Green Checkmate.

Today Fred Allebach, a member of the Sonoma Valley Collaborative and a friend, shared his thoughts on affordable housing and the challenges faced in Sonoma Valley and beyond with me via email. He provides a historical context of the 2020 Sonoma Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) issue, and how it continues to impact affordable housing projects. Allebach identifies the "Green Checkmate," a dynamic that hinders progress in the development of affordable housing by preserving low-density zoning and maintaining property value advantages for existing homeowners.

Fred also discusses the tension between environmental justice and social justice, pointing out that environmentalists (and those aligned with) tend to use green arguments to justify preserving a low-density, high-property-value status quo. He explains how affordable housing development is caught in a series of impossible arguments, resulting in the de facto segregated status quo.

Allebach advocates for a more inclusive approach to housing development that balances sustainability and social equity. He suggests supporting lower-income housing projects in unincorporated urban service areas and strategic affordable housing projects in non-urban service areas, especially where there are substantial job opportunities nearby. He also recommends considering the establishment of a City of Sonoma Valley to better address the collective housing needs of the region's population.

I have long appreciated Fred's work and his keen attention to and expertise regarding housing. Over time, Fred, and a group of like-minded, pragmatic reformers, with their continued focus on this difficult problem, are building the necessary muscles in the community to allow change to occur in the face of what can only be described as obstructive hostility. Fred's work shows how, rather than inspiration or enlightenment, it is grit that is the essential element in pursuit of justice.

The Mandela Rules.

Nelson Mandela. (1994, Oct. 4).

© John Mathew Smith 2001

Use by Permission, Wikipedia.

Approximately 90 inmates at the Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility (the county jail, sometimes abbreviated "MADF") recently participated in a 10-day hunger strike (Press Democrats, paywalled) to demand more time out of their cells, improved visitation hours, and lower commissary costs. The strike was initiated by the G module on March 23, whose out-of-cell time is limited, sometimes to an hour or less each day, which family members and friends say is insufficient for them to shower, make calls, or prepare meals from commissary items. Visitation and communication have also been impacted, with limited hours and staff shortages affecting both visitation and out-of-cell time. 

The jail has faced previous criticism for its management of inmate communication. A June 2021 civil grand jury investigation revealed high phone call costs and commissary markups. It also noted that there had been a diversion of funds intended for jail programming to staff salaries and other purposes.

As Nelson Mandela observed, "[n]o one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones." Sonoma County should strive to meet the standards set by the Nelson Mandela rules. The grand jury investigation and the hunger strike have brought attention to at least six separate rules (22-23, 42-43, 58, 103) that appear to have been violated in this area. 

Addressing these issues benefits the whole County, as maintaining a fair and just society requires the even-handed administration of the jail. This is widely recognized -- The California Democratic Platform, for example, acknowledges that family support is a key factor in determining the success of a person once they are released from prison. By investing in programs that facilitate visitation, communication, and re-entry planning, we can help improve the overall well-being of those affected by incarceration. This approach not only benefits the individuals and families directly involved but also contributes to a stronger and more resilient community.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of all our institutions hinges on their ability to treat everyone fairly, regardless of their social standing. Ensuring that Sonoma County adheres to the Nelson Mandela rules is a step toward fostering a more compassionate and just society. By addressing the grievances highlighted in the grand jury investigation and hunger strike, we can work together to create a future where every Californian's rights are respected and upheld. This will only serve to strengthen our communities and promote the values of fairness, equality, and justice.

Housing, a Public Good.

Wikipedia contributors. (2021, September 15).

Public housing.

In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Retrieved April 5, 2023

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing

Yesterday, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors held a first reading of a proposed "camping" law, which seeks to ban unhoused individuals from sleeping in specific public areas, such as the Joe Rodota Trail. Sonoma County has a huge challenge on its hands, with a 2022 countywide census finding 2,800 homeless people, of which only 800 were living in shelters. More shelters, transitional housing, and affordable housing are needed, along with social services such as mental health care and substance abuse treatment. 

But I think the core of the problem is different. I think we need to see housing as a public good, and not as a market. Vienna (60%), Singapore (80%), Sweden, Hong Kong (50%), Finland (20%), and the Netherlands (30%) have all managed to house very significant parts of their population by recognizing that housing is a public good and should be the object of concerted action. 

Sonoma County should prioritize the provision of more housing to effectively address homelessness. By repurposing sites, our County could become a "net zero" employer itself, setting a powerful example. As the county's largest employer, this initiative would have a significant impact on the housing crisis and substantially benefit working and middle-class families.

Encouraging government and employers to adopt a "net zero" position in how their operations impact the local housing ecosystem would be a good start. By taking responsibility for the housing needs of their employees and community, government and employers can play an active role in addressing homelessness and providing equitable access to housing for all. We need to focus on creating long-term solutions, not just temporary fixes.

Grayer Angels.

Kim, Richard. (2012, June 22). The Nation. 

https://tinyurl.com/2j3vyfvu

In a recent Press Democrat article, Phil Barber discusses Braver Angels, an organization run and co-founded by David Blankenhorn, who was a proponent of Proposition 8, which was designed to ban same-sex marriage. Notwithstanding that, the article seeks to present Braver Angels in a positive light, discussing a recent meeting held in Petaluma. But Barber fails to address Blankenhorn's past actions, which may contribute to the very polarization the organization seeks to remedy.

Some background on Blankenhorn's work illuminates the issue. As Richard Kim noted in his piece in the Nation, Blankenhorn's Institute for American Values "has attacked single mothers, championed federal marriage promotion as welfare policy, railed against cohabitation and no-fault divorce, and opposed access to new reproductive technologies. One of his institute’s latest crusades has been against anonymous sperm donors (because they lead to “fatherless” children, an abiding preoccupation of his)." This amounts to a comprehensive assault on some of the most powerless groups in our society, with little evidence to support the positions themselves.

The article takes a one-sided approach to highlighting Braver Angels' stated mission to bridge the political divide through dialogue, empathy, and understanding. With 92 chapters and events in all 50 states, the organization seems to target an older demographic, as evidenced by its appeal to the rapidly growing gray population in America. However, this approach has obvious limitations with younger generations, who face unique challenges and navigate their social and political lives through social media and identity-driven communities.

Young people today grapple with unprecedented economic hurdles and may feel alienated by Braver Angels' workshops, which cater to an older generation that enjoyed greater economic stability. Participating in these workshops could very well exacerbate young people's feelings of financial insecurity and anxiety. Furthermore, young people often engage with political discussions through the lens of their identity, which they defend and support in online communities. Braver Angels' approach, then, might feel more like (and might indeed be) an attempt to dismantle a protective shield rather than extend a hand of understanding. There are some members of the local community, such as Mary Munat, who are involved in the organization, who are trusted, and who I think mean well. But given the group's president's past and continuing actions, and the fact that nearly 10% of the money raised by the organization goes directly to Blankenhorn, it is tough to see how such concerns can be mitigated. 

Acknowledging the unique challenges faced by younger generations, such as economic insecurities and the importance of identity, is critical in seeking to create a more inclusive and resonant political discussion. Only then can we genuinely bridge the troublesome divide that so many have come to recognize is our central challenge to furthering public trust, without which all efforts in government come to naught. 

The Sullivan Doctrine.

"Harbour Scene"
Dutch marine painter Abraham Storck (1644-1708).
Image source: Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.

This week's briefing from The Economist concerns the ongoing US-China trade war, focusing on the US ban on certain semiconductor sales, that severely impacted Chinese chipmakers like Yangtze Memory Technologies Corp (YMTC), causing delays in business plans and construction of new facilities. The resulting shortage has disrupted supply chains and forced Chinese firms to become more reliant on domestic production, lowering the forecast of Chinese companies producing over half of the country's needed chips by 2030 to just 33%. The US government's "Sullivan doctrine," named after National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, aims to maintain an American edge in foundational technologies like AI, biotech, and clean energy by restricting China's access to advanced chips involved in these areas through export controls using "foreign direct product rules" (FDPRs).

This escalating tech war has the potential to reorganize global supply chains and spill into other industries like clean technology, biotech, and agriculture. The conflict may create two mutually exclusive blocs for many products, undoing gains from globalization and harming companies and countries caught between the two rivals. The US may target additional industries with FDPRs, further intensifying the situation and prompting China to retaliate.

Despite the adverse consequences of the tech war, the international rules-based order aims to establish a free world by promoting free trade as a public good. By fostering a cooperative environment for innovation and ensuring access to resources, this encourages global economic growth and benefits all nations involved. In the long run, the rules-based order is designed to promote stability, prevent conflicts, and create a more prosperous and interconnected world. I cannot see how that system can continue without a US willingness to defend it, as today's international trade is a legacy of America's position at the conclusion of the Second World War, and its continuing and enduring commitment to the same.

Disruption versus Destruction.

Today's edition of the New York Times caught my eye with an article by Cade Metz regarding Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, and their chatbot, ChatGPT. The article weaves between Altman's biography, the product, and the nature of the firm. The article references Altman's belief in "effective altruism," a rational approach to maximizing global impact through evidence-based decision-making. The article's almost treats the life story of a CEO as a political biography, as a source to establish the legitimacy of the company and the technology.

A tech firm CEO, much like a head of state, serves as a unifying force that seeks to transcend divisions and foster a sense of identity and shared values around the company. Sam Altman's "effective altruism" is here like the "dignified" aspect of a monarchy, providing reassurance to the public and calming concerns about the impact of AI. Meanwhile, the "efficient" aspect of a tech firm, responsible for developing and implementing technology, operates on business principles necessarily different from the legitimizing elements of the firm's leadership.

While the New York Times article illustrates the role of a technology CEO in shaping public perception, it is crucial to remember that the efficient aspect of OpenAI is far different than the personality of Sam Altman. Effective altruism has little to do with the actual impact of the technology. It is vital to focus on the potential risks of disruptive new technologies, as their misuse in authoritarian hands has been destructive. "Effective altruism" could very well be serving as a distraction here, rather than a guarantee of responsible AI development.

@TheEconomist and @duncanrobinson on #RoaldDahl.

Puffin, the publisher of Roald Dahl (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, etc.), recently edited some of Dahl’s works for sensitivity, removing words such as "fat," "flabby," "ugly," and "Kipling." This act, which sparked a backlash, it is argued by Bagehot, the Economist’s British politics columnist (Economist articles are traditionally unsigned, but this one is by Duncan Robinson) is part of a broader trend in British publishing, where books are being censored or dropped, and sensitivity readers are employed to ensure adherence to modern morals.

Roald Dahl, 1954. 

While the right to prepare derivative works is at the core of copyright, the editing of Dahl's work by Puffin, a Penguin imprint, is argued to be just one symptom of a deeper issue in the publishing world. Making an impressive leap, Bagehot contends the argument that suppression of speech is only a problem in totalitarian states fails to recognize the "veiled censorship" in British publishing. There is an orthodoxy that right-thinking people are expected to accept without question, and resistance to the same leads (at least in the mind of the columnist) to being silenced with surprising effectiveness.

Publishers, in an attempt to look likable, often panic and preempt offense, leading to the removal or editing of content. However, this nervousness and desire to look nice can have nasty results, as it stifles creativity and prevents important discussions from taking place. The observation that the publishing industry is susceptible to peer pressure sounds in truth, as any observer of media generally is keenly aware of herd effects and the power of groupthink in the industry.

Where the columnist goes awry (and this is perhaps to be expected for a print journalist) is that there are a variety of means where unorthodox ideas can reach a broader audience. If anything, the rise of misinformation through alternative channels presents far broader problems for democracy than were ever perceived twenty to thirty years ago. Editors and publishers are not all wrong, and sometimes, they are even right as a group. I feel I can understand both the germ of the argument and the (veiled?) frustration of the writer given the unique power of publishing in certain professional and cultural circles. Sending ideas out into the world in book form is a form of professional and social recognition oftentimes far exceeding the economic import of such an activity.

Given the foregoing, I think the argument advanced, and particularly the vignette of how the suppressive mechanism works, is powerful. “What is striking is how apparently mild the sanctions are for speaking out … what really terrifies you is that your colleagues will think a little less of you. Most people do not require the threat of being burned at the stake to shut them up; being flamed by their peers … is more than enough.” Nudges in favor of conformity are often powerful precisely due to their superficial innocuousness – a timeless observation if there ever was one.