Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

That's quite an interesting take! The differences in older and newer city planning regarding street widths, densities, mixing of zoning, etc. are quite drastic.

However, I believe it will be at least 20 years before my local municipality will be able to learn from any of these lessons. The planning meetings for any type of development are dominated by those with the time to go to them mid-day: retired people that set up the initial zoning and are dead set against any potential change. The same person who is super concerned about negative impact on property values will in the next sentence rail against those wanting to do development for their "greed."

I really gotta move out of California...




I really gotta move out of California...

It's not a California thing. As part of my job, I spend a lot of time presenting at public meetings and in my spare time I do a fair amount of advocacy (for various causes) which also results in a lot of time in public meetings. I've been in public meetings in small rural villages and large cities across 30 states. And I've observed the same thing - the folks that attend those meetings tend to be dominated by those affluent enough to take the time to go.

The starkest example of that are public meetings in poor cities where projects will affect large minority areas and yet 95% of the attendees will be affluent folks from the outer suburbs. It's not that the affected folks don't care, it just that when the meeting is held at 2pm or 5pm or even 6pm on a weeknight, they have jobs to go to and they can't make time to attend. The most diverse, well-attended public meetings I've been to have always been held on Saturday afternoons.


We need to follow the example of Ancient Greece, where citizens got paid time off work to attend the Ecclesia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_(ancient_Athens)

> It had the final say on legislation and the right to call magistrates to account after their year of office. In the 5th century BC its members numbered about 43,000 people. It would have been difficult, however, for non-wealthy people outside of the urban center of Athens to attend until payments for attendance were introduced in the late 5th century. It originally met once every month, but later it met three or four times per month.

Today, "ecclesiastical" is associated with a centrally managed church, but the term is rooted in a democratic assembly, with payment for attendance enabling representation of more segments of the citizenry.


This is like the opposite of a Federal Holiday. Everybody has the day off except for the government.


I think it rotated. When it was your turn, you attended the Ecclesia and got a token to prove you participated. This was given to your employer, who would then be compensated for your day's wages.


It doesn't even need to be an all-or-nothing thing. You could have a state law saying something like "All employees are allowed to attend one public policy meeting during working hours each month." Its not a huge expense for business owners, as I assume these meetings don't run more than an hour or two, and while it doesn't allow people to attend every single planning meeting, they can get to the ones which are most likely to affect them.

Or alternatively, just run all the meetings on Saturdays and Sundays. Government is a public service, after all, and could do a bit better at operating to meet the needs of the people.


Such a state law would be unconstitutional, for violating rights to assembly/speech and for forced service. The government can't take your time (freedom) or force people to attend meetings without due process.


How is "allowed to attend" forced service? And how does this differ from requirements for sick leave?


And jury duty is ... ?


That system worked because of a tremendous number of slaves, though.


Well, since that time, we've moved away from slavery to labor saving machines.

Since we're at a point where many people are under-employed, and we expect many more to become so, we can probably re-institute something like this.

After all, the United States was a crazy experiment to revive 2,000-year-old Greek idea called 'Democracy'. While we did have slaves at the beginning, we have managed to enfranchise all adults politically. Maybe the Ecclesia could work, too.


> After all, the United States was a crazy experiment to revive 2,000-year-old Greek idea called 'Democracy'.

Not really. Representative democracy as the substantive form of government was an established tradition in Britain and it's North American colonies long before the US (a prime motivation for the revolution was perceived increasing deviation from that norm by the central government in respect to the administration of the colonies in the period leading up to the revolution.)

Insofar as the US (under the Constitution, at least) was an experiment in government, it wasn't in revive a dormant concept of "democracy", but in vigorously and fairly explicitly adopting the novel tripartite separation of powers model of Montesquieu.

> we have managed to enfranchise all adults politically.

No, we haven't. We have in principle (though less so in practice) eliminated certain bases of disenfranchisement, but it is not the case that the US has, at any point, enfranchised the entire adult population, even on theory, much less in fact.


The Church hierarchy was an example of a representative democracy as well. The primates would come together at ecumenical councils to decide on matters of faith and pastoral care. All bishops received one and only one vote, and the ecumenical patriarch, who often was tasked with organizing and presiding over the council, was simply referred to the "first among equals", and also only had one vote.


> The Church hierarchy was an example of a representative democracy as well.

Which church heirarchy? The secular heirarchy of the Catholic Church (which you seem to be referring to) certainly isn't an example (while there were certainly councils in which voting occurred, the members of those councils were not, for the most part, elected by the people below them, but appointed by those above.)

The monastic heirarchy perhaps had greater similarity to representative democracy, though I'd still say it was at best loosely similar to representative democracy rather than an example of it.


He's talking about the Anglican church, not the Catholic church. Unlike the Pope the Archbishop of Canterbury is primer inter pares.


Sorry I am late responding, I am talking about neither of the two, but rather, the Orthodox Church.


Oh. Well the Anglican church seemed more plausible in the context of early America.


In the context of America, you are certainly correct. Anglican is a good example!


> Insofar as the US (under the Constitution, at least) was an experiment in government, it wasn't in revive a dormant concept of "democracy", but in vigorously and fairly explicitly adopting the novel tripartite separation of powers model of Montesquieu.

But that model is basically based on the English government with Parliament and a king in place of Congress and a president, isn't it? There was definitely a lot of neoclassical thinking among the Founding Fathers, although I'd say more inspired by the Roman Republic than by Greek democracy (to which the American system bears very little resemblance).

Anyway, curiously, a lot of early discourse uses "democrat" or "democracy" as a pejorative akin to "anarchist" or something.


Not that strange if you've read Plato. I read in Hannah Arendt that 'democracy' may have been a pejorative used by antidemocrats like him; actual early democrats talked about isonomy and isegoria: more or less what we call equality under the law and free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isonomia

I'm not a classical scholar, but I get the impression that later times preferentially transmitted the less democratic points of view. I.F. Stone also wrote about this in The Trial of Socrates.


Well, it's perhaps "strange" in the sense that it goes against later thinking and our popular self-image.


> But that model is basically based on the English government with Parliament and a king in place of Congress and a president, isn't it?

Not really; the British system of the time was certainly an important influence on Montesquieu, but it didn't exhibit the three-way separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial that his model called for.


The King is the executive and the Parliament is the legislature. Both systems have courts.


> The King is the executive and the Parliament is the legislature. Both systems have courts.

At the time Montesquieu was writing (there has been some practical evolution towards an independent judiciary since) Parliament held not only legislative power but also (in the House of Lords -- which at the time was also the dominant House in terms of the legislative function, though that is very much not true now) the judicial power as well.

Again, the then-current British system was one of the primary reference points which informed Montesquieu's model (and he clearly saw it as far superior to the French system of the time), but it wasn't designed around the three-way separation of powers with mutual checks and balances the way the US system under the Constitution was.


While obviously informed by modern thinking, the Founders rooted the American experiment firmly in classical Greek and Roman tradition. There's a reason why US government buildings all look like classical temples.


> There's a reason why US government buildings all look like classical temples.

It's not quite that simple. The US Federal style adapted neoclassist architecture from Europe, where Greek and Roman inspired revivals started in the mid 18th century when new archeological expeditions as well as artists bringing back impressions of Italy and Greece produced an influx of images and artefacts that made Greek and Roman architecture better known.

French revolutionary architecture went to a similar extreme as the US Federal style, and I'm sure it wasn't all a one way thing, and you're sort-of right in that certainly people were looking to the Roman Republic and the Greek city states as an ideal, and that was part of the fascination with Greece and Roman culture.

And the architecture in return did get an image tied to radicalism and republicanism as a result of the extent of its use in the US and France after the revolution (the French then went on to take it to the extreme, when under Napoleon the French Empire style tried to do everything bigger, shiner and even more Roman).

But the Greek and Roman revival didn't start in the US, and often copied then-modern European architecture rather than copying the originals.

An example where we know the direct influence is the layout of Washington D.C. - Jefferson provided l'Enfant with maps and sketches of a number of European cities to use as inspiration, with Karlsruhe being one of them.

Karlsruhe had been built from scratch starting in the 18th century, following a strict planned layout with a palace at the centre, radiating artery roads out from the palace gardens, aligned with the wings of the palace, and was a major force in spreading the influence of strict geometric city plans that used the shape and regularity to draw attention to important buildings or monuments as well as to tie the city together. Washington D.C. (and many later US cities) certainly in turn influenced further city plans in Europe.


Yeah, but they also kept writing about how they were creating the new Rome.


But that basis of that fascination was also part of the reason for the rise of neoclassisism.

Greece and the Roman Republic and Empire came to be seen as purer, grander and more refined past, which drove a lot of effort into re-discovering information about them, which led to an increased interest in archeology, and eventually to things like neoclassism.

Dictators and radicals alike looked for lessons, and found them in different places for centuries. E.g. the former have often had an extreme fascination with the idea of continuity with the Roman Empire (see one of Napoleons later extreme examples of trying to be Roman[1]); the latter with the nascent democracy of the Greek city states and the Roman Republic.

You find it everywhere, not just in philosophy, architecture and art: English itself was subjected to a sustained "assault" of writers trying to bring more Latin and Greek words into common use.

A bit cheek-in-mouth: Everyone wanted to create the new Rome, ever since the fall of Rome (e.g. consider the Holy Roman Empire and the idea of "translatio imperii" which was used to justify a tenuous connection to the perceived glory of ROme [2]). They just disagreed (strongly) about what was great about Rome.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_style#/media/File:The_M...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii


The HRE probably had the best claim next to the Byzantines to being the true successors to Rome, but of course in the US they were a lot more interested in the Roman republic than the dominate.


Good point about the Roman republic.

As to being a true successor, recall that the Holy Roman Empire was famously neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.

The "Byzantine Empire" is equally a misnomer. Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium-- renaming it "New Rome"--for defensive and commercial reasons. The Roman Empire itself remained. The notion that the "Byzantine Empire" was a successor to the Roman may arise from the fact that the eastern parts of the empire had always used Greek as the language of administration and as a lingua franca. Greek was barely known in the West from the fall of the eastern empire (ca. 476) to the Renaissance, when Greek scholars came to Italy as the eastern empire was contracting.

Given the Roman Empire's survival until 1453, the fall of Constantinople, a claim of succession is best made by the Russian Empire. Their Orthodox religion and Cyrillic alphabet were clearly derived from Greek Orthodoxy and the Greek alphabet.


The HRE had a very tenuous claim. They didn't even use the name until hundreds of years in, and most of their emperors were not crowned by any popes. Their claim was basically that the HRE was a successor to East Francia, which lands had been part of the Carolingian Empire, which had been ruled by Charlemagne, who had been crowned emperor by the pope in attempt to stake out his own very tenuous claim to be the continuation of the West Roman Empire (which had basically been defunct for centuries by then).

Couple that with the invented principle of translatio imperii [1], and they glossed over the multiple long breaks in lineage, and lack of even an unbroken connection between the territories ruled.

There's the old joke about the HRE: It was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire - the emperor ruled on paper, but it had very limited practical effect other than letting a smaller and smaller set of families reflect in the glory of an Emperor title.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Translatio_imperii


Yeah, I agree, but the late Roman Empire was almost mostly Germanic barbarians so you can see the continuity easily enough. You might call it tenuous but it's still a better claim than most.

As an aside, that aphorism about the Holy Roman Empire is so well-known that it has the unfortunate trait of being spouted by people who know nothing else about the topic (not that I'm accusing you of that, if it sounds that way).


> Since we're at a point where many people are under-employed, and we expect many more to become so, we can probably re-institute something like this.

Call me old-fashioned but I don't think locking people in as a permanent underclass is a good idea.

And practically speaking I'm not sure how a slave society where the slaveholders have special rights to participate in democratic society is an improvement over a system where poor people have trouble participating because of their jobs or their resources but not because they don't have the right to.


I meant re-institute the ecclesia, not slavery. Sorry for not being clear.


This is exactly why national US voting is held mid-day on a Tuesday. Sure you have mail-in ballots now, but the default in-person voting time/date is surely deliberately designed to favor a particular demographic.


Technically it's on a Tuesday because back in 1845 people needed a travel day to get to the ballot box and another day to travel back, and you can't travel on the Christian Sabbath, so that only leaves Tuesday - Friday as options.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/192414-why-do-we-vote-on-tue...

Why is it still on a Tuesday? I think your reason is spot on.


Perhaps, but isn't it just as reasonable that they didn't want to change it? Presumably changing the date would actually censor the vote, with it being nearly impossible to get word of the date change to the entire electorate.


It's one of those things that since it's always been this way, it'll take a really good reason to convince people to change it.

I have never known an employer who wouldn't make accommodations for an employee to go vote.

I'm sure there's probably a border case somewhere that has happened for the most part, this is the case.


I don't think anyone just randomly shows up at the voting booth on the (guessing here) 1st Tuesday of the month in election years. I suspect virtually everyone knows about the exact date due to various forms of publicity. Especially when you consider the many different dates for many different kinds of elections.

That said, EVERY interest group is going to favor or disfavor any particular new solution due to perceived advantages of drawbacks to their cause, preventing any progress whatsoever.


> (guessing here) 1st Tuesday of the month in election years

It's actually the first Tuesday after the first Monday (in other words, the first Tuesday after the first of November, which is All Saints' Day, and therefore unsuitable).


I don't think that's true. Originally, Tuesday was chosen because farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the three days of worship, or Wednesday, which was commonly a market day. [1]

It could be kept that way for that reason, but to say it was deliberately designed for that reason I feel is disingenuous.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)#H...


That's pretty sickening, but can't help but consider true. Upvoted and added this comment for emphasis.

In Australia voting day is always a Saturday, from 8 am to 6 pm, also with ample opportunity to mail in beforehand. Oh and you'll be fined if you don't cast your vote... It may not be perfect, but appears way more democratic to me than the US elections.

http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/polling.htm

(When I left Norway nearly two decades ago, so glad I didn't go to the US now.)


I often vote absentee (or "early" this year) in the US because of travel or just because. But if I had to vote in person I'd guess I'd miss at least as many votes on weekends because I'm off somewhere as weekdays.

I'm also unconvinced that forced voting is a positive. If you don't care enough to develop an opinion and vote, why should your random "because you have to" vote count?


In some countries you can vote blank(you don't find a good enough representation among the parties) or a non valid vote (as a protest). The problem is how they count those votes, in Spain is like if have not voted.


>but can't help but consider true

You may want to reconsider your logical approach here, because it's not true at all.


At least in the US, Saturday is a workday too for millions, if not tens of millions, of people, most of them working class or poor. [1]

[1] https://www.bls.gov/TUS/CHARTS/WORK.HTM


This why I loved vote-by-mail when I lived in Oregon. You can take your ballot to the office on election day if you want, or you can mail it in. Anything else now feels like voter suppression to me. In my current state, I vote absentee, which is allowed for "religious reasons". I don't plan to ever visit a polling place ever again, and I vote in every single election.


Midday? I agree the that midweek choice is a problem but the voting hours are quite flexing on voting day in the region I live in:

  New York: 6am-9pm
  New Jersey: 6am-8pm
  Connecticut: 6am-8pm
  Pennsylvania: 7am-8pm


You can also mail in for weeks ahead of time... but then I guess you lose the events of the last days to judge...


That's odd. As in not the choice of the day, but that it is not an off day/holiday. Here in India, all voting days are mandatory holidays. It still may not help the unregistered manual labourers, but most office workers are free.


I think that's a cynical view that doesn't reflect reality.

In my experience, people will be engaged if you engage them. Typically what happens in these scenarios is somebody gets a grant and decides to do something, and they put a public posting in the janitors closet in the women's room in the city hall basement.

My city is doing a refining effort where they publicly over faux-communicate. There's lots of meetings with brainstorming, fancy pictures, etc. Than a preliminary document dump written in jargon. Then, days before the decisions get made, there's a Friday night drop with the "decisions".

Then people find out at the last second if they are lucky. At that point all decisions are made. Partial public financing is typically lined up. The only way to effectively get any voice is to rally around some bullshit regulatory point.


> I think that's a cynical view that doesn't reflect reality.

How on earth is that the case? They recounted their experience, which took place in reality. That was their reality.


Not sure why you think it's a "cynical view that doesn't reflect reality" -- the OP indicated it was their direct experience which appears to be vastly more than an armchair commentator's....




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: