Agenda 21 and other wacky theories
Anti-smart growth ideologues have never shied away from half-truths and dubious arguments, but recent references to Agenda 21, Portland, Detroit, and Denver are unusually strange.
This article co-authored by Wendell Cox and Ronald Utt focuses on the United Nation's Agenda 21, adopted in 1992, and its supposed connection to the smart growth movement. I guess the point is that if the UN issues a proclamation — in this case in favor of sustainable development — then any related activity must be part of some kind of world-government plot. The UN is also in favor of economic growth, peace, diplomatic relations, and education, and for programs that fight hunger, disease, and tooth decay.
According to my unscientific estimate, 99.9 percent of smart growth advocates don't even know what Agenda 21 is. The only reason why they may have heard of it at all is due conspiracy theories from the fringe of the Tea Party. It's remarkable to me that nationally known smart growth critics — albeit the most strident ones — are making the case under the banner of the Heritage Foundation that smart growth is built upon a UN agenda. Utt and Cox summarize Agenda 21:
These policies are presented in four sections:
- Social and economic dimensions (e.g., international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries, combating poverty, changing consumption patterns, promoting sustainable human settlement development);
- Conservation and management of resources for development (e.g., protection of the atmosphere, planning and management of land resources, promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development);
- Strengthening the role of major groups (e.g., women, children, indigenous people, workers and trade unions); and
- Means of implementation (e.g., financing, technology transfer, promoting education and public awareness, international legal instruments).
The authors explain:
It is the policies endorsed by Agenda 21 that are of most concern, and these policies are not confined to Agenda 21. On the contrary, those policies undergird the smart-growth agenda that has gained widespread acceptance in many parts of the US to the detriment of local economies.
The authors contend that smart growth began in California and Oregon in the 1970s (well before Agenda 21, it should be noted). This contention is, first of all, highly questionable with regards to California. Despite recent policies that should move the state towards smart growth, California has historically been a world leader in sprawl, and many of its government actions over the last three decades have promoted the construction of automobile-oriented subdivisions and highways over other forms of transportation. A few California cities adopted urban growth boundaries starting in the 1970s, but that policy in isolation is not be to confused with the birth of smart growth.
Oregon's leading city, Portland, has been progressive in adopting smart growth policies and is an icon the movement. (In addition to its urban growth boundary, the city has also built light rail, promoted transit-oriented development and mixed-use planning, built the nation’s largest bicycle network, calmed streets, reduced off-street parking requirements, and much more).
These policies got underway in earnest in Portland in the 1980s and 1990s — before the term "smart growth" was coined. If, according to Cox and Utt's way of thinking, Portland's growth management policies were economic killers, surely the city would have suffered severely in the last 30 years. Yet Portland has undergone one of the most notable renaissances of any American city. Portland’s population was stagnant from 1950 to 1980, but took off since 1980 — surging 59 percent.
Anyone who has been to Portland in recent years can attest to the thriving cultural and economic activity. Portland has a strong arts and music scene, is home to more breweries than any city in the world, has a strong knowledge economy, and is a "foodie" town with varied and lively restaurants. The Metro region — which has been subject to smart growth policies — is home to or has significant operations of a long list of sizable corporations. All the while, Portland has cut its greenhouse gas emissions per capita by 16.2 percent since 1990.
While Cox and Utt are peddling these strange ideas, another pro-sprawl voice, Randal O'Toole, was warning the City of Detroit on Friday that if the city builds light rail, it would end up like Portland, Oregon, and Denver, Colorado. Detroit has lost more than 60 percent of its population since 1950, including more than 237,000 people in the last decade, and is internationally known as a city in freefall. Detroit incidentally has the worst public transit system of any major US city. It has also arguably invested more public funds per capita in roads, for a longer period of time, than any city in the US — starting with the first concrete road paving in 1909.
I'm sure Detroit is terrified of repeating the mistakes of Portland and Denver — another city that was in decline in the 1970s and 1980s but has turned things around in a big way.
I've been told that in 1990, you could bowl ten-pins on many Denver downtown streets without disrupting traffic. Due to revitalization and smart growth, Denver's downtown has become one of the livelier urban cores in the US. Meanwhile, the city's population has surged by more than 130,000 in the last two decades — a 28 percent rise. By all means, Detroit, don't make the mistakes that Portland and Denver have made.
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Google
Comments
Agenda 21
And indeed, Agenda 21 is a voluntary code that municipalities can chose to adhere to if they wish. Not top-down world domination campaign at all.
Anyway, why wouldn't it be good to have a free market in which one town could choose to adopt Agenda 21 and Smart Growth, and other towns not? Then people would have a free choice about where they wanted to live.
Who Chooses?
The problem is municipalities choose to participate, not the citizens. Municipal officials then attempt to impose their Agenda 21 proposals upon people who have had no input. I have even attended so-called "public participation" meetings where input from citizens has been entirely blown-off: the local officials chose to implement the options they prefered. That is top-down domination.
"I have even attended
"I have even attended so-called "public participation" meetings where input from citizens has been entirely blown-off: the local officials chose to implement the options they prefered."
That defines a headstrong municipal government, not "domination" on a global scale. The UN has nothing to do with your local elected officials blowing off public opinion (nor does Smart Growth policy in general).
participate or have no voice
You elect representatives to make decisions they think are best for the city and the citizens. Sometimes this means they have to look at the long term and make a decision that might not seem good in the short term. Sometimes we disagree with their decisions. But they don't represent just you or me, they are supposed to represent everyone.
In my city, just about the only people who show up to meetings are developers. Developers who want to turn farmland into pavement and giant houses. Is that what's best for my city? Maybe....but the people who don't show up guarantee that only or mostly the developers have a voice. The public doesn't like what city council decides, but they don't bother to show up.
So, where does that leave us?
1. No conspiracy of some scary people imposing a secret U.N. agenda. My city is different from your city, that's all.
2. Show up and participate or be steamrolled. You showed up and made your voice heard, good for you!
3. Your city council seemed to have done their job and tried to make an independent (that is, free of big money) decision about what's best. You may disagree, but at least they're trying. That's more than I can say here.
4. Elected officials compete for votes and cities compete for citizens. You don't like you council? Vote against them, run for council yourself, support someone you like. Still unhappy? Vote with your feet.
Agenda 21
I agree, Matthew. Cities and towns should be free to adopt Agenda 21 if they wish, and there is nothing wrong with that. Most choose growth policies because they perceive it is in their interest.
Heritage, a division of Koch Industries
Just look at the circular referencing they do to make themselves all experts:
Wendell Cox, Principal of the Wendell Cox Consultancy in St. Louis, Missouri, is a Visiting Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Roe Institute. Brett D. Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation and editor of ConUNdrum: The Limits of the United Nations and the Search for Alternatives (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009).
Many "think tanks" one funding source--Koch Industries
Another slick leftist commentary
If you care to see the article reviewed by this author, I recommend that you find it at www.heritage.org. The main take-away of the article is that limiting growth in favor of saving the environment has negative economic consequences. As an example, Cox and Utt express the concern that home values are driven higher by such limitations, reducing or eliminating options for ordinary people in favor of creating environments for the elite.
The author of the commentary above makes no attempt to address this concern. His quotes are highly selective; both the flavor and the detail of his writing are derisive, with name-calling littered throughout.
I used to think that conservatives were off-base to shun smart growth efforts, because many design features are compelling, and increasing the options offered to consumers is great.
But that was before I read much of what is published by smart growth advocates. The focus is not on better design, so much as it is on centralized planning and funding from federal government career politicians. Can you say socialism? There is no actual dialog in this environment. Slick dis-information is a prevalent mode of communication.
So how can conservatives engage this conversation? Well - they can't. The insiders won't engage the arguments, they stand back and sling insults. It is a leftist approach that allows for no communication, but then, getting better design results is not the goal of a leftist.
Oh - and if people think they are being unfairly stigmatized here, then I suggest that you begin to read conservative publications. I recommend The Weekly Standard and Townhall Magazine. You may be hearing news only from a leftist perspective, and would benefit from a broader perspective.
Well I'm no leftist, but...
I did read the article in the Heritage and found the argument that smart growth creates higher priced homes and reduce options for oridnary people in favor of environments for the elite to be pretty irrational and uninformed. Smart growth focuses on providing multiple land uses within walking distance of home, including multiple residential types for many income levels. Compared to conventional single use subdivisions, how could smart use be limiting options for anyone? Further, having non-residential uses within walking distance of home reduces the need to drive, which is a big cost savings for everyone (including ordinary people). Finally, if you have a house on a small lot with less infrastructure it should cost less than the same house on a big lot with more infrastructure, unless perhaps people are willing to pay more for being part of a more diverse and convenient and inclusive environment.
Talk about slick dis-information to claim smart growth aims at environments for elites, when by default you are defending suburban sprawl which is the epitomy of systemic segregation and consumption and elitism.
conservatives and smart growth
Denise Zurn: So how can conservatives engage this conversation? Well - they can't.
I take great exception to that comment. There are a many conservatives who are influential new urbanists and advocates of what I would call smart growth. Many are expert in what they do and very much a part of the conversation. Cox and Utt, who don't seem to know much about smart growth, do not speak for every conservative.
Disinformation on both sides
While Denise Zurn has a good point, the Heritage article itself is a bastion of disinformation. Focusing first on the article here, it does completely discount economics. My first thought about their example of Portland was "True, but Portland is an increasingly expensive and un-diverse city". Largely because if you are going to implement smart growth policies, the government needs to intervene to assure that affordable housing is a component of it. A check and balance to the intended limitations of urban growth boundaries.
As far as the Heritage article, it commences with biases: "Radical environmentalists, local business groups, and the ever-present Not in My Backyard crowd have been trying for decades to reshape American communities to conform to their preferred “smart growth” policies." A conspiratorial identification of "them" as the problem. Beginning with the word radical sets the negative tone of the article. The article puts most of the blame on smart growth for the housing crisis. While there may be some correlations due to higher prices in some cases (i.e., Portland), the housing crisis was primarily due to unscrupulous lending policies at one-stop-shop venues offering financing over 100% on intentionally overvalued homes. This occurred in almost every market in America (minus many Rust Belt cities). Citing Nevada as an example in of itself skews the argument. While Nevada does have some smart growth policies in place, the towns around Las Vegas grew at an unnatural rate. More product than demand. Based on this line of thought, how does one explain the foreclosure rate and population loss of Michigan, which is not known for its smart growth policy? Utah? Georgia? Conversely, how does one explain the low foreclosure rates in Vermont, which has strong development regulation mechanisms? The factor is demand, or in the case of the recent crisis, artificially created demand. With Michigan, there was no demand from a failing job market. People abandoned their devalued homes. Again conversely, citing Las Vegas as a city that was experiencing tremendous job growth, its housing market exceeded that demand. People moved there in droves for those jobs, sunny weather, and such, and purchased homes that were overvalued with mortgages they could not afford (pushed upon them through disinformation). When the bubble burst, the region was left with thousands of vacant units.
There are instances where smart growth does create demand, and it can be argued artificially. But what smart growth does is reintroduce a way of building that occurred for millenniums. The Heritage Foundation is correct that smart growth began prior to Agenda 21. Visit any ancient or medieval city, and you will see a condensed growth pattern, or a better phrase, natural growth pattern. Additionally there is a tradeoff, yes housing prices do tend to rise, but the individual cost of owning a vehicle radically decreases, as does the societal cost of paying taxes to maintain and build overused roads, bridges and tunnels. Light rail has an initial cost higher than highways, but it can handle more people per mile than highways. The increase in ridership, leads to further lower costs. Furthermore, there are indirect and social costs sprawl incurs. Some sprawl advocates may dismiss this as too intangible or “silly”, but highways have greater negative health impacts than light rail does. Also, promoting walkable communities is a healthier way of living, and can be more affordable not only through reduced health care costs, but reduced vehicle miles traveled to engage in economic activity.
Any type of regulation imposes a certain restraint of “freedom”, but how free can certain folks be if they are not able to have access to certain resources if growth patterns are promoted that keep these resources away from segments of the population. This is not to say the car is “evil”, or the single-family home is “wrong”. Cars are necessary, but they have been overutilized as a convenience, as opposed to utilizing them when necessary. That being said unrestrained smart growth can be as problematic as unrestrained sprawl. Smart growth cannot work without intervention assuring there are affordable opportunities to working class folks.
Slick commentary
Denise, you've lost me. Smart growth is not the same thing as "limiting growth," which is a vague reference to any land-use regulations. Not all land-use regulations have the same effect on the economy or a community. Many of the most restrictive and costly land-use regulations, such as large-lot zoning, single-use zoning, large setbacks, and wide roads and excessive off-street parking requirements, are opposed by smart growth advocates and new urbanists. Cox and Utt conflate all land-use regulations, as if mixed-use codes had the same effect as more restrictive single-use zoning.
Like it or not, land-use regulations are a fact of modern life. But just some of them tend to result in a lousy, low-value built environment.
"The main take-away of the article is that limiting growth in favor of saving the environment has negative economic consequences. As an example, Cox and Utt express the concern that home values are driven higher by such limitations, reducing or eliminating options for ordinary people in favor of creating environments for the elite."
UN or Tea Party conspiracy
Robert,
The Tea Party has also been romping around Maine, disrupting planning meetings for the Maine Gateway project, attempting to incite folks into believing that it too is part of the UN 21 conspiracy. Several months after incoming Governor LePage (who came into office beholding to the Tea Party for support) pulled all Maine state funding for Gateway 1 (see http://www.pps.org/blog/pavement-instead-of-people-how-gov-lepage-moves-maine-backwards/), I learned from a Virginia DOT employee that the Tea Party was using the exact same speech in an attempt to taint a grassroots Virginia transportation and land use study. It is clear from all of these outbreaks of disinformation and propaganda, that the local branches of the Tea Party are being sent out by Tea Party central, to attack any and all planning studies.
As I said in my post cited above, "Our biggest loss in this move may not be the project itself but the disappearance of truth and good old fashioned, honest and respectful American debate in the political decision-making process."
Gary
Re: UN or Tea Party
It's a shame that planning effort was thwarted, Gary. They could've used the ideas that would have come out of it. Cox and Utt plainly want to fan those flames, instead of having honest dialog and debate.
Honest and respectful American debate
"wacky theories / anti-smart growth ideologues / half-truths / dubious arguments / unusually strange / conspiracy theories from the fringe of the Tea Party / peddling these strange ideas"
People who write with this type of language are not addressing discussion points, they are calling people names. This is not useful for dialog. Is it meant as entertainment? Is it intended to prevent discussion? Or are you not able to discern the discussion points?
Speaking of something all too familiar
Ms Zurn, you are right, people should read articles before commenting on them. I admit that I have not--because I have read a great many articles written by O'Toole and Cox, and Utt, and others and the points made and citations, such as they are, are the same old, same old.
Unfortunately, you are reading a publication that is or was distributed to a relatively small group of people who have broadly related experience and attend a lot of the same meetings. The publication is expanding its reach and still has the feel of a publication for a smaller group. Many of the people in this group spend a good deal of time researching responses to O'Toole, Cox, Utt, and I'm blanking on others.
When I read an article such as Mr Steuteville's I understand the background because I've read it and listened to speakers and debates, including people from Heritage and others. After all that, "wacky" seems more than a little kind to me.
What if I told you that many of the financial problems of our cities could be relieved if we built in such a way that property tax and sales tax revenues would support not only construction of new infrastructure, but maintenance of existing infrastructure? What if I told you that cities have never budgeted lifecycle costs of infrastructure, but have relied on state or federal subsidies for ongoing maintenance?
For my city and most of the cities nearby, THAT is the problem we need to address. A financial analysis performed in about 1998, during GOOD times, demonstrated in my area that property taxes for every single house fell short by roughly $700 every year, as compared to the cost of providing all services and infrastructure to that house. THAT is called a subsidy.
Every homeowner was getting a gift of public money every single year. Yes, we ALL pay our taxes. But most of us are still subsidized. And we are ignorant of that fact. City councils rarely, if ever, make land use decisions on the basis of whether a development or a house will pay for itself.
This issue seems to me to be at the heart of the Tea Party's concerns. The Tea Party says it favors fiscal responsibility over irresponsibility, does it not?
Jefferson was right: democracy requires an EDUCATED and INFORMED citizenry.
Again, proven with mathematical logic and geometric precision
Survival just doesn't pencil.
'Time to start issuing Queeg Award (brass-plated ball bearings) nominations....
Thanks
Thanks for the comments, many of which were excellent. What's clear is that by using the ominous sounding Agenda 21, Cox and Utt are fanning the flames of Tea Party opposition and fear of smart growth. This tactic is most likely to succeed in rural areas like the Maine highway corridor that Gary Toth mentioned, which are desperately in need of smart growth strategies. These strategies are compatible with economic revival and fiscal discipline, an argument that may win the day even though activists who come to meetings worked up by Glenn Beck's UN conspiracy theories are unlikely to believe it.
With that audience in mind, there's a certain logic to Cox and Utt using liberal Portland as a bogeyman — although that tactic makes a lot less sense for O'Toole in Detroit. That's like saying to a desperate, unemployed man, "don't be like that cool, well-dressed guy with a good job."
Generational Change
I've been following Cox, O'Toole, Utt and their ilk for more than a decade and I'm amazed how little their arguments have changed over time. Indeed, it's as if the events of the last decade never happened and we're still living in 1999.
The recent hysteria surrounding Agenda 21 is essentially nothing more than a repackaging of these same tired arguments designed to appeal to those, who for whatever reason, simply can't accept that the world is changing.
Steve Jobs got it right when he said that death is life's greatest change agent.
What Conservatives Don't Mention
Conservative critics don't mention the fact that the most severe restrictions on development are suburban zoning standards requiring very low density, which were adopted almost universally in the United States by the 1950s.
Blame higher housing prices on this low density suburban zoning, which restrict housing supply.
By contrast, smart growth allows higher density in locations where you can build walkable, transit-oriented neighborhoods, and it restricts development on rural land. If it is done correctly, it does not have to involve any net reduction in the amount of development allowed. In fact, it can allow more development than conventional suburban zoning.
Smart Growth and Farming
AHHHhhhh, But you guys are missing the key point.
Just WHO is going to end up owning all that rural farmland, while The Great Unwashed is squashed into a small area. Viewing any of the ongoing politics without stepping back to look at the WHOLE PICTURE and WHO will actually benefit is a big mistake especially when you consider who owns the mass media. (Start with JP Morgan)
FARMLAND GRAB
Investors seeing gold in US farmland: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/20/usa-grains-investment-idUSN1E77H1FN20110820
Worldwide: http://farmlandgrab.org/
PUSHING USA FARMERS OFF THE LAND
The "Food Safety Modernization Act" just being passed last year contained the following:
”...SEC. 404. <> COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization...”http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247548.htm
This law turns control of US food over to the World Trade Organization which in conjunction with the UN has reams of international Regs. already prepared. Farmers in other countries report these regs gobble up over 60% of their time. (See OIE & FIO agricultural practices) The FDA has already stated in a 2008 press release that they WILL “Harmonize” US law with the WTO and UN.
Here is how the public was manipulated into accepting WTO control of our food supply.
THE SET UP
How the FDA/USDA allowed Corporations to produce tainted food without government intervention: http://www.agpolicy.org/weekcol/467.html
FDA to announce lab closure details: More than half of the 13 field labs, which inspect food and drugs, could be shuttered. http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/52876/
USDA cover-up for the big corporations who run the WTO; SHIELDING THE GIANTS: http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf
The GOAL
Transferring Liability from Corporations to the Farmer: http://nonais.org/2008/07/08/transferring-liability/
WTO GOALS by World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy
Global Governance
http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/
http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/256/
DETAILS: WTO farming
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/11853
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11878
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11910
Goldman Sachs and the financiers get into the act
2008 FOOD RIOTS: A market in “food speculation” was born. The speculators drove the price through the roof.” http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html
Isn't it about time we open our eyes to the fact it is just a few very wealthy people pulling the strings and they have been doing it for a very long time? I thought the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the Tea Party types and finally figured out it is ALL of us (Liberal and Conservative) against the money bags and politicians but I guess not.