Anecdote:
I’ve been reading the letters that my father sent to his parents during World
War II. In late 1943, he was a cadet
training to be a weatherman. Much of his
class was targeted for duty on bombers over Germany. It was training that was critical to the war.
And yet one
day all classes were halted for the cadets to be dismissed from the Army, to
recomplete their enlistment, life insurance, and war bond forms, and then to be
re-enlisted. The reason for the training
delay? The cadets’ employer was being changed
from the United States Army to the Army of the United States. Tell
me there wasn’t an attorney somewhere behind that swirl of paperwork.
But perhaps
the biggest criticism of attorneys is their willingness to defend anyone. No matter how horrific the crime or how clear
the evidence trail, there will always be an attorney ready to stand up and
argue against guilt. Or at least to
argue mitigating circumstances.
Attorneys will contend that the availability of counsel is essential to
a properly functioning legal system.
They’re undoubtedly right, but it still feels wrong to many.
Which is
ironic because many of us are guilty of the same offense. Accountants review the books for businesses
that they suspect are shady. Building
supply houses sell materials to contractors who do substandard work. And engineers work on projects that may not
be in the best long-term interests of our communities.
In my
career, I was perhaps a little lucky. I
had the opportunity to spend the first decade doing small-scale hydroelectric
projects. (Except for the politics of
energy, small hydro would be considered the first among renewables.)
But after
those first ten years, I did a few things of which I’m less proud. Several residential projects that were less
dense and walkable than I would have preferred, a Petco, a Best Buy, a couple
of Circuit Citys, and a passel of Whole Foods.
I’m not criticizing
the corporate missions of Best Buy, Whole Foods, etc., but except for
preliminary design on an urban Whole Foods in San Jose, all of the stores I
mentioned were in drivable suburban locations and configurations. And I’m not proud of working on them.
Sometimes, I
rationalized my involvement as something I had to do to earning a living. At other times, I perhaps didn’t notice the gap
between my beliefs and my professional duties.
I suspect
that many others in land development have never asked themselves the question
of whether what they’re doing is really the right thing for their
communities. As Upton Sinclair said, “It
is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on
his not understanding it.”
If you’ve
been reading for awhile, you already know my feelings on walkable urban versus
drivable suburban. I needn’t reiterate
the arguments here.
But if you
work in the land development field, or if you vote in municipal elections that
will influence land use decisions, I ask that you take a few moments to ponder
how your city should look in the future and to ask whether you’re doing what
you should to make that happen. Or
whether you’re just going along with the status quo so you can make your
mortgage payment. It’s a question that I
could have asked myself a few more times.
For another
perspective on the role of engineers in land use planning, read this
StrongTowns blog about a new freeway interchange in Pennsylvania. Charles Marohn says what I said, but with a
concise expression of outrage that is enlightening and entertaining.
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