Advertisement:

11 Responses to “Negative Zone”

1. Kevin Carson Says:
   April 29th, 2008 at 11:50 pm

   Even new urbanist types like Jim Kunstler, who are fairly typical “liberals” in their view of the ideal role of government in urban planning, have a pretty realistic understanding of what “actually existing zoning” has amounted to for the past sixty years or so. Kunstler, in The Geography of Nowhere, has a lot of material on the role of urban planners in mandating the car culture after WWII.

2. Lakis Polycarpou Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am

   Hi,

   I’m wondering if you’re familiar with the work of Christopher Alexander, the architect/planner who is most famous for A Pattern Language. Alexander was a major influence on the New Urbanist movement, but he differs from them on many things. Most importantly, he argues that it will never be possible to create “living” buildings/towns/cities with a top-down, capital intensive, developer-led approach.

   That’s the reason every historic medieval village is beautiful and alive while modern tract developments and urban housing monoliths are creepy and soul-destroying—because it’s not possible to create something that is comfortable, human scale, or for that matter truly functional with centralized, modular planning, whether by governments or corporations and banks.

   Alexander prefers to have homes built by owners and architects, using generative “codes” or patterns. (In this regard it’s worth checking out the writing of his long-time collaborator, the mathematician/architectural theorist Nikos Salingaros as well).

   I got interested in Alexander’s work because of the New Urbanism, but I’ve come to believe that the bottom-up approach he describes is quite different (maybe a lot more “libertarian”?) than what the New Urbanists have done, at least up until now.

3. Mona Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

   This subject is one that interests me, but about which I’m too ingerant to hold forth at length. That said, is it not the case that the urban planners (or some of them) are lately trying to get folks back into the cities? Mass transit proposals and such?

4. Lakis Polycarpou Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm

   There has been a movement toward downtown revitalization in recent years. It’s a good thing in some ways, but my biggest gripe about it is that most of the businesses that get brought in are just big chain stores. When I go visit my parents in Denver, everyone talks about how great the 16th Street Mall is (a pedestrian-only street downtown) but I can’t get that excited about another Gap or Cheesecake Factory.

   There was certainly an urban revival in the 1990s, especially in places like New York. Along with that though has been the trend of gentrification. We’re not far off from Jim Kunstler’s prediction of the suburbs becoming the slums of the future (especially in light of the housing bust).

   This is actually quite catastrophic for the most vulnerable. People who can afford it will move to walkable, urban areas where they can take advantage of not having to drive, while the less fortunate will find themselves stranded on the outskirts by ever-higher gas prices.

   It might be too late, but I think what we really need is to get rid of not just destructive zoning, but asinine regulations that make it all but impossible to build anything walkable anymore. The best example is the ubiquitous rule that when building anything you must provide a certain number of parking spaces. That alone makes dense, walkable, mixed-use development all but impossible.

   As far as public transit, I totally support it—in fact I think it’s crucial, and that’s one of the reasons I was always skeptical of libertarian arguments which tend to treat public transit as some kind of evil socialist plot. It occurred to me lately though that there’s no inherent reason why light-rail lines and subways couldn’t be privately owned, but that would probably only work if the government cut its massive subsidy of roads—maybe then there would be some competitive parity.

5. Patrick Fitzsimmons Says:
   April 30th, 2008 at 11:56 pm

   Without zoning, don’t you end up with Houston? That’s not my idea of an ideal city.

   Here’s a libertarian argument for zoning:
   A city “government” is not really a government. It is not sovereign, it does not have a monopoly of force, and it can be sued in courts it does not control. A city is a corporation that has management rights over a defined property. It makes money from rent ( taxes ) on that property. A city has just as much right to set rules that maximize profits as a mall does.

   The real trouble with city governments in modern America is that they are run as a co-op, which is poor management structure for any organization larger than a grocery store. It’s too tempting for one faction to seize control and funnel corporate resources towards its own interest. Thus we see teachers unions blocking merit pay, developers pushing through social capital destroying projects, home owners blocking the building of rental housing, etc. The net effect is far from Pareto optimal.

6. Lakis Polycarpou Says:
   May 1st, 2008 at 6:52 am

   Regarding Houston:

   According to an enlightening 2003 article by Michael Lewyn on Planetizen, “Houston’s land use regulations have historically been nearly as meddlesome, as pro-sprawl, and as anti-pedestrian as zoning in other American cities — and have yielded similar results.”

   Examples he gives: until 1999, all single family homes were required to take up 5,000 square feet of land; apartment building are required to have more parking spaces than residents (and other business have similar rules); major streets are required to have a 100 foot right-of-way (which means that streets can be up to 100 feet wide, compared to the average modern street of 32-36 feet); intersections must be 600 feet apart (making short, walkable blocks impossible), etc.

   He also reports that “Chicago has more than twice as many residents as Houston, yet has only 10% more freeway miles. Big Brother’s reckless road building has encouraged development to shift to newer areas with minimal bus service — but apparently has done little to reduce traffic congestion.”

   In short, the idea that the mess of Houston is the result of “unregulated” land use is a pernicious myth.

   http://www.planetizen.com/node/109

   I think the main problem with zoning (as with Houston’s land-use rules) is conceptual: it’s a top-down, one-size-fits all, pseudo-scientific approach in which one element or interest group (say, automobile drivers) is given automatic special privilege over another (pedestrians). This then gets institutionalized and applied, broad-brush, everywhere.

7. Keith Preston Says:
   May 1st, 2008 at 12:00 pm

   ON ZONING:

   I regard zoning as an instrument of class warfare whereby zoning laws are used to eliminate competition to established and politically connected businesses, artificially inflate the value of the holdings of politically connected real estate interests, legislate middle-class aesthetic interests at the expense of the economic well-being of the poor and working class and provide a comfy, neat and tidy “quality of life” for the bourgeoisie at the expense of the proles.

   I agree with the idea of a municipality as a corporation. It’s a corporation whose controlling interests are dominant real estate, banking and big employer interests with the police being their strong arm. The antidote is the seizure of these municipalities by the plebes/proles/lumpens and conversion of class enemy interests into syndicalized, mutualized or municipalized enterprises with total deregulation of the private or independent sectors, from housing to homeless shelters to restaurants to churches to vendors to panhandlers to drug dealers to prostitutes to cab drivers to squeegee men to bars to tattoo shops.

   Just my Bakuninists two cents worth.

8. Patrick Fitzsimmons Says:
   May 1st, 2008 at 5:47 pm

   Keith - did your school history books not include the 20th century? The revolution did not work out so well. Take a look at Detroit to see what a rebellion does to a city.

   The trouble with a city is that it is a corporation that engages in lawlessness ( by favoring certain interests over others). The answer is to make it lawful and prevent the favoritism. The answer is not to destroy rule of law altogether with a rebellion. Destroy rule of law and you get East Baltimore, which now has the murder rates of a primitive, tribal society.

9. Keith Preston Says:
   May 1st, 2008 at 8:59 pm

   Patrick,

   Oh, where to begin?

   “Keith - did your school history books not include the 20th century? The revolution did not work out so well. Take a look at Detroit to see what a rebellion does to a city. ”

   I had a minor in history as an undergrad and right now I’m finishing up my MA history course work, and starting on my thesis, so I know tiny bit about the topic. I’m familiar with R.J. Rummel’s work, and agree with much of it, except his “democratic peace” theory. As for Detroit, I suggest you read The Origins of the Urban Crisis by Thomas Sugrue. It used Detroit as a case study in urban decline in the postwar period. The 12th Street riot was a response to the conditions there, not the cause of them.

   “The trouble with a city is that it is a corporation that engages in lawlessness ( by favoring certain interests over others). The answer is to make it lawful and prevent the favoritism.”

   I disagree with liberals (whose ranks include most so-called libertarians and conservatives) that there exists some abstract entity called “law”. Laws are simply the decrees of those who hold power at the moment. Nothing more. How doyou propose to make municipal corporations “lawful”? What would “lawful” even mean?

   “The answer is not to destroy rule of law altogether with a rebellion. Destroy rule of law and you get East Baltimore, which now has the murder rates of a primitive, tribal society.”

   Well, we have plenty of law now, and that doesn’t prevent situations like East Baltimore (sounds like you’ve been watching The Wire).

   I am not a Bolshevik. I do not advocate a centralized or command economy. I’m for a free market economy with usufructuary property rights, consumer cooperative management of public services currently owned by the state, workers’ syndicalist control of present day state/state-capitalist industrial systems, and a system of small property holders and self-employed persons operating free of state interference.

   It’s the kind of stuff Kevin writes about, and also this guy (who doesn’t like me, either, btw):

   http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=8204

   “Rule of law” usually means nothing more than some groups in society has subjugated others. I don’t take the common notion that “law” is somehow sacred (like the religionists with their holy writs) seriously.

   As for the process of achieving victory in the class struggle, I do not advocate simply looting the local grocery store. I advocate developing organized, cohesive political organizations committed to concrete and coherent goals (like the ones I’ve mentioned here). I do not advocate seizing control of the central government. I want to abolish the feds through the development of local and regional secessionist movements for whom the lumpenproletariat, petite bourgeoisie, rural agricultural population and declasse’ sectors would be the constituency.

   When it comes to things like crime, much of what the present system considers to be crime, I do not consider to be crime. I’d have a civil libertarian/common law legal system for settling business and territorial disputes and treating common crimes (robbery, assault) as torts where victim compensation is the goal. Protection itself would be the prerogative of neighborhood militias private security agencies, and citizen posses.

   I suppose at least some of this could be achieved peacefully through a negotiated settlement with the present ruling classes, or maybe even through local electoral means once the revolutionary organizations are large enough to wield real power, though the threat of the stick is necessary as a backup to the carrot.

10. Patrick Fitzsimmons Says:
    May 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    When you originally said “seizure of these municipalities” I thought you were talking the mob with pitchforks and torches. That’s never worked out well. The leader of any such mob will be a violent and lawless person, who’s not likely to establish the kind of government you would like.

    “Rule of Law” means different things to different people. I really meant good management. By good management I mean management that allows the most people to achieve peace and prosperity. In my mind, “law” is a time tested set of best practices based on the core principle: “Do not initiate force”. A well run state uses that principle and punishes those who initiate force - whether it be a mugger robbing a pedestrian or a corporation polluting the air.

    I too, would like cities/regions/states to be able to secede. I suspect though, that a mutualist/cooperative City-State would not work out so well. I wouldn’t mind seeing it tried, though ( just not where I live ).

    The core existing problem I see with a city like Baltimore is that the incentives of the power structure are all screwed up. Getting elected requires a combination of: approval from the teachers, police, and other unions, money from drug lords and developers to pay for ads and bribes, church endorsements, keeping crime reasonable low in the wealthy, high voting districts, creating visible projects that you can take credit for, control of a patronage system that rewards supporters, and a talent for being a demagogue. Note that actually ending the civil war in East Baltimore is fairly low on the list of priorities. If it comes at the expense of reduced federal aid or police union support, then its not really worth it. Also, because of the civil service system, the police force does not promote competence and it is difficult to fire brutal police officers. Thus trying to “crack down on crime” often results in ham-fisted efforts that succeed only in making everyone hate the police.

    My solution for good management in Baltimore would be something like as follows:

    Have the voters vote on a revised charter that would turn the city into a for-profit cooperation. Shares in the corporation would be distributed to all voters. People would be free to sell their shares or hold on to them. Shareholders could vote on a board of directors, one vote per share, and the board appoints a city CEO.

    Unlike an elected mayor, the interests of the CEO are much better aligned with the average person. The CEO gets bonus if property taxes go up, thus he wants to make the city a desirable place to live. Rather than allowing police officers to get paid based on the number of arrests they make, the police would get bonuses for preventing crime in the first place and establishing good relations with the community. Rather than worry about wire taps and “career cases”, the police would simply maintain a presence on the corners and make the drug trade economically impossible.

    Baltimore Inc. would sell shares on the open market, and use the capital to pay ex-drug touts to clean up the streets, tear down or rehabilitate dilapidated buildings, and turn vacant lots into parks. It would privatize the school system, allowing middle class people who escaped to suburbs find better schools to move back into the city. The influx of the middle class would grow the economy and provide more jobs for the existing lower class people currently living in Baltimore. Over a decade I’d expect the property prices in the city to exceed the land prices of the surrounding suburbs. The shareholders of Baltimore Inc ( the current city voters) will have made quite a lot of money, plus their city will be much nicer to live in.

    I’d be curious to hear your vision of what an ideal Bakuninist Baltimore would look like.

11. Keith Preston Says:
    May 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

    Patrick,

    If you want to know more about my outlook, you can read all about it at my website:

    http://attackthesystem.com

    These two will probably give you the best overview of what I’m about:

    http://attackthesystem.com/liberty-and-populism-building-an-effective-resistance-movement-for-north-america/

    http://attackthesystem.com/american-revolutionary-vanguard-twenty-five-point-program/

    I like and agree with many of your ideas. As for the “municipality as shareholder-owned corporation”, would the voters actually be paid dividends? From where? Tax revenue? A share of the profits of municipalized businesses?

    If there’s any real issue between us, it would be on the class question. I would be concerned that the CEO-run municipal corporation with voting rights distributed according to purchased shares would result in a fiefdom controlled by a very narrow elite like present day Dubai or Singapore. You seem to place high value on standard “conservative” economic values like efficiency, a large middle class, rapid economic growth, “middle class values”, etc. I would tend to balance this with prevention of concentration of economic power and advancing the interests of the lower classes even if these may conflict with middle class lifestyle or aesthetic interests.

    Primarily, I am interested in cutting taxes and regulation from the bottom up and ending subsidies and welfare from the top down. I’m particular in favor of ending all subsidies, regulations, taxes, prohibitions, zoning, building codes, etc. that undermine the employment, business, or housing interests of the lower classes.

Leave a Reply