Last October I had a run of good timing. The video of my TEDx talk on the important difference between a road and a street was released and, a week later, we released the companion booklet to the Curbside Chat. Both of these efforts brought us and the Strong Towns movement a lot of attention and, through it all, we caught the gaze of one of the people I admire greatly, James Howard Kunstler.
I've met Jim before at the Congress for the New Urbanism. I blog during CNU and so I sit in the front and, when Jim sat down beside me, I made it a point to shake his hand and greet him. Like a giddy school kid, I even blogged about the experience. I'm sure he would find that amusing.
Last October I got an email from Jim giving me some praise about the TEDx video and the Curbside Chat booklet. He kind of casually threw out the idea that we could someday do a podcast together. I may be a giddy school kid at heart sometimes, but I'm also an opportunist. A chance to have an extended conversation with one of my favorite social commentators was one of those experiences I had to pounce on. I emailed him back and said I'd come to his place -- or Duncan Crary's -- and we could make that happen.
Now I was going to be in New York on business, and I've always wanted to see upstate, so this was something I could have fit into my schedule. Unfortunately, I think I came across as a little over eager, especially since when I said I would "drive up" Jim apparently assumed I meant from Minnesota. He thought that was ridiculous -- told me so in the way you would imagine him doing -- and that's kind of where things ended.
Fast forward to 2012 and I'm sitting here with a copy of the KunstlerCast book written by the host of the program, Duncan Crary. The two of us are Facebook friends and, in chatting with him about the book, he agreed to come on the Strong Towns podcast.
We were able to pull that off this week. I want to take the blog post today and make sure that those of you that don't subscribe to the podcast know that the interview is there. I thought it was fun and it turned out really well. Duncan is a good subject for an interview. He made many thoughtful and insightful points that you don't often get a chance to hear from him on the KunstlerCast.
Although we've never met in person, I feel a little bit of a kindred spirit with him. We are both of Generation X and, while he laughed at my use of the term "slacktivism", we've both chosen to live in small towns and to, in our own non-traditional, Gen X way, push for change in those places. While my parents (and his parents probably too) would scratch their heads at the idea of spending significant time on a river barge this summer to write about the experience, I totally got where we was coming from when he said that was one of his upcoming projects. Hopefully we'll do another interview when that book is out.
A few things about Duncan. Not only is he the host of the KunstlerCast, but he runs Duncan Crary Communications where he does P.R., publishing and all-around assisting with communication projects. He comes across as a very down to earth guy; someone who believes in what he is doing but doesn't take himself too seriously. If Jim Kunstler is the court jester -- a title he has given himself that has far deeper significance than simply "clown" -- then Duncan is the town crier. These two are a great team.
Finally, I have to recommend the book Duncan has written. I'll admit that I was skeptical when I heard he wrote a book about conversations from the podcast -- how interesting could that be? Having read it now, I can say that it is very good. I'm immersed in this stuff and I learned new things from it.
For those of you wanting a good overview of Kunstler's thinking and for those of you that want to share JHK with others but may fear being embarrassed by the sometimes "salty" language he can use, this book is a great tool. The format is, by design, conversational. You can digest it in small bites or in large pieces. And the Kunstler world through Duncan's eyes is not necessarily sanitized, but it is communicated in a way that I think will reach a broader audience.
If you would like to know more about how to apply Strong Towns thinking to your community, join us at the Strong Towns Network, a social enterprise for those working to implement a Strong Towns approach.
Cognitive dissonance is where one holds two competing thoughts in the mind at the same time. The idea that the economics of our system of living is forcing us to contract does not correlate with the popular political notion of getting America growing again. Would cognitive dissonance be an incremental improvement over the blind ignorance our political establishment seems to have of our current situation?
We want to thank the Blandin Foundation for their support of the Strong Towns movement. The Blandin Foundation has challenged us to demonstrate support for our work by raising $50,000 over the next twelve months, which they will then match. If you find value in what we do here, we ask that you support us with a contribution and help us spread this message further.
It was the overlap of these two fascinating books that got me thinking about the politics of what someone like James Kunstler calls The Long Emergency, what Richard Florida called The Great Reset and what I would probably categorize as an end to the Suburban Growth Ponzi Scheme in America.
Politics weighed heavily in Beinart's and Mauldin’s books, but not the petty kind that you see on cable or the horse race kind associated with straw poll results. I do a weekly radio segment on Minnesota politics (Thursdays at 7:20 AM on Northern Community Radio, 91.7 KAXE) and I have little patience or interest in that side of it. What fascinates me are the policy decisions; how those deep and enduring choices are made, intentionally or not, by the people in a position to make them.
Beinart revealed that, throughout history, American leaders often understood the problems but faced the supreme obstacle of bringing the American people along with them. Whether it was the idealism of Wilson, the level-headedness of Eisenhower, the savvy of Kennedy or the ability to connect of Reagan, the Icarus Syndrome portrayed leaders that were looking beyond the public mood to a place where America would be better, if they could only lead us there.
Of course, the story or Icarus is of a boy that, empowered with wings, flies so high his wings melt and he is sent crashing back to earth. With Beinart, for Wilson there is Truman. For Kennedy there is Nixon. For Reagan there is G.W. Bush. The latter each take the vision and prudence of the former and, freed from the burden of public opposition (which was eroded by the former's success in more limited ventures) they advance to new "heights" only to come crashing back to reality (ie. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq).
So here's my thought problem: Do America's leaders today know and understand the problems we face but, because it involves so many difficult choices, basically avoid talking about it directly to us (Wilson, Kennedy, Reagan) but instead are working behind the scenes to slowly move us in the right direction?
If I am given thirty seconds to summarize where our economy is at, here is how I do it: Following World War II, we turned our massive economic capabilities into building suburban America, a great experiment in creating prosperity. We were successful for a time, at least for some, and it made us the envy of the world. As our model started to break down in the mid-1970's, we turned to debt and financial gimmickry to keep it afloat. We've just about run out of our ability to do that, with households, companies and governments all massively over-indebted. When this ends, we will need to deal squarely with the mess we have made; our loss of productive capacity, our consumption-based economy, our reliance on the automobile and oil, the unproductive places we've built, our social fragility... Our current economic problems are not just a transient condition or some part of a natural business cycle. They are the beginning of a great unwinding that will result in the physical contraction or transformation of our very cities and towns.
I think much of this is -- or should be -- apparent to our leadership. The rhetoric they use suggests that we are in the throes of one of humanity's epic struggles, that the very future of America's Republic is at stake. The term "structural change" has been in common usage for some time now. They have to see this stuff, don't they?
I'm starting to believe that they don't.
Let's take President Barack Obama first. I was absolutely stunned to read the recent NY Times piece on the internal debate at the White House over how to approach the economy. The strategies they are hashing over are the epitome of fiddling while Rome burns. From the article:
Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.
But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure.
The entire article is like this. Free trade agreements? Tax incentives? It does not sound to me like anyone grasps that there is a bigger issue here, that there is more going on than just a pesky economic slowdown. The President even indicated that he had reversed the recession, that we were on the path to recovery, until some "bad luck" in Japan, Europe and Asia set things back.
The other side of the aisle is no better. GOP front runner (and fellow Minnesotan) Michele Bachmann actually suggested that, if she were elected, not only would the economy be fixed in three months but we would be back to $2 per gallon gas. The Tea Party may have put their finger on the biggest problem of our time -- the unsustainable level of indebtedness -- but in all other facets their proponents are in denial of reality. There is no serious narrative here about changes to the suburban experiment.
The record of Rick Perry does little to bring comfort either. The publication Chron.com is doing a four part series on infrastructure investments in Perry's Texas. It is clear that Texas is in the second phase of the three-phase Suburban Ponzi Scheme -- the phase where debt is used to extend the illusion of prosperity -- with Perry himself not only in denial, but advocating for even more.
As governor, Perry advocated the controversial Trans-Texas Corridor, an ambitious transportation scheme that relied on foreign investment and tolls for financing. It was abandoned after the outcry from property owners whose land would have been claimed by eminent domain.
Since then, the state has relied heavily on issuance of bonds to build highways. For the first time in history, the Texas Legislature this year appropriated more cash to pay for debt service than to pay for actually building new roads: $850 million per year versus $575 million.
Lawmakers also approved the use of $3 billion approved by voters in 2007 for road construction, but the Texas Department of Transportation estimates the state must pay $65 million in annual financing costs for every $1 billion it borrows through the sale of bonds.
The state began borrowing money in 2003 to pay for roads and will owe $17.3 billion by the end of next year, contributing to the rapid escalation of total state debt, from $13.4 billion in 2001 to $37.8 billion today.
The money will cover just a fraction of the transportation needs identified by planning experts. The Texas Transportation Institute two years ago placed the state's highway construction needs through 2030 at $488 billion.
Even here in Minnesota, we have this weird political cabal to support the Old Economy Project that Refuses to Die (also known as the $700 million St. Croix Bridge in Stillwater). The bridge is three times the cost of the 35W replacement and will carry only a tenth of the traffic. It requires a waiver from Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers protection. The constituency here is a small town on the far edge of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Region and some property owners in the neighboring state of Wisconsin. For Minnesota's politicians left and right, there are numerous reasonable grounds to oppose this project, or even just shrug shoulders and say, "wish we could, but we can't." Instead, Republican representatives Bachmann and Cravaack have joined with Democratic Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Democrat Governor Dayton to support the entire project. A last minute face-saving "out" for the Governor was even rejected.
If there is any understanding anywhere in government that the suburban experiment is ending, why would we be pushing so hard to spend so much on its last gasp?
Mauldin's assessment of the debt supercycle relies less on politics and personalities than Beinart's work in the Icarus Syndrome. He used the "kick the can" metaphor frequently, but even he limits his analysis to the financial statistics, overlooking the impact of energy, population growth and other finite resource-based issues. The future he paints is filled with the pain of a difficult transition. I, for one, would be happy if our politicians could just acknowledge that much.
Could it really be that our political establishment is so blissfully unaware of what is really going on that cognitive dissonance -- having two competing ideas in ones head -- would be an improvement?
We rely on you to fund this blog. If you stop by here very Monday for some fresh ideas on building Strong Towns, please consider supporting our efforts. Even the smallest donation has big ramifications for what we are doing.
This week I was able to participate in an exclusive deal for an elite group of Minnesota Twins season ticket holders. I was one of the lucky few (or so I thought) allowed the first chance to buy a ticket for the opening home game of the season. I was thinking this was my one opportunity to sit behind the plate, but no. Even though I logged in seconds after the designated time to make my purchase, I wound up in the outfield bleachers. I'm not going to complain because it is March and, despite three inches of snow this week, I actually got to spend time thinking about baseball at Target Field. Can't wait to see that grass.
Enjoy the week's news.
We had a great Curbside Chat in East Grand Forks last year and we love City Administrators like Scott Huizenga that are bold enough to blog. Seriously, it takes some courage and leadership to put yourself out there for constituents. Thanks for the reference, Scott, we're so happy to be part of your discussion. Supporting you and other public officials is a big part of why we are here.
What I love best about the guys at Strong Towns is their political diversity. One of the partners in the non-profit is a liberal Democrat; and the other is a card-carrying Republican. Strong Towns continues to show how sustainable development is not only environmentally conscious, but it also makes fiscal sense for the taxpayer.
I also have to say thank you to Charles R. Wolfe, a Facebook friend and fellow blogger, who last week referred to our work here in the same sentence with Steve Mouzon (Original Green). I joked that it was lucky for me that my last name starts with the same letter and has the same cadence as Steve's (otherwise it may not have been selected for the sentence), but it is an honor to even be on the mind of someone like Wolfe. Thank you.
Our friend Riordan Frost of Minnesota 2020 connected the young with the old in an article about the necessity of building complete streets. Citing an AARP report, Frost points out that the communities we have built are not designed to stand the test of time. Thanks Riordan for including our work in your analysis.
The AARP report focuses on engineers and planners, who are on the front lines of designing our streets. As the report points out, these planners and engineers usually learn their profession in a car-centric manner. This is what leads to wide roads where cars can safely drive at high speeds through neighborhoods. The AARP report recommends slower, more narrow streets with higher visibility for pedestrians and cars alike. Of course, if streets are going to be designed for all users, they need sidewalks as well, which many suburbs lack completely.
Friend of STB Sid Burgess was apparently the impetus behind this article spreading Strong Towns thinking. A blast from our past - thanks Sid! We still need a good phone call. Also, Gordon Price of the Price Tags blog from beautiful Vancouver picked up some of our work this week. Nice blog - thanks for the love.
A few weeks ago we wrote about school busing and how it provides a enormous subsidy for people who have chosen to live remotely, forcing many districts to transfer money from the classroom to transportation to meet their mandate to bus every kid. Now the state of South Dakota is actually voting to remove the busing mandate altogether, allowing schools to choose whether or not to provide transportation. Read the article comments if you want a great discussion on a complex issue.
From way out in San Diego (oh, would I love to be in San Diego right now), a gentleman named Gil Miltenberger wrote an opinion piece on the value of narrow streets. I got connected to it through Google Alerts as he included a reference to our Confessions piece at the end of the article, but this is good stuff on its own. I love the fact that he says (I paraphrase) stick it to your stupid traffic calming measures and instead just stop building the streets for fast cars. He even uses simple math in his argument for those too ignorant to get it - just awesome! It looked like this was Gil's only venture in opinion writing at this paper. I hope he does not let the uninformed commentors dissuade him from continue to advocate for Strong Towns.
If you trip over the same rock every day and skin your knee, don't buy more Band-Aids ---- move the rock. The problem isn't the lack of a city traffic-calming program, it is the unwillingness of cities/counties to change their planning and traffic policies.
For instance, I live in an Oceanside neighborhood of 98 homes, and our curb-to-curb street width is 36 feet. Why 36 feet? I don't know; it sure seems like a lot of asphalt.
Well, 36 feet provides for parking on both sides of 8 feet each and two-way traffic lanes of 10 feet each (8+8+10+10 = 36).
But there's no need for so much parking. Our street is not a "collector/arterial," so why is it so wide? It can't be because of the number of cars per day (98 homes x 3 cars/day = 300 trips, probably less). A long section of our street is straight, and people drive way over the 25 mph speed limit.
Last week we referred to an article by Mary Newsom at The Naked City blog. I got an email from a reader this week telling me to check out one of Newsom's latest posts on building a bypass to bypass an old bypass. Great post - really struck a nerve as I've seen this happen soooooo many times. What a colossal waste. On my drive to Minneapolis I get to drive past many new Wal-Marts built along bypasses and many old Wal-Marts boarded up along the old bypass corridor. This is the essence of the American economic development strategy and our Mechanisms of Growth. If you are not a reader of The Naked City, check it out.
The problem, of course, is that you can hardly go anywhere in North Carolina, or even in the country, and not find a state-taxpayer-built highway envisioned as a "bypass" that has become a traffic nightmare because the local government involved allowed extreme highway glop to be built along it. Even places as comparatively traffic free as Albemarle have clogged bypasses. Shelby wants a bypass of its bypass. They are all what former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory has referred to as "corridors of crap."
Grist had an interview with James Kunstler this week that was great. I also used a couple of Kunstler quotes in our most recent podcast (Is growth the solution or the problem?). But as our long time readers know, my life will not be complete until I can count Jim amongst my Facebook friends. I've had the virtual hand of friendship extended for so long now, but he's left me just hanging there. Ouch. Read the Grist article - great stuff from a brilliant thinker.
The way we've come to do commerce in the USA the past 50 years -- big box chain-store retail -- is not a permanent fixture of the human condition, though for many it has been appended to the list of icons that make up our national identity: mother, apple pie, Walmart.
I maintain that any activity organized at the colossal scale will tend to fail in the face of the compound crises of energy, capital, and ecology (climate change). Giant governments, giant universities, giant retail operations -- all these things will wobble and fail in the years ahead as reality compels us to downscale and re-localize.
The big box chain stores rely on economic formulas that have no chance of surviving under the new stresses loose in the world -- procedures like Walmart's vaunted "warehouse on wheels," which relies on the incessant circulation of tractor-trailer trucks traveling vast distances on the interstate highway system (itself subject to failure in a capital-scarce economy).
The Washington Post ran a "debate" (I use those words loosely) between columnist Ezra Klein and our Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, this week.. Apparently Vilsack took umbrage with a Klein assertion that rural areas are heavily subsidized. While I concur with Klein's point, I thought I could understand a counter argument. That is until I read it. I could not find a compelling or coherent argument, and there are many that could have be made. For example, explain this:
I grew up in a city. My parents would think there was something wrong with America if they knew I was secretary of agriculture. So I’ve seen both sides of this. And small-town folks in rural America don’t feel appreciated. They feel they do a great service for America.
And finally, in preparation for spring and that feeling of hope eternal, here's a little something that made me smile.
If you listen to our podcast and would like to do us a favor, go to iTunes and give us a rating. If you listen to our podcast, have already given us a rating and would like to do us another favor, go to our donations page and become a supporter of the podcast. If you've done that, then sync up, put in your ear buds and tune into our latest podcast; Is growth the solution or the problem?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 | 
I've met Jim before at the Congress for the New Urbanism. I blog during CNU and so I sit in the front and, when Jim sat down beside me, I made it a point to shake his hand and greet him. Like a giddy school kid, I even blogged about the experience. I'm sure he would find that amusing.
