Luckily, I later
had a chance to communicate about infrastructure with a city councilmember. The exchange was more my speed, both figuratively
and literally.
The topic for the
2012-2013 national high school debate season is “Resolved: The United States
federal government should substantially increase its transportation
infrastructure investment in the United States.” I was looking forward to hearing what high
school students thought on the subject and whether they had been seduced into
the infrastructure
cult.
I still don’t have
an answer to that question. The initial
arguments were presented so quickly that I was unable to follow the
content. The instructor had advised me about
the speed talking used for the introductory salvos, but I still thought I was at
a cattle auction. During a break, the instructor
described one debater as “perhaps the fastest high school debater in the
country.” Which I guess is a good thing,
but it didn’t help my comprehension at all.
The arguments and
counterarguments traded after the initial speech were presented at a more
moderate pace and I was generally able to follow them. Although I found the arguments tangential to
what I had expected, often devolving into meta-debates about the rules of
debate, such as whether conditional negative arguments are permissible. I probably didn’t explain that correctly, but
it was the best I could understand it.
A fresh-faced
seventeen-year-old tried to explain the nuances of the debate to me during breaks. I appreciated her efforts. She truly was kind about it. But she might as well have been instructing me
in the social rituals of an aboriginal tribe.
A fast-talking aboriginal tribe.
To illustrate my
point, the affirmative side talked of investing in a tunnel across the Bering
Straits, linking the U.S. and Russia.
Ah-hah, I could grasp that one. A
Bering Straits tunnel would be the largest, most technically complex, and more
expensive infrastructure project of all time.
And yet all it would accomplish would be the delivery of goods to the
far eastern end of Siberia, an impossibly long distance from any sizable
markets. By any definition of
“investment”, the tunnel would fail.
But instead the
debate took on questions like whether the U.S. retained a residual animosity
toward Russia from the Cold War, whether the tunnel would break down
international borders, and whether a world without borders would be a good
thing. My arguments weren’t even on the
table. At least, I don’t think they
were. Everyone was talking too quickly for
me to be sure.
If this sounds
like I mocking debate, I’m not. Any more
than I would mock high school basketball.
Hitting a 12-foot jumper at the buzzer may not be a skill that helps in
later life, but learning to practice hard and to be part of a team is a good
life skill. Similarly, speaking quickly
may not help in a job interview. But
learning to assimilate arguments quickly and to respond comprehensively and effectively
is a good life skill. Probably better
than those learned on the basketball court.
Had there been a
debate club at my high school, I would have done well to participate. The skills would have been effective in my
career and in writing this blog.
Luckily, another
exchange gave an opportunity to use my lesser skills of persuasion. A city councilmember, writing in response to
my invitation to the February 12 StrongTowns presentation, asked “Give
me an example of how one might address supposedly excess infrastructure.” My response included the following points.
The emerging
reality that Chuck Marohn of StrongTowns postulates is difficult to put
one's arms around. Marohn tried to
tackle the question in a post he wrote in October 2011. He suggests that suburban neighborhoods
beyond the limit of economically sustainable infrastructure will have four
possible outcomes:
Lower
Entropy: More of life would be lived in a neighborhood, with trips to town
becoming special events.
Neighborhood
Repair: Neighborhoods would evolve to a more sustainable configuration, perhaps
by the addition of more residents and economic activity, increasing tax
revenues for infrastructure maintenance.
Abandonment:
Some houses and even entire neighborhoods would be left vacant. Marohn argues that we’ve already seen this in
the inner cities of the 1940s and 1950s.
Salvage: Some homes would be demolished for the value
of their materials.
The
complete StrongTowns blog post is here.
Admittedly,
Marohn is talking about Minnesota, which has a different reality than
California. So I’ll offer a local possibility.
Perhaps Sonoma County decides that it can
no longer maintain River Road between Santa Rosa and Guerneville. Between the damages from increased Russian
River flooding and limited funds, Public Works can't keep the road repaired. Instead, the County keeps the road from
Healdsburg toward Guerneville open, but with a lower design speed because of
poor pavement condition.
In
that world, no one could live in Guerneville and work in Santa Rosa. The daily commute
would be too dificult. Many of the homes
in Guerneville would survive, especially those above the new flood plain. But the homes would become weekend hideaways
for people willing to spend two hours driving from Santa Rosa to Guerneville by
way of Healdsburg while using $10 per gallon gas.
This
example is only a possibility, but it’s credible for the not-too-distant future.
Hopefully
the councilmember will attend the February 12 meeting. Perhaps some of the St. Vincent High School debate team
will also participate. If they promise
to ask questions in a normal speed voice.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment