February 14, 2022 • 35 mins
Beverly Hills isn’t the first place most people would think of harboring a steady-state government. Yet, led for three terms by past Mayor John Mirisch (who still serves on the city council), the enclave west of Hollywood has pushed back against the pro-growth strictures emanating out of the statehouse in Sacramento. This experience has turned Mr. Mirisch into a die-hard steady stater, a badge he wears proudly.
John's website: https://cityofbh.org
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Pat Choate (00:02):
From the Center for the Advancement of the Steady
State Economy, this is TheSteady Stater, a podcast
dedicated to discussing limitsto growth and the steady state
economy.
Brian Czech (00:16):
Welcome to the show. I'm your host, Brian
Czech. And our guest today isJohn Mirisch, three-term mayor
of Beverly Hills, California.
He's still on the city counciltoo. John comes from a family of
film executives, and he's workedat Paramount Pictures, 20th
Century Fox, and UnitedInternational. These days, he's
probably more active in politicsthan in the film industry. So
(00:38):
for example, he is very activein the California Alliance of
Local Electeds, electeds as anyelected officials, which seems
to have developed somewhat of afocus on fending off the forces
of unsustainable growth. JohnMirisch, welcome to The Steady
Stater.
John Mirisch (00:57):
Well, thank you, Brian. It is an honor to be
here. I'm a big fan of yourwork. And I'm a proud member of
CASSE.
Brian Czech (01:04):
All the honors are ours. Thank you. And you know,
John, sometimes we like to startthings off with a lighthearted
highlight. So what's thecraziest thing you've ever seen
in Beverly Hills?
John Mirisch (01:14):
Oh, boy, it's hard for me to look at it the way
sometimes other people do,because I grew up here. And so
my version of Beverly Hills isactually I look at it like
Mayberry R.F.D. I know there arecrazy things going on here. But
when I would drive through thestreets with my -- now 14 year
old, I would do geography thatwas "oh, look, the Esrelos live
(01:35):
there" and "the Belousov livethere" and so on. So it was
always for me about family orcommunity as an extension of
family. And, you know, I'mtrying to think -- I'm sure
there's a lot of things likethat going on -- weird things
and -- because of the focus onBeverly Hills. But for me, it's
always only just been sort ofour version of Mayberry R.F.D.
(01:56):
and that's why I lovecommunity-based policy and
planning. I think communitiesare unique and they're special.
And you know, each city isprobably looks are hopefully
each community looks at itselfas a version of Mayberry R.F.D.
I'm sorry, to not be able toanswer that question directly.
But you know, I'm sure I've seenon Rodeo Drive walking down a
(02:17):
fair share of people who youmight do a double take at and
who were, you know, probably outof the ordinary for middle
America. But I've never reallythought of it now that way, I
know I have to take a step backsometimes and think of it, but
there are so many misconceptionsand stereotypes about Beverly
Hills. Don't get me started.
Brian Czech (02:36):
No. Okay. And actually, I was going to get
something along those lines outof the way right from the get
go. Because, you know, a lot offolks probably think of Beverly
Hills, Beverly Hills or maybeHollywood next door as the
unsustainability capital of theU.S.A., you know, it's per
capita consumption off thecharts.
John Mirisch (02:55):
Really, there are probably a lot of back here,
that you're probably right,Brian. There are a lot of people
who are involved inoverconsumption here. But what
most people don't know is thatover 50% of Beverly Hills
residents are renters. Andsomething like 78% of people are
under the poverty line, probablyseniors with fixed incomes. So
we have some very, very wealthypeople. And sometimes when you
(03:17):
read about, you know,multimillion dollar houses being
sold in Beverly Hills, it's it'sactually just Beverly Hills zip
code. It's not the city ofBeverly Hills, but certainly
within the city, there are somereally, really rich people. And
you know, that's why probablythe average income would be
higher than the median. But assaid, we've got people who move
into town and live in smallapartments for the community,
(03:40):
for the schools, for the publicsafety and for all of those
things. But it is not just anenclave of the super wealthy,
although we have some of that.
And actually, that's one thingthat I like is that when the
city was planned, it wasn't onlyplanned as an enclave of the
rich. It was planned with, fromthe very beginning with some
really big estates, big homes,smaller single family homes,
commercial, and a lot ofmultifamily. And I think, you
(04:02):
know, as a planned community,that the people who -- Wilbur
Cook, who designed the City inthe early 1900s did a great job.
Brian Czech (04:14):
Well, would you say that you're like an outlier in
Beverly Hills politics callingfor a steady state economy? Or
is there a budding steady statemovement out there?
John Mirisch (04:25):
I think I'm an outlier in politics in general.
I mean, we need more people whoare going to debunk the growth
myth. And for me, by the way,I'm also a Swedish citizen
having lived in Sweden, I comeback to that wonderful quotation
from Swedish climate activistGreta Thunberg. When she was at
the UN and said, you know, herewe are at the beginning of a
(04:47):
mass extinction and all you cando is talk about money and fairy
tales of a turtle economicgrowth. I think when you explain
it to people, they understand.
But I think people feel thateconomic growth is sort of
second nature. We have to haveit. And I don't think people
think critically about it. And Ithink that's why it's important
that people become familiar witha steady state, and what it's
about, and that when people hearthe word degrowth, there's
(05:10):
sometimes a shock effect. Andit's not at all what people
think. And I don't have toexplain that to you. But it's
just logical. We, you know, welive in a world of finite
resources. The notion that weare anything can continue
growing forever, is thedefinition of unsustainability.
Brian Czech (05:28):
And you have a vision of a steady state Beverly
Hills, what would it look like?
And if the state of Californiadidn't interfere, do you think
the City Council could manage tomaintain it? In other words,
let's set the state ofCalifornia aside for the moment,
because I know we're going tocome back to that in a major way
soon. But assuming the citycouncil had sufficient and
(05:49):
governing power, have youthought about the structure,
functioning, and maintenance ofthe city government in a steady
state economy? And are therelessons out there for other city
officials around the country?
John Mirisch (06:04):
Well, that's a great question. As I mentioned,
I think when Wilbur Cookdesigned the city way back in
the early 1900s, he did anamazing job. And I think that
blueprint is still valid fortoday. And you know, nothing is
so good that it can't get better-- there are certain things that
we would and could need toimprove and could do so within
(06:24):
the framework of a steady stateeconomy. To me, this is
indicative. We're pretty much intheory who we should be. We've
had about 35,000 residents forthe last 60 or 70 years. So that
to me is very much steady state.
We're coming under pressure,though, now, of course, to add
density, to add population, togrow -- not physically, because
we're only 5.7 square miles, andwe can't grow physically, we
(06:46):
have urban growth boundaries.
But we're coming under pressureto grow. We've got people, you
know, that use the dreaded Nword, the NIMBY word, to say
that, because I think a lot ofus feel that the community that
we have, in terms of population,in terms of size, in terms of
density is where we should bethat were NIMBYs. And, as I
(07:09):
said, the pressure is all comingfrom Sacramento. And so I think
that if you look at the last 60,70 years, I suggest that there
are some mistakes that, youknow, maybe that sometimes in
some cases, but not compared toother cities, not compared to
Santa Monica, Culver City thathave succumb to this notion that
we have to grow the localeconomy. And of course, our
(07:31):
business community, the chambersof Commerces who are always sort
of the pro-growth advocateswould probably differ with me.
But my feeling is that we don'tneed to add jobs. We don't need
to add commercial. We shouldkeep things sort of keep it real
the way that they are. And ifthere are businesses that are
becoming stale, yes, you canmaybe replace them with newer
(07:53):
businesses. But the goal shouldbe that stability rather than to
grow. And so to me, the 35,000residents that we have is not
just some arbitrary figure. It'ssomething that over the past six
decades or so has been a formulathat has for the most part
worked. So again, I think thatmost people in our community may
(08:13):
feel that or sense it. I don'tthink they necessarily
understand or think about what asteady state economy is. But I
think when you explain to them,this notion of growth and this
notion of force growth and thisnotion of force density, they
begin to understand and I thinkthat's again, that's why it's so
important to get the basicbackground of steady -- what a
(08:36):
steady state economy is outthere. And to have that
dialogue.
Brian Czech (08:40):
Right. And you mentioned the pressures coming
from Sacramento. And maybe,maybe we need to just remind
folks, that's the state house inCalifornia, you're talking
about,
John Mirisch (08:50):
Yeah, that's -- Sacramento is the faraway state
house. It's probably furtheraway from Los Angeles than New
York is from Washington. And inmany cases, it feels that way.
Now, I'm somebody who is a totalbeliever in community. I believe
that local government, when doneright, is the best form of
(09:11):
democracy, because it's aboutcommunity, and it's closest to
home. And, of course,Sacramento, in many ways, like
our political system, and we canget into discussion of that and
the role of money within ourpolitical system. But it seems
that they're often more servingthe special interests than the
residents. And as we both know,this is not a new concept. The
(09:34):
urban growth machine has been atwork for decades trying to force
density and ergo force growth.
And that's a term I think, thatwas originated by Harvey Molotch
-- not quite sure how hepronounces his name -- years
ago, and there's no questionthat we have a very strong urban
growth machine at work inCalifornia, where there's a lot
(09:56):
of money to be made.
Brian Czech (09:59):
Yeah, It's ironic because a lot of steady staters
out there probably still thinkof California as a bellwether of
progressive environmentalprotection. But we felt those
rumblings that, yeah, the Stateof California has become
somewhat of a growth machine.
John Mirisch (10:15):
Well it certainly is. And, you know, the fact that
people are decrying Californialost population for the first
time since the state wasfounded. And you've got people,
you know, renting their clothesbecause of that. Well, I look at
that as a good thing. I mean,that, you know, I don't know
that the 40 million people thatwe have is the right figure for
us. It may be too many. Butcertainly the fact that
(10:39):
populations stabilizing is agood thing. It's funny, we've
got planners here who havedescribed some of the policies
that are supposedly progressive,as fore-gressive, because you
see a really odd alliancebetween some of these, you know,
so called environmental groupsand groups like up for growth
that are really pushing density.
And, you know, as I wrote in thearticle for your blog, that this
(11:01):
forced density is really a proxyfor forced growth.
Brian Czech (11:06):
Yeah. And I'm glad you reminded me of that article,
because I have to say, it's oneof the best articles about local
government, dealing withproblems of growth that we've
had in the 10 plus years of thefirst the Daily News, and then
the Steady State Herald. Andthis was the article called
(11:27):
Housing Policy - An Agent forGrowth. It was from October 7,
2021. So steady staters outthere might want to track that
one down.
John Mirisch (11:37):
Well, thank you, Brian. I'm flattered. And you
know, hopefully, I'll have achance to write more I find, you
know, a lot of what I'm doingnow is writing rebuttals to some
of these ridiculous argumentsthat you hear to try and force
density. And you know, it'sweird, because as you say, you
think of California asprogressive but a lot of these
(11:59):
you know, self-styledprogressives are spouting
theories that would put aReaganomics supply-sider to
shame.
Brian Czech (12:08):
Well, that isn't good. Well, John, I understand a
number of local governments inCalifornia have really tried to
stabilize to limit population,at least, maybe kind of like
Beverly Hills. But the State ofCalifornia won't let them. And
then to make matters worse, Ialso heard that the state, they
won't point to just one specificlaw or policy, but rather, they
(12:31):
refer to different policies,depending on the circumstances.
So that would make it way harderto litigate, I'd imagine.
John Mirisch (12:38):
The state blames zoning. The narrative is that
cities through what they callexclusionary zoning, which
basically means single-familyneighborhoods has shut out
people. There are all sorts ofarguments, they tie into it. But
the three main ones areaffordability, racial equity,
and the environment. And they'rebasically set all smoke screens.
(13:01):
And you know, the goal is toforce density, which as I wrote
in the article is a proxy forforce growth. So, which I asked
said, I find it, the reasonbehind it ultimately is about
money. The urban growth machine,people who have looked to what
is known as the financializationof housing organizations, the
(13:23):
commodification of housing, lookto that growth as a way to
create and sustain profits. AndI wouldn't even say that Beverly
Hills has taken policies orother cities have taken policies
to consciously stabilize thepopulation. I think that the
population that we have and havehad for 60 or 70 years has
stabilized on its own. Andthat's actually a good thing.
(13:46):
You could look at that as thedefinition of the steady state
economy. Now, some people mightsay, Well, it's because of
zoning. But as I mentioned toyou, over 50% of our residents
are renters, and actually, over65% of the housing units in
Beverly Hills are multifamily.
Now people point out thepercentage of land that is
devoted to single family homes,as if there was something wrong
(14:08):
with that, ignoring the factthat all studies show something
like 80% of Americans preferliving in homes with gardens in
neighborhoods of homes withgardens. And to me, that's
actually a good thing. You know,living in an ultra-dense
neighborhood is great for somepeople, but especially as people
maybe get older and havefamilies, it's nice to have a
(14:30):
garden and, you know, the notionthat there's something
environmentally wrong with thator that's cause -- what's
causing housing to beunaffordable is absurd. And of
course, there were restrictivecovenants in many cities in
California, including in BeverlyHills, quite frankly. Those
restrictive covenants would haveexcluded and did exclude Jewish
(14:51):
people. Now Beverly Hills todayis one of the only Jewish
majority cities outside ofIsrael. So you know the fact
that there were restrictivecovenants is not a knock on
single family homes orneighborhoods themselves, any
more than the fact that therewas racism with public
transportation. Just think ofRosa Parks means that there's
(15:11):
something inherently racistabout public transportation. And
yet the solution, quote-unquote,from some of these growth attic
is let's just eliminate singlefamily neighborhoods.
Brian Czech (15:25):
Well, you know, I suspect there are some steady
staters out there in theaudience that would want me to
follow up on something you saidearly on in that answer about
the stabilized population,essentially being the steady
state economy. I mean, we dohave to point out that it's the
population times the per-capitaconsumption and that total has
(15:48):
to be -- that product that hasto be at a sustainable level, of
course.
John Mirisch (15:54):
Right. And as I mentioned, I think you will find
that you know, Beverly Hills isnot immune quite the opposite to
sort of the frenzy ofconsumption that our
market-oriented society is andmarketing-oriented society is
trying to foist upon all ofthis, selling us things that we
don't need and making us feel wehave to have things that we
(16:14):
don't have to have. That's ofcourse, a larger problem as
well. And certainly there areparts of Beverly Hills that are,
if you will, textbook cases ofconspicuous consumption. There's
no doubt about that.
Brian Czech (16:27):
Well, John, it's been a fascinating conversation
so far, but we need to take ashort non-commercial break here
with James Lamont. Take it awayJames!
James Lamont (16:42):
Hello, listeners, whether this is your first time
at the steady state or you'veheard our entire collection as
an easy way for you were to helpus spread the steady state
message. We know that many ofyou listen to the show using
Apple podcasts. If you haven'talready, please consider
subscribing in the app byclicking the Follow button. This
way, you'll automaticallyreceive new episodes upon their
release. Additionally, you couldhelp out by leaving us a written
(17:04):
review in the app. These actionswill help to circulate the
steady state and to advance thesteady state mission. Thanks
very much for your support. Andnow back to the show.
Brian Czech (17:14):
Welcome back to the show steady staters where our
guest today is John Mirisch, thethree-time mayor of Beverly
Hills. John, you first came tous because you didn't encounter
an organization that you foundto be a paragon of
unsustainability. You mentionedthem in the first part, they're
called Up for Growth. Andthey're based in Washington
D.C.. You were trying to findsort of an anti-up for growth
(17:37):
and settled upon us, which is alittle bit like finding David
while confronting Goliath.
Because you know up for growthis like big money Goliath and we
at CASSE have this littleslingshot. It's powerful, but
it's a little slingshot,consisting of sound science and
common sense. I do like to saythat a dollars worth of sound
(17:59):
science and common sense candefeat a million dollars worth
of pro-growth propaganda. Theproblem is I suspect up for
growth has not 1 million suchdollars, but rather two or more
million to every one of ours. Sohow big do you think CASSE has
to get in order to defeat thelikes of up for growth? And then
(18:19):
what's the best way we can helpa local government to fend off
the forces of growth?
John Mirisch (18:27):
Sadly, we live in an age where, in a country where
money is speech, andcorporations are people and of
course neither are true. It's anuphill battle. And my hope is
that by getting more peopleactively involved in what's
going on in their owncommunities, because that's
where they feel the mostimpacted. That's, you know, it's
(18:48):
one thing if something unlessyou live in Washington, what's
happening in D.C. or Sacramento.
But when things are happening inyour own communities, maybe you
notice. And I just think thatthe best thing that CASSE or any
organization focused on a steadystate economy or degrowth can do
is to continue to point out the-- you know, going back to what
(19:09):
Greta Thunberg said, and toconvince people that this notion
of forced growth is simply thedefinition of unsustainability.
And it's interesting, I pointout that the word stability is
literally embedded but alsometaphorically embedded in the
word and the concept ofsustainability. And the problem
(19:29):
is you have these groups like Upfor Growth that are parenting,
that are co-opting the languageof sustainability and are trying
to suggest that force density isin and of itself sustainable,
and that it's environmentallyfriendly, and that it's racially
equitable, and that it createsaffordable housing, none of
which are true. So they arecreating a false narrative that
(19:52):
we will need everybody inanybody to debunk. And part of
the problem is too -- becauseagain, money is involved in, a
lot of it. You've got a lot ofpeople on the side of academia,
who are largely responsible forfueling these myths of eternal
economic growth. And it's notjust the Ecomodernist to say
(20:15):
that technology is going to saveus, it's almost -- as I said --
given that this sort of forcedensity and this force growth is
what we need to be able to moveforward and to create the kind
of equity that notion that, youknow, we've heard it before -- a
rising tide floats all boats --well, of course, it doesn't if
(20:36):
you don't have a boat. But that,to me is the essence of
neoliberalism. It's the essenceof supply-side economy. It's the
essence of Reaganomics. And it'svery odd that you've got a group
of people who identify withprogressivism, who are spouting
this nonsense, and you look atthe board up for growth, and it
doesn't only consist ofpro-Trumpers, it's got these
people who consider themselvesto be progressive. So that's
(20:59):
what we're up against. Now, Iwould argue they're not
progressive at all. But youknow, there's a psychology about
what is motivating them. Andthat's a whole nother
discussion, I think the bestthing that we can do is to get
more people on board -- morereasonable people -- to find
people like yourself and HermanDaly, who can make it very clear
why a group like Up for Growthis completely on the wrong side
(21:24):
of history. You know, we need tobe up for stability, we need to
be up for sustainability, weprobably need to be up for
degrowth. But we certainly needto be up for a steady state
economy.
Brian Czech (21:36):
In terms of particular actions, you know, I
know that if we're going to belike an anti up for growth. We
have the one chapter director Imentioned to you once up in
Idaho, Rob Harding, who -- heand one of their city
councilman, they established apack to help to get a couple of
people elected to that councilto have the majority for pushing
(21:59):
back against some of the growthprojects that were on the ballot
there. And it were...
John Mirisch (22:05):
That's, of course, a great idea. And of course,
PACs again, this is our system.
It's about money. FamousCalifornia politician Jesse
Unruh once said that money isthe mother's milk of politics.
And it's gotten even worse sincethe Supreme Court decisions
Buckley v. Valeo and CitizensUnited. And so, yes, we can and
should push back. And it's greatif $1 of CASSE and $1 of steady
(22:28):
statesmanship can push backagainst a million dollars of
growthism. But I think also, asyou point out in your book, that
we grow up with this notion thatgrowth is something that's
necessary, it's good. And thatas I also wrote in the article,
if someone is described asanti-growth, that's a slur. And
(22:49):
when I was described as that Itook it as a badge of honor --
you know, we need to make itvery clear that there's a time
and a place where growth isappropriate as a child. But once
a child reaches maturity, andmany of our cities are mature
organisms, the notion of tryingto force growth is akin to
trying to force an a matureadult, such as myself to
(23:11):
physically row. And I can tellyou, if someone said to me,
you've got to physically grow 30to 40%. There's only one way I'm
growing, and it's not going tobe in a way that's healthy. And
you know, think of streetsalmost as clogged arteries. So,
you know, there seems to be anobsession, especially in this
country, with growth. And youand some of the other voices of
(23:33):
reason, are the way thathopefully we can connect with
people who sense that this kindof growth is unsustainable. And
unfortunately, a lot of thepeople who I believe innately
feel that there's somethingwrong with what the state and,
to an extent, the federalgovernment -- you look at some
of Biden's policies, I feel thatit looks like they're forcing
(23:55):
growth in the same way, butpeople who react instinctively
against it. And as said, they'reall called NIMBYs -- not my
backyard. Because supposedly,you know, they're selfish. And
in some cases, they're portrayedas selfish homeowners who only
care about their propertyvalues. And of course, that's
all hogwash. But I think we needto articulate what is behind it.
(24:17):
And I think it starts withpointing out that all of these
policies that you see thesethese YIMBY, these Yes In My
Backyard, and WIMBY, Wall StreetIn My Backyard policies are not
about the environment, they'renot about racial equity, they're
not about affordability -- theyare about growth. And I that's
(24:37):
what I've been trying to do. AndI think that where CASSE can
help, because we have toidentify a problem before we can
even push back and create asolution. People that said
they're using these progressivesounding terms to try and force
growth upon us and forcedensity. And we're not even, in
many cases, conscious. Justthat's exactly what we're doing.
Brian Czech (25:02):
Yeah. And just to verify, or just to clarify, that
pack, that Rob Harding worked onthat's up in Hayden, Idaho and
then we have some folks in Mainethat are talking about a similar
effort.
John Mirisch (25:16):
We should -- we should need more of them, Brian.
We need more.
Brian Czech (25:18):
Yeah. Yeah.
John Mirisch (25:21):
And we need a national group. I mean, you look
at, you look it up for growth,and you look at all the people
who are on the board, and youlook at the chairman emeritus,
Clyde Holland, who is a hugedeveloper, I think, in the
Seattle area, and a major donorto Trump. And you know, you look
at some of these people who --if you say the word Trump would
(25:42):
walk out of a room who are onthe same board, and you know
that there is something going onthat is very wrong. And we
definitely need to have a voiceof reason. I would sometimes use
the hashtag ListentToGreta,because that's exactly what we
need to do. And the irony iswhen you point out the statement
the Greta Thunberg made, theytry what I call "indisplayed
(26:05):
her" -- oh, well, she didn'tmean that, she actually meant
something else. I can tell you,I'm Swedish. That's exactly what
she meant. And the notion thatwe should force density and
force growth and the notion thatthere have to be these superstar
cities where we concentrateopportunity, and where everyone
has to move, because that'swhere the jobs are. That's not
(26:26):
only bad policy, but it alsoignores the proof of concept
that we have of remote work andworking from home, which offers
a tremendous potential toactually move towards
sustainability and stability.
And they completely ignore that.
It's not surprising, though,because again, it's not good for
(26:46):
growth.
Brian Czech (26:47):
Well, you know, that David and Goliath metaphor
that was imperfect, because forone thing, CASSE shouldn't be
the only David out there. Thatbrings us back around to the
California Alliance of LocalElecteds. How long has the
Alliance been focused on theproblem of unsustainable growth?
Did you bring that to the table?
John Mirisch (27:05):
Well, I would say that it actually started in a
very different way. And itstarted in that cities were
being preempted by Sacramento,when it comes to their land use
policy cities were beingscapegoated. You know, the
narrative that you will hear --the false narrative is that
cities are the cause of thehousing affordability crisis,
(27:25):
because they make it illegal tobuild more housing, and so on
and so forth. And a number ofpeople from throughout the state
elected officials have felt thatwas an unfair attack. We in many
cases feel that actuallySacramento is the cause. Because
Sacramento is serving the urbangrowth machine and money special
(27:47):
interests, that stands to make alot of money, when cities no
longer can control their urbanplanning and can build
willy-nilly whatever they want.
So I think it was a loosealliance of people that came
together, we -- in some ways, wefelt that the California League
of Cities was not being aseffective as they could in
protecting local democracy andlocal decision making. And we
(28:08):
came together and it was mainlyabout land use. And I think I've
been trying to point out to themthat it is about growth as well.
And that it is about thatsustainability encompasses -- as
I pointed out before --stability. You've got people who
are saying, well, you know,cities shouldn't be in amber,
and they need to grow and thatsort of thing. Well, they need
(28:29):
to grow maybe metaphysically.
Cities don't necessarily need togrow physically, once it's a
built out or mature city with astable population much like our
own. And it's interesting,because what the pro-growthers
is in California did was theyhired the firm McKinsey,
Consulting firm, you know,basically will say anything for
(28:52):
money. Whether they hired themor whether McKenzie actually --
it actually may have been --that McKinsey went out on their
own to try and drum up morebusiness. And they did a study
that has since been debunked,that said that California needs
3.5 million new units, that wehave a deficit of 3.5 million
housing units. And first of all,McKinsey doesn't have the
(29:13):
greatest reputation. As youprobably know, they paid, I
think, settlements of $600million to settle claims that
they were involved in pushingopioids. And so to trust opioid
pushers is one thing, but youlook at Freddie Mac, which is a
quasi-governmental organizationhas said that the deficit is
(29:34):
about $800,000. So there's ahuge difference there.
Brian Czech (29:38):
Well, John, going back one more time to the
California Alliance of LocalElecteds. I understand the
Alliance is a nonpartisan group,but I have to wonder how hard is
it to keep it that way intoday's hyperpartisan USA? And
would you say that one party maybe more steady-state in
California?
John Mirisch (29:59):
Well, California is basically a one-party state.
Certainly at the state level,it's democratic for 20 years or
so. We haven't had a statewideelected Republicans since
Schwarzenegger who was, youknow, a star. And I think that's
a problem too. I think that fordemocracy to work, there needs
(30:19):
to be voices on both sides. Sosince it is the Democrats who
are in charge, you've got socalled -- you know, some of
these what I would call --corporate Democrats who are
anti-steady staters. I thinkthat absolutely local
government, one of the greatthings about local government is
it is nonpartisan, when you runfor city council, you don't run
(30:39):
as a Democrat, Republican ordeclined to state. And that, to
me, is another thing that speaksfor having more community-based
decisions and not fewer. So I dothink that, you know, for every
reaction, there's an oppositereaction.You talked about the
laws of thermodynamics in yourbook. And I think the further
they go with forcing growth, themore people you're going to find
(31:03):
who either leave the state orare unhappy, and try to figure
out a way to fight back. And nowyou could argue with everyone
who, you know, likes living in asingle family neighborhood or a
less dense area leaves thestate, maybe that just leaves
people here who like that levelof density. But as I mentioned
(31:23):
before, people change as theyget older, that the fact that
80% or so of Americans are nothuge fans of that kind of
density and would ideally liketo live in a home with a garden
in a neighborhood of homes withgardens, I think is reflective
of who we are as a country. AndI also think it's something that
has to do with not justpsychology, but it's something
(31:46):
that will help when it does cometo stability. I think, you know,
I've discussed before that whatI would call "urban supremacist"
who want to force everyone tolive in ultra dense cities are
missing is what people actuallywant. You know, you talk about
supply shock, but it's odd whenyou hear people who are trying
to force density and forcegrowth don't actually talk about
(32:08):
the demand side what peoplewould like. And when something
is over concentrated, like jobsor opportunity, the natural
response should be todeconcentrate it. So I think
that the more that Sacramentopushes on these policies,
eventually you will get morepushback. Again, my hope is that
we can get people talking abouta steady state, talking about
(32:29):
growth in general, and to besensible about it. So as a
result, we need more voices likeyours and Herman Daly's, and
especially, I would say, we needto find people who are involved
in academia, who can push backon some of these wacky theories
that we hear from people whohave the credentials, who are
basically shilling for growth.
Brian Czech (32:51):
Well, we need your voice too, John. So thank you so
much for being on the show todayand keep fighting that urban
growth machine and Godspeed.
John Mirisch (33:00):
Thank you, Brian.
I will and I look forward tocontinue working with CASSE and
hopefully to convincing morepeople that CASSE is an
important organization. And--yeah, it's funny -- we talked
about anti-growth, but CASSEneeds to grow not from a
physical perspective, but from ametaphysical perspective, and
(33:20):
the people who understand theimportance of its message for
future generations.
Brian Czech (33:28):
Yep, to the right level. That's it.
John Mirisch (33:31):
Yep. To the right level.
Brian Czech (33:48):
Well, folks, that about wrap us up, we've been
talking with John Mirisch, thethree-term mayor of Beverly
Hills. I don't know about you,but my sense of irony has
subsided from talking with John.
Normally when we think aboutwhere the support for a steady
state economy might come from,we don't think of places next
door to Hollywood. Reflecting ontoday's episode, though, well,
(34:09):
first we find that Beverly Hillsisn't necessarily replete with
see ponds and billiard diningtables. Yes, you will find
millionaires out shopping on anold drive. But the city has its
fiscal challenges just like anyother local government. And more
importantly, we find in BeverlyHills, a place with plenty of
(34:30):
people who understand limits togrowth, and the idea that they
already have enough -- enoughstuff. That is enough goods and
services, enough GDP. And ratherthan being ironic, it makes all
the sense in the world. Thatsuch a place is precisely where
steady state local politics islikely to succeed. Let's put it
(34:52):
this way -- if it doesn'tsucceed in Beverly Hills, how
could we expect it to succeed inBakersfield, Baltimore, or
Birmingham? I'm Brian Czech, andyou've been listening to The
Steady Stater podcast. See younext time!
From the Center for the Advancement of the Steady
State Economy, this is TheSteady Stater, a podcast
dedicated to discussing limitsto growth and the steady state
economy.
Brian Czech (00:16):
Welcome to the show. I'm your host, Brian
Czech. And our guest today isJohn Mirisch, three-term mayor
of Beverly Hills, California.
He's still on the city counciltoo. John comes from a family of
film executives, and he's workedat Paramount Pictures, 20th
Century Fox, and UnitedInternational. These days, he's
probably more active in politicsthan in the film industry. So
(00:38):
for example, he is very activein the California Alliance of
Local Electeds, electeds as anyelected officials, which seems
to have developed somewhat of afocus on fending off the forces
of unsustainable growth. JohnMirisch, welcome to The Steady
Stater.
John Mirisch (00:57):
Well, thank you, Brian. It is an honor to be
here. I'm a big fan of yourwork. And I'm a proud member of
CASSE.
Brian Czech (01:04):
All the honors are ours. Thank you. And you know,
John, sometimes we like to startthings off with a lighthearted
highlight. So what's thecraziest thing you've ever seen
in Beverly Hills?
John Mirisch (01:14):
Oh, boy, it's hard for me to look at it the way
sometimes other people do,because I grew up here. And so
my version of Beverly Hills isactually I look at it like
Mayberry R.F.D. I know there arecrazy things going on here. But
when I would drive through thestreets with my -- now 14 year
old, I would do geography thatwas "oh, look, the Esrelos live
(01:35):
there" and "the Belousov livethere" and so on. So it was
always for me about family orcommunity as an extension of
family. And, you know, I'mtrying to think -- I'm sure
there's a lot of things likethat going on -- weird things
and -- because of the focus onBeverly Hills. But for me, it's
always only just been sort ofour version of Mayberry R.F.D.
(01:56):
and that's why I lovecommunity-based policy and
planning. I think communitiesare unique and they're special.
And you know, each city isprobably looks are hopefully
each community looks at itselfas a version of Mayberry R.F.D.
I'm sorry, to not be able toanswer that question directly.
But you know, I'm sure I've seenon Rodeo Drive walking down a
(02:17):
fair share of people who youmight do a double take at and
who were, you know, probably outof the ordinary for middle
America. But I've never reallythought of it now that way, I
know I have to take a step backsometimes and think of it, but
there are so many misconceptionsand stereotypes about Beverly
Hills. Don't get me started.
Brian Czech (02:36):
No. Okay. And actually, I was going to get
something along those lines outof the way right from the get
go. Because, you know, a lot offolks probably think of Beverly
Hills, Beverly Hills or maybeHollywood next door as the
unsustainability capital of theU.S.A., you know, it's per
capita consumption off thecharts.
John Mirisch (02:55):
Really, there are probably a lot of back here,
that you're probably right,Brian. There are a lot of people
who are involved inoverconsumption here. But what
most people don't know is thatover 50% of Beverly Hills
residents are renters. Andsomething like 78% of people are
under the poverty line, probablyseniors with fixed incomes. So
we have some very, very wealthypeople. And sometimes when you
(03:17):
read about, you know,multimillion dollar houses being
sold in Beverly Hills, it's it'sactually just Beverly Hills zip
code. It's not the city ofBeverly Hills, but certainly
within the city, there are somereally, really rich people. And
you know, that's why probablythe average income would be
higher than the median. But assaid, we've got people who move
into town and live in smallapartments for the community,
(03:40):
for the schools, for the publicsafety and for all of those
things. But it is not just anenclave of the super wealthy,
although we have some of that.
And actually, that's one thingthat I like is that when the
city was planned, it wasn't onlyplanned as an enclave of the
rich. It was planned with, fromthe very beginning with some
really big estates, big homes,smaller single family homes,
commercial, and a lot ofmultifamily. And I think, you
(04:02):
know, as a planned community,that the people who -- Wilbur
Cook, who designed the City inthe early 1900s did a great job.
Brian Czech (04:14):
Well, would you say that you're like an outlier in
Beverly Hills politics callingfor a steady state economy? Or
is there a budding steady statemovement out there?
John Mirisch (04:25):
I think I'm an outlier in politics in general.
I mean, we need more people whoare going to debunk the growth
myth. And for me, by the way,I'm also a Swedish citizen
having lived in Sweden, I comeback to that wonderful quotation
from Swedish climate activistGreta Thunberg. When she was at
the UN and said, you know, herewe are at the beginning of a
(04:47):
mass extinction and all you cando is talk about money and fairy
tales of a turtle economicgrowth. I think when you explain
it to people, they understand.
But I think people feel thateconomic growth is sort of
second nature. We have to haveit. And I don't think people
think critically about it. And Ithink that's why it's important
that people become familiar witha steady state, and what it's
about, and that when people hearthe word degrowth, there's
(05:10):
sometimes a shock effect. Andit's not at all what people
think. And I don't have toexplain that to you. But it's
just logical. We, you know, welive in a world of finite
resources. The notion that weare anything can continue
growing forever, is thedefinition of unsustainability.
Brian Czech (05:28):
And you have a vision of a steady state Beverly
Hills, what would it look like?
And if the state of Californiadidn't interfere, do you think
the City Council could manage tomaintain it? In other words,
let's set the state ofCalifornia aside for the moment,
because I know we're going tocome back to that in a major way
soon. But assuming the citycouncil had sufficient and
(05:49):
governing power, have youthought about the structure,
functioning, and maintenance ofthe city government in a steady
state economy? And are therelessons out there for other city
officials around the country?
John Mirisch (06:04):
Well, that's a great question. As I mentioned,
I think when Wilbur Cookdesigned the city way back in
the early 1900s, he did anamazing job. And I think that
blueprint is still valid fortoday. And you know, nothing is
so good that it can't get better-- there are certain things that
we would and could need toimprove and could do so within
(06:24):
the framework of a steady stateeconomy. To me, this is
indicative. We're pretty much intheory who we should be. We've
had about 35,000 residents forthe last 60 or 70 years. So that
to me is very much steady state.
We're coming under pressure,though, now, of course, to add
density, to add population, togrow -- not physically, because
we're only 5.7 square miles, andwe can't grow physically, we
(06:46):
have urban growth boundaries.
But we're coming under pressureto grow. We've got people, you
know, that use the dreaded Nword, the NIMBY word, to say
that, because I think a lot ofus feel that the community that
we have, in terms of population,in terms of size, in terms of
density is where we should bethat were NIMBYs. And, as I
(07:09):
said, the pressure is all comingfrom Sacramento. And so I think
that if you look at the last 60,70 years, I suggest that there
are some mistakes that, youknow, maybe that sometimes in
some cases, but not compared toother cities, not compared to
Santa Monica, Culver City thathave succumb to this notion that
we have to grow the localeconomy. And of course, our
(07:31):
business community, the chambersof Commerces who are always sort
of the pro-growth advocateswould probably differ with me.
But my feeling is that we don'tneed to add jobs. We don't need
to add commercial. We shouldkeep things sort of keep it real
the way that they are. And ifthere are businesses that are
becoming stale, yes, you canmaybe replace them with newer
(07:53):
businesses. But the goal shouldbe that stability rather than to
grow. And so to me, the 35,000residents that we have is not
just some arbitrary figure. It'ssomething that over the past six
decades or so has been a formulathat has for the most part
worked. So again, I think thatmost people in our community may
(08:13):
feel that or sense it. I don'tthink they necessarily
understand or think about what asteady state economy is. But I
think when you explain to them,this notion of growth and this
notion of force growth and thisnotion of force density, they
begin to understand and I thinkthat's again, that's why it's so
important to get the basicbackground of steady -- what a
(08:36):
steady state economy is outthere. And to have that
dialogue.
Brian Czech (08:40):
Right. And you mentioned the pressures coming
from Sacramento. And maybe,maybe we need to just remind
folks, that's the state house inCalifornia, you're talking
about,
John Mirisch (08:50):
Yeah, that's -- Sacramento is the faraway state
house. It's probably furtheraway from Los Angeles than New
York is from Washington. And inmany cases, it feels that way.
Now, I'm somebody who is a totalbeliever in community. I believe
that local government, when doneright, is the best form of
(09:11):
democracy, because it's aboutcommunity, and it's closest to
home. And, of course,Sacramento, in many ways, like
our political system, and we canget into discussion of that and
the role of money within ourpolitical system. But it seems
that they're often more servingthe special interests than the
residents. And as we both know,this is not a new concept. The
(09:34):
urban growth machine has been atwork for decades trying to force
density and ergo force growth.
And that's a term I think, thatwas originated by Harvey Molotch
-- not quite sure how hepronounces his name -- years
ago, and there's no questionthat we have a very strong urban
growth machine at work inCalifornia, where there's a lot
(09:56):
of money to be made.
Brian Czech (09:59):
Yeah, It's ironic because a lot of steady staters
out there probably still thinkof California as a bellwether of
progressive environmentalprotection. But we felt those
rumblings that, yeah, the Stateof California has become
somewhat of a growth machine.
John Mirisch (10:15):
Well it certainly is. And, you know, the fact that
people are decrying Californialost population for the first
time since the state wasfounded. And you've got people,
you know, renting their clothesbecause of that. Well, I look at
that as a good thing. I mean,that, you know, I don't know
that the 40 million people thatwe have is the right figure for
us. It may be too many. Butcertainly the fact that
(10:39):
populations stabilizing is agood thing. It's funny, we've
got planners here who havedescribed some of the policies
that are supposedly progressive,as fore-gressive, because you
see a really odd alliancebetween some of these, you know,
so called environmental groupsand groups like up for growth
that are really pushing density.
And, you know, as I wrote in thearticle for your blog, that this
(11:01):
forced density is really a proxyfor forced growth.
Brian Czech (11:06):
Yeah. And I'm glad you reminded me of that article,
because I have to say, it's oneof the best articles about local
government, dealing withproblems of growth that we've
had in the 10 plus years of thefirst the Daily News, and then
the Steady State Herald. Andthis was the article called
(11:27):
Housing Policy - An Agent forGrowth. It was from October 7,
2021. So steady staters outthere might want to track that
one down.
John Mirisch (11:37):
Well, thank you, Brian. I'm flattered. And you
know, hopefully, I'll have achance to write more I find, you
know, a lot of what I'm doingnow is writing rebuttals to some
of these ridiculous argumentsthat you hear to try and force
density. And you know, it'sweird, because as you say, you
think of California asprogressive but a lot of these
(11:59):
you know, self-styledprogressives are spouting
theories that would put aReaganomics supply-sider to
shame.
Brian Czech (12:08):
Well, that isn't good. Well, John, I understand a
number of local governments inCalifornia have really tried to
stabilize to limit population,at least, maybe kind of like
Beverly Hills. But the State ofCalifornia won't let them. And
then to make matters worse, Ialso heard that the state, they
won't point to just one specificlaw or policy, but rather, they
(12:31):
refer to different policies,depending on the circumstances.
So that would make it way harderto litigate, I'd imagine.
John Mirisch (12:38):
The state blames zoning. The narrative is that
cities through what they callexclusionary zoning, which
basically means single-familyneighborhoods has shut out
people. There are all sorts ofarguments, they tie into it. But
the three main ones areaffordability, racial equity,
and the environment. And they'rebasically set all smoke screens.
(13:01):
And you know, the goal is toforce density, which as I wrote
in the article is a proxy forforce growth. So, which I asked
said, I find it, the reasonbehind it ultimately is about
money. The urban growth machine,people who have looked to what
is known as the financializationof housing organizations, the
(13:23):
commodification of housing, lookto that growth as a way to
create and sustain profits. AndI wouldn't even say that Beverly
Hills has taken policies orother cities have taken policies
to consciously stabilize thepopulation. I think that the
population that we have and havehad for 60 or 70 years has
stabilized on its own. Andthat's actually a good thing.
(13:46):
You could look at that as thedefinition of the steady state
economy. Now, some people mightsay, Well, it's because of
zoning. But as I mentioned toyou, over 50% of our residents
are renters, and actually, over65% of the housing units in
Beverly Hills are multifamily.
Now people point out thepercentage of land that is
devoted to single family homes,as if there was something wrong
(14:08):
with that, ignoring the factthat all studies show something
like 80% of Americans preferliving in homes with gardens in
neighborhoods of homes withgardens. And to me, that's
actually a good thing. You know,living in an ultra-dense
neighborhood is great for somepeople, but especially as people
maybe get older and havefamilies, it's nice to have a
(14:30):
garden and, you know, the notionthat there's something
environmentally wrong with thator that's cause -- what's
causing housing to beunaffordable is absurd. And of
course, there were restrictivecovenants in many cities in
California, including in BeverlyHills, quite frankly. Those
restrictive covenants would haveexcluded and did exclude Jewish
(14:51):
people. Now Beverly Hills todayis one of the only Jewish
majority cities outside ofIsrael. So you know the fact
that there were restrictivecovenants is not a knock on
single family homes orneighborhoods themselves, any
more than the fact that therewas racism with public
transportation. Just think ofRosa Parks means that there's
(15:11):
something inherently racistabout public transportation. And
yet the solution, quote-unquote,from some of these growth attic
is let's just eliminate singlefamily neighborhoods.
Brian Czech (15:25):
Well, you know, I suspect there are some steady
staters out there in theaudience that would want me to
follow up on something you saidearly on in that answer about
the stabilized population,essentially being the steady
state economy. I mean, we dohave to point out that it's the
population times the per-capitaconsumption and that total has
(15:48):
to be -- that product that hasto be at a sustainable level, of
course.
John Mirisch (15:54):
Right. And as I mentioned, I think you will find
that you know, Beverly Hills isnot immune quite the opposite to
sort of the frenzy ofconsumption that our
market-oriented society is andmarketing-oriented society is
trying to foist upon all ofthis, selling us things that we
don't need and making us feel wehave to have things that we
(16:14):
don't have to have. That's ofcourse, a larger problem as
well. And certainly there areparts of Beverly Hills that are,
if you will, textbook cases ofconspicuous consumption. There's
no doubt about that.
Brian Czech (16:27):
Well, John, it's been a fascinating conversation
so far, but we need to take ashort non-commercial break here
with James Lamont. Take it awayJames!
James Lamont (16:42):
Hello, listeners, whether this is your first time
at the steady state or you'veheard our entire collection as
an easy way for you were to helpus spread the steady state
message. We know that many ofyou listen to the show using
Apple podcasts. If you haven'talready, please consider
subscribing in the app byclicking the Follow button. This
way, you'll automaticallyreceive new episodes upon their
release. Additionally, you couldhelp out by leaving us a written
(17:04):
review in the app. These actionswill help to circulate the
steady state and to advance thesteady state mission. Thanks
very much for your support. Andnow back to the show.
Brian Czech (17:14):
Welcome back to the show steady staters where our
guest today is John Mirisch, thethree-time mayor of Beverly
Hills. John, you first came tous because you didn't encounter
an organization that you foundto be a paragon of
unsustainability. You mentionedthem in the first part, they're
called Up for Growth. Andthey're based in Washington
D.C.. You were trying to findsort of an anti-up for growth
(17:37):
and settled upon us, which is alittle bit like finding David
while confronting Goliath.
Because you know up for growthis like big money Goliath and we
at CASSE have this littleslingshot. It's powerful, but
it's a little slingshot,consisting of sound science and
common sense. I do like to saythat a dollars worth of sound
(17:59):
science and common sense candefeat a million dollars worth
of pro-growth propaganda. Theproblem is I suspect up for
growth has not 1 million suchdollars, but rather two or more
million to every one of ours. Sohow big do you think CASSE has
to get in order to defeat thelikes of up for growth? And then
(18:19):
what's the best way we can helpa local government to fend off
the forces of growth?
John Mirisch (18:27):
Sadly, we live in an age where, in a country where
money is speech, andcorporations are people and of
course neither are true. It's anuphill battle. And my hope is
that by getting more peopleactively involved in what's
going on in their owncommunities, because that's
where they feel the mostimpacted. That's, you know, it's
(18:48):
one thing if something unlessyou live in Washington, what's
happening in D.C. or Sacramento.
But when things are happening inyour own communities, maybe you
notice. And I just think thatthe best thing that CASSE or any
organization focused on a steadystate economy or degrowth can do
is to continue to point out the-- you know, going back to what
(19:09):
Greta Thunberg said, and toconvince people that this notion
of forced growth is simply thedefinition of unsustainability.
And it's interesting, I pointout that the word stability is
literally embedded but alsometaphorically embedded in the
word and the concept ofsustainability. And the problem
(19:29):
is you have these groups like Upfor Growth that are parenting,
that are co-opting the languageof sustainability and are trying
to suggest that force density isin and of itself sustainable,
and that it's environmentallyfriendly, and that it's racially
equitable, and that it createsaffordable housing, none of
which are true. So they arecreating a false narrative that
(19:52):
we will need everybody inanybody to debunk. And part of
the problem is too -- becauseagain, money is involved in, a
lot of it. You've got a lot ofpeople on the side of academia,
who are largely responsible forfueling these myths of eternal
economic growth. And it's notjust the Ecomodernist to say
(20:15):
that technology is going to saveus, it's almost -- as I said --
given that this sort of forcedensity and this force growth is
what we need to be able to moveforward and to create the kind
of equity that notion that, youknow, we've heard it before -- a
rising tide floats all boats --well, of course, it doesn't if
(20:36):
you don't have a boat. But that,to me is the essence of
neoliberalism. It's the essenceof supply-side economy. It's the
essence of Reaganomics. And it'svery odd that you've got a group
of people who identify withprogressivism, who are spouting
this nonsense, and you look atthe board up for growth, and it
doesn't only consist ofpro-Trumpers, it's got these
people who consider themselvesto be progressive. So that's
(20:59):
what we're up against. Now, Iwould argue they're not
progressive at all. But youknow, there's a psychology about
what is motivating them. Andthat's a whole nother
discussion, I think the bestthing that we can do is to get
more people on board -- morereasonable people -- to find
people like yourself and HermanDaly, who can make it very clear
why a group like Up for Growthis completely on the wrong side
(21:24):
of history. You know, we need tobe up for stability, we need to
be up for sustainability, weprobably need to be up for
degrowth. But we certainly needto be up for a steady state
economy.
Brian Czech (21:36):
In terms of particular actions, you know, I
know that if we're going to belike an anti up for growth. We
have the one chapter director Imentioned to you once up in
Idaho, Rob Harding, who -- heand one of their city
councilman, they established apack to help to get a couple of
people elected to that councilto have the majority for pushing
(21:59):
back against some of the growthprojects that were on the ballot
there. And it were...
John Mirisch (22:05):
That's, of course, a great idea. And of course,
PACs again, this is our system.
It's about money. FamousCalifornia politician Jesse
Unruh once said that money isthe mother's milk of politics.
And it's gotten even worse sincethe Supreme Court decisions
Buckley v. Valeo and CitizensUnited. And so, yes, we can and
should push back. And it's greatif $1 of CASSE and $1 of steady
(22:28):
statesmanship can push backagainst a million dollars of
growthism. But I think also, asyou point out in your book, that
we grow up with this notion thatgrowth is something that's
necessary, it's good. And thatas I also wrote in the article,
if someone is described asanti-growth, that's a slur. And
(22:49):
when I was described as that Itook it as a badge of honor --
you know, we need to make itvery clear that there's a time
and a place where growth isappropriate as a child. But once
a child reaches maturity, andmany of our cities are mature
organisms, the notion of tryingto force growth is akin to
trying to force an a matureadult, such as myself to
(23:11):
physically row. And I can tellyou, if someone said to me,
you've got to physically grow 30to 40%. There's only one way I'm
growing, and it's not going tobe in a way that's healthy. And
you know, think of streetsalmost as clogged arteries. So,
you know, there seems to be anobsession, especially in this
country, with growth. And youand some of the other voices of
(23:33):
reason, are the way thathopefully we can connect with
people who sense that this kindof growth is unsustainable. And
unfortunately, a lot of thepeople who I believe innately
feel that there's somethingwrong with what the state and,
to an extent, the federalgovernment -- you look at some
of Biden's policies, I feel thatit looks like they're forcing
(23:55):
growth in the same way, butpeople who react instinctively
against it. And as said, they'reall called NIMBYs -- not my
backyard. Because supposedly,you know, they're selfish. And
in some cases, they're portrayedas selfish homeowners who only
care about their propertyvalues. And of course, that's
all hogwash. But I think we needto articulate what is behind it.
(24:17):
And I think it starts withpointing out that all of these
policies that you see thesethese YIMBY, these Yes In My
Backyard, and WIMBY, Wall StreetIn My Backyard policies are not
about the environment, they'renot about racial equity, they're
not about affordability -- theyare about growth. And I that's
(24:37):
what I've been trying to do. AndI think that where CASSE can
help, because we have toidentify a problem before we can
even push back and create asolution. People that said
they're using these progressivesounding terms to try and force
growth upon us and forcedensity. And we're not even, in
many cases, conscious. Justthat's exactly what we're doing.
Brian Czech (25:02):
Yeah. And just to verify, or just to clarify, that
pack, that Rob Harding worked onthat's up in Hayden, Idaho and
then we have some folks in Mainethat are talking about a similar
effort.
John Mirisch (25:16):
We should -- we should need more of them, Brian.
We need more.
Brian Czech (25:18):
Yeah. Yeah.
John Mirisch (25:21):
And we need a national group. I mean, you look
at, you look it up for growth,and you look at all the people
who are on the board, and youlook at the chairman emeritus,
Clyde Holland, who is a hugedeveloper, I think, in the
Seattle area, and a major donorto Trump. And you know, you look
at some of these people who --if you say the word Trump would
(25:42):
walk out of a room who are onthe same board, and you know
that there is something going onthat is very wrong. And we
definitely need to have a voiceof reason. I would sometimes use
the hashtag ListentToGreta,because that's exactly what we
need to do. And the irony iswhen you point out the statement
the Greta Thunberg made, theytry what I call "indisplayed
(26:05):
her" -- oh, well, she didn'tmean that, she actually meant
something else. I can tell you,I'm Swedish. That's exactly what
she meant. And the notion thatwe should force density and
force growth and the notion thatthere have to be these superstar
cities where we concentrateopportunity, and where everyone
has to move, because that'swhere the jobs are. That's not
(26:26):
only bad policy, but it alsoignores the proof of concept
that we have of remote work andworking from home, which offers
a tremendous potential toactually move towards
sustainability and stability.
And they completely ignore that.
It's not surprising, though,because again, it's not good for
(26:46):
growth.
Brian Czech (26:47):
Well, you know, that David and Goliath metaphor
that was imperfect, because forone thing, CASSE shouldn't be
the only David out there. Thatbrings us back around to the
California Alliance of LocalElecteds. How long has the
Alliance been focused on theproblem of unsustainable growth?
Did you bring that to the table?
John Mirisch (27:05):
Well, I would say that it actually started in a
very different way. And itstarted in that cities were
being preempted by Sacramento,when it comes to their land use
policy cities were beingscapegoated. You know, the
narrative that you will hear --the false narrative is that
cities are the cause of thehousing affordability crisis,
(27:25):
because they make it illegal tobuild more housing, and so on
and so forth. And a number ofpeople from throughout the state
elected officials have felt thatwas an unfair attack. We in many
cases feel that actuallySacramento is the cause. Because
Sacramento is serving the urbangrowth machine and money special
(27:47):
interests, that stands to make alot of money, when cities no
longer can control their urbanplanning and can build
willy-nilly whatever they want.
So I think it was a loosealliance of people that came
together, we -- in some ways, wefelt that the California League
of Cities was not being aseffective as they could in
protecting local democracy andlocal decision making. And we
(28:08):
came together and it was mainlyabout land use. And I think I've
been trying to point out to themthat it is about growth as well.
And that it is about thatsustainability encompasses -- as
I pointed out before --stability. You've got people who
are saying, well, you know,cities shouldn't be in amber,
and they need to grow and thatsort of thing. Well, they need
(28:29):
to grow maybe metaphysically.
Cities don't necessarily need togrow physically, once it's a
built out or mature city with astable population much like our
own. And it's interesting,because what the pro-growthers
is in California did was theyhired the firm McKinsey,
Consulting firm, you know,basically will say anything for
(28:52):
money. Whether they hired themor whether McKenzie actually --
it actually may have been --that McKinsey went out on their
own to try and drum up morebusiness. And they did a study
that has since been debunked,that said that California needs
3.5 million new units, that wehave a deficit of 3.5 million
housing units. And first of all,McKinsey doesn't have the
(29:13):
greatest reputation. As youprobably know, they paid, I
think, settlements of $600million to settle claims that
they were involved in pushingopioids. And so to trust opioid
pushers is one thing, but youlook at Freddie Mac, which is a
quasi-governmental organizationhas said that the deficit is
(29:34):
about $800,000. So there's ahuge difference there.
Brian Czech (29:38):
Well, John, going back one more time to the
California Alliance of LocalElecteds. I understand the
Alliance is a nonpartisan group,but I have to wonder how hard is
it to keep it that way intoday's hyperpartisan USA? And
would you say that one party maybe more steady-state in
California?
John Mirisch (29:59):
Well, California is basically a one-party state.
Certainly at the state level,it's democratic for 20 years or
so. We haven't had a statewideelected Republicans since
Schwarzenegger who was, youknow, a star. And I think that's
a problem too. I think that fordemocracy to work, there needs
(30:19):
to be voices on both sides. Sosince it is the Democrats who
are in charge, you've got socalled -- you know, some of
these what I would call --corporate Democrats who are
anti-steady staters. I thinkthat absolutely local
government, one of the greatthings about local government is
it is nonpartisan, when you runfor city council, you don't run
(30:39):
as a Democrat, Republican ordeclined to state. And that, to
me, is another thing that speaksfor having more community-based
decisions and not fewer. So I dothink that, you know, for every
reaction, there's an oppositereaction.You talked about the
laws of thermodynamics in yourbook. And I think the further
they go with forcing growth, themore people you're going to find
(31:03):
who either leave the state orare unhappy, and try to figure
out a way to fight back. And nowyou could argue with everyone
who, you know, likes living in asingle family neighborhood or a
less dense area leaves thestate, maybe that just leaves
people here who like that levelof density. But as I mentioned
(31:23):
before, people change as theyget older, that the fact that
80% or so of Americans are nothuge fans of that kind of
density and would ideally liketo live in a home with a garden
in a neighborhood of homes withgardens, I think is reflective
of who we are as a country. AndI also think it's something that
has to do with not justpsychology, but it's something
(31:46):
that will help when it does cometo stability. I think, you know,
I've discussed before that whatI would call "urban supremacist"
who want to force everyone tolive in ultra dense cities are
missing is what people actuallywant. You know, you talk about
supply shock, but it's odd whenyou hear people who are trying
to force density and forcegrowth don't actually talk about
(32:08):
the demand side what peoplewould like. And when something
is over concentrated, like jobsor opportunity, the natural
response should be todeconcentrate it. So I think
that the more that Sacramentopushes on these policies,
eventually you will get morepushback. Again, my hope is that
we can get people talking abouta steady state, talking about
(32:29):
growth in general, and to besensible about it. So as a
result, we need more voices likeyours and Herman Daly's, and
especially, I would say, we needto find people who are involved
in academia, who can push backon some of these wacky theories
that we hear from people whohave the credentials, who are
basically shilling for growth.
Brian Czech (32:51):
Well, we need your voice too, John. So thank you so
much for being on the show todayand keep fighting that urban
growth machine and Godspeed.
John Mirisch (33:00):
Thank you, Brian.
I will and I look forward tocontinue working with CASSE and
hopefully to convincing morepeople that CASSE is an
important organization. And--yeah, it's funny -- we talked
about anti-growth, but CASSEneeds to grow not from a
physical perspective, but from ametaphysical perspective, and
(33:20):
the people who understand theimportance of its message for
future generations.
Brian Czech (33:28):
Yep, to the right level. That's it.
John Mirisch (33:31):
Yep. To the right level.
Brian Czech (33:48):
Well, folks, that about wrap us up, we've been
talking with John Mirisch, thethree-term mayor of Beverly
Hills. I don't know about you,but my sense of irony has
subsided from talking with John.
Normally when we think aboutwhere the support for a steady
state economy might come from,we don't think of places next
door to Hollywood. Reflecting ontoday's episode, though, well,
(34:09):
first we find that Beverly Hillsisn't necessarily replete with
see ponds and billiard diningtables. Yes, you will find
millionaires out shopping on anold drive. But the city has its
fiscal challenges just like anyother local government. And more
importantly, we find in BeverlyHills, a place with plenty of
(34:30):
people who understand limits togrowth, and the idea that they
already have enough -- enoughstuff. That is enough goods and
services, enough GDP. And ratherthan being ironic, it makes all
the sense in the world. Thatsuch a place is precisely where
steady state local politics islikely to succeed. Let's put it
(34:52):
this way -- if it doesn'tsucceed in Beverly Hills, how
could we expect it to succeed inBakersfield, Baltimore, or
Birmingham? I'm Brian Czech, andyou've been listening to The
Steady Stater podcast. See younext time!
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.