The Hazards of Walking

The headline on the front page of Tuesday's Chronicle sounds alarming: "Why walking in Houston is hazardous to your health". The story goes on to tell us that an average of 100 pedestrians die each year in the eight-county Houston region. The city's development practices is cited as the causal factor:

It can also be extremely hazardous in the Houston region, where car-oriented development and wide, busy commercial strips create a hostile environment for foot traffic.

Houston ranked eighth on a new list of the most dangerous urban areas for pedestrians.

And the hundreds of deaths and injuries to pedestrians can’t all be written off as mere accidents, according to a report released Monday by two advocacy groups. Poor roadway design and lack of safety features like sidewalks and medians contribute to the death rate.

On the surface the story seems innocent enough. Pedestrians are getting hit by cars and that isn't a good thing. No reasonable person would argue otherwise. Citing the report issued Monday, the article states:

The report calls for communities to adopt better road design standards that also include the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, not just cars.

If we consider this issue in isolation, divorced from any other discussion of development in Houston, suggestions for road designs that better accommodate pedestrians might seem reasonable. However, to do so is to drop the context and that isn't a good thing.

For years politicians and assorted activists have been pushing Houston towards "form-based code"--a type of land-use regulation. Unlike traditional zoning, "form-based code" does not dictate how a parcel of property may be used, but does dictate certain aspects of its design and functionality, i.e., its form. For example, building set backs, "public" areas, and similar features are often a part of such mandates. Two popular versions of "form-based codes" are Smart Growth and SmartCode. Both aim to create "walkable" neighborhoods.

I do not know if the author of this piece is an advocate of "form-based code". But her article plays right into the arguments presented by those who are. The web site for SmartGrowth.org states:

Walkable communities are desirable places to live, work, learn, worship and play, and therefore a key component of smart growth.

If walking in Houston is hazardous to one's health, then creating "walkable" neighborhoods suddenly becomes a public health issue. The debate is no longer framed in terms of land-use regulations or controls on private development, but as one of protecting the welfare of the citizenry. And who would be opposed to that?

For starters, I am. Government's purpose is not the protection of our welfare, but of our rights. Anything and everything could be "justified" under the pretense of protecting our welfare. Making poor investments, or eating an unhealthy diet, or playing video games all day long could be considered harmful to our welfare. If government should be protecting our welfare, then anything harmful--real or potential--could be prohibited.

If it seems like a stretch that land-use regulations would be enacted as a means of protecting the "public's" health, consider the history of zoning, which is the most egregious form of land-use regulation. In city after city, zoning has been used as a tool to promote virtually every special interest imaginable, including mandates for "public" art, green space requirements, prohibiting "unwanted" minorities, and more.

Those who want more stringent land-use controls in Houston will seize upon anything that will promote their cause. Historically, they have had no reservations about hiding their intentions, misrepresenting their goals, or smearing their opponents. They will use whatever they believe will resonate with the public in an attempt to emotionalize the debate.

The sad thing is, while walking in Houston may be hazardous, more stringent land-use regulations will be far more devastating. As tragic as 100 pedestrians death a year are, they will pale in comparison to the destruction wrought by more government control over our property.

Don't Sweat the Small Stuff 39

And Then There Were Two
Last Tuesday's mayoral election was like elimination night on Dancing with the Stars. We knew that somebody was going to get the boot, but we weren't sure who it would be. I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised that it was Peter Brown who did not make the runoff, because now I won't have to put up with any more of his television commercials.

So now we are down to Annise Parker and Gene Locke, who will now meet in a runoff on December 13. Virtually indistinguishable in their positions, victory in the runoff will require that each seek new supporters among those who voted for Brown and Roy Morales. The conservative vote, which gave Morales his surprisingly strong showing, will likely be the primary target of the candidates. And how will they appeal to these voters? Locke provided an insightful answer during an interview with Matt Stiles:

You look to the candidates who did not make the runoff. You look at the base of their supporters, and you try to see what it is that you can say that is appealing to them...

For Locke, the runoff is about saying the "right" things. And what are the "right" things? Whatever will appeal to voters. Whether Locke actually believes those things or not seems to be entirely beside the point--his goal is to collect votes. If he needs to bend his position a little (or a lot), so be it.

In their zeal to collect votes both Locke and Parker will attempt to broaden their appeal, which ultimately means being all things to all people. They will tailor their message to whatever group they happen to be speaking to at the moment, and then deliver an often contradictory message to the next group. They will state vague generalities about making government more efficient and cutting waste, fighting crime, and making the skies bluer, but they will refuse to provide concrete details how they will accomplish these things. This has been their track record for the past ten months or so, and there is no reason to think that this will change during the runoff.

No matter who wins this runoff, the citizens of Houston will lose.

The Pot Calling the Kettle . . .
A few weeks ago the Chronicle reported that Kay Staley, a Houston real estate agent and lawyer, is suing the city for prayers before council meetings that allegedly promote Christianity. While such prayers are inappropriate, this probably wouldn't make my Top 100 list of important issues that should be addressed. In fact, I wouldn't have even brought this up except for Staley's argument:

She said she's offended because the praying goes against the teaching of Jesus. Heavily quoting the Bible, the lawsuit argues Jesus taught praying was not to be flaunted in public but to be done in private.

Does it strike you as more than a little odd hypocritical that Staley is protesting the promotion of Christianity by referring to a Christian document? Staley--who calls herself a "freethinker"--apparentlly didn't think this one through very well. It's people like her who give atheists a bad name.

The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment
Chronicle columnist Rick Casey reports on a study that shows capital punishment has a small, but meaningful deterrent effect. Whether executions deter future crimes is not--or at least, should not be--the purpose of capital punishment. Punishment is just that--punishment. Any deterrent effect is an added bonus.

"Smart" Roads versus Private Roads

IBM, along with the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, is offering a $50,000 prize for the best idea that will "produce smarter infrastructure." (HT: Write On Metro) According to the New York Times:

In the United States, highway problems are exacerbated because the basic federal gasoline tax used to finance roads has not been raised since 1993. The funds the tax generates have not kept up with inflation, deterioration in highways or maintenance costs, and the revenue has also been reduced by the adoption of more fuel-efficient vehicles. Vehicles that burn less fuel pay less tax, but wear out highways at the same rate. Vehicles that consume no gasoline or diesel at all, like electrics or hydrogen, will of course pay no tax.

In consequence, I.B.M. reports, more governments are looking to supplement or replace fuel taxes. I.B.M. programmers are working on systems to charge per-mile user fees as an alternative.

Traffic congestion is a result of a simply law of economics: Demand for roads has increased at a faster rate than governments can provide a supply. And demand has increased because the cost of using the roads is hidden in gasoline and other taxes.

While charging drivers on a mileage basis might appear to be a market oriented solution, it isn't. Nor it will not solve the problem. The real solution to traffic congestion is to adopt a true market solution--privatize the roads. So long as roads remain "public" property traffic congestion will only grow worse.

As with any "public" property, the "owners" of roadways have little incentive to maximize the experience of users. Certainly, government officials must listen to the complaints of citizens, and they engage in an endless process of building new roads and expanding existing ones. But clearly government has not been able to keep up with the demand.

This is seldom a problem when a product or service is provided by a private business. The exploding demand for cell phones, computers, and other technology has not resulted in shortages, but an abundance of products and choices for consumers.

Where government officials are dominated by political considerations, private businesses are guided by the desires and needs of consumers. Where government officials ultimately impose one "solution" on the entire community, private businesses offer multiple solutions and allow consumers to pick those that best fit their interests. Where government seeks to develop a consensus and appeal to the noisiest groups, private businesses seek to offer better, cheaper, more efficient products and services.

What is true of cell phones, computers, video games, restaurants, delivery services, retail stores, and countless other businesses is equally true of roadways and infrastructure. Motivated by their desire for profits, private companies seek new and innovative ways to meet demand, and they often do so in ways that no government bureaucrat could ever imagine. And importantly, private businesses cannot force consumers to purchase their offerings; government officials can.

Admittedly, privatizing the roadways would be a complex undertaking. But the complexity in applying a principle does not negate that principle.

If IBM truly wants a "smart" solution, it should begin by recognizing the fact that individuals and businesses must be free to act on their own judgment. Recognizing and protecting the right of each individual to to think and act without interference from others--including government--is not only "smart", i.e., practical, it is also moral.