The worst person in New Orleans

"I have to write a book. That's what I do." --Ed Blakely

New Orleans's tough-guy-academic planning-guru war-czar appears on the cover of this week's Gambit doing more of what he does most; wagging his finger and ruminating on his own many virtues with the aim of bullying everyone else into being as impressed with him as he is with himself. Just like any televangelist or insurance salesman or economics professor Blakely is a con man who trades in pure bullshit. But Blakely's con is worse, of course, because it 1) Leeches off of the already stunted and threatened recovery of a city from a major disaster. 2) Subtly promotes elitist and anti-democratic governmental mechanisms which can only lead to more corruption, more exclusion, likely even more disaster in the future.

The following are excerpts from Dr. Blakely's Gambit interview that may give you an idea of what I'm getting at.

The buffoonery begins right out of the gate. Gambit lobs its first softball by asking a question about "lessons learned" or something... which amounts to, "Hello Dr. Blakely. You may begin talking now" And he does so in his own convoluted fashion of using many words to say very little before arriving at this:

....Then there's what I call a disaster, where some significant portion of the city is hurt. You have to have a staging plan for that. We didn't have a staging plan. People came back pretty much willy-nilly. In Oakland, we had a staging plan. ... We had to stage people in, and we had to build roads and infrastructure and so forth. ... And in New York, same thing, no staging plan. So there's enormous confusion about getting big equipment in and out, and how you get it in and out, and so forth. Then there's a reconstruction program. I think cities ought to have emergency orders and things like this so you can get through the processes. And there ought to be a coterie of people in the nation that can help.

GW: So, a nationwide fast-response team?

BLAKELY: Yeah. In every U.S. federal district there ought to be a rebuilding/redevelopment team, because there's always something going on.

Let's leave aside, for the moment, the usage of three very unique ("what I call") disasters for the purpose of drawing unfair and useless comparisons. (There is plenty more of that throughout the interview.) Let us also note without comment Blakely's emphasis on the success of efforts in which he was involved compared to the hopelessness of those managed by others. (There will always be more of that as well.) Most importantly, in this exchange, Blakely makes plain that he sees a need for a kind of national shadow government.. or "coterie of people" who stand ready at all times to override government procurement and contracting rules in the wake of ("what I call") disasters in order to.. you know... "cut red tape" or something whenever and wherever there might be "something going on." Last week, BSJD called out a lot of local bloggers for not pointing out the city administration's utter disregard for governmental transparency. I think this is a pretty big example of that.

A few moments later, he repeats this theme.. citing.. another example of.. you know.. something else wonderful he has done.

In San Francisco, it's called the Bay Area Council. I just testified before them last Friday. They are already planning for the next earthquake, and what the recovery plan is going to be from a major earthquake. They have a number of scenarios. That sort of commission or body should be in place. It's very interesting. The first meeting I came to here, the RPC (Regional Planning Commission) sent a representative to the meeting. And we had it in Shreveport. And [the RPC representative] was begging for time on the agenda and didn't get it because the Chamber of Commerce and all these other groups felt they had prior right to determine the future of the city. So we should have a structure in place, probably a regional structure in place, not just a local structure, that would allow us not just to respond to a disaster but also to plan the region in a continuing planning process.

Now Blakely talks in bullshit but he's after something so I'll try to translate a bit. What we have is a model that grants some sort of emergency powers (even.. for years.. perhaps.. after the "emergency" has passed) to a "regional" authority that isn't tied too closely to "all these other groups" (the actual citizens organized into their various.. and yes.. variously interested political groups such as neighborhood associations, or labor unions, or chambers of commerce, etc.) to "determine the future of the city." Seriously, how does this sound good to anyone? Anyone who isn't tied directly to the "coterie of people" with all these emergency powers that is.

But then there's already an effective method in place for separating people from their democratic right to be informed about.. much less have some say in.. the future of their own city. It generally has to do with shaming the local buffoons over all their horrible corruption and ineptitude. We already know this to be a major tool in Blakely's box. Unfortunately it also happens to be a favorite topic of Yuppie Left publications like Gambit Weekly who are all to happy to give Blakely additional openings.

GW: Oliver Thomas just pleaded guilty to federal corruption charges. How much do you think our reputation for corruption hurts the chances for recovery?

BLAKELY: The state has an image, and, unfortunately, Oliver Thomas stepped into the state's image. I don't think this comes as a surprise to the rest of the nation. We have a state image; it's not a local image. I was writing an article for the American Planning Association Journal, and the editor sent back from my article, "Why aren't you talking about corruption as one of the things that interferes with your capacity to do your job?" And I said, "If I did that, then I would be talking about the state. What I want to talk about is what I'm doing." I have to accept certain things as given in any situation. This is one of the things [Professor and management guru] Peter Drucker says: You accept the business as it is, then you start to change it; if you don't accept the business as it is, you can't change it.

Never mind the slight feint at arguing that the "state" and not "I" the city is the center of the "corruption" problem. Blakely really wants to use the "business as it is" as an excuse to consolidate power and limit transparency.

Our most pressing need today is internal reform of our existing policies and procedures. By internal, I mean the state, too. Our administrative procedures in this state are way too cumbersome to do business, much less business in an emergency. For example, when I was in California, after a freeway went down -- it melted down in seven hours -- it was predicted it would take no less than six months to repair it. It came up in seven days, because the state's emergency procedures went into operation. They already had qualified construction companies, and so forth. They had to go to four construction companies and ask for bids. They let the contract in 13 minutes. It would take three months for us to get a competitive bid out.

This almost sounds reasonable.. except that Dr. Blakely has defined "emergency" in such a way that it includes the ongoing rebuilding process. Currently the Mayor's reticence to relinquish his "emergency powers" and the ongoing lack of transparency in city government is a major complaint among those who allege the process is tainted with unmitigated cronyism.

I have a hypothesis: The more the red tape, the more opportunity for corruption.

I have another one about how corruption and cronyism springs from unnecessary "business friendly" government policy unchecked by democratic oversight... but that's pretty much what we're at odds over here isn't it.

That and.. this.

GW: How close are you to getting the $1.1 billion in funding to jumpstart your recovery target zone? Where is the money falling short -- and why?

BLAKELY: We received $200 million from the state to jumpstart our FEMA process. We received $117 million about a month ago. ... The $260 million bond issue is going out, I think, in about a week or so. The blight bonds are being sized -- we just brought on our advisors. I'm getting very good feedback from very good people about issuing that. I've got $100 million of that under wraps already, which will be recycled up to three- or four-hundred million. So where I'm short is that $300 million that is held up by the Road Home Program. The rest is pretty much in place.

Let's put that another way:

• "The blight bonds are being sized" (As soon as we figure out how much private property can be seized from flood victims)



• "I'm getting very good feedback from very good people about issuing that." (Yeah.. we know)

There's more in this interview. And if you enjoy reading Ed Blakely go on and on about what a brilliant guy he is as much as I do then I recommend reading it.

Really. Read this article. Blakely even states some opinions that I'd be willing to endorse.

GW: Many Third World cities have functioning neighborhoods and government services that work well only in certain areas. Mexico City is a good example. They also have heavy policing issues because of widespread poverty and crime. Is that where New Orleans is today?

BLAKELY: Well, first of all, you have very big cultural differences. In most of the Third World, the gaps -- and we're approaching this -- between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots, are historic. Our country is built on the notion of closing those gaps. I'm not saying it's being done, but that's the whole [notion of] opportunity. We're not in the business of policing people. We're in the business of creating opportunity for people. We have a relatively small police force compared to the developing world because that's not where we are. So I would say the more we use policing and detention as the method of curing our problem, the bigger the problem is going to get. Crime is huge in Mexico City and just gets bigger. Every place I've been where you use policing as strategy, crime gets worse, including South Africa. But when you go to some of the European places, what we're doing in Australia, you get in the front end of the problem, and it's starting to change. Change is happening in the neighborhoods. Change in the opportunity that people have. Recognizing that we don't have two-parent families anymore and putting in daycare centers that involve the entire family, you reduce crime and increase opportunity. That's the only way out of this. And I think we have to decriminalize a whole lot of stuff.

Notice, however, how little any of this has to do with Blakely's actual job here... which... of course he will tell you is.. well... it's the quote at the top of this post.