Posted
January 31, 2007

How the Commons Transcends the Right-Left Divide

For the past decade, it has been a truism in Washington, D.C., that Congress is so ideologically divided that little of any significance can be accomplished. Yet there are new and encouraging signs that the idea of the commons, at least in terms of its expression in the community wealth/asset building field, can win bipartisan political support and help build a new community stability coalition across the ideological spectrum. Indeed, it may well be that in these divisive political times, the framework of the commons may be one of the few ideas around which a left-center-right coalition can form.

By way of example: last year, the organization I direct, The Democracy Collaborative, organized a policy roundtable in Washington, D.C., focused on political potential of community-level common ownership strategies. The session was co-sponsored by our partners at the Aspen Institute. The panel discussants represented three distinct political perspectives: Robert Borosage, co-director of the left/progressive Campaign for America’s Future; Bill Galston, a “new Democrat” in the Clinton White House and now senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; and Stephen Goldsmith, George Bush’s domestic policy advisor in the 2000 campaign and former “compassionate” conservative Republican mayor of Indianapolis.

All agreed that the idea of creating community-owned assets and anchoring commonly-held wealth locally could win support from their own distinct constituencies. (A summary of the roundtable has been posted at www.Community-Wealth.org, along with streaming video excerpts of the panel discussion.)

More recently, one of the nation?s leading conservative intellectuals and writers, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, wrote a fascinating op-ed in The Washington Post entitled “True Conservatives Should Back Metro Funding.” In this piece, Weyrich, who made his career trying to shrink the size of government, called for increased federal funding of the DC metropolitan transit system. He called it “an issue of pressing concern to citizens of all political stripes, including conservatives such as myself.” Why? According to Weyrich:

First and foremost, rail transit benefits everyone – including non-riders – by reducing traffic congestion… . Second, transit significantly aids in resource conservation. True conservatives are conservationists who are committed to passing on clean water, breathable air and natural resources for future generations… . Transit also greatly aids our communities by raising property values… . According to the Urban Land Institute, Metro is responsible for at least $25 billion in economic development… . Quite simply, dedicating federal and local funds for transit is both smart and responsible public policy. True conservatives should be lining up to support this measure… .

As a card-carrying progressive, this is the first time I can recall being aligned with Paul Weyrich. But in his passionate advocacy of a publicly-owned transit system – a commons owned by and equally available to all people – I am with him all the way.

In building these transit commons, a key ingredient is proving to be the way many cities now focus their real estate investments to encourage “transit-oriented development” (TOD). The idea behind TOD is to build greater densities near rail stations and major bus lines in order to encourage transit use and reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Of course, to the extent the development succeeds, real estate around the station can become very valuable, with the city or transit system earning millions of dollars in direct lease revenues.

The key here is that the city retains ownership of the land on behalf of the local citizenry. By combining real estate development and public transit, a municipality can raise significant non-tax revenue through such enterprising government activity. In addition to the direct financial benefit from lease payments or parcel sales, transit-oriented development also increases the number of passengers (frequently leading to an increase in fare revenues that is greater than the direct lease payments received) and expands the tax base through commercial developments centered near transit stations.

In other words, transit-oriented development can be an important part of a community wealth building strategy by helping cash-starved cities and counties raise revenue without raising tax rates, and by concentrating economic development in specific corridors, thereby reducing sprawl and increasing the efficiency of public service delivery. Cities that make extensive use of transit-oriented development include San Francisco, Portland (Oregon), Dallas, Atlanta, and, as Weyrich points out, Washington, D.C.

For more on how the transit commons is being built around the country, go to: http://www.community-wealth.org/strategies/panel/tod/index.html.