I was reading a Next Door discussion started by someone who felt sad by some of the development in my neighborhood but was looking to understand the various perspectives that people might have on it. In the course of the discussion, one commenter bemoaning large houses partly because their occupants can look into private back yards. To her, perhaps, these large houses were yet another example of her beloved city being invaded by transplants who don't respect it or its history. Having privacy in one's yard is a fundamental part of what makes Austin, Austin. Another person replied that private back yards weren't part of the neighborhood's original design, since houses had chain-link fences where neighbors could see into each others' back yards and look out for each other, and some people were unhappy when their neighbors put up privacy fences. From his point of view, privacy fences were an evolution in the history of some neighborhoods, and two-story houses are another step in a neighborhood's evolution that no one will have strong feelings about ten years from now. Privacy is highly valued by some, and the same can be said for community/neighborliness, and there is not complete agreement in terms of how to balance these values. This suggests that, in Austin, as in the U.S. as a whole, there is not a universal narrative saying what we are and aren't. In both cases, we might perceive sacred, timeless values that were not always perceived as such and are not universally agreed upon, even among long-term residents.

Similarly, some of the contemporary concerns of the American right were not always salient. Abortion has become a prominent issue in the minds of many evangelical Christians, but it only became a significant political issue for them around 1980, several years after Roe v. Wade. Protecting the right to bear arms is often framed as protecting a sacred right that our founding fathers enshrined into the Constitution, but it was not until 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to bear arms.

Additionally, some things that we now consider to be integral to our way of life were not always perceived the way we now perceive them. In a City Observatory column, Daniel Hertz responds to people who criticize modern housing development in Seattle while pointing to bungalows in the 1920's as an ideal, modest housing form that we should move back to. Yet, when these bungalows were being built, they were not seen as modest workforce housing, as they were larger and more expensive than the housing of the time. They were seen as ugly and as at odds with the existing character of the neighborhood, similar to the way today's new, relatively large houses are seen as out of character in their neighborhood. One critic, at the time, wrote that "each building is treated in isolation, nothing binds it to the next one, and as a result they lacked an essential togetherness," a critique that would be unimaginable coming from many of today's neighborhood activists who see detached single-family housing as sacrosanct and essential to the character of their neighborhoods. Similarly, when transit improvements are proposed, opponents argue that people prefer to drive, so why spend tax-payer money on transit improvements? Yet, when cars first appeared on streets, they were widely seen as luxuries for the rich and as incompatible with existing uses of the street. Our preferences have changed over time, in response to changing circumstances or because we tend to prefer what is familiar.

A relative of mine once complained to me about those "kids" who want our health care system to be perfect. He felt that our health care system would never be perfect, is reasonably happy with his employer-based health insurance policy, and isn't interested in doing anything that would radically change our health care system. Maybe he, and many other Americans, have heard stories of Europeans needing to wait in line in order to receive medical procedures or encountering challenges in terms of funding their health care. To them, it doesn't seem worth trading away what they know for some other thing that seems uncertain and likely to have problems of its own. Conversely, Europeans and Canadians may have heard stories of Americans struggling to get their insurer to pay for needed care or lacking health insurance altogether, perhaps going bankrupt as a result of a medical emergency. From their point of view, though their own country's health care system isn't perfect, it would seem unimaginable to trade it for the American system. In each case, people want to stay with the thing that is familiar to them. A similar dynamic applies at the local level. Older cities and neighborhoods often have multiple types of housing in close proximity. Maybe there is a triple-decker next to a single-family home, and no one thinks anything of it. In much of Austin, which was largely built after the invention of the automobile, single-family zoning is considered sacrosanct, and a three-story building would be seen as "incompatible" with a single-family home next to it. We see people living in row-houses or four-plexes as being "packed in like sardines" or "living on top of one another." We feel that it is not reasonable to expect people to walk places, since it's a hundred degrees in the summer (notwithstanding the inhospitable winter weather in many northern cities where people do walk). One possible interpretation is that people are selecting the thing that works best given their circumstances and preferences. Canada, western Europe, and Australia can have their universal health care if they want it, but we like our system just fine. If people in Manhattan or San Francisco or Boston or London or Paris like living on top of each other and walking and taking mass transit, then they can do that, over there. Just don't come to our city and try to tell us how to live. We'll keep our free parking and our private back yards, thank you very much. At the same time, when considering whether something should be changed, we should keep in mind that we may be biased in favor of the familiar, and, furthermore, what we see as working may be something that is not working well for people in situations different from ours.

Among people who do not have pre-existing health conditions that affected their ability to obtain insurance, it is a common complaint that, though health care costs had been soaring, they were at least manageable before the introduction of Obamacare, which pushed health care costs over the line and made them unmanageable. Of course, people who have pre-existing conditions are going to see the situation differently. This is not to say that Obamacare should be regarded as an optimal solution. U.S. spending on health care is higher than health care spending in most other developed countries, yet Americans are not living longer than residents of those countries, and many people still lack health insurance. yet, if it is considered to be the wrong approach, because it imposes further costs on healthy people who are nevertheless struggling to get by, and other significant changes to our health care system are also considered inappropriate, since healthy people decide that they'll take the devil they know, rather than the devil they don't know, then we will continue to have a health care system that isn't serving all people. In Austin, with our land development code rewrite, we have a somewhat similar situation. Many people lament the traffic, high property taxes, and displacement of existing residents--all things that are happening under our current code--and assume that any change intended to increase housing supply will make the situation worse. Some people seem to feel that, though their property taxes have been soaring, upzoning their lot would be the thing that would make them cross the line such that they are no longer manageable. For the majority of AUstinites who rent, however, the situation is different. A shortage of housing means that there is not enough to go around in the places where people want to live, and renting becomes more expensive as renters compete with each other, like a game of musical chairs.

I just finished reading Upheaval, Jared Diamond's latest book. He discusses several countries that have undergone a national crisis or are in the midst of such a crisis. He lists a dozen factors that he considers to be important in terms of a nation successfully navigating a crisis, based on a similar list of factors understood by therapists to be important in terms of an individual's ability to handle a personal crisis. I am not going to discuss this list with regard to the U.S. as a whole, as Diamond aptly does this in his book. However, his list of factors can mostly be applied to cities as well, and I will now discuss some of them in regard to the city of Austin.

First, it is important for us to agree that we are in a crisis. I believe that there is broad agreement on this point. Even as we disagree on the cause and on what course of action to take, if any, we largely agree that traffic and affordability have both become significant problems. Additionally, we agree that there are environmental factors that need to be taken seriously (flooding, access to water, trees).

Another factor, however, is that nations, or cities, should agree to take responsibility for solving the crisis, rather than taking a position of self-pity or blaming others for our problems. While many people--both newcomers and long-time residents--would like to work towards finding solutions to our challenges, there is also a perception that our problems are caused by newcomers and that we wouldn't be facing the problems that we face if our local government wasn't so obsessed with growth. Some people seem to feel that our City Council could have somehow stopped many of the people from coming here if only it wanted to. This points to two other factors: taking an honest self-appraisal of our situation and constraints imposed on us from the outside.

As a city, we are constrained in two important ways that we need to come to terms with. If we were a nation, rather than a city, then we would likely be having vigorous debates about how many immigrants to let in and how they should be selected. However, we are a city, and, thus, we cannot prevent citizens of our country from moving here. The argument is often made that our Mayor has been promoting Austin nationally and that this results in more people coming here than we would otherwise have. While I am not advocating going out of our way to encourage people to come here, we should keep in mind that we have the state Capital, the flagship University of Texas campus, and a good number of businesses already here. We have an influx of students coming from other parts of Texas to study at UT. Some college towns, such as Ann Arbor, are limited in what they have to offer beyond their college campus, so students tend to move away once they are through with college. This is not true of Austin in the same way. Migration to Austin should be understood within the larger context of aggregation, where people have been moving out of some areas of the country and into other areas perceived to offer greater opportunities. Additionally, the argument is sometimes made that building infrastructure will just encourage more growth. I have heard of people voting against past light rail proposals on the grounds that, if we don't build infrastructure such as light rail, then people will stop coming here. We voted down a 2000 light rail proposal by a fraction of a percent ("we" being the CapMetro district, which includes some land outside of Austin--the proposal actually passed within the city itself). People continued moving here, so now we are becoming a large city that lacks high-quality mass transit. Now, 19 years later, we are once again planning high-capacity transit and hoping that, this time, we will get it right. It is sometimes argued that we should prioritize the people who are already here, rather than people who aren't here yet, but it isn't clear what this would mean in practice. If we continue to restrict housing construction on the ground that new houses would be for people who aren't here yet, then we aren't stopping high-income newcomers from taking housing that could otherwise go to someone who is already here. Keep in mind that the majority of people who are already here are people who do not already own a home that they will stay in for the rest of their lives, and, thus, they need the ability to move, not just the ability to stay where they are. Another constraint on our city has to do with our state legislature, which is frequently at odds with our local government and sometimes passes or seeks to pass legislation to preempt local ordinances. For instance, Austin passed a law requiring fingerprinting of TNC drivers, and the state legislature later passed a state law concerning TNCs, rendering the Austin ordinance null and void. Related to this is the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), which plans transportation projects but has a board dominated by suburban interests. CAMPPO and thee Texas Department of Transportation currently see their role as to fund road projects, rather than helping fund mass transit. This relates to another of Jared Diamond's factors--help, or lack thereof, from other nations. Austin and its suburbs should understand that they are interdependent. The suburbs house many people who work in Austin but cannot afford to live here or prefer a less urban environment. At the same time, the suburbs would not exist in their current form without the city of Austin and its job centers. The composition of the state legislature may change in the future, such that Austin will have an easier time being heard, but, for now, the state legislature imposes significant constraints in terms of what the city is able to do. At the same time, the city would benefit from judicious use of the resources that we do have. Transit investments should be made in such a way as to do the most good given the amount of money available to us. Something similar could be said for our budget. Strong Towns has done good work in terms of evaluating the long-term costs associated with low-density, suburban development. Over time, infrastructure starts to wear out, and maintenance costs start to add up. Thus, emphasizing compact and connected development, as called for by our comprehensive plan, will help to ensure that our infrastructure is sustainable over the long term.

Learning from other nations, or cities, is also important in terms of resolving a crisis, as is deciding on what we are willing to change and what we seek to preserve. Diamond warns us against the kind of American exceptionalism that presumes that the U.S. is so unique that there is nothing that we can learn from other nations--even in areas such as health care where there is wide-spread dissatisfaction with our current system--since, even if other countries have systems different from ours that work well for them, they would not work or be appropriate in the U.S. Austin should similarly avoid a parallel form of exceptionalism where we feel that we have nothing to learn from other cities--that mass transit won't work here because we have bad weather or because this is Texas and driving is what people do here, or that more multi-family housing isn't appropriate here because, when we grew up, "apartments were for students, young couples and immigrants" (as I've seen one person put it). For geographical reasons, single-occupancy vehicles are not an efficient way of moving people. There is a limit to the number of cars that can travel down a street within a given period of time. In order to move people past the point at which our roads are at capacity, we need other solutions, such as mass transit. Transit is not an antiquated technology, as some claim. Rather, the newer technology--the private automobile--creates limitations which cities are now experiencing. In terms of deciding on things we are willing to change vs.. things that we will not change, what is it about Austin that is special, that we consider to be sacrosanct and not open for debate as far as changing? Is it our music/musicians? Our laid-back culture? The ability of low and middle-income families to live here (something which we are rapidly losing)? Our 50's bungalows on their 5,750 sq ft lots? Our private back yards? The ability to park one's car in most places without a lot of trouble, relative to some other cities? Some people may want to answer, "all of the above, of course." Yet our city has been changing and will continue to change, whether we take action or not. I would say that, as some have put it, neighborhood characters (our people) matter more than neighborhood character (our buildings). Our situation has parallels to that faced by 19th-century Japan after British ships started to arrive. The Japanese government decided that, before Japan would have the ability to deal with the west on equal terms, it would need to strengthen and learn from the west. Some younger people strongly disagreed with this approach and wanted Japan to fight against the western sailors, but, in time, even they became convinced that this approach would not work. Japan sought to understand and learn from the west while still preserving core elements of Japanese culture. Similarly, Austin's current approach is not working for us. We may wish that the city would stop growing, but, given our constraints, growth appears to be a fact of life for the time being, so wishing it away does nothing to improve our situation. Traffic is getting worse over time, and low and middle-income families are increasingly being pushed out of the city. We should seek to learn from other cities where it makes sense while preserving what we decide we want to preserve. Evolution is a fact of life, both for our country and for our city.