I’m a firm believer in the idea that crisis propels advancement.  Scientific exploration for the sake of discovery can be a catalyst for change, but without a widespread need for the fruits of random discoveries made by scientific exploration, society gains little.  

This is best illustrated with the splitting of the atom; Enrico Fermi observed odd behavior in uranium bombarded with neutrons as early as 1934, but little fanfare followed because, at the time, the world had no apparent need for such activity.  Eleven years later, Fermi’s random scientific discovery blossomed into a mushroom cloud over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Faced with the crisis of ending a world war, the United States spent the equivalent of $23 billion transforming Fermi’s observations into a weapon most devastating.

Does this mean, however, that we should ignore impending crises in order to force great advances once the crises mature?  Should we manufacture a “crisis environment” that will force people to make great advances?

I ask this because California has been flirting with collapse into a “crisis environment” since I have lived here, and it appears as though little is being done to avert its arrival.  When I moved to Southern California in the late summer of 1990, we faced a drought of 6 years, brown hazy skies, electricity so expensive as to thwart the use of air conditioning on 107 degree days, and freeways heavily taxed with cars traveling at a snail’s pace.  17 years later, the skies are a bit more blue, but we still live in drought conditions, electricity has increased in cost exponentially, and somehow even more cars have been shoe-horned onto our roads.

This is not to say that California has ignored its problems over the last two decades.  The state has built new freeways, enacted rebate programs for residential solar power generation, and implemented water reclamation projects designed to find as many uses for “gray water” as possible.  Refrigerators, televisions, computers, and air conditioners have been designed to squeeze the most use out of the least jolt of electricity.  On paper, it looks like we’re doing our part to conserve resources and improve infrastructure so that we no longer teeter on the edge of collapse.

But yet we still teeter.  I live a couple of blocks north of the 210 Freeway extension, which was completed in 2003.  It’s a beautiful freeway with 5 wide and luxurious lanes in each direction.  I remember swooping onto it at 5:00 a.m. shortly after it opened, and I was amazed at the speed I was able to travel and the lack of traffic.  The 210 was billed was a freeway that would relieve the 10 freeway of its ridiculous traffic, and it did a wonderful job of that–for about 6 months.  Strangely, hundreds of new “communities” along the 210 cut ribbons and herded in eager buyers less than a year later, and the flow of traffic dropped to a blubbery clog. 

It’s a rare day now that I can hit the 210 and not encounter the maddening traffic that every other freeway in Southern California suffers from.  The state built the freeway for the benefit of its citizens, and we gave up income (in the form of taxes) and land (in the form of eminent domain) to make it happen.  We’ve also given up income and land to allow the state to build new power plants, purchase new water contracts, and increase the resources we need to live comfortably.  But I’ve yet to figure out how the vast majority of private citizens have benefited from these expensive and intrusive infrastructure improvements.

Some say that the tens of thousands of new home owners in northern Rancho Cucamonga/north western Fontana gained the most, as they were given access to larges homes in an area once so remote as to disuade development.  But they gain nothing: the traffic they create on the 210 makes their commute as long as it would have been were there no freeway at all; the water they consume in their 4-bath homes saps our resevoirs dry; the electricity used to keep their 4,000 sq. ft. palace at a crisp 60 degrees keeps energy costs at all-time highs.  Established residents, the taxpayers responsible for funding state projects, gained nothing except a futile choice between a packed 210 freeway or a parking lot 10 freeway.

Others say the cities benefit, and I agree with them; an increase in residential homes results in an increase in property tax revenues, which cities can use to pay their increased payrolls costs, bloated and stretched thin from the voracious appetite of union negotiators.  Problem is, the state does not exists to serve cities.  It’s not the function of the state government, regardless of how hard a law professor or city manager tries to convince us otherwise.  The state and the city governments exist by virtue of their constituent voters, yet they act as though we should lament at their feet and thank them for the assistance they offer. 

But the gigantic slap in the face is the realization that the only private citizens who have benefited from the 210 (and all other state funded/mandated infrastructure “improvements”) are land developers living lavishly in posh beach cities.  With vast fortunes able to withstand an ever increasing cost of living, developers experience little discomfort from the increased burden their McCities place on the infrastructure you and I rely on.  What discomfort they do experience is offset by the $100 million they greedily hoard from development; what’s a $900 electricity bill when your vast wealth generates that in 1 minute?

I’m no socialist, and I love a free market and the profts it provides.  But my stomach turns when I see those we’ve elected spending $500,000 on re-election campaigns funded by developers.  How am I to respond to county supervisors and state legislators welcoming development that will rely on our already over-taxed water reserves, power grids, and freeways?  How am I to put any faith or trust into those governing this state when it appears that they were bought and paid for years ago by developers eager to reap sums unknown to Earthly men like me? 

The assemblyman for my district spent nearly $500,000 running for re-election in 2006.  He was a republican incumbant (an inherent advantage) in a republican district (a bigger advantage) running against an absolutely worthless opponent (an assured victory).  What did he need $500,000 for?  To purchase mailers we all throw away?  To pay for advertising we all ignore?  To hire expensive consultants and excess campaign staffers?   

The bottom line is that he didn’t need $500,000; he could have won on $25,000, maybe less.  But when big dogs like Lewis Development hand over brown envelopes stuffed with cash, material desires woo the weak flesh and undermine the willing mind seeking to serve.  Until the constituents of this state, the real power behind our government, rise up and demand that our legislators serve our needs and not the desires of the already fat and wealthy, we will continue to stare down the barrel of long droughts, hot blackouts, and unending traffic.

But will we ever rise up?  Likely not; we’re too worried about how to stretch our thinning monthly nut so that it will cover those shiney new 24″ wheels we can’t wait to see on our Escalade.  We’ve got no bread, but lots and lots of cake.  May as well eat it.