It seems like every other month there's an article by Wendell
Berry in one magazine or another.  Berry's main themes these days
are community and local economics.  He gets a lot of space in the
eco-magazines because he links these ideas to conservation.
 
At first, his ideas sound kind of quaint.  His articles are
almost Disney-esque in their romanticization of small-town life.
Berry makes small-town life in the early 1900s sound like utopia,
with his notions of neighborliness and care for the land.
 
Another of Berry's themes is the idea of local economy vs.
national and international economy.  He contends that the rise of
the national economy is a nail in the coffin (and more like many
nails in the coffin) of many local economies.  In his article in
the March-April 1993 issue of Audobon magazine, he notes that his
hometown of Port Royal, Kentucky had sixteen professional
businesses before World War II, including a doctor and a
mechanic.  Now, there are only five, one of them being the post
office.
 
Certainly, there are many such small towns in Michigan.  As a
bicyclist, I've been through many of them.  The grand, old
buildings are a testament to more prosperous times in the past.
 
So, how does the idea of a local economy connect to the idea of
community.  Berry asserts that community ties are strongly linked
to the health of the local economy.  It's another of the ties
that bind people together.  As local economies weaken, so does
the community.  People move away or they simply don't care about
local issues because their economic well-being depends not on
local conditions, but on companies hundreds or thousands of miles
away.  People just don't care if they know they may have to move
eventually to be employed.
 
To give an example closer to home, think of the users we've lost
in the last year or two.  Brian Dunkle, Tom Doehne, and Steve
Sarrica are three names that come to mind immediately.  Aren't we
poorer because these folks aren't around to participate?
Wouldn't they have stayed if our local economy had been able to
provide them with employment?
 
Berry says that the rise of the national and international
economies tend to destroy the local economy.  I think he's
talking mostly about every-day business, such as grocery stores,
hardware stores, and the like.  But, I'd say that this extends
even to high-tech businesses.  An example of this is Northern
Telecom, the company that brought me to Ann Arbor.
 
Back in the late 70s or early 80s, NT purchased Sycor, a local
manufacturer of intelligent terminals.  Throughout the 80s, NT
basically wrecked Sycor.  They took a thriving company and
bankrupted it, closing the plant completely a couple of years
ago.  In my experience, none of the managers, many of whom were
Canadian nationals or brought in from other places in the US,
really cared that much for Ann Arbor.  Many of the engineers saw
this job as just another in their migratory life as electronics
or software engineers.
 
Detroit is another good example of a local economy--and with it
the community--gone bad. Workers migrated to Detroit to work in
the factories, not build a city.  When the auto industry fell on
hard times, the community went along with it.  The people didn't
care about the city; when the jobs were gone, they picked up and
left.  Now, the only people left in Detroit are those that can't
afford to leave.
 
The question is how do we balance the needs of local economies
with the inexorable push towards national economies, and perhaps
even more importantly, international economies?  How does NAFTA
fit into this scheme?  These are all important questions.  They
will affect not only our prosperity, but our quality of life in
the future.

35 responses total.

Broken Record Bill Long: The answer is co-ops.  When people (be they  workers
or consumers or a combination of both) own the business, it is responsible to
the community.  Co-ops are more than just cutting out the capitalist's 
profit, they change the bases of many decisions, from building a factory in
Mexico to whether to carry a sugar-loaded breakfast cereal that sponsers
violent cartoon shows on TV.  It's hard to compete with Meijers or K-mart or
Wal-mart on price, but co-ops have soul.  In my never ending quest to create
bus co-ops, I keep in mind the vision of small but efficient grocery stores at
the local point where riders transfer between their express bus and local 
pick-up bus.  In may ways, as I have joked with urban planners through the 
years, we are trying to reinvent the wheel, return to civilized, walk and 
public transit cities of the past.  And it's not so distant.  I just turned
50, and grew up in a close in suburb of Chicago (Oak Park), without a car in
the family.  When I was 12 I was riding the "el" downtown to the Chicago loop.
This concern with local vs. national economies is really a result of the 
declining economy overall.  Can we compete in the world economy when 85% of 
our population lives in big, detached houses, when we spend such a hugh 
amount to cruise around in 3000 pounds of steel and plastic, with air condi-
tioner running even when it's 68 degrees outside, and automatic door locks
to protect us from our victims?  By the way folks, your air conditioner does
not filter out the pollution you are creating.

I have become acquainted with a small town in the UP and a number of its
residents. The town has a Mead Paper Company distribution yard, and a
few small shops, which cater primarily to the through tourist trade. They
had their own school once but, like a lot of small towns, with people
of child-bearing age moving away, there were too few children to justify
the school, so a consolidated school districit was formed, the few students
are all bussed to a bigger town, and the local school is closed and
boarded. One day, an entrepreneur came along, and asked to lease the school
building to use for light industry. This would have brought an employer -
and taxes - to the town. The town council, however, turned him down,
becase "it would change the town". Some more industrious local residents
are so disgusted that they think they will move on. The moral of my story
is that there are other problems in small towns besides local economies
vs national and international economies. One of these seems to be short-
sightedness.

Re #1:  I'm no fan of the current system, and am generally in favor of coops.
But they have serious costs as well.  One of them is this: how many different
businesses can one person be actively involved in?  Working at a food coop
is, say, a couple of hours a week.  But do we start distributing gasoline,
natural gas, clothes, any of the other multitude of things we may buy through
their own individual coops?  If so, I will never have time for a life if
I'm active in many of them.  But if we combine them all into superstores or
something, just run cooperatively, then as the things get bigger you become
more and more dependent on something like fulltime managers, and the
cooperative nature becomes more and more just symbolic.  Is a mutual insurance
company really any different than a standard one?

There are also costs in having things basically run by part-timers who never
really learn what you need to know to be efficient.  Quite a few years back
I stopped being involved in AA People's Food Coop; I found it intolerably
frustrating to hear people argue, in essence, that markups ("profit") were
evil, so you shouldn't save up for the new cooler you will need next year,
much less to be able to stock more things that those same people *demanded*
be stocked.  The part-timer costs go from that all the way down to more
spilled or spoiled food.  It may be worth *paying* this price; but it's
important to recognize that it is a cost built into standard cooperative
models of doing business, and one reason coops have had pretty limited
success.

Small "countercultural" co-ops tend to get mired down in politics and petty
arguement.  I know there are dangers in large co-ops, but having regular, paid
employees and a paid manager doesn't necessarily destroy the co-op spirit.  
Alot of times co-ops get taken over by people with a political mission and a 
need to impose their wills on others, hence become stiff and undemocratic.  I
think this is what happened to the Berkley co-op, which was very nice, had 
coffee shops in their super markets, and even ha
and even had a hardware store.  There's a natural food co-op in Seattle that
seems very nice and professional, runs supermarkets with alot of goods 
prepackaged (not that that's nec. good, but it saves the time and expense of
measuring everything out).  There's a single store co-op in Hyde Park in 
Chicago near the U of Chi that's probably been in bsns since the depression
(now in a store built in an urban renewal shopping center in the 60's).  
They're managed, but i think have a pretty strong democratic spirit.  I 
definately don't believe in aping capitalist supermarkets, with price manipu-
lation, etc.  Anyone who believes a co-op shouldn't have a markup to cover 
expenses and expansion is an idiot, and would probably be outnumbered if the
democratic communication forces aren't frozen by ideologues.  There's defin-
ately a freeze-of-speech problem in the U.S., especially on the left.
When you strike that middle ground between day-to-day involvement in operations
and "democratic dictatorship," you have a workable co-op not require alot of
time on your part.  Further, groups of co-ops that you may want to have share
in and use may be owned by a co-op mutual fund comprising strictly of shares
in your co-ops, and voting according to your policy preferences, keeping you
informed of developments just like a lawyer on retainer keeps his client 
abreast of news affecting his interests.  This would not mean that you could
not step in at any given moment and excercise direct control of your votes.
This co-op mutual fund does not at this time exist.  I am trying to organize
bus co-ops as a base and expand into food, etc. from there.  One of these 
days: Co-op Mutual Funds!

Part of the problem (my turn to be a broken record) is the inexorable
growth over the past generation or more in the population base needed
to sustain any viable community institution.

Fifty years ago, in this part of Michigan, even small townships with
a thousand or so people, and villages with less than that, had a very
active political life.  Elections were held annually in April, and each
township's 14 or so elected seats would be contested every year.

A hundred years ago, it was even more intense.  I've seen a ballot from
a Delhi Township (Ingham County) election from the 1890's; there were
four parties, about 20 offices, and every space in the grid was filled
(about 80 candidates).  Especially considering that the township only
had about 400 voters at the time, that's pretty impressive.

Today, smaller townships have only five elected seats, and the elections
are held at Presidential elections every four years.  Contested elections
or primaries are rare.  Incumbent officials are almost never opposed.
Sometimes nobody files petitions for a seat, and it's won by a write-in.
And this despite the fact that Michigan townships have never had so many
people or so many problems!

Small churches, small school districts, the business organizations of
small town downtowns, small service clubs, etc., etc., are all suffering
similar fates.  The fundamental reason is that people don't have the time
for these things that they used to.  Housewives, formerly an enormous
pool of volunteer labor for community projects, are practically extinct.
Improved transportation and communications have relieved the isolation
of rural hamlets and small towns, but also encouraged people to become
interested in other things.  The death of the locally-owned newspaper
(its purchase by a chain, or disappearance in favor of a metropolitan
paper) led immediately to drastically less coverage of local events and
interests.

Do *you* know who your neighbors are?  Do you even care?

Well, Milan (population under 5000, though a larger area is in question here)
has ***3*** weekly newspapers.  I confess to being baffled.

The loss of available time is indeed a major factor.  But it's also true
that "despite the fact that Michigan townships have never had so many
people or so many problems" there's not a whole lot local governments can
*do* about their problems.  One reason for this, discussed a lot in (I think)
the original posting, is that people aren't localized any more.  (I live in
Milan but work in A2 - actually in Scio Twp.  I suspect that the *majority*
of Milanites work elsewhere.)  But also, the room for self-governance has
basically been preempted by the state and federal governments over the last
century and especially the last 50 years, both in terms of legislation and
in terms of taxation.

(I'm *never* a broken record, right?)

Scratchy, maybe.

You've hit the nail on the head, Dave.  Why do you live in one place,
yet work in another?  How many AA residents actually work in the
Detroit area?  Do we realize how much time this eats up?  First, there
is the commute time, the time needed to take care of the car (get gas,
maintenance, etc.), and then the time needed to run back and forth for
entertainment, etc.

I think Berry would say, too, that people today want too much.  One of
the reasons we have no time is because we want to do too much.

I agree entirely.  I **hate** commuting.  (We could not afford to live in
Ann Arbor, or really anywhere closer to Ann Arbor.)

I only commute 500 miles/wk, 3 hours/day.  What's the big deal?:) 

(Yes, I know my neighbors, except for the ones that moved in about a month
ago.  Every year they have a block party in front of our house for the 16
families on our street)

#8: I don't know about here, but back in Toronto, there are very, very few
    people who work in downtown Toronto who can afford to live anywhere near
    downtown Toronto. Of course, Toronto has something called public transit,
    something I'm not sure exists in this area. Public transit (a good one
    at that) produces more commuters, and few people feel compelled to live
    in downtown.

#5: I know who our neighbours are. Actually, only some of them. I've only
    lived here for three years. I lived in a house in Toronto ("big" city)
    for about 5 years and I talked to my next door neighbour once or twice,
    and they're even Chinese (Cantonese, but what the hell). It wasn't just
    me either -- I never saw neighbours talking to each other. Everyone
    was too busy working, making loads of money (so they can live on a 
    expensive street where no one knew anyone else), and keeping up with 
    their neighbours' material possessions (though they never talked to 
    each other). A very interesting street, indeed. (BTW, just to throw a
    wrench into the gears, everyone on that street were either Jews or
    Chinese -- both big money holders in Toronto). 

My wife and I have lived in our house for 3 years.  We don't really *know*
many of the neighbors.  Part of this is due to the age difference.  Most
of our immediate neighbors were original owners when the subdivision was
created 20 years ago.  We have more in common with their children, actually...

   I've lived in my neighborhood for fifteen years (since I was five months
old) and know most of my neighbors.  Most of the people in my neighborhood know
eachother.  Is this a really weird neighborhood, or what?

I lived in my old neighborhood for five years, where the houses were about
10 feet apart, and knew about 2 or 3 of my neighbors.  In my new "neighbor-
hood" where the nearest neighbor is a mile away, I know twice as many w/in
3 months. Hmm, make that 100 times as many, my kids are in girl scouts now.

Your nearest neighbor is literally a mile away?  This is in Washtenaw
County?  I didn't know we had areas so sparsely populated.

Yup. West of Manchester Village, in the township of Manchester.  The minimum
lot size is 2 acres. We are at the back end of a 120 acre undeveloped area, 
with adjacent 80 acres also undeveloped. I am at the juncture of Wastenaw
and Jackson counties. It's great, except for deer season:(

This whole "world village" is a result of revolutions in transportation and
communications.  Cites were first founded at natural harbors and good locations
on rivers, often at river junctions.  Railroads freed development the the
necessity of being on water.  With the interstate highway system, the science
of economic geography practically died... you could put a factory anywhere, 
not even necessarily on a rail line.  Container ships and double stack freight
trains have so lowered the cost of shipping long distances that "national,"
not just "local" has lost its meaning.  We have a very pertinent-to-this-item
debate going on right now- "NAFTA."  As cheap as it is to ship from Asia on
container ships, Mexico, with its close proximity w/o slow ships will further
take away the "home advantage."  Will our refrigerators soon be imported?
Building panels?

'lil grass shacks so we can afford to live indoors?

Is it drift to state that I support NAFTA simply as an extention of
Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution. It's part of the Americanization
of the planet, a relative copy ofthe European Common Market, which
was debate with the same vocabulary some 20+ years ago.

As far apart as the economies of Greece & Spain are from those of France &
Germany, the gap b. US & Canada, on the one hand, and Mexico is huge.  Besides
wage differences the whole environmental protection package, as poor as it it
N. of the Rio Grande, far exceeds that to the south.  Corruption is much worse
in US than most peeps are aware, but in Mexico it rages.

Re 21.  "Corruption is much worse in US than most peeps are aware ..."
Your oh-so-chic cynicism really undercuts your argument.  I was skeptical
about NAFTA from the beginning, but I'm starting to feel some sympathy
for the thing when it's attacked with cheap, mindless garbage like this.

I've been involved in politics for more than twenty years, starting with
the antiwar and environmental movements in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
I've served in numerous elected, appointed, and political party offices.
I've seen the political system, in detail, from the inside, been at times
frustrated, fascinated, disgusted, amused, and whatever other reactions
that any organized or unorganized human activity can inspire in a person.

Yeah, there are plenty of problems, examples of pettiness and self-dealing
and greed.  I've got plenty of "war stories" about embezzling treasurers,
biased judges, vindictive councilmen, etc.  However, these stories are
interesting precisely because they are the exception.  At least in Michigan,
I can say with some authority, it just isn't all that bad.  

If you weren't so blinded by your automatic sneering mechanism, you'd
notice that the level of political and bureaucratic corruption varies
from state to state within the U.S.  The blithe assumption that "all
politicians everywhere are corrupt" tends to be self-fulfilling, since it
makes it impossible to get rid of the ones who are.

Re 21.  Now that I've finished blowing up over that one sentence of
yours, let me acknowledge that your overall point is valid.

Larry, I took him to be making a statement of fact, not sneering.  (And I
think he's probably wrong; there are so many people who do make the blithe
assumption you mention that they swing the balance that way.)

There may be a common misconception in Bill's "Corruption is much worse
 in US than most peeps are aware,". That is a confusion between corruption
and supporting one's own self interest. While this can approach polygon's
"pettiness and self-dealing ", it is nevertheless the basis of our
democracy: that our representatives represent our local perspectives and
desires - our self interest (dealing, if you wish). It is corruption when
it is done for the politico's personal gain, but this is very much
constrained by law now. In regard to NAFTA, if required to make a choice
(I haven't been asked), I support it. I have to do this mostly on the
general support I've seen for it among those that understand these things
better than I do, but I've read that the country's foremost economists 
of *both* political persuasion, have sent a joint letter to Clinton in
support. One of their arguments is that the net effect of NAFTA, even
if favorable, will hardly be noticeable in the US economy. That is, it
is probably a trivial favorable adjustment, but even if it has some
unfavorable consequences, they will not be serious.

It may hurt a little in the short tun, but the long haul seems very
favorable.  I mean, think about the kind of improvements that will have
to be made in mexico within the next twenty years to bring them up to
par with the U.S. and Canada.  Lots of money will be made there in the
near future.

The whole NAFTA flap sure shows how far the "labor movement" has come in
40 or 50 years: from internationalistic/free-trade-all-the-way/only-dirty-
capitalists-support-protectionism to we've-got-ours-and-let's-keep-it-
that-way.  (Business, on the other hand, seems quite consistent:
screaming for protection whenever free trade means successful foreign
competition for the particular business.)

<sigh>

Is anyway interested in discussing what community means know in 1997 now
that the global networked economy is becoming ubiqitous?  How do we transfer
"information" about other cultures ans ways of doing things into our local
communities in a sustainable fashion.  Perhaps as a concrete example we
could discuss the Food Co-Op v.s. Whole Foods as models for providing
ecologicaly grown food to Ann Arbor.

We collect food orders from several friends via e-mail, organize the order
on a spread-sheet and FAX it to Madison WI. once a month.  A week later a
BIG semi rolls up to our door and unloads what we ordered.  We notify the
others via e-mail and the twisted pair and they all come over to party and
pick up their Co-Op food orders.  We also buy much of our produce directly
from local farmers.  Soon we'll be growing some of it in our own back yard.
We almost never go to Krogers, etc.
 
BTW, there is a nice produce store located in the Cider Mill in Dexter!
 
I guess I don't really understand #28...

re #29 Ah but you did understand #28 that was exactly the sort of response
I was looking for is concrete ways we can use electronic information to
build sustainible communites.  Good for you using infotech to support 
cooperative businesses and local farmers!

The info-tech way is OK, but I must say that I really do enjoy going out
and buying stuff directly from the farmers.  Talking with them, watching
the activity, seeing their homes and equipment, etc.  "Small" family owned
farms are becoming fewer and fewer.  Some of them supplement their incomes
by selling honey, jams, sweet corn, eggs, baked goods, etc.  Most of them
are very friendly, resourceful people and you will have to wait a
generation or two before you can interact with them via computer.

re #31.  Would your coop want to deal directly with a farmer friend of ours
who lives near Manchester and grows potatoes, onions, squash, brussels
sprouts, peppers and tomatoes, and if you have enough people involved, might
be willing to grow other things?  All organic.  And they have e-mail.(Change
that to Chelsea, not Manchester).  And are supposed to be building a root
cellar.

Have them call The Peoples Food Coop!

He already sells to the Coop, Arbor Farms and Whole Foods.  They mark up the
wholesale price to about double, and will only buy large and blemish-free
stuff.  (The coop is a bit more reasonable than the others).  He has lots of
small potatoes and slightly nibbled squashes looking for a home, would your
buying group want any?

They will only buy large and blemish-free stuff?  Boy, the pesticide-free
framing industry is getting pretty persnickity!  I would suspect that our
buying club would be quit interested in the nibbled and blemished stuff.
I will pass this along to them.  Thank you!

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss