Utah Planners' Corner - blog-
May 23, 2006
The "Politics" of Planning
Philosophies
By Wilf Sommerkorn
've
been reading an interesting book lately, Politics Lost: How American
Democracy was Trivialized by People Who Think You're Stupid, by Joe
Klein, a political columnist for Time magazine and author of
Primary Colors. Klein has followed politics for over 30 years and
written about presidential campaigns, national affairs and politics in
general for most of that time.
Klein's premise is that since about the mid 60's, political campaigns
have been taken over by pollsters and consultants with the result that we
get very few "real" candidates anymore -- they are packaged and managed and
never allowed to say what they really think. He knocks both major political
parties for doing some of the same things, and for some different things.
As I was reading what he had to say about why the Democratic party has
lost its ability to win many significant elections lately, it began to
resonant with me about some of the things I think we in the planning
profession may be guilty of as well.
Klein writes, "There was an essential political conundrum that shaped the
futility of liberalism in the television era. Democrats slouched toward
public pessimism -- the middle class was always suffering silently, the poor
neglected, the environment degraded -- but they were philosophically
optimistic: humankind was improvable, reform possible, government could help
make things better. Republicans, by contrast, were publicly optimistic --
the United States was exceptional, the greatest country in the world, and
anyone who said otherwise was unpatriotic -- but privately realistic and
often pessimistic: people were who they were, the poor would always be with
us and there was no sense trying to change them. These fundamental beliefs
had significant implications when it came to running political campaigns. In
public, Reagan's 1984 'Morning in America' was countered by Congressman
Richard Gephardt's 1988 'it's close to midnight and getting darker all the
time.'"
"In retrospect, it seems clear that a primary cause of the Democratic
Party's decline was its refusal to acknowledge legitimate public (feelings)
about crime, welfare dependency, affirmative action, and forced busing to
acheive integration."
To get the full depth of what Klein is saying, you really must read more
of the book. But it struck me about how this seemed similar to some of the
things I've been reading lately about approaches to the philosophies of
urban planning.
For example, the ideas of James Kunstler seem to be getting a lot of play
in planner circles about suburban growth. Here are some recent quotes from
Kunstler's blog:
"For those of us positioned against the suburban juggernaut, 'growth'
invokes the destruction of more landscape, the conversion of pastures and
croplands into McHousing subdivisions, with a long menu of additional
liabilities -- not least being a huge investment in a living arrangement
with no future. One would think the 'homebuilders' could see this coming --
with oil edging toward $70 -- but the truth is that their companies are
programmed for only one kind of behavior -- to keep building 3000 square
foot McHouses 27 miles outside Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Denver, et
cetera."
"There are many ways of viewing this 'growth' predicament, and some
strategies we can turn to in the face of it. An obvious one is to change our
behavior, to stop acting as though our destructive, terminal, and futile
activities were beneficial or indispensable. For instance, we could yield to
the reality that the age of mass motoring will have to end. Instead of
desperately seeking 'alternative fuels' to run our 100 million cars, we
could make an effort to restore our railroads. Instead of a million
McHousing starts out in the meadows and cornfields, we could repair our
existing towns and cities. ... Anyway, we are going to need every meadow,
cornfield, and pasture that we have, because as cheap energy wanes, we are
going to be desperate to grow enough food to feed ourselves -- another
reason to be wary of alt. fuels fantasies based on growing crops dedicated
to gasoline substitutes."
You can read more at
Kunstler's blog, but be aware that the name of it is a bit crude, "Clusterf---
Nation."
Many other planner-embraced writers sound similar notes about the
"badness" of the suburbs and growth.
The chord these writings struck in me was just what Klein had said in his
book, that these were pronouncements that had some philosophical truth, but
were given by "slouching toward pessimism." This, remember, is the strategy
of those who are generally the losers in our political system.
It also seems to be a lack of acknowledging what, as Klein wrote, the
public feels or has concerns about.
Compare that with what writers like Robert Bruegmann (Sprawl: A
Compact History) are
saying: "(Sprawl) works because it satisfies a lot of needs. When people
have been able to afford it, people move out of cities. We now have tens of
millions of people who can do what only a small minority once could do. ...
It's a way to get things once possessed by only a few. Privacy, mobility --
social and physical -- and choice."
Joel Kotkin, the originator of "The New Suburbanism," says, "We may
continue to decry (the suburbs) and make fun of them... . But we have
embraced the suburbs and made them our home. For most of us, they represent
both our present and our future. Over the next quarter century, according to
a Brookings Institution study, the nation will add 50 percent to the current
stock of houses, offices and shops, and the great majority of that new
building will take place in lower-density locations, not traditional inner
cities."
Richard Carson,
the former Executive Director of Portland METRO, says that one of the
problems with the image of planners today is that we often try to push
things that people do not want. Eventually we wind up being ignored as
irrelevant, or actually spark a revolt, as when voters passed Measure 37 in
Oregon (sound familiar, like what has happened in national elections?).
"Many current government planning policies are being driven by a desire on
the part of environmentalists and some sympathetic elected officials (and, I
would add today, doomsdayers about oil supplies) to change the American
automobile culture. The anti-automobile sales pitch is designed to radically
change our lifestyles, limit our mobility by getting us out of the car, and
to have us walk, ride a bike or use transit. ... I am not suggesting that we
abandon the quest for a more multi-modal transportation system. However, we
should build the system people want. It is clear most people prefer the
automobile to mass transportation."
Now I hear the bells of Klein's writing that says Republicans are more
optimistic in their public face, but more cynical (realisitic?) or
pessimistic in their deeper philosophy -- people aren't really going to
change.
We as planners don't really want to embrace either of these approaches,
do we? Perhaps a Joel Kotkin hits the middle road when he acknowledges
public desire for suburban style growth, but calls for ways to make it
better rather than reject it outright. "This redefinition of suburbia into
someplace more diverse, interesting and multifaceted represents one of the
most revolutionary developments of our times. It provides us with an
opportunity to stop complaining about sprawl and start learning how to make
better the places that most of us have chosen as home."
* * *
Wilf Sommerkorn is Director, Davis County Community &
Economic Development Dept. Chair, Utah APA Legislative Committee
* * *
