The Steady Stater
The Steady Stater
The Hills Are Alive and Steady: Forced Growth in Beverly Hills
Beverly Hills isn’t the first place most people would think of harboring a steady-state government. Yet, led for three terms by past Mayor John Mirisch (who still serves on the city council), the enclave west of Hollywood has pushed back against the pro-growth strictures emanating out of the statehouse in Sacramento. This experience has turned Mr. Mirisch into a die-hard steady stater, a badge he wears proudly.
John's website: https://cityofbh.org
From the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, this is The Steady Stater, a podcast dedicated to discussing limits to growth and the steady state economy.
Brian Czech:Welcome to the show. I'm your host, Brian Czech. And our guest today is John Mirisch, three-term mayor of Beverly Hills, California. He's still on the city council too. John comes from a family of film executives, and he's worked at Paramount Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and United International. These days, he's probably more active in politics than in the film industry. So for example, he is very active in the California Alliance of Local Electeds, electeds as any elected officials, which seems to have developed somewhat of a focus on fending off the forces of unsustainable growth. John Mirisch, welcome to The Steady Stater.
John Mirisch:Well, thank you, Brian. It is an honor to be here. I'm a big fan of your work. And I'm a proud member of CASSE.
Brian Czech:All the honors are ours. Thank you. And you know, John, sometimes we like to start things off with a lighthearted highlight. So what's the craziest thing you've ever seen in Beverly Hills?
John Mirisch:Oh, boy, it's hard for me to look at it the way sometimes other people do, because I grew up here. And so my version of Beverly Hills is actually I look at it like Mayberry R.F.D. I know there are crazy things going on here. But when I would drive through the streets with my -- now 14 year old, I would do geography that was "oh, look, the Esrelos live there" and "the Belousov live there" and so on. So it was always for me about family or community as an extension of family. And, you know, I'm trying to think -- I'm sure there's a lot of things like that going on -- weird things and -- because of the focus on Beverly Hills. But for me, it's always only just been sort of our version of Mayberry R.F.D. and that's why I love community-based policy and planning. I think communities are unique and they're special. And you know, each city is probably looks are hopefully each community looks at itself as a version of Mayberry R.F.D. I'm sorry, to not be able to answer that question directly. But you know, I'm sure I've seen on Rodeo Drive walking down a fair share of people who you might do a double take at and who were, you know, probably out of the ordinary for middle America. But I've never really thought of it now that way, I know I have to take a step back sometimes and think of it, but there are so many misconceptions and stereotypes about Beverly Hills. Don't get me started.
Brian Czech:No. Okay. And actually, I was going to get something along those lines out of the way right from the get go. Because, you know, a lot of folks probably think of Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills or maybe Hollywood next door as the unsustainability capital of the U.S.A., you know, it's per capita consumption off the charts.
John Mirisch:Really, there are probably a lot of back here, that you're probably right, Brian. There are a lot of people who are involved in overconsumption here. But what most people don't know is that over 50% of Beverly Hills residents are renters. And something like 78% of people are under the poverty line, probably seniors with fixed incomes. So we have some very, very wealthy people. And sometimes when you read about, you know, multimillion dollar houses being sold in Beverly Hills, it's it's actually just Beverly Hills zip code. It's not the city of Beverly Hills, but certainly within the city, there are some really, really rich people. And you know, that's why probably the average income would be higher than the median. But as said, we've got people who move into town and live in small apartments for the community, for the schools, for the public safety and for all of those things. But it is not just an enclave of the super wealthy, although we have some of that. And actually, that's one thing that I like is that when the city was planned, it wasn't only planned as an enclave of the rich. It was planned with, from the very beginning with some really big estates, big homes, smaller single family homes, commercial, and a lot of multifamily. And I think, you know, as a planned community, that the people who -- Wilbur Cook, who designed the City in the early 1900s did a great job.
Brian Czech:Well, would you say that you're like an outlier in Beverly Hills politics calling for a steady state economy? Or is there a budding steady state movement out there?
John Mirisch:I think I'm an outlier in politics in general. I mean, we need more people who are going to debunk the growth myth. And for me, by the way, I'm also a Swedish citizen having lived in Sweden, I come back to that wonderful quotation from Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. When she was at the UN and said, you know, here we are at the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can do is talk about money and fairy tales of a turtle economic growth. I think when you explain it to people, they understand. But I think people feel that economic growth is sort of second nature. We have to have it. And I don't think people think critically about it. And I think that's why it's important that people become familiar with a steady state, and what it's about, and that when people hear the word degrowth, there's sometimes a shock effect. And it's not at all what people think. And I don't have to explain that to you. But it's just logical. We, you know, we live in a world of finite resources. The notion that we are anything can continue growing forever, is the definition of unsustainability.
Brian Czech:And you have a vision of a steady state Beverly Hills, what would it look like? And if the state of California didn't interfere, do you think the City Council could manage to maintain it? In other words, let's set the state of California aside for the moment, because I know we're going to come back to that in a major way soon. But assuming the city council had sufficient and governing power, have you thought about the structure, functioning, and maintenance of the city government in a steady state economy? And are there lessons out there for other city officials around the country?
John Mirisch:Well, that's a great question. As I mentioned, I think when Wilbur Cook designed the city way back in the early 1900s, he did an amazing job. And I think that blueprint is still valid for today. And you know, nothing is so good that it can't get better-- there are certain things that we would and could need to improve and could do so within the framework of a steady state economy. To me, this is indicative. We're pretty much in theory who we should be. We've had about 35,000 residents for the last 60 or 70 years. So that to me is very much steady state. We're coming under pressure, though, now, of course, to add density, to add population, to grow -- not physically, because we're only 5.7 square miles, and we can't grow physically, we have urban growth boundaries. But we're coming under pressure to grow. We've got people, you know, that use the dreaded N word, the NIMBY word, to say that, because I think a lot of us feel that the community that we have, in terms of population, in terms of size, in terms of density is where we should be that were NIMBYs. And, as I said, the pressure is all coming from Sacramento. And so I think that if you look at the last 60, 70 years, I suggest that there are some mistakes that, you know, maybe that sometimes in some cases, but not compared to other cities, not compared to Santa Monica, Culver City that have succumb to this notion that we have to grow the local economy. And of course, our business community, the chambers of Commerces who are always sort of the pro-growth advocates would probably differ with me. But my feeling is that we don't need to add jobs. We don't need to add commercial. We should keep things sort of keep it real the way that they are. And if there are businesses that are becoming stale, yes, you can maybe replace them with newer businesses. But the goal should be that stability rather than to grow. And so to me, the 35,000 residents that we have is not just some arbitrary figure. It's something that over the past six decades or so has been a formula that has for the most part worked. So again, I think that most people in our community may feel that or sense it. I don't think they necessarily understand or think about what a steady state economy is. But I think when you explain to them, this notion of growth and this notion of force growth and this notion of force density, they begin to understand and I think that's again, that's why it's so important to get the basic background of steady -- what a steady state economy is out there. And to have that dialogue.
Brian Czech:Right. And you mentioned the pressures coming from Sacramento. And maybe, maybe we need to just remind folks, that's the state house in California, you're talking about,
John Mirisch:Yeah, that's -- Sacramento is the faraway state house. It's probably further away from Los Angeles than New York is from Washington. And in many cases, it feels that way. Now, I'm somebody who is a total believer in community. I believe that local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy, because it's about community, and it's closest to home. And, of course, Sacramento, in many ways, like our political system, and we can get into discussion of that and the role of money within our political system. But it seems that they're often more serving the special interests than the residents. And as we both know, this is not a new concept. The urban growth machine has been at work for decades trying to force density and ergo force growth. And that's a term I think, that was originated by Harvey Molotch-- not quite sure how he pronounces his name -- years ago, and there's no question that we have a very strong urban growth machine at work in California, where there's a lot of money to be made.
Brian Czech:Yeah, It's ironic because a lot of steady staters out there probably still think of California as a bellwether of progressive environmental protection. But we felt those rumblings that, yeah, the State of California has become somewhat of a growth machine.
John Mirisch:Well it certainly is. And, you know, the fact that people are decrying California lost population for the first time since the state was founded. And you've got people, you know, renting their clothes because of that. Well, I look at that as a good thing. I mean, that, you know, I don't know that the 40 million people that we have is the right figure for us. It may be too many. But certainly the fact that populations stabilizing is a good thing. It's funny, we've got planners here who have described some of the policies that are supposedly progressive, as fore-gressive, because you see a really odd alliance between some of these, you know, so called environmental groups and groups like up for growth that are really pushing density. And, you know, as I wrote in the article for your blog, that this forced density is really a proxy for forced growth.
Brian Czech:Yeah. And I'm glad you reminded me of that article, because I have to say, it's one of the best articles about local government, dealing with problems of growth that we've had in the 10 plus years of the first the Daily News, and then the Steady State Herald. And this was the article called Housing Policy - An Agent for Growth. It was from October 7, 2021. So steady staters out there might want to track that one down.
John Mirisch:Well, thank you, Brian. I'm flattered. And you know, hopefully, I'll have a chance to write more I find, you know, a lot of what I'm doing now is writing rebuttals to some of these ridiculous arguments that you hear to try and force density. And you know, it's weird, because as you say, you think of California as progressive but a lot of these you know, self-styled progressives are spouting theories that would put a Reaganomics supply-sider to shame.
Brian Czech:Well, that isn't good. Well, John, I understand a number of local governments in California have really tried to stabilize to limit population, at least, maybe kind of like Beverly Hills. But the State of California won't let them. And then to make matters worse, I also heard that the state, they won't point to just one specific law or policy, but rather, they refer to different policies, depending on the circumstances. So that would make it way harder to litigate, I'd imagine.
John Mirisch:The state blames zoning. The narrative is that cities through what they call exclusionary zoning, which basically means single-family neighborhoods has shut out people. There are all sorts of arguments, they tie into it. But the three main ones are affordability, racial equity, and the environment. And they're basically set all smoke screens. And you know, the goal is to force density, which as I wrote in the article is a proxy for force growth. So, which I asked said, I find it, the reason behind it ultimately is about money. The urban growth machine, people who have looked to what is known as the financialization of housing organizations, the commodification of housing, look to that growth as a way to create and sustain profits. And I wouldn't even say that Beverly Hills has taken policies or other cities have taken policies to consciously stabilize the population. I think that the population that we have and have had for 60 or 70 years has stabilized on its own. And that's actually a good thing. You could look at that as the definition of the steady state economy. Now, some people might say, Well, it's because of zoning. But as I mentioned to you, over 50% of our residents are renters, and actually, over 65% of the housing units in Beverly Hills are multifamily. Now people point out the percentage of land that is devoted to single family homes, as if there was something wrong with that, ignoring the fact that all studies show something like 80% of Americans prefer living in homes with gardens in neighborhoods of homes with gardens. And to me, that's actually a good thing. You know, living in an ultra-dense neighborhood is great for some people, but especially as people maybe get older and have families, it's nice to have a garden and, you know, the notion that there's something environmentally wrong with that or that's cause -- what's causing housing to be unaffordable is absurd. And of course, there were restrictive covenants in many cities in California, including in Beverly Hills, quite frankly. Those restrictive covenants would have excluded and did exclude Jewish people. Now Beverly Hills today is one of the only Jewish majority cities outside of Israel. So you know the fact that there were restrictive covenants is not a knock on single family homes or neighborhoods themselves, any more than the fact that there was racism with public transportation. Just think of Rosa Parks means that there's something inherently racist about public transportation. And yet the solution, quote-unquote, from some of these growth attic is let's just eliminate single family neighborhoods.
Brian Czech:Well, you know, I suspect there are some steady staters out there in the audience that would want me to follow up on something you said early on in that answer about the stabilized population, essentially being the steady state economy. I mean, we do have to point out that it's the population times the per-capita consumption and that total has to be -- that product that has to be at a sustainable level, of course.
John Mirisch:Right. And as I mentioned, I think you will find that you know, Beverly Hills is not immune quite the opposite to sort of the frenzy of consumption that our market-oriented society is and marketing-oriented society is trying to foist upon all of this, selling us things that we don't need and making us feel we have to have things that we don't have to have. That's of course, a larger problem as well. And certainly there are parts of Beverly Hills that are, if you will, textbook cases of conspicuous consumption. There's no doubt about that.
Brian Czech:Well, John, it's been a fascinating conversation so far, but we need to take a short non-commercial break here with James Lamont. Take it away James!
James Lamont:Hello, listeners, whether this is your first time at the steady state or you've heard our entire collection as an easy way for you were to help us spread the steady state message. We know that many of you listen to the show using Apple podcasts. If you haven't already, please consider subscribing in the app by clicking the Follow button. This way, you'll automatically receive new episodes upon their release. Additionally, you could help out by leaving us a written review in the app. These actions will help to circulate the steady state and to advance the steady state mission. Thanks very much for your support. And now back to the show.
Brian Czech:Welcome back to the show steady staters where our guest today is John Mirisch, the three-time mayor of Beverly Hills. John, you first came to us because you didn't encounter an organization that you found to be a paragon of unsustainability. You mentioned them in the first part, they're called Up for Growth. And they're based in Washington D.C.. You were trying to find sort of an anti-up for growth and settled upon us, which is a little bit like finding David while confronting Goliath. Because you know up for growth is like big money Goliath and we at CASSE have this little slingshot. It's powerful, but it's a little slingshot, consisting of sound science and common sense. I do like to say that a dollars worth of sound science and common sense can defeat a million dollars worth of pro-growth propaganda. The problem is I suspect up for growth has not 1 million such dollars, but rather two or more million to every one of ours. So how big do you think CASSE has to get in order to defeat the likes of up for growth? And then what's the best way we can help a local government to fend off the forces of growth?
John Mirisch:Sadly, we live in an age where, in a country where money is speech, and corporations are people and of course neither are true. It's an uphill battle. And my hope is that by getting more people actively involved in what's going on in their own communities, because that's where they feel the most impacted. That's, you know, it's one thing if something unless you live in Washington, what's happening in D.C. or Sacramento. But when things are happening in your own communities, maybe you notice. And I just think that the best thing that CASSE or any organization focused on a steady state economy or degrowth can do is to continue to point out the-- you know, going back to what Greta Thunberg said, and to convince people that this notion of forced growth is simply the definition of unsustainability. And it's interesting, I point out that the word stability is literally embedded but also metaphorically embedded in the word and the concept of sustainability. And the problem is you have these groups like Up for Growth that are parenting, that are co-opting the language of sustainability and are trying to suggest that force density is in and of itself sustainable, and that it's environmentally friendly, and that it's racially equitable, and that it creates affordable housing, none of which are true. So they are creating a false narrative that we will need everybody in anybody to debunk. And part of the problem is too -- because again, money is involved in, a lot of it. You've got a lot of people on the side of academia, who are largely responsible for fueling these myths of eternal economic growth. And it's not just the Ecomodernist to say that technology is going to save us, it's almost -- as I said -- given that this sort of force density and this force growth is what we need to be able to move forward and to create the kind of equity that notion that, you know, we've heard it before -- a rising tide floats all boats -- well, of course, it doesn't if you don't have a boat. But that, to me is the essence of neoliberalism. It's the essence of supply-side economy. It's the essence of Reaganomics. And it's very odd that you've got a group of people who identify with progressivism, who are spouting this nonsense, and you look at the board up for growth, and it doesn't only consist of pro-Trumpers, it's got these people who consider themselves to be progressive. So that's what we're up against. Now, I would argue they're not progressive at all. But you know, there's a psychology about what is motivating them. And that's a whole nother discussion, I think the best thing that we can do is to get more people on board -- more reasonable people -- to find people like yourself and Herman Daly, who can make it very clear why a group like Up for Growth is completely on the wrong side of history. You know, we need to be up for stability, we need to be up for sustainability, we probably need to be up for degrowth. But we certainly need to be up for a steady state economy.
Brian Czech:In terms of particular actions, you know, I know that if we're going to be like an anti up for growth. We have the one chapter director I mentioned to you once up in Idaho, Rob Harding, who -- he and one of their city councilman, they established a pack to help to get a couple of people elected to that council to have the majority for pushing back against some of the growth projects that were on the ballot there. And it were...
John Mirisch:That's, of course, a great idea. And of course, PACs again, this is our system. It's about money. Famous California politician Jesse Unruh once said that money is the mother's milk of politics. And it's gotten even worse since the Supreme Court decisions Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United. And so, yes, we can and should push back. And it's great if $1 of CASSE and $1 of steady statesmanship can push back against a million dollars of growthism. But I think also, as you point out in your book, that we grow up with this notion that growth is something that's necessary, it's good. And that as I also wrote in the article, if someone is described as anti-growth, that's a slur. And when I was described as that I took it as a badge of honor -- you know, we need to make it very clear that there's a time and a place where growth is appropriate as a child. But once a child reaches maturity, and many of our cities are mature organisms, the notion of trying to force growth is akin to trying to force an a mature adult, such as myself to physically row. And I can tell you, if someone said to me, you've got to physically grow 30 to 40%. There's only one way I'm growing, and it's not going to be in a way that's healthy. And you know, think of streets almost as clogged arteries. So, you know, there seems to be an obsession, especially in this country, with growth. And you and some of the other voices of reason, are the way that hopefully we can connect with people who sense that this kind of growth is unsustainable. And unfortunately, a lot of the people who I believe innately feel that there's something wrong with what the state and, to an extent, the federal government -- you look at some of Biden's policies, I feel that it looks like they're forcing growth in the same way, but people who react instinctively against it. And as said, they're all called NIMBYs -- not my backyard. Because supposedly, you know, they're selfish. And in some cases, they're portrayed as selfish homeowners who only care about their property values. And of course, that's all hogwash. But I think we need to articulate what is behind it. And I think it starts with pointing out that all of these policies that you see these these YIMBY, these Yes In My Backyard, and WIMBY, Wall Street In My Backyard policies are not about the environment, they're not about racial equity, they're not about affordability -- they are about growth. And I that's what I've been trying to do. And I think that where CASSE can help, because we have to identify a problem before we can even push back and create a solution. People that said they're using these progressive sounding terms to try and force growth upon us and force density. And we're not even, in many cases, conscious. Just that's exactly what we're doing.
Brian Czech:Yeah. And just to verify, or just to clarify, that pack, that Rob Harding worked on that's up in Hayden, Idaho and then we have some folks in Maine that are talking about a similar effort.
John Mirisch:We should -- we should need more of them, Brian. We need more.
Brian Czech:Yeah. Yeah.
John Mirisch:And we need a national group. I mean, you look at, you look it up for growth, and you look at all the people who are on the board, and you look at the chairman emeritus, Clyde Holland, who is a huge developer, I think, in the Seattle area, and a major donor to Trump. And you know, you look at some of these people who -- if you say the word Trump would walk out of a room who are on the same board, and you know that there is something going on that is very wrong. And we definitely need to have a voice of reason. I would sometimes use the hashtag ListentToGreta, because that's exactly what we need to do. And the irony is when you point out the statement the Greta Thunberg made, they try what I call "indisplayed her" -- oh, well, she didn't mean that, she actually meant something else. I can tell you, I'm Swedish. That's exactly what she meant. And the notion that we should force density and force growth and the notion that there have to be these superstar cities where we concentrate opportunity, and where everyone has to move, because that's where the jobs are. That's not only bad policy, but it also ignores the proof of concept that we have of remote work and working from home, which offers a tremendous potential to actually move towards sustainability and stability. And they completely ignore that. It's not surprising, though, because again, it's not good for growth.
Brian Czech:Well, you know, that David and Goliath metaphor that was imperfect, because for one thing, CASSE shouldn't be the only David out there. That brings us back around to the California Alliance of Local Electeds. How long has the Alliance been focused on the problem of unsustainable growth? Did you bring that to the table?
John Mirisch:Well, I would say that it actually started in a very different way. And it started in that cities were being preempted by Sacramento, when it comes to their land use policy cities were being scapegoated. You know, the narrative that you will hear -- the false narrative is that cities are the cause of the housing affordability crisis, because they make it illegal to build more housing, and so on and so forth. And a number of people from throughout the state elected officials have felt that was an unfair attack. We in many cases feel that actually Sacramento is the cause. Because Sacramento is serving the urban growth machine and money special interests, that stands to make a lot of money, when cities no longer can control their urban planning and can build willy-nilly whatever they want. So I think it was a loose alliance of people that came together, we -- in some ways, we felt that the California League of Cities was not being as effective as they could in protecting local democracy and local decision making. And we came together and it was mainly about land use. And I think I've been trying to point out to them that it is about growth as well. And that it is about that sustainability encompasses -- as I pointed out before -- stability. You've got people who are saying, well, you know, cities shouldn't be in amber, and they need to grow and that sort of thing. Well, they need to grow maybe metaphysically. Cities don't necessarily need to grow physically, once it's a built out or mature city with a stable population much like our own. And it's interesting, because what the pro-growthers is in California did was they hired the firm McKinsey, Consulting firm, you know, basically will say anything for money. Whether they hired them or whether McKenzie actually -- it actually may have been -- that McKinsey went out on their own to try and drum up more business. And they did a study that has since been debunked, that said that California needs 3.5 million new units, that we have a deficit of 3.5 million housing units. And first of all, McKinsey doesn't have the greatest reputation. As you probably know, they paid, I think, settlements of $600 million to settle claims that they were involved in pushing opioids. And so to trust opioid pushers is one thing, but you look at Freddie Mac, which is a quasi-governmental organization has said that the deficit is about $800,000. So there's a huge difference there.
Brian Czech:Well, John, going back one more time to the California Alliance of Local Electeds. I understand the Alliance is a nonpartisan group, but I have to wonder how hard is it to keep it that way in today's hyperpartisan USA? And would you say that one party may be more steady-state in California?
John Mirisch:Well, California is basically a one-party state. Certainly at the state level, it's democratic for 20 years or so. We haven't had a statewide elected Republicans since Schwarzenegger who was, you know, a star. And I think that's a problem too. I think that for democracy to work, there needs to be voices on both sides. So since it is the Democrats who are in charge, you've got so called -- you know, some of these what I would call -- corporate Democrats who are anti-steady staters. I think that absolutely local government, one of the great things about local government is it is nonpartisan, when you run for city council, you don't run as a Democrat, Republican or declined to state. And that, to me, is another thing that speaks for having more community-based decisions and not fewer. So I do think that, you know, for every reaction, there's an opposite reaction.You talked about the laws of thermodynamics in your book. And I think the further they go with forcing growth, the more people you're going to find who either leave the state or are unhappy, and try to figure out a way to fight back. And now you could argue with everyone who, you know, likes living in a single family neighborhood or a less dense area leaves the state, maybe that just leaves people here who like that level of density. But as I mentioned before, people change as they get older, that the fact that 80% or so of Americans are not huge fans of that kind of density and would ideally like to live in a home with a garden in a neighborhood of homes with gardens, I think is reflective of who we are as a country. And I also think it's something that has to do with not just psychology, but it's something that will help when it does come to stability. I think, you know, I've discussed before that what I would call "urban supremacist" who want to force everyone to live in ultra dense cities are missing is what people actually want. You know, you talk about supply shock, but it's odd when you hear people who are trying to force density and force growth don't actually talk about the demand side what people would like. And when something is over concentrated, like jobs or opportunity, the natural response should be to deconcentrate it. So I think that the more that Sacramento pushes on these policies, eventually you will get more pushback. Again, my hope is that we can get people talking about a steady state, talking about growth in general, and to be sensible about it. So as a result, we need more voices like yours and Herman Daly's, and especially, I would say, we need to find people who are involved in academia, who can push back on some of these wacky theories that we hear from people who have the credentials, who are basically shilling for growth.
Brian Czech:Well, we need your voice too, John. So thank you so much for being on the show today and keep fighting that urban growth machine and Godspeed.
John Mirisch:Thank you, Brian. I will and I look forward to continue working with CASSE and hopefully to convincing more people that CASSE is an important organization. And--yeah, it's funny -- we talked about anti-growth, but CASSE needs to grow not from a physical perspective, but from a metaphysical perspective, and the people who understand the importance of its message for future generations.
Brian Czech:Yep, to the right level. That's it.
John Mirisch:Yep. To the right level.
Brian Czech:Well, folks, that about wrap us up, we've been talking with John Mirisch, the three-term mayor of Beverly Hills. I don't know about you, but my sense of irony has subsided from talking with John. Normally when we think about where the support for a steady state economy might come from, we don't think of places next door to Hollywood. Reflecting on today's episode, though, well, first we find that Beverly Hills isn't necessarily replete with see ponds and billiard dining tables. Yes, you will find millionaires out shopping on an old drive. But the city has its fiscal challenges just like any other local government. And more importantly, we find in Beverly Hills, a place with plenty of people who understand limits to growth, and the idea that they already have enough -- enough stuff. That is enough goods and services, enough GDP. And rather than being ironic, it makes all the sense in the world. That such a place is precisely where steady state local politics is likely to succeed. Let's put it this way -- if it doesn't succeed in Beverly Hills, how could we expect it to succeed in Bakersfield, Baltimore, or Birmingham? I'm Brian Czech, and you've been listening to The Steady Stater podcast. See you next time!