Picture from John Klicker/AP "The Folly of 'Smart Growth'" by Randal O'Toole Thoreau Institute (pdf)
I like
Dangerus. He, uh,
motivates me. I don't know how. Mebbe it's just he posts on things that I've had rolling around in my head and I say "damn" and start writing.
His latest post on
Light Rail hits Oregon's biggest problem right on the head (of the nail, if you don't get the allusion). And drives it home.
When I wrote in an earlier post that
Senate Bill 100 was a creation of the "
Commune of Paris" in 1973, I merely wanted to point out that we live in a fantasy land of opportunities where even the craziest notions get credence, and my pal
Mohammed has to put his life on the line, every day, for the simplest notions of freedom and liberty.
But Oregon didn't get to this fantasy state without a lot of planning. By 1968 Americans were introduced to
Zero Population Growth (ZPG). In his best-selling book, "
The Population Bomb", school kids all over the nation were required to read about
Paul R. Ehrlich's new catastrophe--the destruction of America due to over-crowding population growth, global warming and mass famine.
I'll admit it. Somebody tells me that we're going to end up dying because of over-population and I'll take a look at the problem. Since I'd been alive America had lived under the threat of a nuclear cloud. By 1970 we had
Pete Seeger singing about it (click on Track 24) on TeeVee. But now, not a nuclear bomb...a population bomb! No blooming cloud, just filth and death.
We were forced to read it at school. We heard it innumerable times on the TV. By the time my wife and I decided to have children our minds were made up. Two. ZPG. Moving from DINK to parenthood was commitment enough. (DINK=Dual-income, no kids.) And with increasing capitalization of production in this country, increases in productivity were going to outpace demands for labor. At least, that was my theory. And my theory relied upon the history of economic innovation that has occured, particularly in the past century.
And, up until this time, voluntary limits on population growth combined with voluntary contributions to productivity seemed a hella strong argument for sustained economic growth.
No matter how hard apologists work in an attempt to redeem
Malthus, if you view the work on objective data--instead of normative outcomes--it becomes apparent that innovation would allow for continued economic progress. (For a brief discussion, check
Wiki's Joseph Schumpeter. "According to Schumpeter, Ricardo and Keynes reasoned in terms of abstract models, where they would freeze all but a few variables. Then they could argue that one caused the other in a simple monotonic fashion. This led to the belief that one could easily deduce policy conclusions directly from a highly abstract theoretical model.")
What Malthus, Pete Seeger, Ehrlich and any of the current crop of Social Engineers couldn't, don't and won't admit to is the power of innovation. And our inability to mandate innovation. That doesn't mean that "social activists" won't stop trying. Some of the social goods mandated during the 1960's and 1970's made, and make, sense.
Chances are, if you were born after 1969 you've never heard of
rivers burning. In 1963
Clean Air was mandated federally.
Clean Water was mandated federally in 1972.
According to the USGS, in the 1960's "Oregon's Willamette River was off limits to recreation and the mighty salmon perished." And, in 1969, the Cuyahoga River burns. Again. That's right. The river was on fire. And it hadn't been the first time this particular river burst into flames. That's some serious pollution.
It's hard to argue against federal intervention--governmental intervention--when rivers burn. It's hard to argue against
birds dying. So by 1972, DDT is banned. Growing up in Portland there were days when you couldn't see Mount Hood because of the weather. Then there were days when you couldn't see Mount Hood because of the smog. Smog had to be banned.
By 1973 a majority of state legislators looked at smog, water pollution, dying birds, and the population bomb and decided to intervene again. Confusing intervention with innovation, the State of Oregon adopted
Senate Bill 100 (pdf). I stood in shock as I listened to the "powers-that-be" describe the intent and scope of this bill. The Liberal Arts College at Ole OSU was housed in a run-down hall. On the top floor were the Political Science offices. And in the lounge, meeting with our professors, were Oregon luminaries Tom McCall and State Senator L.B. Day talking to our department's chair and selected professors. Listening to these gentlemen outline the loss of innovation in favor of intervention was shocking. Gentlemen who had taught me Constitutional Law and the value of civilization sold out liberty for state control.
Yes, birds were dead. Yes, rivers were dirty. Yes, our skies needed to be cleaned-up. But where, in a plan crafted in 1973, were we allowing for dynamic innovation in 1983? 1993? Understanding the Roar of the Times can explain our fall into Central Planning. And there was enough tactile, physical evidence of the need for intervention that falling off the cliff "wasn't a concern." I had profs tell me I was worried too much. That we needed to make changes to protect the environment. Read the words of Governor Tom McCall to the legislature in 1973:
"There is a shameless threat to our environment and to the whole quality of life, an unfettered despoiling of the land. Sagebrush subdivisions, coastal ‘condomania,’ and the ravenous rampage of suburbia in the Willamette Valley all threaten to mock Oregon´s status as the environmental model for the nation. We are dismayed that we have not stopped misuse of the land, our most valuable finite natural resource.
"We are in dire need of a state land-use policy, new subdivision laws, and new standards for planning and zoning by cities and counties. The interests of Oregon for today and in the future must be protected from grasping wastrels of the land. We must respect another truism: that unlimited and unregulated growth leads inexorably to a lowered quality of life."(LCD History)
Land use was recognized as something that could be controlled by local governments. All SB 100 did was require local governments to put their plans for the next 50 years down on paper. And then submit those plans to the state government for approval. No big deal. No big change. It was something governments were doing, anyway.
But we've only covered a portion of the fiasco that intervention has cost the state billions in the past 35 years. Well, the state and the federal government. This desire to intervene has been the capstone of state politics. Because we're doing good things. Whether we can afford them, or not.
Like Light Rail. According to Danegerus'
webpage, "In Portland 2/3rds of the budget goes to the 1% of commuters who ride LightRail. As fares only cover 1/6 the budget you have a situation where every $1.25 bus ticket actually costs twice that though I think it's reasonable to subsidize bus service. Do the math. Every $1.25 Train ticket costs the city hundreds of dollars. "
From
PublicPurpose, if you ride the Westside lightrail line, the cost to the City to carry one passenger each year is $9,850.00. The cost of leasing a BMW 740 is $9,149.00 per year. A Saturn SL is $2,326.00 per year. Wouldn't it be cheaper to lease a car for each of these commuters than to spend thousands to put him on a train?
But...we saw rivers on fire. Smog. Dirty water. Dying birds. Salmon die outs. That gave us a blank check to intervene, didn't it? So to protect the state we place limits on growth. That was the purpose of SB 100. Under SB 100 several counties have been picked for development. Rural and Wilderness counties must maintain their rustic character. State intervention is necessary to live a dream dreamt in 1973. But at the same time development was being limited in the state, the type of development that would
be allowed would be development that fit the dream of "
smart growth". (pdf)
From Randal O'Toole's "
The Folly of Smart Growth" (pdf), "Despite the benefits of suburban living, some political leaders and social activists in the early 1970's began to vilify low-density suburbs as "sprawl." The anit-sprawl movement came into prominence in 1973 when George Dantzig and Thomas Saaty published their book
Compact City: A Plan for Livable Urban Environment. The book unleashed a large movement of planners and architects who endorsed government efforts to mandate much higher population densities, more multi-family dwellings, and severe limits on auto driving."
Mandate higher population density. Severe limits on auto driving. Instead of innovation? Intervention. But the tools of intervention are limited, no?
Rob Kremer has been bothered by the tools of intervention. In his article "
soft totalitarians" he writes: "It struck me - Portland is not just an elitist town - it is actually in its own way totalitarian. The elites decide how they think we should live, and then use the coercive instruments available only to government to make us live that way."
In
O'Toole (pdf) the author writes, "Metro planners have also placed a stranglehold on the Portland-area road system. In order to increase the use of public transportation, the agency has publicly announced its goal of increasing roadway congestion to the point of stop-and-go traffic flow on roads parallel to existing or planned transit lines." Remember, governments can intervene. They can't innovate.
So, Oregon is living a mythic existence. State legislators from high-density areas like Portland, Eugene, Salem and Medford continue to insist on government intervention. Communities like Baker, Warrenton and The Dalles become increasingly dependent upon state and federal funds for growth and employment. Lane and Douglas counties are unable to provide for basic K-12 education without massive federal funding.
Victoria Taft had a
funny article about how absurd our state's intervention into planning and transportation has resulted in the utter mystification by our state's planners.
"The other story is the one about IKEA. It's a well known story. Central planners planned a high density center and even gave away taxpayer land, rights of way, and money to Bechtel to do it in exchange for a light rail contract. Part of the deal, of course, was that big box stores were not allowed. No WalMart. No Costco. Nuttin, honey. But the location, lack of planned parking and other "amenities" were so antithetical to making money in that crummy location that nobody came to the party. IKEA made a pitch, and, the planning poohbahs, elected officials, et al looked the other way, removed some of their mandates and said ok. Now we have Randy Leonard complaining about their sign. Gads.IKEA has been trying to get into the Portland market for awhile. Costco wants to expand as does WalMart.Planners: you have "Peter Principled" your way out of your relevance.Bonus question for Walmart haters: From what countries are most of the items in IKEA imported?China and Poland."More lightrail silliness
here. (From Dare!PDX)
We went from understandable concerns about dirty water and air to intervention. Stupid, rude intervention. Mia Birk,
Portland's Bike Transportation Office:
"We had two mottoes that guided us in those days," she explained at a conference years later. "One was, go like hell until you can't go no more, and the other was, it was easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission."