The Balkanization of California
Local Interests Run Rampant and How to Solve It
Today’s post is split into three sections:
Theory
Application
Override
THEORY
Balkanization, in simple terms, refers to the extreme fracturing of a region into local interests.
It originates, naturally, from the Balkans, a peninsula in southeastern European which is packed with ethnicities consistently at each others throats.
Greece and Turkey are immersed in mini cold war which is at constant risk of escalating.
Large groups include Slavs, Croats, Serbs, and Bulgarians, and their various factions are constantly fighting, forming alliances, and generally at odds with each other.
Russia has its hands all over the region, and so does the European Union.
It’s not worth getting further into the details. The point is:
The local fracturing of the Balkans is what happens in the absence of central, regional coordination.
Everyone goes into fortress mode, and the interests of one group tend to prevail over the needs of the collective.
APPLICATION
If you want to understand California in 2022, it’s important to understand the extent that the state is balkanized in its own way.
In this part of the world, the balkanization isn’t about ethnicity (as much) and it doesn’t turn into war.
But nonetheless, it is a clear case in local interests running rampant and a geographic fracturing that isn’t apparent at first glance.
This is the roots of the housing and homelessness crisis: this is the water crisis and the fires.
Every municipality, every neighborhood for itself.
In California, problems are primarily dealt with at a local level. And when a city council member is faced with a growing number of homeless people, it tends to only think within the boundaries of its community.
Ie: if it’s in my backyard, it’s my problem, and if it’s not, it’s not.
San Francisco has one of the worst homelessness issues.
In San Francisco, people living in Noe Valley or the Richmond District have the tendency to think of downtown (SoMa/Fid) as effectively a different city.
Or moreso, they often feel that their part of San Francisco isn’t a city, whereas downtown is.
And in this balkanized metro, these residents have no problem dumping homeless people in the Tenderloin.
For all intents and purposes, it’s not even in their city. They never see it, it doesn’t affect, and for their purposes they have solved the problem.
The same thing happens at the regional level.
Note that the Bay Area is not one metro region - like New York City - and is a series of towns and cities that all act according to their own agenda, without thought for the needs of the collective.
This explains why public transit doesn’t extend to many parts of the Bay, and where it does exist - sorely underperforms comparable Asian metros.
In the fortress of Marin County, they apparently don’t need or want a train to connect to the rest of the Bay.
The broader Bay would benefit from it - in so many ways- but the balkanized local interests prevent it from happening.
To be straightforward, there is nothing progressive about this behavior. It is more a reflection of raw self interest and it is, in fact, the most illiberal, regressive part of California.
And it is the primary reason why housing prices have exploded - because every community individually exploits regulation to maximize prices for its local homeowners.
Override
The way to solve the balkanization of California is to override it at the state level.
We got to this point because we lacked genuine leadership in Sacramento that was willing to push back against the extractive local behavior.
As I argued in Enter Fortress World, the problem is not the pursuit of individual interests - this is a good thing. The problem arises when individual gains happen at the extent of everyone else.
Balkanization demonstrates why the absence of a central state power doesn’t work: because locals inevitably cannibalize the commons and violate the needs of others.
If we want to solve the various issues the state faces, we need Sacramento to flex its political muscles.
I can already hear the libertarians calling the foul - but here’s the issue: the ask is actually for the state to enforce the free market where the local municipalities have been violating it.
Similarly, the ask is for the state to set clear boundaries - to prevent municipalities from dumping their problems on everyone else.
And finally, there is a grave need for clear thinking and coordination on the existential problems and risks the state faces - from fire to water and beyond.
If the forests burn down and the water dries up - the state becomes unlivable and there is no market.
We cannot have a situation where there is no one steering situation the ship. The commons will not govern itself.
In our various California crises, we have hit a breaking point.
The argument that local interests have any capacity (or interest) to prepare us for the future is fundamentally bankrupt, (and so is conventional libertarianism - models are no longer working and need to be updated).
We need the state to set and enforce policies to break the local stranglehold of California balkanization.
In my eyes, this is the only road forward.
California is ONE STATE, and the faster we can think of it this way, the faster we can govern this way, the better off we will be.