Search this Site
Tuesday
09Mar2010

Small Town Values

Our pattern of growth is now more of a belief system - a religion almost - than it is an expression of logic.

This line, buried deep in Monday's post on whether or not we have the capacity to resolve conflict when our core values clash, resonated with Internet users around the country. Google Reader tells me this one line has "gone viral", in a modest sense, appearing as a link in many tweets and blogs. While we welcome those just discovering the Strong Towns movement here in our small part of cyberspace, I want to follow up on why this one statement may have attracted a lot of attention.

My chosen profession - and the unique way I work in it - requires me to attend a ton of meetings. Last year I attended over 120 community meetings, mostly city and township government, providing assistance as a planner/engineer. At many of these meetings I will be assisting the community with a planning process, helping them set goals and strategies for achieving an identified, common vision. 

At one recent meeting, we were proceeding through a group exercise to establish community goals and I brought the group to a point where they were faced with a clash of values. What do we do when a new development costs more to provide service to than it generates in tax revenue? In small towns, as you have seen on this blog, this situation is the default occurrence.

The answer is a slippery slope. If we continue to build such developments, there is an implied tax increase in the future (Core Value #1: Low Taxes) where current residents are essentially subsidizing a developer by committing to shoulder the future, unfunded maintenance burden. If we limit such developments, we are imposing restrictions on what someone can do with their property (Core Value #2: Limited Government Regulation), restrictions that many see as unfair in light of what others have been allowed to do in the past.

It is tough to get past this, and most often people will end up rejecting the premise (that new development in our current model does not pay for itself), even though they deep-down understand it is true.

Clash of values unresolved. Our belief system rejects the challenging premise and we can remain ignorant and happy.

For those of us that see this clearly for what it is, there is a religious feel to it. The desire to believe is so strong that anything that questions the core belief is rejected as heresy. As was recently said to me in one meeting:

"Of course it pays for itself - how else would we be here?"

Oh my.

Recently I was part of a panel put together by Minnesota Public Radio to discuss issues of growth and development in exurban communities. As part of the event, MPR presented a video put together by Nikki Tundel. It is brilliant. In a very real, yet charming and respectful way, the video captures many of the value clashes I routinely am trying to resolve in the communities we work with. It is particularly striking since the words are those of the residents of rural Baldwin Township, an exurban community here in Minnesota.

This topic fascinates me, so there will be more on it to come here in the future. For now, take a few minutes to watch this video and make your own mental count of how many clashing core values you hear.

 

You can continue this Strong Towns conversation by posting a comment or by joining us on Facebook. You can also follow Strong Towns on Twitter. We appreciate all of the feedback and support.

Tuesday
09Mar2010

Friedman and a Green G.O.P.

Yesterday we wrote about whether or not we, as a country, could question our own values. This was not so much a political argument as a societal one. While both parties seem ideologically entrenched, our society evolves. Will that evolution bring about a change in political direction? We must do more than hope.

On our off-day, I wanted to pass along an op-ed by Thomas Friedman, one of our favorite columnists, called "How the G.O.P. Goes Green." As a registered member of the G.O.P. (other members of Strong Towns are registered members of other political parties - we are non-partisan as an organization), I found some of the thoughts compelling. That is, compelling in the same way we wrote last year about branding New Urbanism for small towns. There is a lot of common ground out there based on values we all share.

The article is essentially an interview with Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, with some Friedman logic sprinkled in. A good read that we recommend not waiting until Friday for.

So Graham’s approach to bringing around his conservative state has been simple: avoid talking about “climate change,” which many on the right don’t believe. Instead, frame our energy challenge as a need to “clean up carbon pollution,” to “become energy independent” and to “create more good jobs and new industries for South Carolinians.” He proposes “putting a price on carbon,” starting with a very focused carbon tax, as opposed to an economywide cap-and-trade system, so as to spur both consumers and industries to invest in and buy new clean energy products. He includes nuclear energy, and insists on permitting more offshore drilling for oil and gas to give us more domestic sources, as we bridge to a new clean energy economy.

“Cap-and-trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die — and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon,” Graham argues. “The technology doesn’t make sense until you price carbon. Nuclear power is a bet on cleaner air. Wind and solar is a bet on cleaner air. You make those bets assuming that cleaning the air will become more profitable than leaving the air dirty, and the only way it will be so is if the government puts some sticks on the table — not just carrots. The future economy of America and the jobs of the future are going to be tied to cleaning up the air, and in the process of cleaning up the air this country becomes energy independent and our national security is greatly enhanced.”

Remember, he adds: “We are more dependent on foreign oil today than after 9/11. That is political malpractice, and every member of Congress is responsible.”

 

You can continue this Strong Towns conversation by posting a comment or by joining us on Facebook. You can also follow Strong Towns on Twitter. We appreciate all of the feedback and support.

Monday
08Mar2010

Questioning our Values

Endurance is frequently a form of indecision.  ~Elizabeth Bibesco, Haven, 195

I spent the last weekend pondering an important question: Do we as a county have the capacity to question our own values?

This post is not going to be a diatribe about how our values are messed up, but more of a reflection on the decision-making process itself. At a time when we seemed paralyzed as a nation while we careen into one crisis after another, we need to know if we have the capacity to self-correct.

I'm rereading Michael Shaara's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, Killer Angels. It is an historical-fiction account of the battle of Gettysburg, the decisive, tide-changing battle in the Civil War. It is an incredible, inspiring novel I would recommend for everyone - even those adverse to tales of military conflict. If you ever get the chance to visit Gettysburg, do yourself a favor and go. It is a humbling experience.

What strikes me now about Killer Angels is how the Southern Army defeated themselves because their core values failed them. They abandoned the hard-earned knowledge they had gained in battle, the tough lessons they had taught the Union Army, and instead of making a tactically decisive move that likely would have won them the war, they instead charged up a hill to their doom. Let me elaborate.

The American Civil War began with southern states, including Virginia, seceding from the Union. When it became clear that the North was going to enforce the union by military means, armies formed and prepared for battle. Those battles would initially be fought in the south, most decisively in Virginia on ground very near Washington D.C.

The battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, two major conflicts involving Robert E. Lee's command, should have taught the South some clear lessons. In those battles, the Union Army headed south into Virginia. Lee's Army was dug in, waiting. Lee occupied the high ground and, in terms of terrain, had every tactical advantage. The Union commanders, being pushed hard from Washington to use their superior numbers to attack, walked right into slaughter after slaughter. 

After Chancellorsville, following Napoleon's tenant that, "the only logical outcome of a defensive war is surrender," Lee decided to bring the Rebel Army north and take the fight to the Union. With the Union Army reeling from defeat and clearly lacking capable leadership, it was thought that a decisive battle on Union soil would end the war. 

Killer Angels begins as the armies converge on Gettysburg. The picture the book paints is even more real in my mind having seen the site in person. The Union Army was first to the scene and occupied the high ground to the east. The Confederate Army came from the west and would have to cross a wide clearing and then advance, under fire, up a steep hill. This was crazy.

As Shaara brilliantly gets into the minds of the commanders, his tale describes how Robert Lee disagreed with his second-in-command, General James Longstreet. Longstreet felt that the lessons of Fredericksburg, where he had commanded the Confederate troops atop the defensive hill, were apparent. They should not attack the Union Army on such poor ground. They should swing the Confederate troops to the south, position them between the Union Army and Washington D.C. and then back into their capital, fighting a defensive war on the best ground of their choosing.

General Lee would have none of it, and this is where the values question comes in. In the book, it is pride - the "we can't retreat" type of pride - that compels Lee to attack at Gettysburg. And this is not simply Lee's shortcoming. Sharra depicts it as the mentality of the entire Southern Army. We don't retreat. We don't withdraw. As Lee is reported to have said,

"If the enemy is there tomorrow, we must attack him."

The rest is history. Lee attacks, his troops are predictably cut down and he subsequently orders a retreat back to Virginia. The war drags on through that year and the next until the South is forced to surrender.

This is where history is interesting to me, because I can't help but ponder the larger question. Obviously by today's set of values, there would be nothing dishonorable and everything tactically brilliant about Longstreet's advice. It is hard to understand a value system that would rather run up a hill and be killed than fall back a few miles and dramatically increase your chances of winning. It seems so foreign to us now, yet it was this hubris that changed the course of history and, ultimately, allowed the North to turn the tide of the war.

And in Killer Angels, it is not just Lee and his commanders that thought Longstreet was crazy. The troops - the ones who would die first - looked up the hill and said, "There they are. What are we waiting for?" From our view of history in 2010, this is not gallantry but madness. These were not "southern gentlemen". They were pompous fools.

Or were they?

This is where I get to Strong Towns. So much of our pattern of growth is now more of a belief system - a religion almost - than it is an expression of logic. Even when we give specific examples of where our approach is bankrupting us, it is tough to get buy-in. Sure, Chuck, that example is pretty remarkable, but overall that can't possibly be true. We persist in our beliefs, even when confronted with facts that challenge the reality as we see it.

  • Driving equals freedom, even when we give ourselves no option but to be a slave to our cars, wasting years of our lives in the "freedom" of traffic congestion.
  • More parking helps businesses, as our eyes see failing business after failing business in our downtowns full of parking.
  • Wider roads are safer, as we build fences to keep our kids from getting anywhere near them.
  • People don't like density, as condo units sell out and single-family, exurban homes fade into foreclosure. 
  • We need to grow our tax base to reduce taxes, as our tax burdens continue to climb.
  • We want limited government, as nearly every city in the country turns to Washington D.C. for grants, aid and bailouts.

Can we question our own values, determine where they fatally clash and make logical, proactive decisions about the future? Or do we need to wait for the decisive battle, when the broken bodies of our own delusions are left to rot and we retreat back to whence we came?

We have to do better. We need a national dialog on our values, which are systematically being undermined by our pattern of development. Please join us in building an America of Strong Towns from the bottom up.

 

You can continue this Strong Towns conversation by posting a comment or by joining us on Facebook. You can also follow Strong Towns on Twitter. We appreciate all of the feedback and support.