written from Madison, Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed and health/toxics information)
(find your bioregion/watershed and health/toxics information)
|
|
|
|
|
written from Madison, Upper Rock, Wisconsin
(find your bioregion/watershed and health/toxics information) |
||
At 04:33 PM 1/29/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi everyone
>
>I am in an interesting situation. I recently became involved with the
>Statewide Transportation Plan for Texas (PlanIt Texas) and fortunately, it
>was agreed upon that the overall framework and organizing principle for the
>plan would be the bioregion concept. We agreed to produce a document in
>which all of our data was supposed to be arranged on this framework. It all
>sounded great, in theory, but in practice, we're finding it to be harder
>than we thought. For instance, how do you aggregate population projections
>for counties based on a bioregion that does not follow county boundaries?
>ANother predicament we're having is the "bio-regions" of Texas do not really
>account for the human dimension of the word "bio"; they are strictly based
>on vegetation and soils and non-human animals -- all of which are related,
>but settlement patterns and human locational decisions are, too, based on
>these parameters. Moreover, I'm finding it difficult to use the bioregion
>concept to assist in transportation planning, in particular. It seems to me
>that transportation projects and highway projects in particular, are
>notorious for, if nothing else, breaking the boundaries of nature, going
>through mountains, allowing for us to get further and further away from home
>and our regional sense of place, using more and more fossil fuels in the
>process. Trying to negotiate these ideas, but having little luck. I feel
>like using bioregions for this plan may be straining or pushing a
>connection, although I sense there is a connection and something to be
>learned from using this concept... Any thoughts?
>
>
>
Hello,
In a comparison of various state level land use states and attempts at state level land use planning (13 total, some were politically demoted) in the United States, I pointed to exactly what you are talking about: how most of the counties and particularly state boundaries and transportation infrastructures in the United States are urbanophilic, instead of bioregionally integrated. What do I mean by urbanophilic?
Urbanization, in terms of human ecological perspectives, is typically a bioregional boundary phenomenon. Thus, transportation infrastructures typically have little to do with bioregionalism (which I take here as defined by the EPA's mapping division, www.epa.gov, along watersheds). As the fingers of water always flow to the sea, fingers of water all point to (or away, rather) the certain material edge boundaries of bioregions. The Continental Divide is an example (a large example) of a bioregional boundary. This watershed criteria for a planning perspective is legitimate, because it is simultaneously a population perspective, or decisive of where population can materially aggregate (unless you are southern California, which steals water from all across the Southwest through an infrastructure that has nothing to do with bioregionalism.) Urbanization crops up between various environmental contexts, like a crossroad between transportation paths, like mountain passes or river crossings (to other rivers or lakes).
Think about that in terms of how political boundaries are drawn.
Historically, urbanophilic county and state line surveying techniques typically have institutionalized the borders of counties/states in the United States as these mountains, rivers, and streams, making the 'border areas' of the socially drawn states on the map very urbanophilic. This has split the politics around urbanization and planning in the United States in many ways because the geo-political divisions are 'out of phase' with the urban infrastructure system of cities as well as the transportation network. The urban networks are acutely federal because they are state borderline phenomena for the most part. Boundaries were drawn with environmental crossing/urbanophilic affinity aspects. Thus, you get a context where the parameters of the plan (that uses out of phase state borders) are cross-bioregional to begin with. Thus we get two Kansas City(ies) in two different states, for example. Most of "Wisconsin's cities" are federal border phenomena with other states, instead of exclusively "Wisconsin cities."
This is the problematic context as well as the challenge in which we attempt to apply bioregional methods presently.
The United States is known/legitimated as a 'federation of 50 states.' Its closer in practice to a federal system of cities that have nothing to do with the 50 states, with a transportation infrastructure that has nothing to do with bioregionalism, and with two parties that district for their incumbency instead of for competitive districts. This amalgam of border cities, federal transportation networks, and uncompetitive district/incumbent party arrangements is the United States. These three points have everything to do with maintaining this human health/environmental degradative framework, and nothing to do with sustainability.
So, what do we do in a situation where urbanization--what we are attempting to plan around--is a cross border, cross-state federal political phenomena? We move towards planning for making the interior of a state or county urbanophilic instead of its borders, we move towards transportation frameworks that facilitate this, and we take issue with the districting arrangements. What else do we do?
(1) Even though it was demoted, Nixon in the early 1970s was seeking to require federal requirements for state level land use planning. This state level planning could work for many areas, however a federal framework of urbanization that is organized around the boundaries between states requires a different integrative approach, likely cross-state to the state's involved, or at least cross state in the bioregions of the states involved which are halved (or quartered) by the states involved. This means intergovernmental cooperation contexts across borders for urban issues.
(2) Plot all the bioregions that the state touches, instead of only those that are within the 'state.' Work with that in mind, particularly in intergovernmental cooperation between states. Wed the intergovernmental cooperation with that geographical technique, bioregionalism as the criteria of inclusion, because it is both states' bioregional issue.
(3) What can be done for a planner of transportation, working with bioregional tools? This is to misunderstand transportation infrastructures as well as well researched human ecology data about urbanization. However, I offer a few ideas: if anything, attempt to 'coagulate' the bioregion (instead of demote it) as much as possible. Aim for consolidating/creating a central place within a particular bioregion with the transportation network, instead of following the boundaries of counties/bioregions/states, etc., otherwise you are building a political and environmental hydra. Hire an urban sociologist to help you, as a consultant. ;-)
(4) As we move towards a more environmentally aware sense of how our built environments (including the drawing of borders as part of the built environment) and consumptive frameworks influence particular patterns of settlement (urban and rural) keep in mind the political districting frameworks would be an excellent way to integrate bioregionalism, and make districting more politically independent, by removing the gerrymandering of highly uncompetitive districts of the Democratic and the Republican parties, so that an environmental politics will stop being split across various districts as a 'minority' voice. After all, in any poll that I see that environmentalism has a clear majority. What is at issue is how districts are designed around making secure (uncompetitive) districts for the POI (the Party of Incumbency). Plus, the majoritarian voting practices that keep any third party from entering the picture are important for keeping the POI in power. Plus, there are various ways third parties are discriminated against in getting on the ballot by the POI.
Simply because the political districts are drawn in a certain way, it only looks like Green in a 'minority' everywhere. The polls show otherwise. At present, with the districting frameworks organized by the POI, it's made to work out that way. Check www.fairvote.com for various maps of states (and the article below).
Districts matter to bioregionalism on the state voting level as well as the federal voting level. How can any area be geographically representative or competitive if the POI draws the districts? Note that political district drawing is a very private affair of the POI, as seen in the article below. There is nothing like an independent commission established by the state for drawing democratic, competitive party districts--though Minnesota has been talking about it. This districting is essentially the skeleton key for how very unrepresentative parties keep getting into power. They drew the map around you and me--and the map that split the vote of you and me. This splits up the potential politics of urban and 'rural' voting by bioregion presently, to the demise of the bioregion and human/environmental health. A different politics is possible with different biophilic districts because that would change the particular groups a candidate would be required to appeal to in the long run, a candidate that represents a region instead of a party (which was the idea of the United States in the first place). Particularly put an urban sociologist and an environmental sociologist on the districting committee.
What can be more securely bioregional based in urban planning issues, are issues that are likely left out of the Texas plan: those of consumption, land use, farm space, citizenship involvement, political representation, housing, etc. etc.--aspects of living which are endemically proximate, instead of related to travel between bioregions which is your task presently. I suggest several points above that I hope are helpful.
Where does Texas particularly fit into this surveying/bioregional issue? From looking at a county map of Texas once, it has a rather mixed surveying technique, around urbanophilic in the southeastern parts of Texas for counties, and more abstract in the rest of the state, as if they changed their mind mid-survey on techniques. Go to: http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/natlasstart.asp and see for yourself.
This of course, historically, has thus influenced Texas particularly and the degree of the politico-geographic 'phase' of Texas urban areas. I looked at these types of maps for awhile. I think Texas was the only state that had a visibly dissonant 'two-technique' survey technique for drawing counties. Most of the western United States looks like west Texas county borders. Most of southeast Texas looks like the eastern United States more urbanophilic boundaries.
In addition, I could pass this work onto state level planning attempts to anyone who is interested. Email me.
And--
has anyone heard of New York City's attempts to work with New York upstate farmers in securing reduced or zero pesticides in its city water supply? What is happening with that? It was mentioned by an acquaintance I know here in Madison, though I have yet to hear about this.
Could someone direct me to a web site about the Texas state plan? It is only transportation and a few other factors or is Texas planning for a comprehensive document?
Thus, frameworks are of the built environment 'out of phase' from the commencement, and for the moment. Bioregionalism requires that we address border lines as an environmental and urban phenomenon of planning importance. Thus, transportation infrastructure typically would be what demote bioregionalism (or if you were more optimistic, you could say 'integrate') instead of maintain it for the most part. Though I hinted at what can be done above as a general principle.
In short, it seems to me at issue is more than planning, it is how the boundaries of states historically effect the planning political boundaries, which are unfortunately urbanophilic instead of the state itself. States have sticky edges when they are drawn on urbanophilic boundaries. This matters a great deal, as applied bioregionalism attempts to correct and parse this hydra of politics and the built environment into manageable biophilic areas, instead of being a phenomenon that transverses and demotes bioregionalism.
The infrastructures we use matter a great deal on how development plays out, and I'm glad that someone is interested in applied bioregionalism to that purpose.
Regards,
Mark Whitaker
University of Wisconsin-Madison
a particularly appropriate news article about districting follows.
my title for it (a quote from the article):
"We do want to maintain a status quo," said Rep. Ed McMahan,
January 28, 2001, Sunday, BC cycle
SECTION: State and Regional
LENGTH: 995 words
HEADLINE: "We do want to maintain a status quo," said Rep. Ed McMahan, about redistricting in North Carolina
BYLINE: By GARY D. ROBERTSON, Associated Press Writer
DATELINE: RALEIGH, N.C.
BODY:
Want to know how crucial redistricting is to Democrats and Republicans at
the opening of the General Assembly?Look at the election of Rep. Jim Black as House speaker. His victory
could have turned dicey had Democrats not agreed to give Republicans
half the spots on the House Redistricting Committee.Over in the Senate, look at the redistricting committee's leader, who
headed to Texas this weekend for a national conference to learn the
intricacies of redistricting law."I've got a lot to learn about what the law is," said Sen. Brad Miller,
D-Wake, the Senate committee's senior chair. "The Supreme Court
cases on this topic alone are 5 inches thick.... Just a little light
reading."Even with the current $500 million budget hole, General Assembly members
know that the maps drawn for legislative and congressional districts for
the next 10 years could shift the political landscape - and each
lawmaker's future."If the budget and money matters are our No. 1 concern, redistricting is
a close second," Black, D-Mecklenburg, said in his acceptance speech.
"For some, it probably outranks the budget."The state Constitution requires the state House and Senate to redraw
districts for the General Assembly and U.S. House following each Census.
The new boundaries would be used beginning in 2002.State figures released last month gave North Carolina a population of
8,049,313, a 21 percent increase from 1990 and just enough to edge out
Utah for another congressional seat, for a total of 13.Black reached a deal with Republicans minutes before the speaker election
to give each party one co-chair and an equal number of committee members.
The co-chairs have not been announced.The House and Senate committees each will approve their own congressional
district plan, then negotiate a compromise. The panels also will approve
maps for their respective chambers.The House committee's split will give both parties the best opportunity
to preserve incumbents' districts while forming boundaries that will
withstand legal challenges, Republican House members say."We do want to maintain a status quo," said Rep. Ed McMahan,
R-Mecklenburg, believed to be a leading contender for GOP co-chair.The real work won't get started until after mid-March, with the release
of detailed figures and maps showing where population shifts occurred.Census estimates during the 1990s point to more legislative districts in
the prosperous Piedmont, at the expense of the Coastal Plain and some
mountain areas. There's also speculation that a 13th district will be
carved out of current Piedmont districts, or allow for a third district
favoring black candidates.The maps created by the General Assembly "overall will show the urban
areas picking up a larger share of the districts, and rural districts
losing influence," said John Davis,executive director of NC FREE, a business
political research group in Raleigh.Federal law requires the population of each of the 13 districts to be nearly identical
[in population]. That would be at or near 619,178 people per district.Both parties will work to protect incumbents as the 13th district is
created. The GOP currently has a 7-5 advantage in the congressional
delegation.Committee leaders hope two federal court cases affecting redistricting in
North Carolina will be resolved soon.The Supreme Court is to rule for the ****fourth time in eight years**** on the
shape of the 12th Congressional District.A 12th district with a majority-black population was created following
the 1990 Census when the Justice Department said a second black
district was necessary. Rep. Mel Watt waselected in 1992 to represent an
area that twisted along Interstate 85 from Gastonia to Durham.The justices later ruled that election districts drawn to favor minority
groups may be illegal if they violate the rights [i.e. the parties] of white voters.The ruling prompted legislators to condense the district twice, putting
some voters in three different districts during the 90s. But the General
Assembly claims politics, and not race, was the primary factor in forming
the
new boundaries. The Supreme Court will issue an opinion by July that
could provide a roadmap for all states as to how race can be used to
create districts.A second legal fight involves Utah, which claims the Census Bureau
undercounted its population and it, not North Carolina, should have
received an additional congressional seat.The case will be heard by a
three-judge federal panel in March.Redrawing state House and Senate districts also will have to meet
standards of the Voting Rights Act. But the population of each district
won't have to be identical: each House member will represent about 67,000
people and each senator about 161,000.Unlike congressional redistricting, reworking the districts of
legislative seats is more delicate because the boundaries of the
seats of its own members are involved.Democrats will dominate the Senate committee - they've received 25 out of
31 seats, reflecting the party's 35-15 advantage in the chamber. Democrats
in the House have a slight 62-58 advantage.An increase in Republican and unaffiliated voter registration over the
past 10 years could ultimately create more suburban districts that draw
power historically held by Democrats in the east, Davis said.Some House Republicans are interested in eliminating multi-member
districts, where voters choose two or three lawmakers to represent them."We ought to look at the multiple-member districts and get rid of as many
as we can," McMahan said. "It cost a lot of money and is a bigger burden
on a candidate to run in these big districts."Faster computers and improved software since 1990 could make it easier to
create maps. But it could also mean an onslaught of proposals, making any
plan harder to approve."We will probably have 50 plans, or 120 plans," Black said, referring to
the membership of the Senate and the House.#########
link to a map of the present congressional districts of the United States
link to a map of the majoritarian districts of Wisconsin, compared to the bioregions of Wisconsin
link to www.fairvote.org, where you can see the irregular majoritarian districts.
Choose 'redistricting.' This site discusses the degree to which they are uncompetitive as well, with 60+ Congressional representatives and senators 'returning' to Congress without having been challenged when they 'ran' for election. There were over 90 of them in 1996. For a sense of scale, there are only 535 members of Congress total (435 House; 100 Senate). The size of the Congress is adjusted occassionally. The House of Representatives has been at 435 since 1910. Additionally, incumbency as a phenomenon is over 90% in the United States as well. There is very little 'running' for office in the United States. Why is this so? Some of this was explained above. See the other pages for more.
other pages on the bioregional state, keep reading them in order (recommended)
or
last updated: January 27, 2002 1:23 AM
