Dear Friends of Pagosa,
Wishing you an effective public meeting of the minds.
As an outsider now looking in, it is sometimes painful to watch the ongoing war that the community seems to find itself in while attempting to define itself and its future. To my eyes, all moves and plans to create something new in Pagosa are met with outright hostility, venom and an inability to really talk.
When I was a boy getting into a fight with my brother, my dad would always say "it takes two to tango". I used to hate that. "But dad, he started it". "You didn't see what he did!" My dad would just stick with his theory that there ain't no fight unless two parties show up to get it on.
More recently, I've tried showing up in my marriage with a style of "thinking" called "I am right and she is wrong". Sometimes that feels pretty good but it sure doesn't work out well. I have tried "it is all your fault. You are to blame." I mean, it seems obviously so to me. But again, that approach doesn't work too well.
I suggest to y'all, that what I find doesn't work in my marriage, doesn't work on a community level either.
Being sure that you are "right" and that those other people are "wrong" gets you locked into positions and beliefs. Of course, this leads to "good people" and "bad people".
"I am right" and "you are to blame" are part of a very popular style of "thinking".
Consider that "being right" doesn't get you what you want. I mean, sure, "your side" might "win" this time. But what have you "won", really? If you can't talk and you don't have an agreed upon common plan then you've only guaranteed yourself, with your "win", that you are going to have another battle.
On those infrequent occasions that I can get out of my "thinking" of right and wrong and get away from blame -- only then do I have the slightest chance of having an enjoyable, effective relationship with my wife.
Having participated in a few of the Pagosa Springs "battles" myself and having made some people "wrong" and made myself "right", I can tell you this. It didn't make a bit of difference. Not really.
I kind of can't help but watch the war that the community of Pagosa is in with itself over every possible move to articulate and move towards a future . Probably, my addiction to the Pagosa drama has a lot to do with all the ways that I see in myself this drama of "going to war" play out with myself and others.
Someone is going to be "wrong" today. And somebody is going to be "right". Somebody is going to "win" and someone is going to "lose". Either way, the community will still be at war with itself.
Isn't it time for a few adults to stand up and call a cease fire?
Anyone?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Do No Harm
Either I am totally lost or I am on the verge of some great personal discovery. You make the call.
I’ve been a little bit quiet lately. For about eighteen months, I had a lot to say about land use planning, the growth of our town, and our plans about how it all should happen. Make no mistake -- I still have a lot to say -- but I’m just not sure how to say it.
I spend a large portion of my day on the internet. That gives me access to lots of points of views, news stories, videos and opinions.
Yesterday for example, I ran into a YouTube video of a college event on a big field. Lots of students and partying going on. It looked like a sports event. For some reason, a guy decides that it makes sense to take off his clothes and hang out naked.
Three uniformed police officers respond -- as professionally as possible -- to encourage the guy to put some clothes on. It escalates to the point where the naked guy says that he is not going to put clothes back on and that there is nothing that the uniformed police officers can do about it. Of course, the officers have no choice but to “enforce the law” and you end up watching a video of a naked guy getting “tasered”, tackled and handcuffed by the three police officers. (A taser is an electronic gun which sort of electronically stuns.)
I was unable to watch the second half of the video. It’s just too painful for me. Everywhere I look, I am seeing the violence that goes with our current notion of being human beings.
It’s not the police officers. It’s not the naked guy. I mean, it’s just us. I’m talking about all of us. I’m talking about me.
The very last piece that I wrote here in the Post, was an article where I took the Town Council to task for rejecting attempts to unify some Planning and Building services of the Town and the County. I accused -- point blank -- the Town Council of actively reinforcing the mentality of “division” within our already functionally unified community, That somehow there really is an “us” downtown and a “them” uptown.
I mean, maybe that is how it was once upon a time. But the fiction of a “tale of two towns” is not the reality on the ground today. It’s just not.
But of course, the real problem is that my language and my speaking about “the problem of divisiveness” was clearly divisive and harmful in and of itself. I was complaining about the harm someone else was inflicting but I was doing it by inflicting harm.
Ouch.
So, now I am wondering about what’s it going to take for me to communicate in a way that “does no harm”. At the same time I want to completely tell the truth (as I see it). How do I share my perspective with the community without turning it into another opportunity to hit somebody over the head?
That goes back to my feeling of either being totally lost or just on the verge of some great personal discovery.
If I didn’t know any better, I would just become comfortably numb. But, I do know better. It’s a bit of a challenge for me but somehow effective communication has got to be an option. Like most people, I spend a lot of time staying distracted, being off point, and generally not being focused on what is really going on here and now.
Right now, there is almost nothing that our community leaders can do without provoking an outcry or attack from the “public”. There is almost nothing that the public can say without attacking the leadership.
It is fascinating to watch the gut level, visceral attacks that come upon a new president of the United States. When a “Republican” becomes president the attacks come from people who say that they are “different thinkers”. When a “Democrat” becomes president the attacks come from people who “think differently”.
Never mind the fact that the liberal and conservative points of disagreement actually all exist in a fiction from the past and have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now -- today.
For example, the federal government is not really run on “tax dollars”. The United States budget is primarily funded by money literally printed out of thin air. And that, my friends, is neither a “liberal” nor a “conservative” problem. It’s a very much bigger problem. (More on that topic, later.)
But of course, it is entertaining to distract ourselves with heated banter about who’s a liberal and who’s a conservative. That’s a whole lot easier than talking about the end of free market capitalism and the looming destruction of our currency. Our supposed “two-party” system of government in the United States and all of the chattering of the talking heads “is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
Our current community dialogue must be what Don Miguel Ruiz (author of books including “The Four Agreements“) was talking about when he said that humans all live in a dream. We all live in a collective dream that we call “reality”. But actually the dream is a nightmare called “hell“.
Apparently, this problem has been around for a while. I like this 2500 year old verse from Lao-tzu:
Governing a large county
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.
Approach the universe with the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that evil is not powerful,
but its power will not be used to harm others.
Not only will it not do harm to others,
but the sage himself will also be protected.
If only the ruler and his people would
refrain from harming each other,
all the benefits of life would accumulate
in the kingdom.
Empires rise and empires fall. National currencies get stronger then they collapse and disappear.
Vibrant communities are led by vision and hope. Communities contract underneath the weight of their own fear.
Sometimes I can communicate and help lead the community forward. Sometimes my opportunity to lead gets lost in my reptilian instinct to attack, defend, and become numb.
In my speaking, I am a painter with a brush. My carefully chosen words, consciously placed upon the canvas of the community conversation have the power to create something new. I can paint a positive vision of tomorrow or I can kick the canvas in frustration.
I’ve been a little bit quiet lately. For about eighteen months, I had a lot to say about land use planning, the growth of our town, and our plans about how it all should happen. Make no mistake -- I still have a lot to say -- but I’m just not sure how to say it.
I spend a large portion of my day on the internet. That gives me access to lots of points of views, news stories, videos and opinions.
Yesterday for example, I ran into a YouTube video of a college event on a big field. Lots of students and partying going on. It looked like a sports event. For some reason, a guy decides that it makes sense to take off his clothes and hang out naked.
Three uniformed police officers respond -- as professionally as possible -- to encourage the guy to put some clothes on. It escalates to the point where the naked guy says that he is not going to put clothes back on and that there is nothing that the uniformed police officers can do about it. Of course, the officers have no choice but to “enforce the law” and you end up watching a video of a naked guy getting “tasered”, tackled and handcuffed by the three police officers. (A taser is an electronic gun which sort of electronically stuns.)
I was unable to watch the second half of the video. It’s just too painful for me. Everywhere I look, I am seeing the violence that goes with our current notion of being human beings.
It’s not the police officers. It’s not the naked guy. I mean, it’s just us. I’m talking about all of us. I’m talking about me.
The very last piece that I wrote here in the Post, was an article where I took the Town Council to task for rejecting attempts to unify some Planning and Building services of the Town and the County. I accused -- point blank -- the Town Council of actively reinforcing the mentality of “division” within our already functionally unified community, That somehow there really is an “us” downtown and a “them” uptown.
I mean, maybe that is how it was once upon a time. But the fiction of a “tale of two towns” is not the reality on the ground today. It’s just not.
But of course, the real problem is that my language and my speaking about “the problem of divisiveness” was clearly divisive and harmful in and of itself. I was complaining about the harm someone else was inflicting but I was doing it by inflicting harm.
Ouch.
So, now I am wondering about what’s it going to take for me to communicate in a way that “does no harm”. At the same time I want to completely tell the truth (as I see it). How do I share my perspective with the community without turning it into another opportunity to hit somebody over the head?
That goes back to my feeling of either being totally lost or just on the verge of some great personal discovery.
If I didn’t know any better, I would just become comfortably numb. But, I do know better. It’s a bit of a challenge for me but somehow effective communication has got to be an option. Like most people, I spend a lot of time staying distracted, being off point, and generally not being focused on what is really going on here and now.
Right now, there is almost nothing that our community leaders can do without provoking an outcry or attack from the “public”. There is almost nothing that the public can say without attacking the leadership.
It is fascinating to watch the gut level, visceral attacks that come upon a new president of the United States. When a “Republican” becomes president the attacks come from people who say that they are “different thinkers”. When a “Democrat” becomes president the attacks come from people who “think differently”.
Never mind the fact that the liberal and conservative points of disagreement actually all exist in a fiction from the past and have absolutely nothing to do with what is going on right now -- today.
For example, the federal government is not really run on “tax dollars”. The United States budget is primarily funded by money literally printed out of thin air. And that, my friends, is neither a “liberal” nor a “conservative” problem. It’s a very much bigger problem. (More on that topic, later.)
But of course, it is entertaining to distract ourselves with heated banter about who’s a liberal and who’s a conservative. That’s a whole lot easier than talking about the end of free market capitalism and the looming destruction of our currency. Our supposed “two-party” system of government in the United States and all of the chattering of the talking heads “is a tale … full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.”
Our current community dialogue must be what Don Miguel Ruiz (author of books including “The Four Agreements“) was talking about when he said that humans all live in a dream. We all live in a collective dream that we call “reality”. But actually the dream is a nightmare called “hell“.
Apparently, this problem has been around for a while. I like this 2500 year old verse from Lao-tzu:
Governing a large county
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.
Approach the universe with the Tao
and evil will have no power.
Not that evil is not powerful,
but its power will not be used to harm others.
Not only will it not do harm to others,
but the sage himself will also be protected.
If only the ruler and his people would
refrain from harming each other,
all the benefits of life would accumulate
in the kingdom.
Empires rise and empires fall. National currencies get stronger then they collapse and disappear.
Vibrant communities are led by vision and hope. Communities contract underneath the weight of their own fear.
Sometimes I can communicate and help lead the community forward. Sometimes my opportunity to lead gets lost in my reptilian instinct to attack, defend, and become numb.
In my speaking, I am a painter with a brush. My carefully chosen words, consciously placed upon the canvas of the community conversation have the power to create something new. I can paint a positive vision of tomorrow or I can kick the canvas in frustration.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Being a "leader" instead of a "caretaker"
The Town Council held a workshop Tuesday afternoon to discuss ways that the Town and County could merge Planning and Building services. Also discussed by some was why it could never really happen. With a total of five members of the Town Council and the Mayor, there appeared to be an even three to three split over the idea of doing some kind of merged planning versus doing very little to nothing to change what we have got.
From my seat in the audience of a packed house, here is what I saw. No I won’t pretend any personal objectivity or neutrality on this topic at all.
The County’s spokesperson Rick Bellis appeared to be offering everything that the County possibly could to entice the Town into combining staff.
What I saw was some people attempting to form a more unified and more streamlined way of managing future development. I saw some other people so afraid of the details and the possibility that “something might go wrong” that they were completely unable to see the bigger picture here.
Imagine that large aliens from outer space came with a huge vacuum cleaner and sucked away both the Town Hall and the County Hall of Justice. Imagine that we were then left to replace the government of our community with a new structure.
Given a clean slate, would we build two separate governments to manage our small community or would it be logical to only install one government for our unified community of less than 10,000 residents?
Would it make any sense at all to install two building departments and two planning departments for a small community organized around a single seven mile strip of commercial development?
It can only make sense with the statement “well, but that’s just the way it has always been done”.
The heart of what I want to write about here is the difference between being a “caretaker” and being a “leader”. Most of the time, it is adequate for elected officials to be caretakers. Once in a while -- at critical junctures in our history -- true leadership is necessary.
Sometimes that leadership comes from elected leaders. Often times it must come from somewhere else.
General George Washington and his ragtag band of rebels almost starved to death in Valley Forge in 1778 because the vast majority of the citizens were too afraid to “change the system” and couldn’t be bothered to dig into their personal pockets to finance the rebel army. It was only a handful of men and women who led the vast populace of the American colonies towards forming a more perfect union.
After a bitter debate, only 7 out of the 13 colonies voted to approve the new constitution in 1787 which formed the unified republic. This result was the achievement of a small handful of leaders.
On its face, as an outside observer, obviously one planning and building department to manage our one small community makes more sense than having two departments do the same work. It’s obvious from the outside.
The real estate and building community has articulated clearly why a “one stop shop” is better than two separate departments. One thing is for sure. The current system of two planning and building departments does not work to grow our community as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
For myself, it was a little painful to sit in those Town Council chambers and watch some random remarks about how a merged Town and County Planning and Building staff would be less efficient than two separate departments. It was a little painful to watch some make claims that the best interests of Town residents were served by continuing with a divided administration of our single little community.
So to those few adamant voices who argue against merging redundant Town and County services, I ask you this. What is your vision for the future of the community? I have heard your fears. I have heard your rejection of the logic of the merger proposal based upon small details that have yet to be worked out. I heard what might go wrong.
But, I don’t believe that I heard any vision for the future. I don’t believe that I heard any guiding plans or principles. Where are you leading us to?
Fear is not a future.
This disfunctionalities of the past do not inform a positive road map for tomorrow.
In life you always end up with one of two things: What works or the reasons why not.
From my seat in the audience of a packed house, here is what I saw. No I won’t pretend any personal objectivity or neutrality on this topic at all.
The County’s spokesperson Rick Bellis appeared to be offering everything that the County possibly could to entice the Town into combining staff.
What I saw was some people attempting to form a more unified and more streamlined way of managing future development. I saw some other people so afraid of the details and the possibility that “something might go wrong” that they were completely unable to see the bigger picture here.
Imagine that large aliens from outer space came with a huge vacuum cleaner and sucked away both the Town Hall and the County Hall of Justice. Imagine that we were then left to replace the government of our community with a new structure.
Given a clean slate, would we build two separate governments to manage our small community or would it be logical to only install one government for our unified community of less than 10,000 residents?
Would it make any sense at all to install two building departments and two planning departments for a small community organized around a single seven mile strip of commercial development?
It can only make sense with the statement “well, but that’s just the way it has always been done”.
The heart of what I want to write about here is the difference between being a “caretaker” and being a “leader”. Most of the time, it is adequate for elected officials to be caretakers. Once in a while -- at critical junctures in our history -- true leadership is necessary.
Sometimes that leadership comes from elected leaders. Often times it must come from somewhere else.
General George Washington and his ragtag band of rebels almost starved to death in Valley Forge in 1778 because the vast majority of the citizens were too afraid to “change the system” and couldn’t be bothered to dig into their personal pockets to finance the rebel army. It was only a handful of men and women who led the vast populace of the American colonies towards forming a more perfect union.
After a bitter debate, only 7 out of the 13 colonies voted to approve the new constitution in 1787 which formed the unified republic. This result was the achievement of a small handful of leaders.
On its face, as an outside observer, obviously one planning and building department to manage our one small community makes more sense than having two departments do the same work. It’s obvious from the outside.
The real estate and building community has articulated clearly why a “one stop shop” is better than two separate departments. One thing is for sure. The current system of two planning and building departments does not work to grow our community as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan.
For myself, it was a little painful to sit in those Town Council chambers and watch some random remarks about how a merged Town and County Planning and Building staff would be less efficient than two separate departments. It was a little painful to watch some make claims that the best interests of Town residents were served by continuing with a divided administration of our single little community.
So to those few adamant voices who argue against merging redundant Town and County services, I ask you this. What is your vision for the future of the community? I have heard your fears. I have heard your rejection of the logic of the merger proposal based upon small details that have yet to be worked out. I heard what might go wrong.
But, I don’t believe that I heard any vision for the future. I don’t believe that I heard any guiding plans or principles. Where are you leading us to?
Fear is not a future.
This disfunctionalities of the past do not inform a positive road map for tomorrow.
In life you always end up with one of two things: What works or the reasons why not.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The "conversation" that we are
I like to read the Pagosa Daily Post almost every day. The regular writers keep me up to date with what is going on in Pagosa Springs.
What particularly fascinates me is the "conversation" that the community of Pagosa Springs is.
Sometimes -- actually more often than not -- we as a community are a "conversation" that looks something like: everyone who ever takes on any position of leadership in our community needs to be destroyed.
Sometimes -- actually more often than not -- we as a community are a "conversation" that looks something like: everyone who ever takes on any position of leadership in our community needs to be destroyed.
It really is fascinating to watch and explore. Well, unless the news story of the day involves "you". When the "you" (that would be the "I" in your mind) gets involved then all of a sudden it is not so much fun and interesting but all of your painful whatevers are there ready to get triggered.
It looks like this might just be a local Pagosa Springs "conversation". But actually it is a national and an international conversation.
What happens every second day of a new U.S. presidency? The "impeach so-and-so" bumper stickers come out.
So, actually, this "conversation" is not local. It is the conversation that all of humanity is mired in.
But, like fish in water who do not know that water exists......almost none of us humans are aware that we "swim" in a "conversation" not of our own making. Most of us think that we are thinking the negative, critical thoughts. But actually the negative, critical, back stabbing thoughts are thinking us.
That is not just a poetic flourish. The greater conversation of humanity actually "thinks" for the individual. That is to say that we "individual" humans are born into and show up into an already known way of thinking and communicating.
That is not just a poetic flourish. The greater conversation of humanity actually "thinks" for the individual. That is to say that we "individual" humans are born into and show up into an already known way of thinking and communicating.
So, here is the good news for you if you are the "target" of a critical story. It is actually not personal.
The critic thinks that they are thinking and writing a critical story about you. The gossip thinks that they are saying something unique. But, notice that most of the letters to the editor are also from the same school of "thinking"......about how other people are wrong and jerks and whatever. And, so, by necessity, the writer must be right or something.
Or at least, for sure, the "leader" must be destroyed or exposed or something.
Or at least, for sure, the "leader" must be destroyed or exposed or something.
The good news is that the "conversation" really isn't about you. The "conversation" was in place before you were even born. You were born into it.
This conversation permeates all aspects of human life. This is the conversation that you are with yourself (you know, that ugly chatter in your head). This is the conversation that we are as an intimate relationship. This is the conversation that we are as a town. This is the conversation that we are as a nation. It is a conversation of "no possibility". Roughly, it could be called the conversation of "everything, everywhere is hopeless".
But, the greater human conversation can be altered. Great leaders can do that. That is the fun part.
What I am writing about here is a call to personal responsibility. On any given day, in any given situation, the opportunity is to personally take full responsibility. I did not say "to take blame". To take full responsibility is to claim it. To take full responsibility is to claim and to be a stand for your own personal power. To "blame" is to give away your power. To "criticize" and to talk about the mistakes of "the leadership" is to pretend that you do not have any power to influence your community from whereever you are.
Just because the County Commissioners wear fancy hats or because the Town Councilors wear fancy badges does not mean that they have any more "power" to affect change in the community than either you or I. The true source of the "power" of a County Commissioner or of a Town Councilor comes from the fact that they show up every week and try to get something done. Showing up and taking action is the source of personal power.
But as a people, on this planet, we swim in a conversation that goes something like this. "I have no personal power. Someone else has the power. I can't really do anything to improve my situation and the situation of my community."
As a people, we reinforce the mistaken theory that power exists outside ourselves by "blaming" and finding "fault" in the "leadership". Finding fault and blame are the narcotic that keeps us each, individually, asleep to the power that we each have inside of ourselves.
What power did Rosa Parks have when she stepped onto a bus in a segregated south and demanded to sit where "the white folks" sat?
What power did Nelson Mandela have from the jail cell in South Africa where he was incarcerated for 25 years?
What power did women have to demand the right to vote?
What power did the American colonists have against a Britain which was the greatest military power in history at that time?
What power did Nelson Mandela have from the jail cell in South Africa where he was incarcerated for 25 years?
What power did women have to demand the right to vote?
What power did the American colonists have against a Britain which was the greatest military power in history at that time?
What power do you have to alter the shape of the local economy in Pagosa Springs?
What power do you have to influence an efficient merger of redundant County and Town services?
What power do you have to influence an efficient merger of redundant County and Town services?
You have whatever power that you claim for yourself.
If you say that the power to run the community is outside of yourself, then you are right. If you say that you claim personal responsibility for the future of our community, then so you do.
More often than not, true vision, leadership, and change in a community comes from somewhere other than the "appointed leadership". True leadership comes from one or two people who take a stand.
True power comes from somebody showing up and taking action week in and week out.
True power comes from somebody showing up and taking action week in and week out.
So, to the critical, the naysayers, and the voices of doom I ask "so what?" Now, what exactly are you going to do about it?
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Sprawl is as American as apple pie. I love pie. But I hate sprawl.
Recently, the County has been trying to wrap up a new Urban Services Area map which hints at where new development and maybe higher densities will go in the future.
Some have argued that the people who come to Pagosa are looking for a lifestyle of 3 to 5 acres -- a sort of semi-rural aesthetic. But consider that other people who prefer walkable communities and higher density have not arrived in Pagosa -- yet -- because there is nothing here for them to arrive to.
We currently do not have a solid example of newer mixed-use development in our community. Under the “I know it when I see it” standard, a mixed-use development is characterized, in part, by people walking around. Walking from the house to the coffee shop. Walking from the house to a store to buy a loaf of bread. Walking from the house to a job.
Right now in our community, every “trip” is done in an automobile. Mixed-use, done well, eliminates the need for some automobile trips because a variety of activities (living, shopping, office) are all mixed together on the same site.
The old downtown commercial core does provide some mixed-use living. Economic stimulus is missing at the moment. A more vibrant downtown would lead to more people walking downtown.
I have argued previously that we have to choose now whether future development is going to lead to sprawl or if we going to commit to density. But for Pagosa Springs, my argument was really not quite on point.
We have already let sprawl happen in Pagosa Springs. Drive from Ace Hardware on the west end of Town all the way to Day Lumber on the east end of Town. That distance is seven miles. Drive from Highway 160 to Hatcher Lake. That distance is five miles.
Too late folks. We already let the “sprawl” genie out of the bag.
Now, let’s get out of our car and walk around a bit. Everywhere. If we look long enough and close enough, here is what we see. Almost every trip to a house, from a house, to a restaurant or to City Market is a vehicle trip. Every trip from Lake Hatcher to a coffee shop or City Market is a five mile vehicle trip also impacting Highway 160. Even downtown, most trips are vehicle trips. Under our current plan (or lack of real plan), when our population doubles again, the number of vehicle trips will also double.
So what is this “small town character” that people say that they want to “keep” for Pagosa Springs? In my dream of a small town, people bump into each other on the street. Some trips are done in the car and some trips are done on your feet. Isn’t that what “Main Street” U.S.A. is supposed to be all about. My dream of small town is not bumper to bumper traffic heading up and down Highway 160 from the east side of town to the west side of town.
Sprawl is as American as apple pie. I love pie. But I hate sprawl.
Does anyone doubt that the population in our community will double again in size sometime in the foreseeable future? You might not like it. You might not want it. But can you stop it?
When I was born in 1962, the world population was about 4 billion people. Now the world population is fast going on 7 billion. I will live to see 8 billion people on the planet. Maybe a whole lot more.
I live in the heart of downtown Pagosa Springs. But given my “lifestyle”, I also head up to the west end of town (currently the commercial center of town) every day. In my truck. At least once per day. That’s a five-plus mile drive from my house in the heart of the downtown to the functional commercial center of town.
Is this the “small town character” and lifestyle people are trying to preserve?
I know that some of the downtown folks never venture up to the west end of town. Some of the Pagosa Lakes folks never venture downtown. What does that tell us about the future of Pagosa Springs? Nothing.
We all live in a one town, small county. We are one unified community. Even if we don’t quite believe it yet.
Eventually, downtown will be restored as the vibrant commercial center of our community. Take a roughly 8 block radius and draw a circle around the downtown core. If we get this downtown core right -- a must see tourist destination and a walkable civic center where locals actually walk -- then the rest of the county will successfully ride on the coattails of this socio-economic heart of the community. (Hat tip to the new Overlook spa and the new Springs hotel.) If we blow it on growing the downtown core properly then we will always have non-descript sprawl, anywhere USA. And, indeed, we will have blown it for the future generations of our community.
We need a heart and soul to this place. Sprawl, by definition, has no heart. Continue to create the heart in the downtown. Then create some satellite mixed-use centers that are also pedestrian in use; not just theory. Then, the best that we can, try to tie the whole thing together along Putt Hill.
I have one single litmus test for all future development in our community. Does it attract new, young families? If new development attracts new families then, by definition, it attracts new jobs.
Second home owning retirees -- we love you. Tourists -- we definitely want you. But new, young families will be the life blood of the future generations of Pagosa Springs.
Which brings me to this new Urban Services Area map that the County Planning Commission has just passed on to the County Commissioners.
For someone as interested in land use planning, you would think that I would have spent a lot of time analyzing the details of the current version of the map. But I haven’t. I’ve got my letter-size piece of paper with a printout of the current draft of the map.
Is it a good map for our community? How many people have actually been involved with the process so far?
There are three things that I really like about this draft USA map. One is that it shows, conclusively, that Archuleta County/Pagosa Springs really is a one town, small unified County. I’m not ignoring Arboles or Chromo. They need their own special community plans. But that does not detract from the fact that we really are a single, unified community.
Here is a County map, showing an oval outline, with the “Town” in the middle and the “County” together as single bubble of people and houses.
The second thing that I really like about the draft USA map is that I trust the people who put it together. I trust the County Planning staff and I trust the County Planning Commission. They put a lot of time and energy into making that map the best that they possibly could.
Is someone going to complain about too much potential density in their back yard? Yes. Is someone going to complain about not enough potential density on their own acreage? Yes. Would I have done some parcels differently? Maybe.
But the point is that the Planning Commission did the best they could to represent all of the thousands of people who did not show up at the meetings. They did their best to represent all of the thousands of people who don’t live here yet but will live here some day. This map is a stand against future sprawl.
Is the map perfect? Maybe not. Is it a very good draft? Definitely. The draft Urban Services Area map is a picture of the future growth of our community and where it should be located. Should growth continue haphazardly all over the place or should growth be limited to inside of the oval bubble?
Pagosa Springs is currently defined by a seven mile stretch of commercial sprawl along Highway 160. And by miles of perpendicular residential growth arms.
The entire City of San Francisco, California sits on land just about seven miles by seven miles square. The Urban Services Area of our “small town” looks to take up as much space as that large city.
To the extent which the Urban Services Area map will establish the idea that we are not expanding this community out any farther into our open space, I applaud it. I hope that this map becomes a “line in the sand” over which future subdivisions will generally not cross.
So, here’s my personal nod of support and appreciation to the work of the County Planning Commission and Planning Staff on the new map.
Some have argued that the people who come to Pagosa are looking for a lifestyle of 3 to 5 acres -- a sort of semi-rural aesthetic. But consider that other people who prefer walkable communities and higher density have not arrived in Pagosa -- yet -- because there is nothing here for them to arrive to.
We currently do not have a solid example of newer mixed-use development in our community. Under the “I know it when I see it” standard, a mixed-use development is characterized, in part, by people walking around. Walking from the house to the coffee shop. Walking from the house to a store to buy a loaf of bread. Walking from the house to a job.
Right now in our community, every “trip” is done in an automobile. Mixed-use, done well, eliminates the need for some automobile trips because a variety of activities (living, shopping, office) are all mixed together on the same site.
The old downtown commercial core does provide some mixed-use living. Economic stimulus is missing at the moment. A more vibrant downtown would lead to more people walking downtown.
I have argued previously that we have to choose now whether future development is going to lead to sprawl or if we going to commit to density. But for Pagosa Springs, my argument was really not quite on point.
We have already let sprawl happen in Pagosa Springs. Drive from Ace Hardware on the west end of Town all the way to Day Lumber on the east end of Town. That distance is seven miles. Drive from Highway 160 to Hatcher Lake. That distance is five miles.
Too late folks. We already let the “sprawl” genie out of the bag.
Now, let’s get out of our car and walk around a bit. Everywhere. If we look long enough and close enough, here is what we see. Almost every trip to a house, from a house, to a restaurant or to City Market is a vehicle trip. Every trip from Lake Hatcher to a coffee shop or City Market is a five mile vehicle trip also impacting Highway 160. Even downtown, most trips are vehicle trips. Under our current plan (or lack of real plan), when our population doubles again, the number of vehicle trips will also double.
So what is this “small town character” that people say that they want to “keep” for Pagosa Springs? In my dream of a small town, people bump into each other on the street. Some trips are done in the car and some trips are done on your feet. Isn’t that what “Main Street” U.S.A. is supposed to be all about. My dream of small town is not bumper to bumper traffic heading up and down Highway 160 from the east side of town to the west side of town.
Sprawl is as American as apple pie. I love pie. But I hate sprawl.
Does anyone doubt that the population in our community will double again in size sometime in the foreseeable future? You might not like it. You might not want it. But can you stop it?
When I was born in 1962, the world population was about 4 billion people. Now the world population is fast going on 7 billion. I will live to see 8 billion people on the planet. Maybe a whole lot more.
I live in the heart of downtown Pagosa Springs. But given my “lifestyle”, I also head up to the west end of town (currently the commercial center of town) every day. In my truck. At least once per day. That’s a five-plus mile drive from my house in the heart of the downtown to the functional commercial center of town.
Is this the “small town character” and lifestyle people are trying to preserve?
I know that some of the downtown folks never venture up to the west end of town. Some of the Pagosa Lakes folks never venture downtown. What does that tell us about the future of Pagosa Springs? Nothing.
We all live in a one town, small county. We are one unified community. Even if we don’t quite believe it yet.
Eventually, downtown will be restored as the vibrant commercial center of our community. Take a roughly 8 block radius and draw a circle around the downtown core. If we get this downtown core right -- a must see tourist destination and a walkable civic center where locals actually walk -- then the rest of the county will successfully ride on the coattails of this socio-economic heart of the community. (Hat tip to the new Overlook spa and the new Springs hotel.) If we blow it on growing the downtown core properly then we will always have non-descript sprawl, anywhere USA. And, indeed, we will have blown it for the future generations of our community.
We need a heart and soul to this place. Sprawl, by definition, has no heart. Continue to create the heart in the downtown. Then create some satellite mixed-use centers that are also pedestrian in use; not just theory. Then, the best that we can, try to tie the whole thing together along Putt Hill.
I have one single litmus test for all future development in our community. Does it attract new, young families? If new development attracts new families then, by definition, it attracts new jobs.
Second home owning retirees -- we love you. Tourists -- we definitely want you. But new, young families will be the life blood of the future generations of Pagosa Springs.
Which brings me to this new Urban Services Area map that the County Planning Commission has just passed on to the County Commissioners.
For someone as interested in land use planning, you would think that I would have spent a lot of time analyzing the details of the current version of the map. But I haven’t. I’ve got my letter-size piece of paper with a printout of the current draft of the map.
Is it a good map for our community? How many people have actually been involved with the process so far?
There are three things that I really like about this draft USA map. One is that it shows, conclusively, that Archuleta County/Pagosa Springs really is a one town, small unified County. I’m not ignoring Arboles or Chromo. They need their own special community plans. But that does not detract from the fact that we really are a single, unified community.
Here is a County map, showing an oval outline, with the “Town” in the middle and the “County” together as single bubble of people and houses.
The second thing that I really like about the draft USA map is that I trust the people who put it together. I trust the County Planning staff and I trust the County Planning Commission. They put a lot of time and energy into making that map the best that they possibly could.
Is someone going to complain about too much potential density in their back yard? Yes. Is someone going to complain about not enough potential density on their own acreage? Yes. Would I have done some parcels differently? Maybe.
But the point is that the Planning Commission did the best they could to represent all of the thousands of people who did not show up at the meetings. They did their best to represent all of the thousands of people who don’t live here yet but will live here some day. This map is a stand against future sprawl.
Is the map perfect? Maybe not. Is it a very good draft? Definitely. The draft Urban Services Area map is a picture of the future growth of our community and where it should be located. Should growth continue haphazardly all over the place or should growth be limited to inside of the oval bubble?
Pagosa Springs is currently defined by a seven mile stretch of commercial sprawl along Highway 160. And by miles of perpendicular residential growth arms.
The entire City of San Francisco, California sits on land just about seven miles by seven miles square. The Urban Services Area of our “small town” looks to take up as much space as that large city.
To the extent which the Urban Services Area map will establish the idea that we are not expanding this community out any farther into our open space, I applaud it. I hope that this map becomes a “line in the sand” over which future subdivisions will generally not cross.
So, here’s my personal nod of support and appreciation to the work of the County Planning Commission and Planning Staff on the new map.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Patriotism is Born
When the greatness of the Tao is present,
action arises from one's own heart.
When the greatness of the Tao is absent,
action comes from the rules
of "kindness and justice".
If you need rules to be kind and just,
if you act virtuous,
this is a sure sign that virtue is absent,
Thus we see the great hypocrisy.
When kinship falls into discord,
piety and rites of devotion arise.
When the country falls into chaos,
official loyalists will appear;
patriotism is born.
18th Verse of the Tao
Monday, October 13, 2008
The End of the World as We Know It
Will the new economy destroy freedom, democracy and capitalism in the United States? As the federal government intervenes heavily in the financial markets and buys up financial institutions, we are witnessing a fatal collision of “free market capitalism” with “state-run corporate capitalism“.
Economic structures determine political structures. In the classic model of the United States, free market capitalism led to the freedoms of democracy. In fascist Germany of the 1930s, corporations gained control of the economy and, in exchange, supported the political dictatorship of a corporatist Germany.
In her new book, “Give Me Liberty”, Naomi Wolf offers the view that the United States is rapidly becoming a “closed society” and that our constitution is being destroyed before our eyes.
Step one: hyping an external threat that is terrifying.
Step two: creating a secret prison system that is outside the rule of law where torture takes place.
Step three: a paramilitary force not answerable to the people.
Step four: an institutional surveillance apparatus imposed on the citizens.
Step five: infiltrate and harass citizen’s groups.
Step six: engage in arbitrary detention and release.
etc…
Do these steps describe the rise of fascist Germany in the 1930’s or changes currently occurring in the United States? Both.
Germany in 1932 was a parliamentary democracy with political parties, newspapers and human rights organizations. In the 20th century, every rise in dictatorship has followed the same exact “blueprint” for closing down a democracy. They all follow the same ten steps according to Naomi Wolf. Think Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Petty dictators in Latin America, Thailand, Burma have also followed the blueprint. She claims that these same ten steps are under way in the United States right now.
According to Wolf we are now in a crises because the rule of democracy is crumbling and is rapidly being replaced by the foundations for a dictatorship.
“I want to go back to what are the core principles that America is supposed to give us because we are being manipulated and brainwashed so far away from that; with fake democracy and fake patriotism.”
“A coup has taken place. And people need to know how to fight back.” (Naomi Wolf)
I have to say that I do not disagree with Naomi Wolf. The “free marketplace” and the historic structures of capitalism have now been destroyed. This process has actually been slowly accruing since the last Great Depression but has taken an accelerated pace in 2008.
The federal government’s wiretapping of US citizens is clearly a breach of traditional constitutional rights. The US president now claims the power to arrest and torture anyone he deems to be an “enemy combatant”. There are reports of a US Army Division about to be deployed from Iraq to US soil.
If the financial markets are no longer “free” then how will we the people be “free” in any meaningful sense? If fear and false “security” have replaced our constitutional rights then the US constitution is dead. Looking in the rear view mirror, our “American” way life has been left behind, dying on the side of the road.
However, concurrently, we are living in a time of tectonic social and technological upheavals never before witnessed in history. The collapse of the institutions of free market capitalism occurs precisely at a time of emergence of something new.
Steven Johnson published a book called “Emergence” right at the time of the September 11th, 2001 attack. The book was about the power and creative potential of urban density; of connecting people and putting them together in one place and sharing ideas together. Johnson lives in New York City in close proximity to the site of the destroyed Twin Towers.
Johnson was able to observe that in the days immediately following the Twin Towers attack, the streets were vibrantly alive with people. He reports that his neighborhood, the West Village, had never seemed more lively. Despite the enormity of the “terrorist” attack 20 blocks to the south, the City was working and vibrant. The “system” of the City was thriving.
Although cities are centralized in space, they are decentralized in function. They don’t have an executive branch upon which the entire city operations rely. Who builds a City? Who builds a neighborhood? Johnson notes that it is “everybody and nobody”. Everybody contributes a small little part. No single person is in charge.
This is increasingly what we are experiencing with the World Wide Web -- the internet. The internet is a global brain.
We are on the brink of truly global social organization, according to another author Robert Wright. Originally humans developed hunter-gatherer villages. Early agriculture led to chiefdoms of local control. With the invention of writing you started getting cities. Eventually social organization led to empires.
Robert Wright, notes that social organization can extend beyond political boundaries as in, for example, the Silk Road which connected the Chinese empire to the Roman empire. So, you had social complexity spanning an entire continent even though a single political structure did not. Today, we have nation states. This is a growth in social complexity over time.
Social organization has now reached the global level. So…how do we all get along now? Are we heading to a one-world government? Do we have any choice?
Of course, you and I resist the idea of unified, world-wide government the same way the agrarian chiefdoms resisted being merged into nation states, But the natural flow of ten thousand years of history points towards a single global economy and, therefore, a single unified political structure.
Some people will rightfully be concerned about having economic and political power of the entire planet increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. History is filled with stories about a power elite taking control over the masses. Looking into the rear view mirror of history, further concentration of political power sure seems like a bad idea.
But the future we are heading into may not actually be fully informed by the past.
Clay Shirky writes about the internet and talks about a growing distinction between “institutions” and “collaboration”. The historical, classic way to get something done in the world is to start an institution. You get resources together, you start an institution (either public or private), and you use the institution to coordinate the activities of the group.
But as Shirky points out, most recently the costs of communicating with other people -- of coordinating activity -- has become vastly cheaper. The internet now allows us to communicate and to coordinate activity easily and cheaply without the need for classical institutional structures.
Equally as important, the internet allows the general public to participate and cooperate with projects without becoming hired professionals and without the limitations of traditional institutions. Shirky provides the example of the website Flicker which allows total strangers to provide photos of an event that they have all attended and to have them tagged in such a way that a collection of photos taken by many, “unorganized”, unprofessional photographers can be viewed by anyone on the planet.
Similarly, the lack of “institution” can be observed in today’s use of cell phones which reduces the need for established planning in exchange for something like “I’ll just call you after work and we’ll figure out how to hook up then”. Shirky says that this is a replacement of “planning” with “coordination“. “We are now able to do that kind of thing with groups.” Instead of having a five year plan for the website Wikipedia, we can now just say that we will coordinate the effort as we go. We are now well enough coordinated that we don’t have to decide in advance what to do.
As Shirky notes, “the tension is between institution as enabler and institution as obstacle. Institutions hate being told that they are obstacles. One of the first things that happens when you institutionalize a problem -- the first goal of the institution immediately shifts from whatever the nominal goal was to preservation. So, when institutions are told that they are obstacles and that there are other ways of coordinating the value, they go through something like the Kubler-Ross stages: denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance.”
A good example is how Microsoft develops operating system hardware and how Linux develops operating system hardware. Microsoft is a closed private institution. Linux is an “open source” collaboration model. The fact that a single programmer can move into a non-professional relationship with Linux, offer one software improvement, and then never be heard from again, is the kind of value that is unreachable in classic institutional systems.
“This is a revolution. This is a really profound change in the way human systems are organized. It is a revolution in that it is a change in equilibrium. It is a whole new way of doing things. As with the printing press, if it is really a revolution, it doesn‘t take us from point A to point B. It takes us from point A to chaos.” The printing press precipitated 200 years of chaos, moving from a world where the Catholic Church was the organizing political force to a new world order in 1648 of the nation state with the Treaty of Westphalia. (Shirky)
Yochai Benkler, a professor of entrepreneurial legal studies, has additional insights into the value of “open source” economics. Benkler notes that in the year 1835, James Gordon Bennett created the first mass circulation newspaper in New York City for a cost of about $10,000. in today’s money. By 15 years later in 1850, doing the same thing would come to cost 2.5 million dollars in today’s dollars. This is the critical change that is being inverted by the internet today -- the emergence of “social production“.
The contrast is that previously, classical producers had to be able to raise substantial money to initiate a new product -- they were market-based or publicly-owned. But with the rise of the internet we have a radical change in the way that information, production, and exchange is capitalized. The way that the capitalization now happens is radically distributed instead of concentrated into a few hands.
What this means is that for the first time since the industrial revolution, the most important components of our information economy are now in the hands of the population at large. Communications and computations capability are now in the hands of the entire population. And human creativity is encouraged. Rather than the institution deciding who gets “hired” and which ideas get promoted, all individuals can promote their own ideas.
The internet server software Apache was created by a loose collection of volunteer writers. Again, the institutionalized competitor was Microsoft. But now the open source Apache software controls 70% of the market and the private institution Microsoft software controls only 20% of the Web server market.
This sort of open source collaborative, cooperative approach to projects on the Web has become a dominant means of getting things done. For example, search engine Google “outsources” to the Web community as a whole to decide which websites are the most relevant which, in turn, directs other people to those so chosen websites.
It used to be too expensive to have decentralized social production out in society. What we are seeing now is the emergence of this economic system of “social sharing and exchange”, according to Benkler.
“A new social phenomenon is emerging. It is creating a new form of competition. Peer to peer networks are assaulting the recording industry. Free/open source software is taking market share from Microsoft. Skype potentially threatens the telecomms. Wikipedia competes with on-line encyclopedias. But it also opens new sources of opportunities for businesses.” (Benkler)
Economic structures determine political structures. New technology is creating tools for a “collaborative” economy in direct competition with the historical, “closed” institutions.
The traditional high cost to enter the market place is being replaced by the internet which makes the tools of communication, coordination and marketing potentially available to anyone.
While the United States political structure is clearly experiencing pressure to become less “democratic” and less “free”, the competing force of “open source”, social production could ultimately lead us towards a more free worldwide economy with possibilities for a revival of true democracy.
Economic structures determine political structures. In the classic model of the United States, free market capitalism led to the freedoms of democracy. In fascist Germany of the 1930s, corporations gained control of the economy and, in exchange, supported the political dictatorship of a corporatist Germany.
In her new book, “Give Me Liberty”, Naomi Wolf offers the view that the United States is rapidly becoming a “closed society” and that our constitution is being destroyed before our eyes.
Step one: hyping an external threat that is terrifying.
Step two: creating a secret prison system that is outside the rule of law where torture takes place.
Step three: a paramilitary force not answerable to the people.
Step four: an institutional surveillance apparatus imposed on the citizens.
Step five: infiltrate and harass citizen’s groups.
Step six: engage in arbitrary detention and release.
etc…
Do these steps describe the rise of fascist Germany in the 1930’s or changes currently occurring in the United States? Both.
Germany in 1932 was a parliamentary democracy with political parties, newspapers and human rights organizations. In the 20th century, every rise in dictatorship has followed the same exact “blueprint” for closing down a democracy. They all follow the same ten steps according to Naomi Wolf. Think Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Petty dictators in Latin America, Thailand, Burma have also followed the blueprint. She claims that these same ten steps are under way in the United States right now.
According to Wolf we are now in a crises because the rule of democracy is crumbling and is rapidly being replaced by the foundations for a dictatorship.
“I want to go back to what are the core principles that America is supposed to give us because we are being manipulated and brainwashed so far away from that; with fake democracy and fake patriotism.”
“A coup has taken place. And people need to know how to fight back.” (Naomi Wolf)
I have to say that I do not disagree with Naomi Wolf. The “free marketplace” and the historic structures of capitalism have now been destroyed. This process has actually been slowly accruing since the last Great Depression but has taken an accelerated pace in 2008.
The federal government’s wiretapping of US citizens is clearly a breach of traditional constitutional rights. The US president now claims the power to arrest and torture anyone he deems to be an “enemy combatant”. There are reports of a US Army Division about to be deployed from Iraq to US soil.
If the financial markets are no longer “free” then how will we the people be “free” in any meaningful sense? If fear and false “security” have replaced our constitutional rights then the US constitution is dead. Looking in the rear view mirror, our “American” way life has been left behind, dying on the side of the road.
However, concurrently, we are living in a time of tectonic social and technological upheavals never before witnessed in history. The collapse of the institutions of free market capitalism occurs precisely at a time of emergence of something new.
Steven Johnson published a book called “Emergence” right at the time of the September 11th, 2001 attack. The book was about the power and creative potential of urban density; of connecting people and putting them together in one place and sharing ideas together. Johnson lives in New York City in close proximity to the site of the destroyed Twin Towers.
Johnson was able to observe that in the days immediately following the Twin Towers attack, the streets were vibrantly alive with people. He reports that his neighborhood, the West Village, had never seemed more lively. Despite the enormity of the “terrorist” attack 20 blocks to the south, the City was working and vibrant. The “system” of the City was thriving.
Although cities are centralized in space, they are decentralized in function. They don’t have an executive branch upon which the entire city operations rely. Who builds a City? Who builds a neighborhood? Johnson notes that it is “everybody and nobody”. Everybody contributes a small little part. No single person is in charge.
This is increasingly what we are experiencing with the World Wide Web -- the internet. The internet is a global brain.
We are on the brink of truly global social organization, according to another author Robert Wright. Originally humans developed hunter-gatherer villages. Early agriculture led to chiefdoms of local control. With the invention of writing you started getting cities. Eventually social organization led to empires.
Robert Wright, notes that social organization can extend beyond political boundaries as in, for example, the Silk Road which connected the Chinese empire to the Roman empire. So, you had social complexity spanning an entire continent even though a single political structure did not. Today, we have nation states. This is a growth in social complexity over time.
Social organization has now reached the global level. So…how do we all get along now? Are we heading to a one-world government? Do we have any choice?
Of course, you and I resist the idea of unified, world-wide government the same way the agrarian chiefdoms resisted being merged into nation states, But the natural flow of ten thousand years of history points towards a single global economy and, therefore, a single unified political structure.
Some people will rightfully be concerned about having economic and political power of the entire planet increasingly concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. History is filled with stories about a power elite taking control over the masses. Looking into the rear view mirror of history, further concentration of political power sure seems like a bad idea.
But the future we are heading into may not actually be fully informed by the past.
Clay Shirky writes about the internet and talks about a growing distinction between “institutions” and “collaboration”. The historical, classic way to get something done in the world is to start an institution. You get resources together, you start an institution (either public or private), and you use the institution to coordinate the activities of the group.
But as Shirky points out, most recently the costs of communicating with other people -- of coordinating activity -- has become vastly cheaper. The internet now allows us to communicate and to coordinate activity easily and cheaply without the need for classical institutional structures.
Equally as important, the internet allows the general public to participate and cooperate with projects without becoming hired professionals and without the limitations of traditional institutions. Shirky provides the example of the website Flicker which allows total strangers to provide photos of an event that they have all attended and to have them tagged in such a way that a collection of photos taken by many, “unorganized”, unprofessional photographers can be viewed by anyone on the planet.
Similarly, the lack of “institution” can be observed in today’s use of cell phones which reduces the need for established planning in exchange for something like “I’ll just call you after work and we’ll figure out how to hook up then”. Shirky says that this is a replacement of “planning” with “coordination“. “We are now able to do that kind of thing with groups.” Instead of having a five year plan for the website Wikipedia, we can now just say that we will coordinate the effort as we go. We are now well enough coordinated that we don’t have to decide in advance what to do.
As Shirky notes, “the tension is between institution as enabler and institution as obstacle. Institutions hate being told that they are obstacles. One of the first things that happens when you institutionalize a problem -- the first goal of the institution immediately shifts from whatever the nominal goal was to preservation. So, when institutions are told that they are obstacles and that there are other ways of coordinating the value, they go through something like the Kubler-Ross stages: denial, anger, bargaining, and acceptance.”
A good example is how Microsoft develops operating system hardware and how Linux develops operating system hardware. Microsoft is a closed private institution. Linux is an “open source” collaboration model. The fact that a single programmer can move into a non-professional relationship with Linux, offer one software improvement, and then never be heard from again, is the kind of value that is unreachable in classic institutional systems.
“This is a revolution. This is a really profound change in the way human systems are organized. It is a revolution in that it is a change in equilibrium. It is a whole new way of doing things. As with the printing press, if it is really a revolution, it doesn‘t take us from point A to point B. It takes us from point A to chaos.” The printing press precipitated 200 years of chaos, moving from a world where the Catholic Church was the organizing political force to a new world order in 1648 of the nation state with the Treaty of Westphalia. (Shirky)
Yochai Benkler, a professor of entrepreneurial legal studies, has additional insights into the value of “open source” economics. Benkler notes that in the year 1835, James Gordon Bennett created the first mass circulation newspaper in New York City for a cost of about $10,000. in today’s money. By 15 years later in 1850, doing the same thing would come to cost 2.5 million dollars in today’s dollars. This is the critical change that is being inverted by the internet today -- the emergence of “social production“.
The contrast is that previously, classical producers had to be able to raise substantial money to initiate a new product -- they were market-based or publicly-owned. But with the rise of the internet we have a radical change in the way that information, production, and exchange is capitalized. The way that the capitalization now happens is radically distributed instead of concentrated into a few hands.
What this means is that for the first time since the industrial revolution, the most important components of our information economy are now in the hands of the population at large. Communications and computations capability are now in the hands of the entire population. And human creativity is encouraged. Rather than the institution deciding who gets “hired” and which ideas get promoted, all individuals can promote their own ideas.
The internet server software Apache was created by a loose collection of volunteer writers. Again, the institutionalized competitor was Microsoft. But now the open source Apache software controls 70% of the market and the private institution Microsoft software controls only 20% of the Web server market.
This sort of open source collaborative, cooperative approach to projects on the Web has become a dominant means of getting things done. For example, search engine Google “outsources” to the Web community as a whole to decide which websites are the most relevant which, in turn, directs other people to those so chosen websites.
It used to be too expensive to have decentralized social production out in society. What we are seeing now is the emergence of this economic system of “social sharing and exchange”, according to Benkler.
“A new social phenomenon is emerging. It is creating a new form of competition. Peer to peer networks are assaulting the recording industry. Free/open source software is taking market share from Microsoft. Skype potentially threatens the telecomms. Wikipedia competes with on-line encyclopedias. But it also opens new sources of opportunities for businesses.” (Benkler)
Economic structures determine political structures. New technology is creating tools for a “collaborative” economy in direct competition with the historical, “closed” institutions.
The traditional high cost to enter the market place is being replaced by the internet which makes the tools of communication, coordination and marketing potentially available to anyone.
While the United States political structure is clearly experiencing pressure to become less “democratic” and less “free”, the competing force of “open source”, social production could ultimately lead us towards a more free worldwide economy with possibilities for a revival of true democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
