The Evolution of US Cities

Wow, time flies.  I apologize for going so long without posting.  Now to the topic at hand.

In the past 50 or 60 years urban expansion (sprawl) in the United States has been unprecedented.  Writers attribute this growth to the convergence of a rising population, increasing incomes, and falling commuting costs.  Because of the impressive highway system and corridor development in the US, the more affluent continue to move further out of the city centers and the poor remain in the older housing stock contained within.  Many Americans view this urban sprawl as a bad thing that contributes to alienation, air pollution, obesity, segregation, the concentration of poverty, and any number of other negative aspects of American life.  I personally tend to agree that this pattern of growth is unhealthy for the system, primarily based on the notion that extending infrastructure costs more than the revenues it can generate for local governments, straining their ability to provide necessary and demanded services.  But I think this pattern of growth is changing, and we are in the midst of an evolutionary shift that will bring about its own unique problems.

European cities, in contrast to American cities, principally concentrate affluence and wealth in the city centers and have poor suburbs.  This may be because of the relative age of European cities compared to the US, among any number of other aesthetic reasons.  I believe that many US cities are moving the same direction, however.  The filtering theory of urban systems posits that rings of housing development around the urban core “filter” from higher socio-economic populations down as the housing stock grows old and deteriorates.  I believe that this latest wave of housing growth will leave us with vast neighborhoods of mediocre housing stock that will run down in 10 to 20 years, leaving whole suburban developments undesirable to the affluent home buyers and becoming available to lower socio-economic cohorts.  These wealthier purchasers are going to be looking for well-built (or rebuilt) homes - and the solid neighborhoods built in earlier periods closer in to the city centers are going to become more attractive.  This is already happening in Austin.

In addition, as a good friend pointed out to me recently, with gas prices continuing to rise we will no longer be thinking about the miles-per-gallon we get with our automobiles, but instead about the dollars-per-trip we make.  For example, it costs me nearly $2 a day to drive to school.  As that commuting cost increases (not to mention congestion), the trade-off for the house in the suburbs with the big yard and white picket fence is going to becoming increasingly unattractive.  This will also drive the more affluent families further into town, displacing the poor and pushing them out.

Finally, the new urban living trend of small condos downtown will also drive some of this evolution.  And this trend is not only occurring in the “hip” young cities.  In towns as different as Spokane, Washington, Waco, Texas, and New Orleans, Louisiana, buildings are being converted into lofts faster than the for sale signs can be printed.  I can’t go anywhere without seeing advertisements for this rebirth living in walkable communities close to both work and play.  I am a big fan of this movement, but believe it will carry with it social costs that few are considering when they move in to their new condos.

What does all this add up to?  I think we are in the midst of a vast shift in the urban nature of America.  Mimicking many European cities, our urban centers are becoming the centers of wealth and affluence and the poor are being scattered and pushed outward.  With this shift comes both positive and negative externalities that need to be considered (perhaps in a follow-up blog post), but we need to start thinking about this paradigm shift right now if we are to both capitalize on and accommodate this change.

Top 5 “Socially Conscious” Songs

Oh wow.  I know I am going to disappoint many people out there with my top five list this week - I am going to compile my list of favorite “socially conscious” songs and nearly all of them are recent releases.  I consider a song to be “socially conscious” if it motivates me to want to make the world a better place or if it encourages me to rethink the status quo.  I know, I know, the sixties were full of folk songs decrying the evils of, well, just about everything.  There are tons of songs I am not including in this list that I am sure most of you will consider the quintessential call to arms, but perhaps I’ll introduce you to some songs you haven’t taken seriously that may, in the end, motivate you to work for the common good the way they motivate me.

5. Waiting for the World to Change - John Mayer.  I know, this is bubble gum pop, but it sticks with me because it feels so much like school to me.  I am constantly surrounded by bright-eyed, idealistic 24 year olds who really are just waiting for the world to change - some are even working for that change already.  Its so doe-eyed and precious, I can’t help but think that something good is going to come from my classmates that isn’t as sappy but just as inspiring as this song.

4. Brother Down - Sam Roberts Band.  This may be a pretty obscure reference for many of you, but I have seen Sam Roberts live a couple times now and he freaking rocks.  This song is a true anthem for the call of humanity surrounding us all , and I can remember the exact time I heard Sam cry it out onstage.  It always reminds me of what I want to do in life - just leave the world better off than I found it.  If you aren’t familiar with Sam Roberts, look them up.

3. He Got Game - Public Enemy.  This one reaches back further than any of the others only because Public Enemy has been sticking it to the man for decades.  This song came out in 1998 and I was introduced to it by my brother-in-law when he was just a ghetto superstar that listened to nothing but rap and R&B, but it spoke to me right away.  Its lyrics are really poignant and I started listening to it when I was still young enough to be the bright-eyed idealist myself.

2. Changes - Tupac. In some of my most paranoid moods I am convinced that Tupac was murdered to keep him from changing the world himself.  He was popular enough to start a movement, and was increasingly vocal about the inequality and strife of inner-city America.  This song speaks truth to power, and could have been a great example of popular music affecting social change if it had gained more of an audience beyond the ghettos.  It reminds me of the potential to be found at the heart of every person to change the world if given the chance.

1. Better Way - Ben Harper and the Innocent Criminals.  I truly believe there is a better way out there.  I know I am older and more cynical than most of my liberal classmates, but I do believe there is so much good in people that it is fact possible to make this world a better place.  If I didn’t believe this I would have just gone to Business School to make myself some money.  I hope that everyone can listen to this song and dream of a better way for all of us to live, to give, to be.  I know its sad, but the flame of idealism just cannot be extinguished in this dreamer’s heart.

So that’s it.  Find these songs and try to listen to them with an ear for revolution - see if you don’t come around to believing that you, too, can make this world a better place.  Try it risk-free for seven days and return it for a full refund if you’re not completely satisfied.  Have fun.

A caveat: there are two songs from before my time that still resonate with me, and though I didn’t include them in the official list, I can’t leave them off this post.  John Lennon’s Imagine has always moved me, and might have subconsciously affected me to be the person I am today.  I have loved this song and its simple message as long as I can remember.  Also, Buffalo Springfield’s For What Its Worth has always run in the soundtrack of my mind, particularly on the hot summer days of unrest.  Consequently it is the sample from which He Got Game is derived.

What is Equity?

After spending three days in a conference on Regional Equity, I feel inspired to discuss my ideas about equity and what it means to me. 

To many people, the word “equity” means equality of outcomes, as in “everyone should be equal and experience equal  outcomes.”  While this definition of equity is a beautiful idea, and warms the heart, it leaves off an important value of the American system - incentive.  Why would anyone work hard if, in the end, everyone will be compensated the same way?

There is also the idea that equity means equality of opportunity.  Again, while a noble dream, this is not very likely nor very helpful.  There are millions of Americans who work hard every day to make a better life for their children and to create opportunities for those children that they themselves did not enjoy.  Is it fair to those who sacrifice so much to then have those sacrifices come to naught while all else is given the same opportunity?  Again, it is about incentives and motivating individuals to better their family’s lives.

I would argue that part of the American promise is that everyone has some opportunity to better his or her life.  While there will be some with phenomenal opportunities, we can’t all go to private boarding schools and travel with the elite economic or political  circles.  But there has to be a base level of adequacy every American starts with, and that includes a healthy environment and access to quality education.  Every person should have the chance to make the right choices and prosper in this country.  Yes, that is going to be more difficult for some than others, and there is a good argument right now that it is too difficult or even impossible for too many Americans.  That is something we should certainly address, for without opportunity our country will fall apart.

I believe a good working definition for equity is based on the complex equity model.  In this model, there are many different spheres which relate to each other but are distinct in their power structures.  There is an economic, political, religious, educational, and neighborhood sphere, among a plethora of others.  It is possible and even desirable to be influential or powerful in any one of these spheres.  But to achieve equity, no one could use his or her position of power in one sphere to influence or gain power in another.  A classic example would be the Pope’s ability to influence political and economic spheres in Medieval Europe.  In contemporary society, successful businessmen and wealthy individuals should not have undue influence in the political arena.  Or more accurately, people with lesser means should have the same opportunity to influence the political sphere that high socio-economic individuals enjoy. 

With this model we can accurately assimilate the incentive to work hard and “get ahead” in whatever sphere most concerns a person, while taking into consideration the need for balance and opportunity.  We can also see the glaring discrepancy of today’s US system - the fact that those with wealth and economic power do in fact heavily influence other spheres, particularly politics but increasingly religious, educational, and others.  Within this model we can fairly represent our concern and begin to address this problem in constructive ways that do not limit the credit one can develop through hard work and innovation.

I am still developing this idea, so if you have thoughts, please let me know.  I am particularly interested in other’s understanding of equity, the value of the topic, and how we might work to better understand it.

Top 5 Great Things About New Orleans

Sorry it’s a little late, but I just returned from a great conference in New Orleans on regional equity.  I hadn’t been back to NO post-Katrina, and though it has been two and one-half years, things are still pretty morbid in some neighborhoods.  And then again, the tourist-trap areas are up and running as if nothing had really happened.  The fact that millions of people are visiting the city without knowing the costs of our country’s ineptitude saddens more than the remnants of devastation still visible.  However the city still lives on, and while it does, I will have hope for a better world.  And with that hope I will list my top five favorite things about New Orleans, in no particular order.

- The Food.  I know its not the healthiest cuisine, but it may be the most flavorful.  I love etouffee, I love gumbo.  I love fried shrimp and the po’boys they come in, and I love crawfish like nobody’s business.  I could founder on New Orleans food.

- The Music.  Many people relate jazz to Chicago, but I will always have the music of New Orleans in my heart.  The Crescent City had a profound effect on jazz, particularly early on, and I can’t hear the Saints Go Marching In without being brought right back to the second line parades that followed funerals through the bumpy streets.  The music will always bring me back to the city.

- The Architecture.  The city, the entire city, is an unbelievable built environment.  Sure there are beautiful mansions in the Garden District and along St. Charles, and the French Quarter is a uniquely dense community with its own character.  But even the run-down neighborhoods, with shotguns and camelbacks, old wrought-iron fences and overgrown yards have such character and personality.  I could never get tired of the variety to be found in New Orleans architecture.

- The Accent.  Many visitors of New Orleans can find it a little hard to understand, but once you’ve been there a little while all but the thickest accents are discernible and fun.  I love the way people sound in New Orleans.

- The People.  Along with the way people sound, I just love the people of New Orleans.  Sure, they don’t know the meaning of fast food - in fact most people don’t know anything fast.  But if you lived in 99% humidity all year round you wouldn’t want to do anything fast either.  You just do what you do, and live easy, man.  I don’t know about now, as things have certainly changed, but when I lived in New Orleans nearly everyone was friendly, easy-going, and just happy to be alive.  And that is something that can’t be taught, can’t be planned, it just sort of happens.  That’s what makes (made) New Orleans the great place it is (was).

For the first time I visited New Orleans this past week as a tourist, and I can see how easy they fool most visitors into good-times and easy living.  But underneath that, there is still sadness, and loss, and devastation.  Two and a half years later and the war is still being fought in New Orleans, let’s not forget about them because they can put on a happy face.  Let us always remember.  And always remember the great things about the Crescent City.

Is a Crash Tax the Answer?

Municipal governments across the country are feeling the pinch.  Service demand continues to increase while taxes become increasingly unpopular.  Cities across the country are looking for new and creative ways to raise revenues without raising taxes.  The country is moving increasingly toward user fees and away from general revenue funds, which introduces its own problems, but is the direction we are moving nevertheless.

One such example is the so-called Crash Tax.  Basically, if you get in an accident that requires emergency response you end up paying for the call, either personally or through your insurance.  There are 18 or more local governments that have instigated this new taxing system, and its catching on.  With fees anywhere from $100 to $2,000, depending on the severity of the accident, these can raise significant amounts of revenue in larger cities.

But not everyone is welcoming the new practice.  AccidentTax.com, a website operated by the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, argues fervently against the crash tax.  Not only does the site meticulously chronicle the critical public response to this new idea, but it quotes officials claiming it doesn’t raise the amounts they had hoped.  And it also strongly argues that if this is to catch on, insurance coverage will cost more for everyone. 

But beyond this, I worry that this effort is trying to charge fees for services that are the core of the public good.  There are services the government may or may not provide for its citizens, such as welfare assistance or public housing or even public education.  Most feel these services are important, but are not critical to the functioning of society.  However, first responders are in fact critical to the smooth functioning of our economy and society.  While the promoters of the crash tax assure us that services will be provided whether or not payment could be made, but once we start “taxing” these critical services we open the door.  It seems almost too easy to cross the line and neglect the most important duties of civil service. 

As we move toward the service fee structure of government, we can’t wholly replace taxes.  Certain core services provided by our government are required in order to keep our community, and economy, moving.  The Crash Tax is one step down a dangerous path, and one we might think twice about before taking.