MasterPlanning! Projecting the Far Future

by Tony Chavira

So what is "the future"? It seems like a very basic question, but the answer isn't as easy as it may seem. The idea of "the future" is a very relatable concept to humanity, a part of everyday life that doesn't require thought in some cases: "if I take out the trash now, I won't have to do it in the rain tomorrow" or "going to college will lead to a higher paying job." Without dreams of what may lie in the future, why care about the present beyond your extinct to survive? Whatever we do literally doesn't matter since the future doesn't matter.

The Myth of the Far Future is this idea I wrote about that relates current Master Planning efforts to visions of the future and future city concepts. If we plan to turn any city in the United States into an urban utopia, the planning foresight must be a deliberate vision. Huge changes must be made, especially since the rate of inflation to achieve this design vision for a (conservatively) 100-year project will end up costing Los Angeles trillions, possibly quadrillions of dollars when all is said and done.

Now, there are really only two things you can do with a personal fortune: invest it or hoard it. If a ton of people collectively hoarded their money, it would probably lead to a recession thanks to stagnation (which is what anyone who still had money did in the 1930s after the stock market crash), but collectively investing money does what? Actually, we really don't know because this scenario's never happened.

art: Klaus Bürgle

This is what makes our Jetsons-like vision of the far future so mythical: the mobilization of money. City- and street-scaping efforts should be handled by the city, but with what money? Governments' budget for redevelopment are far more limited than people realize, which is why CRA, Zoning, Planning, and Building Departments throughout Southern California typically focus on one development at a time. So should the money for city development come from private investors? Does Dennis Leary have a point when he decided to pay for firehouses in New Orleans after none had been renovated since Hurricane Katrina? Does Brad Pitt have a point when he promises to literally give hundreds of homes throughout the city of New Orleans, since the Federal government has done less than nothing to alleviate the plight of the homeless population?

No. They don't. Although they are very good-hearted people to be willing to give this much money, there is such a thing called "taxes." When you pay them, you get stuff in return: police, firefighters, urbanscaping, schools, parks, roads ... things like that. When people like Dennis Leary and Brad Pitt give their own money to rebuild New Orleans' civicscape, it creates a precedent for people with money to take the responsibility in the outcomes of their communities. There are, in fact, many MANY ways that people with money can currently do this ... primarily, by developing affordable housing, and if you're interested I know a man named Jon Webb who can walk you through the process.

Here's the begging question: what do people think the government does with their taxes? Well, primarily they provide social services, but when you take those responsibilities away from the government, what's the point in paying taxes? A larger defense budget? Surprisingly, the same people so interested in massive tax cuts are equally interested in privatizing social services like schools and police. And why not? They can afford them with their massive amounts of untaxed money. Could you imagine watching the wildfires burning up all of Southern California, while the entirety of the firefighting force is in Malibu since the residents have the money to pay for firefighting services? Can you envision the size of the uneducated population in the United States when you're required to pay college tuition-sized fees to send your kid to elementary school?

What do we see in our brave far future? Where will our tax dollars go? Who will have the money to develop a collective urban vision? Do we want a future where our government takes money from the people but is no longer required to spend money on the people?

Giving tax money is, in fact, an investment. We are investing in our government and in turn praying for the possibility of the American dream. Things may change in the future, but we can't keep planning and investing with the hope that our government investment will appreciate in the end. There is no end. So instead, invest in affordable housing development and hold your officials accountable with your money. Recall them, fire them, destroy their images, break them. Do anything in your political power to make sure that your investment pays off.

I shouldn't be paying to live in America. I should be investing in the far future.