Re-localization: An Answer to The End of Suburban Sprawl

Ah, the suburbs. Safe, quiet, green. Every American's dream, right? A soothing retreat from the workaday world. A place to proudly inhabit one's home/castle. A gentle setting for raising one's kids. The impulse that drove the development of the suburbs seems reasonable or at least easy to understand. But the fact remains that suburban America was built on numerous unhealthy, un-neighborly and unsustainable assumptions. Kids who live in suburban housing developments--many of which do not even have sidewalks--cannot safely bike or walk places and so must be driven instead. Often housing is located at a distance too remote to other daily necessities for it to be practical to do anything other than drive. Indirectly the development of suburbs has led to disconnected children with poor fitness. Likewise, the tendency for suburban families to inhabit their cars when they are not inhabiting their homes means that they miss opportunities to connect with neighbors and others who live nearby. Finally, the car culture that is fostered in suburban settings contributes to pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, road congestion, auto fatalities (there are more people on the road, right?) and numerous other negative, unintended consequences.

If you believe that we've reached Peak Oil on this planet--and there is a lot of scientific/geologic evidence out there suggesting that we have--then you have to imagine that systems dependent on petroleum are going to eventually break down. Suburban development has been made possible by access to cheap and apparently limitless fossil fuel energy. We wouldn't, after all, consider commuting 30 or 40 miles each day if gasoline was $15.00/gallon. We wouldn't consider building 2,500+ square foot homes if it cost us at least as much in dollars each month to heat them. Folks, the fact is, life in the suburbs cannot be sustained. Biofuels--which, by the way, have to be grown and therefore displace food production--can't fill our gas tanks, keep our computers running, heat our homes and power our lights. Why do we assume limitlessness when our resources are finite? We need to re-group and re-localize. And we need to do it now.

An interesting essay linking the current housing crisis and peak oil can be found at: http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/06/peak-suburbia.html

I need to devote more time and attention to generating ideas that support local developments and local economies. One way that I do that is with this blog. I hope some of you will share your ideas on ways to embrace re-localization as an answer to our very fragile and unsustainable way of life. For other ideas you might visit: http://lawnstogardens.com.

As one nearby neighborhood sign noted: "We're All In This Together."

Reasons to Support Your Local Musicians

Okay. It's been a long day. And, yes, these photos of a band that hasn't existed in more than a decade are rather old. What can I say? My stock of music photography is rather meager.

A few weeks ago my friend Rob pointed me to a fun site listing 13 reasons to support local bands. The site is http://ohms.nu/localmusic.htm. I used to be a big supporter of local music, back when I used to go out more. I have to figure out how to keep supporting (and enjoying) local music, without staying out too late and regretting it later (can I help it if I need a minimum of 8 hours of shut-eye?).

I hope you'll visit the site. Better yet, I hope you'll go see a band in your area. Support your local artists. As Suff is quick to point out, local music is a "much better value."

Local Interrupts the Tyranny of the Monoculture

Why is local (insert just about anything here) better? Today I will let Michael Pollan, New York Times Magazine writer and journalist, supply a response.

“Here, then, is a whole other meaning of the word monoculture. Like the agricultural practice that goes by that name, this one too—the monoculture of global taste—is about uniformity and control. Indeed, the monocultures of the field and the monocultures of our global economy nourish each other in crucial ways. The two are complexly intertwined expressions of the same Apollonian desire, our impulse, I mean, to elevate the universal over the particular or local, the abstract over the concrete, the ideal over the real, the made over the natural.” from The Botany of Desire, pg 228.

Rather than appease us with the illusion of control, as a monoculture does, a locally-oriented consumption actually affords more direct personal control. In a localized economy my continued consumption is important to a producer. My feedback and suggestions (and complaints) are much more likely to be heeded. If you, as a reader of this blog, can find no other reason to consider going local, please consider the implication of the privileging monocultures over your own culture.

Friday Local Photo

I offer no real content today. Just a photo, and an exclamation of joy at the turning point today represents. After 5 p.m. PST my lighter summer work schedule begins. And what does this mean (apart from less time spent at a desk)? More time spent up to my elbows in garden soil. Cha!

Local Education for Local Jobs

Photo by gardngrl

Many of us make much ado about the role and value of higher education. Is its primary purpose to shape well-rounded citizens or is it vocational training? Does higher education teach people how to think critically or does it simply offer a credential? Is it worthwhile for states to invest in higher education? It's this last question that has me thinking today. I don't actually know the answer, but, in all candor, I fear that it may be "rarely."

The argument touted by higher education representatives (of which I am one) and policymakers alike is that a baccalaureate degree confers greater earning potential on its recipients than a high school education alone. Studies of this hypothesis seem to support that, in general, this is true. There are still plenty of people for whom the degree will not make an appreciable difference in earning power, and, recent studies have even shown that the earnings gap between degree-holders and high school graduates is narrowing. But the point is, if there are still any benefits to be had from four-to-six years of post-secondary study, they are supposed to be largely economic.

Where I don't see enough analysis is in the effect of specific career outcomes on the places that subsidized the gaining of the credential. If a state provides financial support and subsidies to its state schools it is presumably with the hope that many students will stay and contribute to the state's economy. But if my own state is at all representative, I worry that this is not happening.

This morning I sorted through a pile of accumulated departmental and institutional documents that were cluttering my desk. In the pile was a Guide to Employers from the most recent student Career Fair. I noticed a disturbing, but not surprising, pattern when I began to peruse the document: the vast majority of employers represented at the fair were national or multinational enterprises. Just 14% (or 12 of the 82) employers represented had any local connection, and most of them were school districts and governmental agencies. This university's career center actively encouraged students to seek employment with distant employers.

Am I the only one to see this as a problem? Although there is a system-wide problem in this country of too few small and local businesses and too many big box and chain employers, there are still thousands of local employers in this state. Why weren't they represented? Are they simply not hiring? Was the vendor fee too high? Is anyone paying attention? If our tax dollars are going to the support of higher education, why are we sending our best and brightest away? They could be applying their problem solving skills to local issues and responding to local needs. Instead we're foisting these students on global financial advising firms, national staffing agencies and insurance underwriters. Is this flagship university all about the short-term financial gain of tuition dollars or does it have an interest in the local community and the state more generally?

I'm well aware that, philosophically speaking, college is intended to broaden, rather than to circumscribe one's view of the world. For that reason it's a challenge to argue for entirely localizing departmental curricula. Nevertheless, I suspect there are countless overlooked opportunities to apply classroom learning in the interest of addressing local problems. Why don't more majors have service learning components, for instance? Asking each student to devote four credit hours of time and energy toward community objectives seems like a very reasonable request. The community benefits from student and institutional efforts. What's more, perhaps a few students will make connections that will lead them to jobs right here.

If we're going to come up with local solutions to local problems, we're going to have to create the infrastructure to make such a reality possible. To avoid doing so is folly.

Local Resource Networks

Photo by gardngrl

It has been some time since I’ve written anything substantive for this blog. I’ll admit that I’ve been waiting for more reader comments, since they are frequently excellent sources of additional data that gets me thinking and helps me generate more content for more posts. Unfortunately things have been pretty quiet on the reader comment front for a few weeks and so I’m back to scratching my head and searching for content that will inform and interest all of you.

I’m happy to report that I have a few ideas marinating, but each of them will require me to do some research, and right now I simply don’t have the time. So, given the constraints of my personal and professional life I’d like to write today about Local Resource Networks (LRNs). What are they, you ask? LRNs are generally not-for-profit enterprises whose sole purpose it is to facilitate and encourage the development and patronage of local businesses and organizations. One example of an LRN can be viewed at http://www.heliosnetwork.org/. This particular LRN happens to be truly local to me, as I’m a resident of Lane County. There are other LRNs in other locales, however, and this is a good thing. It would be even better if there were LRNs in, let’s say, every town with a population of at least 10,000 people. Why? Well, let’s take a look at some of the things that LRNs can do for a community.

~ LRNs can, with citizen input, develop local measures that can be used to assess needs and develop responsive programs.

~LRNs can develop surveys and studies to help a community learn more about the unique strengths and liabilities of a place.

~LRNs can serve as networks that link people in search of services to local service providers.

~LRNs can provide matching grants to encourage the growth and development of local enterprises that meet local needs.

~LRNs can promote and facilitate discussion about local needs and initiatives.

~LRNs can provide and promote locally-responsive educational opportunities for community members.

This list is far from exhaustive, but it covers many of the more vital functions of an LRN. In the absence of an LRN, a town or city is likely to be without a means of locally-based networking. In developed nations most of us learn about products and services, and even community events, from viewing television advertisements or from reading our local papers. In most cases, only those companies and institutions with advertising budgets (ie large and frequently not local) are likely to reach us through these channels. This is why, in my opinion, many places need an LRN. Serving the specific needs of a specific locality, LRNs facilitate the much needed linkages between community, services and industry.

I’m very interested in developing a list of LRNs in the U.S. If any of you readers from outside the Lane County region have an LRN to add to the list, please do. I’d love to hear from you.

A fantastic Friday to all!

Local Economies = Fewer Choices = Greater Peace of Mind?

I stumbled across this video recently http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/93
and it has led me to think about the effect the global marketplace has had on our collective psyches. Consumerist culture in a global marketplace certainly affords the greatest number of product choices. Conversely, a localized economy, it's many benefits aside, would almost certainly circumscribe one's ability to "shop around." But while the prospect of losing many consumer choices as a result of localizing economies and production may sound painful, psychologist Barry Schwartz would argue that such a loss might ultimately be to our psychological benefit.

The video's run time is about 20 minutes. I hope others will take the time to view it and to begin to think about how product choice (among other choices) impacts your own life.