CEQA Reform Dead – For Now
After a dramatic 24 hours, in which the “gut and amend” process was used to insert into an existing bill on the Kings River language that would reform the California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA reform is now dead – at least until next year.
At a Sacramento press conference today, State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg announced that no CEQA reform would be taken up in what remains of the 2011-12 legislative session:
“The Senate will not take up comprehensive CEQA reform in the last days of the legislative session,” Steinberg told reporters at the Capitol. “This law, for all of its strengths and its faults, is far too important to rewrite in the last days of the session.”
Environmentalists were relieved after spending the morning mobilizing to fight off reforms they believed would significantly weaken the law. The California League of Conservation Voters put up a website Save CEQA, soliciting signatures to oppose the proposal, and began mobilizing progressive organizations to help drum up support.
The text of the proposed bill, an amendment to SB 317, has not yet surfaced publicly. Reports circulated by opponents argued that it could limit or exempt oil rigs, power plants, and the proposed Peripheral Canal from review. Concerns were raised that the proposal’s language allowing projects to move forward if they conformed to general plans was basically a loophole, given that many local general plans are several decades old. Opponents argued the reforms would undermine the state’s global warming law, AB 32, as well as its urban planning counterpart, SB 375. They also charged that projects could escape mitigation requirements.
These charges are very serious, and if true would indeed mean this proposal wasn’t the right way to reform CEQA. Surely it is the case, as the LA Times argued this afternoon, that reforms of this importance should be carefully deliberated and not rushed. I agree with that assessment, and shoehorning this into the very end of a legislative session was not a confidence-building move.
Reports indicate that other reform proposals have circulated in the Capitol. Some have called for a special session to deal with CEQA reform in early 2013, but even if that doesn’t happen, the 2013-14 session is almost certain to see a major reform effort mounted.
The case for reform remains strong. CEQA reform is going to happen. Its backers have the money, and they have the momentum. They can point to any number of truly egregious examples of wanton CEQA abuse to make their case for them. One is the man who stalled the San Francisco Bike Master Plan for four years with a CEQA suit, on the charge that giving bikes more space on the roads would hurt the environment by causing traffic. High speed rail advocates have seen CEQA used to delay the environmentally and climate friendly project, with well-heeled Peninsula NIMBYs filing lawsuits under CEQA they keep losing, aside from technical fixes that the project was easily able to make. CEQA has even been used to try and overturn a marijuana dispensary ban (and while I oppose such bans, I also don’t see this as a legitimate use of that law). It’s ridiculous things like that which make a mockery of the law and are simply not affordable in an era of climate crisis.
On the other hand, environmentalists have also pointed to a number of examples that showed how CEQA legitimately stopped environmentally damaging projects that other laws would have allowed. One friend described to me today a pollution-spewing project that was permitted under loopholes in existing laws, only to be stopped by a CEQA suit.
My response was that showed the need for reforming not just CEQA, but California’s whole approach to environmental regulation. A new system is needed, because this one is broken. It doesn’t make sense that one should have to go to court to stop an oil refinery but that someone can use environmental law to stop an electrified passenger train that massively reduces carbon emissions. Something isn’t right here.
Others have reached similar conclusions. In 2006, SPUR issued a report titled Fixing the California Environmental Quality Act. They argued that CEQA has failed to meet its objectives, has actually made environmental problems worse, and that it should be replaced in urban and suburban settings with a statewide planning process:
In the absence of strong statewide planning and in the presence of weak local planning, stopping projects is what California does best. CEQA has become the tool of choice for stopping bad ones and good ones. SPUR has reviewed CEQA from the standpoint of sound planning and environmental quality. We contend that after the law’s 30-plus years of operation, the type and pattern of developments, viewed at citywide, regional, and state scales, are environmentally worse than before. Not all of this can be blamed on CEQA; it has improved individual project design in some cases. Yet viewed broadly, CEQA has contributed to sprawl and worsened the housing shortage by inhibiting dense infill development far more than local planning and zoning would have done alone. To re-form California, we must first reform CEQA….
Our neighbors to the north provide a dramatic model for change. At almost the same moment that California turned to environmental impact reports to protect its environment, Oregon turned to a strengthened planning program, requiring effective local plans and zoning by all jurisdictions. Oregon has protected and greatly improved its natural environment without review of individual projects, but with sound intergovernmental planning. The recent property-rights crusade that passed compensatory zoning at the Oregon ballot box does not lessen the fact that the Oregon environment remains one of the most pristine in the country.
California ought to be moving toward a system where we have statewide land use plans that have regional and even city specificity, emphasizing environmentally friendly projects and mandating carbon emissions reductions. That’s the goal of SB 375, and the basis of a lawsuit by Attorney General Kamala Harris against the San Diego Association of Governments plan which did not meet the state’s greenhouse gas reduction targets and instead favored sprawl. Governor Jerry Brown is very interested in these kinds of modernized plans and that’s good. Harmonizing CEQA with those kinds of state and local plans is smart.
More fundamentally, the current CEQA process is not one that encourages thoughtful design or encourages democratic participation. CEQA relies on lawsuits as its primary enforcement mechanism. But many people in communities affected by the worst environmental impacts don’t have the money to go to court. The existing planning process is often described as “decide-announce-defend” where a government agency or private developer decides to do something, announces it, and then holds public meetings to defend it. A more inclusive process, one that would address environmental and social justice concerns, would still have the courts as a pathway but could rely on more democratic processes of engagement to develop regional general plans that meet statewide carbon reduction requirements and environmental rules. Of course, the details of how that might work matter a lot.
Further, CEQA is inherently biased in favor of the status quo. An existing oil refinery or a freeway doesn’t have to face the CEQA process, but a new wind farm or an electric passenger rail system does, making it harder and more costly to replace the polluting infrastructure with clean infrastructure. There’s got to be a better way – CEQA should help address climate change and clean up the skies, the waters, and the neighborhoods, not make it harder to do that.
As I’ve argued before, it won’t work to try and maintain the current status quo. CEQA does need reform and that the status quo isn’t acceptable. I wouldn’t want to see CA progressives wind up in a place of defending the current process from any kind of change.
Without reform, the legislature will keep finding ways to give projects whose backers are politically connected CEQA exemptions or expedited reviews. Farmers Field in LA got a bill passed to expedite their CEQA review thanks in part to those connections. I’m not convinced that’s the best way to reform CEQA, but we will see more of it in the absence of lasting fixes.
We need to close the loopholes but also modernize the law and harmonize it with our climate efforts, rather than letting it undermine those efforts. While this specific plan may be dead, others are out there. Eventually one of them will pass. The other side has a lot more money and they have a solution to a system that is broken. I would not bet against them. It is time for a progressive solution. There’s at least four months in which one can be crafted. I hope that work is now under way.
So disappointing, I was hoping to watch the liberals turn on each other. Now all I have to fun is watching the prop 30 and prop 38 people turn on each other.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
Looks like the Republicans have some turning going on, too:
http://themoderatevoice.com/157324/floridas-former-republican-gov-charlie-christ-endorses-barack-obama/
This fellow is going to be VERY unpopular in Tampa for at least the next few days, and that seems to be born out in the comments that are following this piece.
Two things stand out for me. One is the combination of meanness and arrogance in the readers’ comments; they don’t make Florida sound like a pleasant place. The other is the editorial itself. Is this former (?) Republican really speaking his mind? Does he have regrets about his party? Does he think his party is going so crazy that most people will soundly reject that party’s candidate? If that’s the case, is he planning some sort of comeback, is he trying to triangulate himself into a favorable position?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
More of what appears to be Republican craziness, in this case by a member of the House of Representatives, from Florida again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcwJ02CNOxQ&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ypSvsg-2Tg
The first clip I think may have been a “trap” by some liberal group, but for some reason, I’m not so sure of the second (although both appear to be from the same day and location). Traps or not, neither makes the Congressman look good (I would think you would want to treat all people as potential voters and supporters, and thus treat all of them with some sort of respect). I can’t help but wonder, particularly looking at the second clip, if this man may have some sort of dementia or other “head problem;” he tells the constituent to “get a job,” when he is asked about an increase in the minimum wage, and then again tells the constituent to “get a job” after the constituent tells him that he already has a job.
Whether from arrogance or a genuine mental health problem, if these clips are any indication of the state of mind of the Congressman in question, it may be a good idea for him to retire and let in some fresh blood.
I agree with you about CEQA.
One party systems do not reform. The interests are too intrenched.
Nathanael Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Two-party systems where one party has gone completely utterly bonkers also do not reform, because the other party spends all its time fighting against the bonkers party (and can therefore get away without “cleaning its own house”).
That’s what we have now. I think the path forward is to eliminate the utterly bonkers party; this will allow for a real second party to challenge the Democrats. (Greens? Libertarians? Natural Law? Something new? Whatever, anything is better than the “we hate reality” Republicans of today).
In more-than-two-party systems, which you can have with party-proportional-representation elections (but not with single-member districts), there are ways to shove out a bonkers party which don’t require an interim period of single-party rule. But we don’t have that sort of system; we have to remove the Republican Party as a viable force, which will lead to a short period of Democratic Party “one-party rule”, and then a couple of years later the Democratic Party will quite naturally splinter into two parties. (It’s not like it’s unified in the first place.)
And no, we can’t do it the other way around, because Republican leaders have made it quite clear that if they ever achieve one-party rule, they’ll do their best to eliminate democracy.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 10:14 am
Just because you need to stand in line 8 hours and pay processing fees to be enfranchised doesn’t mean it’s not a democracy.
Be careful. Next thing you’ll tell me that it’s undemocratic to disenfranchise people who are not advanced enough to vote.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 10:44 am
The irony of this post is so blatent I almost think it is actually scarcasm. But then I realized you were serious.
You are proposing eliminating the Republican party to save democracy? So you want to eliminate the party of approx 35% of the US population (see link 34% say they are democrat so they are actually smaller) and your justification is you want to ensure 2 party rule (by eliminating the 2nd party). This brings up some interesting questions.
1. How do you propose to “eliminate” this bonkers party. Are you going to outlaw them? Perhaps jail all the leaders?
2. Where are those 35% of voters going to be placed? Are they still allowed to think and vote or because they supported your bonkers party have they lost the right to vote?
3. What makes you think that the “splintered” dems will turn out to be any different than the current GOP since they presumably would be the same people from the outlawed GOP? Unless you get rid of those 35% of people (and their opinions) why would the new party be any different than the old party.
4. How does 1 party rule (which you advocate for a couple of years) advance the cause of democracy?
5. How do you propose to suspend the Constitution to enact this plan because by my count you are in direct violation of the document itself as well as ammendments 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 24?
Please tell me you were just kidding and I missed the sarcasm?
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Explanation: party systems evolve. In a two-party system, this means one party collapses and is replaced by another, one party collapses and the remaining party splits, or the two parties realign their coalitions and support groups radically. In all cases, there’s an interregnum in which one party is dominant. All three have happened in US history: the Federalists collapsed and then the Democratic-Republicans split and the remnants of the Federalists joined the anti-Jacksonians to form the Whigs, the Whigs collapsed and then the GOP was formed, and the Dems and GOP realigned their coalitions multiple times, most notably starting in the New Deal and ending in the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy.
Some people call the dominant-party interregnum a one-party state. It’s not really true, but the term sticks even when a party is dominant democratically.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
except those were all organic changes, Nathaniel advocated “elimination” of the GOP….that is an entirely different discussion and completly undemocratic. People have the right in this country to support the political party they choose, regardless of what other people think about it. To advocate anything else is to attack the very foundation of the American system
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
I don’t see anything inorganic about what Nathanael is proposing (counting lobbying and agitation and such as part of the rules of American democracy). Basically he’s saying the US needs a partisan shift with the GOP eliminated and the Dems splitting. For the record, I think the parties will shift, because immigration trends favor the Dems and this means that in 5-10 years, the GOP will have to align to the pro-immigration platform of Rick Perry and against the anti-immigration platform of Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio, and Hispanic infusion will moderate the GOP somewhat.
Independently of that he’s also saying the US needs to enact electoral reforms to permit a multiparty system. I’m skeptical – not of the benefits of a multiparty system, but rather of the desirability of spending political capital on getting one. It’s hard to change obscure Constitutional rules for how Congress is elected, nobody in Congress has any interest in this, it’s removed from immediate issues facing Americans, and if you have enough power to effect this change, you have enough power to do everything else too.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 10:08 am
There are people behind the GOP, it is not just an abstract thing. You are talking about disenfranchising people who believe and vote a certain way.
The tea party was an organic movement…those people organized because of what they believe, not because of some lobby in Wash DC.
Do you not get that? Do you not understand that there is a significant portion of the country that holds those conservative beliefs because they think it is right, not because someone told them to think that way?
You can’t “shift” the politics of the voters without getting rid of those people on the conservative side.
You can call it the GOP or the tea party or the happy face party, it is not the name, it is the beliefs of about 40-60% of the voting population that you are talking about “eliminating”.
And if anyone is on the downtrend it is the old time liberals, not the conservatives. Even the people who believe in tax ans spend wont say it anymore. Fiscal conservatives (both Dems and Rep) are winning.
joe Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 10:37 am
Hilarious – political party claims opposition to their political values is disenfranchisement.
All failure is due to liberals gaming life to disenfranchise them. Maybe we need a special election for conservatives.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 10:50 am
No, it is not the conservatives here that are advocating the “elimination” of the opposition party. That is the liberals on this blog.
Opposition is fine…advocating the elimination of the views is not
joe Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 11:37 am
I’m so sorry you feelings are hurt. I really am that these mean liberals wrote nasty things and might scare people from thinking conservative thoughts.
I propose we setup a politically correct filter and also a quote so the imbalance on the blog can be corrected and politically unacceptable speech is filtered.
Would you volunteer to police the blog?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 12:21 pm
The Republicans are offering choices that appeal to a decreasing percentage of the population. If they become as important to the democratic discussion as the Whigs or the Communists that’s the Republcan’s fault.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
If the Republicans fall out of favor because they fail to appeal to people and their views then that is fine. If you disagree with the Republicans that is fine. Hell, even if you think the republicans will eventually fail that is also fine.
But what is not fine is to advocate the elimination of people’s views and their party in some forced way, that is what the original post advocated and that is wrong.
And don’t worry about my feelings, I will soldier on
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
You are the one who is imagining anyone being forced to do anything.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Just something that’s interesting–none other than Pat Buchanan has reservations about the current GOP and its future:
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/08/24/a_grand_old_party_in_panic/page/full/
If the GOP does go under as some predict (I think it will reform itself, by the way), it will be because of their blatant hypocrisy. This is the party that claimed to be “pro-life,” and “anti-abortion,” but all it has turned out to be is “pro big money.”
Now, I’m a member of the pro-life camp, and have to admit it even knowing not everyone here will agree with me on that subject. (For the record, the reasons are that we don’t really know about the beginning of life, and also, if you are to enjoy our freedoms of speech, travel, political opinion, worship, or anything else, you have to be alive to do so.) I recall how the Republicans noisily passed, in Congress, a “right to life” Constitutional amendment during the Clinton administration. This amendment was vetoed by Bill Clinton, which I think was a mistake (you need to either trust your voters, or at least be willing to accept their decisions), but later, they had a second chance. . .and they didn’t use it
That second chance was for six years–SIX YEARS–between the inauguration of George W. Bush in January of 2001 and the inauguration of a Democracticly controlled Senate in 2006. In between those two dates, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, too. Where was that right-to-life amendment? Why wasn’t it brought up in a second chance to send out for possible ratification?
Someone here–I think it was Nathaniel, it’s been a while now–thought the GOP deliberately didn’t do anything more because that would have actually solved what many see as a problem–and they wouldn’t have that problem to beat up on the Democrats anymore if it really was fixed.
In short, they used the sincerely religious as tools to get into what they really wanted, which was the power to make sure their rich backers stayed rich–even at the expense of the population as a whole, even at the expense of the country as a whole. They certainly didn’t shrink the cost of government, and even, during the Clinton administration, made sure the debt wouldn’t be completely paid by pushing for tax cuts at the time.
Even though I’m a conservative person, even thought some might consider me somewhat extremist in some of those views, I plan to vote a straight Democratic ticket this year. At least we might get something useful out of the Democrats, even if I call them either “Dummycrats” or “Disappointing Cats.”
BruceMcF Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
The 2000-2006 House majority was a different one than the current one, though. The least conservative Republicans in the House were less conservative than the most conservative Democrats.
And President Bush in the partisan divide of 2004 did not have to worry about being blindsided from his right flank ~ and they were using gay marriage as their “social issue”, where the reactionary position at the time polled better than abortion. A hypothetical President Romney would never be safe from attack on his right flank.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
The 2000-2006 House majority was a different one than the current one
Yeah, well it’s hard to reelect people who have been indicted and convicted…..
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 12:40 pm
The Republican Party is on the verge of ending up like South Africa’s National Party towards the end of apartheid.
They are on the wrong side of all the demographic and socioeconomic shifts going on through the country.
Fiscal conservatives lost and lost badly. Every major tax cut has yet to pay for itself in economic growth or in offsetting the lost of government spending. That’s why the Bush Administration didn’t attempt to justify Medicare Part D or the Iraq War.
The Ron Paul’s of the world who did call the party out for spending more and not paying for it were ignored and discredited.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
What is funny about history is that people keep making the same wrong predictions over and over again and never learn. The GOP was “on the wrong side of the demographic and socioeconomic trends” in the 60s (free love) and the 70s (oil is evil) and managed to come roaring back in the 80s and 90s. I think we will be ok, but thanks for the concern
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/Eu2IuTaaZ-d/2008+Republican+National+Convention+Day+3/03yYxhfeD7l/Bristol+Palin
I think most of the “free love” debate has been won by the free love side.
Remind us how many months pregnant Miss Palin was when she attended the convention with her child’s father.
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
John actually proved my point. The Republican Party of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford essentially died and was replaced by a more conservative, doctrinare, GOP. My guess is that in 2016 the Republicans are going to look a lot different than they do this time…lots of prominent minority candidates, almost no mention of social issues, and a singleminded concern to stop government spending as a way to counter the massive inflation that’s coming.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
No, “eliminate the Republican Party” is clearly an elimination of the institutional Republican Party.
As far as “eliminating the beliefs of 40%-60% of the voting population”, that’s exactly the goal that the radical reactionary movement adopted in the 1960′s/1970′s. The other name for “eliminating the beliefs” of people is persuading them to change their mind. Its absurd to pretend that its perfectly fine for the radical reactionaries to pursue the victory of authoritarian beliefs over civil libertarian beliefs and reactionary economic beliefs over progressive economic beliefs, but somehow “wacko” for people on the other side of those political spectra to take advantage of their advantage in both the views of the youngest cohorts and among growing demographic groups to change people’s minds in the opposite direction.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
There would still be a Republican party. They could continue to elect bat shit insane candidates in their primaries, as they have been doing frequently in the past few years. And lose elections. That’s the way democracy works.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
How quickly we forget…those “bat shit” canidates ran roughshot all over the dems at the midterms.
But that is beside the point. Nathanael specifically advocated “elimination” of the GOP. Not a organic collapse of the party (because the GOp is no where near collaspe) he advocated getting rid of it. As you would say adirondacker….dont k=move the goalposts
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 3:33 pm
Eliminate has more than one meaning. If the your favorite college basketball team is eliminated in the first round they are still eligible to compete next year.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
So what does it mean in this case. The quote was
“I think the path forward is to eliminate the utterly bonkers party; this will allow for a real second party to challenge the Democrats. (Greens? Libertarians? Natural Law? Something new? Whatever, anything is better than the “we hate reality” Republicans of today).”
Sounds pretty permanent to me. I can’t believe you are defending this wacko.
joe Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
It means the GOP party is going the way of the Whig Party. Or the No-Nothing Party.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
Exactly. I don’t see people saying we should keep the Whigs, the Federalists, or the Know-Nothings.
The Republicans are on the same path, but they’re causing massive destruction as long as people treat them as if they’re a serious party. I think the window for “reforming” the Republican party has closed — now people liek Charlie Crist (who I admire) are just leaving the Republican Party (well, “being hounded out” is more accurate).
The Republican Party is dying on its own, but its death throes are causing us a lot of trouble — we need to help them go away as a political force as quickly as possible, before they cause any more damage. Bryan Fischer of the “Values Voter Summit” is now talking in terms of eliminating votes for women. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/26/1124444/-Women-s-suffrage-next
BruceMcF Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 5:58 pm
It may seem like its dying in some states, but in a Federal system biased in favor of rural and outer suburban populations, its far from that condition in many others. Republicans will continue to be treated as a serious party so long as there is a prospect of a Republican House of Representative, Senate, and/or President being elected.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
The closer they become to 21st Century Dixiecrats the less and less likely it becomes that they would get either house or the presidency. Though 21st Century Dixiecrat is a bit of an oxymoron.
joe Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
Chicken and Egg – but really, when the strategy tfor winning is to disenfranchise voters, you have dead end party.
GOP is effectively dead in CA and only remain because of the undemocratic super-majority requirement for taxing. The
Prop 25, just passed, allows CA to pass a budget with a simple Majority. It has taken power form the GOP. Prior that also required a super-majority.
So now the GOP can say no to taxes but has NO POWER in the State Budget process. NONE. They don’t get invited to meetings. No influence at all until they offer to trade tax increases for influence.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
Yes, eliminate as in what happened to the Whig Party. As may be happening to the Liberal party in Canada, over the last decade and the next decade or two.
Nothing “wacko” about it.
Obviously the GOP has the inside track on survival, since in the legally entrenched two-party system that we have had since the late 1880′s, its more normal for a party to respond to the threat of destruction by re-building itself on a different basis. So if the GOP responds to the pressures by reforming on a less radical basis, they certainly can avoid a permanent collapse.
If opponents of the radical reactionary positions that they have adopted are pursuing their outright
elimination, that could well have a salutary impact in hastening the day that they abandon the dead end track that they are on now and hep them restructure to something more sustainable.
VBobier Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
The GOP will either reform itself or start down the road towards its end as the Whigs did, fewer and fewer whites of the Younger generation are joining what is increasingly seen as an old white Mans party and the less Women and Younger people in the party the more crazy they’ve become, paranoia be thy name… Ignoring reality seems to be the order of the day for the OLD Men in the GOP, like below…
22-Year-Old Woman Tries to Talk Sense to Republican Party, Is Promptly Ignored
Alon Levy Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
To add to what Bruce is saying: the only reason the elimination of a party is even an option in Canada is that Canadian politics is more regional than American politics. In the Tories’ wild years of the 1990s, when they were two different parties, one got elected in Western Canada and one in Eastern Canada and Quebec, and so both had some seats. When they merged to form a new Tory party, the senior partner, the Western party, was actually the new creation, whereas the party with the Eastern support base was the old, pre-collapse Tory party. Likewise, today the base of support of the NDP is areas that didn’t support the Liberals much even in the 1990s, like Quebec.
joe Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
It’s a different system.
Parliamentary system allows minority parties to gather votes and participate in government formation. Our system is winner take all which down selects to two party governance.
IMHO the GOP is about to implode as a political movement like the WHIGs or No-Nothing Party.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Its not just that ours is a winner take all system ~ it was equally a winner take all system in the late 1800′s, when Republicans were fighting three cornered contests against the Democrats and the Progressives, with the Populists also making a showing in some Prairie state.
Its also that there are the anti-democratic two party laws that were passed as a result of that pressure, which entrenches a two party state as surely as a single party dictatorship was entrenched in the Soviet Union.
That does not protect a party from collapse, but if one of the two parties does collapse, it is far more likely that it will be reconstructed on a new basis around a new coalition and with the existing major party apparatus than that it will be replaced by a new party. When the Whigs collapsed as a result of the pro-slavery Whigs purging the anti-slavery Whigs, the national Republican party was formed around the kernel of a collection of minor parties and movements that already existed ~ the anti-slavery Whigs, the Know-Nothings, the Abolitionists, the Free Soilers, and others.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Its also that there are the anti-democratic two party laws that were passed as a result of that pressure
Yes it’s quite handy to be able to remind the Senator that he or she got ten percent of his or her vote on the line other than the Democratic one. Or the mayor.
And since, in New York, the Conservative Party has party apparatus, they can run the bat shit insane candidate that lost the Republican primary and throw the election to the Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York,_2010#District_23
Alon Levy Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:37 am
Joe, it has nothing to do with a parliamentary system. That’s just an American conflation of two different electoral system questions:
1. Parliamentary vs. presidential system: in a parliamentary system people vote for the legislature and the party or coalition with a legislative majority gets to nominate the executive branch, with the leader becoming the head of government; in a presidential system, the head of government is elected directly by the people.
2. Legislative elections by single-member districts vs. proportional representation, with various hybrids, e.g. districts with a small number of members greater than 1. But Germany’s mixed system is actually fully proportional: half the Bundestag is elected in districts, but the other half is chosen based on party lists in such a way to fully compensate for the distortion created by districts.
The US is single-member district presidential; so is France. The UK and most of its former colonies are single-member district parliamentary. Latin America tends toward proportional presidential systems. Europe except for the UK and France tends toward proportional parliamentary systems.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 11:29 am
France is also single member district parliamentary. Prime Minister elected by majority in Parliament, cabinet ministers appointed from among the governing party in parliament, etc.
And while it may be single-member district, its a two phase election with a run-off if the leading vote getter does not win a majority, which allows for more parties than first past the post.
joe Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Alon and Bruce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system
Multi-party systems tend to be more common in parliamentary systems than presidential systems and far more common in countries that utilize proportional representation compared to countries that utilize first past the post elections.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
“That does not protect a party from collapse, but if one of the two parties does collapse, it is far more likely that it will be reconstructed on a new basis around a new coalition and with the existing major party apparatus than that it will be replaced by a new party.”
The existing Republican Party leadership is doing their best to run “purges” and lock out the grassroots from voting — and the leadership is simultaneously being taken over by fanatics. The result is that it is very unlikely that it will be possible for a new coalition to be formed using the existing apparatus.
“When the Whigs collapsed as a result of the pro-slavery Whigs purging the anti-slavery Whigs,…”
The current leadership of the Republicans is big on purges.
“…the national Republican party was formed around the kernel of a collection of minor parties and movements that already existed ~ the anti-slavery Whigs, the Know-Nothings, the Abolitionists, the Free Soilers, and others.”"
And *THAT* is what I expect will happen. A bunch of the people kicked out of the Republican Party will join with various independents and disillusioned Democrats and third party members to form a new second party.
However, Duverger’s Law means that this has no hope of happening until the Republican Party has dwindled to the point where it is not a meaningful electoral force, at least locally within individual states.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 2:38 pm
However, Duverger’s Law means that this has no hope of happening until the Republican Party has dwindled to the point where it is not a meaningful electoral force, at least locally within individual states.>
How long before the Democratic Primary becomes the important election in most of New York State?
Nelson Rockefeller appealed to a wide swath of the electorate. Carl Paladino not so much. Who is Rick Lazio or Steve Levy? … the non bat shit insane candidates in the 2010 Republican primary for Governor? Face it, Carl made Jimmy McMillan look good. And the Republicans are going to wahs rinse and repeat in 2012 and 2014 and 2016. The last of the Pataki Republicans are going to wander off to spend more time with their families leaving it to Carl Paladino and Doug Hoffman.. to lose elections.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
The Republican fsckers are still winning elections upstate, and even more in the NYC suburbs. The primary is the most important election for Governor, and perhaps soon for AG and Comptroller, but you’ve still got the mega-gerrymandered legislature.
And of course the corrupt Andrew Cuomo was happy to sign off on the self-serving gerrymanding plan of the Republican State Senate leadership. I expected this of Sheldon Silver, who’s been making the same deal for deacdes, but Cuomo should have known better. He had nothing to lose by throwing it to the courts *except the ability to blame the Republicans* when he didn’t want to get something done.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
I really do hope that the Republicans go full scale Dede Scozzafava in all the upstate NY elections. That would finally do them in in NYS and we might have a good chance of rearranging the political system in a couple of years.
They haven’t done that yet, though. They’re still picking, fairly often, corporate pro-fracking stooges who manage to act sane in public.
Even the short period when Democrats had control of the State Senate allowed us to clean out four awful, corrupt Democrats who’d been around for many, many years. I think we could really do something if we didn’t have dangerous Republicans to deal with.
I do miss the days of the “Republican that a reasonable person could vote for”; I could name several retired upstate state Senators and Assemblymen. Those days are just over, though.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Joe, regarding:
That’s true, but those are not homogenous categories, and the “tendencies” are continua, not discrete steps.
The United States in 1870 was more open to the establishment of a third party than the United States of 1920, because of the anti-fusion laws, the ballot access laws, and more recently common state subsidies for major party primaries.
The United States still wouldn’t be as open to development of a third party if there was Second Preference Voting and Fusion Tickets were permitted … but it would be more open to their development.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Joe, this is still wrong:
Please distinguish the continuum between a multiparty system and a two-party system (roughly the same as the one between proportional representation and single-member districts, respectively) and the one between parliamentary and presidential systems.
Of the world’s PR democracies, many are presidential (look at Latin America again) and many more are parliamentary. Of the world’s single-member district democracies, 1.5 are presidential (the US, with France as the half because of the possibility of a president and prime minister cohabiting).
Travis Mason-Bushman Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Not in California, they didn’t.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
well, if it did not happen in CA then it must not be important
BruceMcF Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:12 pm
The batshit insane candidates underperformed in 2010 ~ given a base turnout mid-term election with the depressed turnout that the Democratic base had, the Republicans would have the inside track to taking the Senate this November if it hadn’t been for Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle winning the Republican nominations in their state. Even Rand Paul made it closer running than a Senate race in Kentucky ought to be.
As far as the difference between “eliminating” the Republicans and allowing them to have an organic collapse … this isn’t a gentleman’s game we are talking about, its politics. There’s no question that if the GOP saw an opportunity to eliminate the Democratic party, they wouldn’t hesitate to go for it. So why shouldn’t an opponent of the current radical reactionary policy positions that make up the Republican party mainstream call for the party’s elimination, if they think they see a strategy that could accomplish that?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 1:26 pm
There’s no question that if the GOP saw an opportunity to eliminate the Democratic party, they wouldn’t hesitate to go for it.
Karl Rove is quoted as saying “We are working for a permanent Republican majority”. They would do it in an instant. It’s not Democrats calling for photo ID at the polls. Or purging the rolls. Or having inadequate amounts of machines or…
joe Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Another example of a Rove-ism, accusing your opponents of doing what you are doing.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
The Republican leaders are getting quite blatant about their attempts to prevent black people (and women) from voting. They’re actually speaking about it openly now.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 9:46 am
Once again Bruce you are just flat out wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2010
2010 was the largest seat change since 1948 and the biggest midterm change since 1938. If you think that is “underperforming” then I would like to see what performance looks like
BruceMcF Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 11:31 am
And in the midst of the largest seat change in the House since 1948 and the biggest midterm change since 1938 … the Republicans going in defending exactly as many Senate seats as the Democrats squandered their chance to win a Senate majority because they nominated too many batshit crazy Republicans in races that more moderate Republicans would have won in 2010 at a canter.
Paul Druce Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 10:46 am
I’m curious as to how you intend on removing the Republican Party.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 11:09 am
My fondest irrational hope (for the entire planet) is for the nutcase Christian Rapture to happen, but that all believers in magic fairies of any type are whisked into another plane, not just US evangelical whackjobs.
That ought to deal with the Republican Party. And the Democrats. And US overpopulation. And global overpopulation. And a lot of other things.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 11:46 am
That’s just Christian eschatology. Mythos eschatology is much nicer. Depending on which Old One comes back, you either will have people relishing in killing and amorality and acting like the Old Ones (Cthulhu; this arguably happened), society reverting to primitive nature (Shub-Niggurath), the planet turning to dust (Azathoth), the world turning sadder and more depressed but in an artistic way (Hastur), or one of similar ends.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Christian eschatology
There’s more than one Christian version. People spend whole careers supporting one or the other and blithely ignoring the warnings He gave us about not listening to people who tell you the End Times are near. Readers Digest condensed version of some them:
All the bad people get whisked away. ( wouldn’t it be very very ironic if the people who are whisked away because they are bad are the ones who run around telling everyone they should repent because the End Times are near )
No one gets whisked anywhere. There’s a time of tribulations that everyone has to suffer. Some discussion if the time of tribulation is a warning of the coming millenium or if it is the millenium or if it counts as part of the millenium. Adherents usually have a year or two of food in the basement.
He returns, everyone repents and the millennium starts. After 1000 years everyone, having been repentant, gets whisked away. The rest of the planet breathes a collective sigh of relief. Then spend the next few centuries colonizing the abandoned cities.
There are more.
… people relishing in killing and amorality …
Sounds like a Republican wet dream. I’m increasing convinced that the bible thumpers spend so much time thumping the bible because if they weren’t thumping the bible they would be out raping and pillaging. Maybe even playing cards, dancing and going to the movies. Some of them would even take to drinking a beer or a glass of wine now and then.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
I think the Cthulhu version of this is more nihilistic than modern-day GOP practice, which is quite purposeful (more profit, plus conservative moral values for the religious conservative set). The kind of relishing you should think of is more like the Joker from Batman, or at least the version in The Dark Knight.
VBobier Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Which does say that some are ‘way too serious’, 2013 will come and no end of times will happen anytime soon…
joe Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
Another Twilight Zone episode.
In this one a lone soul is left behind and can read all his books without disturbance.
John Nachtigall Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Then he broke his glasses
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Paul: GET SANE PEOPLE TO STOP VOTING FOR REPUBLICANS.
No sane person *should* be voting for Republican candidates. Even if the Democratic candidates suck, no sane person should be voting for Republican candidates at this point.
Our major problem right now is that when the Republican Party platform is presented to a focus group, something like half the members of the focus group *literally refuse to believe it*. They can’t believe that this lunacy is actually the Republican platform. But it is.
These are the people who are voting Republican, and really shouldn’t be. They should be doing whatever they can to get rid of the Republican Party so that a *real* second party could emerge.
I have no idea what ideology the new second party would end up taking — my fondest hope is for something Eisenhower-like, but anything sane would be better than this. Even the Right-to-Life Party would be an improvement, as *at least they’re honest*.
Also, having an essentially honest opponent party would be healthy for the Democratic Party, as right now the extremely dreadful quality of their opposition allows really crummy Democrats to skate by.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Google the focus group study, please. I’m not kidding about that.
MarkB Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I think CA has an opening for a Conservative Party. By that I mean a party that Eisenhower or Nixon would have been comfortable in. (Remember, Nixon started the EPA, OSHA and Amtrak. Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex). A Conservative Party could probably siphon off the 2/3 of Republicans who are not bat-shit insane; it would probably also draw the conservative-most 1/4-1/3 of state Democrats. I think this state would benefit greatly from a Conservative-Democratic duopoly.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
The Conservative Party in New York is controlled by people who think the Republicans aren’t “conservative” enough. In other words not bat shit insane enough. Ask Dede Scozzafava how that works out.
MarkB Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
The mind boggles.
BruceMcF Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
If we are talking a party that Nixon or Eisenhower or Nelson Rockefeller would be comfortable in, wouldn’t that be the Hedge Fund wing of the Democratic Party? At least in terms of policy, that is … there’s the rhetoric to avoid being turfed out by the Democratic primary electorate, but as far as the policy goes, the modern Hedge Fund wing of the Democrats is very hard to distinguish from the old Rockefeller wing of the Republicans, which were chased out of the party when the Dixiecrats became Republicans.
synonymouse Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
@ MarkB
Not likely to happen. It takes a great deal of money just to get on the ballot, let alone run a campaign that has any public presence. Perot flaked and the American Indepdendent Party was never able to get anywhere. Just qualifying an initiative is next to impossible.
Much more likely is a static and very corrupt one-party state like Mexico under the PRI or California under the Pelosi-Brown-Villa patronage machine.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Mexico under the PRI was working better than this, and I don’t have much to say for Mexico under the PRI.
Except that the PRI one-party monopoly *did* turn into a multi-party state. The PRI coasted for a long time even after they stopped suppressing other parties undemocratically, because the opposition was split evenly between “left” and “right” (PAN and PRD). That wouldn’t happen here.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
The “patronage” system in California survives BECAUSE the Republican Party, which is no longer a legitimate political party, and is run by dangerously crazy people who hate democarcy, is the “other party”.
Get rid of that and provide an alternative political party which is halfway sane, and the Democratic Party in California would be forced to reform.
I actually suspect that the most patronage-intensive, corrupt politicians in the Democratic Party *like* having the crazy Republican Party around as a boogeyman so that the spotlight isn’t on them to reform. This is certainly the dynamic in parts of Illinois. Get rid of it and allow a more plausible alternative party, and Democrats will be forced to reform.
I think this provides part of the explanation for why bad Democratic Senators keep “propping up” the Republican Senators by maintaining the stupid, unconstitutional, antidemocratic filibuster. It allows them to blame “the other guys” for stopping stuff they didn’t want to do anyway. Get rid of the “but the crazy Republicans” excuse and the Democrats will be under actual pressure to reform.
Alon Levy Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
There’s no need to ascribe malice to what is a very simple strategy: make sure the opposition to you nominates the most unpopular candidates. McCaskill did just that in the primary this year, calling Akin a crazy conservative so that the GOP would nominate him, and it’s working like charm.
Robert,
The draft of the legislation I saw went in exactly the opposite direction of statewide standards that would have looked at regional issues. CEQA would effectively be replaced with a “check the box” compliance with local municipalities general plans. I think most people in the trenches would agree that these plans are not up to the task, nor do they deal with exactly the issues that CEQA was created to address (piecemealing, regional impacts, consistent mitigations).
VBobier Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Well endless lawsuits and reviews clearly do not work, except for Nimbys…
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
W-w-w-wait a minute…this legislation isn’t being designed in a vacuum. This bill would indicate that the real goal is to establish state mandates (SB 375, AB 32) and then have regional planning authorities and cities approve solutions that fit within those boundaries…effectively taking a legal process and making it an administrative one.
That’s what scares everyone opposing it: Less work for the lawyers (because it’s faster), less protection for NIMBYs (because it’s faster) and less ability for deep pockets to influence the process.
synonymouse Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Deep pockets do not “influence the process”; they control the process. And will continue to do do, CEQA or no.
Matthew B Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Well, Synonymouse, if there’s nothing that can be done, I guess you can save yourself a lot of time worrying about things, and posting on this blog for that matter. If “deep pockets” have already won, and will control the process no matter what, it’s time for a new hobby.
synonymouse Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
The general modus operandi remains the same but there is drift; changes do occur. Bad planning contributes greatly to expenses and produces a constant crisis state, as with Amtrak.
Look at SF Muni, which is currently unable to put enough vehicles on the street to handle the passenger load. It isn’t just incompetence in day-to-day management that is responsible for this. Alllowing a political hack and in-our-face moron like Rose Pak to run planning begets dire consequences. Collapse and fall of a transit empire.
Peter Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 8:27 am
The thought that this will reduce litigation is amusing. Just the parties involved will change.
Some reforms which would work:
“Reduced movement of cars shall not be considered an adverse impact.”
This would sure be good.
“Unless serious risk of irreversible, or not-reversible-within-a-human-lifetime, destruction of valuable resources has been shown, CEQA lawsuits may not obtain preliminary injunctions. Irreversible destruction includes toxins placed in the air or the groundwater, death of endangered species, elimination of rare habitat, demolition of historic buildings, destruction of archaeological sites, etc. It does not include traffic, creation of attractive nuisances, disruption of sight lines, noise, etc.”
This is in fact pretty close to a restatement of the legal standard for preliminary injunctions, but judges haven’t been applying it this way.
This might allow the almond farmers to get a preliminary injunction while the merits of their case was decided, since mature nut trees can take decades to replace — but it would not allow the Peninsula NIMBYs to engage in delaying tactics based on spurious arguments about minutae. It would still allow PERMANENT orders to make mitigations and fix things, but not the preliminary injunctions which cause all the delay.
VBobier Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 10:57 am
Trees can be transplanted with a machine, like Big-John, I’ve seen this done on trees larger than a fruit tree, roots and all…
joe Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Nut trees are non-native, High intensity managed mono-cultures.
VBobier Reply:
August 24th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Yes I do know this. I pointed out this little known fact that whole trees can be transplanted, as then no losses should happen, as this would not be a valid argument against HSR land acquisition, buildings can be duplicated and equipment moved… I’d think an accommodation could be reached, unless some just plain don’t want to cooperate…
When it comes to megaprojects like the CHSRA delays from CEQA will be trivial. The Pelosi machine controls the courts.
The real issue is the power of money over the politicians, most dangerously and stealthily the soi-disant liberal phonies like Jerry Brown. They are shepherded by big money every bit as much as the Republicans. Look at how Brown is being puppeteered by the Tejon Ranch Co.
The quality of public projects has distinctly deteriorated to the level of BART broad gauge, which we had hoped was the rare bad penny. But the utter planning disaster of Muni’s Central Stubway exemplifies how total planning and engineering muck-ups are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
Along with the bully tactics of the monied like the Chandlers comes rule by media indoctrination. “Scientific” research becomes a means of propaganda like polls. Every broad-gauge-quality scheme PB comes up with is going to save us from global warming. But it is not so simple:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120822190732.htm
@ D.P. in particular
Very nice video of a rare locomotive type:
http://www.altamontpress.com/discussion/read.php?1,76997,76997#msg-76997
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 11:43 am
Thanks, I’ve seen clips of that one before, and it’s neat to see some more footage that’s very, very recent.
The consist in that train makes me think of this little short–a classic California product. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsNtIGbwe-A
. . .except that what you have is the real thing.
Wouldn’t you like something along those lines in your back yard? I would. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH7vb71oy_M
OK, I know, I’m being silly. . .but hope you have fun anyway. . .
A PS–I can’t help but still wonder what would happen on the Peninsula if it were proposed that the Caltrain line be made into a heritage railroad, complete with a fleet of restored SP steam engines to hold down the service. Can you imagine first the uproar, and then the crowds of tourists piling into the area to ride vintage trains into San Francisco? Can you imagine those vintage steam trains feeding passengers into the HSR system? It would be interesting, that’s for sure!!
synonymouse Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
They have operated the 2472 on the Peninsula in the not too distant past. It is an expensive proposition, with the periodic boiler inspection requirements and all.
Be nice to see a Santa Fe 2900 rebuilt to operating condition.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
“Be nice to see a Santa Fe 2900 rebuilt to operating condition.”
No argument from me!!
I don’t know if you got to see this when I had it up earlier, but in Poland there is still a secondary division operating with steam. It’s running for tourists, but it’s also the local freight and commuter network. It could almost be a glimpse of my tongue-in-cheek Peninsula heritage commuter operation.
http://www.thewolsztynexperience.org/
http://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31831
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=355edB6EgLg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWLxT-zHoHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ0qpdnNNu4
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUnfk5aTtdc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCqRVhbYlnY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btszHrzMg4g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AonXOZ73FaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy-La7A0M-k&feature=relmfu
LA Times prints more blah, blah on social media reducing the need for physical contact, inverse relationship of internet use to driving and adults under 30 (including tech-savvy teens) having reduced automobile ownership, lower license rate. The study is out of U of MI.
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-teen-drivers-20120824,0,5316572.story
Yes it’s the economy. The US has a persistently depressed job market, and sagging wages. Why would these conditions NOT change social values for the under 30 generation?
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
If we’re talking about people in their 30s now, we’re talking about people who would have been born around 1980 or 1981 at the earliest, and would be turning 16 in about 1996 or 1997. This would be sometime after I started to notice the generational break, which was now about 20 years ago.
An important point to note about my interpretation or observation on the break wasn’t that people were giving up driving or not wanting to drive, but rather that at that age–then about 40 and younger–people weren’t rabidly anti-railroad. This business of not wanting to drive at all seems to be a newer development by about 6 or 7 years, and to be honest, I never noted it until it began to show up in things like the William Draves commentary and the story that appeared in Advertising Age a couple of years ago. I think this could make sense in terms of a changing attitude that isn’t quite as strong (or anti-car in this case) in the beginning, but changes with time as conditions change, including environmental awareness, economic degradation, and worsening traffic and driving conditions.
The question is, is this “newer development” mostly from the sagging economy some people believe it could be, including Alon Levy, or is it a shift that still hasn’t quite worked its way into the statistics for some reason, which is why John N. has doubts about it? An important component could be to question just how far back a depressed market for entry-level jobs for teens does go. Alon recently posted that we’ve had a “lost decade” in America going back to 2001 in the wake of the terrorist attacks, but could the actual depression for younger people go back earlier?
I also find it interesting to note that this article still mentions nothing about driving not being fun anymore. Granted, this is more an anecdotal observation than anything else, but in truth, at least for me, the last big boom in the economy–the Clinton era–seemed to coincide with a lot of new McMansion developments, with resulting traffic and a generally less enjoyable experience in driving. Keep in mind we’re not just talking about bumper-to-bumper, stop and go traffic, but rather being in moving but heavy traffic that has the weird effect of requiring you to keep on your toes and fight boredom at the same time. It sounds strange, but I think it comes from not having a clear road ahead, and not being able to pass a vehicle in front of you. The effect is that the other vehicle becomes something like the splattered bug on your windshield that’s right in the center of your vision, and you can’t clean it off. At that point you have to look at either the bug or the other car all the time you’re driving, and it has a hypnotic effect, tending to put you to sleep like the illusionist’s watch. I tell you it’s a job to keep alert in that situation, and it isn’t enjoyable at all.
Many commentors following other articles along these lines have brought up the idea that “driving sucks” today compared with the past, yet this is something that doesn’t seem to get much press. It is admittedly a subjective question, but we often combine the subjective and the objective in studying things, including such common stuff as deciding what colors will be hot in fashion this year–and for that matter, what colors will be hot on cars this year.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
all that and the minimum age for driving has been going up. Let a 16 year old drive and they are thrilled. Less so if they are 18.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
It’s not just the economy. I’m in my mid-30s; I witnessed the changeover point, and a large part of it *is* cellphones and portable electronics, which make cars suck.
But it also *is* the economy — but it’s long-term trends which won’t reverse. Well, trend number one won’t reverse unless we get an FDR or at least an Eisenhower. Even in the early 1980s, wages were stagnating for young workers. Student loan debt was already becoming a large issue (now it’s a social time bomb waiting to explode), which has the same problematic effect (most younger people just don’t have the money to waste on cars). Trend number two won’t reverse at all: the cost of gasoline was starting to head up again already by the mid-80s and it will keep doing so.
The McMansion boulevards are *especially* unpleasant to drive on, as you do say. I’ve had fun drives on open country roads, but how often do we get to do that?
Tom McNamara Reply:
August 25th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
It’s more than the economy’s health. Younger people aren’t subsidized like old people are, so why would they have the capacity to buy homes and cars?
We can build HSR
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:23 am
I believe this may tie in with another observation of mine, and that is the possibility that we are hitting limits of what we can do with our technological society, or more accurately, that we are hitting points of diminishing returns from our technological society.
As I’ve mentioned in the past, a kitchen from today is essentially a kitchen of 1950 or even 1940 as far as the user experience is concerned, in the sense that almost everything in a modern kitchen would be in what is now a “retro” kitchen–a package stove and oven running on gas or electricity, a combined electric refrigerator and freezer, electric lighting, a sink with hot and cold running water, and built-in cabinets. About the only additions since then would be some other tools such as blenders, air conditioning, a dishwasher, and a microwave oven–and only the microwave wouldn’t be available for home use by 1950. To help see this point, think of what a kitchen looked like in 1930, with a primitive gas or electric stove, a refrigerator that looked like a square robot with a finned cylindrical head, and shelves and free-standing cabinets for what storage you had. Go back not too much further, and you’re looking at coal stoves or even fireplaces, only cold water if you were lucky enough to have a pump in the kitchen for it, and no mechanical refrigeration at all.
What I’m getting at is there was a huge jump in kitchen design and technology between 1900 and, say, 1935 or 1940, but not such a huge jump from 1940 to today.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/47528690@N05/4359337369/
http://www.kellyskitchensync.com/2011/01/turn-of-the-century-kitchens.html
http://www.statemuseumpa.org/levittown/images/lg_jpegs/modern.jpg
http://uglyhousephotos.com/wordpress/?p=4459
http://www.calfinder.com/blog/kitchen-remodel/kitchens-through-the-ages/
The same goes for cars. Henry Ford’s Model T had all of 22 hp., and under really favorable conditions, including paved roads that were rare before 1925 or so, could maybe hit 35 mph. as its top speed. Average speeds for driving would be a good deal less, perhaps in the 20 to 25 mph range. The flathead V8 Ford built starting in 1932 had a top speed approaching 80 mph, and probably would average 33 mph on paved roads of that time, many of which are now secondary routes; you can still average about that same speed today on those roads, with posted limits of 45 to 55 mph on the stretches between towns, and limits of 25 mph in towns.
Chevrolet created an enormous buzz when it introduced a new line of cars in 1955 that included a small but potent overhead valve V8, the descendants of which power SUVs and Corvettes. The 1955 car was notable in that it could run on turnpikes and later Interstate highways easily, without the straining of lower powered and lower geared cars built earlier; the modern versions, with about 350 cu. in. displacement, can be had in factory versions in excess of 500 hp. for some of the Corvettes. Even a modest auto of today, such as a Toyota Camry or Chevrolet Impala, is an engineering marvel that could leave the 1955 Chevy gasping for breath, incorporating as they do not only front-wheel drive, but gearboxes with more ratios and locking torque converters, fuel injection, disc brakes all around with anti-lock braking, traction control, not to mention all sorts of additional creature comforts such as power windows and seats, better sound systems, and even computerized navigational systems–but the 2011 Impala won’t get you to work any faster today than the 1955 model, maybe even the 1946 model! Indeed, it may even be slower on account of today’s traffic! In terms of the user experience, that’s not much of an improvement–although I certainly appreciate modern reliability, having had more than enough of water leaks, oil leaks, spark plug wires that wouldn’t stay on, voltage regulators that couldn’t regulate, tires that couldn’t keep air pressure, and rust. (These would have been 1960s and 1970s cars.)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:34 am
http://www.shadetreemechanic.com/images/Ford%20100%20yr%20Anthony's%20Model%20T%20Lunchoen%20005.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1932_Ford_Model_18_55_De_Luxe_Tudor_Sedan_JEH168.jpg
http://reedbrothersdodgehistory.wordpress.com/1930-1940s/dodge-cars-1930-1949/
http://www.fiftiesweb.com/cars/pontiac.htm
http://www.anythingaboutcars.com/1960s-cars.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 12:41 am
This also ties in with the generational attitudes we’ve discussed in the past. Here, today, we are talking about about reviving, in the modern form that is HSR, a technology that many, many people considered obsolete, that many people think should have been abandoned years ago. To them, this is about undoing progress and turning back the clock; it’s about taking away your freedom, about making you live in a way that’s a throwback, about making America a “socialist” or “Communist” country. The rail boosters here see it differently, of course–but I’m afraid we’ll never convince the pro-highway crowd of anything.
Matthew Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 7:38 am
Of course they scream. They’re receiving a massive subsidy in the form of roads and parking lots, and they like it.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 2:17 pm
D.P. Lubic: if the work I’m doing with my father and his partner manages to get commercialized, we’ll have batteries with 100 times the storage capacity per kilo of existing batteries, at no more than 10 times the cost. And solar panels at least 10 times as efficient at the current ones, at (we’re guessing) about twice the cost.
It should lead to further technologies, too; the scheme is general and should allow for a lot of nanoscale design which is currently impossible.
However, it’s worth noting the lumpiness of technological development: individual *areas* of technology generally only get a round of improvement once every few centuries. So, for instance, our sewer technologies made major upgrades, basically, once, and we haven’t had anything since that period. Same should be expected for kitchen tech, or any other specific area. Computing tech is currently going through that, and hitting the end of the period.
Trains have had the ability to benefit massively from developments in several different fields, which is one reason they’ve had multiple periods of noticeable improvement.
jonathan Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
nathaniel,
WTF? Moore’s Law shows now signs of slowing down. Intel’s marketing lies for IA64 notwithstanding. These days you can get a CPU with 12-16 AMD64 cores, or 32 to 64 RISC cores. And that shows no sign of slowing down That CPU power may be saturating what current “Personal Computing” paradigms can usefully use; but that in no way means the technology is slowing down or plateauing.
i recall wondering, some 30 years ago, what on earth one would do with an entire VAX-11/1780 for one’s self. A few years later, I had a MicroVAX II (somwhat faster) with twice as much memory, all of my own. Nowadays I never, ever buy a new computer: if you can buy it, it’s obsolete, so once in a while I buy someone else’s last-generation laptop (or 2 or 3, to get parts to keep it working for the next 5-10 years).
I think bigger changes are yet to come,as traditional [mobile-]phone-company business models die; bandwidth continues to fall by orders of magnitude in cost; and “centralized” computers continue to double in total performance every couple of years. We’ll be back to ‘mainframes and terminals”, except the “terminal” will be a multi-megapixel, HUD or 3D devices; and the “mainframes will be shared ‘cloud-computing” devices, or more accurately, content repositories.
Mind you, I’m from a privileged community when it comes to that sort of thing ;)
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Moore’s Law is about to hit the quantum limits when it comes to CPUs.
Thankfully, we have far more power than we really need. We can get a lot out of optimized software, at this point, and there should be some improvements.
jonathan Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
No, it isn’t, and shows no sign of doing so yet. “gate leakage” may have killed speed growt — remember how it killed Intel’s marketling lies for the IA-64 (remember when IA-64 was going to take over desktops?) and the P4 architecture. But _transistor_ density is not slowing down.
*EXACTLY* the point I was making about the VAX, and the then-dominant paradigm of RS-232
dumb terminals (“smart” meant efficiently-cursor-addressable terminals, like a VT-132 or VT-220).
Yourr response is positive that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
Spokker Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Even my tablet has five damn cores. Four rev up when you’re doing something graphically intensive, and there’s a fifth core that just does basic tasks.
jonathan Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
And what were you doing 8-10 years ago, when I had 4 cores on my computation device?
And what are people like me doing now?
Matthew B Reply:
August 27th, 2012 at 3:50 am
We’re typing on a text-only forum, which requires a minuscule fraction of one core :-)
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
… we’ll have batteries with 100 times the storage capacity per kilo of existing batteries …
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/06/chsra-chair-dan-richard-provides-video-update-on-project/#comment-154640
160% efficiency. Most excellent!
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
That is correct. The standard measures of efficiency are WRONG.
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
The standard measures of efficiency basically assume quite a lot of losses, as my Dad’s partner will be happy to explain to you; it’s one of the first things he points out in any lecture.
Our technological design captures wavelengths from the infrared into the ultraviolet at all polarizations and transfers most of the energy (well, technically it captures an optimal amount of energy, and I use that word advisedly; the entire design comes out of optimal control theory, ultimately).
jonathan Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Um, “Capturing an optimal amount of energy” would, in normal Englsh, be capturing *ALL* energy.
I’m open to an argument based on Carnot engines which involves capturing non-striclty less than “ALLL” energy as being optimal. And I am extremely skeptical about any realisable device meeting a Carnot engine.
I am skeptical about any device which captures less energy than a Carnot engine being “optimal”.
Unless one carefully defines a regime in which “optimal’ means something other than thermodynamicallhy optimal.
But don’t let me stop you. Be careful, or I shall taunt you a second time. I have already been dragged over the coals once (talk.origins) about the fact that I tend to sound like Ch. 44 of the Feynman lectures.
Unlike Richard, I await more details. After, of course, a provisional patent is filed.
(as in distinctly not: Ooh, ooh! They’ve put Jeans in a bottle, and turned a cardboard shoe-box into a microwave oven from which they can tap energy!!)
Nathanael Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 5:03 pm
Although — looking at it — it is actually perfectly possible (given how long this project has been going on) that he was comparing to a older generation of solar panels, and by the standard power out / power in measure, it may only be 80 – 100 % efficient under brightest-sun conditions. *Shrug*.
The 10x number was a factor on daily-average watts-per-square-meter output, IIRC.
It is clear that most of the theory of solar panels is not relevant as this operates using very different procedures on the quantum level. It has been vetted (in general terms) by quantum physicists in industry. I am not comfortable disclosing more until I’m told that the patents have issued, even though my Dad and his partner do go on about it in general terms a lot.
One of the funnier things is that my immediate reaction (for several years) was “But your work predicts strange physical effects (such as magnetic monopoles). What if they don’t exist? What if the standard model of physics is not quite right?” But all the physical effects have since shown up in actual empirical research conducted all over the place (by groups which say “this is interesting and has huge potential but we don’t know how to control or use it”), so it seems on very solid footing now.
At the moment the commercialization is tied up in repeated fights with businessmen who keep trying to steal the rights to EVERY application of the general design procedure (without necessarily building most of the applications) rather than being willing to take the rights for a single product and build it.
I hate modern businessmen.
Anyway, even if that fails, which it well may, in 20 years this is all in the public domain. It would be good to get people learning it, so my role is mostly to try to make the subject readable. Currently it involves approximately six mathematical subjects which use *different notations* for the *same things*, which makes it completely opaque to teach, and explains why so few academics have been willing to follow up on the research.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Some solar panels broke 10% back in the 80s. I’d hold onto my wallet very very tightly if I was you.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
jonathan Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Don’t you ever get tired of this intellectual masturbation?
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Thank you, come again.
Interesting article on cost overuns of large rail projects.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs.html
VBobier Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Sounds too Repugnican to Me, as the Key word there is Waste… They don’t mention if the subway is digging through New York Schist or not, Schist is some of the toughest rock to tunnel through, then there’s the dig at Amtrak and the CHSRA, neither mentioning that new lines and land acquisition isn’t cheap in either the NEC or CA… Also cost overruns are a problem when the bidding process doesn’t have a provision against this practice that mandates that any cost overruns are the contractors problem to pay for, not the Governments problem… So conflation runs wild, also a Repugnican scare tactic…
Joey Reply:
August 26th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Did you even read the article? The author is clearly in favor of transit expansion, but like many of us, are quite troubled by how much higher costs are here (and no, the specifics of NY geology or CA property costs don’t even begin to account for this). And problems with the bidding process are problems with the bidding process that need to be fixed. This article actually seems to get down to the root of many of the problems (mostly stuff Richard M. has been saying for years in slightly more formal terms).
missiondweller Reply:
August 27th, 2012 at 9:35 am
Too often we make things into an R vs D thing.
Can we agree that controlling the costs of construction is good for the taxpayer and makes it more likely that future transit gets built when they are completed on time and on budget?
I very much want to see more subways in SF but am flustered that the central subway is so expensive its likely to make more subway building LESS likely.
synonymouse Reply:
August 27th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
The Central Stubway is not a typical subway project; it is a textbook example of how to do everything wrong.
It violates travel patterns laid down over many decades. It undergrounds part of the #30 trolley bus line to the Marina and then combines it at the southern end with the T line, which was the rail re-conversion of the #15 diesel bus line. The 30 and the 15 were never connected as the patronage was not there. The 15 served the financial district via 3rd & Kearny, a much more important passenger destination.
As it stands the 30 will not be connected or extended to the Stubway. Muni nixed trolley buses in the Stubway and re-laying rail in Chestnut St. in the Marina will be a harder sell than a portal north of Washington Square. The Ghirardelli Square area is hilly and aesthetically sensitive. For instance if you wanted to exploit the tunnel under Ft. Mason how would you access it?
This is an exceptional mess and the reason 3rd & Kearny had always been the default route.
From James Repass’ “Destination Freedom:” some more unclaimed or unspent money may be available, although in this scale, it isn’t that much:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df3/df08272012.shtml#Unspent