The Capitalist City or the Self-Managed City?
The Capitalist City or the Self-Managed City?
This essay is from the recently published City Lights Press anthology, (www.globalizeliberation.org) Globalize Liberation: How to Uproot the System and Build a Better World, edited by David Solnit.
Patterns of capital flows have a visible effect on working class communities in the
In other times and places an inflow of investment fuels gentrification. Upscale condos are erected, houses are rehabbed. Candle-lit restaurants and vintage furniture emporia displace bodegas and used appliance stores. Rents rise as landlords realize they can attract professionals and business people as tenants. An area of â€œvaluable city real estateâ€ is being cleansed of its working class residents.
Both phases in this process fuel conflict. Squatters occupy vacant buildings. Tenants threaten a rent strike in response to deferred maintenance. Tenant activists push for rent control ordinances in response to rising rents. Anti-gentrification activists jam planning commission hearings to stop upscale condo projects. At the extreme edge, some resort to the torching of condos under construction.
We can regard all of these as expressions of class struggle over the built environment.
Both gentrification and disinvestment are processes made up of the activities of certain kinds of social agents or institutions. Landlords, developers, and banks all play key roles.1
Buildings represent a major investment. For this reason, they are not replaced for many years after they are built. An older area in an American city may have been converted from agricultural land to urban uses in the 19th century or early 20th century. As the lots in a newly subdivided area get built upon, builders and subdividers move outward into more outlying areas in search of new building sites.
A building is like a piece of machinery or a motor vehicle â€” it depreciates in value over time. The roof may need to be replaced after years of beating back the rain. The building style may go out of fashion. Technological changes such as new standards in electrical or plumbing systems may erode the value of a building.
Some neighborhoods continue to retain their ability to attract professional and business people to live there. Landlords in such areas will have an incentive to upgrade their buildings because they can command rents high enough to generate a good return on that investment.
The housing market tends to sort the population by income into different areas. Racism may add another type of sorting. If an area is increasingly filled by lower income residents, landlords have an incentive to not maintain their properties. If they were to invest in upgrades, they'd need to charge a higher rent to make this a profitable investment. People who could pay the higher rents may not be willing to live in that neighborhood. So landlords simply â€œmilkâ€ the decaying buildings for rents. By putting off repairs, they can save money to buy other buildings elsewhere.
The process of inner-city disinvestment was particularly prolonged in the
As the urban area grows, the terrain now occupied by deteriorated buildings and a low-income population may be close to areas of concentrated economic activity such as a downtown. Closeness to downtown jobs and interesting older architecture may give the area the potential to attract higher income residents or more well-endowed businesses.
A gap thus emerges between the rents that an area of deteriorated buildings and low-income residents can generate and the potential rents that the area could generate if it were rebuilt or renovated to its â€œhighest and best use.â€ Neil Smith coined the phrase â€œrent gapâ€ to refer to this phenomenon.2 When this rent gap becomes large enough, the area may be ripe for a new round of investment. Speculators may begin to buy properties in anticipation of increased market values of properties.
To make investment in new construction and rehab profitable, developers must be able to attract residents who can pay higher rents such as professionals and managers (the urban â€œgentryâ€). Once this process gets underway, â€œlandlords will have an incentive to evict low-income residents in favor of more affluent tenants who can afford higher rent.â€3 During this phase landlords may want to drive out the lower-income tenants. To do this they may avoid repairs, let the roof leak, and so on.
Banks and other financial institutions turn on the faucet for mortgage and construction loans. Construction of condos and office buildings raise real estate values as other landowners realize that more upscale uses of the land are now possible.
Gentrification in the Bay Area
Gentrification in the Bay Area illustrates how investment decisions by industrial employers can also have an impact on residential areas within commuting distance of job sites. Since the 1970s the high-tech sectors â€” microchips, Internet equipment, software and so on â€” have come to dominate the regional economy. For years the industry has pursued a strategy of locating most of its manufacturing facilities outside the Bay Area. For example, in the mid-â€™80s Atari moved its video game manufacturing plant to
This has created a skewed job structure, with a high proportion of high-salaried jobs â€” in â€œbusiness development,â€ marketing, design and engineering, and so on. At the same time, closures of food processing plants and decline of maritime shipping and ship maintenance led to a loss of better-paying, unionized jobs. For example, in 1990 the Best Foods mayonnaise plant in
Meanwhile, housing construction in
These changes illustrate the link between corporate globalization and gentrification.
By the 1980s neighborhoods to the west and east of the
Yet the area is centrally located, with easy access to the 46 million square feet of office space in downtown
Several types of social agent pioneered the gentrification process in the Mission District. In the mid-â€™90s anti-union contractors of the Residential Builders Association began buying cheap land in an old factory district in the northeast
By 2000 they were selling at a half million dollars a pop. A real estate agent told me that such condos would typically be bought by a young couple, each making $90,000 a year.
The state Ellis Act, passed in 1996, permitted landlords to â€œgo out of businessâ€ and empty their buildings of tenants. In the late â€™90s a speculator could buy a fourplex in the
Ellis Act evictions in the Mission District mushroomed from 14 in 1995 to over 660 in 2000. About a third of the Ellis Act evictees in the city were elderly people.
The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition (MAC) was formed in April, 2000, to fight the displacement of the Latino working class community. A series of defensive struggles unfolded in which gentrifying office or condo projects were resisted, through protests at city planning commission meetings, mass marches, initiative campaigns, illegal occupations of buildings, postering and agit-prop of all kinds.
This led to MACâ€™s campaign to popularize urban planning concepts, and demand community participation in a replan of the neighborhood â€” counterposing a â€œPeopleâ€™s Planâ€ to the developersâ€™ plans. Demands for affordable housing and defense of blue-collar industrial jobs (threatened by the cannibalizing of industrial areas4 for offices and condos) have been priorities of the MAC effort.
However, 84 percent of the households in the
Despite the post-2000 dot-com crash and recession, rents in
As each rent-controlled apartment becomes vacant, the rent rises to whatever the market will bear. State law prevents the city from requiring that a controlled rent be carried over to the next tenant.
Over time, the market-driven displacement of the working class from
A Self-management Approach to Housing
â€œThe opposite of gentrification,â€ says Peter Marcuse, â€œshould not be decay and abandonment but the democratization of housing.â€5 Community land trusts may be a way of working towards this goal.
About 125 community land trusts (CLTs) have been formed in communities in the
? Resident control of housing
? Community control over land use and development
? Removal of land and housing from the speculative market
? Making sure that housing remains permanently affordable to working class people.
The residents own the buildings but the CLT retains ownership of the land. This is how permanent affordability is enforced. The dwellings on the CLT land cannot be sold at whatever price the market will bear. Instead, there is a clause in the ground lease that enables the CLT to buy back the dwelling at a restricted price if the resident wants to sell it. The CLT enforces the communityâ€™s interest in preserving the affordability of housing.
In recent decades most non-profit housing development in the
The problem is illustrated by a recent upheaval at Mission Housing Development Corporation (MHDC), a CDC in the
The community land trust model differs from the typical CDC in that it poses the possibility of a self-management approach to housing. We can take self-management to be encapsulated in the following principle:
Each person is to have a say over decisions that affect them and a degree of say in proportion as they are affected.
People who live in a dwelling are more impacted by the decisions about what goes on there than anyone else; so, they should have control over what goes on in their space. But the use of the land and the price of housing affect everyone in the community; so everyone should have a say over this.
The ground lease gives the community some say over what happens with the buildings on CLT land. The decisions that the CLT retains a say over are things that would have an impact on the surrounding community. The community can control the type of use or major changes to the building, and can specify minimum levels of maintenance. If the coop or homeowner association fails to meet their financial obligations, the CLT can step in.
Home ownership is really a bundle of rights, which provide a variety of advantages. You can control the space where you live, you can customize or remodel the interior to suit yourself. Youâ€™re freed of the whims or intrusions of a landlord. If you own a stand-alone house, you can build an addition or remodel the exterior, and yard space is available for play, for gardening.
On the other hand, the status of a house as a commodity means that the house can be used as a way to profit from appreciation in market value.
In the CLT model, these components of home ownership are separated. First, the land is permanently taken off the market. Second, the right to profit through speculative investment is removed by placing a permanent restriction on the resale price of the dwelling. Some of the components of ownership are retained â€” security of tenure and right of control over your own space.
â€œYouâ€™re on your own, Jackâ€ is the traditional approach to housing in the
If your parents owned the house you were raised in, or if you do financial management as part of your job, you may have bits of knowledge that are useful for success at managing a property. Given the huge inequalities in American society, not everyone has the same opportunity to acquire such knowledge.
Stand-alone co-ops can be preyed upon by unscrupulous contractors or property management firms. The community land trust addresses this issue by organizing guidance and sharing of knowledge for homeowner associations.7
Another weakness of stand-alone limited equity housing co-ops has been that the co-op members have a self-interest in breaking the restrictions on resale price when they want to sell. Such co-ops exist in the context of the capitalist real estate market, which permits speculative profit-taking. The broader working class community loses affordable housing when coop residents convert their building into a market-rate co-op.
CLTs are designed to be a solution to this problem. Community land trusts typically have two classes of membership. One group are the residents who own houses, condos or shares in co-ops that sit on CLT land. Through outreach and community organizing, the CLT recruits others in the community who are supportive of its goals as well as people who are looking for inexpensive housing.6
The owner and non-owner members elect the same number of representatives to the CLT board of directors. The San Francisco Community Land Trust bylaws also requires split votes at membership assemblies, requiring agreement of both groups. The idea is to balance the interests of the residents who own their buildings with the broader community interest. This structure makes removal of restrictions on resale price much more difficult than in a stand-alone coop. The presence of renters and those seeking affordable housing also drives the CLT to continually create new affordable housing.
SFCLT has developed a program for conversion of rental buildings to collective tenant ownership. We propose that renters be allowed to select a CLT to buy their building, do any needed rehab, and sell the apartments to the existing tenants at a price based on their ability to pay. Resale restrictions would ensure permanent affordability.7
The self-management potential of the CLT model could be developed in a number of ways.
In The Production of Houses, Christopher Alexander describes a project in
Given the commitment to self- management, space could be provided for self-managing work collectives. For example, a city-wide network of CLTs might decide to provide spaces for a network of worker collective groceries.
The CLT can also be given powers of eminent domain, as has been done with Dudley Street Neighbors in Boston.8 Instead of an â€œurban renewalâ€ program carried out by a distant bureaucracy, turning over land to for-profit developers, the neighborhood can control its own development.
The Limits of New Urbanism
The housing crisis in American cities is a sign of market failure. But market-driven investment in the built environment also undermines the liveability and environmental sustainability of urban regions.
Agents of capitalist development have had a relatively free hand in crafting the contours of urban areas in the
? Nearly twice as much gasoline per person as residents of Australian cities
? Nearly four times as much gasoline per person as residents of European cities
? Ten times as much gasoline per person as such Asian cities as
and Tokyo.9 Hong Kong, Singapore
This dependence on the private automobile is rooted in the physical layout of American metropolitan areas. For more than half a century the practices of developers in the
The cost of maintaining the streets and traffic lights, the effects of noise and emissions on the health of the community or the global climate system, and other social costs aren't reflected in the price of the gas. (Lights at an intersection can consume as much electricity as a house.)
The market transaction at the local gas pump is just between the motorist and the purveyor of gas â€” social impacts on others are hidden from view. There arenâ€™t signs on the gas pumps saying â€œThe refinery where this gas was produced generated a lot of cancer in nearby neighborhoods.â€
Huge expenditures in streets, freeways, extensions of utility grids and free parking have subsidized a dispersed, auto-dependent land-use pattern.
Prior to 1920, investment flows into the built environment were tightly linked to investment in streetcar lines. Much of the capital for transit systems derived from real estate profits. Beginning in the â€˜20s, the development industry was able to rely upon mass auto ownership to shift the costs of providing transportation services to motorists and homeowners, through personal car ownership, user fees and property taxes.
With an increasingly motorized population, developers of retail centers and major retail chains used huge caches of parking and easy auto access as a competitive wedge, undermining neighborhood-oriented retail.
Over time these patterns changed the way of life. It became increasingly difficult for Americans to not rely on driving to glue together the fragments of their lives. The developers' investment practices had built an environment that made not having a car a real liability.
One result is that usage of public transit plummeted. The number of rides Americans take on public transit has dropped to low levels compared to cities in Europe or
Since the 1970s the social costs from auto-dependency have become harder to ignore. Motor vehicles are a major contributor to the green house gases that are changing the global climate. Democratic mixing and mingling of people in public space shrivels as people get from place to place in individualized metal pods. A form of transportation apartheid segregates the working poor into underfunded bus systems.
New Urbanism has emerged as one response, promoted as the â€œSmart Growthâ€ strategy by mainstream, middle-class environmentalist organizations. New Urbanism aims to change the built environment of American urban areas over time by creating a new regulatory regime for development. New Urbanists propose an increase in density in both new suburbs and older areas while discouraging low-density outward expansion into open land around existing conurbations.
Policies pursued in
The architects and urban planners who crafted the New Urbanism advocate a variety of tactics. â€œMixed useâ€ is one idea â€” compacting dwellings in close proximity to (for example, on top of) stores and services so that residents can do many of their errands by walking. â€œTransit-oriented developmentâ€ would compact apartments and services in mixed-use developments around stations on high-quality transit systems, such as busways, subways, or light rail lines. The stores or services near the stations encourage people to accomplish some errands on the way to or from transit trips. Focusing the land uses around the transit stop helps to make public transit more integral to the way of life.
New Urbanists can point to studies suggesting that a strategy of making American urban areas denser will tend to reduce ownership and usage of autos. Such studies show that the amount of driving or the number of households not owning cars tends to vary mainly with population density, and to a lesser extent with income. Denser areas typically have frequent public transit, stores within walking distance of apartments, and more people who donâ€™t own cars.10
The Suburban Dream of the isolated house was a product of the gender caste system of the late 19th century. In 1890 only five percent of married women worked outside the home for wages.11 A vision of suburbia as â€œhavens in a heartless worldâ€ (for men who could afford it) was built on the unpaid labor of women. In the â€˜20s the corporate elite pushed home ownership for skilled male workers as a political strategy to make them less likely to strike. Labor radicals in that era feared that a mortgage would be a ball and chain, tying workers to the system.
The isolated suburban house, with no services or stores within walking distance, no longer fits well with the changes in American family patterns over the past several decades, such as the high divorce rate. Today women must work outside the home, and they want a more varied public life. In an urban environment now built around the car, the big increase in women working for wages since the â€˜60s has driven increases in traffic density.
Changes in American life thus give a certain salience to the New Urbanist proposals. In preference surveys where people are shown slides of streetcar-era urban neighborhoods of tidy, compact housing and pedestrian-oriented Main Street shopping districts, and are also shown slides of contemporary suburban environments of malls and houses fronting multi-car garage doors and large lawns, majorities prefer the older pattern or its New Urbanist clone.12 Hundreds of groups around the country now advocate New Urbanist solutions to make their cities more liveable.
There is a problem here: Who will have access to the newly constructed housing? And isn't a policy that promotes private, for-profit investment in urban working class neighborhoods a strategy for gentrification?
Defenders of New Urbanism refer to the sort of â€œinclusionaryâ€ zoning used in Portland.13 This refers to tax breaks and zoning changes to encourage multi-unit rental housing as well as requirements for a certain percentage of â€œaffordableâ€ units â€” typically 10 to 15 percent.
However, developers are likely to chose areas to invest where people making higher incomes want to live. This will enable them to charge higher rents or sell high-profit condos. Either developers will pass over decaying inner-city areas or, if there is potential for gentrification, tokenistic inclusionary zoning will not prevent market-driven displacement.
Lacking any program for democratization of land use, and no way of ensuring access of all income levels to affordable housing and urban amenities, the New Urbanist vision is in danger of being merely a facade, a set of vague slogans to legitimize the agendas of capitalist developers.
â€œTransit-oriented gentrificationâ€ is the label that the Urban Habitat Program has applied to some developments in working class neighborhoods around BART stations. BART and the local redevelopment agency in
On the other hand, there are no guarantees that new investment in â€œtransit villagesâ€ will magically appear in decaying inner-city areas just because rail or busway stops are installed or planning policies are updated. The barriers to profitable re-investment may prevent this.
The problem is illustrated by the Blue Line â€” a Los Angeles MTA light rail line built through Watts and
But in a dozen years of operation virtually nil new housing or transit-oriented development has occurred in neighborhoods around most Blue Line stations. A decayed physical environment, toxic wastes from defunct industrial plants, obsolete zoning, a large low-income population, and perceptions of high crime are among the factors that deter for-profit developers. Non-profit community developers in the area point to the lack of subsidies for community-based development such as affordable housing or neighborhood services.16
On the other hand, at the north end of the Blue Line, the Staples Center/Convention Center complex has driven a gentrifying influx of investment. An anti-gentrification struggle has emerged, with the Figueroa Corridor Coalition fighting the displacement of low-income tenants.
Like their right-wing â€œfree marketâ€ opponents, New Urbanists do not challenge capitalist control of investment in the built environment.17 What is needed is a more bottom-up, grassroots approach that increases community participation and control over land use. Democratic control over land and investment is needed to facilitate revitalization of decayed areas and to prevent displacement of low-income residents.
Rebuilding American urban areas to make them more pedestrian- and transit-oriented, to reduce the
Promotion of community land trusts, tied in with enhanced public transit, could be part of a strategy for pursuing these aims. Grassroots groups can demand that cities, redevelopment agencies or transit agencies provide funding and land to enable CLTs to develop mixed-use affordable housing around stations or bus tranfer points. A program linking transit improvements to affordable housing and community control over economic development could be part of a program supported by transit rider groups, tenant activists and labor groups.
Class Politics and the Self-managed City
Anti-gentrification protests, rent strikes, and squatting buildings are examples of what I called class struggle over the built environment. Working class politics canâ€™t be reduced to the politics of the labor movement but derives from the various strands of struggle that emerge from working class communities; that is, communities of people who arenâ€™t bosses and whose life prospects are shaped by selling their time to employers.
Nonetheless, labor or workplace organizations are an important potential force for change because the system canâ€™t function without the work people do every day.
A weakness of the American labor movement is the domination of most national unions and large, amalgamated locals by rigid, professional cadre hierarchies that donâ€™t work the jobs that the members do. The professional cadre will tend to disfavor mass mobilization and militant struggle because of its risks to the union as an institution, and because it puts the rank and file into the center of the action. The power and careers of the hierarchy are based on their relative monopolization of expertise and levers of decision-making.
A different kind of industrial organization is needed to develop the capacity and self-confidence of workers for making their own decisions, controlling their own lives. Collective action and self-management of the struggle by the rank and file are crucial to developing a movement that workers can feel is â€œtheirs.â€
In the past the labor movement in the
Since the emergence of the â€œnew social movementsâ€ (of women, racial minorities, gay people, the disabled, enviros) in the â€˜60s/â€™70s period, a number of the organizations these movements generated came to be dominated by professional/managerial cadres. Because class circumstances shapes the life prospects of women and people of color, for example, the needs of working class women or workers of color are often not adequately addressed by such organizations. My earlier discussion of New Urbanism illustrates how environmental organizations sometimes ignore the impacts of their proposals on working class communities.
Women, people of color, gay folks and the disabled have specific concerns that also reflect their class situation. There is no impermeable barrier between the â€œnew social movementsâ€ and class politics.
To be a force for change the working class needs to be more than just a heterogeneous collection of population groups. Solidarity is at the heart of working class politics. Solidarity implies concern for others in a context where they are in struggle against those who dominate them in some way, and where it is understood there is at least the possibility that you might require their solidarity in the future.
Development of an intra-class alliance presupposes some process by which the concerns of specific groups can be communicated to, and become the concerns, of, other groups, thus expanding the boundaries of their solidarity. The concerns specific to women or people of color, for example, need to become concerns of other organizations such as unions or housing groups.
An important milestone in the development of the working class into a more cohesive force are unifying moments, situations where much of the population is drawn into thinking of themselves as â€œusâ€ versus â€œthem.â€ The general strikes in
Class politics includes struggles around needs not adequately met through the market â€” affordable housing, public transit, democratic media, universal health care, good low-cost child care, and protection of the environment. Movements around such social goods can help to bring together a variety of sectors of the population.
Movements can and do make demands on the government for social goods that augment inadequate wage income. Concessions can sometimes be won through protest and struggle because the government must maintain a facade of â€œrepresenting everyoneâ€ in order to maintain its legitimacy.
High-quality, low-fare public transit is a social good that can provide access to all that a city has to offer â€” jobs, housing, entertainment, medical offices and so on. A point to cheap fares is to ensure that everyone has equal access no matter how low their income is.
Neo-liberals, on the other hand, propose privatization and competing services for public transit. This program has been disastrous when carried out in
Flexibility and ease of access for transit riders requires a network that is a single, comprehensive system of reliable, frequent services, with low fares and free transfers. A bewildering array of private operators who may go out of business next week creates barriers to travel flexibility and access for riders. This is why public transit was historically regarded as a â€œnatural monopoly.â€ In practice the main aim of transit privatization in the
These considerations lead some to defend statist central planning.19 But this also has its problems: it subordinates the transit workforce to an authoritarian hierarchy, leads to management empire-building, and disempowers low-income bus riders who get overcrowded and inadequate services at high fares.
However, there is a third model for public transit based on direct negotiation between workers and riders. This would presuppose the creation of an organization through which the transit workers would manage the transit system.20 Many of the decisions in the day-to-day management of a transit system mainly impact the workers. The principle of self-management says people are to have control over the decisions that impact them. Self-management of the transit system avoids a bloated managerial hierarchy.
But many of the decisions about the operation of the transit system directly impact the riders â€” cleanliness and safety, reliability and frequency of service, fares. To empower the riders to have a say over these decisions a riders council could be created to negotiate with the workers organization over the issues that impact riders. The direct worker/consumer negotiation model could be applied to other social services such as health care,21 education, and public utilities.
Applying this to my earlier discussion of community land trusts, we could envision a CLT negotiating construction with a non-profit construction workers co-op.
Direct worker/consumer negotiation points us in the direction of a global aternative to capitalism. Participatory economics (ParEcon) is a vision of a non-market, socially-owned economy based on grassroots participatory planning and direct negotiation between workers and consumers.22 The building blocks of a participatory economy are self-managing bodies such as workplace councils and neighborhood assemblies. The neighborhood bodies provide the channel for consumer input.
In ParEcon people in their councils develop proposals for what is to be produced. Both individually and in groups we figure out what we want to do at work or to consume. These proposals filter outward through organizations over a larger geographic scope, depending on where the proposals would have impact. Through a give-and-take process the proposals would be refined to develop comprehensive agendas for what is to be produced. The essence of ParEcon, says Michael Albert, is â€œa cooperative, self-managing negotiation of collective well being rather than a top-down or competitive pursuit of narrow advantage.â€
For cities, ParEcon poses the possibility of a horizontal, self-managing regionalism in planning investment in public goods such as transportation and other infrastructure and in meeting social needs such as housing, child care and health care.
The way that we organize today helps to determine future possibilities. Self-managed mass organizations are necessary if the working class is to develop the self-confidence, skills, and self-organization that would enable it to emancipate itself from subjugation to an exploiting class.
Building self-managed institutions (CLTs, media collectives, etc.) and developing mass organizations (such as unions) through which rank-and-file people can self-manage their struggles is prefigurative in the sense that it points beyond capitalism, towards the Self-managed City.
Tom Wetzel has worked as a gas-station attendant, philosophy teacher, typesetter, and technical writer. He is president of the
1. My rather schematic account here draws a lot on Neil Smith, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City, 1996.
3. Todd Harvey et al, â€œGentrification and
4. MAC, â€œThe Hidden Costs of the New Economy: A Study of the Northeast Mission Industrial Zone,â€ October 2000 (http://www.medasf.org/reports/NEMIZ_Report.pdf).
5. Peter Marcuse, â€œIn Defense of Gentrification,â€ Newsday,
6. Much of my discussion of the community land trust model draws upon John Emmeus Davis, â€œBeyond the Market and the State: The Diverse Domain of Social Housing,â€ in The Affordable City, 1994. The Institute for Community Economics (http://www.iceclt.org/) has played an important role in the development of the Community Land Trust model.
7. See http://www.sfclt.org.
8. Peter Medoff and Holly Sklar, Streets of Hope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood.
9. Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy, Cities and Automobile Dependence: An International Sourcebook, 1989.
10. John Holtzclaw et al, â€œLocation Efficiency: Neighborhood and Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use â€” Studies in
11. Dolores Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution, p. 13.
12. See Reid Ewing, â€œIs
13. Arthur C. Nelson et al., â€œThe Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidenceâ€, The
14. Quoted in â€œThere Goes the Neighborhood: A Regional Analysis of Gentrification and Community Stability in the
15. â€œLand Use/Transportation Policy,â€ adopted by the
16. Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris and Tridib Banerjee, â€œThe Blue Line Blues: Why the Vision of Transit Village May Not Materialize Despite Impressive Growth in Ridership,â€ University of California Transportation Center Report 425; also â€œTransit-Oriented Development in the Inner City: A Delphi Study,â€ Journal of Public Transportation, 2000, and phone interview.
17. For another left critique of New Urbanism, see Bill Resnick, â€œReconstructing Cities, Restoring the Environment: New Urbanism versus Mobile/Agile Capitalâ€ in Not for Sale: In Defense of Public Goods, Anatole Anton, Milton Fisk, Nancy Holmstrom, editors.
18. Paul Mees, A Very Public Solution: Transport in the Dispersed City.
20. An historical example would be the United Public Service Collective which ran the subway, streetcar and bus lines of
21. Milton Fisk advocates the direct worker/consumer negotiation model for health care reform in Toward a Healthy Society: The Morality and Politics of American Health Care Reform, Chap. 6.
22. See Michael Albert, Parecon: Life After Capitalism, 2004, and Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel, The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, 1991.