t demonstrated an ability to get results.

    But if today’s leaders in cities like Los Angeles aren’t up to the task, it won’t be long before a new generation of leaders who have grown up believing in such an approach will emerge to take their place. As Ryan Munoz, a politically active high school senior put it, “With all the technology at our disposal, our approach is different. We can be less partisan, less confrontational and work better together.”

    Rachel Lester, who at 15 years old just won election as the youngest member of any Los Angeles Neighborhood Council by campaigning with her Facebook friends, captured the potential power of the generation. “When a few teenagers do something, a lot of teenagers do something.” When cities develop leaders as great as America’s newest civic generation, the Millennials, those cities will once again take their rightful place in the pantheon of America’s most desired places to live. Los Angeles would be an ideal place to start that movement.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008. Morley Winograd served as a consultant to Mayor Hahn on the implementation of the CITISTAT process.

    Photo by Lucas Janin

  • The Millennial Metropolis

    Back in the 1950s and 60s when Baby Boomers were young, places like Los Angeles led the nation’s explosive growth in suburban living that has defined the American Dream ever since. As Kevin Roderick observed, the San Fernando Valley became, by extension, “America’s suburb” – a model which would be repeated in virtually every community across the country.

    These suburbs – perfectly suited to the sun-washed car culture of Southern California – have remained the ideal for most Americans. And they remain so for the children of Boomer and Generation X parents, Millennials,(born 1982-2003), who express the same strong interest in raising their families in suburban settings.

    According to the most recent generational survey research, done for Washington-based think tank, NDN, by Frank N. Magid Associates, 43 percent of Millennials describe suburbs as their “ideal place to live,” compared to just 31 percent of older generations. In the same survey, a majority of older generations (56%) expressed a preference for either small town or rural living. This may reflect the roots of many older Americans, who are more likely to have grown up outside of a major metropolis, or it may indicate a desire of older people for a presumably simpler lifestyle.

    By contrast, these locations were cited by only 34 percent of Millennials as their
    preferred place to live. A majority (54%) of Millennials live in suburban America and most of those who do express a preference for raising their own families in similar settings. Even though big cities are often thought of as the place where young people prefer to live and work, only 17 percent of Millennials say they want to live in one, less than a third of those expressing a preference for suburban living. Nor are they particularly anxious to spend their lives as renters in dense, urban locations. A full 64 percent of Millennials surveyed, said it was “very important” to have an opportunity to own their own home. Twenty percent of adult Millennials named owning a home as one of their most important priorities in life, right behind being a good parent and having a successful marriage.

    This suggests that some of the greatest opportunities in housing will be in those metropolitan areas that can provide the same amenities of suburban life that Los Angeles did sixty years ago. In this Millennials are just like their parents who moved to the suburbs in order to buy their own home, with a front and back yard, however small, in a safe neighborhood with good schools.

    Given the fact that nearly four in five Millennials express a desire to have children, cities that wish to attract Millennials for the long-term will have to offer these same benefits. These Millennial metropolises also will need to be built with the active participation of their citizens, using the most modern communication technologies, to create a community that reflects this generation’s community-oriented values and beliefs. Metropolises that wish to attract Millennials, will also need to include them in their governing institutions. Such cities will have a leg up on those run by closed, good old boy networks that don’t reflect the tolerance and transparency Millennials believe in.

    The passion of Millennials for social networking and smart phones reflects their need to stay in touch with their wide circle of friends every moment of the day and night. In fact, 83 percent of this generation say that they go to sleep with their cell phone. This group-oriented behavior is reflected in the efforts of Millennials to find win-win solutions to any problem and their strong desire to strengthen civic institutions. Seventy percent of college age Millennials have performed some sort of community service and virtually every member of the generation (94%) considers volunteer service as an effective way to deal with challenges in their local community.

    The other key characteristic of the Millenial metropolis will be how it carves out a safe place for children. The Boomer parents of Millennials took intense interest in every aspect of their children’s lives, earning them the sobriquet “helicopter parents” because of their constant hovering. Now the Generation X “stealth fighter parents” of younger Millennials are turning the Boomer desire to hover and talk into a push for action and better bottom line results.

    This can already be seen in cities like Los Angeles where a parent revolution is successfully challenging the entrenched interests in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD).

    The idea began with a website, www.parentrevolution.org, that offered a bargain to parents willing to participate in a grass roots effort to improve individual schools. The organizers, led by Ben Austin, a long time advocate on behalf of Los Angeles’s kids, promised that if half of the parents in a school attendance district signed an online petition indicating their willingness to participate in improving their local school, they would “give you a great school for your child to attend.”

    This process has worked both in working class areas like East Los Angeles’ Garfield High School and the Mark Twain Middle School in affluent West LA. With the backing of the parents, Austin went to the Los Angeles school district and demanded that they either put the management of the school “out to bid,” or his organization would be forced to respond to the parent’s demands by starting a charter school in competition with the LAUSD school. Since each child has seven thousand dollars of potential state funding in their back pack, a newly enlightened LAUSD agreed to these demands. When 3000 parents showed up to demonstrate their support of the concept, the school district voted 6-1 to adopt a policy mandating competitive bids eventually be issued for the management of all 250 “demonstrably failing schools” as defined by federal education law.

    The key to building the Millenial metropolis will be to accommodate such changes. Places like Dallas, Houston, Austin, or Raleigh-Durham that have survived the Great Recession reasonably well now are focusing on producing open, accessible communities with good schools and safe streets. These communities appear best positioned to take advantage of the next bloom of urban growth. Of course the ability to provide America’s next great generation with good jobs and a growing economy will also be required if any metropolis wants to attract Millennials. But with the right leadership and a sustained effort to focus on the basics of family living, almost any city has the opportunity to become a leader in the rebirth of America’s Millennial Era metropolises.

    Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais are fellows of the New Democrat Network and the New Policy Institute and co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics (Rutgers University Press: 2008), named one of the 10 favorite books by the New York Times in 2008.

    Photo: Papalars

  • Telecommute Taxes On The Table

    The Obama Administration has recently been shining a spotlight on the need to eliminate barriers to telework and its growth. Now Congress has legislation before it that would abolish one of telework’s greatest obstacles, the risk of double taxation Americans face if they telecommute across state lines. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 2600)would remove the double tax risk.

    H.R. 2600 can and should be enacted as a stand-alone measure. However, Washington is also currently developing or considering a variety of other legislative packages, any one of which would be significantly strengthened if the provisions of H.R. 2600 were added to it. These packages include energy/climate legislation (expected to be unveiled later this month), transportation legislation and small business legislation. Each of these packages, we have been told, would double as a jobs bill.

    Telework is a critical component of any plan to create jobs, as well as any plan to improve our energy security, slow climate change, ease traffic congestion, reduce transportation infrastructure costs and boost small businesses. Congress must not miss the important opportunity that H.R. 2600 and these emerging packages provide to get rid of the tax barrier to telework.

    The Obama Administration’s Focus on Removing Obstacles
    On March 31, the White House hosted a first-of-its kind forum on workplace flexibility, bringing together businesses, employees, advocates, labor leaders and experts to talk about the importance of expanding the use of telework and other practices that enable workers to meet the competing demands of job and family. Obama identified workplace flexibility as an issue that affects “the success of our businesses [and] the strength of our economy – whether we’ll create the workplaces and jobs of the future we need to compete in today’s global economy.” Discussing a new effort within the federal government to increase the number of federal teleworkers, the President said,

    “…this isn’t just about providing a better work experience for our employees, it’s about providing better, more efficient service for the American people – even in the face of snowstorms and other crises that keep folks from getting to the office…. It’s about attracting and retaining top talent in the federal workforce and empowering them to do their jobs, and judging their success by the results that they get – not by how many meetings they attend, or how much face-time they log, or how many hours are spent on airplanes. It’s about creating a culture where, as [the Administrator of the General Services Administration] puts it, “Work is what you do, not where you are.”

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also urging greater reliance on telework. In the National Broadband Plan delivered to Congress on March 16, the FCC reported that “[m]aking telework a more widespread option would potentially open up opportunities for 17.5 million individuals.” For example, the FCC said, telework can spur job growth among Americans living in rural areas, disabled Americans and retirees. To make the telework option more available, the FCC recommended that Congress “consider eliminating tax and regulatory barriers to telework.”

    What regulatory barrier did the FCC target? The “convenience of the employer” rule – the state tax doctrine that subjects interstate telecommuters to the risk of double taxation. Specifically, a state with a “convenience of the employer” rule can tax nonresidents who telecommute part-time to an employer within that state on the wages they earn at home, even though their home states can tax the same income.

    For many people, the threat of owing taxes to two states can put a long-distance job out of reach. By making telework unaffordable for workers, the tax penalty also thwarts businesses and government agencies trying to tap the cost-saving and other economic benefits telework offers.

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act would bar states from taxing the income nonresidents earn in their home states, and it would prohibit them from applying a “convenience of the employer” rule. Congress should follow the FCC’s counsel to “consider addressing this double taxation issue that is preventing telework from becoming more widespread.”

    Congressional Opportunities to Remove the Tax Barrier
    As noted above, H.R. 2600 can and should be passed as a stand-alone bill. However, Congress could also seize the opportunity to include the provisions of H.R. 2600 in the energy/climate package, the transportation package, or the small business package that lawmakers are working on, and, in the process, make that package more effective.

    How would telecommuter tax fairness strengthen energy and climate legislation? By substituting the use of broadband for the use of cars and mass transit, telecommuters conserve fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The National Broadband Plan reported that “[e]very additional teleworker reduces annual CO2 emissions by an estimated 2.6-3.6 metric tons per year. [Further, replacing] 10% of business air travel with videoconferencing would reduce carbon emissions by an estimated 36.3 million tons annually.” How can Congress enact an energy bill that does not include such savings?

    The same kind of fairness is a necessary addition to any transportation bill, because broader use of telework can slash transportation costs. By decreasing the demand for roads and rails, telework minimizes wear and tear on existing infrastructure and reduces the need to build more. As a result, telework limits the expense of repairs, maintenance and expansion. The new transportation funding bill should focus more on creating jobs laying broadband conduits and less on jobs laying asphalt. The transportation bill would also benefit from the addition of telecommuter tax fairness, because, by decreasing traffic congestion, telework decreases the hobbling cost of lost productivity.

    Small business legislation? Telework can help small firms hire new people at lower cost: Employers can increase staff without increasing real estate, energy and other overhead expenses. They can also select the most qualified applicants from the broadest geographic area while spending less on recruitment. Telework can increase company efficiency and, as President Obama noted at the workplace flexibility forum, help employers assure continuity of operations when emergencies arise. These are bottom line benefits Washington can offer small businesses without adding to the federal deficit.

    Finally, the success of any legislation designed to jumpstart hiring should include telecommuter tax fairness. It would enable the unemployed — especially those who cannot relocate because their homes are unsalable — to widen the area where they can look for work.

    The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act was introduced by Representatives Jim Himes (D-CT) and Frank Wolf (R-VA). It has bi-partisan support from lawmakers all around the country. Stakeholders endorsing it include the Telework Coalition, the National Taxpayers Union, the American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, along with the Association for Commuter Transportation and Take Back Your Time. Workplace Flexibility 2010, a public policy initiative at Georgetown University Law Center, has also recommended the elimination of the telecommuter tax penalty.

    Telework is an important part of the solution to the nation’s most urgent problems, including unemployment, foreign oil dependence, climate change, clogged and crumbling travel arteries and the struggle workers face to meet their responsibilities as employees, family members and members of their communities. As federal lawmakers tackle these challenges, they should consider the Administration’s focus on getting rid of regulatory roadblocks to telework. They should heed the FCC’s call to take up the issue of the telework tax penalty, and they should finally enact the Himes-Wolf bill.

    Photo: Representative Jim Himes (D-CT)

    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.