The campaign of Senator Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee in the 2008 United States Presidential election is prompting renewed conversation about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Both men are able to speak with an eloquence that engages voters who usually don’t follow politics. The civil rights movement is seen as incomplete until the presidency is filled by a person of color – something Obama seems able to achieve. So forty years after his assassination, Dr. King’s legacy lives on. Or does it? Few would argue with Dr. King’s international reputation is as a symbol for racial equality. But is it his theological or political legacy that is debated today? Michael Luther King Jr. was born on January 15, 1929, the second child of Rev. Martin and Mrs. Alberta King. His father was a prominent Baptist pastor and a major figure in the civil rights movement. In 1935, King Sr. had both his and his six-year old son’s name changed to Martin Luther King in honor of the Protestant Reformer. Martin Luther King Jr. was a gifted student. He entered college at 15 having skipped two grades of high school (although never formally graduating), and by the age of 26, had a BA in sociology, a BD from Crozer Theological Seminary, and a doctorate in systematic theology from Boston University. At the age of 24 while completing his doctoral studies, he became the pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. Although already active in the civil rights movement, he rose to national prominence when a local black seamstress, Rosa Parks, was arrested for not obeying the segregation laws in December 1955. She boarded a bus and selected a seat that was designated for colored people. However, as the bus filled with white people, the bus driver moved the section boundaries. Parks refused to move (her’s was now designated a white seat) and the police were called. In response, under the leadership of Dr. King, a bus boycott was organized. For 382 days, between 20,000 - 40,000 members of the black community who usually relied on the buses for transportation, walked (in some cases up to 20 miles or found other means of transportation. At last, a Supreme Court decision and the loss of revenues for the Montgomery Bus Company resulted in a changed policy. However, the momentum for civil rights change had been unleashed leading to the 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act. So where did Dr. King develop his passion for leadership and the strategy for non-violent protest that proved to be so effective? Since his seminary training in liberal theology, King considered himself to be “an advocator of the social gospel.” His sermons were blunt in denouncing the “racism, materialism, and militarism” of his times. He told his hearers that being a good Samaritan “was only an initial act.” He called them to work “see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed.” His seminary training built on ideas shaped in his youth. His preacher role models included his father and grandfather who used the pulpit to address the everyday concerns of the working poor. In a paper entitled “An Autobiography of Religious Development,” King recounts how at the age of seven, he came forward in a revival meeting and was baptized. However, “at the age of 13, I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen, doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly.” However rather than driving him away from the church, King pursued theological studies. His theology borrowed from a neo-orthodox personalism which, to use his own words, “gave me a metaphysical and philosophical grounding for the idea of a personal God, and it gave me a metaphysical basis for the dignity and worth of all human personality.” Although his theological perspective was distinct, his roots in the African-American preaching tradition continued. “I am many things to many people,” he said, “but in the quiet recesses of my heart, I am fundamentally a clergyman, a Baptist preacher.” This provided his preaching with a very strong sense of the reality of sin, the importance of themes of brotherhood, and the hope of a better future. Unlike the focus in white Protestantism which, when thinking about religion and politics, looked nostalgically at America’s past, King’s combined his theology and politics to paint a hopeful picture of America’s future. He inspired his audience to hope for a time would come when they would experience justice, brotherhood and peace that at present seemed so foreign to them. Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955-56 marked the beginning of a decade in which under King’s leadership, the civil rights spread across the United States. So did the opposition to it. King’s home was bombed, he was arrested and subjected to personal abuse but this served only to raise his profile and following. In the eleven years between 1957 and 1968, he made over 2500 speeches travelling to wherever there were examples of racial injustice to protest. In 1963, he organized a “March on Washington” which attracted over 250,000 supporters and at which he gave his famous “I have a dream speech.” That year, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to him. As his popularity grew, there was tremendous pressure and expectation for him to be a candidate for the US Presidency. However, the civil rights movement was divided, with a more violent wing promoting a “Black Power” mantra. Dr. Martin Luther King did not accept. He decided to continue leading the movement and promoting his non-violent strategy. On April 4, 1968, while in Memphis, Tennessee in order to lead a protest march in support of striking garbage workers, Dr. King was killed by a sniper bulletin as he stood on his hotel balcony. He was 39. James Earl Ray was convicted of his murder, although many (including some of the King family) believed him to the victim of a conspiracy. The hope of many that a person of color would implement these changes as President was unfulfilled. It was a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention that brought Senator Obama into national prominence. He struck a King-like chord: “There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s a United States of America.” However, the issues facing Obama are quite different than those King addressed. Some suggest the civil rights movement has moved to a “post-racial” phase and is defined by advocating for affirmative action policies, the promotion of gay rights, and immigration reform. Obama himself tries to walk a delicate line on the question. He talks about seeing “a split screen” in which the progress on racial issues is acknowledged and celebrated while still “acknowledging the sins of our past and the challenges of the present without being trapped in cynicism or despair.” Like King, Obama does not shy from using religious language in doing his politics. He does not pretend his to be an orthodox evangelical faith. In defending his views in support of gay marriage he confesses that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.” Instead, he says his faith provides him two clear political insights – a belief in the power to change and the ongoing reality of struggle. Christ serves an “ally in this difficult journey” and faith as “an active, palpable agent” of change that inspires hope for the future. Forty years after his death, Dr. Martin Luther King’s shadow still looms large in US Presidential politics. As a potential first black President, Senator Obama seems the natural heir to King’s legacy. But politics is a competitive sport. All of the candidates are generously quoting King in their speeches these days. It takes careful work to distinguish between a vision of human equality rooted creation; a secular liberal notion of rights that has little room for orthodox religion; or an updated version of liberation theology combined with identity politics – or for those entirely cynical, just empty rhetoric that has no consistent philosophy. In the meantime, King’s name will continue to be used as a metaphor for hope and change and it will take historians to sort out his real legacy. Ray Pennings is Vice-President of the Work Research Foundation (wrf.ca) and a media commentator on public affairs issues. He is a member of the Free Reformed Churches (frcna.org) and is based in Calgary, Alberta Canada.

CALGARY — If it is true that people speak with their feet and the market follows its own winding and inexorable course, then there is definitely less popular demand in Canada for what Alberta has to supply these days. There are now more people leaving the land of the boom for other provinces than vice versa. The slowing that many here felt by observing the lengthening shelf life of real-estate for-sale signs and through conversations at the lumber yard or the paint store was confirmed last week by Statistics Canada. Alberta is no longer the prettiest girl in the class or, to put it more seriously, she may be losing her charm as a destination for labour capital. Yes, Alberta's population still increased in the fourth quarter of 2007 - by a quite robust 0.32 per cent thanks to births and the country's highest rates of international immigration, particularly from non-permanent residents. But over that final three months of 2007, more Canadians left Alberta than arrived here from every province except Ontario and Quebec. There are no more "buffalo" (local slang for short-term opportunities) left or the thrill of the hunt is gone. Either way, Newfoundlanders and Saskatchewanians, in particular, are going home. This confirms that a similar shift - Alberta's first since 1994 - noted in Statscan's 2007 third-quarter report is now a trend. Significantly, the details of the Statscan report note overall population growth was slower in the fourth quarter than the third and that Alberta is now the only jurisdiction in the West to be experiencing negative interprovincial migration. Meantime, more people are moving to Newfoundland and Labrador than leaving it for the first time since the early 1990s, and Alberta is the largest single source of those repatriations. The biggest draw now is Saskatchewan, a province in renaissance since April of 2006 when it hit a 25-year population low of 986,900. Back now above one million for the first time since 1986, Saskatchewan is likely to reach a historic high in 2008. At the end of 2007, its population was estimated at 1,006,600, thanks to fourth-quarter growth of 0.33 per cent - which, if it continues, means Canada's breadbasket will soon top its highest recorded population of 1,009,613. It is important to note that Alberta isn't exactly facing a mass exodus, and it would take volumes of pessimistic hyperbole to interpret this as some sort of "bust." Alberta's percentage of population growth is still almost identical to that taking place in Saskatchewan and, along with the other western provinces, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, its attractiveness remains well above the national average. The balance of Canada's political and economic power continues its shift away from the traditional centre. Certainly, there is no shortage of people who will argue that some slowing of the economic pace in Alberta is a welcome change - that it could lessen labour shortages, stall upward pressures on wages and housing costs, encourage greater social stability and enhance levels of civic engagement as the population becomes less transient. People will be able to catch their breath and think. Yet, change it is. People who purchased homes at the peak of the Calgary real-estate shortage of 2005-06 may begin to feel uncomfortable. Others who stretched their income to buy opulent homes and properties based on interest-only mortgages and stock options that are suddenly less optional than they were a couple of years ago will have to come to the realization that there were factors other than their own personal genius behind the rise of oil to $100 a barrel and beyond. As for labour, there's no certainty yet that demand for it has lessened. Given the state of drilling and other gas-related businesses, a lessening of demand wouldn't be surprising, but all we know for certain is that the supply of labour in Alberta from Canadian sources is becoming scarcer. Record levels of public spending may also need to be reviewed. After all, if Ralph Klein's government was taken to the woodshed for failing to anticipate what proved to be unprecedented levels of growth, this negative population trend hints at a situation even more challenging. The bloom may be off the wild rose, but the party's not over. There's a still a lot of giddy-up, just a little less yahoo.  Peter Menzies is a senior fellow with the Work Research Foundation

In Frank Capra’s classic 1946 film, It’s a Wonderful Life, the inimitable Jimmy Stewart plays George Bailey, a small-town building and loan manager. Because of a series of missteps by George’s hapless uncle, several thousand dollars in deposits to the building and loan are lost only to fall into the hands of the unscrupulous bank proprietor, Mr. Potter, also known as “Potter.” As George and his uncle and the rest of the building and loan staff are scrambling to track down the missing deposit, the bank examiner shows up to audit their books. George takes responsibility for the loss – covering for his uncle – and faces the prospect of ruin: ruin of the building and loan, personal financial ruin, ruin of his family, and ruin of his reputation, to say nothing of jail time. George retreats to the local bar where he engages in an altercation, rams his car into a tree along a boulevard, and wanders onto a bridge where he contemplates jumping so his family can receive the benefit of a life insurance policy, exclaiming: “It would be better if I’d never lived.” Clarence, an angel who is trying to earn his wings, appears in order to stop George’s jumping. Clarence gives George the gift of seeing what the world might have been like if George Bailey had never lived. George sees the consequences for his brother whom he saved from drowning in a frozen pond, for the men his brother saved in World War II, for George’s wife and mother, and for the town of Bedford Falls. Clarence shows George that if he had never lived, the building and loan would have long since failed, and the town of Bedford Falls would have been owned lock, stock, and neighbourhood by Potter. In a world in which George Bailey had never lived, even the town had been renamed, “Pottersville.” While Bedford Falls was a neighbourly place with wide boulevards, beautiful homes owned by families, and independent businesses along its main street, in Pottersville, the families are crammed into tenements, the boulevards are gone, and all the businesses are crass commercial affairs dominated by bars and strip clubs – mostly owned by and for the enrichment of Potter. Gone are the healthy neighbourhoods and the neighbourliness, and in its place the law of the jungle: every man for himself. What would a city like, say, Toronto be like if religious and, specifically, Christian influence had never been felt? Let’s take a stroll along an eight-block stretch of one Toronto thoroughfare – College Street. We start at the corner of Yonge and College at the site of the old Eaton’s department store with the restored high Art Deco concert hall and its Lalique fountain originally commissioned by Lady Eaton. That takes us past the former site of the Central Toronto YMCA between Yonge and Bay, now one block to the north. Crossing Bay one can see past parallel Dundas Street toward the edge of the financial district. This takes us within a block of Women’s College Hospital, past the Canadian Red Cross headquarters, and toward University Avenue past the Toronto “Sick Kids” Hospital, originally founded as the Victoria Hospital for children and the Toronto General, and within sight of the Princess Margaret and Mount Sinai Hospitals. Crossing University takes us just in front of the terminal vista of the Queen’s Park site of the Edwardian neoromanesque Ontario Legislature and of Victoria and St. Michael’s Universities. Moving west along College takes us into the city blocks which form the University of Toronto campus and another vista terminating in University College flanked by Knox, Wycliffe, and Trinity Colleges. We carry on as far as Spadina within a block if not in sight of yet another vista terminating in the old King’s College building and to the south, several churches including Knox Presbyterian and the old Cecil Street Church of Christ. What would the city be like if religious – specifically, Christian – influence had never “lived” in Toronto? There would likely be no Eaton’s department store since Timothy Eaton’s enterprise and business drive was informed and impelled by his Methodism. There would be no YMCA, since this was a cooperative effort of 19th century Toronto Protestants of various stripes. There might well be no Dundas Street as we know it or Bay Street financial district since the former was paved by James Beaty, a Christian entrepreneur, and “Bay Street” was built by Ulster Protestants – Presbyterians, Methodists, and Disciples of Christ. There would be no Women’s College Hospital – founded as it was because Ontario’s first, female, licensed physician, Jessie Kidd Trout, became a physician motivated by her Disciples of Christ faith and impelled by a Christian ethos to found Women’s College. Likewise, “Sick Kids” and Toronto General hospitals were organized, funded, and built by Christians acting together and informed by their faith. The same is true of Mount Sinai, founded by Toronto’s Jewish community – informed and moved by their faith. The Canadian Red Cross started, again, as a cooperative, Protestant effort spearheaded by Dr. George Sterling Ryerson. The University of Toronto was founded as a federation of church colleges – the Presbyterian Knox, the Methodist Victoria and Emmanuel, the Anglican Trinity and Wycliffe colleges, and the Catholic St. Michael’s. The neoromanesque architecture of the legislature – and the Gothic Revival design of the colleges and hospitals – reflected the faith of their organizers, founders, funders, and builders. And the Cecil Street Church of Christ building provided a spiritual home to Toronto’s growing, turn-of-the-century Jewish community when it was converted into a synagogue. Even College Street’s streetcars might well not ever have run its length as they still do, had it not been for Christian entrepreneurs and investors impelled by their faith who first created a streetcar system. The City of Toronto, still, enjoys the fruit of generations of contributions made by these people of faith. They weren’t perfect. But, then, that realization on their part was “sort of” the point. The realization that humanity inhabits a world that belongs to God who created it. That ours is a damaged and less than perfect world nonetheless sustained by its Creator, in need of sustained and concerted stewardship and effort directed toward its redemption. That Christians are called and entrusted with the task of “being a blessing” and extending restoration of Creation in all its categories – business and enterprise and high finance, schools and universities, hospitals and medicine, and the voluntary sector and civil society. To encourage and contribute toward the “pluriformity” and “differentiation” of society – toward a plurality of institutions of all kinds that will contribute toward human flourishing. To turn cities and towns into “Bedford Falls”… and to resist their becoming “Pottersville.”

 Those of us who have followed public policy debates and discussions will recall that health care has never been far from the boil. Every now and then, it bubbles up, a large amount of cash is poured in to the system and it subsides for a while. Then it bubbles up again and on and on it goes in an endless three-year cycle. It has ever been thus. Reports have been commissioned – from the Rainbow Report in the 1980s to the health summit in the 1990s to the Mazankowski Report in 2002 to…well, no one has really bothered since then. Mazankowski’s report (which appears to have gone missing from the province’s website), was roundly vilified by those who have the most to gain from maintenance of the status quo. Particularly loathsome to critics was the fact that Mazankowski had a board connection to a private insurance company. This was pointed to regularly by leaders and affiliates of organizations who monopolize the system’s labour pool and whose coffers consequently rise almost every time spending on health care grows. Such hypocrisies were irrelevant, however, and there was much scoffing at the former deputy prime minister’s assertion that “unless we are prepared to change how we fund and how we deliver health-care services, the health-care system in Alberta is not sustainable.” Bull feathers, cried the Parkland Institute, a left-wing think-tank. “Any rational and reasonably educated person reading the Mazankowski Report, and particularly the appendixes, would come to the conclusion that the costs of health care in Canada, and especially in Alberta, are a bargain,” said Dr. Trevor Harrison, at the time the research director of the Parkland Institute and a sociology professor at the University of Lethbridge who co-authored Parkland’s response with health researcher Dr. Tammy Horne and Gillian Steward, a former managing editor of The Calgary Herald. Well, let’s see. Alberta spent $6.8 billion on health care in 2002. This past year the province was scheduled to spend $12 billion – an increase of 76 per cent in six years, which is somewhat faster than most Albertans’ incomes have risen over the same period. Three of the four parties in last month’s election were promising accelerated spending on health care and decreased financing for it via the elimination of the $1 billion in annual revenue retrieved via health-care premium payments. Even if spending is kept only to the levels of increase experienced in the past six years, its current pace of growth will put it at $21.12 billion by 2014 for an overall increase in cost of close to $15 billion a year in 12 years. That’s about $6 billion more a year than the largest budget surplus – $9 billion – Alberta was able to record at the height of its boom. It is almost equivalent to the entire budget for the province – $21.6 billion – allocated by the government in 2001-2002. Overall provincial spending grew by $11.4 billion from 2002 to 2008. Of that total, $5.2 billion, or 46 per cent, was due to health care. In ’01-’02, health spending consumed 31 per cent of provincial spending. In ’07-’08, even with very large overall spending increases (52 per cent in six years thanks to other areas such as infrastructure) health care consumed better than 36 per cent. That’s an increase of 16 per cent on a proportional basis, which extrapolated, means that even if other government spending continues to grow at the breakneck pace of the past six years, health care will consume 65 per cent of all provincial spending 24 years from now when my children are in their mid-40s. Alberta spent $1,950 per capita on health care in 2000/2001 and last year was spending $4,100 – by far the most of any province. Yet when one visits any of the city’s public health-care facilities, whether emergency rooms, regional clinics, drop-in clinics or health services centres, the experience (there is no kind way to put it) is utterly grey and vaguely Soviet. Rooms filled with weary, impatient people evoke memories of the public sector monopoly days when one had to take half a day off work to get one’s car registered. I am an enormous fan of universal access to health care and of the people who bring it to us. But Mazankowski, whose report contained too many inconvenient truths for the status quo and has long since died, decayed and mummified at the back of the health-care queue, was right. Six years on, the fundamentals of the system haven’t changed and neither has the truth.

WHAT IS THE NEW URBANISM? New Urbanism is a coalition of architects, developers, planners, journalists, and citizen activists who are committed to the maintenance and development of a physical form of the built environment that supports human community. Their convictions on this matter are simple and relatively straightforward: In order to promote community, the built environment must be diverse in population, scaled for the pedestrian, and capable of supporting mass transit as well as the automobile. It must have a well-defined public realim supported by buildings reflecting the architecture and ecology of the region. (Suburban Nation, 254 ) Unlike many utopian or reformist movements that have attempted to articulate a completely new model for shared human life, the New Urbanist movement is distinct in its interest in drawing most of its models from historical forms that have proven themselves viable within actual human communities. New Urbanism is also somewhat of a rarity historically because unlike reformist or utopian movements, they have managed to provide a product for which the market has responded very favorably. New Urbanist projects have been by in large both financially successful and favorably received by the communities in which they have been located. New Urbanism should not be understood as advocating simply for an alternative set of design principles to replace those that were popular in the immediately preceding era. New Urbanism as a design (or form) oriented movement is distinct from other movements of this type in a few significant ways. In the first place, New Urbanism represents an integrated approach to place making. It is opposed to atomistic approaches to development and planning that sees each project as a self-contained whole. New Urbanists, rather are concerned with the urban fabric as a whole. For instance, they are concerned that buildings collectively form a coherent urban space, that public buildings and monuments are arraigned according to sight lines, and that parking be regulated according to district needs rather than by reference to particular buildings. Secondly, New Urbanists are committed to context sensitive urban design. They are committed to development that respects local topography, climate, as well as the tastes and values of the local community. For this last reason, particularly, New Urbanism has tended to move forward not by selling clients a design product, but rather by helping local communities structure their own projects. By necessity, therefore, New Urbanism has been as active in teaching historic principles of urbanism as in developing particular projects. That said, New Urbanism represents a growing number of discrete projects in North America, and it has had immeasurable influence on private developers and municipal planners. Although New Urbanists have chosen to remain politically neutral and they have been extremely cautious about employing value-laden language in support of their advocacy of human-scaled communities, it is possible to discern some normative values under-girding their larger project. In the first place, The Charter for the New Urbanism expresses a concern for increasing racial and income separation which has been a liability of a more suburban style of development. This concern is at least partially addressed in an explicit recommendation that “affordable housing should be distributed throughout the region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty.” This is an admirable goal, but it is in no way a universal conviction of those who have advocated for human-scale community throughout human history. This particular conviction expresses a normative valuing of justice among New Urbanists that is not explicitly supported from within their foundational documents. The second normative value expressed within The Charter for the New Urbanism is a concern for civic life and, more specifically, for democracy. New Urbanists are in favor of a “broad range of housing types” because they can bring a cross-section of the populace “into daily interaction, strengthening the personal and civic bonds essential to an authentic community.” This reference to “authentic community” implies that there exists such a thing as “inauthentic community”. Part of what makes the community authentic, therefore, is the existence of personal and civic bonds. “Personal bonds” clearly refers to the informal network of individual or familial relationships that exist within communities. The reference to “civic bonds,” however, implies certain formalized mediating institutions, but the nature and form of such mediating institutions is not articulated within the document. In a similar vein, The Charter makes reference to “important civic buildings” that “reinforce community identity and the culture of democracy.” Again, the nature and form of such civic buildings is not made clear. Also, qualifying civic buildings as “important” suggests that the local community deems them so. As with justice, these references to civic institutions and civic buildings are somewhat vague, and the Charter does not suggest the mechanism by which such institutions are created or supported. IS IT REASONABLE TO EXPECT THE MOVEMENT TO MEET ITS GOALS? The goals of community enhancement through the built environment with an expressed interest in equitable justice as well as the culture of democracy are admirable goals, and ones likely to overlap with a great number of governmental bodies at all levels. In this, the New Urbanist Movement should be welcomed by governmental bodies as one of the positive forces within the private sector that is working for the common good. Having said this, it is also prudent to inquire as to the prospects and possibilities for the New Urbanist movements meeting their stated goals. This is not to question the motives or character of those within the movement, but rather to inquire as to where their goals might find broader support. The goal of justice by way of equitable housing in decent neighborhoods and the goal of democratic participation are not ones that need explicit justification within a North American context. Since we are aware of a possible disconnect between expressed convictions and actual behavior, it is reasonable to ask whether those who buy into the New Urbanist paradigm demonstrate a commitment to the full range of goals expressed in the Charter in their practices. At present, most New Urbanist projects are prohibitively expensive for the majority of residents of the larger municipality within which projects are located. Now, much of this reflects a normal market response to very popular projects and can’t be directly attributed to the activity of any particular individuals. On the other hand, not all New Urbanist developments currently have as much affordable housing as they could absorb, and New Urbanist developers have not been immune to trying to find ways around meeting affordable housing requirements. Furthermore, I am not aware of any significant advocacy movement for affordable housing emerging from among residents of any particular New Urbanist project. The influence of New Urbanism on older urban neighborhoods is a significant factor in the demographic trend known as gentrification. While the effects of gentrification are not altogether bad for a particular community, New Urbanist in-fill projects have caused displacement among poor and ethnic communities with historic ties to a particular neighborhood. This is not to say that many New Urbanists are not deeply committed to meeting the goal of equitable housing and may, in fact, be developing strategies to alleviate this situation. It is simply an observation that there has not been much evidence of specific action to support the philosophical commitment to justice among New Urbanists. It should also be noted that New Urbanist thinking has had a positive influence on those who hold official responsibility for providing affordable housing. The membership roles of the Congress for the New Urbanist includes several governmental officials who are committed to providing affordable housing. However, the efforts of such agents have not yet been well integrated into the movement as a whole or to the various projects represented by the movement. There are significant limits to what role governmental agencies can do to provide adequate affordable housing without support from developers and community members who have a deep commitment to meeting these goals. The New Urbanist movement is not in a position to leverage the kind of moral capital that would be necessary to bring about this kind of broad ‘buy-in’ to the issue of affordability in housing among developers and residents. As to the second goal of supporting mediating institutions and providing ‘important’ civic buildings that support the culture of democracy, it is difficult to get an accurate picture. As difficult as it may be, it is an important line of inquiry because it is the one element that could potentially substantiate the New Urbanist claim to providing “authentic community” as opposed to the lifestyle enclaves that exist in more privatized suburban development and gated communities. This issue will require further research and must be watched as New Urbanist communities mature. In general because of when these communities were established they may be at a relative disadvantage regarding the establishment of new civic institutions. Additionally, if such institutions do emerge, it is unlikely that they will have the wherewithal to develop any “important” buildings. As Robert Putnam famously noted, civic participation has gone significantly down over the last fifty years or so. Bowling leagues, service clubs, and other mediating institutions are struggling to keep membership roles from floundering. It is the rare exception to see a new group established, and we should not be too optimistic about the prospects for such mediating institutions within New Urbanist communities. Neither of these observations are meant to be a foundational critique of New Urbanism, or even to call in to question the wisdom of including such challenging goals in their foundational document. The question I raise is: if it does turn out that the New Urbanist movement as it now stands is not meeting its own goals for supporting justice and building up a culture of democracy, what can New Urbanists do by way of redoubling their efforts towards meeting these goals? New Urbanists Beyond this type of discussion, New Urbanists have a limited ability to influence the behavior of the developers who build the projects or the residents who live in them. WHAT ROLE MIGHT THE CHURCH HAVE IN MEETING NEW URBANIST GOALS? Churches have been deeply involved in building communities from their very inception. Church congregations have significant experience in building the social networks for the health and vitality of their membership. Churches in many cities and towns have also historically played an anchoring role for the larger community. Most beloved historic towns in the United States were founded by leaders holding deep religious convictions. In some ways what requires explanation is not why municipal leaders and New Urbanists should look to churches as allies in their community building efforts, but rather why religious leaders have been conspicuously absent from the New Urbanist dialogue. It is an open question as to whether authentic community can be built from the physical form of traditional towns without under-girding social structures. Churches provide a key supporting social structure in many communities. Perhaps, the current challenges presented by the issues of economic equity and the lack of mediating institutions are early indicators of limitations in the formal aspects of the New Urbanist approach. In light of the particular shortcomings that I am suggesting within the New Urbanist movement, the church may very well offer some assistance. In the first place, as one civic institution that maintains viability in many neighborhoods, churches can provide the associational cohesion needed to encourage civic participation within the life of the New Urbanist neighborhood or project. Churches not only provide deep and meaningful ties for their members, but churches with buildings can support a variety of civic institutions and community-wide events. Churches can host a variety of meetings (from neighborhood councils to alcoholics anonymous) in their facilities, they can sponsor community-wide events, and they can partner with other institutions to advocate for larger community goals. The church building as an iconic object can serve as a visual anchor for the community and, if executed well, it can become an important civic building. With regard to economic justice issues, New Urbanist communities face a much more difficult problem. The market is very difficult to control, and attempts to mitigate the negative effects of the market on vulnerable population groups are subject to abuse and unintended consequences. However, again, this may be an area in which the Christian community has something valuable to offer. A great many non-profit institutions that work within poor neighborhoods to provide affordable housing are based on a Christian vision for justice. Habitat for Humanity is just one well known example, but I could point to numerous examples scattered throughout cities and towns. This “on the ground” experience in the complexities of affordable housing and the thick network of relationships of trust built up among these institutions are invaluable assets as municipalities and New Urbanists seek to make the goal of equitable housing a reality for residents. There is no more obvious place to turn in seeking solutions to the problem of affordable housing than to those who already have a good track record in providing affordable housing for the residents of a particular community. FREEING THE CHURCH TO FOSTER COMMUNITY The idea of municipalities and New Urbanists teaming up with Christian communities to meet specific communal goals seems like an appropriate and wise partnership. However, both private developers as well as public entities have good reasons for being hesitant to partner with churches in order to meet particular goals. Private developers may be cautious about working with particular churches within their developments because of concerns about religious pluralism. Neighborhood churches seemed to work better when there was a large enough church-going population that specific denominations could reasonably expect a good number of people with the same denominational background to live in the neighborhood of the church. Currently because there is a smaller total church-going population and more denominational (as well as non-denominational) choices it seems unlikely that much more than a very small percentage of the population will be served by a local neighborhood church. While reasonable, this perspective fails to take account of some of the current experiences of neighborhood churches. There are many more denominational choices, but a church’s denominational affiliation is no longer a significant factor in people’s choosing a church. People choose to live in a New Urbanist community or project because they want to walk to as many places as possible. If given the opportunity to walk to a viable and active local church, it is likely that they will attend such a church regardless of its denominational label. The churches that are currently in traditional neighborhood developments report that most of those who attend their church do not have prior experience in their denomination. While it is true that total church attendance is down since the mid-20th century, it is not down as far as many people think. In many parts of the country and among certain ethic communities it is still rather high. Furthermore, even those who are not directly involved with the life of a neighborhood church can benefit from its existence. As mentioned above, a good neighborhood church can function as an important civic building that is valued by all of the residents of a community. It is important for the developer to seek out churches with a philosophy of ministry that understands the important role that a church can play in bringing health and vitality to a neighborhood. Governmental agencies may be concerned about seeking partnerships with churches because of the principle of separation between church and state. It is important that governments who work within this tradition must be careful not to privilege one religious group over another, nor to give preferential treatment on the basis of a group’s religious commitments. However as James Van Hemert of The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute puts it, “the wall of separation between church and state doesn’t mean that they cannot talk to each other.” In many communities, established churches serve as important ‘nerve centres’ for the communities in which they are situated. Church leaders and members often have a good read on what neighborhood concerns and dreams look like. They also often have significant influence on the residents of a neighborhood which can prove very helpful when trying to put together local meetings. Too often churches are treated with suspicion and they only get impersonal information from governmental entities. It would be advisable for planners responsible for particular areas to develop relationships with religious and other institutional representatives before instigating any formal planning processes. CONCLUSION It has been the particular genius of the New Urbanist movement to challenge many of the orthodoxies of post-WWII development and planning. Among the most significant tenets that New Urbanists called into question was the notion that history had little to teach us about building community and that the various functions of the city could be divided up and treated as completely isolated units of development. New Urbanists re-introduced historical models for community building and an overall integrated approach to development. These very instincts which have done so much to restore a sense of health and wholeness to communities also point strongly in the direction of working with churches to help build community at a local level. Churches historically played an integral as well as a multivalent role in building up and sustaining local communities. Like a network of streets, the function of churches is misunderstood when it is understood too narrowly. Once upon a time, planners acted on the assumption that streets were primarily for moving automobile traffic quickly from one point to another. New Urbanists rediscovered that the sidewalks and streets of a community actually provide a fundamental setting for public life, and they should be designed with those wider functions in mind. From one perspective churches appear to be buildings that serve the needs of a particular worshipping community. However, churches represent an informal network of people who care deeply for their community, and church buildings are community catalysts and anchor points for the entire neighborhood. For these and many other reasons, urban planners and New Urbanists have everything to gain and nothing to lose from looking to churches as partners in their community building efforts.

As of the beginning of this year, the Calgary Health Region, as part of its war on bad fat, became the first to regulate your food intake by making it illegal to prepare food for sale if it contains more than two per cent trans fats. Restaurants that violate that limit – one that no doubt will be vigorously enforced by enthusiastic fat police – could lose their licence and therefore be forced out of business. The next step, perhaps as soon as October, will be to police food sold in Calgary supermarkets, etc., for the purpose of limiting trans fats despite the fact levels are already, by legislation, printed on the packages. It is safe to assume that within a couple of years some unfortunate grocer will be busted on charges of selling food that contains trans fats beyond two per cent. This is due to the city’s health department having assessed that the risk posed by trans fats is “unacceptable.” This is an interesting new expansion into the world of personal choice and responsibility. Anti-smoking legislation, at least to the extent that it is practised in most parts of the country, can be justified on the basis of either: a) the majority of people do not smoke nd find smoke objectionable; or b) while people may have the right to engage in unhealthy behaviour they do not have the right to expose others, unwillingly, to those same risks. The latter justification has already been used to insist on the listing of ingredients on food packaging in order that the public can make an informed decision whether to consume it or otherwise. But this latest step has firmly shifted the responsibility for these decisions away from the consumer and into the loving arms of the state which has made it clear Calgarians are incapable of making these decisions themselves. This is not surprising in an age where governments decide which light bulbs you may and may not buy. Certainly the reduction of trans fats in food is a good thing, such a good thing that consumers were already well on the way, with relatively benign assistance from the state, to forcing food providers to change. But adding more fruit and fibre to one’s diet is also a good thing, as is walking a couple of miles a day, drinking eight glasses of water, eating broccoli on a daily basis and avoiding too much sugar or carbohydrates. Alcohol, for that matter, poses considerable – perhaps even unacceptable – risk to personal health as do certain personal behaviours (sexual and otherwise). Having assigned itself the task of guarding our arteries from the clogging caused by abuse of trans fats, it is difficult to understand how our chief medical officer of health can justify standing idly by while people offer rum and coke for sale with apparently no regard for its enormous physical and mental health risks. Nor, for that matter, does it make much sense for men over 50 to be “free” to avoid an annual prostate exam. This is not to be critical of Dr. Brent Friesen. He is a public servant assigned a task of considerable importance in our community and it must be incredibly frustrating for him to watch as people repeatedly make poor decisions. Many Alberta conservatives no doubt feel the same way about Ontario voting patterns as Friesen’s office feels about the average citizen’s attention to health care. What should be of concern, however, is how casually these interventions, whether they be restrictions on the freedom to (wrongly) choose trans fats fries or the increasingly controversial restrictions on freedom of speech by somewhat oxymoronic human rights commissions, are accepted. Freedoms, big and small, are precious and important to a robust democracy. Any time there is a move to expand the scope of their restrictions, there should be vigorous debate and the burden of proof should be firmly placed upon the he or the she who wishes to deny them. That doesn’t happen much anymore. Hardly happens at all, in fact. And that, too, poses an “unacceptable” risk to a healthy society.

OTTAWA - Ray Pennings of the Work Research Foundation expressed support, today, for the federal budget announcements that assist Canadians in caring for their families, to educate and train young people, and to initiate and invest in public infrastructure projects in partnership with government. Download the 2008 Federal Budget Analysis here Said Mr. Pennings, "The creation of Tax Free Savings accounts will assist families and seniors in looking after both regular cost-of-living demands as well as the unexpected. The support for students from low-income and middle-income households and for apprenticeship training will assist families who are primarily responsible for launching the next generation of Canadian workers, who will create the next generation of families. Calling on the know-how of entrepreneurs and investors in public infrastructure development gets at the challenge of restoring Canada's physical infrastructure, much of which was built 50 to 100 years ago." The Work Research Foundation's analysis by Ray Pennings and Russ Kuykendall highlighted the budget's announcements where they make impact, in particular, on families, students, seniors, business and work force, trade and secure borders, environment, and charities. The analysis also includes "Budget ABCs" that describes Canada's budget process. The analysis proposes an independent board of budget forecasters to complement what is already in place in federal budget-making. "The 'business' of the Work Research Foundation is building and enhancing Canada's 'social architecture,' Ray Pennings added. "The federal Budget 2008 moves in the right direction the Canadian conversation about what kind of country - including the built, social, and natural environment - we want to build and pass on." Read the full analysis

I grew up in a race-focused school, and it worked. The high school from which I graduated was among the top academic schools in our province, many of its students were active in the arts, especially in music, and a few excelled athletically. The school represented a cohesive community, enjoyed strong parental support and fostered cordial relationships with faith communities in the neighbourhoods it served. It instilled a deep commitment to public service, encouraged the cultivation of private virtue, and provided a solid foundation for professional achievement. The people who ran our school cared deeply, passionately about the children they were educating. Generations of exclusion from power, economic prosperity and cultural recognition persuaded them that the future of our community depended on the education of its children in an environment that would affirm our heritage, intensify a positive sense of identity and provide us with role models who embodied our community's ideals. Our educators had the best of intentions, and by the time the generation of students of which I was a member found itself in our school, the teachers had largely achieved their objectives. Growing up in an Afrikaner school in apartheid South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s was to enjoy privilege. Generously funded by the government, adequately staffed with diligent and highly qualified teachers, and ideologically in harmony with the community of families it served, a school like ours could not, and did not, fail in its mission to produce students who worked hard and sought to achieve the dreams of their parents. The race-focused education I received worked by every measure it recognized, and it was an abomination. Particularly in our history classes - but also in many informal ways - my fellow students and I had instilled in us a sense of lingering grievance against the British in particular and the West in general: a sense of grievance rooted in the Great Trek of our ancestors out of the British-governed Cape Colony in the 1830s (in part in protest against the abolition of slavery), and in the Anglo-Boer wars that our ancestors lost, and during which the British - with the help of Canadian troops - carried out a scorched-earth policy and interned many of our women and children in concentration camps. Added to this sense of grievance was a sense of superiority. From the education policy pronouncements of our prime ministers to the bawdy humour of our phys-ed teachers, the message to us was clear: White people, Afrikaners in particular, are fundamentally different from black people - we are more intelligent, have greater physical prowess, and enjoy an innate moral superiority. The race-focused education I received succeeded in turning generations of white South Africans into racists, and served as the essential device that assured the apartheid regime of the continued support of that part of the South African population that propped it up. I recognize that there are very big differences between South Africa in the '70s and '80s and Canada today. A race-focused school of white privilege is not the same as a race-focused school serving a troubled black community. But the motivation behind the education system in which I grew up is substantially the same as the Afro-centric school approved this week by the Toronto School Board and its consequence - whether accompanied by high grades, athletic achievement and artistic expression, or not - will be racism. And racism - whether it is the racism of the rich and privileged, or the racism of the poor and marginalized - is a great evil. It mobilizes volatile emotions, provokes acts of aggression and perverts the souls of its perpetrators as much as it violates the human dignity of its victims. I am not arguing against better education for children in poverty. I am not arguing against attention to the troubles of particular cultural communities. And I am not even arguing against educational choices with diverse focuses. But I am arguing, very particularly, against schools that focus on, and therefore valorize, race. The long legacy of racism has certainly not been overcome in South Africa. I am sure that racism will continue to trouble North America in subtle but nonetheless pernicious ways - whether Senator Barack Obama is elected American president or not. I wish black parents and educators in Toronto did not feel it necessary to fight racism with racism. They may achieve their objectives but they will, in a deeper way, fail their children.

The spectre of yet another shift of the burden of government to the private sector arose earlier this winter when city hall suggested the housing industry may have to, as the Calgary Sun put it, “reach deeper into their pockets.” The reason for this, according to Mayor Dave Bronconnier, is that the city is increasingly incapable of keeping up with the demand for infrastructure (roads, fire halls, parks, etc.) in new communities. Fair enough. Further, the mayor indicated that “current property taxpayers shouldn’t have to pick up a disproportionate share of the load.” Resident Calgary taxpayers such as those in Crescent Heights, in other words, shouldn’t have to pay more taxes up front for the infrastructure required by people buying in new areas such as Symons Valley. No one is sure why this should be other than that residents of older neighbourhoods feel they are entitled to be excluded from the upfront costs of new civic growth. We do not expect, for instance, that people who have newly arrived in this province should pay higher health-care premiums or income taxes even though the fact of their arrival increases the burden on the healthcare system. And those of us who do not live adjacent to a river do not resent that we are bearing a disproportionate share of the costs of maintaining flood control on the Elbow River – something that benefits only those who live along the river. Somehow, though, we do resent new neighbourhoods being built in Calgary and resentment, in this case, creates opportunity. Among the reasons for Calgary’s unusual surge in real estate prices in 2006 was a shortage of serviced (sewer and water) land. This took place due to delays in negotiating annexation from neighbouring municipalities. Annexation is required before the city’s sewer and water services are extended, which allows the city to maintain control over the supply and therefore cost of serviced land. The annexation delay therefore created a shortage of supply that inflated housing prices. Lack of affordable housing worsened the shortage and the cost of labour. And the high cost of labour in a major contributor to the city’s difficulty in keeping up with the costs of providing new infrastructure. So despite the fact that bureaucracy enhanced its own problems by failing to properly manage the availability and supply of serviced land, it is the housing industry that apparently will be forced to pick up the tab. Or so it seems at first glance. However, if the city increases the already-substantial levies paid by developers, the latter will either pass those costs on directly to the buyer/consumer or choose to do business in other cities or municipalities. Passing the costs along will immediately inflate the price of new housing while chasing developers (most of whom are incensed but too bullied by city hall to do anything about it) elsewhere will shorten the supply of new housing which will also increase housing prices. Either way, prices still go up. Fortunately for the bureaucracy, many media believe that the public sector is inherently good and any new plan will be trumpeted as a victory for the taxpayer whose “burden” is passed along to the “corporate” or “business” world. Few will pay attention to reality: the shift of this “burden” simply increases the cost of doing business in Calgary and that cost will in turn be passed along to the consumer/taxpayer. Alas, there is no money tree. Calgary property taxes are based on market value assessments. So when prices increase, which they will, older neighbourhood taxpayers will still pay more even if the “burden” of new infrastructure is “passed along.” You have to admire the genius of the plan if not its transparency. The city gets more money up front from developers and it still gets more revenue from higher taxes due to the inflation of housing prices even though tax rates themselves stay level. In the end, the city still gets more of your money. The only real burden that gets shifted is the responsibility for doing so.