Changes in
public perception, and the resulting changes in public policy, usually don’t
begin with a mass movement. Instead,
they’re more like rock slides. The first
sign is often only a few rocks breaking loose and clattering noisily to the
valley floor, followed by more seemingly random and minor rock falls. But eventually
the main slide breaks loose and the landscape is forever changed.
In the past
few days, we’ve witnessed an early rock fall that may be a precursor to an
important shift in public policy, a shift that would greatly impact urbanism.
When
Petaluma Urban Chat was first getting underway, we gave ourselves the collective
reading assignment of the “Curbside Chat” booklet from StrongTowns. The booklet sets forth the central tenet of
StrongTowns, that we often build more infrastructure than we can afford to
maintain or are willing to maintain. (It
was during this reading that an Urban Chat member commented about StrongTowns
being “the Republican argument for urbanism.”)
As our
reading progressed, I wrote several times in this space about “Curbside Chat”. Through the magic of the internet, the folks
at StrongTowns learned of our small North Bay group and reached out to us. StrongTowns founder Chuck Marohn agreed to talk
with us by video, addressing questions that may have arisen during our reading.
The chance
to interact with Marohn seemed a great opportunity to jumpstart the local
urbanist conversation, so I emailed all the local City Councilmembers and
Planning Commissioners, inviting them to join us for the video chat.
Amidst the
responses, which were mostly regrets about conflicting commitments, some of
which I even believed, was an email from a Councilmember asking for more
information on the StrongTowns proposition.
He was someone I thought would be predisposed against the StrongTowns
thinking. However, I also considered him
a thoughtful, intelligent man who could be swayed by logical argument.
So I
assembled the best case I could, tying together local potholes and other North
Bay infrastructure maintenance challenges with the ongoing government fiscal
distress of which he was well aware.
Perhaps my response ran a little long, because that’s what I do, but I thought
it was cogent and persuasive. I hit the
send button and awaited his response.
I’m still
waiting.
He never
replied to my email, nor did he attend the video chat. About the only response I’ve ever noted is
that, when we bump into each other at community functions, he gives me sidelong
glances as if I’m potentially deranged and sidles away at his earliest
convenience. (To be fair, I’m not the
only person he seems to treat in this fashion.)
I usually let him go. I have no
reason to make him more uncomfortable that he already is.
Unfortunately,
his response is fairly typical for how public officials respond to the StrongTowns
message. With much of the electorate focused on the
continual expansion of infrastructure, elected officials are unwilling to hear
a message that we need to rethink our approach to built improvements. And the public works officials whose jobs are
dependent on building more infrastructure are no different. As 18th century Jewish rabbi Baal Shem Tov,
phrased it “Fear builds walls to bar the light."
Thus, it was
unexpected when Paul Trombino, the head of the Iowa Department of
Transportation, publicly admitted that his state has more highway
infrastructure than the public is likely willing to maintain. He further called for a difficult but
necessary conversation about how and where to reduce previously constructed infrastructure.
StrongTowns’
Marohn, who was present for Trombino’s comments, reported them with surprise and gratification. CityLab, recognizing the importance of the
story, picked up on Marohn’s news and repeated the story for their audience, also
including evidence of implicit acknowledgements by other Departments of
Transportation that driving patterns were changing and that hard infrastructure
decisions might be coming.
Does this
mean that the battle for a more informed approach to infrastructure has been
won? Hardly. One need only look at the 101 corridor in the
North Bay to see the continuing illogic, with multi-million dollar interchanges
nearing completion at both ends of the Petaluma and the continuing drumbeat of
demand for a third freeway lane between Novato and Petaluma even as potholes
remain unfilled throughout Petaluma and 100-year-old waterlines fail, sending
gushers of water down gutters.
But the
Trombino acknowledgement of what StrongTowns has been arguing may have been a
turning point. Even as the 2004 decision
by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to permit gay marriages in his city is
considered a key early step to the now near-universal acceptance of gay
marriage, Paul Trombino’s words may one day be considered a key early step
toward a more enlightened and cost-effective approach to infrastructure.
And the way
to live comfortably with less infrastructure is, of course, urbanism.
Perhaps I
should send this story to the local Councilmember.
Next time,
I’ll return to the subject of urbanism and senior living, using a recent
personal experience to illustrate a point.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
I take it as a foregone conclusion that the current Petaluma City Council will approve the EIR that our Planning Commission did not approve for the Rainier connector. Do you see this as more unsupportable infrastructure? Or am I too forlorn and it is not foregone?
ReplyDeleteThe more I ponder that question, the more complex it becomes. I've tentatively scheduled a blog post on the question for July 24th. Until then, I'll hold my tongue. (As if I ever do that.)
DeleteBarry, because of the the reported City Council schedule, I'll defer the post noted above until July 31.
Delete