I have a few books I’ve finished lately that I’d like to review, but I’m reading faster than I can review ‘em. It doesn’t help that I don’t feel like I’m very good at reviewing books to begin with.

So rather than full-force reviews, just a few quick blurbs. I’ll start by getting this one comment out of the way: they’re all good books I’d recommnd if you’re interested in the subject. There. I said it.

Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter. In book form, Jimmy Carter seems to be a different person than he is when I read his occasional op-ed columns in the paper. His arguments are thoughtful and well-reasoned, but he’s clearly upset about the corruption of Christianity by the right. Near the start of the book, he lays out five repugnant characteristics of fundamentalists, including their tendency to “view change, cooperation, negotiation, and other efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness.” Throughout the book, Carter quotes Bible passages to demonstrate how Christian fundamentalists have used narrow, selective readings to purposively misinterpret the meaning and spirit of Christianity — and how these purposeful misinterpretations have carried over into poor public policy. If you think you know Jimmy Carter because of what other people say about him, or because of his op-ed columns, you probably don’t really know Jimmy Carter.

Don’t Think of an Elephant! by George Lakoff. This book is a good introduction for anyone who struggles with the subject of political debates — namely, trying to hold a respectful argument with a conservative who doesn’t want a respectful argument. Lakoff introduces the notion of the strict father view of the world versus the nurturant parent view of the world. Among the strict father’s more repugnant assumptions of the world, it’s a viewpoint that links morality with prosperity — that somehow, only good people become rich. Meanwhile, the two most important values of the nurturant parent are empathy and responsibility — from those values, others follow, like freedom, opportunity, fairness, open communication, community-building, and trust. The chapters that follow apply these notions to real situations.

How Cities Work by Alex Marshall. I relearned here some of what I learned in planning classes — the most important lesson of which is that the single most important influence on land use decisions is public infrastructure investment. Zoning ordinances pale in comparison to the influence of laying down roads, water and sewer lines, etc. As one of my professors liked to say to our classes, you could zone a farm field in Iowa as high density commercial, but that doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Marshall subscribes to the school of thought (as I do, as well) that transportation is the most visible and active investment in shaping a place. There are many, many lessons in Marshall’s book worth regurgitating because they happen to be good lessons. My one criticism of the book is that Marshall seems to go a little far in his critique of New Urbanism, though his warning is one worth hearing: that (at least in the instances he cites) New Urbanism tends to be the same old suburban subdivisions “masquerading as something else.” This book is not one that should be ignored in the planning literature — it is rooted in a common sense level of thinking, a trait among many that is unfortunately not very common at all.

Apart from the books listed above, I also recently read James Howard Kunstler’s The Geography of Nowhere, which recommend with a grain of salt, especially if you’re looking to be entertained for an evening. I think Kunstler’s favorite word is “cartoonish,” which he uses a lot to describe suburbia. It’s not that Kunstler is wrong — it’s just that he enjoys crossing over lines a little too much. Attention seekers like Kunstler don’t necessarily give a good name for advocates of good land-use policy. It seems that Kunstler’s real expertise is in the history of architecture, especially as it applies to suburbia. He does a great job of connecting Modernism with old puritan values, and showing how screwed up Modernist thinking tends to be. Kunstler is also a huge fan of New Urbanism, and it’s probably more for the aesthetic value of New Urbanism than its practicality.

My personal critique of New Urbanism is that New Urban developments tend to be whole developments (like the subdivisions that Marshall criticizes). Several months ago, I had a conversation with a local New Urban developer who referred to Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life of Great American Cities as “the greatest book ever.” He proceeded to tell me that Jacobs’ point of developing one lot at a time was not as important as her other points in the book. But from a practical standpoint, Jacobs valued the diversity of the city above all other aspects — building large developments at a time tends to ensure homogeneity, not diversity.

In any case, these are the books I’ve read lately. I have 95 left on my list to go, though I’m quite sure as time goes on, I won’t actually read all 95 of those books. Next on my list: Talking Right: How conservatives turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freakshow. From what I’ve heard about it, the book will be kind of like Don’t Think of an Elephant, but better. We’ll see.

From time to time I get a strange call on my cell phone. It’s a recorded message in Spanish. This morning, I got that call again. The phone number that showed up on my caller ID was 323-927-1550. Just thought I’d pass that along.

Meanwhile, I’m in the midst of using my test domain to completely overhaul joeventures.com. I’m finally moving this site to WordPress. I found a nice three-column template that I was able to decipher enough to modify, and I added a plugin that will let me keep up the “Topics” list on the right-hand sidebar. The difference this time is that I’ll now be using del.icio.us. As soon as I can figure out how to use it, I’ll use Amazon Media Manager to keep my list of books up on the site. Who knows — I might even expand into other media. I’m going to do whatever I can to figure out a way to keep the old RSS feed url, but I still have now idea how to do it.

Thanks to all the comment spam for keeping me motivated on this project. I couldn’t do it without ‘ya.

In other news:

• Last night, we recorded another edition of the Georgia Politics Podcast. Look for the new edition soon.
• In my move to the condo, somewhere I lost the battery recharger for my camera. It’s still got juice in it, but it’s now being used quite sparingly. Until I find the old recharger or get a new one, it’s unlikely you’ll see many new photos up on my Flickr page.
• October 1. Mark it. That’s all I have to say about that.

I wrote another letter to the AJC this morning. It’s a little on the longish side, so I’m not confident it will get published.

It’s a response to W00t’s most recent column, where he claims busses and trains aren’t a solution for high-density development.

My response:

Jim Wooten’s line of thinking reflects the short-sighted assumptions that brought Atlanta’s transportation system and land-use policies to their current messy state. While the flexibility of cars and busses carry many benefits, Wooten should also understand there are consequences of twisting the cost-benefit formula in their favor.

Big highways exercise a centrifugal force on land-use development. This is why the widening of a limited access highway leads to more development on the outskirts. Widening I-75 to 23 lanes, for example, will have a more dramatic densifying effect in the eastern and western parts of Cobb County than along the I-75/US-41 corridor. Zoning ordinances will not matter.

Honest cost-benefit comparisons would weigh operating expenses with accuracy and fairness. MARTA’s heavy rail system, for example, carries a per passenger-mile cost that is less than half its bus system ($.24 vs $.54 in 2002). Based on real numbers (not wishful thinking in the form of “projections”), case-hardened pragmatism dictates that our region should avoid overdependence on busses and embrace high-density development supported by light and commuter rail systems. That way, low-density developments supported by our existing road system can stay low-density.

For a little extra to chew on, Alex Marshall heralded the 50th anniversary of the interstate highway system in a recent edition of Governing Magazine:

The Interstate system isnÕt all bad. It is comprehensive, even if it is monolithic. ItÕs hard to overstate the importance of those fat lines on a map with their distinctive royal-blue, shield-like symbols. They emit an almost irresistible pull on the driver holding a map on his lap or contemplating a trip on a computer screen. It may be more fun to take some back roads Ñ it might even occasionally be faster. But itÕs mentally so much easier to follow those fat lines.

We shouldnÕt let this obscure the fact that we would have better towns and cities if we had pursued a more balanced transportation policy. Sure the Interstates are heavily used, but thatÕs no surprise given that use of them is free, and there are usually few alternatives.

Via Veritas et Venustas:

“This is irrelevant,” said Salguero, director of PortSide NewYork and Yale alum. “There’s nothing wrong with exploring abstract architecture. But don’t come here and call it planning.”

Amen.

I just noticed the AJC has a vent just for Cobb County. Without a whole lot of surprise, most of the venting is about traffic. Apparently, someone recently touched off a vent debate about whether to bring CCT into West Cobb. Responses include:

Last Week

Excuse me, but you don’t represent all of us in west Cobb by saying “we don’t want bus service.” Yes, WE DO!

I live in west Cobb, and I desperately want bus or train service to Marietta. Then I could do the sudoku puzzle during my morning commute.

I live in west Cobb, too, and I DO want bus service. We don’t need bus stops on every corner, but we need something.

… and winner of the most bigoted response from last week:

You’re dead wrong. East Cobbers will fight till the bitter end to keep any public transportation out of our area. I’d rather sit in traffic than deal with the dregs of society who would inevitably come on the bus.

This Week

Atlanta highways are overcrowded, so if you want your kids to have a future here we need to come up with a transportation solution based on facts, not fear.

Oh, yes, I don’t want buses clogging up the roads. I’d much rather have 20 SUVs for each bus on the road.

I’d rather have the 20 SUVs as well. They’ll be carrying at least 20 people, and I’ve never seen a CCT bus with near that many.

Yep, nothing like a train rumbling by your house to improve the property value.

Of course, to that last comment, I could only point out that if a train doesn’t already rumble by your house, it’s unlikely a new line will get built. The best possibility for getting rail transit into Cobb is to use existing rights of way.

The local Internets are all abuzz over GDOT’s most recent move to shield themselves from public scrutiny, as covered in Ariel Hart’s story in the AJC:

Officials at the state Department of Transportation have begun barring direct access from reporters to the department’s 5,700 employees, including department heads, in what they say is a move to be more efficient and deliver a consistent message to the public.

Separately, the DOT has removed all individual e-mail addresses from the contacts page of its Web site, which lists department heads and officials.

The local blogosphere hasn’t been too kind.

Peach Pundit blogger Erick called the move, “playing with fire.” Atlanta Larry gave the move its correct label: “Orwellian.” I would only hope that Rusty is right by guessing that it could be “a covert strategy to turn public opinion against the DOT and in favor of commuter rail.”

Tomorrow’s AJC editorial is already up:

When public agencies start restricting the free flow of information, and then casually dismiss it as a minor policy change, it’s often a telltale sign of trouble ahead.

The latest agency to succumb to the paranoid fantasy that less communication is somehow more “efficient” is the Georgia Department of Transportation. … The new policy comes as the agency is set to commit billions of taxpayer dollars to untested public-private transportation projects, portions of which are already shrouded in secrecy.

The editorial even points out that GDOT officials were given a fair chance to submit an Equal Time column to defend the policy change. In a twist of arrogant irony, GDOT officials declined the offer.

There’s really nothing new here. As Georgia’s officially sanctioned fourth branch of government, GDOT rakes in a hefty revenue stream from the state gas tax. The State Constitution mandates this money be spent on “roads and bridges,” so the legislature has very little control over where the money goes or how it’s spent. The only power given our elected officials — most of whom are in bed with road contractors — is to elect members of the GDOT board, whose members are mostly in bed with road contractors.

GDOT’s attitude today is a relic of the 20th century. Back before my time, planners, especially road planners, were technocratic. Up until the late 1960s, the prevailing goal of their practice was to take the politics out of planning and rely on sets of numbers to guide where and how things should be built. A community’s vision of its own future became irrelevant to the technocrats, who preferred to separate themselves from public scrutiny.

Someone apparently believed the technocratic ideal as gospel and allowed GDOT the chance to be appropriated money directly through the State Constitution, and not by elected officials. Without monetary accountability, GDOT can do as it pleases as long as the department spends its entitlements on roads and bridges.

More recently, public debates are brewing over the effectiveness of big highways, the need and desire for alternative modes, and the wisdom of public-private initiatives. It’s a three-pronged war, and GDOT does not want the debate to be public. They would rather take the tax money they’re automatically entitled to and spend it as they please. And there’s nothing “open” about that. GDOT’s latest move is typical of their attitude.

Cynthia McKinney conceeded the race earlier today:

Johnson also got a “gracious” call from McKinney on Wednesday afternoon, congratulating him more than 12 hours after his victory speech, a Johnson spokeswoman said.

“She indicated that she also wants to see a smooth transition and would work to make that happen,” said Johnson spokeswoman Deb McGhee Speights. “And she said that anything that he needs, her office would be accommodating.”

For such a brave and honorable gesture, Cynthia McKinney deserves praise. Her defeat was very stunning — and for most of the day, the common ice breaker for most of the conversations I’ve had with folks has had something to do with our expectations that McKinney would be all sour grapes. And at first, she was heading in exactly that direction. But at the end of today, she didn’t head in that direction.

Joe Lieberman, meanwhile, won’t really concede. As far as he’s concerned, the Senate seat is rightfully his. Talk about sour grapes. I’ve never been all that fond of him. The first I ever heard of Lieberman in any substantive conversation, there was talk that he was a bit too comfy with insurance companies. Next thing I knew, he was the Democratic nominee for VP, where his biggest stunt was kissing his wife.

I didn’t think Lieberman was as bad as the critics have said. In the end, he had to vocally distance himself from George Bush. That Lieberman won’t concede the race and lend support to the nominee puts him in a bad spotlight compared to Cynthia McKinney.

At least, that’s how it is for right now. We’ll see about tomorrow.

Of all the things I observed while in New York, these caught my attention:

• Affordable housing can be new or old. The place I stayed in Harlem hardly included any of the little luxuries that seem to be ubiquitous here in Atlanta. There was no central heating and air, no garbage disposal in the sink, no washer and dryer in the unit, and so on. The buildings next door, meanwhile, could easily be classified as million-dollar condos:

  

• There was hardly any traffic. I was in Manhattan and Brooklyn Thursday through Sunday, and I saw virtually no traffic congestion while I was there. This also includes the bus rides to and from LaGuardia Airport in Queens to Harlem (via the Triborough Bridge). It’s not simply the case that everyone uses transit — there are plenty of suburbs that are not well-served by transit. It’s more likely the case that transportation subsidies more accurately reflect the consumer cost — toll bridges and tunnels are not cheap, and the cost of parking is not absorbed into the general cost of living. Needless to say, after all the movies I’ve seen, with their scenes of traffic on New York City streets, I was still surprised at how little congestion there was.
• Jane Jacobs is still alive, and her spirit is strengthening. The cornerstone of Jacobs’ philosophy was diversity. And I’m not talking about racial/ethnic diversity. This is about old and new buildings next to one another; office space, retail, and residential co-existing; and so on. Although there was a big of the r/e diversity, too — a day’s venture in the city can easily yield four languages overheard. While the central business district downtown remains the dead place Jacobs described in 1961, times are changing. Condo towers are rising at the edges of the district.
• No one follows the rule on the subway that you can’t walk from car to car. If the a/c is broken down in a subway car, people will walk to the next car. If a subway car is crowded and the next one isn’t, people will walk to the one that isn’t. Transit authorities should see the idea as a good idea and build safety mechanisms to make it easier to walk from car to car.

There are more things that caught my attention in New York. The few pictures I took there would not be all that interesting to most people, I’m sure, but that’s what I got.

John at Veritas et Venustas took note of a very bad example of traffic calming measures.

After receiving some critical reviews of his critiques, he had to point out how misguided it is to claim that good urban design is dangerous:

A commenter comments that we need to accommodate the fire truck (I wonder whom he’s been talking to). Of course we do. But we don’t have to let the Fire Chief design our towns and cities.

Big streets for big trucks is always presented as a safety issue. Big streets are proven to be more dangerous than smaller streets. We have 40,000 traffic deaths a year in the US, and we owe many of those to the “bigger is better” philosophy of the traffic engineer and the fire chief.

Back home in Atlanta, traffic calming measures are still a new concept. You can find a few roundabouts here and there — an area near the Emory campus comes to mind.

There are plenty of examples of speed humps, though there are also plenty of alternatives. One disadvantage of speed humps is that some drivers have tended to see the humps as a sort of “speed challenge.” They’ll speed up upon approaching the hump to see if they can get the car to fly up in the air.

Lindbergh drive between Piedmont and Peachtree has also become an example of traffic calming measures, where the street is dramatically more narrow. Navigating around the obstacles put up for the car presumably make for slower cars and a safer street.

Second generation calming applies a more integrated approach to traffic calming. Rather than think of traffic calming as its own separate category of traffic management, use traffic calming measures as part of a broader goal of creating a busier street — busier with pedestrians, bicycles and children. Then, we would have safer streets and safer neighborhoods.