Do Big People Require a Big Government?

Amongst my daily readings, I came across this gem:

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/la-fi-happy-meals-20101103,0,6768723.story

I love it! Leave it to San Francisco to do what very few other places see the need for. Of course, this is very controversial, especially after all of the anti-government reactionary arguments flying around right now. And this will probably be sent to the courts and overturned, but I still want to revel in its accomplishment, however short-lived it may be.

I love the comment from the McDonald's lawyer about "this is not what our customers want." Well, duh! People who approve of your business model of marketing calorie-dense and nutrion-deficient food to kids are obviously not going to be the ones making a law such as this one. This is a spectacularly dumb comment. It is political, meant to stoke the fires of those who are inclined not to trust government in all its forms. It's like the Democrats complaining to the public after election day: "But this isn't what democrats wanted." Sorry chums, as much as I, a proud independent, sympathize with you, the people have spoken.

This gets at an important issue: does the public always have its own best intersts at heart? Natuarlly, we think so. We think that the will of the people is always best; this is the heart of democracy. But what happens when the will of the people brings about things such as unlimited corporate campaign contributions, lax gun laws for people without records (as if only people with current records will ever again use a gun in a malicious way), and more roads than we can possibly hope to pay for to maintain? Would a significant number of people actually say that these are good things? We voted for the politicians who made these things possible, and sometimes even voted for the laws directly, so they must be what we want, right?

I think we are drastically uneducated about the implications of the policies that the majority of us tend to support (education is the other heart of democracy). If we don't know enough about what we are voting for, then how can we claim that our "will" is a good thing? This San Francisco law is a case in point. If it is true that McDonalds speaks for "the people," then I think the people are just plain wrong. I'm all for personal responsibility; the parents should be the front lines of defence against their children consuming non-nutritious meals, but there are two inadequacies with laying the entire burden on the parents. First, the psychology of adding an appealing "free" gift to the product a company wants its consumers to buy is extremely powerful. I would argue that it borders on brainwashing. This is the "free good" phenomenon I've talked about in previous posts. When we perceive that we are able to get something for nothing (by the way, it doesn't exist), we go out of our way to engage in that "free" activity as much as we possibly can. The child throws tantrum after tantrum in public, embarrassing the parent enough to concede to their demand. Afterall, it's not that big of a deal, and the parent can get something artificially tasty and cheap as well.

Second, and perhaps most importantly these days, the undisputable fact remains that a cash-strapped parent can fill the bellies of two children with a couple of happy meals for the price that he or she could fill the belly of one child with healthier food. This is the result of the principles of commodity pricing and economies of scale combining to produce something that plays to our uniquely American value of "quantity trumps quality." It's genius, it's lucrative, and it's slowly killing us, especially those of us on the lower end of the economic ladder.

The mantra of "personal responsibility" seems to be winning the current debates, as evidenced by the massive shift to the right resulting from this week's election. I actually don't think it is such a bad thing to have a balance struck in the "environment-person" argument (is it the fault of the forces outside of the person or those inside of the person?). How can it really be only the person's environment that causes his or her behaviors when the person has a rational mind capable of making choices? And how can behavior only be determined by internal forces when behavior is, by definition, a reaction to or interaction with outside forces? We have to understand that there is always a mix of both going on (according to my argument above, there has to be; don't you agree?), or else we won't ever understand the root causes of anything and, as a result, will never begin to solve our various problems. So, here's my question: how far can and should we let this obesity problem go until we have to stop relying solely on the "personal responsibility" argument and start legislating healthier environments?

By the way, this same question could be asked about poverty, gun violence, suburbanization, cost of healthcare... the list goes on and on. What say you?

A Real Discussion About the Role of Government

The role of government is obviously a big issue right now in the public discourse, one which threatens the "political lives" of our elected leaders and the course of our country. Some say that the only goal of government should be to protect the rights of their people. Some wouldn’t even go that far. Still others think there is a role for government to play in almost everything. But how much of this debate is actually a true discussion about the consequences of each viewpoint? I happen to think most of it is sideshow coming from people who have a personal stake in others seeing it their way. Now once have I heard a politician in this election season challenge anyone to actually think about the consequences and discuss them with someone who holds a different opinion.

Democrats are telling other democrats that republicans "drove the car into the ditch," and after the democrats (and only the democrats) dug the car out, now the republicans "want the keys back." Funny, and partly true, but not helpful. And republicans are still calling democrats "socialists" and comparing them to our favorite despotic dictators. Not as funny, and not as true, but they’re just playing to their base of extremely xenophobic yet well-meaning voters. None of this is encouraging anyone to talk with each other.

I was at a conference a couple of weeks ago which was headlined by David Bradley, a community and economic development lobbyist who has been intimately involved with our Congress since Reagan took office. He basically knows everyone there on both sides of the isle and has a good relationship with many of them. He said that he’s never seen such a divide between the parties in 30 years. He took a very unscientific poll, but it is worth mentioning anyway. He asked legislators from both parties to estimate how many legislators from the other party they knew by name. They didn’t have to have a relationship with them or know anything else about them… just their first name. He kept getting the same number in response: 25%. Are you kidding me? Each legislator gets elected and paid handsomely to sit in the same room with other legislators to solve the many problems that this country faces, and yet they have no chance of solving them because they are too entrenched in their own political theater to even introduce themselves to someone across the isle.

I can’t influence our elected officials to talk with one another. I can’t think of any candidates for office in Pennsylvania that aren’t divisive in their campaign rhetoric. Even those in 2008 who I thought would be more inclusive (ahem, Mr. President) have not lived up to their end of the bargain. But I can do my part by providing a safe place for people to openly discuss the role of government, generally and specifically, in the lives of citizens. I don’t want any name calling or pejorative terms (mentioning made-up words like Obamacare and calling republicans "Repugs" are conversational non-starters), and I don’t want any accusations. No matter what your politics are and no matter how closely you hold those principles to your heart and think other views are just dead wrong, you have to know that, despite what some very loud social commentators not-so-subtly hint to, liberals don’t hate America and neither do conservatives. We all love our country and want to make it better; we just have very different ideas as to how to do that.

So, let’s start generally: What is the purpose of government? Why do you hold this view? What are the consequences, good and bad, of government having this purpose?

I’ll post interesting comments and reactions on the main page. Remember… don’t demonize each other: I will call you out on it.

What Do We Value and How Do We Show It?

I came across an interesting article recently that explores issues of public goods and our attitudes toward them. You can read the article here:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/13/1621427/losing-sight-of-what-matters-in.html#ixzz0xRzEZSbv

There’s a lot more in this article than I want to discuss, but I do want to dig deeper into this issue of what we value. What do we put stock in? What means something to us, and how do we show it? Many say that the best way to determine what we value may be where we put our time and money. But I’m not so sure this is true anymore. Think about what you value most. Is that where most of your time and money is spent? The author has an opinion on this:

“What we value ... is cheapness. Rock-bottom prices. Low taxes. So we get tomatoes that taste like crunchy sponges, but at least we don’t pay a lot for them. Instead of percale bedsheets made in the USA we buy sheets made in countries most people couldn’t find on a map, with seams that dissolve within weeks. We buy food with no taste, clothes that unravel and appliances we have to junk after five years. Our public schools have knee-high crabgrass. People get hacked off if our public parks look better than pesticide factories. But at least they don’t cost us too much.”

First of all, I don’t think we actually value cheapness. I think we truly value good food, good products, and healthy and well-kept communities. Instead, I think we have lost the understanding of the connection between those things which we value and the idea that they are worth paying for. In other words, when we buy the crappy tomatoes that have traveled thousands of miles so that food companies, and consumers, can get them cheaper, we have not lost value in good-tasting food; we have simply forgotten that good food is worth paying for.

And this brings up an important point: we’ve lost all sense of what is valuable. Even more, once we figure it out, we can’t remember the rational behavior involved in showing that the thing has value to us. The result: we can’t decide whether we value our tax dollars or vibrant, healthy communities more. And when we do decide, we behave irrationally. If we value lower taxes, we move out to the suburbs where we rack up infrastructure bills and abandon troubled areas, both resulting in higher taxes. And if we value healthy communities, most of us… well, we move out to the suburbs looking for that community, where the resulting infrastructure and city abandonment problems serve to create less vibrant and healthy communities (plus, more taxes). It’s amazing how backward we have become.

With all of the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party stuff going on, a pertinent question to all of this is: What is worth being taxed for? Where should tax dollars go and where should they not go? And to test my own thought; If people should receive tax cuts in poor economic times in order to spur economic growth, then shouldn’t they also be taxed more during good economic times in order to shore up some security for the bad times to come? I’m interested in hearing what people have to say.

2009 US Road deaths plunge to… 34,000???

There’s nothing like optimism to make a horrific number seem okay. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently reported that 33,808 people died on our roads in 2009. It’s difficult to even imagine such a number, and the easiest thing to do is to simply not think about it. But for those of you who might be outraged or even just a little concerned about such mass mortality, there are people like Morning Call journalist Dan Hartzell and, alternatively, yours truly.

For those of you who might care, Hartzell alleviates those cares with perhaps the most ridiculous statement I’ve ever heard about traffic deaths: “…the 33,808 deaths recorded last year represent 3,615 lives spared, if you will, compared with the 37,423 people killed in 2008.” Wow! Is this really his idea of good news? He might as well have said, “But at least 310,180,000 Americans survived!” I guess when it comes to our highway system and the deaths that it causes, I’m a little more pessimistic. Try this for perspective: In 2009, the entire City of Easton died on United States highways and roads. Or how about this: 4 times as many people died on our roads last year than Americans who died between 2001 and the present in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and the two resulting wars. Or: Our traffic death rate is twice our murder rate, which itself is second highest in the world! How about this: While the death rate for rail passengers is currently 25 per 100 million miles of rail, our death rate for motorists, put in those same terms, is 1,338,136! And for good measure: Since our roads are subsidized at a rate of about $700 billion per year, or about $5,000 per tax payer per year, every 4,141 taxpayers literally pay for the death of 1 motorist.

And we’re okay with this, because we get relatively cheap subsidized gas, cheap goods transported by our subsidized trucking industry, and free parking. It’s what economists call a “free good,” a purposeful distortion of the market that takes away the demand ceiling so that we’ll continue to support industries that run our economy at perpetually higher rates every year. And it has been so successful that we are willing to put our lives on the line every day just to get a piece of it. Why? Because free goods predictably cause us to recognize that we are getting a massive deal every time we purchase that good (driving). And we all know that Americans simply can’t pass up a deal. To be fair, the rules of psychology show us that no one can, and our corporations and law makers know this all too well.

So, here’s my question: If the libertarian conservatives (and the Republicans who pretend to be ones) claim to be such pure free-marketeers and so deeply concerned about federal spending, why is a federal highway, industrial food system, and local free parking industry that receives over $700 billion per year in tax-payer subsidies (at 10% of our GNP, more than Social Security or Medicare) and kills off entire cities-worth of people not on their radars? Why does no one of importance (who can make or execute laws) ever talk about this? Is it because, as long as they don’t die on the road, they benefit from the system? Or is it because of their thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from said industries? This I would like to know.

What is Proposed in New York Should Stay in New York

I hate to get involved in this discussion – I really do – but there are a few important issues at stake in regards to the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. First, and foremost, this is a local land use issue. This is not a county issue, nor state issue, and certainly not a national issue. September 11th was a terrible tragedy, and we have made it a symbol of our national unity (“We are all New Yorkers”). But when it comes down to it, this is a decision that must be made by the council members of the City of New York in response to the will of the citizens of that – and only that – city.

It is ironic, though not surprising, that many conservatives have come out strongly against the Mosque proposal. Two of the bedrocks of conservatism are local property rights and strong adherence to the constitution (remember the religious liberty clause?), yet many conservative (and then there’s you, Mr. Reid) politicians are so worried about winning a fast-approaching election that they are recalling the tragic events 9 years ago to condemn the very principles that they claim to stand for. Some are making ridiculous statements to make their case. Mr. Gingrich said that this proposal is akin to placing a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust memorial. An extreme political party is not at all comparable to a wide-spread, world religion. Instead, a more apt comparison could be made to placing a Christian Church (Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian) next to the Holocaust memorial, which I’m sure we wouldn’t have a problem with (I’m a Christian myself, so don’t think that this statement is anti-Christian). But that argument doesn’t win votes.

I’m actually in agreement with many in the Tea Party on this one. For all of their political shortcomings, in my opinion anyway, they actually understand the heart of this issue. Rand Paul put it in perspective well when he said that his own state would not be happy if New York inserted themselves into Kentucky issues, so he is sure that New York wouldn’t appreciate Kentucky doing the same. Even the man who doesn’t seem to “get it” gets this one.

Personally, I’m really concerned that this is such a monumental issue nearly a decade after the attacks. Yes, we should always remember what happened and make sure we do what we can to ensure that it doesn’t happen again, but why are we still so fearful? Fear of attack is one thing, but fear manifested in the discrimination of a religion whose peacefulness has, historically, been at least on-par with Christianity (remember the crusades, conquistadors, Holocaust, and the conflict between Ireland and Scotland, just to name a few) is of a wholly different sort. In our post-millennium brand of politics, we have let this fear fester instead of letting it go and moving on.

Many of the people coming out against this proposal are claiming that allowing this Mosque (by the way, it’s not actually a Mosque but a community center; but “Mosque” sounds scarier) to take root 2 blocks from (not “at”) Ground Zero will be a victory for the terrorists. Mr. Gingrich has even said that this idea was planned by terrorists just so that they could celebrate their victory. Come on, Newt! Even you aren't that paranoid! Contrary to what the talking heads are saying, I think that our fearful reaction against this plan has already assured their moral victory because it is a harbinger of the dramatic changes taking place in so many of the great American ideals. We are a mere, cold shadow of who we used to (and ought to) be. Terrorism has changed our way of life, and not for the better… and this is exactly what they wanted to occur.

But my opinion doesn't really matter, and neither does yours, because unless you happen to be a resident of Manhattan, it is officially none of our business.

My Crappy Day Could Have Been Worse

I look forward to my walks pretty much every day, no matter what the weather is like outside. But of course, some days are better than others, and some days are just down right terrible. In the late fall and early winter, the rain and slush creates freezing puddles at every turn, some that I simply can’t avoid stepping through. In the dead of summer, as you can imagine, it becomes so hot and sticky that I often have to fight the urge to strip. Today was one of those terrible days, but considering the circumstances, it may have been the crappiest yet… literally.

I’m actually surprised it didn’t happen sooner. Really, the odds are in the birds’ favor, but it took a year and two weeks for one of them to relieve itself from a tree branch at precisely the moment that I passed under it. Crappy indeed! I hoped perhaps the tree was shaking off some moisture remaining from the weekend rain, but looking down the front of my shirt confirmed what I was trying to deny. I was about 5 minutes from my bus, but I definitely couldn’t go on with my day covered in poo. So, I stripped (sorry ladies, but I’m taken!) and went back home.

All in all, it wasn’t the best start to a morning, but it wasn’t going to ruin my day either. Nature called, and I happened to be there too. Someone walking amongst such beautiful trees should expect as much. So, needless to say, I’m not discouraged and I’ll be out there risking my cleanliness again tomorrow morning. Walking is always an adventure, but I look forward to it every day.

Another Bailout's A-Comin'

As Americans in the year 2010, after all that has happened, we are understandably suspicious of what we call "bailouts." Well, it looks like another one is coming: this time for public transit agencies who are suffering from the lack of funding that is provided from our sorry excuse for a gas tax.

A group of senators have introduced a bill for emergency funding for transit agencies in the amount of $2 billion. There's no doubt that this money is needed, especially since ridership numbers are up all over the nation (and driving is down). But is there political will in an election year for yet another taxpayer-funded safety net for a private (or semi-private) industry? Honestly, I'm not sure. Although $2 billion is pocket change next to what was given out to the auto industry, Wall Street, and in the Recovery Act, it's the perception that counts; and the perception is that the taxpayers would be on the hook for funding yet another unsustainable industry.

When it comes to the automobile industry and the banks, I would agree with that notion completely, but the argument doesn't hold up with the transit problem for one big reason: It is only unsustainable because it is not on a level playing field. I'm sure those on the political right will score political points for coming out strongly against another bailout, but what they'll neglect to tell you is that we essentially bailout the automobile industry and its supporting infrastructure with almost $2 billion every day! The government subsidizes car travel with almost $600 billion per year, but it would be political suicide to be against that.

So, what is it going to be? Are we for some bailouts and not for others? Can politicians who call themselves conservative really say that the government should get its fingers out of all private business affairs? I would love to see someone come out and say that there will be no more subsidies for driving, corn, Wall Street, and Haliburton. No more subsidies for private business at all! Then maybe we could see what all of the hooplah about the "free market" is all about. But that will never happen, because it is these financially-loaded industries that buy our politicians, and they expect extreme loyalty in return.

Public School Funding

There have been two recent stories in the local paper about school districts having to cover deficits in one way or another. Easton Area School District is by far the worst of all local districts with an $8 million and change shortfall. The school board, after being pressured by many residents, has cut almost 100 jobs and most extra-curricular activities, including all sports and the music program. And then those same residents praised the school board for making the tough decision to do what had to be done.

This is really frustrating to me because it really didn’t have to come to this. It is the result of top-heavy administrator salaries and poor decisions by those administrators for sure. But even if that wasn’t the case, the district would still have problems because of the way the area has grown, the current economy, resident aversion to paying taxes to benefit someone other than themselves (which is a false belief anyway), and the way we fund public schools in this country.

Up until recently, the growth of the Lehigh Valley has almost exclusively taken place in the suburbs. Part of that growth has come at the expense of the 3 major cities. As a result, businesses closed, property values decreased, and tax revenues followed that trend. The people that could afford the necessary transportation costs moved outward and took their taxes to other municipalities, thus creating a rich source of funding for the suburban schools and a significant loss from the urban schools. Now that everyone is suffering financially, the urban schools, which are the ones that need the most help, lose out even more.

And no one seems to care. We are quick to blame the district administrators, who should shoulder some of it. But we are also quick to write off the kids in the district as future failures anyway. One comment under the story summed up many others by indicating that only 20% of the kids are “worth a damn anyway.” What the hell does that mean? Who gets to decide that? Is that what we want to happen: only 20% of them becoming benefits to the society that largely forgets them? Because that is precisely what will happen if we believe it so strongly and do nothing to counteract it. We seem to think that it is better to pay for their future incarceration and government-reliance than to pay a fraction of that cost now to make sure that they are well-educated and able to be self-sufficient. Conservatives like to slam wasteful policies and programs. I actually agree with them completely. The problem is, conservatives don’t seem to understand, or at least public acknowledge, that it is actually cheaper to invest in people on the front end to prevent the more costly future consequences of not doing so. This applies to education, healthcare, housing, diet… pretty much every social problem you can think of. Instead, we cut budgets for every social program while greatly increasing our corrections budgets, as Pennsylvania did again this year.

So, how can we fix this? The most obvious is to fund more prevention programs. For education, this takes the form of providing every child with as much opportunity as possible to succeed. Cutting teachers and after-school activities in a desperate urban area so that people can pay fewer taxes is not the way to do that. But I do understand that taxes are a burden on some people right now. This gets at the larger problem of how we fund education. If we rely almost entirely on property tax revenues, we are bound to see great inequalities between urban and suburban schools in good times and the complete decimation of both in bad times. We need a better way to ensure that urban students get the opportunities that they need and that those opportunities will not go away when anonymous investment bankers make bad bets on derivative futures.

My solution is to use a four-pronged funding approach. Property taxes can still fund a portion of local schools, but they should be complemented by regional sales taxes along with state and federal funding. If the property taxes are not as much of a burden, people should have more disposable income to purchase goods and services, which would contribute to the schools. Even when both are down, state and federal revenues should prop up the districts that need it to ensure that the public continues to benefit from a public good in the times that they need it most.

What other funding sources do you think would be more appropriate to ensure sustainability for public schools? Do you have any other ideas?

Why Live in the Suburbs?

As a former suburbanite, I naturally was ingrained with compelling reasons as to why the suburbs were better places to live than the cities. There are three main reasons that I can think of that sum up the argument for suburban living: 1) housing is cheaper and land is more readily available, thus one can afford to live in a larger house on a larger lot; 2) because the house is bigger and there is more open space, suburbanites are happier; and 3) there is less crime, thus it is safer.

Well, two studies are out refuting the first two reasons. The Urban Land Institute recently released a report showing that, when housing and transportation costs are taken together, city dwellers are actually living more cheaply than suburbanites, at least in Boston. But this would be similar to any urban area that prioritizes public transportation and walkability. Why is this? Urban living requires much less car travel; thus, most urbanites drive less, and many urban families have fewer vehicles than their suburban peers. When you consider that gas prices are up around $3.00 per gallon, the average person travels over 20 minutes (which works out to at least 20 miles) to work and 20 minutes (miles) back, and the average vehicle costs $10,000 per year when everything is factored in, you can see how the transportation costs add up quickly. So, the first argument for suburban living is on shaky ground. If we are paying more for suburbia, at least our increased happiness makes up for it, right?

If we are to believe two Swiss Economists (why not, they’re neutral!), then this argument is shaky, too. Frey and Stutzer identified a phenomenon called the “commuters paradox” in which we grossly underestimate the pain that we get from long commutes. In fact, perhaps the most emotionally painful feelings that we experience in our day-to-day lives are felt while stuck in traffic. But when we make the decision to move further away to get the bigger house and larger yard (which we have already seen is not necessarily cheaper), we think this benefit will outweigh the costs (literally and figuratively) of driving so far. Apparently, we are not very good at accurately weighing out these kinds of benefits and costs, and our happiness suffers as a result. This makes me think of the question: what are our priorities? Is status more important than time with family? Just as a caveat, if you ever get a chance to look at the rates of suburbanization and compare it to the rates of divorce over time, you might see something very interesting.

So, suburbanites don’t necessarily have a cheaper way of life, and they aren’t necessarily happier, but they must be safer! It is definitely true that suburbanites are less likely to be victims of violent crime, namely murder. There are, however, other measures of safety. Non-violent crime is almost as prevalent in the suburbs as the cities, and certain types of violent crime are actually more prevalent in suburbs. As an example, domestic abuse, both sexual and otherwise, happen more frequently in the suburbs than in the cities (the spread-out and private environment does little to discourage it). But more relevant to this topic is the safety of people operating motor vehicles. Americans are more than 6 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than be murdered. What’s more, automobile accidents are the leading cause of deaths for people between the ages of 15 to 24. With suburbanites doing most of the driving, you can guess the location of residence of most of those who die in car wrecks. By the way, another caveat: if you look at the rates of suburbanization and compare it to the rates of violent crime over time, you’ll see something else very interesting.

We don’t always think logically, and even when we do, we don’t always have all of the information that we need for our logic to give us an outcome that makes sense (remember the image-policy preference discussion in the previous post). If we are led to believe that we will be happier out in the burbs (as all of the real estate advertisements tell us), then the logical thing to do is to move there. However, if we find out that we aren’t happier in the burbs after all, how logical was our decision to move there in the first place? I think with all of the financial mess and foreclosures and gas prices (etc., etc., etc.), people are asking this question of themselves more and more.

When I think about it, I’m left with no real logical argument for living in the suburbs. I like being close to the action (if you can call what happens in Bethlehem “action”). I like not having to drive. I like the diversity (again, if you can call Bethlehem “diverse”). And I can’t honestly say that it’s more expensive, more “painful,” and less safe. So, I’m left to wonder: Are there any other compelling reasons to live in the suburbs? I’d like to hear them, because I’m fresh out.

Tragedy... and Confusion

It’s terrible when something happens that could have been prevented, especially when it happens to a child. Yet another pedestrian was hit by a car in the Lehigh Valley on Saturday; this time, it was a little girl who was trying to cross the street with her sister. The car, traveling along a 45-mile-per-hour street, did not see her. My heart aches for the family of the girl as well as the driver. Out of respect for them, I won’t comment on the intersection, but as time goes on and wounds heal (and hopefully not too long into the future), I hope someone on the township or County councils considers more pedestrian-friendly safety features in that and other residential areas.

I do, however, want to comment on a recent blog post on a website called Mother Jones. Kevin Drum, the author, addresses a debate that has been raging for many years now: does suburban sprawl exist because policies mandate them or because people want them? Not surprisingly, Smart Growth advocates blame the policies, and Randall O’Toole and similar folks point the finger at public opinion. Drum seems to agree with O’Toole when he says, “These regulations aren’t something that’s being imposed by ‘government.’ They exist because people really, really, really want them.”

So, this brings up two issues. First does research really confirm that people “really, really, really” favor low-density suburban development over dense cities and inner-ring suburbs? And second, if the data does support that conclusion, do people always know what’s best for themselves?

Luckily, I did my thesis research on just this very topic. Previous research came to different conclusions. But what I noticed while reviewing them was that the studies that concluded people favored suburbs most often had participants judge only policy statements. This is dangerous because words such as “density” have garnered negative connotations that conjure up images of the Projects or other such monstrosities. What’s more, most studies that found that the majority of people favored more traditional developments were only presenting participants with images of the city blocks and neighborhoods. I would argue that this is a more effective method of gathering people’s reactions because we all have the ingrained ability to instinctually react to visual stimuli; I cannot say the same about written policy stimuli (if such a thing exists). But the downside to only examining images without their underlying policies is that when it comes time for the design codes to either go urban or suburban, the policies are what matter. Therefore, the public often goes in with a vision of what they want (more traditional development features), but they fail to make the necessary policy connections and, instead, rally for suburbia.

To test this hypothesis of visual-policy disconnect, I tested people’s reactions to both images and policies and compared them. What did I find? The people that did visually prefer suburban development also preferred suburban policies. But, those that visually preferred urban designs, which was the vast majority, didn’t seem to show any connection with urban or suburban policies; there was absolutely no relationship whatsoever. I had to conclude that, in a way, Randall O’Toole is right that people really like suburbia… just not all of them, and in the case of the most acute of our 5 senses, most prefer otherwise. But I also had to conclude that the vast majority that wanted their neighborhoods to look more urban also had no clue how to bring about such a vision. For example, a good number of participants that liked pictures of walkable neighborhoods also expressed desire for cul-de-sac policies, which actually counteract walking, as well as narrower streets, which promote walking. And of those that liked pictures of well-designed density, there was no consensus when asked about density policies.

What can we take from this? Both the Smart Growthers and Randall O’Toole are correct: suburbia is the result of policies that most people support, not because they are in favor of the results, but because they misunderstand their consequences. People are just really, really, really confused, and planners are really poor at educating them.

I think I’ve already answered my second question. Don’t get me wrong: I truly believe that people do know what is in their best interest when they completely understand the issue at hand, but when they don’t, as is the case with urban development (as well as many other social policies), the democratic process caves in on itself. We end up enacting costly policies, then enacting more costly policies to correct for the original policies – until we get to the point that we are at today where we can’t even afford to maintain the roads we already have let alone continue to build new ones.

Anyone disagree?