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.

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.

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.

Enjoy this week's news.

• This week I was asked to participate in a forum on Baldwin Township put on by Minnesota Public Radio. It dealt with issues of growth, development, annexation, incorporation, road maintenance, rural life.....all things that we are passionate about here at Strong Towns. MPR is looking in depth at this exurban township in a series they are calling Ground Level. There are a couple of online articles that may interest the ST.org audience, including one on the cost of unplanned growth and another on how the recession is changing the township. Way to go, MPR. Well done. 

• In Minnesota, with our current budget shortfall and a larger one yet looming for the next biennium, aid to local governments has been  an "easy" cut for the state legislature. This is making for some interesting, but necessary, discussions as the costs of our development pattern trickle down to the lowest levels of government. At least one town is still looking at this as "trimming fat". It never ceases to amaze me how we will cut parks and police yet the enormous costs of our inefficient development pattern is the last cut we consider. Let's see....wider roads so we can get save 40 seconds on our commute or things that make our community enjoyable to live in?

[City Administrator] Clark said the city would need to increase its levy by 34 percent to recoup funds lost this year if the proposed unallotment sees fruition. The unallotment is significant, he said, because offsetting the amount lost would, in theory, mean eliminating the entire parks department or one-third of the police department’s officers.

• The LGA cuts have also revealed some interesting conflict of values as those advocating limited government face the reality of what that means. In my hometown they debated, and ultimately failed to approve, a resolution rejecting the cuts. I don't make this point to belittle the values but to point out that we have had our cake and eaten it too for a long time now. We face a future, at all levels of government, where we will not be trimming fat but making difficult discussions over our values. We need that conversation.

Council member Mary Koep offered a substitute to the resolution that would eliminate the paragraph urging the Legislature to reject Pawlenty's budget cuts for 2010.

Instead, Koep offered an amendment that Brainerd would urge Pawlenty, the Legislature, the city and groups that lobby on behalf of the city to work together for new ideas to meet the state's budget crisis.

"It seems to me a much more positive approach than being so negative and gimme, gimme, gimme," Koep said. 

• The world will get really interesting here in Minnesota if local governments are actually given more freedom over the revenue side of their budgets. Right now, they are not allowed to tax outside of some very proscribed and limited mechanisms. As this article suggests, there are all kinds of creative ways in which local governments will likely seek to raise revenue. As for me....you can tax my digital download when you pry it from my cold, dead hard drive.

A coalition of Minnesota mayors reeling from more proposed cuts in state aid to municipal coffers Friday proposed a way to indirectly prop up their budgets: Tax tattoos, facials, manicures, body piercings and digital downloads.

• I spent an extended time in Italy several years ago and, bringing my American ways, found it remarkable how much they spent on food and clothes and how small their apartments and cars were. As I grew to appreciate their values, I came to see a lot about the Italian lifestyle that was endearing. Certainly any culture where you can sleep past 8 AM, take a nap in the afternoon and then stay up late having a large dinner of amazing food with family and friends had redeeming qualities. That, and the gelato. Oh my...gelato. In that context, this article on designing cities for quality of life resonates as something we need to seriously ponder as our culture evolves and ages.

“If we in the Third World measure our success or failure as a society in terms of income, we would have to classify ourselves as losers until the end of time,” declares Peñalosa. “So with our limited resources, we have to invent other ways to measure success. This might mean that all kids have access to sports facilities, libraries, parks, schools, nurseries.”

• Lastly, the tragedy in Haiti has brought some creative genius to bear on the reconstruction. One of those genius minds belongs to Andres Duany. In this video he shares some of the complexities of this challenging undertaking.

Rebuilding Haiti from Marvin Joseph on Vimeo.

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.

I offered that they could simply change their city code to allow all of their single-family homes to be turned into duplexes. That would allow them, at no cost, to more than double their population and close the financial gap between their tax base and their enormous long-term infrastructure maintenance liabilities.

Here is how we ended the post:

In a city with one of the highest foreclosure rates in the state, this seems a better (albeit less flashy) way to grow and help your residents. Certainly better than begging Washington for money or leveraging your future for shiny new stuff today.

This is so obvious, so why has it not been done already? The answer to that question is another reason why the federal government should not be wasting our money on places like Rogers.

So what is that answer? Why have they not already done this?

It's simple. They don't want to.

They like their single-family homes. They like their garages and cars. They like their cul-de-sacs and wide streets. They like their big boxes and their drive thru food.

They like their front yards. Their back yards. Their side yards. Both of them.

They like living in Rogers, and that means they like single-family homes on moderately-sized lots on the fringe of the metro area. They do not want duplexes. Not multi-family housing either. If they wanted that, they would live somewhere else. If you ask, they will say, "That's not why we moved here."

Our Strong Towns reply is: more power to them! In America the people of Rogers have the right to live in essentially whatever fashion they choose. If they want single-family lots, that is their choice. To each their own.

Our objection is paying for it. Why should the American taxpayer sink $34 million into supporting the Rogers lifestyle - or the lifestyle of any of the thousands of similar communities in the country? What is our return on this investment? Of all the places we could spend our limited resources, is subsidizing a development-pattern that is not financially viable, or even productive, really a priority?

As we argued with Randal O'Toole: Let Them Eat Lobster!

If we stopped subsidizing inefficient development, we would stop seeing inefficient development. This fact alone should unite fiscal conservatives (who abhor government waste) with environmentalists and urban advocates (who abhor a wasted landscape).

It is time for a Strong Towns approach.

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.

As we wrote on Monday, Lobbyist and former Mn/DOT Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg indicated that a new proposed interchange in Rogers would not be sprawl-as-usual but would be built on a different pattern. He's a good lobbyist because he understands the language being spoken in Washington, where "livability" is the new buzzword. A recent announcement highlighted a policy shift in how federal transportation dollars are spent.

In a dramatic change from existing policy, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today proposed that new funding guidelines for major transit projects be based on livability issues such as economic development opportunities and environmental benefits, in addition to cost and time saved, which are currently the primary criteria.

Here is how Tinklenberg represents the Rogers vision:

"Without the intersection...it'll just develop in large lots," he [Tinklenberg] said. "Kind of sprawled development without the kinds of concentrations and densities that connect jobs and housing, that provide the alternative and variety of housing...and that creates opportunities to support transit."

So is Rogers really prepared to do this?

As we pointed out on Monday, the plan Rogers has recently adopted calls for 470 acres of new "sprawl" (their word) and just 12-acres of high-density development (the kind that connects jobs and housing). Looking deeper at their city code further undermines their contention. For comparison, we'll look at the provisions Rogers has adopted and contrast that with a model that would create the neighborhoods they claim to seek: the Smartcode.

Rogers has three residential zones: the R2 Single-family, the R3 Mid-density and the R-4 Multi-family. The first thing to note in all of these zones is that they generally do not allow commercial uses. Those that are allowed are not neighborhood commercial-type of businesses (you can't build a corner grocery store, for example, but you can build a nursing home). If you really want to connect jobs and housing, as with the Smartcode, the first step is to stop separating them. Rogers has no mixing of uses.

Another feature of the Smartcode is the promotion of multi-family housing units by-right (no extra regulation or permitting needed). In Rogers, even duplex units are frowned upon.

Duplex

• R2 - Excluded
• R3 - Special permitting needed
• R4 - Excluded

Multi-family (3 units or more)

• R2 - Excluded
• R3 - Special permitting needed
• R4 - Permitted

It is density, however, where there is the greatest difference between the Rogers code and the Smartcode. The zone with ostensibly the highest density, the R4 Multi-family zone, does not have density or lot size criteria. Just the setbacks, however, require 2,420 square feet of wasted vacant space for each building constructed. Thirty-foot front and rear setbacks create an environment that is just not walkable.

In the R3 zone, the setbacks are equally ridiculous. So is the density.

• Single family: 3.3 units per acre
• Duplex: 5.7 units per acre
• Multi-family: 8 units per acre

These are only theoretical since the required setbacks as applied would prohibit construction at these densities. In comparison, Smartcode provides for between 12 and 24 units per acre using Traditional Neighborhood Design.

It is clear that we have limited ability to afford new transportation infrastructure, particularly interchanges. As we transition to a new economic reality, when we make these types of massive public investments in the future we need to have the land use approach in place to maximize the return on investment. The Rogers growth model does not come close.

Here is a Strong Towns idea for Rogers to accommodate its growth projections in a cost-efficient way: The Rogers Comprehensive Plan indicates that they currently have 5,900 households - almost all are single-family - and they intend to add 4,700 more households over the next 20 years. Instead of building millions and millions of dollars of new infrastructure to support/induce that new development, what if they simply changed their code to allow their massive supply of single family homes to be converted to duplexes?

Not only would this simple approach cost nothing, it would allow the city to accommodate all of its growth projections, provide it with additional tax base that is desperately needed to maintain its existing infrastructure, would add no additional infrastructure maintenance liabilities and, most importantly, would give many property owners revenue options for making their mortgage payments (they could build an apartment over the garage and rent it out, for example). In a city with one of the highest foreclosure rates in the state, this seems a better (albeit less flashy) way to grow and help your residents. Certainly better than begging Washington for money or leveraging your future for shiny new stuff today.

This is so obvious, so why has it not been done already? The answer to that question is another reason why the federal government should not be wasting our money on places like Rogers.

Now Minnesota Public Radio has looked at this project and provided some important insights that support our Strong Towns interpretation.

In a macro sense, Friend of ST.org, Professor David Levinson of the University of Minnesota, explains reality.

David Levinson, a University of Minnesota transportation engineering professor, questions the wisdom of building new interchanges when we can't take care of what we have.

"We clearly haven't been spending enough to maintain our existing facilities," he said. "That suggests we shouldn't be spending very much on new infrastructure when we have a lot of infrastructure that will deteriorate and be very costly to replace when it fails."

We would actually add to that comment that perhaps one of the reasons why we have not been spending enough on maintenance is that we have built too much infrastructure to actually be able to keep up with the maintenance. It is a little like saying the Titanic sank because the pumps weren't big enough to pump out all the water. While true, it misses the underlying cause.

The most revealing part of this report is how the lobbyist for the project, former Mn/DOT Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg, essentially argues that we need to save Rogers from itself. 

Tinklenberg argues creating the new Brockton Lane interchange in combination with local zoning restrictions will actually avert the kind of haphazard development that plagues some suburbs.

"Without the intersection...it'll just develop in large lots," he said. "Kind of sprawled development without the kinds of concentrations and densities that connect jobs and housing, that provide the alternative and variety of housing...and that creates opportunities to support transit."

Basically, by this argument, the people of Rogers are so irresponsible and short-sighted that, unless we provide them with $34 million worth of public investment, they are going to develop their land in a self-destructive way. But, if we do give them this huge amount of money, they will not repeat the development pattern they have but will instead do something at "densities that connect jobs and housing."

Maybe Rogers should read the land use section of their own April 2009 Comprehensive Plan. Here is what that document says Rogers has planned for density.

Single Family Homes

• Existing (2008): 1,030 acres (23%)
• Projected (2030): 1,500 acres (33%) 

High Density Residential

• Existing (2008):45 acres (1%)
• Projected (2030): 57 acres (1%)

So, 470 new acres of low-density "sprawl" (to use Tinklenberg's description) and only 12 acres of high-density development. In the context of their argument, that is a joke.

The project financially makes no sense, is a bad investment for Minnesota and will actually make our collective financial problem worse by having a negative rate of return. It should not be done, and we are not the only ones saying this.

Arlene McCarthy, Metropolitan Council's director of transportation services, said most of the projected federal and state money over the next 20 years - 80 percent - will be needed for maintenance - repaving, patching and fixing roads and bridges.

"We estimated there would be only $900 million between now and 2030 for expansion and that's not very much," McCarthy said. "So we want to use that money in a wiser way."

That's about $45 million a year.

Despite the ridiculousness of the project, the Brockton Lane interchange will be built. Here is how: The federal government, through an earmark championed by Representative Erik Paulsen (R) and Senator Amy Klobuchar (D), will pay between $15 and $25 million of the cost. This will force the State of Minnesota to reallocate transportation money that would otherwise go to a more worthy project to the Brockton Lane interchange so that we "don't lose out" on the federal money. Press release. Ribbon cutting. Fake statistics on jobs to be created and/or saved.

In their Comprehensive Plan, Rogers is projecting 4,700 new households over the next 20 years (page 4-13). That means the interchange costs $7,200 per new new household. How about we make Rogers this offer:

You bond for and build the interchange. The state and federal government will then reimburse you $7,200 (plus interest) per new household established in Rogers over the next 20 years. You get more households - a higher return than you project - than you will do real well. Fall short, and.....well, that is the risk you take.

Even though this would still be a bad investment for the taxpayer, I would support this approach over just giving them the interchange. Something tells me the people of Rogers, like their plan indicates, are not serious about making this project work and are only willing to play the game with someone else's money.

Despite this major setback, I did purchase my opening day tickets today. I'll be spending the first regular-season game in Target Field in the left field bleachers. Wow! Spring can't arrive soon enough.

Enjoy the week's news.

• The engineer part of my brain has always liked rating systems. I'm probably one of only a handful of men alive that, as a teenager, used a rating system to decide who to date (until I met my wife, and she broke the metric). So I was excited when I read this week that CH2M HILL (an engineering company) and the University of Washington released a "Green Roads Rating System". I want to look into it more, but it sounds so far like it has a lot of potential.

Sustainability benefits include the reduction of raw materials use, water use, air emissions, wastewater emission, soil/solid emissions; optimized habitat and land use, and improved human health and safety, according to the report.

• We have written here how small towns have undermined their own economic viability by transforming their downtowns through replacing buildings with parking lots and pedestrian-scaled streets with minor highways. Here is an analysis on a larger scale that supports the notion that, as parking goes up, employment and economic activity actually goes down.

• If you thought we were overly dire here at Strong Towns when we wrote about the likelihood that many American cities would be forced into bankruptcy as this economic crisis continues, the Wall Street Journal this week reported that some are already pondering the option.

But many experts fear that a surge in municipal bankruptcy filings is unavoidable. "The day of reckoning is coming," says Michael Pagano, dean of the University of Illinois at Chicago's College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs.

• At Strong Towns we are all about improving towns and neighborhoods through better design. Here is one unique, and seemingly effective, way to improve the necessary boundary between pedestrian space and automobiles - the virtual wall. It is a laser that creates a visual boundary in the travel lane protecting the crosswalk. Love the concept.

• My hometown recently voted, as are thousands of small towns across the country, to delay maintenance of infrastructure as a cost savings measure. This move would appear only slightly less absurd in this case if the city were not moving full speed ahead with the multi-million dollar College Drive expansion project (which, despite not doing anything for the city's economic growth is still their top priority). Without any possibility of affording the maintenance of their current infrastructure, most cities never stop to question if their development pattern is perhaps not efficient. They simply charge ahead with more, digging their hole deeper.....and now delaying maintenance on top of it.

• I was a little cranky with the U.S. Census this week. To make up for my burst of anger, here is the Brookings Institute debunking five myths about the census.

• I'm fascinated with Intelligent Transportation Systems. I can't wait to see what the world will be like twenty years from now, especially if we are forced to innovate more during the intervening years.

Simply providing real-time traffic information could boost the economy, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Deploying such a system would cost $1.2 billion, but it would deliver $30.2 billion in economic returns over 10 years in terms to mobility, safety and environmental savings.

• I'm going to end how I started today, mostly because this hot dog thing is a big deal to me. And lest you think it is simply me, you should check out The Daily Something (great play by play of what it is like to be one of the 30,000+ Twins fans not in the ROF), or you can try this Twins fan profile from Scoreboard Gourmet (they have the timeless lyrics) or you can read the Twins Geek as he recalls his favorite ROF moment. I can't believe that apparently the only audio remaining of this timeless classic is from this guy I found on YouTube. He sings for us all now.

Dear Resident,

In a few days, you will receive a 2010 Census form. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.

Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Groves

Is this what America has been reduced to? Get your fair share? I read this and I literally went through the initial stages of grief - shock, pain, anger, depression - in the span of about five minutes. What have we become?

If I don't get mine, does someone else get more than their fair share? Is there a chance, if I fill out my Census and someone else does not, that I could wind up with more than my fair share? And what is a "fair share" anyways? How will I know when I've received mine?

Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives...and I decline.

I submit to you that no long-range plan has ever met any of those goals, nor will one ever do so because they are impossible to meet over the long run. Efficiencies? When we don’t know what the future will bring or what people will want, we can’t imagine what will be efficient. Priorities? How can people today dictate priorities for the future, and how can Congress — where “all politics is local” — set national priorities anyway? Measuring results? When have government agencies ever bothered to follow up to see if their plans produced the results they claimed? And, by their tedious and time-consuming nature, long-range plans are much more likely to stifle innovations than promote them.

Since planning cannot do the things you ask of it, you have to consider two questions. First, are these goals really that important? Second, to the extent that they are, can you find ways to meet them other than through an endless and complicated planning process?

To a large degree, it makes more sense to focus on today’s problems than to try to plan for the distant future. In Return of the King, Gandolf tells the fellowship that the battle he proposes to fight will not solve all the problems of the world. “Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.”

We don’t know what kind of transportation cities will have in 2030, but we know what problems we face today. If we don’t solve those problems, they will only be worse in 2030. By planning for 2030 instead of solving today’s problems, we are really not planning at all.

To the extent that we do want to promote efficiency or some other national priority, there are much better ways to do so than to require states and metro areas to spend billions of dollars on plans that are obsolete the day they are signed. For example, Congress can distribute funds based on those goals.

I personally believe we would be much better off if transportation were funded more by user fees than by taxes. So one of my Cato reports urges Congress to allocate funds to the states based on the user fees those states collect. This would result in a “race to the top” as states substitute user fees for taxes to fund their transportation programs and be eligible for a larger share of federal funds. If you have other goals, I am sure you can figure out ways to put those goals in funding formulas instead of in a planning process that, you admit, hasn’t worked anyway.

Ultimately, the problem with long-range planning is that the world doesn’t work that way. Planners imagine a rational process, but we don’t have enough data to develop a rational plan, so it devolves into political battles. The world is based on incentives, not rational plans, so those who truly want efficient and sensible transportation should design incentives aimed at achieving those goals, not rely on a fantasy of a planning process that does not exist in reality.