While I might not want to live in Arden, I love the experimental approach to self-organization.
I feel like a dozen of similar experimental communities allowed to succeed or fail, and they might bubble up some useful heuristics for how cities/towns organize themselves.
I feel like the dominant model of town organization in the USA leaves much to be desired.
Reading the Strong Towns site for awhile about the "traditional development pattern" https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/?tag=traditional+develop... ie cities and towns wordwide pre-car makes me think that whatever idiosyncratic motivations for various intentional communities, in form they're just following the traditional development pattern.
There's no need for idiosyncratic experimentation to take and apply everywhere lessons from millennia of human settlements that we've strayed from in the car era.
I'm a fan of idiosyncratic experimentation but see zero evidence of potential (because of tiny scale) or need (above) for bubbling up of heuristics from them.
> I feel like the dominant model of town organization in the USA leaves much to be desired.
What is that dominant model?
I've lived in Massachusetts and California. In both states what's common is that the town decides (pretty much "has decided" at this point, esp in Mass) to organize itself, writes a local charter, and has local folks run a council. Town hall meetings are open to everyone. The council members are amateurs. School districts and utility self govern and are rarely completely coextensional with towns.
This can go wrong, of course, for example in Palo Alto the city managers weren't given enough oversight and overstaffed with middle managers; also real estate interests can take over the council for a while. But by an large it's not that different in principle.
In California, in fact, most of the state isn't part of organized towns; most "towns" are just vaguely defined areas under the county rules; various groups do things like run a water utility, manage the local park, etc. In fact barely a quarter of the counties have charters; most themselves run under default state rules. So that's much closer to the Arden idea.
I'm with you right up to the last sentence. Isn't minimizing private rents from land ownership central to the "Arden idea"? I don't see that anywhere in the organization of California jurisdictions.
Indeed, it's quite a rarity to find an unincorporated township in New England. Mine is just a letter. The rules are pretty minimal, the municipal services do not exist, and the large animals vastly outnumber the people.
I read this article and was fascinated. I will visit there in my next expression of wanderlust. What a curious place.
While I'm not too familiar with "the dominant model", I guess I should have clarified:
> The results of the dominant model of town organization in the USA leaves much to be desired
Way over-priced homes, auto-oriented urban/rural design, an excessive love for parking lots, houses all look the same...
Towns across the US share way too much in common for it to be something that spontaneously arose out of millions of tiny decisions.
The developed parts of California cannot be anywhere close to the Arden idea - there's endless rules, zoning restrictions, boards and commissions to try to sway, etc.
The dominant model in the US has downright cheap homes. Partly because of the parking lots and auto-oriented organization (if you can keep building out, you have a lot less upwards pressure on price). CA/NY is not representative of home prices in most of the country.
It's not perfect, but neither is the NY model, the London model, the Tokyo model, the Beijing model...
Just to clarify: most of NY state has inexpensive housing (at least compared to NYC). Also, much of it is turn-of-the-century houses, not necessarily the 50s+ auto-oriented suburban tract houses, although it does have its share of those, also.
I imagine its population-dependent to some extent. I had never heard of Arden before this post and by god it looks beautiful.
It seems important to note that it's population is ~439-450 people. I'm not in disagreement, though. I grew up in a small town (~4500-6000 people throughout my life there) and it had a mixed population between hardline skilled and unskilled labour in the steel and fishing industries, bikers, and aging hippies - as well as a small subsection of Government of Canada and University of Guelph environmental scientists. There was a notable difference in opinions for that reason.
I imagine its simpler at this point in time to run a village society in that way with a group of like-minded, read people. Other kinds of lives lived by people tend to inform other kinds of opinions: I work hard all day, I don't want to think about that kind of thing, I understand a hierarchy with firm structure, I like to know who the boss is, etc.
I'm oversimplifying it for the sake of being concise, and I hope my point is coming across. Hopefully when the political temper settles a little, those kinds of conversations about how life can be better can resume.
> "The idea that children could be out without a parent hovering was just completely unknown to them," Macklem recalls. "And the fact that the kids talked to someone who they obviously knew but who was not a parent."
I didn´t know the situation in the US was quite so dystopical that kids on their own was any surprise...
Wow. This is not a single police weirdo. This is three different states. Ok, it is not normal otherwise it would not be in the news. Still, moving to the US became scarier to me (and Silicon Valley is tempting).
For a contrast, I'm in Germany. My oldest son will go to school next year. It is considered normal to train him now to go to and from kindergarten alone. The biggest perceived danger is crossing roads.
The kid of an acquaintance uses the tram for a few stops on the way to school. The first week in first grade the mother escorted her. Then she was on her own. Not alone though. The tram is packed with kids and they look out for each other (more or less, they are still kids).
Still, we also see that congestion at schools is increasingly a problem. More and more parents seem to drop of their kids at school.
As with most things in the US, urban/rural/suburban and class divides matter much more than regional or state ones.
In the urban metro areas I've lived as an adult, seeing kids take transit to school alone or in groups is totally normal - admittedly from a slightly older age than your example in Germany, but definitely still grade-school kids.
In the suburbs where I grew up, it was typical for kids to ride bikes to school. There wasn't any transit other than the school district's buses, and many kids were dropped off by their parents in cars, but some degree of independence was still there. This was a middle-class suburban area outside of a major city in FL where most parents worked in two-income families.
The horror stories you hear about "helicopter parenting" in the US mostly come from wealthier exurbs where, for lack of better way to put it, there aren't any real problems... so bored homemakers micro-manage every aspect of their community and worry themselves senseless about silly things. These are often master-planned communities, often built in isolated semi-rural areas, where it is difficult to go _anywhere_ without a car, and transit aside from buses to/from school is nonexistent, so the very idea of a child even having somewhere to go or something to do without a parent escorting them there in a car is seemingly insane. It contributes a lot to the perception that kids shouldn't be alone without an adult until they turn 16, can operate a car, and then can travel safely from the confines of a vehicle. Its horrible for a whole bunch of reasons.
If you want to move to the US, there are definitely still plenty of areas where kids can a normal, independent young life - but especially in the SF Bay area, I'd be very careful about picking a town/neighborhood where such a thing is accepted. It won't be universal.
>The horror stories you hear about "helicopter parenting" in the US mostly come from wealthier exurbs where, for lack of better way to put it, there aren't any real problems... so bored homemakers micro-manage every aspect of their community and worry themselves senseless about silly things.
I think this is true, and I'll add the media keeps turning the crank on neurotic parents by making them think there's a child molester or serial killer waiting around every corner.
> These are often master-planned communities, often built in isolated semi-rural areas,
Worth making the distinction to non-US readers that exurbs might be in semi-rural areas, but they might have much different values than traditional rural (small) towns, where it's not abnormal for kids to behave as the ones in the article.
I walked a mile and a half alone to and from kindergarten back in the 1970s (my family lived in the Long Island, NY suburbs). I was allowed to ride my bicycle alone all over town on weekends, and sometimes I traveled so far as to cross into the neighboring towns. I never got lost because I studied road maps as a kid and could even draw them from memory -- to this day I do not use GPS for navigation.
My parents even entrusted me with the care of my 4-year-old sister when I was twelve. The two of us would bicycle into town by ourselves and I would buy her candy at the local shops. Those early feelings of independence are some of my most treasured childhood memories.
Edit: All of this happened, of course, without the benefit of cell phones. I could be completely out of contact with my parents for an entire day, and that was not considered anything unusual. I can only remember one time in all those years when my parents came looking for me, and that was because a powerful storm suddenly broke out in the middle of an otherwise clear day.
Schools are pretty wacky for all sorts of reasons. Post-Newtown, the entrance to my son’s school is dictated by the easiest door surveillance and ability to limit access.
As a result, you can’t really ride your bike to school and lock it up unless you’re going to walk around the building. About 80% of the training for volunteers is child molester training and school shooting/lockdown drill. It’s pretty depressimg.
It’s bizarre contrasted to my growing up in 1980s NYC. We walked to school in groups but usually alone, and the only drills were fire drills. And there was real scary shit going around in that neighborhood!
I worked really, really hard to leave the US and move to Europe because the thought of raising a kid in the US is frightening. Note I was raised in the US. (note also bicycling safety, walkability, and lack of disdain for intelligence and encroaching fascism. And the metric system is nice) Think hard about what you value. Ironically I adore Germany, but have only holidayed there.
Ireland, which is actually mediocre for bike infrastructure and has its own issues (the church influencing schools among them) but on the whole is a much friendlier place than the US.
Where I live you almost never see kids alone. They get dropped off by car at school, when they take the school bus the parents wait in the car until the bus has left.
Kids being unsupervised is a good way to get arrested for endangerment in many parts of this country, or at least result in an investigation by authorities such as child protective services. This [0] is the most widely cited recent example, but this idea is widespread and by no means limited to Maryland.
Even when I was growing up 30 years ago in a not-quite-as-urban part of the country, me being alone would occasionally result in a call.
The wide authority given to CPS doesn't help either. If you come to their attention the CPS will be a terrible nuisance, waste your time in court and maybe take your kid. A lot of parents probably would give their kids more freedom if they weren't one busybody with a cell phone away from being on CPS bad list.
It's one of the many issues that comes back to people trying to exert unnecessary control over others, "you shouldn't be raising your kid that way" and so on.
Somewhere was a piece by an American mother, who moved to Berlin and was surprised that free range parenting wasn't a movement there but the norm.
A couple of years ago, I was extremely surprised about a 16 year old who said they wouldn't go an event w/o their parents. At 16 I wouldn't have gone to an event with a parent.
Here in Russia you are usually picked after school only while in grade school. You hit your 10th birthday - you are on your own, pal.
That being said - kids are playing alone since like 6-7 years. Hell, I was living near the Volga river and we were allowed to go swimming with older kids when we were 5 or so. No problem, son, just make sure you're home by eight.
It also depends on whether the family lives in a city or rural area. In a village kids can do and go wherever they please, and bikes only allow them to go even further. In fact, they are expected to move a lot, since they are a cheap way to go to a remote shop or pass something to a relative in a nearby village.
In a city though, kids are far more restricted. It depends on any large roads your child needs to cross, deserted areas or too populated area (like marketplaces) along the way. Still, going to and from scool alone from 9-10 years old is expected.
I was living in Cheboksary till University. It's not big, but still just a little less than half a million people. I had to take bus to school too, around 20 minutes one way.
Also unlike the US (at least based on movies, lol) we don't have school bases. Public transport only.
While there has been somewhat of a shift over time, it's also worth observing that the reason there can be a number of links to news stories in this thread is that they're often "man bites dog." Outside of maybe some trend stories, CNN doesn't generally do stories on routine everyday occurrences.
>After the prisoners' sentences were completed, the town celebrated with a circus. The performance included an arrest of its own: A clown dressed as a cop entered the audience, grabbed a surprised Sinclair, and marched him away from the show.
Surely the author meant to write a cop dressed as a clown?
Wat? No, a cown dressed like a cop. Pretty explicit. A cop dressed as a clown would not be recognized for anything else than a clown. A clown dressed as a cop will be seen as a clown dressed as a cop. Or maybe I'm crazy...
The previous paragraphs insist that they had no police department, so unless they skipped or abridged the timetable, it seems most likely that it was a clown dressed as a cop.
Well that was odd. Tried to read page two on my Android Oreo device, had "virus" like alerts springing up. Sorry, this is off topic, but I think there's reason to suspect that web page.
Lots of reasonably decent sites seem to participate in ad networks that apparently allow malicious ads that hijack browsers... It's not clear to me why this is still an unsolved problem after so many years... :-/
As a part time resident, and a passionate Georgist, I love the Ardens. The three villages function separately for governance, but socially they're one, and there is a lot going on. The history is fascinating. (If you have access to newspapers.com, read it chronologically. I'm still working through it.) If you're in the area in early September, don't miss the Arden Fair.
I moved there because it was lovely, and was consistent with something I have long felt strongly about. My late grandparents were lifelong Georgists, and never mentioned the Ardens to me. (I'm a late-bloomer -- I shared their perception of the problems, but kept thinking there had to be another way to solve them; when I failed to find it, I looked more closely at what Henry George had to say, and found it very persuasive.) For a recent article, look at Michael Kinsley's, in the September Vanity Fair. But people from across many spectra embrace George's analysis and George's remedy; it is a third way, coming out of the traditions of classical economics, not the neo-classical economics that is widely taught today.
George's most famous book was entitled "Progress and Poverty" ... it was dedicated, "to those who, seeing the vice and misery that spring from the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, feel the possibility of a higher social state and would strive for its attainment." Its subtitle is a mouthful:"an inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth ... The Remedy."
The book is quite analytical, a logical analysis. If you want to see where it is going, jump to the final "book" before you read the rest.
Or you might start with a collection of essays entitled "Social Problems." They still read well today, and, among other things, show why a Constitution written in the 18th century simply can't be frozen in time, and needs to be reconsidered in light of 21st century realities. Some of my favorite quotes are from "Social Problems."
Both books are online and at Amazon or schalkenbach.org; there is also a fine modern abridgment of P&P, and audio is available at hgchicago.org.
I've read Progress and Poverty and much more by still living Georgists (eg Polly Cleveland and Mason Gaffney). I'm pro-LVT.
Your response however typifies one reason I'd never call myself a Georgist -- people who call themselves such come off as believing they've discovered the single truth that obtains social salvation, ie religious nuts -- who need to dump that single truth on people they encounter at the first opportunity. Seriously, if you want to be effective, and I want you to be, please tone it down.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience in the fist 3 sentences of your comment. That's what I was hoping to learn!
fair enough! and not easy. My grandparents, remarkably, were subtle and much more patient than I am.
I do not believe that HG's ideas will solve all our problems, but I do believe that recognition of what he saw and enactment of his recommendation will put us on the road to solving a lot of problems that are generally regarded as unsolvable -- housing affordability and supply, poverty, sprawl, pollution, water shortage, wealth concentration, money in politics, better cities among others. Necessary, though not sufficient. And it is frustrating that so few people are even remotely familiar with the ideas.
Two of my favorite recent books on the subject are "The Mason Gaffney Reader: Essays toward Solving the Unsolvable" and Walt Rybeck's "Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle."
I think there are solutions, and want others to have the chance to consider them!
Thanks for he response. I don't see any of the problems you list as being generally regarded as unsolvable. There are lots of solutions for each that have nothing to do with LVT. I agree that widespread implementation of LVT would help with many of those problems, but claiming that they are regarded as unsolvable or that LVT is necessary to solve them doesn't make you seem very credible. Anyway, I agree that's it's frustrating that more people aren't aware that LVT could help.
My favorite LVT-influenced person is Donald Shoup. He doesn't talk much about LVT, but is making as big a positive difference on land policy as anyone -- in the US/English language anyway; I hope there are people informed by LVT theory making a bigger difference elsewhere, probably China.
> Your response however typifies one reason I'd never call myself a Georgist -- people who call themselves such come off as believing they've discovered the single truth that obtains social salvation, ie religious nuts -- who need to dump that single truth on people they encounter at the first opportunity. Seriously, if you want to be effective, and I want you to be, please tone it down.
What? Of places to share one's enthusiasm for Georgism, there are few more appropriate than in an internet thread about a Georgist town they're a resident of, after explcitly being asked for references.
Citing Progress and Poverty when asked about adding references to Wikipedia about the history of a Georgist town strikes me as like citing the Bible when asked about adding referenes to Wikipedia about the history of a Christian town -- and it's available on audiotape! Of no use other than identifying oneself as a true believer.
It’s likely that they weren’t responding to your question about Wikipedia.
Your other question, “Did you move for your passion, or did you learn your passion from living there?”, suggests unfamiliarity yet genuine interest in the topic. So, their response makes total sense.
However, if that Christian town was founded with the explicit intent to reflect some passage of the Bible it makes sense to add references, don’t you think?
I suppose I should mention the title of the Michael Kinsley article in Vanity Fair: "The Obscure Economist Silicon Valley Billionaires Should Dump Ayn Rand For"
And if you're curious about the range of people who have taken notice of George's ideas, search on "quotable Nobels" and from that page, see "quotable notables."
If you are in the UK then you will love Whiteway, Gloucestershire. This was setup as a community where 'property was theft' and they obviously ran into the same problem of not being able to borrow money from banks to build houses:
The local area got lucky due to Fullers Earth, this happened to be a key ingredient for cottage industry wool making. So most nearby villages are made of Cotswold stone cottages complete with the 5ft high 'Hobbit friendly' doors. The market towns to support these villages are also made from the same Cotswold stone although you do get slate roofs (from when the canals arrived) and brick (from when the railway arrived).
Whiteway is completely different. The architecture is more reminiscent of those wooden huts people build in places like the Falkland Islands and other remote British colonies where building materials would need to be obtained from a long, long way away.
We did not really have the option to live there even if we wanted to as we wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage plus the property isn't available anyway. There was definitely a barrier to entry that made the place very much 'a colony', a closed world if only a few miles up the road.
Although we can't live in such places due to practical considerations, the influence of these places does spill out into the neighbouring area. Not quite up to living Tolstoy style in Whiteway? Live nearby instead. Or visit! Since you are a 'passionate Georgist' I do recommend a trip to Gloucestershire in the UK because you will like a lot of the Quaker and other history.
Delawarean here. Growing up, I had the impression that Arden was just a place for aged hippies, history buffs, and the overeducated idle class to have space to live out their utopian fantasies without bothering the rest of us.
I mean, if you think about the town meetings in "Gilmore Girls," where you have these people who are really into town meetings, you probably know that they're meant to be an exaggerated parody of the handful of people who show up at town meetings and are really, uh, passionate about their viewpoints. Only in "Gilmore Girls," the whole town is like that.
Well, I would much rather have them all in Arden, duking it out, than spread out more generally in North Wilmington and northern New Castle County, causing eye rolls everywhere.
That said, Arden is not nearly as much of an insulated place anymore. I think, for the majority of residents, it's just an address and not a philosophy.
Why is civic participation so eyeroll-inducing to you?
My sense is that the groups you're rolling your eyes at have taken over the top levels of national government and are now working backwards to states and cities, largely thanks to reviving the lost act of participating.
I’m not sure how I feel about LVT. It seems like the most fair form of taxation, but physical land is decreasingly tied to productivity and wealth, so it seems to make less sense than in the past.
Why are most “high-productivity” software and knowledge jobs in cities where land costs are high? I would argue that it’s because that land is productive! At least LVT would incentivize people to move to areas with cheaper land, or to increase density.
It's interesting to look at how that distribution of jobs has changed over the last 40 to 50 years, though, and whether or not seeking to reverse the centralization could be useful.
Software and knowledge jobs take very little space - just whatever a single employee takes up. Even in a small private office setup not much, but even less in open plans - here's perhaps a hit to why open plans are popular in offices that are predominantly on expensive land. There is very little space required for storage and for moving large objects around, no loading bays etc. A 10,000 employee software "plant" take up a lot less space than a 10,000 employee manufacturing plant.
It's exactly because these industries are high-productivity (per land unit) that they are practical on high value land.
Land is absolutely still tied to productivity. Why do so many technically-oriented people want to live in the SF Bay area? Because of all the other such people who are already here, and all the opportunities that exist here for that reason.
62 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadI feel like a dozen of similar experimental communities allowed to succeed or fail, and they might bubble up some useful heuristics for how cities/towns organize themselves.
I feel like the dominant model of town organization in the USA leaves much to be desired.
Reading the Strong Towns site for awhile about the "traditional development pattern" https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/?tag=traditional+develop... ie cities and towns wordwide pre-car makes me think that whatever idiosyncratic motivations for various intentional communities, in form they're just following the traditional development pattern.
There's no need for idiosyncratic experimentation to take and apply everywhere lessons from millennia of human settlements that we've strayed from in the car era.
I'm a fan of idiosyncratic experimentation but see zero evidence of potential (because of tiny scale) or need (above) for bubbling up of heuristics from them.
What is that dominant model?
I've lived in Massachusetts and California. In both states what's common is that the town decides (pretty much "has decided" at this point, esp in Mass) to organize itself, writes a local charter, and has local folks run a council. Town hall meetings are open to everyone. The council members are amateurs. School districts and utility self govern and are rarely completely coextensional with towns.
This can go wrong, of course, for example in Palo Alto the city managers weren't given enough oversight and overstaffed with middle managers; also real estate interests can take over the council for a while. But by an large it's not that different in principle.
In California, in fact, most of the state isn't part of organized towns; most "towns" are just vaguely defined areas under the county rules; various groups do things like run a water utility, manage the local park, etc. In fact barely a quarter of the counties have charters; most themselves run under default state rules. So that's much closer to the Arden idea.
I read this article and was fascinated. I will visit there in my next expression of wanderlust. What a curious place.
> The results of the dominant model of town organization in the USA leaves much to be desired
Way over-priced homes, auto-oriented urban/rural design, an excessive love for parking lots, houses all look the same...
Towns across the US share way too much in common for it to be something that spontaneously arose out of millions of tiny decisions.
The developed parts of California cannot be anywhere close to the Arden idea - there's endless rules, zoning restrictions, boards and commissions to try to sway, etc.
It's not perfect, but neither is the NY model, the London model, the Tokyo model, the Beijing model...
It seems important to note that it's population is ~439-450 people. I'm not in disagreement, though. I grew up in a small town (~4500-6000 people throughout my life there) and it had a mixed population between hardline skilled and unskilled labour in the steel and fishing industries, bikers, and aging hippies - as well as a small subsection of Government of Canada and University of Guelph environmental scientists. There was a notable difference in opinions for that reason.
I imagine its simpler at this point in time to run a village society in that way with a group of like-minded, read people. Other kinds of lives lived by people tend to inform other kinds of opinions: I work hard all day, I don't want to think about that kind of thing, I understand a hierarchy with firm structure, I like to know who the boss is, etc.
I'm oversimplifying it for the sake of being concise, and I hope my point is coming across. Hopefully when the political temper settles a little, those kinds of conversations about how life can be better can resume.
I didn´t know the situation in the US was quite so dystopical that kids on their own was any surprise...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/31/living/florida-mom-arrested-so...
http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/07/mom-arrested-for-letting-k...
For a contrast, I'm in Germany. My oldest son will go to school next year. It is considered normal to train him now to go to and from kindergarten alone. The biggest perceived danger is crossing roads.
The kid of an acquaintance uses the tram for a few stops on the way to school. The first week in first grade the mother escorted her. Then she was on her own. Not alone though. The tram is packed with kids and they look out for each other (more or less, they are still kids).
Still, we also see that congestion at schools is increasingly a problem. More and more parents seem to drop of their kids at school.
In the urban metro areas I've lived as an adult, seeing kids take transit to school alone or in groups is totally normal - admittedly from a slightly older age than your example in Germany, but definitely still grade-school kids.
In the suburbs where I grew up, it was typical for kids to ride bikes to school. There wasn't any transit other than the school district's buses, and many kids were dropped off by their parents in cars, but some degree of independence was still there. This was a middle-class suburban area outside of a major city in FL where most parents worked in two-income families.
The horror stories you hear about "helicopter parenting" in the US mostly come from wealthier exurbs where, for lack of better way to put it, there aren't any real problems... so bored homemakers micro-manage every aspect of their community and worry themselves senseless about silly things. These are often master-planned communities, often built in isolated semi-rural areas, where it is difficult to go _anywhere_ without a car, and transit aside from buses to/from school is nonexistent, so the very idea of a child even having somewhere to go or something to do without a parent escorting them there in a car is seemingly insane. It contributes a lot to the perception that kids shouldn't be alone without an adult until they turn 16, can operate a car, and then can travel safely from the confines of a vehicle. Its horrible for a whole bunch of reasons.
If you want to move to the US, there are definitely still plenty of areas where kids can a normal, independent young life - but especially in the SF Bay area, I'd be very careful about picking a town/neighborhood where such a thing is accepted. It won't be universal.
I think this is true, and I'll add the media keeps turning the crank on neurotic parents by making them think there's a child molester or serial killer waiting around every corner.
Worth making the distinction to non-US readers that exurbs might be in semi-rural areas, but they might have much different values than traditional rural (small) towns, where it's not abnormal for kids to behave as the ones in the article.
My parents even entrusted me with the care of my 4-year-old sister when I was twelve. The two of us would bicycle into town by ourselves and I would buy her candy at the local shops. Those early feelings of independence are some of my most treasured childhood memories.
Edit: All of this happened, of course, without the benefit of cell phones. I could be completely out of contact with my parents for an entire day, and that was not considered anything unusual. I can only remember one time in all those years when my parents came looking for me, and that was because a powerful storm suddenly broke out in the middle of an otherwise clear day.
As a result, you can’t really ride your bike to school and lock it up unless you’re going to walk around the building. About 80% of the training for volunteers is child molester training and school shooting/lockdown drill. It’s pretty depressimg.
It’s bizarre contrasted to my growing up in 1980s NYC. We walked to school in groups but usually alone, and the only drills were fire drills. And there was real scary shit going around in that neighborhood!
Even when I was growing up 30 years ago in a not-quite-as-urban part of the country, me being alone would occasionally result in a call.
0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-coup...
The wide authority given to CPS doesn't help either. If you come to their attention the CPS will be a terrible nuisance, waste your time in court and maybe take your kid. A lot of parents probably would give their kids more freedom if they weren't one busybody with a cell phone away from being on CPS bad list.
It's one of the many issues that comes back to people trying to exert unnecessary control over others, "you shouldn't be raising your kid that way" and so on.
A couple of years ago, I was extremely surprised about a 16 year old who said they wouldn't go an event w/o their parents. At 16 I wouldn't have gone to an event with a parent.
That being said - kids are playing alone since like 6-7 years. Hell, I was living near the Volga river and we were allowed to go swimming with older kids when we were 5 or so. No problem, son, just make sure you're home by eight.
In a city though, kids are far more restricted. It depends on any large roads your child needs to cross, deserted areas or too populated area (like marketplaces) along the way. Still, going to and from scool alone from 9-10 years old is expected.
Also unlike the US (at least based on movies, lol) we don't have school bases. Public transport only.
Surely the author meant to write a cop dressed as a clown?
If you have the inclination, please add references to the relevant Wikipedia articles as you read old news! Thank you. :)
George's most famous book was entitled "Progress and Poverty" ... it was dedicated, "to those who, seeing the vice and misery that spring from the unequal distribution of wealth and privilege, feel the possibility of a higher social state and would strive for its attainment." Its subtitle is a mouthful:"an inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth ... The Remedy."
The book is quite analytical, a logical analysis. If you want to see where it is going, jump to the final "book" before you read the rest.
Or you might start with a collection of essays entitled "Social Problems." They still read well today, and, among other things, show why a Constitution written in the 18th century simply can't be frozen in time, and needs to be reconsidered in light of 21st century realities. Some of my favorite quotes are from "Social Problems."
Both books are online and at Amazon or schalkenbach.org; there is also a fine modern abridgment of P&P, and audio is available at hgchicago.org.
Your response however typifies one reason I'd never call myself a Georgist -- people who call themselves such come off as believing they've discovered the single truth that obtains social salvation, ie religious nuts -- who need to dump that single truth on people they encounter at the first opportunity. Seriously, if you want to be effective, and I want you to be, please tone it down.
Thank you very much for sharing your experience in the fist 3 sentences of your comment. That's what I was hoping to learn!
I do not believe that HG's ideas will solve all our problems, but I do believe that recognition of what he saw and enactment of his recommendation will put us on the road to solving a lot of problems that are generally regarded as unsolvable -- housing affordability and supply, poverty, sprawl, pollution, water shortage, wealth concentration, money in politics, better cities among others. Necessary, though not sufficient. And it is frustrating that so few people are even remotely familiar with the ideas.
Two of my favorite recent books on the subject are "The Mason Gaffney Reader: Essays toward Solving the Unsolvable" and Walt Rybeck's "Re-Solving the Economic Puzzle."
I think there are solutions, and want others to have the chance to consider them!
My favorite LVT-influenced person is Donald Shoup. He doesn't talk much about LVT, but is making as big a positive difference on land policy as anyone -- in the US/English language anyway; I hope there are people informed by LVT theory making a bigger difference elsewhere, probably China.
What? Of places to share one's enthusiasm for Georgism, there are few more appropriate than in an internet thread about a Georgist town they're a resident of, after explcitly being asked for references.
Your other question, “Did you move for your passion, or did you learn your passion from living there?”, suggests unfamiliarity yet genuine interest in the topic. So, their response makes total sense.
I really have no idea what you're talking about. LVTfan's answer certainly displayed enthusiasm, but to me it stopped well short of fanaticism.
And if you're curious about the range of people who have taken notice of George's ideas, search on "quotable Nobels" and from that page, see "quotable notables."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteway_Colony
The local area got lucky due to Fullers Earth, this happened to be a key ingredient for cottage industry wool making. So most nearby villages are made of Cotswold stone cottages complete with the 5ft high 'Hobbit friendly' doors. The market towns to support these villages are also made from the same Cotswold stone although you do get slate roofs (from when the canals arrived) and brick (from when the railway arrived).
Whiteway is completely different. The architecture is more reminiscent of those wooden huts people build in places like the Falkland Islands and other remote British colonies where building materials would need to be obtained from a long, long way away.
We did not really have the option to live there even if we wanted to as we wouldn't have been able to get a mortgage plus the property isn't available anyway. There was definitely a barrier to entry that made the place very much 'a colony', a closed world if only a few miles up the road.
Although we can't live in such places due to practical considerations, the influence of these places does spill out into the neighbouring area. Not quite up to living Tolstoy style in Whiteway? Live nearby instead. Or visit! Since you are a 'passionate Georgist' I do recommend a trip to Gloucestershire in the UK because you will like a lot of the Quaker and other history.
I mean, if you think about the town meetings in "Gilmore Girls," where you have these people who are really into town meetings, you probably know that they're meant to be an exaggerated parody of the handful of people who show up at town meetings and are really, uh, passionate about their viewpoints. Only in "Gilmore Girls," the whole town is like that.
Well, I would much rather have them all in Arden, duking it out, than spread out more generally in North Wilmington and northern New Castle County, causing eye rolls everywhere.
That said, Arden is not nearly as much of an insulated place anymore. I think, for the majority of residents, it's just an address and not a philosophy.
My sense is that the groups you're rolling your eyes at have taken over the top levels of national government and are now working backwards to states and cities, largely thanks to reviving the lost act of participating.
It's exactly because these industries are high-productivity (per land unit) that they are practical on high value land.
http://reason.com/archives/2017/10/14/delawares-odd-beautifu...