Normalizing radical ideas

How to get polite society talking about outrageous things. <cough> abolish zoning <cough>

Manufactured consent

It’s back-to-school time, so it seems only right to give you a homework assignment.

Manufacturing Consent (Amazon link here) is a wildly important book with some timeless observations about the human condition. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky describe what they see as the propaganda model for how information flows, decisions are made, and, ultimately, how societies function.

The beauty of the system, however, is that such dissent and inconvenient information are kept within bounds and at the margins, so that while their presence shows that the system is not monolithic, they are not large enough to interfere unduly with the domination of the official agenda.

― Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

Here’s my urbanism version of Chomsky’s quote: 

People are free to debate any issue that lies within the boundaries of allowable opinion. 

The relevance of manufactured consent in urbanism is undeniable. There’s a spectrum of discourse considered acceptable, and a not small list of you-can’t-say-that topics. You should see the replies on X (Twitter) when I post “abolish zoning.” 

There are ways to normalize seemingly preposterous ideas. Here’s one that’s had a major influence on my work. 

The Overton window

Political scientist Joseph P. Overton developed a concept in the 1990s that refers to the range of ideas that are mainstream at a given time. The “Overton window” is not a value judgment on ideas, it’s just what’s in society’s cone of vision right now. The window shifts over time as public opinion changes, mainstreaming previously unacceptable ideas.

Here are some cultural examples of ideas that were considered absurd before the Overton window shifted:

• The earth isn’t flat, nor is it the center of the universe.

• All nationalities will be taught in the same classrooms.

• Your whispers will be heard on the other side of the planet.

• Tiny germs exist that you can’t see with your eyes.

• Human organs and limbs will be replaced.

• Art will be created by voice command.

• Children will be given personal automobiles as a right of passage.

The Overton window didn’t shift on physics because people cautiously suggested that maybe the earth wasn’t 180-degrees flat but more like 175 or 185. Schools weren’t integrated after 50 years of academic research and think tank white papers. 

Mouthy people were on the lunatic fringe of public discourse until finally the window shifted. The strategic way to shift the window of allowable opinions is by starting with the extreme points of view: legalize this thing, abolish that thing, welcome this, purge that. 

There’s a time and place for nuance, but radicalizing your friends to support a healthy built environment isn’t it. Nuance comes once you’ve got the topic within the boundaries of polite society. 

Maybe it's time to privatize transportation planning, design, & operations

Natural dissent

Every industry has a status quo for good reason. Time-tested concepts become routine because they work. But as technology advances and people find new ways to address old problems, the status quo is of course directly challenged. If some technological advancement leads to better outcomes, then why stick to the old process? Change the process. Make a new routine for the status quo based on the outcomes.

Planning, engineering, and politics are intertwined in urbanism, and they all have examples of acceptable policy proposals. I’m interested in shifting the Overton window, replacing manufactured consent with natural dissent. Asking big What If questions doesn’t have to be confrontational, but it will always make some people uncomfortable. It’s worth it. That’s how civilizations advance. 

Here’s a list of topics that are taboo more often than you’d think. 

1. Accessory Dwelling Units - Land use reform to allow homeowners to build ADUs (e.g., granny flats or backyard cottages). This supports individual property rights and provides housing flexibility, which will make NIMBYs furious.

2. Property Tax - Property tax reforms can reduce the financial burden on homeowners, especially those on fixed incomes, to enhance property rights and affordability.

3. Tiny Homes - Promote the development of tiny homes and micro-housing communities as a way to provide affordable and minimalist living options. Grant people greater control over their housing choices, especially for short-term rentals.

4. Universal Basic Mobility - It’s like universal basic income, but for transportation. Several cities have piloted bus and bike subsidies. A radical proposition would be privatized UBM. 

5. Right to Repair Laws - There are so many devices that homeowners and tenants aren’t allowed to repair and modify on their own.

6. Off-Grid Living - Decriminalize frontier life. Have you ever heard stories of people trying to disassociate from traditional utility services? Or building something without a permit?

7. Local Farming - I know you’ve seen community gardens, but you haven’t seen people selling their own food, because it’s not allowed. And if you introduce fresh milk, the ATF will raid the operation.

8. Open Streets / Closed Streets - What if the stretch of busy road right in front of schools was closed to cars in the morning and afternoon? What if sections of your downtown were open to walking and bicycling without any vehicle conflicts? 

9. Homesteading - Programs that allow individuals to reclaim vacant or blighted properties. This could be a way to turn ordinary homeowners into developers. 

10. Skinny Streets - Not just road diets, but extreme traffic calming. There are tons of streets within the public right-of-way that could be engineered for safe driving. I’m talking about 8-foot wide travel lanes, no more than one vehicle lane in each direction. This opens up all sorts of real estate for the community. 

Let’s talk. What do you think about manufactured consent and the Overton window? What are the topics you wish were within the boundaries of acceptable discourse? Comments are open.