Property Values as Gentrification Engine

19 07 2011

The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates and Think Progress’ Matt Yglesias consider the case of one Pamela Johnson, a D.C. resident who saw her property tax bill skyrocket as the property she owned appreciated rapidly in value. She couldn’t afford to pay her property taxes out of her income, so was forced into a situation where she was forced to sell.
Read the rest of this entry »

Learning Useful Things

19 07 2011

Technology moves so quickly. I regularly have to instruct my parents, and at times older colleagues, on how to use various types of technology. One day, I will be a dottering old guy who has to be taught the newer technologies by younger people, likely of the whippersnapper variety. Is this a new phenomenon? Isn’t the traditional flow of information from older people to younger people? Even as technology progressed–saw, with power tools or plumbing or car maintenance or what not–among non-specialists (i.e., the typical consumer or member of society) don’t elders typically communicate skills to the youth, or “utes” if you will? This may just be times-they-are-a-changing, forest-for-trees ruminating. I’m not asserting a general trend, although someone alert Thomas Friedman and give him some rich people to interview, maybe he could write a book about it.

Obviously adults consume new technologies and learn them, so maybe we’re just stuck at this transition period where the technologies began to change at an exponential speed, so the generations ahead of us had no chance of catching up. But maybe it’s not a unique historical moment, and we’re in for frustrating conversations with our kids who get impatient with us as we try to sync our ecto-reader to the nano-cloud to get our, you know, elf gold or whatever. Wait that last one was the wrong genre. Anyway, you get the idea. Young people–the hoodlums–learn this stuff from one another, and from the manufacturers or developers directly. The hive mind and what not. And as the “target demographic” they are always going to be the first adopters, rolling their eyes when we ask about how our iRub interfaces with our moon camel. The point is, I don’t want to be at the mercy of a bunch of roughnecks what with their sunglasses and pants. Get off my space lawn, is what I’m trying to say. Grumble.


Is There a Workable Alternative to Neoliberalism?

18 07 2011

Updated below.

Frustrated with the paucity of policy and politics in the ceaseless left/leftish-neoliberal debate, Matt Yglesias asks if there is a workable alternative to neoliberalism. Yglesias gets understandably frustrated with critics from the left who throw “neoliberal” at him and others as an epithet, using it as a synecdoche for “undercover conservative,” or “plutocrat.” Yglesias decries the lack of concrete policies and politics, and the tendency of the left to focus on theory, principles, and abstractions. It’s not merely a rhetorical maneuver on his part: it is true that the left, increasingly amorphous as its Marxist roots get buried under generations of shame and red-baiting aversion, doesn’t really have a policy home or framework that it can propose to displace the neoliberal consensus of which Yglesias is a professed member.

Here’s Yglesias in his own words:

I have no idea what it is that we’re disagreeing about. Neoliberals on this telling, favor progressive taxation. Non-neoliberals criticize this agenda as not politically workable in the long-term. And they counterpose as their alternative, more workable agenda, . . . what? Kevin Drum offers this effort:

I don’t know the answer either. But as I said a few months ago, “If the left ever wants to regain the vigor that powered earlier eras of liberal reform, it needs to rebuild the infrastructure of economic populism that we’ve ignored for too long. Figuring out how to do that is the central task of the new decade.” It still is.

So I really, strongly, profoundly agree with this. The moment someone comes up with a workable idea on this front, please sign me up. But if there’s no idea to debate, then there’s no idea to debate. Debating the desirability of devising some hypothetical future good idea seems kind of pointless to me.

This is too bad, because I think Henwood and I actually started out with a reasonably concrete disagreement on an important point. I think that better monetary policy, though hardly the solution to all of America’s ills, could do a lot to reduce unemployment. His view seems to be not just that a more thorough economic restructuring would be desirable, but that it’s strictly necessary to achieve recovery. In my view, that’s factually mistaken. Better monetary policy over the past several years would, I believe, have produced a much shallower and shorter recession and left progressive politics with a much stronger hand to play on all kinds of other questions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Portland and Chicago: Urban Dynamism

7 07 2011


Aaron Renn, the estimable Urbanophile from the blog of the same name, published a piece considering what Portland, as a beacon of “livability,” means for cities across the country. Renn compares Portland in the 1990s to Chicago in the 1890s: visionary and opportunistic, the “orderer” of its day:

Portland didn’t invent bicycles, density or light rail — but it understood the future implications of them for America’s smaller cities first, and put that knowledge to use before anyone else. The longest journey begins with a step, but you have to take it. Nobody else did. In an era where most American cities went one direction, Portland went another, either capturing or even creating the zeitgeist of a new age.

In the agro-industrial era, Chicago first understood the true significance of railroads, the skyscraper and even urban planning. It saw what others couldn’t — and acted on that understanding. That made Chicago the greatest city, indeed the orderer, of its age.

In the late 20th century and continuing to the present day, for cities below the first rank, Portland plays that role. Like Chicago, it is remaking much of America after its own fashion. Light rail, bike lanes, reclaimed waterfronts, urban condos and microbreweries are now nearly ubiquitous, if not deployed at scale, across the nation.

Renn is an agile and interesting thinker on urban issues, one of my favorites to read on big city policy, even when we disagree. While I think the piece lapses into generalization occasionally, he sets up some very interesting contrasts and asks some great questions.

Portland is the gold standard of “livable” cities, clean and bikable, easy to get around, little congestion, access to nature, and the general accouterments of “ideal” big city living: a flourishing artistic community, small businesses, and, of course, microbreweries, which apparently Americans decided they couldn’t live without ten years ago.

On the other hand, Renn points out, their economy is not particularly dynamic. Unemployment is persistent and problematic, straining city and state resources. While Portland’s vision in the 90s allowed it to “punch above its weight,” it hasn’t capitalized on that. The most interesting reason Renn puts forward as to why is the lack of “dynamism,” or conflict:

Perhaps Portland is actually a bit too livable. As urban scholar Joel Kotkin put it, “Portland is to today’s generation what San Francisco was to mine: a hip, not too expensive place for young slackers to go.”

People move to New York City to test their mettle in America’s ultimate arena. They move to Silicon Valley to strike it rich in high tech. But they move to Portland for values and lifestyle; for personal more than professional reasons; to consume as much as to produce. People move to Portland to move to Portland.

Portland may also lack the diversity needed to be a truly dynamic city. It is one of America’s least racially diverse cities and lacks a single non-white city or county elected official. Portland may also have excessive civic consensus. People I interviewed who left Portland were uniform in their praise. They also noted with approval the lack of negativity about the city in contrast with other places they had lived, and the high degree of shared values among its residents.

But civic dynamism fundamentally derives from conflict and dissatisfaction. London architect Sam Jacob once said, “Cities are not about the perfect vision; they are not about a singular idea. They are about a collision of all kinds of incompatible demands.” Portland perhaps has too few conflicts of vision, with too few incompatible demands.

I personally am fond of (non-violent, though that should go without saying) conflict. Conflict is the source of dynamism. Renn is on to something here. Conflict and consensus are not mutually exclusive. The process and form of conflict shapes the consensus. Where lots of conflicting voices are muted–or altogether absent–the consensus that emerges from conflict is going to be narrow. It is this fact that supporters of “get-things-done” strongman executives ignore or dismiss as naive attachment to “process.”

But a democratic society, and democratic urban planning in particular, take as a premise that the more people involved in a process, the better the result, even where there are wildly conflicting points of view. The ability of a mayor to just “get things done” is facile if the things he is getting done are born in closed strategy meetings and then marketed to the public. The point Renn seems to be getting at is that Portland’s forward-thinking policies of the 1990s and early Aughts began a process that has stagnated because it hasn’t been challenged by various and diverse classes, institutions, and organizations. Portland is just where it is, and will continue to be.

Then we look at Chicago, a big, loud, and diverse city that nevertheless falls into ruts of intensely centralized and stovepiped policy “debates” thanks to a mighty economic and political machine fueled by big money and parochial power players. In a piece on mayoral candidate Miguel Del Valle, I touched on this issue–the stagnancy of chaos versus productive order. Thomas Jefferson referred to this power of conflict to unleash creative power when he said that, “the boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.”

The livability we all want may come from a centralized policy pursuing specific ends; but without dynamic involvement of the public, what appears to be improvement (say, for example, dropping crime rates) may actually just be displacement (say, for example, the flight of working class families from the city over the last decade). Similarly, the livability of a place like Portland, where good jobs are scarce, could just be a result of attracting people with less ambition while those who want to deploy their talents are leaving the city for better opportunities, even if that means fewer microbreweries.

There is one objection to be raised to Renn’s fine piece: Portland seems to be improving economically, at least over the last few years. Between 2001 and 2009, the Portland metropolitan statistical area’s per capita GDP actually increased more than any other city’s, by 23%.

America-y Gallery

4 07 2011

Some not particularly high-quality, but eminently America-y pictures.
Read the rest of this entry »

We Mutually Pledge to Each Other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor

4 07 2011

Read the rest of this entry »