By Sara Mansur, Houston Fellow '10

In cities across the nation, a new model for solar financing is popping up. This model, called PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy), allows municipalities and city governments to provide the upfront financing for property owners to purchase and install solar panels and energy efficiency improvements on their homes. Property owners repay these low interest rate loans over an extended period of time, as a line item on their property tax bills. PACE Sustainable Energy Financing Districts are rapidly proliferating in municipalities across the country, from Boulder County, CO to Berkeley, CA to Austin, TX.  The crux of any PACE program is that it eradicates the highest barriers that property owners face when trying to enter the market for solar energy: high upfront costs.  

Land-secured financing districts are commonly used tools in municipal finance. In traditional assessment districts, a municipality issues bonds to fund projects that are explicitly in the public interest, such as streetlights, sewer systems, etc. Typically, each resident in the land-secured district will pay a special tax towards these improvements. The PACE program allows a local government to establish a voluntary assessment district, such that only those property owners who wish to take part in the program will “opt-in” to the district. These property owners will then pay back the loan they have received from the government in the same way as their property tax bills. This allows the municipality to offer a loan to its residents without tapping into its General Fund, while minimizing risk of default. In turn, property owners are afforded access to a low-interest rate, long term loan for solar installations and energy efficiency improvements that would not normally be provided by the free market.  

I believe PACE presents an opportunity for the City of Houston – where I am serving my year as a City Hall Fellows - to encourage the proliferation of an innovative technology across its residential and commercial sectors. In Berkeley, the pilot program reached capacity enrollment within the first 15 minutes of the opening of applications. By establishing a market for solar renewables and energy efficiency initiatives, the City of Houston can attract stakeholders in the industry across the supply chain, from manufacturers to contractors and installers. A PACE consultant recently estimated that a PACE program brought a 9% increase in positive job growth to the construction industry in Southern California. Such a program can provide immediately tangible results for Houston, in the form of economic development and sustainable employment across the city. Most crucially, however, PACE would be an important step towards encouraging the proliferation of clean energy alternatives among property owners and ultimately addressing climate change in the City of Houston.  

        

By Mercedes Sanchez, Houston Fellow '10

    Gang crime and violence is gradually becoming a pressing problem in our society. Who is to blame for such a rapid increase? And how can our justice system eliminate this problem? The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that there are more than 800,000 gang members and 30,000 gangs in the United States. In response to the fast proliferation of gangs, law enforcement has been exploring new ways to suppress gangs and their violence. Because traditional means of combating street gangs have not been enough, law enforcement has looked for alternative tools such as civil gang injunctions. But, is this truly the solution to our problems?

    Civil gang injunctions are court-issued restraining orders that prohibit named gang members from participating in a variety of specified activities. The gang injunction is filed by district or city attorneys under the law of public nuisance, which is meant to protect the greater good of the community by suppressing minor offenses. Under the assumption that street gangs’ presence interfere with the rights of the community, gang injunctions become protective orders for those neighborhoods infested with such crimes. The nuisance law is applied to gangs because as an organization, its’ members must be held accountable for their actions. Nonetheless, the way injunctions are currently in place allows law enforcement to imprison gang members for suspicious activities rather than actual crimes. 

    Civil gang injunctions vary throughout districts, cities, and states. The injunction is drafted to address the specific problems a neighborhood is facing and it is up to the prosecutors to decide what they want to include on the injunction. Prosecutors must decide the area covered by the injunction, known as the safety zone, as well as the individuals who will be included on the injunction. Once the injunction is in place, it can be reinitiated, modified, expanded, and names can be added to ensure the injunction fits the problem area.

    Injunctions allow judges to prohibit enjoined individuals from engaging in activities that would otherwise be legal. For example, by law, gang members who are enjoined could potentially be prohibited from associating with any other known gang members, required to comply with curfew hours, banned from local restaurants or bars, or restricted from being around drugs and alcohol. These activities are restricted because they are thought to facilitate the performance of criminal activities; therefore, the law is willing to create injunctions that can result in the arrest of people in the absence of a crime – for example, simply for having lunch with a friend in a banned establishment.

    In order to be bound by the injunction and its terms, a gang member must be made aware that the injunction has been enacted. This notification is imperative, because violating the injunction is treated as criminal contempt of court, a Class A misdemeanor, which under the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code 125.066, can result in maximum fine of $10,000 and/or confinement in jail for up to 30 days.

    Gang injunctions are seen as an innovative way to disrupt everyday gang activities due to their suppression and preventive effects. Currently, gang injunctions are taking a voracious suppression approach, basically incarcerating as many criminals, gang members, and even potential gang members as possible in an effort to prevent possible future crimes. However, gang injunctions are not the sole solution to eradicate gangs. Gangs are multifaceted, with various layers of involvement, and in order to truly hinder their criminal activities, gangs must be attacked from different angles. It is necessary to combat the root of the problem - the reason that individuals are joining gangs - as well as reform those who are criminally active. Regulatory measures should be in place to ensure a fair and effective way of using this tool. A balance must be applied. In other words, a compromise amongst all services needs to be in place, so that law enforcement cannot be in a position to be given the opportunity to abuse their power by depriving gang members’ everyday civil liberties; however, at the same time, they should have enough tools to maintain order and safety in the community.

        

By Adeel Iqbal, San Francisco Fellow  '10

It was 12:45, and I had 30 minutes to get to San Francisco General Hospital & Trauma Center, where San Francisco City Hall Fellows’ seminar for the week was being hosted. I Googled the address, and pasted it into 511.org – a free, one-stop phone and web source for traffic and transit in the Bay Area region: I wanted to know the quickest way via public transport to get to the hospital.  

From City Hall, the 511 web application directed me to take the MUNI 9, so I made my way to the nearest bus stop off Market Street. Another Fellow had hopped on the same bus a couple stops earlier and we began chatting about what we had been up to that morning as soon as we saw one another. Within a few stops, we were forced to speak a bit louder – noise and the number of people on the bus had quickly elevated as we got closer to our destination. Little did we know that more than half of our fellow riders would be getting off with us.

As soon as the MUNI 9 stopped on Potrero Avenue at 22nd street, 70 percent of passengers trickled out, and all of them walked to the hospital entrance. Watching this pack of people walk in a single file line for their appointments was our first lesson about the importance of SFGH – owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health – to the city and its residents.  

Our subsequent discussions with some of the hospital’s leading doctors and nurses and tour with the Chief of Medical Staff would only add to our understanding. We would learn that SFGH is the only Trauma Center (Level 1) in San Francisco. That it provides the only Psychiatric Emergency Services in the city. That it takes 30 percent of all ambulance traffic in the city. That more than 60 percent of its patients are uninsured or covered by Medi-Cal (as compared to approximately 20 percent citywide). And that it is where each of us and our families would go for treatment if injured in a natural disaster in the city.

As I saw and heard about the populations served by SFGH and learned about the innovative programs developed by the hospital to address San Francisco residents' diverse needs, I began to consider the impacts of not having SFGH in San Francisco. How would the gap be filled? What alternatives would the city’s poor and uninsured have? If a natural disaster struck and hundreds of thousands of people were injured, where would they go?

No doubt, our visit further opened my eyes to the pertinence of solid public health services and medical infrastructure within a municipality. I was inspired by the level of planning conducted by the city government to address unique needs of residents and visitors. And from the start of my trip when I turned to 511, each experience of the day helped me to better appreciate everything our cities do for us – much of which we rarely even stop to consider.

        

Imagine…you are a 16 year old kid who wakes up to find your best friend dead next to you. The previous night you were both at your house playing video games, smoking weed, and taking Xanax—a common drug among teenagers. << MORE >>

By Rance Graham-Bailey, San Francisco City Hall Fellow '10

January seems to be a sign of a much cleaner future for residents of San Francisco’s Southeast.

This month, Mayor Gavin Newsom received a letter from the CaliforniaIndependent System Operator (CAISO or Cal-ISO) that it anticipates allowingMirant’s power plant at Potrero to close at the end of the year. The closing ofthe power plant would mark the end of fossil-fuel plants in San Francisco; the other at Hunters Pointhaving closed in 2006. Closing the two plants have been environmental justicegoals of the City since the 1990s. Pollution from the plants has contributed torecord-high rates of asthma, cervical cancer and countless other ailments confrontinga historically African American portion of the City.

The CAISO was created by federal regulatory authorities to plan and manage California’shigh-voltage transmission grid, minimize black outs and keep utilities andmerchant generators from exploiting the markets used for sale of energy. TheISO prevents generators and transmission line owners from manipulating marketprices while ensuring electrical reliability in local areas.

For privately-owned facilities such as those at Potrero, CAISO determineswhether power generation is necessary for local reliability and whether it isappropriate to implement Reliability Must-Run (RMR) contracts that legally bindthe power plant owners. CAISO conducts studies annually about how contingencies in theelectrical grid could affect stable delivery of electricity and designatesmust-run status for generating units accordingly. Mirant has even expressedthat it would close the plant at Potrero once the ISO removes itsmust-run status.

Conceptually, I’ve found transmission to be an illusive component of electricpower. As electricity goes from power plant to power outlet, transmission is acritical infrastructure in between. Generators feed power into the transmissiongrid across long distances—sometimes across entire states—until the power isdelivered into a community’s distribution system, the series of power lineslining its streets.

Located at the top of the Peninsula, San Francisco is resource-constrained in that there issimply not enough transmission capacity to reliably import its entireelectrical load. This explains why, after over 10 years of staunch oppositionto the power plants, only one has successfully shut down.

The City’s strategy to close both power plants and get a cleanerelectrical portfolio relies on both renewable energy and reduced electricaldemand, in addition to more transmission capacity. However, the level ofrenewable energy and reduction in demand alone has not matched the generatingcapacity provided by the plants.

This is in part because of the difficulty in integrating many renewable resources.Solar and wind, for example, are intermittent resources whose hours ofoperation are controlled by environmental factors. The ISO cannot turn on theresources at-will as it can with fossil-fuel plants, or even hydroelectric orgeothermal plants. Technological innovation and adoption will hopefully addressthis weakness of renewable energy in the near-future.

In the end, it appears that increased transmission capacity will be largelycredited with eliminating the power plants in San Francisco. New transmission lines andupgrades are what primarily led to the 2006 closing of Hunters Point and arealso cited in this month’s letter to Mayor Newsom about Mirant’s plant. Inparticular, a public-private partnership produced a new underwatertransmission cable that connects San Franciscoto the East Bay.

The San Francisco Power and Utilities Commission (where I am spending myFellowship) has played an important role in implementing these equity-drivenenergy priorities of the City, and it is this leadership that hopefully willsee the release of Potrero’s must-run designation at the end of this year andthe close of the plant in the following year.

Copenhagen maynot have achieved what many would have liked, and even our own Congress appearsto have lost the urgency of confronting energy reform. However, as this examplein San Francisco shows, local governments are stepping up to the plate,thinking globally about the effect of climate change, and acting locally tohelp their own residents who have suffered from poor environmental stewardshipfor far too long.

        

By Christopher Gustafson, Houston City Hall Fellow '10

    Every ten years, the most important political event of the decade happens. No, it is not an election.  I’m talking instead about the event that essentially determines how competitive an election will be. Redistricting is the process by which every state must redraw their election boundaries to comply with new data presented from the decennial census. Ever since I have been active in politics, redistricting has been the political cause of my life. This is not to say that I do not care about other issues - in fact I care a lot about social services and economic justice - but I have come to the conclusion that without a focus on redistricting, there is no way any other issue will come to fruition.

    Why must we redistrict you ask? Well it all goes back to the constitutional requirement to redraw legislative lines and a line of court cases that culminated in the Supreme Court with Baker v Carr. In Baker, the Supreme Court ruled that courts have the power to enforce “one person, one vote”. This term refers to a requirement that all districts (with the exception of the United States Senate) have roughly an equal number of people in them. Therefore, whenever the census results come out, lawmakers must readjust district lines to ensure compliance. This can be done one of two ways: by either slightly tweaking districts or by a full-scale overhaul.

    The City of Houston will soon be in the midst of a potentially complicated redistricting that involves many factors. Believe it or not, City Council members actually redraw the lines. Many times they are voting on the districts that they will eventually run in. This may seem a bit sketchy, but it is certainly not uncommon. Most states and cities engage in this practice. Currently, there are nine district council seats that are equally proportioned throughout the city. Here is a link to the map: www.houstontx.gov/council/maps/councildistricts.jpg

    While there are many things council members can do to design districts that fit their particular needs, they are bound by the law and must obey many precedents that have been set in the law. Four of the districts, B,D,H and I are protected under the Voting Rights Act, an act passed by Congress that ensures that minority populations living in the same community are allowed to pick a representative of their choice. Do they have to necessarily pick someone who is of the same ethnic group? No, but the law says the state cannot prohibit them from making that choice. This derives from the Jim Crow era policies that made it hard for African Americans to vote in the south. There were many districts where African Americans were the majority of the population, but less than 10% of registered voters. The law is designed to ensure that if a district has a majority minority population, then that population must also be the majority of registered voters. This act was passed in 1965 as a response to racial segregation in the South. Congressional leaders determined that, if a community has a sizeable minority population, then districts should be able to reflect that. In the ideal form, this means that the districts should be proportional to the population. For example, if 25% of the area is African American and there are four districts, then one should be African-American.

    The four protected districts in Houston are composed of 2 African-American and 2 Hispanic districts. The other five districts are not protected because they do not have a majority of one specific minority group in them. This is where the problem occurs. Houston is roughly 44% Hispanic, 18% African American, 25% White and 8% Asian. With only two Hispanic Districts, Houston is not meeting the ideal standard of Hispanic representation. With only two protected districts, Hispanic majority districts lag far behind their city population.

    As of today, this is not necessarily a problem because of the growth in Hispanic population over the last ten years, but the next census may prove more difficult for the current lines.

    By law, when Houston reaches a certain population, it has to add two more district seats to the council. The question is where these two seats are going to go? If we are to take the Voting Rights Act at face value, both seats should go to Hispanic-majority districts because Hispanics represent the largest bloc of inhabitants in the city; however there are many challenges to this. One is that Hispanics are spread out throughout the city; it is very difficult to craft districts that are Hispanic majority because districts would have to reach across entire sections of town to find Hispanic pockets of inhabitants. So what happens if the city council decides not to pursue this? Well, they could potentially face major legal problems. In District F, a district that is almost completely minority, but where no one minority group makes up a majority, an Asian-American has won for the last eight years despite the fact that Asians are the smallest group of citizens in the district. Hispanics make up a large plurality but not a majority, making it difficult for them to elect a member of the Hispanic community because they are the least likely to be able to vote. It is a known fact that a certain portion of the Hispanic community is not eligible to vote, due to the fact they are not citizens of this country in the traditional sense.  Still, under the rules of the census, they are supposed to be counted for purposes of representation. So while Hispanics are outnumbered among registered voters, they are still by far the largest bloc of inhabitants in the city. This leads to a very large conundrum - the city is required to accommodate the city population in a way that is fair to all its inhabitants, not simply its voters. Furthermore, three districts, C, G and E, are majority white and have solely elected white council members throughout their history, giving white citizens a substantially higher percentage of representation on the council than their proportionate population. Should these districts be allowed to stand after the census, they City may well face law suits under the Voting Rights Act.

    Finally some people may ask, in the age of President Obama, is it necessary to have districts drawn for minorities? My personal opinion is yes. I believe the nation has an interest in making sure that all its citizens are fairly represented. However, personal opinions aside, the Voting Rights Act is still the law of the land and unless it is overturned, there are things the city must do to comply with it. It will be left up to the courts to decide whether they have properly executed the law.

    It will be an interesting year in the City of Houston because of redistricting. This is the first major redistricting fight the council will see in a generation and could lead to a shift in political power.

        

By Rachel Deason, Houston City Hall Fellow '10   

    Last fall, as part of my Fellowship, I conducted a policy analysis of what is going on with menu labeling legislation at the city, state, and federal level. The term “menu labeling” refers to the mandated posting of calorie information on menus and menu boards at fast food and other large chain restaurants. Many public health experts believe this legislation could help to stem the obesity epidemic, which is taking its toll on Texas and other states around the country.  

    According to the Texas Health Institute more than 29% of Texans in 2007 were obese, while two out of three adults in Texas were overweight. These numbers represent an unabated 20-year upward trend in the number of severely overweight residents. Even more disturbing is that obesity rates in Texas have more than doubled since 1990, when the Texas rate stood at 12.3 percent. Children are affected as well, with studies showing that every third child born in 2000 is likely to wind up with diabetes. Diabetes is only one of several chronic illnesses that are linked to obesity. Robert Gould, president and CEO of Partnership for Prevention, said “Today's children face the prospect of being the first generation in history to live sicker and die younger than their parents.”

    Obesity is also costing Texans the big bucks. Recent reports estimate that Texas spends more than $5.7 billion on obesity-related chronic conditions, including hypertension, cancer, diabetes and back problems. If obesity levels continue to surge as projected, Texans will spend more than $23.2 billion on obesity-linked health care in 2018, or about $1,255 per adult.

    Menu labeling legislation will provide consumers with the information they need to make healthier choices. Menu labeling laws have been passed in 4 states, and have been introduced in 25 other states. City government officials have also taken up the fight, with New York City leading the way as the first city to implement this legislation. On the federal level, until June of 2009, there had been two versions of menu labeling legislation, commonly referred to as the LEAN Act and the MEAL Act. Compromise language has been taken from each of these bills, and is included in the health care bill that is currently making its way through the United States Senate. These provisions, if passed, will require chain restaurants with more than 20 locations nationally to post calorie information on their menu boards, drive through boards, and printed menus. This important legislation will be one more weapon with which consumers can fight off the obesity epidemic.

    The most exciting aspect of my research came about after I had already completed my analysis. I had the opportunity, along with my supervisor, to meet with two lobbyists from the American Heart Association to discuss the idea of beginning a grassroots campaign in Houston to promote menu labeling legislation. I hope to be able to serve on this task force and put everything I learned in my research into action!

        

By Richard Whipple, San Francisco City Hall Fellow '10

Every ten years, the federal government conducts the largest civil service mobilization in the nation:  the decennial census.  Each decade, every single resident of the United States is included in the census enumeration.  In addition to providing valuable data sets for researching and understanding the demographic composition of our nation, census information plays a critical role in dictating congressional representation and determining to whom and where over $400 billion in federal funds is distributed.  The census enumeration, in many ways, represents the best of effective federal government bureaucracy.
 
An unsung, yet mandatory member in the cast of census collaborators is local government.  Despite all the planning, organizing and well-oiled execution of the Census Bureau, the efforts by the federal government to accurately count the country’s residents fall short. With resources and representation at stake for all parts of the country, the census enumeration is highly relevant to all city governments and community organizations.
 
For some perspective, the 2000 census efforts represented record funding levels from the federal and state government.  Organization on behalf of the Census Bureau and State of California was touted as the best in any census to date.  Yet over 100,000 residents were undercounted in San Francisco alone.  Though this number was a vast improvement over previous census enumeration efforts, it still equated to a loss of over $300 million in federal funds that San Francisco could, and should, have received. 
 
What can be credited for the improvement of 2000?  And what is also needed to close the 100,000 person gap in 2010?  I propose that the answer is local government.  Of all levels of government, local government is closest to communities and residents.  In its best form, local government knows community-based organizations, understands local issues, and has trusted relationships with neighborhood leaders.  It knows what kind of messaging will resonate with communities and is more equipped to be responsive to their concerns and challenges.  Local government leaders, especially in San Francisco where I live and work, have strong relationships with the communities that they serve.  In addition, many local governments provide millions of dollars of funding to community organizations through grants and contracts.  Local governments also provide much of the services and infrastructure that residents rely on daily.
 
So how can San Francisco’s local government tip the scale to maximize results in the 2010 Census?  Through enrolling and utilizing trusted leaders in the Complete Count Committee; through entrusted reliable community groups with conducting outreach and addressing specific barriers; and through engaging City employees, departments and leaders to insert census messaging into the many interactions that they have directly with the residents of San Francisco.  As I have watched remarkable community leaders work in concert with the census bureau’s strategy, I see how local government plays a critical role in bridging the gap between the individual and the nation.  While there will always continue to be challenges and obstacles related to including all residents in census counts, San Francisco has made a remarkable effort to identify and communicate with those most likely to be left out.
 
Ultimately, the census represents more than a needed demographic analysis of the nation’s residents.  If executed correctly, the census can be a starting point for developing a relationship of trust between the undercounted and underserved communities and government.  It has the potential to change perceptions about government, and to strengthen citizen participation in the decision making process.

        

By Rachel Deason, Houston City Hall Fellow '10

On December 2nd, the Houston City Hall Fellows were incredibly fortunate to meet with Mike Feinberg, the Co-Founder of the KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) Foundation as part of our learning about local public education. For those of you who are unfamiliar with KIPP, let me give you a brief background. KIPP started in 1994 with a single Academy in Houston, Texas. Today, KIPP is a network of 82 high-performing public schools around the nation serving 21,000 children. Like Teach For America, they are committed to bridging the educational gap that exists in our country. KIPP schools meet for longer hours, and for more months out of the year than typical public schools. Teachers, parents, and students must sign a “Commitment to Excellence” that details expectations for each involved party.  These are just a few examples of the many qualities that have made KIPP such a successful endeavor.

Mike was an excellent speaker, and the enthusiasm and passion with which he runs his organization is quite evident. His program has clearly impacted thousands of students across the country, and the statistics of the “KIPPsters” that have come through his schools are impressive to say the least. The stories he shared with us were inspirational, and I’m sure there were hundreds more that we simply did not have time to hear. He served as a wonderful example of someone who has achieved great professional success while at the same time contributing to the community around him. 

However, there was one thing Mike said that stood out to me as a recent college graduate still learning to navigate her way through the working world. I have a feeling that this simple statement will serve as a road-marker for me down whichever career path I end up following. 

“Work hard. Be nice.” This is one of the tenets of the KIPP Foundation, but it is applicable to any private, public, or non-profit organization and its employees. Too often we are taught that the two must be mutually exclusive; that you can not possibly achieve great success by going around being “nice” to people. I disagree, and so does Mike Feinberg. And while my opinion may not matter, his certainly should, as he has reached the pinnacle of what anyone with aspirations of pioneering social change could hope to achieve. The daily grind would be much improved if we could all keep this simple concept at the forefront of our minds.

I’ll end with a personal anecdote from my placement within the Houston Parks and Recreation Department —  Monday morning I was walking into our new office building when I happened to see an older colleague coming down the sidewalk behind me. I wasn’t in a hurry, so without thinking much of it, I stood and held the door open for him. As he walked through, he smiled and said: “A young lady held the door open for me?! This is going to be a great week.” If I can improve someone’s week without saying a word, I can only imagine the results of everyone making a conscious effort to live by Mike’s words of wisdom.

        

By Jason Karpman, City Hall Fellow San Francisco '10

Veteran’s day was this month and I owed my grandfather a phone call. He did not sound good. My mother had told me earlier this week that he had stopped eating because he was depressed. He recently had to stop driving because of health reasons, but his new lack of mobility has only made him feel worse. He said I was the third person he had talked to all week.

He asked about my fellowship and I told him how I have been learning about sea level rise at work. The topic has become of particular concern for me since working in San Francisco’s water department. As tides rise, they will intrude into our city’s storm drain system and potentially flood the city above ground. To make the rise personally relevant for my grandpa, I mentioned that I had been shown a photograph of the old Officer's Club at Fort Ord falling into the beach as the encroaching ocean reclaims it. Since my grandpa had been stationed at Ford Ord during World War II, I felt sort of conflicted about telling him something so dismal, but he said the invitation to reflect upon the past made him feel young again, so it was OK. 

The topic of conversation quickly changed from sea level rise to reminiscing about life at an army post. Unlike a lot of other vets, my grandpa speaks fondly of the war. I think it was the closest he ever came to the college experience: he got to travel, continually meet new people, and live in close proximity to all his friends. I think that the desire to approximate that lifestyle again is what attracts many of us to live in cities. 

I wondered how different my grandfather’s life would be today if he had lived in a city instead of the suburbs of Southern California. Would losing his ability to drive have had such a profound effect on his morale? Would living in a denser community have provided him with more opportunity for social interaction? It is difficult to predict which of our choices will have the greatest impact on our future happiness, but the quality of our social lives is inextricably linked to the design of our built environment. 

I intended to write this post about sea level rise. I thought that my conversation with my grandfather would serve as a revealing anecdote to the terrifying rapidity with which our landscape is already changing. However, my grandfather’s general nonchalance around the loss of the physical structures at Fort Ord and his preference to instead talk about the loss of the social relationships with which took place there, revealed that sea level rise may have been the lesser of two evils. Living alone had already left him feeling stranded well before the water ever hits his door.     

Urban policy won’t undo the hardships of growing old, or cure social isolation, but it can mitigate some of their symptoms. What if post-war development had been targeted in cities instead suburbs? What if shared space had also been included in the marketing of the American dream? Would sea levels even be rising if cars hadn’t been so prioritized in urban design? Given the predicament that city governments face in having to plan for sea level rise, we have the opportunity to address those questions and correct previous mistakes. Some parts of our cities will have to be protected, others rebuilt, and some may even be abandoned. New development will likely look very different, but my conversation with my grandfather reminded me that some essential characteristics must be fundamentally preserved: density, pedestrian mobility, and access to public space. It is because of those design principles that nearly every time I leave my apartment that I run into someone I know on the street. Like my grandfather, it’s the potential loss of that interaction that I ultimately find most terrifying.