For a long
time, I had a reader on Petaluma Patch who would regularly challenge various
points I’d written, although the word “challenge” may give him too much
credit. Using the strawman approach, he
would misunderstand an aspect of my argument, perhaps intentionally, and then
try to demolish the misrepresented point with emotional arguments and appeals
to dubious authority (Agenda 21 was frequently cited), thereby supposedly refuting
my entire argument.
During one
of the periodic Patch reboots, I lost the reader. I don’t miss him. Despite his flimsy and insubstantial
arguments, I always feared that readers who might be inclined toward
unjustified opposition to urbanism would latch onto his comments and accord
them more credibility than they deserved.
But I also
miss the reader just a little bit. His
comments were like 70 mile per hour batting practice fastballs. Bashing them into the bleachers could be a
good warmup for the game conditions to follow.
As one
example, he would often note the high sales prices at a land-use project that
had elements of urbanism and cite them as proof that urbanism is elitist. Over multiple opportunities, I honed a
three-part response:
(1)
Housing cost is only part of the financial
aspect of an urbanist lifestyle. If the housing
location allows a family to live with fewer vehicles, the effective cost would be
less than it seems.
(2)
The cost of urban housing is often driven upwards
by city policies on impact fees and infrastructure improvements, as urbanist
projects are frequently used to subsidize financially unsustainable suburban
development. The cost of that negative
subsidy shouldn’t count against the concept of urbanism.
(3)
Urbanism is popular and under-served. Unsatisfied market demand often allows a
surcharge, which means we need more urbanist projects, not fewer.
I felt confident
that in this three-part answer, which felt like three hard hit
line-drives. But I retained a touch of reservation. While I felt that each of the answers was
correct, and could point to facts to support each point, there seemed to a lack
of a comprehensive data-based assessment of land use that would truly support
the case for urbanism. I was driving the
batting practice fastballs into the power alleys, but was perhaps falling short
of the fences.
So it was
with satisfaction that I attended a recent program at which the Federal Reserve
Bank, hosting the meeting in coordination with the UC Davis Center for Regional
Change and others, introduced their book “What Counts: Harnessing Data for
America’s Communities”. (The book was
co-edited by the Urban Institute.)
The thrust
of the book is to apply the best available data to social questions such as
transit-oriented development and gentrification. The answers that were offered during the
meeting weren’t definitive, largely because the data isn’t nearly as
comprehensive as might be hoped, but they were a step in the right direction
and defined a path toward better, more data-driven land-use decisions.
The most
poignant moment of the session came when Carl Anthony, an long-time advocate for
urban investment benefitting the financially-challenged and now a leader with
Breakthrough Communities, told of his surprise when he learned of the data showing
that many urban projects of the type he’d championed were now serving the more
affluent, with the folks that Anthony had hoped to benefit having been pushed
to suburbs.
To Anthony’s
credit, he bemoaned the unfortunate turn of events only briefly before turning himself
to a new data-driven approach to solving the problem he had already spent years
tackling. It was a remarkable show of
resilience from someone who was nearing the end of his working career and who
had to be helped to the podium because of blindness.
There’s not
space today to share all the insights garnered from the program and the book,
but I can offer a couple of tastes.
For one,
there has long been a goal to create a housing/jobs balance in Bay Area
communities, with the thought that doing so would allow shorter commutes. But a deeper dive into the data shows that
even if a balance is approximately reached, the balance doesn’t persist across the
economic spectrum. There are significant
pockets of the Bay Area in which the number of low wage jobs outweighs the
number of affordable housing units by more than 4 to 1. In the North Bay, the most significant pocket
is around San Rafael.
For another,
there was data that the average commute for low-wage workers was becoming
significantly longer than for average-wage workers, so the people least able to
afford transportation were increasingly obligated to pay higher transportation
costs. (To reiterate, this isn’t a
failure of urbanism, it’s a failure to implement proper policies to facilitate
good urbanism. We need urbanism, but we
especially need good urbanism.)
With the
additional data in hand, if my old nemesis ever resurfaces I can be increasingly
assured of taking his weak-armed batting practice fastballs into the upper rows
of the bleachers. And that feels good.
In my next
post, I’ll dig into a couple of the papers in “What Counts”.
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