[...]On Ensemble : Masato Baba, Kristofer Bergstrom, Shoji Kameda and Kelvin Underwood » Blog Archive » DIY trailer home: Book reviews[...]…

I’m glad that you liked SB. I agree that, for the most part, it is well-planned. But, much of the planning predates modern land-use regulation and was done by private CCRs. The current system favors wealthy folks who can afford private planners, environmental consultants, lawyers, lobyists, and public relations professionals to help them obtain approvals and amendments. It has also helped to create one of the most expensive and exclusive small locales in America — that’s cool if you are Oprah or Kevin Costner, but not so much if you are Brandon.

With few exceptions, long-term government planning doesn’t work. It’s difficult but sometimes manageable for you and I to research, plan, and make smart long term decisions about our own lives, but public planners have to track way too many constantly changing variables, most of which the planners have no means of adequately collecting information about. Somebody comes up with a good idea in North Dakota and technology instantly changes and trends suddenly shift in Santa Barbara and planners are left requiring people to build McMansions when they should and do want smaller homes. It’s awesome that we live in a vibrant dynamic world, but it just creates too much of a burden for long-term government planners who must provide rules even if the body of knowledge is insufficient for the task. What’s even more sad is that individual and small community concerns and ideas are usually not reflected in the body of knowledge because it is supplied by sources whose primary interest is usually in coercing those folks into changing for some reason.

Usually, when people get angry about problems in long-term planning, they don’t point out, as the old saying goes, that God laughs at a well-thought out plan, or that peole who know their own wants, interests, ideas, and resources much better than any planner should decide most of these things because they have the crucial information. Instead, we respond by saying it’s not public planning, but the particular plan that’s the problem. In other words, the government should plan for X instead of Y. Of course, there’s not enough information to determine as opposed to suggest that X really is a better approach than Y or Z and certainly not that it works for Kris or any other real person now or in 5 years. Usually, these questions are matters of value, anyway. The best you can say is that given the stale, incomplete, or biased information before the local agency, we find that it may accomplish whichever handful of trendy objectives the agency considered. In failing to think in principle about the problems with long-term government planning, we commit the same error (but this time with a more currently trendy solution of X!) and the cycle repeats. Meanwhile, the process has cost a fortune and everyone has lost a little liberty. (I think this is because it is scary to acknowledge that there isn’t a teacher or government expert who always knows best, but I’m not sure why people so need to assume that expert knowledge is sufficient to solve any problem no matter how complicated, personal, or likely to change suddenly. Talk to a planner sometime, and you’ll see that this assumption is totally and completely inconsistent with reality.)

So, I support planning, but the planning methods are largely cooperative and private. There are a few problems and tradeoffs with my preferred approach, too. I’ll send you a copy of a book or two, but with the understanding that current trends don’t favor me on this and that in order to legally build your dream house just about anywhere I know of, you’ll have to work within some system of land use regulation that doesn’t resemble my ideal.

BTW, I bought a Zuumer that should carve like a skateboard. Once they deliver it to me, I’ll bring it to Torrance and see what you can do with it. (http://www.zuumcraft.com/page.php?3)

This project has been the first time I’ve butted heads with regulations. It was a long time before I found the perfect stair size for me — that combo of rise and run lengths that just feels good for my body to go up or down — 8.5″ rise and 11″ run. Only to learn that it doesn’t meet code. I can understand that perhaps that we should encourage public construction that matches an agreed-upon standard, but need the residential code really be so strict?

So part of me totally agrees with you, Brandon. But then part of me is torn by how much I love Santa Barbara, where you live. Am I right in thinking that Santa Barbara’s numerous parks, low buildings, and ample pedestrian space are the result of regulations? If so, do you think it would be as cool a place if people had more freedom in zoning and construction laws?

I’ve heard and made arguments on both sides, of course, but my experience tells me that the real problem is a lack of tolerance. People become convinced that they have knowledge about the way other people ought to live that is so compelling that they feel entitled to use local land use regulations to compel those other people to change the way they live. Maybe, sometimes, folks support large minimum lot sizes because (a) they want to preserve their rural way of life, or (b) preserve property values by keeping poorer or darker people who can only afford smaller lots out of their communities, or (c) stop local air pollution from an influx of small tract homes waiting to be populated by car drivers, but most of the time I think all of this is just another way of saying that their superior understanding of how to live one’s life outweighs other people’s individual dignity and freedom.