On charrette!

So I'm finally experiencing a charrette first hand. I wish I had the energy to write all about it here. Luckily, there's another blogger (though I probably shouldn't say "another" as I'm hardly a blogger these days) writing about it for me. Go here to read all about it.

What an idea!

In the year 1898, Mr. Ebenezer Howard published a little book entitled "To-morrow," in which...he suggested that it would be comparatively easy to try the experiment of developing a town on the precisely opposite and obviously rational method of first making a plan, and, by the exercise of foresight, providing in that plan for all public needs likely to arise, and then securing the development of the town along the lines of this plan. [Emphasis mine].

- Raymond Unwin, "Of Civic Art as the Expression of Civic Life," from his book, Town Planning In Practice, published first in 1909.

Water rights

At work the other day, I was streaming NPR through iTunes while eating lunch and heard this story about water issues in Nevada and Arizona, an area that has been experiencing a 11-year drought but at the same time is developing at a rapid pace, with green golf courses and artificial lakes. The town of Mesquite in Nevada is purchasing water, quite cheaply, from the state of Arizona. They are able to do this because of laws saying that water is a commodity that cannot be restricted in trade. This is causing worries in Beaver Dam, Arizona, which is also tight for water, and as described by one of the citizens of Beaver Dam, is creating a situation of "your development versus my development."

As most people probably would be, I was appalled at not just the quantity of development going on, but the type of development in Mesquite as it was described in the story. I understand somewhat the reason why water, as something we all need, cannot be restricted in trade between states. But why isn't someone restricting the development that is going on in these arid areas? Why the lush golf courses and new lakes? It seems like, in an area that has been experiencing drought for over a decade, local municipalities should disallow, or at least make extremely expensive, developments that do the opposite of converse water. If you can't make water expensive, at least make the wasting of water expensive. Of course, maybe the local government in Nevada doesn't care about the wasting of water, as long as it's Arizona's water.

Old job/new job

This week was fairly eventful. On Thursday afternoon I drove out to Beaverton for the groundbreaking ceremony for Merlo Station Apartments. Merlo Station Apartments is the 128-unit, transit-oriented affordable housing development that I assisted with as an intern for about three months. It was a position I took following the end of my AmeriCorps term last summer, with Tualatin Valley Housing Partners, which is the non-profit community development corporation(CDC)I was serving with for AmeriCorps. It was exciting to witness this point of the process. Much of what I did at TVHP as the Community Development intern was assist with financial due dilligence, and to hear that the project had closed and was beginning construction, after all the obstacles and delays, was heart-warming. It was also nice to see my old colleagues again after a few months. Now that I finally have my driver's license, I can drop by TVHP more frequently just to say hi, or grab lunch with my old boss. Though the horrible, crawling rush-hour traffic I encountered on my way home was almost enough to quash that idea completely.

Today I started a new job, a very part-time position with the Community Alliance of Tenants. I've served as a volunteer with the Community Alliance of Tenants for over a year now, answering questions for tenants regarding Landlord-Tenant Law on the Renter's Rights Hotline. Recently CAT received a grant to partner with local county and city health and habitability agencies to do a needs assessment for substandard housing in Portland. So they hired me and a few others to develop tools for researching substandard housing in Portland and its impact on the health of tenants. This focus was based on research they did last year wherein they discovered that a startling percentage of tenants who called the hotline because their landlords were not doing repairs attributed health issues to their housing conditions.

Today I went through a few months of log sheets from the renter's rights hotline, picking out and copying logs from the appropriate geographic areas for tenants that called about repair issues. Later we'll do outreach to these individuals to gather more information. It was fairly monotonous work, but I don't mind that kind of work occasionally, and I came across some old logs that I had completed in my first weeks as a hotline volunteer, which was kind of interesting. All in all it's a nice situation--I'll be working only about 4 hours a week, for the next 16 months, which seems like an odd schedule but works well because it brings in a little extra money without being a huge commitment. Soon I'll have keys to the church where CAT is headquartered, so I'll be able to come in and do work whenever is convenient for me, and the church is within comfortable biking distance both from NCI and home. It's nice when you can get paid for something you were already volunteering to do.

Momentum lost?

Today was my last day of jury duty. Or, I should say, jury-related duties, as Monday was our last day of actually hearing cases. We wrapped up with only a slightly complex one that involved burglary (which by the way, is not necessarily breaking and entering or stealing, but only entering a place you know you are not supposed to be and either committing or intending to commit a crime there), menacing and trespassing. Today I went to work for three hours, then biked downtown to sign my last indictments and meet the other jurors for a sort of celebratory lunch. Actually, only five of the seven of us attended. The other two did not attend, and coincidentally or not, they also happened to be the two frustrating jurors who voted according to their personal opinions and not according to what they were supposed to be considering. Coincidentally or not, these two jurors also happened to deeply resent, perhaps even hate me, as foreperson. But these other four jurors were great people, and very kind, and I was happy to meet and work with them. And we shared the occasional laugh at the expense of the other two jurors (not in a mean way of course).

All in all, the experience was very educational and even fun at times. I was a little sad it was over, though I am looking forward to sleeping in a little and a weight has certainly been lifted. I was a bit more stressed this month, not being able to get as much done at work and also being frustrated by the two problematic jurors. Not to mention the cases. Though the majority of them were fairly straightforward, they were all sad, and all the various facts of them tend to settle in the back of your mind for awhile. One of the other jurors had a good idea that it would be interesting to attend some of the trials for the individuals we indicted, if only to just see that side of the system.

So today we handed over our notes for filing and were formally discharged by the judge. Then we parted ways. A major thing I consider valuable from this experience was that it was an opportunity to meet and work closely with people I would never have crossed paths with otherwise. We exchanged a few cards but of course I doubt we'll ever cross paths again. Though one of my favorite jurors is the chaplain at Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, which is predominantly a women's prison. As chaplain he oversees a lot of the volunteer programs there. Maybe once I get my driver's license and can do the commute I'll try some volunteering there. I think it would be another educational experience, and a nice excuse to connect with him again.

So as the title of this post implies, I'm concerned I may have lost some momentum, what little momentum I had, on this blog. But I expect that as my free time starts to accumulate again, I'll find more time to post. Another interesting development, that I'll have more news on this weekend, is that I'll probably be starting a very part-time job with the Community Alliance of Tenants, doing research and surveying regarding apartment habitability. So that will be fun, and a little extra cash, and something to write about. I'm debating about whether or not to continue volunteering with the Immigration Counseling Service, or to try something a little different that perhaps utilizes me a bit better.

By the way, a few weeks ago we had our NCI Board retreat, which is an annual meeting when all the Board members come to Portland, and I had a chance to chat with a board member who is an environmental lawyer and has decades of urban planning and international-related experience. As expected, he told me I shouldn't become a lawyer, and that the urban planning degree will actually be more useful for what I want to do than the law degree. I had begun to suspect this, although my original motivation for going to law school was the impression that it would open doors for me, so to speak, and so it was interesting to hear that law is not actually as useful a degree as it used to be. It also is more competitive and less lucrative than it used to be. But, of course, after telling me I shouldn't study law he allowed me a series of caveats that ultimately only strengthened my resolve. Curiously enough, at this point my idea of what I want to do, ultimately, with my life (originally, it was do urban planning abroad) has become fluid, and studying law for the sake of studying law, because it actually interests me, has become a higher priority.

To bring it all full circle, it was interesting to hear what some of my fellow jurors volunteered to me on one of our last days. One of the ones I get along with (the guy who's my age, has a newborn son and digs graves for a living) told me I should go to law school. One of the jurors I never could get along with, who told me I was on a "power trip" (who happens to be a female, middle-aged neuroscience researcher at OHSU) concurred, and told me I was very analytical and would be good at law. This was very nice to hear, since I hadn't told any of the jurors I was interested in law, afraid that this might taint their perspective of me as foreperson. And though I never though I would ever want to work in criminal law, I found our work very engaging, and even caught a few of the D.A.s on missing or incomplete charges. Our system of legal statutes is sort of like a strange puzzle (I'm picturing Tetris, where certain pieces fit with other pieces to clear away obstacles). I'm not saying it's the best game in town, but perhaps one worth learning.

Grand Jury

Meet the new foreperson for one of the three Grand Juries of the Multnomah County court.

I reported for jury duty on Monday expecting to be out for a day or two. But my name was called with the first pool, which happened to be a pool for two grand juries. The grand jury is a 28 day commitment, either for half a day or a full day, Monday through Friday. You're only given a small stipend, and I probably could have begged off since my work doesn't compensate me for jury duty like some do, but since I managed to get on the jury that only requires you from 8 am to noon, I didn't fight it.

And then I volunteered to be foreperson.

So today was my second day of cases. I'll probably post again at the end of my 28 days when I'm more of an expert on the process (since I probably won't be posting much in between, since blogging about jury duty is obviously not gonna fly, and I won't have time to think about much else since I'm planning to cram 32 hours a week of work into my spare time). But for those of you who, like me, were not previously familiar with the concept of a grand jury, here's a little introduction.

A grand jury hears multiple cases each day, something like 120-200 over 28 days. The selection was pretty much just based on who could sacrifice their time to serve (i.e. you aren't the sole proprietor of your business, or a nursing mother, or you wouldn't experience extreme financial hardship because your work doesn't compensate you for jury duty). Grand Jurors don't actually hear trials; we're the ones who indict the case to be taken to court. We hear testimony from the prosecution's witnesses and decide "true" or "not true" based on whether we see that evidence as being enough to potentially convict the defendant, without taking into account any counter-evidence or defense. We have our own grand jury room, and the deputy district attorneys and their witnesses come to us. Some cases take as little as ten minutes. Today we had a couple that lasted over an hour, which put us behind schedule and meant we stayed 'til after 1 pm (at least they brought in lunch for us).

As foreperson, my duties are to arrive slightly early to unlock the jury room, answer the phone when the Grand Jury staff calls us, call them if we have issues or questions, swear in witnesses (with the same oath witnesses take in a court of law), and to try to basically moderate the questioning and voting. As jurors we get to ask the witnesses questions after the D.A. has finished. I also sign the vote tally slips (which the alternate foreperson fills out with the charges and our total vote) and the indictments after the staff has prepared them, which means even though we sometimes get out early due to canceled cases, I almost always will have to stay to sign indictments, because they have to go to the judge in the afternoon. For example, our cases were all canceled tomorrow, but I will be going to the courthouse in the afternoon just to sign indictments.

We've only had a handful of cases over the past couple days. We were under the impression that mostly we'd be hearing drug cases, but those have been the minority so far. Drug cases actually seem to be the most simple, because usually there is physical evidence involved and that alone is generally considered enough to take a case to trial. But we had a mixture of different cases today, which made it a more difficult day. Largely my fellow jurors are very on top of it and very nice as well. I got a little flak today from one of them, though, who thought I was trying to quash her opinions and questions, when my goal was to make sure we stay on track, and observe such guidelines as only asking questions that are actually pertinent to the specific charges. It's challenging, because there is an inclination to learn as much as possible, out of curiosity if not out of principle, even though a lot of the information does not relate to whether or not the defendant most likely broke the law. There is also a sort of inclination to be an advocate for the defendant, because we're only hearing from the prosecution and the witnesses, but we have to remember that if indicted the defendant will have their day in court and it is not our job to speculate about what defense they may have.

Anyway, I think next week will be easier, because we're all still getting the hang of things, and I'm hoping today was the most challenging we'll have. Even the D.A. who oriented us had difficulty defining exactly what we're looking for when we listen to evidence. For instance, if you are not absolutely sure the defendant has broken the law, do you vote "not true"? I don't personally think so, but a couple of the other jurors do. Luckily there are seven of us and 5-2 is enough to pass. Unfortunately, 4-3 will not. Knock on wood, despite the jurors who think their position is an opportunity to make a political statement about what they think of our justice system, we haven't had any of those yet.

Sorry if I sound bitter. I have a migraine, and I think the long days (at the courthouse slightly before 8 am, biking to work from downtown around noon, then working straight through until 6 pm) are starting to wear on me already.

Law in China

Check out this interesting New York Times series on the developing and changing legal system in China.

Swedish planners and 90-day reviews

Last night an old friend from Reed, who I will just call Swedish Max because that's what everyone called him at Reed, was in town and I was called to come and hang out with him. Being Swedish, Max spends a fair amount of his time in Stockholm, so that's where I expected he was visiting from. It turns out he's actually attending the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. Remember Gordon Price, who gave a session on "Vancouverism" at the Smart Growth conference that I attended? He teaches a class at SCARP, though Max hasn't had one with him yet.

Max ended up being one of the few people who I can explain my current job to and he has some idea of what I'm talking about. He actually attended a design charrette recently, though it was only a one-day charrette and thus wouldn't meet NCI's definition of charrette, but actual charrette experience is currently something I'm only looking forward to. We dorked out about New Urbanism and form-based codes for a little bit. He managed to convince me that I should at least apply to the University of British Columbia. He ended up choosing UBC over Cornell, because Cornell's tuition was literally ten times as expensive as UBC. The attraction of that combined with the fact that I think Vancouver would be an awesome place to live makes it worth the application fee, I think, despite the fact that I don't think they have a law program.

Today I had a 90-day review at NCI. I can say it went well, as I got a small raise, and became salaried, which means health insurance and paid sick and vacation leave. Yes! I'll probably end up using my sick days this month so I can continue to get paid when I start jury duty on Monday, but it's still exciting. It's great to work for an organization that doesn't just work in a field that interests me, but actively supports and fosters my interest. They didn't have too many complaints about me, except that they cited a few things I've noticed myself, that I have trouble concentrating or being engaged during meetings or when I'm being taught one of the long software processes I have to do for my job. Seriously, this job and all the new stuff I've been learning in it has made me wonder if I should be on adderol or something. I managed to get by at Reed, probably only because I could write decently, but what's going to happen to me when I get to law school, when I can't process information aurally or concentrate on one task for more than 2 minutes?

Highlights...continued! (Day 2 of NPSG)

I feel like I'm back in high school playing hooky with the cool kids, except I never played hooky in high school. In fact, I've skipped class intentionally maybe once in my life and I had to really justify it to myself. And I definitely played hooky by myself, sitting at home being grumpy.

What I'm getting at is I'm seeing a lot less of this conference than I originally intended, but it has definitely been worthwhile, because I'm seeing a bit more of L.A. And getting to know some individuals that already have strong connections to NCI. It turns out there are interesting and walkable neighborhoods in L.A. and with its history it does make sense to have the smart growth conference here, because a lot of cities imitated the codes of L.A. (for better or for worse, mostly for worse arguably) and L.A. is one of those cities with neighborhoods that were originally built around a streetcar system, which makes for a nice, New Urbanist, non-car centered atmosphere. That was one of the messages I picked up from the one full conference session I attended this morning, presented by Gordon Price, from Vancouver, B.C. I'm going to link a few of his websites and materials, because of course he can explain it better than I can.

After the session, which got out a little after 11:30, I caught up with my boss Bill and we ended up getting lunch with Andres (yes, I think we're on a first name basis now) and Debra. Debra used to work for Andres at DPZ until 9 months ago, where she started at a national urban design firm called HDR. There are a lot of connections here--HDR has merged with the firm that Bill used to run with Steve Coyle, and Bill is going to conduct something like 4 NCI trainings for HDR at different offices in the U.S. Debra is our point person for those trainings, so I'll be communicating with her a lot over this year. She's very experienced with charrettes, as she coordinated them for DPZ for the past 7 years. She's submitting a couple pieces for our Best Practices report coming out in a few months. She's very knowledgable about our process, as our process has its roots in, among other things, charrettes that Bill used to conduct for DPZ.

Lunch was great--both Andres and Debra are very personable and welcoming, Andres was even ribbing me about my degree from Reed and was trying to convince me throughout the afternoon that the European or Hispanic way of pronouncing my name (with the accent on the "mah" syllable as opposed to the "Ta" syllable) was far superior and that I needed to seize this chance to recreate myself and start going by that pronunciation. Bill unfortunately had to rush off because the hotel wouldn't let him check out late and he needed to get on a plane this afternoon anyway. We were later joined by Jim, also at HDR and also a primary point person for the trainings we're doing through them, and Robert (who is French, so pronounced the French way) who is at the HDR office in San Francisco, so he works with Bill's old partner Steve (who is also a NCI Board Member).

We sat and chatted for a couple hours. Before Bill left he had a chance to bounce an idea off Andres about our future plans for NCI, that we are considering creating a destination in Portland for trainings and reducing our travel considerably. From that we got into a very interesting discussion about DPZ's plans to become more academic. After Bill left and Jim and Robert arrived the conversation flowed from subjects such as gossip about a contentious peer in the New Urbanism world, to more of the theories Andres touched on in his presentation yesterday (when he found my mother was an ecologist and a statistician he insisted I ask her to help develop an equation for a sort of currency exchange between nature and humanity--this idea of each having a value, as Jim put it, Times Square being as valuable as Yellowstone, human density being as valuable as solar energy or daylighted streams, and figuring out how to balance it) to the movie Borat.

After we left the restaurant, the four of us went to see the CalTrans building in downtown L.A., which I had actually read about several months, if not a year or so ago. It's a pretty original and conspicuous design---Jim and Robert and I took pictures. It is mostly glass but has metal grating over the windows, and apparently at night the building appears transparent. On the way there we were chatting and I found that Jim went to University of Pennsylvania and I told him that I was considering their dual degree program in law and urban planning. It came up later in conversation and Andres asked me about it. When I told him my plan for the dual degree, he approved, saying that UPenn is a good planning school and that the combination I was interested in "wasn't one of the worst" I could do, though I never got to hear what the worst was. He seemed sincerely approving, though. Then he pointed to a billboard towering on a metal pole above us and pointed out that it was the same aesthetic as the building we'd just viewed, which was actually fairly astute. He encouraged me to check out the Disney concert hall and the cathedral, both within walking distance of the hotel, and according to him some of the most famous and interesting buildings built in the last 20 years. I'll see if I can do that, maybe tomorrow at lunch.

On our way back to the hotel, Jim took us on a detour to see the Bradbury Building, but Andres had to get back and check out of the hotel, so he left us.

I genuinely had a very fun time with the group, the most amazing thing being that, after the initial 15 minutes or so at lunch, I felt completely relaxed (and no, I hadn't had anything to drink with lunch). I hardly think I could hold a spirited debate with one of the foremost gurus of town planning, but I also didn't feel like a complete idiot, and I actually had some comments (I won't go so far as to qualify them as either interesting or intelligent) to contribute to the community development and design-related conversations we had. Similarly, I was able to chat comfortably with Robert and Jim and Debra about related subjects as we strolled back to the hotel, especially Robert, who was very kind and conversational, and who educated me a bit about the area of L.A. we were walking in, and who I could discuss the Bay Area at length with. So hey, my voracious appetite for books and articles planning related pays off in that I can at least hold a conversation with people who have been in the field since before I was born.

The Bradbury Building turned out to be the oldest commercial building in L.A., built in the 1893, where scenes from Bladerunner were filmed. It was a beautiful building, with water-powered bird-cage elevators and lit by a glass atrium roof. After we poked around there, we walked back to the hotel and I dropped in on a session for about half an hour before coming up to my room to check e-mail and write this.

There's an evening plenary from 7:30 to 9 that genuinely looks interesting, unlike some of the other plenaries we've had. It's about the future of housing in America, and will probably explore a concern that has been touched on already a few times at this conference--that in the next couple decades we're not going to have nearly enough housing for the population growth we're going to experience, and that the studies seem to be suggesting that more Americans want to live in walkable urban areas and not the large lot suburban homes we've put so much work into building already. But as this is my last night in L.A. and I made a promise to myself to see Koreatown, I think I'm going to have to blow it off, though I'll try to get as many sessions in tomorrow as possible before I have to hop a shuttle to airport at 4:15 pm.

Highlights, so far. (Day 1 of NPSG)

Tonight I met Andres Duany.

For those of you who aren't big planning dorks, if there is such a thing as a celebrity of the planning world, Andres Duany is definitely it. He has his share of skeptics, which I believe is part backlash but partly warranted as well (even his friends, as I witnessed today, take his manner with a grain of salt), but after getting the chance to listen to a portion of a session he gave today on SmartCode, I'm further convinced that he is an extremely intelligent, innovative person who continues to contribute immensely to the field of planning. He's also hilarious.

He's most famous for this book, and he's often touted as the father of New Urbanism, though many, including him, acknowledge that theorists and planners such as Jane Jacobs, were champions for integral aspects of New Urbanist design long before the Charter for New Urbanism was founded or New Urbanism enjoyed the popularity it has today. But he is mostly responsible for how popular New Urbanism has become, and the new trend against suburban sprawl---and maybe it takes a charismatic, unshamedly market-driven individual who also happens to be brilliant to start a trend like that. My boss Bill is an old friend and when he realized that Duany was speaking today, he told me to leave the training and watch it, which I did for as long as I could (until just before the training wrapped up, and I had to get back).

Apparently Duany is always at odds with some group at some point in his career, and that group is currently environmentalists--which makes it all the more interesting that he was speaking at a smart growth conference, since smart growth is almost primarily about environmentalism. His explanation of SmartCode touched on how environmentalism is sometimes incompatible with his work because it hinders what he is trying to accomplish, that being high density development with an "unclipped" grid as he put it. Because when you put great effort into preserving certain habitats and wildlife corridors, you put gaps in your grid and you have to "clip" your roads. From what I could gather, he was arguing that "clipping" your roads leads to multilaned thoroughfares that limits space for buildings which limits residential density. He kept using Manhattan as an example of an extremely dense (ostensibly desirable) neighborhood that could not have been achieved if, for instance, you daylighted some or all the streams in the area instead of piping them. Similar examples included Barcelona and Charleston. My initial internal responses to these examples was 1) Granted, we have to assume cars are in the equation, but it doesn't seem very New Urbanist to let your design be driven by them and 2) Manhattan is a far cry from the neighborhoods DPZ (Duany Plater Zyberk, the company Duany runs with his wife, where my boss used to work in the 80s) are most famous for designing, such as Seaside, FL. This also seems to be one of the contentions his critics have with him.

Over all, though, and unsurprisingly, his discussion of SmartCode and how to adapt it to a transect of the city you are developing code for made a lot of sense. Obviously environmental regulations are not one-size-fits-all, and you have to decide when the environmental value of having high density, and thus preserving space, exceeds other desirable but incompatible environmental safeguards. Duany's over all argument was that you need to adapt your code (i.e. what you allow to be built where) not only to your city in particular, but to different areas in your city, i.e. yes, daylight your streams in rural or suburban areas but not necessarily in places where high density is desired, for instance the urban center. End message being you have to sacrifice or relax your environmental standards when appropriate (and of course he added, because you're not going to achieve your highest standard anyway). I can see why this would be hard to swallow for people who believe it's impossible to reach too high when it comes to environmental standards (being any environmentalist worth their salt).

Though New Urbanism doesn't seem as revolutionary to me now as it did 4 years ago when I first read Suburban Nation and it was all I knew of planning, it was still exciting to meet the author of the book that made me want to become a planner in the first place. The fact that he's an old friend and colleague of my boss and Board Emeritus of the organization I work for makes me feel like I've almost come full circle, and I appreciate this job even more. Seeing him speak was both fascinating and inspiring, and gave me the satisfying feeling that I was in the right place and on the right track, that this is indeed what I want to do with my life.

Okay, L.A. does suck.

In just a couple days, my excitement over my first all-expense-paid business trip is starting to wear off. Mostly, it's because I got sick yesterday afternoon, and still can't remain vertical too long without enduring stabbing stomach cramps. But that's really my own fault. Being a psuedo-vegan is trickier than I thought--even though I only observe veganism when I'm cooking for myself, my diet has endowed me with a new-found and unexpected intolerance for eggs and dairy, which can be quite an obstacle when you have to eat out three meals a day. Yesterday morning I thought that egg white omelet sounded like a good idea, and I'm still suffering for it. I was excited to witness NCI's Continuing Dynamic Planning course, which I was assisting with today and yesterday, but because I got sick I had to leave early yesterday and was pretty lackluster today, though I would have liked to be paying closer attention to what was going on and getting to know the course participants and the projects better. Oh well. At least I will probably be well enough to enjoy the conference this weekend. Tonight my boss Bill is going to a reception of some kind for the conference, and I'd like to go along so he can introduce me to all the heavies in the field of smart growth, but there doesn't seem to be much point in trying to network when you are feeling under the weather. I'll see how I feel in an hour or so, maybe I can make it.

It's also supremely sunk in how horribly designed downtown Los Angeles is. It's one of the worst places I've ever been in terms of walkability--even 82nd in Portland is better. 82nd of course is worse in terms of the volume of cars and the eye-sore aspect, but downtown L.A. was designed as if people who work in office buildings never need to leave. The multiple freeway overpasses don't help either. One unexpected gem is the Los Angeles public library, which is right on the corner across from the hotel, and has pretty neat older architecture. That corner also featured a farmer's market today.

At first I found the concept of a farmer's market that runs October - August, in a downtown financial district, a very strange idea. But it makes a lot of sense, after I visited it. The market was bustling, and definitely had the best lunch food options around. I picked up a tamale, which seemed the right thing for my stomach (simple, unrefined carbs and protein, sans salsa of course) and some local strawberries for lunch. There was a lot of nice looking produce and the cart food was pretty reasonably priced. If I worked in downtown L.A. (god forbid) I'd definitely look forward to the chance to swing by on my lunch break and purchase some vegetables for dinner.

Smart what?

The last couple people that I told I was coming to L.A. this week for a smart growth conference responded with, "Why would they hold a smart growth conference in L.A.?" It's a pretty good question, since L.A. is infamous for horrible pollution, inefficient transportation, and the completely unsustainable use of natural resources. The last time I visited this area a few years ago, the combination of horrible water and horrible air made me literally sick to my stomach.

But having just settled in at my hotel room in downtown L.A., I'll say that the sunset is pretty reflecting off all the glass buildings, and with the orange light in the sky you almost can't see the haze.

Third world subjects, First world law?

A day after these shootings, Mr. Qui hastily left Chambishi. Mr. Mwanaumo, like the other wounded workers, was fired. Feeling too sick to work, he spends his days in a tiny, dark hut set amid sewage-soaked mud, hoping that relatives and friends will collect enough money to file a compensation lawsuit.

China's hunger for natural resources is leading it into Africa, where it is starting to assume a position that closely resembles that of a colonial power. At this particular mine in Chambishi, Zambia, fatal accidents led the Chinese company to admit that allowing unions would contribute to stronger safety regulations. They negotiated to allow the unions in, despite the increase to their operational costs. However, when workers discovered they would not be receiving the level of back pay they had expected, and in some cases owed money to the company, some struck back with violence and vandalism.

A Chinese supervisor, Mr. Qui, shot multiple workers, including Mr. Mwanaumo, who was at the scene attempting to help an injured friend.

This story, and in particular the quote above, struck me as exemplary of the stark differences between the "worlds" that the movement of globalization, it could be argued, is attempting to meld. The quote above juxtaposes the world of the worker, who is paid $67 a month and lives in squalor, with the bureacratic, politically-fueled sort of "bigger-picture" world of those who oversee him, who are exploiting him for the sake of not only personal economic gain, but the prosperity, expansion and position of China on a global scale. It seems so out of place, to the extent that it is almost comical, that Mr. Miwanaumo's only hopes depend on a compensation lawsuit, within a Chinese system that is culturally and economically alien. That system of justice hardly seems compatible with the conditions in which he works and lives, and I wonder if that speaks at all to the cause of the conflict.

Trofimov, Yaroslav. "In Africa, China's Expansion Begins to Stir Resentment." Wall Street Journal 2 Feb. 2007: A1.

More on Sovereignty

What kind of person subscribes to both the Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones? One of the people who lived in this house before us, apparently. (Hi Zach).

Today Mother Jones came with the mail, and lo and behold there was an article about the Navajo nation and tribal law. I was particularly struck by this quote:

In 1881, a Lakota Sioux named Spotted Tail was killed by another Lakota, Crow Dog. A tribal council was called, the families of the two men gathered, and it was agreed that in order to restore harmony to the tribe, Crow Dog and his family would pay the deceased's kin $600, eight horses, and one blanket. The U.S. territorial court threw out this judgment, put Crow Dog on trial, and sentenced him to death by hanging. The case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decreed that tribes were entitled to adjudicate crimes among their own as they saw fit. Congress then stepped in to strip tribes of that right, and today's tribal courts are restricted to dispensing fines and no more than a year of jail time, with major crimes mostly dealt with in federal court.

Read the article here.

The Contenders

It's probably about time I got around to explaining why this blog got started in the first place.

I sort of surprised myself with this. I was thinking about this trip I'm taking next week, and how I should take my camera, and I was also thinking separately about how, even though I've put off grad school for another year, I'm very fixated on the idea of applying and part of that is that I need to start writing more, because my writing skills have gotten very rusty. And it occurred to me that maybe I needed to start blogging again, so I can write about the things that I enjoy studying, and hopefully get a little better at writing in the process.

So expect some posts on the New Partners for Smart Growth conference next week, which is where I'm going (and assisting with an NCI training session beforehand). Also expect mentions of interesting news articles or developments. I also hope to maybe post a few reviews of books that are related to planning, especially international planning or anything related to law. And if I stick with this long enough, you might eventually read some posts about my attempts to get into a dual law and urban planning degree program at one of the following institutions:

University of Pennsylvania
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
University of Texas at Austin
University of California - Berkeley
University of Michigan

I'm particularly interested in international and comparative law. So far UPenn seems like the first choice in that respect. We'll see what my chances are with that.

I just realized that applying to two separate departments within one school will probably mean double the application fees. Doh.

Sovereign Nations

Did you know that a defendant in a tribal court (i.e. a Native American who has been tried for a crime in his tribe's court) can be tried in a federal court for the same crime?

Did you know that because Native American tribes are considered sovereign nations, they are not always afforded the same rights under the Bill of Rights as American citizens, for example the right to legal representation?

I didn't know this, until I read the Wall Street Journal this afternoon. I just moved into a new house a couple weeks ago, and apparently whoever lived here previously subscribed, because we get it every day. At first I wasn't that interested, but I'm finding it's an engaging resource for not only what's going on in the world, or a recap of Bush's last speech, but informative articles relating to international and domestic issues of economy and law.

This particular article this evening is about the shortage of public defenders in tribal lands. What grabbed me the most about this article was its description of "parallel justice"--in that tribes essentially have their own legal system that is similar, but doesn't quite mirror the American legal system. Some aspects of this legal system the U.S. government funds, but there is a dire shortage of funding for public defenders.

I would link to the article, but you have to be a WSJ subscriber to read it online.
I found a few other interesting sites online relating to the subject.

Sovereignty: A Brief History in the Context of U.S. "Indian Law" by Peter d'Errico, of the Legal Studies Department of the University of Massachusetts.
The National Tribal Justice Resource Center

U. A. E.

My aunt is looking for work as an interior decorator here. This article just confirms my impression that the United Arab Emirates is one of the most surreal places on earth. I'd love to work there someday.

This picture, though, is what initially gave me that impression and is what still creeps me out somewhat about the place.

Maybe it's just the idea of having so much expendable wealth that if you don't have any islands to situate a resort on, just build 'em! In a bizarre, completely unnatural formation.