The Fascism of TOD

Posted by: Nate Berg

24 February 2008 - 1:00pm

This editorial from the Hawaii Reporter argues that plans for transit oriented development are "based in communist and fascist thinking" and that building rail and TOD will be bad for Hawaii's families.

"The idea behind TODs is to "limit sprawl." "Sprawl" is apparently a bad word for planners and the politicians they've bedazzled. But 'sprawl' is the outcome of what most people hope for (and work hard to achieve) ... especially families ... a house in a nice neighborhood with a little land for children to play. "Sprawl" is the result of the essentially the Ozzie and Harriet life ... the 'American Dream.'"

"Oh sure, these TODs are supposed to be nice, even expensive, places to live. But, TODs are ... and this is not politically correct to reference, but real none-the-less ... based in communist and fascist thinking. When thinking TODs, think "ghetto." And most ghettos were historically the result of 'social, economic or legal pressure.' Hum, sound familiar?"

"The mentality is that TODs will increase rail use. However, TODs across the country have failed, and Honolulu will be particularly hard-hit by such legislation."

"Why? My number one reason is that neither rail nor TODs are truly family-friendly."

"Rail does not address the needs of families, who use cars to go about their day-to-day living. Cars, not public transportation for the most part, get kids dropped off at school and to other daily activities and lessons. Cars help parents go grocery shopping and other errand-running. Life would be hugely more complicated for families without access to cars."

Full Story: City & County Working Diligently to Make Car Ownership Unpleasant to Further Mayor's Agenda for Rail and Transit Oriented Developments

Source: Hawaii Reporter, February 22, 2008

Login or register to post comments
Email this page

Another view

Submitted by ginsocal on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 17:45.

Where to start? First, until the enviro-nuts try to force us to live in TOD’s, it’s not fascism. If there’s a market for it, why not let someone build it? Just don’t tell me I HAVE to live there for the betterment of society, or some other idiotic reason. It’s not going to happen, and that would qualify us as a fascist state.

What I find more amusing, is the incessant sniveling about SUV’s One would think the there are vast armadas of huge vehicle prowling our roads and highways, when simple observation shows that the vast majority of SUV’s are in fact SMALL, such as Honda CRV’s and the like. Most people can’t afford the $40,000 entry fee for a new Hummer or Suburban.

Finally, the “freedom” issue. I have used virtually every mode of transportation over the last few years, and anyone who thinks that there is something better, or more convenient, than your own vehicle, is a liar. All alternatives require a larger time investment, regardless of traffic (busses use the same streets). If something happens during the day that requires your attention, it usually cannot be accommodated, as you are tied to the transit system. I cannot imagine using transit for any of you typical off-work activities, such as grocery shopping. I have a grocery store just a couple of blocks away (even though I live in the ‘burbs), but I’m not going to walk there to shop. We usually fill up the back of the wagon with bags; how am I supposed to get them home? How about family trips? You going to pack all your camping gear on a bus?

The bottom line is, I don’t feel the least bit “trapped” by my vehicles. I own several, and all of them put together didn’t cost me what one moderately equipped Prius would have. And I can commute, go to the store, haul 5,000 pounds of dirt and explore endless four-wheel drive trails. That’s the kind of freedom I prefer.

Your life is all about 'you.'

Submitted by chrisinsobe on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 13:05.

"The bottom line is, I don’t feel the least bit “trapped” by my vehicles. I own several, and all of them put together didn’t cost me what one moderately equipped Prius would have. And I can commute, go to the store, haul 5,000 pounds of dirt and explore endless four-wheel drive trails. That’s the kind of freedom I prefer."

Sounds like your life, vis-s-vis the rest of humankind, is about about 'you' and what 'you' want.

Exactly

Submitted by ginsocal on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 17:53.

Since I haven’t bought into the fascist idea that the individual must sublimate his personal desires for the betterment of the state (or “community,” or “society,” or “world,” or whatever excuse you choose this week), then you would be correct. It sounds like you have a problem with that. Too bad.

Again, it IS about personal freedom. If anyone feels like they need to alter their life to “fit in” with the ideology of some outside group-knock your selves out. Just don’t even think about making it a requirement.

Individualism in democracies.

Submitted by Dano on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 12:41.

Sounds like someone hasn't read Tocqueville's thoughts on self-interest, properly understood.

As there is a resurgence in some minority segments of the population around the misguided ideas present in the comment above, political economists/scientists have been thinking quite a bit about this lately.

There's an essay in the latest Critical Review that explores individualism, democracy, and what the thinkers of the time of Tocqueville (including Adam Smith) thought about too much individualism. Self-Interest Properly Felt: Democracy's Unintended Consequences and Tocqueville's Solution Critical Review 19:1 pp. 111 - 124:

The need to cooperate in countless ways in a democracy raises the fundamental question posed by the prisoner's dilemma: How can self-interested individuals cooperate? Tocqueville recognized this problem and anticipated the most convincing solution to date: Robert Frank's conception of emotions as "commitment devices." Tocqueville's analysis of the miscalculations of modern "individualism," which lead people first into isolation and then into servitude, mirrors the failure of conscious rationality in the prisoner's dilemma. Conversely, Tocqueville emphasizes emotional "habits of the heart" as the key to resisting the blandishments of individualism.

Best,

Stop Fascism

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Thu, 02/28/2008 - 11:44.

There is a huge threat from people who have bought into the fascist idea that the individual must sublimate his personal desires for the betterment of the state (or “community,” or “society,” or “world,”).

Here are two examaple:

Some people say that there should be laws preventing me from dumping my raw sewage into the river, just because raw sewage harms public health and would cause widespread disease. They want me to sublimate my personal desires for the good of the community.

Some people say there should be laws limiting my carbon dioxide emissions, just because emissions cause global warming that will reduce the world's capacity to produce food and cause hundreds of millions of deaths. They want me to sublimate my personal desires for the good of the world.

I say it is all about personal freedom and about my personal desires. If some eco-nuts want to install septic tanks to contain their sewage, let them do it at their own houses. Don't even think about making it a requirment, because if you do, you are a fascist.

Charles Siegel

PS: Speed limit laws are even worse. I like to drive on residential streets at 70 or 80 miles per hour. Would you believe that some fascists want to require me to drive no more than 30 miles per hour on those streets - and they want to have uniformed fascists give me speeding tickets if I drive any faster? I am not going to sublimate my desire to drive fast for the good of the community. If those eco-nuts want speed limits, let them drive their Priuses at 30 mph, but don't even think of making it a requirement.

Building TOD

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 11:20.

"If there’s a market for it, why not let someone build it?"

Because zoning laws in most places require developers to build low-density sprawl. We are just beginning to change the zoning laws to make TOD possible.

"I have used virtually every mode of transportation over the last few years, and anyone who thinks that there is something better, or more convenient, than your own vehicle, is a liar."

As most American cities are currently built, a car is not only most convenient but a necessity. But if cities were built differently, it could be much more convenient to get around than it is today. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a liar and a fool.

(Since you like name calling, I am raising the stakes by using two slurs instead of just one. Now you can use three slurs and show how clever you are.)

Charles Siegel

"All alternatives require a

Submitted by Patrick on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 19:04.

"All alternatives require a larger time investment, regardless of traffic (busses use the same streets)."

If you factor in the time spent working to acquire the money to pay for and maintain a vehicle, than walking is more time-efficient.

You are free to drive to the store in a TOD. TOD accommodates multiple modes of transportation, giving consumers a choice. Sprawl only gives people the choice of driving. 98% of residents in a sprawling area live beyond walking distance of goods and services, thus 98% of residents drive.

8 years ago gasoline was ~0.80 cents per gallon, now it is $3.10. If prices continue to rise at the present rate than gasoline will be around $12/gallon 8 years from now. Most experts agree that prices will continue to increase. Doesn't it seem smarter to plan for forms of transportation that use less oil? To ensure freedom of mobility in an energy-scarce world means planning for walking, cycling, and transit.

It's an opinion

Submitted by mcaseyhawaii on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 12:42.

Let's keep in mind that it's just an opinion of one local resident - but I find it funny how the Vice President of a local taxi company is railing against the "fascism" of a proposed public rail system...

There are quite a few challenges we face as Honolulu embarks on creating a rail system - but "fascism" and "communism" are not even in the top 25.

Michael Casey

Fascism is way too strong, but ...

Submitted by capntransit on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 22:10.

in some of its implementations TOD is, um... outside the Way of Tao.

Isn't there a nice gulag someplace that we can ship people like Evans to for a month or two, so that they get some perspective on actual fascism and communism?

Cars... especially big

Submitted by chrisinsobe on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 00:46.

Cars... especially big SUVs... are the opiate of the American working class. Car payments (commonly hundreds of $$$ a month), maintenance, insurance, and $3-a-gallon gas (which will only continue to rise) keep lower-middle and working class families poor, as they spend disproportionate amounts of their income on this expensive, outmoded, increasingly inefficient, 20th-century mode of transport. "Freedom...," as the HAWAII REPORTER writer states... I don't think so. (Also, to keep things in perspective, be advised that the HAWAII REPORTER, is somewhat to the right, politically, of the "Reason" Foundation.)

By the way, increasingly-congested Honolulu is a dense, linear city, ideally suited for rail transit (a single line stretching from Hawaii Kai westward to Waipahu (or even beyond) would serve all of Metro Oahu's major activity areas, virtually eliminate the need for most tourist rental cars, and put half of the metro area's population (a high percentage of whom live in apartments and high-rises) within 1/2-mile of a properly-routed rail line.

Drivers unite. . .

Submitted by freeyoke on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 10:18.

. . .you have nothing to lose but your car payments. I can't entirely agree with you on cars as opiates because some of us bought cars as a practical alternative to hang gliding to work. My car is no status symbol it is just reliable. I don't have an SUV and can't understand why so many Americans starting in 1990s bought them. If the poor and lower-middle income families are dumb enough to spend a inordinate amount of money on a car, they get whatever they deserve. Poor people are poor in most cases because they can't make or handle their money well. Be it SUVs, lottery tickets or subprime homes on with ARMs, some people just won't listen to reason.

"increasingly inefficient, 20th-century mode of transport"

Car efficiency isn't going down. There are less defects per car now than in the past. If you are referring to fuel efficiency, that may be the case but it's based on consumer preference for mega SUVs over subcompacts. Car technology isn't to blame, just poorly thought out buying choices by some less than savvy consumers. Cars are also a 21st-century mode of transport as evidenced by the 98% of Americans still who drive to work. My best guess is that at as gas prices go up more, the poor will switch to motorscooters or mass transit, the middle class will buy smaller cars and the wealthy will have the biggest gas guzzers around.

Freedom entails the right to make to even bad choices.

"Freedom entails the right

Submitted by Patrick on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 16:46.

"Freedom entails the right to make to even bad choices."

Except when that choice starts to adversely affect other people. Some of the ways in which car use adversely affects others: smog, global warming, wasteful use of a scarce resource needed for vital medical and agricultural processes, generates urban morphologies hostile to and incompatible with the pedestrian and mass transit, etc, etc. It's a public health issue. You are allowed to smoke (most would call this a bad choice) so long as you aren't exposing others to the smoke. With a car's exhaust, there is no minimum safe distance since it goes into the atmosphere and warms the entire planet.

Even if we had completely "green" cars (a fantasy) the adaptations that take place in the urban environment as a result of accommodating the car results in an environment where other, less energy-intensive methods of transportation become difficult if not impossible to implement - eliminating choice.

If anything is fascist/communist, it's forcing everyone to drive a car everyday to get to their job as well as for every other trip no matter how minor. Sprawl gives people one choice; driving. TOD gives people the choice of driving, walking, cycling, or taking the train. Anyway, fascism and communism are opposing philosophies so to call something both fascist and communist reveals a lot about the level of intelligence we are dealing with here.

You have some good points

Submitted by chrisinsobe on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 11:18.

You have some good points and I agree with much of what you say, which is why am also not big on the idea of taxpayer-funded bailouts for sub-prime borrowers (despite the pain, the mortgage mess is probably best served by just letting it work itself out in the marketplace without government intervention, which rarely works anyway; the notion that someone making $50k a year can own a $750k house is absurd from the get-go).

Similarly, a lot of these same people are driving around in huge, gas-gulping SUVs or other expensive high-performance cars and they will come to regret that too (tip of the iceberg: I read recently that 14% of all car loans in the US are currently delinquent). All of this is to say that America is full of middle and working-class wanna-be’s with no money, who make bad financial decisions, and now are asking for bailouts which will only exacerbate some serious cultural/behavioral shortcomings in our society. You are also correct to point out that in the future more lower-income people will be riding motorbikes, etc., along with more use of public transport, whether they like it or not, as the cost of owning and feeding cars and SUVs, with ever-more expensive (and mostly-imported) fuel will go up and up (regardless of how well-made or fuel-efficient those vehicles are becoming).

My other point was more about Honolulu. If there ever was a city perfect for rail transit, it is Honolulu. It is a dense, linear city, mostly built on a narrow coastal strip hemmed in by the sea on one side and steep mountains on the other. A single rail line, approximately 20-25 miles long, would connect all the major residential, commercial, tourist, and workplace areas, including Waikiki, Ala Moana, Univ. of Hawaii, Downtown, the Airport, Pearl Harbor, and newer residential areas farther to the west. Moreover, there is absolutely no place to build any more highways; even widening the one existing (H1) Freeway is mostly out of the question; it is hemmed in by dense development through much of Honolulu proper.

The Right To Make Bad Choices

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 10:56.

Freeyoke: notice that you say:

"Freedom entails the right to make to even bad choices."

but you also say:

"some of us bought cars as a practical alternative to hang gliding to work."

and this second statement shows clearly that you, like most Americans, have no transportation choice, because you have no real alternative to driving.

TOD gives people alternatives to driving, so they have the right to make good choices as well as the right to make bad choices.

Also: When people talk about the financial burden imposed by automobiles, they are not talking only about status-symbol SUVs. Even an economy car is a substantial expense and a financial burden.

Charles Siegel

Not all choices are created equal

Submitted by freeyoke on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 15:03.

Actually, there are alternatives to driving my Buick to work but they are less desirable to me.

1) Bus- There's a 30 minute frequency and I'm not a morning person so I pay for the privilege of driving 10-15 minutes to work. The irony is our MPO is working on improving local transit but I don't use it myself. Ridership isn't high despite having a lot of poorer folks that don't own cars. They prefer to have multiple people sharing taxi rides. The point is, even when the mass transit choice is there, some won't use it until they must.

2) Walk/bike- Not a morning person and that would require me to wake much earlier and I prefer to run for exercise.

3) Live closer to work- I wouldn't mind living close enough to walk to work and I did so when I lived with the pollution and crazy drivers of Taiwan. I try to strike a bargain by not having a long commute to work.

I have no problem with TODs and they make sense especially if gas prices skyrocket. There has to be enough of a population density and local amenities to support the development. More importantly people have support the concept by moving there and using transit; otherwise, it's a road or rail to nowhere.

"Also: When people talk about the financial burden imposed by automobiles, they are not talking only about status-symbol SUVs. Even an economy car is a substantial expense and a financial burden."

I own a car so I'm well aware of the costs associated with it. Increasing gas taxes may be political suicide but it will make some folks give up their cars. It's also a regressive tax of sorts so I'd slap a surtax on vehicles which suck up more gas. If Americans are willing to pay the price to drive then they should be allowed to drive. We are at war in a region where oil is the number one commodity and should take steps to cut consumption and dependence for starters. The finger pointing can continue in Washington but that's not going to change a nation hooked on oil from unstable regions.

The Mass Transit Choice

Submitted by Charles Siegel on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 17:37.

The point is, even when the mass transit choice is there, some won't use it until they must.

The point is that one bus every thirty minutes - undoubtedly with slow service - is not a viable alternative. With better land-use planning, there could be transit every ten or fifteen minutes, and it could be light rail or Bus Rapid Transit that could get you there almost as quickly as your car.

If Americans are willing to pay the price to drive then they should be allowed to drive.

If they are willing to pay the *full* cost, including all externalized costs.

Have you seen the ad for the car called the Apocalypse? "You can afford to drive it, because future generations pay most of the cost."

Charles Siegel

Something tells me this is going to get people's blood boiling..

Submitted by marcotico on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 17:30.

I don't know if its the condescending tone, general ignorance, or lax journalistic standards.

"My number one reason..." Not the reason, but her reason. Okay.

"Cars, not public transportation for the most part, get kids dropped off at school..." I'm not that old, but I remember taking the School BUS, not School Car to school. Whatever happened to those?

"Life would be hugely more complicated for families without access to cars." Since when is complicated the bane of existence. Talk about fascistic. I'm going to use too much of a public good (air quality, space, roadway capacity) because carrying groceries more than twenty feet, or shopping more often is HUGELY complicated. Something tells me Ms. Darci is a little on the dramatic side.

"Honolulu is also unique in that it has a huge percentage of children going to private schools. And with the continuing down-spiraling of Hawaii's public schools, that will likely remain so for decades." So let's not address the problem of bad schools, probably due to to tax adverse residents, but let's fix it by driving farther and farther ON AN ISLAND!

Look your mobility is already limited. You live on an island! Talk about finite resources.

The problem of bad schools

Submitted by Wren W on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 21:42.

The problem of bad schools is not one of low taxes. Property (as well as other taxes) are one of the highest if not the highest in the nation. Hawaii residents are not tax averse, we tax ourselves to death ... but do not demand a good return on investment.

Cronyism, union strangleholds ... the usual suspects are the reason for poor schools.

Getting to School

Submitted by Ken Firestone on Mon, 02/25/2008 - 09:00.

I guess I'm really old. I remember walking to school, except for when I took public transit.

I can't believe this

Submitted by Smateer on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 15:39.

I wrote a response to her editorial in her paper. I hope they print it. It always gets to me when people who do not understand issues feel the need to give their opinion. I do not understand how providing more housing and transit options is in anyway fascist or communist or how TODs equaling "ghettos" relates to political philosophies which are opposed to each other.

-Steven

this editorial is a one-way street

Submitted by redisciple on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 14:25.

Too bad Darci doesn't provide contact info. I'd like to give her some examples of how overreliance on one mode of transportation (personal cars) reduces the mobility of those who don't use the dominant mode.

I can give examples from my life as a pedestrain, but I think more relevant are the children in my neighborhood who aren't allowed to walk to the community center just half a mile from their house because to do so would require them to cross a car-choked street.

2 issues here

Submitted by joshloki on Tue, 02/26/2008 - 07:33.

“My number one reason is that neither rail nor TODs are truly family-friendly. Rail does not address the needs of families,”

TOD development encourages a mix of uses: some civic, some retail, some office, and some family. Having a day care and dry cleaning 'developed in orientation' to transit are family-friendly measures.

“who use cars to go about their day-to-day living. Cars, not public transportation for the most part, get kids dropped off at school and to other daily activities and lessons. Cars help parents go grocery shopping and other errand-running.”

The built environment is based around the auto orientation . . . just because someone uses a car now doesn’t mean they will always and indefinitely use a car. Was life before the advent of the car anti-family?

Furthermore, Kris Kolluri, New Jersey’s transportation commissioner, said that in addition to the public benefits of transit-related development, there was a boon for individual households. “The average cost of a household within proximity of mass transit goes down an average of $12,000 per year,” Mr. Kolluri said. “In cases where not just mass transit is close at hand, but grocery stores and movie theaters and the like, household costs are alleviated further.”

TOD actually increases the spending power of the average household.

Should I go on?

“Conspicuous consumption of valuable goods is a means of reputability to the gentleman of leisure”

- Thorstein Veblen

freedom

Submitted by twoaday on Sun, 02/24/2008 - 16:59.

Oh boy this writer tries to make the old automobile equals freedom argument. If anything the automobile is the opposite of freedom. It costs the user thousands of dollars a year. It requires the owner to buy it other supplies (gas, oil changes, repairs, insurance). If anything the automobile is a tin jail cell... definitely not freedom.

http://www.mkedevelopment.com

re: freedom

Submitted by Fred Camino on Wed, 02/27/2008 - 12:52.

Freedom?

What other mode of transportation requires you to take a test and get licensed by the government before you can move? What other mode of transportation has government mandated age limits? What other mode of transportation requires you to register with the government? What other mode of transportation legally requires you to have insurance?

How many laws, rules, and regulations are there that control how you get around in an autombile?

Oh the illusion if freedom. God bless America.

_______________________________________________
MetroRiderLA: The Los Angeles Transit Oriented Lifestyle Blog