My community development textbook identifies three configurations of the political culture which define the kind of development which is possible.
- No-Growth, led by a cohort of financial interests, who prefer to maintain the status quo. It holds the power and operates to keep people and groups with needs out of the political decision making. This arrangement conspires to keep participation low.
- Pro-Growth, led by a cohort of financial interests, primarily the rentier class, who profit from increasing pressure on the supply of real estate to raise rents and increase the extent of rental properties available for new rentals. Since you must own property to have the cash flow to buy property, this model tends to enrich a few even as the rest of the community is ground into low income employment and poverty. It holds the power and operates to keep people and groups with needs out of the political decision making. This arrangement conspires to keep participation low.
- Smart Development, led by no one and everyone, it depends on the culture of the community that insists on inclusion and participation. Decisions are made in public meetings and infused with listening. There aren't any closed door meetings, and groups with a grievance are heard and included. This arrangement shares the power of community decision making, and operates to increase participation.
This ideal vision is enacted in many American cities, along with the corrupt forms listed first above, and is, I would argue, what we are striving for. But we must keep our eyes on the ball. Since we have a distinctly not machine Council at this moment, Burlington is not solidly in the pro-growth camp, but the mayor is clearly a growth oriented administrator, using the power of his office to make deals and promote the profit making interests of the business class, bulldozing any resistance and shutting out voices of contrary interests. And we must watch our councilors for slippage.
Each of these systems possesses its own homeostatic equilibrium, that it is difficult to escape from. Burlington, prior to Mayor Sanders, was a machine city. Sanders' election instituted some changes that moved Burlington toward the Smart Development vision, but the shift wasn't complete. To complete that shift is our higher mission.
Although I do worry about a Trump coup, at the root of our crisis of civility and radical anger, marginalization of some groups and enhancement of privilege for others, is the failure of the American system to include everyone - including people whose imaginations lean toward fascist, socialist or just criminal - in its prosperity in times thus due, and the costs in times of loss, in short, to promote a vision of a shared destiny. I don't trust the Dems to do the right thing, but our interests do not align with taking power and effecting certain policies at the expense of others. Our interests align with those who share our vision of an inclusive culture that engages everyone, brings everyone into the conversation and promotes solutions which maximizes well-being, opportunity, diversity and participation across all fields of expression. We need to support political leaders who understand that vision, are willing to take chances to increase the franchise of participation, who are motivated by a vision of a community where everyone feels they can find a safe and legal way to make a living and lead the life they want to. The Dems will fail us, the Progs will fail us, but individuals will step forward and no matter their party, we must advance them and hold them to the promise of our vision.
One of the failures of previous Progressive administrations was that they fell into the no-growth mode. They built very little housing, and allowed voices of resistance to take priority. A healthy city doesn't exclude business interests and rentiers from its decisions, secondly because this would inspire sabotage, but firstly because it would violate the principle of inclusion. A healthy city allows organic growth without prioritizing growth. A healthy city does not call for stasis, it promotes thoughtful change. Until we are able to institute property-ownership-in-common, and set up a coop-model and employee-ownership model of every different kind of business, so that private profit making isn't the primary model of economic activity, we'll need to work with these groups - the vision of an inclusive city simply does not tolerate exclusion of them. The key difference is that an inclusive city is one in which private wealth accumulation is not the reason and cause of all decisions. It is simply one of the normal features of living, which occurs in many ways. We need to normalize business activity as not an evil, but as an activity that is sometimes conducted in evil ways, and whose evil ways must be ended. What these are then become a matter of agreement in an inclusive community. We must promote the marketplace of ideas, and let the best ideas surface, always with our eye on the prize - a city that is peaceful because the people are happy and able to live full lives as members of a community that loves them, which they are able to love in return.
