Customer Reviews

The Leftmost City: Power and Progressive Politics in Santa Cruz

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A cautionary note for budding "progressives" trying to understand urban issues:

I read the authors' website on political views that informed this book and can say that this is a book from the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) neighborhood activist perspective rather than a sustainability perspective. The authors assume opposing urban growth in order to further "quality of life" is in and of itself always "progressive." This camp increasingly finds itself at odds with groups such as the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, advocates for affordable housing, and indeed the entire modern sustainability movement. At the same time, this camp finds itself increasignly akin to the east coast conservatives who try to limit development in upper-class suburbs. They tend to celebrate small towns and suburbs, which no dobut will appeal to a certain part of the population.

It has been established beyond a doubt that denser developments, supported by walking and public transit, are sustainable. This is realized in cities such as Vancouver, BC and Portland, OR, and of course all of Western Europe, which have increased urban densities in centers and near transit, allowed smaller lot homes to be built throguhout urban areas, practiced balanced growth management, protected open space and farmland, and increased transit, walking and cycling. A key part of the successful approach is that it is regional in nature.

This contrasts to the "neighborhood activism" paradigm the authors advocate, where all intensification of land use is seen as greed by "real estate developers and their buddies" that damages "quality of life;" the only people seen as deserving of land value increases are the owners of (single-family) homes. Hence the author cites opposing downtown development as a "left wing" approach.

Yes, the activist perspective gets a few things right - opposing new highways and protectiong environmentally sensitive lands, for instance - but even in these cases, the concern seems to be about the home values and "quality of life" of a few neghborhoods rather than the sustainability of a community or region.

The reality is that the neighborhood activist paradigm leads to increasing home values for those who bought homes a generation ago (the new "haves,") while damaging the environment by forcing sprawl and commuting by car; and disadvantaging moderate-income folks because workers must then live far away and spend money on transportation. The neighborhood activists may then respond with limited affordable housing programs that fall far short of need.

The neighborhood activist approach is therefore not progressive, and I am not sure what they mean by it being left-wing or Marxist, but I'll leave that to them. The approach is at its heart anti-urban, and reflects the same underpinnings that drove suburban sprawl, auto-dependency, or the anti-urban policies of Ronald Reagan. It finds bedfellows in upper-class suburbs that want to keep out the riff-raff.

In opposition to this, I believe the future of the sustainability movement lies with those striving to create livable cities and regions where many of us would choose to live, work, bike or take transit, and reduce our carbon footprints while celebrating diversity and community. The future of the sustainability movement does not lie with neighborhood activists who hunker down in small, exclusive communities ...

Thank God the Progressive "Intellectual Elite" (code name for those who think knowledge and wisdom trumps ignorance and superstition) stopped the Oligarchs from trashing this California Coastal Treasure. This book could be used as a primer for concerned citizens of any city/county anywhere who feel their small-town way of life is worth preserving.