Cities Dangerously Lead by Example

I think the Republicans have finally cracked.

I mean, we all know that they were headed for the brink when Sarah Palin was hailed as the savior of the party, but dressing up like 18th-century colonials throwing tea into Boston Harbor?

Conservative and libertarian activists across the nation spent April 15 protesting the $787 billion stimulus plan and the orgy of taxes that will surely follow. At tea parties all across our great land, the freedom fighters spewed vitriol against the excesses of the nanny state, particularly one Barack Hussein Obama, a beloved dictator who has managed to run up an $8 trillion deficit, start two wars and underwrite a number of risky subprime mortgages in his first hundred days in office, causing many of the nation’s economic woes.

But while reading about these crackpots pontificate on the dangers of the nanny state, I had to admit that — at least when it comes to cities — they might have a point. In the age of public health crises and terrorist threats, urban governments have become bigger, scarier and more intrusive.

Of the two aforementioned phenomena, one homegrown and one foreign, the public health crusade is more benign. What started in the late 1980s as a fight against secondhand smoke has evolved into a vast network of public health advocates, bureaucrats and trial lawyers, replete with politicians ready to pounce on the next big bad target.

Certainly, consumer protection is a good thing; mandating seatbelt and helmet use and prohibiting smoking in public bars and restaurants protects us from the negative externalities imposed by the decisions of our fellow citizens. But after the public health do-gooders banished the smokers to their designated patch of sidewalk, they declared war on obesity — definitely a serious concern, but hardly the epidemic dubiously proclaimed by food police in cities across America.

New York City, the epicenter of the do-gooder approach to governance, has led the charge, first cracking down on junk food in schools, targeting trans fats, ordering restaurants to post nutritional information, urging food companies to limit the salt in their products (with the threat of legislative action in the event of non-compliance) and proposing a hefty tax on soda, designed to make people drink less of it. Other cities, Washington among them, have followed suit, at times one-upping the Big Apple; Chicago banned foie gras in 2006 (a measure rescinded in 2008), and last year, Los Angeles’ city council passed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods.

Of course, restrictions in the name of public welfare are nothing new; for every liberal decrying Twinkies and Sunkist, there’s a conservative condemning Jack Daniels and Penthouse. Moreover, many of these regulations are common-sense proposals aimed at curbing obesity and helping consumers make more informed choices. But, as Slate reporter William Saletan is fond of noting, bad things don’t happen because they’re bad ideas; they happen because they’re good ideas. The problem with legislating good health is the same as with legislating morality: A well-meaning government curtails the ability of its citizens to choose because it thinks it knows best. Perhaps the trade-off is worth it. Maybe the elimination of choice is a small matter when compared to the causes of consumer protection and health. But where do we draw the line?

The far scarier phenomenon has been the response of urban governments to the threats posed by terrorism and violent crime. Here in London, the government has taken extraordinary steps in the name of public safety. The British capital is becoming known as the surveillance capital of the world; hundreds of thousands of CCTV cameras hover over London residents 24 hours a day.

While the cameras certainly have benefits — when my girlfriend’s wallet was stolen, for instance, we welcomed them — statistics show they only solve 3 percent of street crimes. You would think having such an excessive number of cameras would yield better results. And yet the technology for these cameras is rapidly advancing — face recognition, night vision, recording of conversations from 300 feet away. The British government is even installing talking cameras in some areas, so that CCTV operators can chastise you if they catch you doing something naughty (Orwellian telescreens, anyone?). Apparently, city officials from the States are eager to adopt Britain’s policing strategies. New York, Chicago and Washington already have thousands of CCTV cameras each.

Moral and nutritional bankruptcy are problems that any society must face, and urban management is certainly fraught with risks. But perhaps the real risk we take is surrendering our privacy to governments, which may not always know best.

Sebastian Johnson is a junior in the College and is studying abroad at the London School of Economics in England. He can be reached at johnson@thehoya.com. This is the semester's final installment of Tale of Two Cities.

To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinion@thehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.