The condos
were about a half-mile south of the Pleasant Hill BART station. Many of us began our daily commutes with a
walk to the station. Other pedestrians on
the route came from single-family neighborhoods further south and from more condos
midway between us and the BART station.
When
Proposition 13 passed, the Contra Costa County Supervisors had to find substantial
cuts in the county budget. One decision,
an admittedly minor one, but every penny counted, was to reduce
streetlighting. The County decided to
retain streetlighting within a quarter-mile of transit stops such as the BART
station and within single-family neighborhoods, but otherwise to turn off
streetlights in residential areas unless adjoining residents agreed to pick up
the tab.
The inequity
was obvious. Even though many residents
of both condo projects had acquired their homes for the easy walking access to
BART, the other condos would have their entire route home lighted, while we had
to walk the last distance in the dark unless we agreed to pay. Meanwhile, the residents to our south would benefit
if the streetlights remained lighted, but weren’t being asked to participate in
the cost.
Several
board members attended a meeting of the County Supervisors to complain. Not unexpectedly given the other priorities
at the time, we were ignored. The condo
association agreed to pay reimbursement and the streetlights remained on.
I mention this
story not because of a lingering resentment over the few dollars that I might
have paid as condo association dues 35 years ago, but to point out that the
social equality of infrastructure is difficult even in the best of times. And when there is financial turmoil, the
inequities can easily become worse.
StrongTowns
argues that we have excess infrastructure and must soon make the tough
decisions about what infrastructure we remain willing to maintain. If StrongTowns is proven correct, we’ll have
hard decisions to make amidst financial turmoil that may make the 1978
adjustments for Proposition 13 look minor.
And I fear that
the StrongTowns will hold up. In a recent post, I argued that it’s evident that we
have at least some infrastructure that was poorly conceived to the point that
it doesn’t justify the cost of maintenance.
Quoting myself, “The question shouldn’t be whether some of
our infrastructure is unjustified, but how much is. Is it two percent? Or is it 30 to 40 percent? My instincts tell me that the latter is more
likely.”
From a
career of watching decisions get made in public forums, I have a sense of the
decision-making process that would result if infrastructure winnowing is
required. And my sense leads me to disturbing
possibilities.
If a community
as a whole decides to forego a particular element of infrastructure maintenance,
I suspect that we’ll allow individual neighborhoods to cover the costs instead. It worked that way with streetlights in
1978. I see no reason why it would be
different in 2013.
But what
might happen is that the affluent neighborhoods would choose to support their
own infrastructure while refusing the support the infrastructure of the broader
community. It might be
streetlights. It might be street
repaving. It might be power lines. But in the end, affluent neighborhoods would
continue to live as they lived in the past, while the poorer neighborhood would
be dark at night, have crumbling pavement, and be subject to periodic power
outages.
If the scenario
sounds familiar, it should. It's what
California has largely done with K through 12 education, allowing more affluent
neighborhoods to create educational settings for their own children that are significantly
better than are provided in poorer neighborhoods. And the educational results haven’t been
good, at least if one believes in the ideal of social mobility.
The U.S.
prides itself on social mobility. We like
to believe that anyone in the U.S. can succeed despite humble beginnings. But current results may not bear out this
belief. A recent study measured social
mobility in developed nations. The measure
was percentage of people who die in a different quintile of family income than
that into which they were born. By that
yardstick, the U.S. was 16th among the 23 nations studied. Far from being a beacon of hope and
opportunity to the lower classes, we now lag much of the world in social
mobility. I suspect that much of the
reason lays in our schooling.
And now the
StrongTowns theory comes along and raises the possibility that infrastructure
will follow the same path of inequality as education.
The U.S. was founded in an expectation that we
all have equal opportunities to succeed.
Throughout our history, our implementation of this ideal has been
imperfect, but we’ve largely retained the vision. Except in recent times when we seem to have
become increasingly willing to go our own ways and not to care about whether children
in the next neighborhood have the same opportunities as our own children. And now a problem with the economic
sustainability of infrastructure may give us another opportunity to separate
into our own boats, leaving our fellow citizens behind.
This concern
isn’t the fault of StrongTowns. They’re
only pointing out the problem with infrastructure; they’re not telling us how
we should handle the shrinking of our infrastructure without further
disadvantaging poorer neighborhoods. But
they’ll hopefully be part of the discussion about how to avoid the pitfall.
Which leads
to one more opportunity to remind readers that Charles Marohn of StrongTowns
will appear via video chat in Petaluma on Tuesday, February 12. All are welcome to join us at Work Petaluma,
10 4th Street. We’ll start at 5:30. Marohn will present the StrongTowns theory
and then take questions. The social equality
issue is high on my list of questions.
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