I question our relationship with growth, decline and ‘stagnation’. Does growth mean prosperity (not considering social justice) and decline poverty? Sustainability may coalesce from ‘stagnation’, where impacts are neutral. Planning traditionally channels growth and here decline—why not refocus on quality (Europe)? Is stability (equilibrium) better than growth? Economically, I understand motivations for population growth and agglomeration economics, but can’t small be quality? Growth compensates for increase in value. Mallach’s equity critique of policies which create higher-end jobs is ridiculous—pay follows value (absolute vs relative). Manufacturing’s decline due to spatial fix was regrettable for uneducated labor, but our national value is not in cheap mass labor; its innovation. Rather than the myopic stance on pure market redistribution, channel equity planning and Krumholz’s “providing “a wider range of choice for those…residents who have few” (Making Equity Planning Work 1990).
Equity is internal conflicted when presented with shrinking neighborhoods: the choice of those who leave vs those who stay (poorer schools, services, infrastructure). As noted, those who stay may reduce options for other communities. Is pure redistribution the only mitigation or can we not have our cake and eat it too? Must we destroy some communities for the good of others?
This chart is what should disturb -- when innovation doesn't = wage. Or is innovation just another type of fix?
No comments:
Post a Comment