« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

January 28, 2008

What happens to Cascadia when U.S. wanes

I missed President Bush's State of the Union speech tonight because I was reading about how much the world has changed since he took office.

illustration from New York TimesIt's worth reading this article from the Sunday New York Times Magazine, which shows how the world is dividing into three superpowers (U.S., China and the E.U.) that will increasingly compete for the growing "second world" countries like India, Turkey, Brazil and Vietnam. There are plenty of statistics and anecdotes showing how this trend accelerated during the past eight years and will continue to do so.

I find myself thinking immediately about what this means for Cascadia. If the bellicose behavior of the U.S. over the last several years hurt America's stature, and if Canada is so small as to be irrelevant globally, what about our region? Apparently there's more trade in the Japan-India-Australia triangle than across the Pacific and more Chinese study in Europe than the U.S. Does it mean no more booming ports in Seattle and Vancouver; fewer Chinese professionals who fondly recall living in the Northwest during school?

The article offers a series of ideas for the next couple of presidents. But this region needs leaders who appreciate the examples of other countries and our peer metro areas around the world. It needs vigorous diplomacy on a regional level. And it needs more-sustainable development here to insulate us from potential global shocks through more efficient transportation, better use of resources and improvement of the cultural draws that make this part of the world a desirable place to live.

I'll try to work this out some here in the coming months. What ideas am I missing?

January 02, 2008

Making room for people and vineyards

Planners in the Portland area are divvying up land for long-term agricultural use and for development. The idea is to get beyond arguments over the region's growth management boundaries.

Farmers and developers -- often at odds on land-use issues -- say the change could provide long-term stability by preserving large blocks of the best farmland while making it clear where cities will grow.

"Once Metro adopts urban reserves -- boom -- we know where growth is going to occur," said Jim Johnson, land use and water planning coordinator for the state Agriculture Department.

Gee, why don't we trying something similar here? Instead the top story in today's Seattle Times is about a sweetheart development deal in rural King County. It seems like forcing development -- without local buy-in or a way to pay for infrastructure -- is bound to backfire.

_____

Tip Jar

For The Report

Tip Jar

_____________

______