Douglas McGray's Articles http://www.douglasmcgray.com Features from This American Life, the Atlantic Monthly, the New York Times Magazine, Wired, etc. Feeder 1.3.8.1 http://reinventedsoftware.com/feeder/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss en Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:40:03 -0400 Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:40:03 -0400 Last Days of Taipei | T: New York Times Style Magazine http://www.douglasmcgray.com/taipei.html LAST DAYS OF TAIPEI

By Douglas McGray

THERE IS NOTHING particularly Taiwanese about the Astoria Café. That’s what made it special when Archibald Chien opened the place over a half century ago, on the west side of Taipei, the old downtown. The bakery sold fresh bread and homemade cakes downstairs. Upstairs, Chien served dark, bitter coffee, Italian style. Well, not really Italian. “French,” he told me. “Swiss,” he said, picking up a plate of perfect little cakes. Then he laughed. The coffee, the pastries and the cakes — actually, all Russian. “But we could not call anything Russian.” Just about everything gets political in Taipei. Even dessert.

History in Taiwan’s capital has unfolded like a foreign-affairs soap opera. In the 1500s, mainland Chinese, mostly from Fujian Province, began to move here to farm. But the newcomers clashed with the locals, dozens of tribes with their own languages and cultures. Then, in the 17th century, the Dutch moved in. Then a Chinese faction, hostile to the new Qing dynasty that ruled the mainland, threw them out. Then the Qing army conquered the Chinese in Taiwan and put the island up for sale. When they couldn’t find a buyer, they kept it until 1895, when Japan seized the land — and things got really complicated.

It’s more than history to Chien. He explained that he spoke Taiwanese as a young boy, in the 1930s. (Taiwanese is related to the local tongue of Fujian Province; just how closely related is, you guessed it, political.) But Chien had to give up Taiwanese for Japanese during elementary school — when imperial Japan was trying to scrub the island clean of native and Chinese influences. When China reclaimed Taiwan after World War II, Japanese was banned, so as a young man Chien got to work on the new national language, Mandarin Chinese.

Chien founded the Astoria in 1949 with a few Russian guys who had left the Soviet Union. That same year, Communists seized control of mainland China and General Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists fled to Taiwan. They took over Taipei and installed a thuggish government, nearly as hard-line in its anti-Maoism as the Communists in Beijing were anti-bourgeois. Mysterious men started showing up at the cafe, watching Chien’s Russian partners and tracking who came and went — especially the writers.

Business boomed for a while. Taiwan bet early on high-tech manufacturing, and by the 1970s the island was gadget maker to the world. Businessmen would come to the cafe with their portable radios and listen to the stock market report while sipping coffee. Gradually, though, the neighborhood outside, with its narrow avenues, tiled facades and crowds of street vendors, lost its importance as office towers, shopping malls, restaurants and foreign boutiques sprouted from the city’s new glass-and-steel east side. Then came the international hotels with their elegant cafes. Pretty soon, you could get a good cup of coffee and a Western-style pastry anywhere in the city.

The morning I met Chien, except for the two of us and Chien’s daughter, the Astoria Café was empty.

TAIPEI THESE DAYS is both cosmopolitan and mellow, thanks to three decades of prosperity that have benefited largely the middle class. (I used to associate the sound of Mandarin with the bumping, every-man-for-himself chaos of China’s big cities — not anymore.) But there are echoes everywhere of the turmoil that shaped the city, and signs of an uncertain future. Which makes now a pretty interesting time to explore.

Chu T’ien-hsin and her sister are a bit like the Brontës of Taiwan. They’re big-time novelists and short-story writers. (Taipei’s dailies publish literary supplements, so highbrow short stories reach an unusually large audience.) I wanted to talk to Chu about her novella “The Old Capital,” which came out in English last year.

We met at Spot-Taipei Film House, a cinema, bookstore and cafe in a white colonial mansion on busy Zhongshan North Road. This was the United States government’s consulate in Taipei until the Carter administration normalized relations with China and left Taiwan. The old house was empty for more than two decades until a few years ago, when Hou Hsiao-hsien, the respected Taiwanese filmmaker, led an effort to transform the place. (He actually showed up at our table to say hello — Chu’s sister, T’ien-wen, writes most of his screenplays.)

Chu has a sweet, round face, inquisitive eyes and perfect posture. “The Old Capital” was her critical hit here. It tells the story of a Taiwanese woman who returns to Taipei from abroad and struggles to find the city of her youth in a modern, alien place. As the narrator walks around the city, she retreats into her head.

Chu weighs down every memory with details — bus stops, house numbers, songs on the radio, species of flora. “There were chrysanthemums and osmanthus” if your father came from mainland China, she writes of the gardens in her character’s childhood neighborhood, “or hibiscuses and tree orchids (if your father was local Taiwanese) or wisterias and arhat pines (if your ancestors had spoken Japanese).”

“The Old Capital” is crowded with horticulture. I asked Chu why. When the Japanese came, she said, they planted flame trees, cherry trees, azaleas and eucalyptus all around Taipei. Later, the Chinese nationalists chopped many of these down and planted banyan trees and king palms. When locals chafed at the way a small gang of mainlanders ran Taipei, officials began planting native camphor trees. In less than a generation, camphor-lined streets have become the picture of modern Taipei. The stout, twisting laurels grow quickly, like so much else here.

In any boomtown, things vanish and other things take their place. But something more has happened in Taipei. “It’s just one government erasing the history of another,” Chu said. She’s no impartial observer; she feels a deep connection to mainland China, something many here reject, and she’s blunt about it. But she’s definitely right about this: Taipei’s story seems to get rewritten, and rewritten, and rewritten.

I ASKED CHU where I might find a place in Taipei that’s lived through a few drafts — keeping in mind that there isn’t much Old Taipei. This city of nearly three million was home to just 176,521 people in 1920 and 335,397 at the end of World War II. “In China, their grandmas’ shoes are older than our oldest buildings,” a prominent publisher and creative entrepreneur, Irmin Pao, said a couple days later when I visited him at his studio.

Chu suggested the city’s leafy southern quarter near National Taiwan University and told me to look for a cluster of old Japanese-era houses. So I caught a subway and walked toward a maze of streets behind the university. I stopped to get my bearings in front of a tall apartment building, its window boxes and wrought-iron balconies bursting with flowers. The whole street smelled of flowers. It occurred to me: If the land these houses sit on is unchanged since the Japanese era, then the trees ought to lead me to them.

I wandered down Taishun Street. Classes were out for the day. College kids filled the block, the boys in American-style jeans, loose T-shirts and polos, the girls in short skirts. Taishun Street is lined with cheap restaurants and snack counters and drink vendors selling about a million varieties of tea: candy sweet, herbal, bitter, hot, cold, black, white, green. The side streets are crooked and lovely and lined with bookstores, cafes with tiny round tables and names like L’Apres-Midi and Café Bastille, and boutiques selling Japanese street fashion. I walked into a record shop built in the gap between two buildings, so narrow that my shoulders almost brushed the walls. There are no sidewalks, and you have to dodge the occasional buzzing scooter, but it was peaceful, and for a while, I forgot my mission.

Trees; right.

I sipped at a cold tea (opaque brown, sweet and tart, with a spoonful of brown jelly in it) and peered down each side street. Then I spotted a different kind of green, and headed for it. Soon I was surrounded by thick trees, and birds, so many they drowned out the sounds of the city. This was it. I could barely see the houses behind their high brick walls and rain-forest-thick yards, but the rooflines were unmistakable — dark, curved tiles and shallow angles, just like in Kyoto.

A few days later, I returned to the neighborhood to meet another novelist, Luo Yichin, and look for ghosts of Chiang’s nationalist China. Luo lives nearby, and hangs out at Café Bastille. He is stocky, with thinning hair and a big, boisterous laugh. His stories are difficult, critics told me, but popular. We grabbed some lunch — plates of clams, chewy greens and a Shanghai-style Chinese soup that Luo first translated hesitantly as “once fresh” but revised, less convincingly, to “very delicious”: thick chunks of ham, fatty pork and crisp potatoes in a briny white broth. Then we headed west, to something called a red envelope club.

It was dark inside. A thin cloud of smoke settled on the ceiling around a disco ball. We found seats by the stage. All around us, old men sipped tea from paper cups; a bunch of them had nodded off. Onstage, a woman, not quite middle-aged but not young either, slinked around in a red sequined dress with a plunging neckline, singing an old Mandarin torch song. When she finished, the house lights came up, and a few old men shuffled to the stage with red envelopes, small bills stuffed inside.

Most of the men around us were in the army, Luo explained. Chiang showed up in a small city with 600,000 Chinese soldiers, most of them single or permanently separated from their families; it made for a skewed dating scene. “Most of the songs are about homesickness,” Luo said.

There used to be lots of red envelope clubs in the city; now there are just a handful. The generation that remembers these melodies, and the mainland, and the war, and the fight for Beijing, and the flight to Taipei — it’s dying. A song ended; the lights came up again. A few more men shuffled to the stage.

TAIPEI'S SHINY EAST side is home to the world’s tallest building, Taipei 101. But Chiang Kai-shek’s memorial casts a longer shadow. It sits in the middle of a sprawling walled garden, towering over a severe plaza that spans several city blocks.

Like the camphor trees, a lot of the postcard attractions in Taipei hold political meaning that’s lost on most visitors. Take Lungshan Temple. Built in 1738, it’s one of the largest temples in Taiwan — an explosion of bright color and intricate sculpture. It’s also where, in 1986, a crowd of activists first publicly called for an end to martial law. Or there’s the National Palace Museum, set back in the steep, green mountains that rise at the northern edge of the city. When it fled the mainland, Chiang’s army brought along the world’s most significant collection of Chinese art, which fills the museum’s galleries. “I was always fascinated by that decision,” Irmin Pao, the publisher, told me. “They’ve lost the battle, they’re trying to get out of China, bullets are flying, and someone has to pack all those vases. It’s very Indiana Jones,” he joked. “For that reason alone, China will never let us be independent.”

Here at Chiang’s memorial, students from all over Taiwan gathered in 1990 to demand democratic reforms, including popular elections for the presidency. They called themselves the Wild Lily movement. Early last year, the central government took Chiang Kai-shek’s name off his memorial. Now it’s the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. The new sign, marked with a lily, went up just before I got to Taipei. Politicians were still bickering about it.

The memorial’s collection is a cult-of-personality shrine, assembled in the days when Chiang’s party, the Kuomintang, ran the government. It has displays like the Late President Chiang’s Everlasting Contributions to the Entire World. Cases full of medals. Chiang’s black, rapper-fabulous Cadillacs. And his favorite slippers. (“He loved to wear these shoes when he was pacing during the war against Japan.”)

A new exhibit called “Bye-bye, Chiang Kai-shek!” told a different story. There was a tally of suspected political criminals from 1949 to 1952, more than 240,000 names. A list of more than 1,500 prisoners sent to re-education camps. Photos of men and women who disappeared during Taiwan’s so-called White Terror. Death sentences, written in Chiang’s signature red pen.

It’s hard to believe a national museum would put two competing versions of history on display, side by side, and make no attempt to reconcile them. But it’s fitting. Consider Taiwan’s parliament, riven by two warring parties and bitterly divided over Chiang’s legacy and Taiwan’s ties to the mainland. A couple years ago, one legislator grabbed a rival’s proposal to allow direct flights between Taiwan and China, shoved it in her mouth and chewed it up, setting off a brawl. An actual brawl. Legislators have thrown food at one another and drawn blood (actual blood) on the parliament floor.

My translator, Julia, and I walked out and descended the steps to the plaza. For all the conflict inside, it was a peaceful spot. Couples walked with young children. Teenagers improvised a game of badminton. An imposing wall quieted the noise of rush hour traffic. There had been talk in recent weeks of tearing it down and planting trees in its place.

It was starting to get dark. “Hungry?” Julia asked. We hailed a taxi and headed for one of Taipei’s famous night markets, where vendors pack a maze of streets and alleys when the sun sets. Wandering, we dug into a pile of floury, handmade noodles, followed by pig’s-blood cake covered with crushed peanuts and cilantro; fried buns stuffed with bitter greens; pungent soup with slivers of fresh ginger and whole pigs’ feet; big hunks of melon, just in season; and heaping bowls of sweet, slippery douhua — chilled tofu pudding with azuki beans, mung beans and boiled peanuts.

I WAS STRUCK by how many people in Taipei wondered aloud about the future — whether the city would continue to change for the better. It boiled down to this: Ten years ago, iPods would have been made in Taiwan. Today they’re made in China.

“Everything is drawn to China,” Pao said. “It’s like this big magnet.” But it’s hard to tell what that will mean for Taiwan in the long run. “I think people notice Taipei because of China,” he continued. “A few years ago, you would never have taken this trip.”

There was a new teen movie out, called “Exit No. 6,” about my next stop: Exit 6 at Ximen Station, in Ximending on the city’s west side.

It was Friday night, and I was meeting Michelle Yeh, a 31-year-old film producer whose debut, a gay dating comedy called “Formula 17,” hit No. 1 at the box office. Yeh is tall, with a heart-shaped face and black hair pulled back in a tight ponytail. She wore a baggy black T-shirt, black jeans and white Adidas Superstars.

We ambled down the middle of the street. Pushcart vendors sold corn on the cob, sweet pork sausages and Taipei’s famous “stinky tofu.” Somewhere high above us, the stars had come out, but at street level, it was Vegas bright. It seemed like every third or fourth building was a movie theater; the rest were restaurants, arcades and cheap shops (like the concisely named Real Hip Hop Doobiest 911 Street Style International).

Yeh’s a west side person, she told me; east side people, “they’re more posh.” I’m with her. The east side is nice. It’s the place to go if you want to buy something expensive from Tokyo or get a frappuccino. But it’s a bit anonymous. Nothing like Dihua Street, on the west side, with its eccentric stone buildings and shops filled with curiosities (like an opulent old chandelier lit by fluorescent tubes). Not to mention the astoundingly good beef noodle soup place on Taoyuan Street, known simply as Tao Yuan Jie Niu Rou Mian, or the Beef Noodles on Taoyuan Street.

Like so many creative types in Taipei, Yeh spends a lot of time in China these days. When we met, she was in the middle of shooting a movie on the mainland. China’s 1.3 billion people are an enticing audience, and working on both sides of the Taiwan Strait might be a way to survive Hollywood’s invasion. (In Ximending, American films must have outnumbered Taiwanese 10 to 1, maybe 20 to 1.)

But she worried that “whatever cultural influence Taipei had has been usurped by cities in China.” A few days earlier, the artist Chen Chieh-jen told me that a European curator had solicited his work for a show, thinking he was from China; when the curator learned that Chen lives in Taiwan, he took back the invitation. Many Taiwanese artists and curators have moved to Shanghai, where foreign cash has flooded local galleries.

Working in China, however, can mean cultural compromises. “A lot of subject matter can’t be filmed,” Yeh explained. I asked what kind.

“Um — Falun Gong. Or ghosts — in the end, there has to be a scientific explanation, or the character has to have been imagining it all. Also, nothing too political. Or homosexual.”

Yeh said Hong Kong movies have changed, become more Chinese. Whole themes have disappeared. And it’s not just movies. “Hong Kong lost its culture,” she insisted. She could imagine the same thing happening to Taipei. “What makes Taiwan special is going to become more and more marginalized. It is going to be less and less important for young people.”

We ducked down an alley, barely wide enough for two people to pass. The shop awnings almost touched overhead, and strings of tiny lights and colored balls dangled between them, a kind of canopy. It felt a bit like walking through the forest, except the wildlife was getting its nails done and the buzz of tattoo guns stood in for crickets and bird song.

“Are you hungry?” Yeh asked. I answered, “Here? Always.” She led me to a tiny restaurant with dim, fluorescent lighting and white walls. It was called King Garden Pork Chops. (I like a restaurant name that tells you what’s good. Like Swan Meat City, across town.) A cook sat at an empty table, chopping pork off the bone with a heavy cleaver. He took our order.

“I love this place!” Yeh said, clapping her hands. “My parents went here when they were dating.” The food came almost instantly: bowls of thin yellow broth with clear noodles, cabbage and crispy fried pork. It was cheap, greasy and delicious. Two teenagers next to us ordered steaming pork and rice; they left their headphones on and ate in silence.

The pork chops will probably still be here in 10 years. But the rest of the city, the economy, the culture, it’s hard to know what will become of it. Democratic Progressive Party leaders have talked up continued independence from China in recent years, but they lost big at the polls this winter to the more conciliatory Kuomintang. “Everything here is political to some extent,” Yeh said. “When the government changes, the whole country changes. We’re highly influenced by who’s in charge.”

ON MY LAST day in the city, I visited Chow Yu, a trim, quiet 60-something man who runs Wistaria Tea House near Da’an Forest Park. The Taiwan-born director Ang Lee shot part of “Eat Drink Man Woman” here. It’s a creaky, Japanese-style building nearly a century old, with a garden that blends elements of traditional Japan (bamboo, koi pond) and Taiwan (soft ferns). The busy six-lane street just beyond the garden wall used to be a river, Chow said. As a boy, he’d cross it every day to go to school, on a narrow wooden bridge. The air would be full of dragonflies.

Wistaria Tea House was under renovation, so we sat at Chow’s smaller Vine House on a quiet, crooked alley nearby. It’s pretty and homey, with dark slate floors, mismatched tables and austere paintings and drawings by Chow’s artist friends. We took a seat near a window, and Chow set his sliver-thin Japanese cellphone between us. I wondered if it was made in Taiwan.

His father, he said, had been a government official, then a professor who translated Friedrich Hayek, the free-market economist and philosopher, into Chinese. (Hayek’s books were banned on the mainland.) During his dad’s university days, the house became an important salon. When Chow inherited the place, he turned it into a teahouse — not out of any love for tea, but because he kept hosting plays and concerts and readings and realized he ought to sell something. “All night, the door was open,” Chow recalled. “We’d drink and talk. It was very romantic, very bohemian.”

Lately, the tea has started to take on greater meaning for him. Old tea, especially. He’s been collecting it and serving it on special occasions. Some of his teas are almost 100 years old. He went to the basement and came back with a small canister of pu-erh tea, grown in Taiwan and picked in the early 1950s. He got a tiny clay teapot smaller than a tennis ball and a pair of shallow black cups. “We drink old tea to recall our old times,” he said, adding hot water to a pinch of long, dark leaves, “and to connect with history and memory. There is a certain bitterness that recalls time past. You can renew yourself, and look at history with a clearer mind.”

Old tea is hard to store. It takes on moisture, soaks up flavors of other teas stored nearby. “The first few brews show the imperfections most prominently,” Chow said as I took a sip. It smelled earthy and tasted woody, a little bitter. A sip almost drained the cup. “Toward the end, only the essence remains,” he said, refilling my cup again, and again. Each time, it tasted grassier, softer.

“You can taste the time,” he said. “It’s the same for people. If they can overcome the darker parts of their history, they can move on to a better place.”]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400 last-days-of-taipei-|-t-new-york-times-style-maga
Mr. Successful | This American Life http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/mr_successful_5800 MR SUCCESSFUL

By Douglas McGray

Anyone who's even been to a wedding knows not everybody can stand up in front of a roomful of people and just talk. Anthony Pico discovered by accident, at 15, that he has a gift for doing that. He's 18 now, and he's become so well known as a public speaker on the subject of foster care, which he knows well, he was appointed to a blue ribbon commission aiming to reform the largest foster care system in the country, the one in California, Anthony's home state. In addition, Anthony still speaks to judges and legislators all over the state, and the country, sometimes every week. But it's gotten complicated...

Listen to the radio segment using the player above, or download it as an MP3 file at the bottom of this page.

Related Legislation

There's a new bill in Congress that would make 21 the new 18 for kids in foster care, give them a few extra years of housing and support if they need it. A small number of states, and isolated counties, have tried this on their own. They've found that, while foster care is a deeply flawed system, if kids are still in the system at 18, a few extra years seems to get more of them out of their sticky teenage years and into stable adult lives. Read more about the bill here: http://boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=275098

Copyright 2007, Douglas McGray, Chicago Public Radio and Ira Glass]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0700 mr-successful-|-this-american-life
Pop Up Cities | Wired magazine http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html POP UP CITIES

By Douglas McGray

One day soon, a marshy island near Shanghai wil be home to a scratch built metropolis of half a million people. Let a thousand high-density, instant assembly, bright green communities bloom (China's going to need them.)

Three years ago, Alejandro Gutierrez got a strange and tantalizing message from Hong Kong. Some McKinsey consultants were putting together a business plan for a big client that wanted to build a small city on the outskirts of Shanghai. But the land, at the marshy eastern tip of a massive, mostly undeveloped island at the mouth of the Yangtze River, was a migratory stop for one of the rarest birds in the world — the black-faced spoonbill, a gangly white creature with a long, flat beak.

McKinsey wanted to know if the developer, the Shanghai Industrial Investment Corporation, could bring businesses to the island without messing up thet bird habitat. The consultants thought Gutierrez's firm could figure it out. Gutierrez, an architect and urban designer for engineering and design giant Arup, didn't know anything about birds. But he was a veteran of several big-city design projects in his native Chile and something of a young star at Arup's London headquarters. The scope of the idea awed him. A whole new city? Were they serious? More important, could Arup get in on it? He quickly caught a flight to Shanghai.

Today Gutierrez and a team of Arup specialists from Europe, North America, and Asia are finalizing a plan for a scratch- built metropolis called Dongtan. Anywhere else in the world, it would have been a thought exercise, done up pretty for a design book or a museum show. But Shanghai's economy is growing three times faster than the US economy did at the height of the dotcom boom. More than 2,000 high-rises have gone up within city limits in the past decade. The city's most famous stretch of skyline, including the jewel-box-like Jin Mao Tower and the purple rocket-shaped Pearl TV Tower, was a rice paddy just 20 years ago. Now some 130 million people live within a two and a half hour drive of downtown. Even the wild ideas get built here.

Dongtan breaks ground later this year on a plot about the size of Manhattan on Chongming Island. The first condos and commercial space will hit the market by 2010, around the time a 12-mile bridge and tunnel combo and subway extension will link the city to Shanghai's new international airport (45 minutes away) and financial district (30 minutes). By 2050, Dongtan will have a half-million residents, more than Miami or Atlanta today.

That may count as a cozy little town in a country of 1.3 billion people. But Dongtan is a dramatic gambit, and not just because a whole city will rise, fully realized, from nothing. With Dongtan, Arup is testing a radical new approach to urban design, one that suggests cities across China and the rest of the developing world can actually get greener as they grow. "Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, SOM, HOK are all doing better or worse design," Gutierrez says, subtly dismissing some of the architecture world's biggest names (including at least one that angled for the Dongtan job). "But they're not addressing the central problem of this age — resource efficiency — and how it relates to cultural, social, and economic development."

Mao Tse-tung believed the natural world was all that stood between Communist China and its industrial future. His country, he said in a 1940 speech, "must use natural science to understand, conquer, and change nature." And conquer it did. Forests were razed, up to 90 percent of the trees in some provinces. The government, in a scheme to accelerate steel production, forced Beijing residents to smelt metal in hundreds of thousands of polluting backyard furnaces. New factories dumped untreated waste into the rivers until they turned a deep, noxious black. When China's economy began to take off in the 1980s, conditions got worse. Foreign firms put their most toxic manufacturing operations in China. Sudden prosperity, and a rush to boomtowns like Shanghai, drove energy demand well beyond what the grid could provide. Today, China opens an average of one new coal-fired power plant per week, the main reason it will pass the US in the next two years as the world's biggest source of CO2 emissions. Since 2001, China has increased its emissions more than every other industrialized country in the world combined.

The plan was never to pollute forever; it was to chase wealth at any cost and clean up later. And that made some sense. Even now, after three decades of rapid economic growth, more than 160 million Chinese still live on less than a dollar a day. The trouble is, environmental degradation has become a drag on China's development. The government revealed last year that environmental damage costs the economy $200 billion a year, a full 10 percent of China's GDP. The cost to public heath and quality of life may be even greater. Overcultivation, overgrazing, and massive timber consumption have turned a quarter of China's land into desert. Over 400 million Chinese drink contaminated water. When still air settles over Shanghai, the sky turns thick and white, the horizon the color of a nicotine stain. The government figures that 300,000 people die prematurely each year from polluted air. When I visited the neighborhood surrounding Shanghai's oldest power plant — a maze of narrow streets and tiny homes that seem piled one on top of the another — I caught a breath of warm air from a row of exhaust vents, coughed until my chest burned, and then gagged.

Arup believes good design can do something about this mess. Dongtan's master plan — hundreds of pages of maps, schematics, and data — has almost nothing to say about architectural style. Instead, it outlines the world's first green city, every block engineered in response to China's environmental crisis. It's like the source code for an urban operating system. "We're not focused on the form," Gutierrez explains. "We're focused on the performance of the form." He and his team imagine a city powered by local, renewable energy, with superefficient buildings clustered in dense, walkable neighborhoods; a recycling scheme that repurposes 90 percent of all waste; a network of high tech organic farms; and a ban on any vehicle that emits CO2.

From the beginning, the operation has been risky. Foreign architects can quickly lose control of their Chinese projects and lose face when developers decide to cut costs and redesign on the fly. Many glimmering Shanghai towers look like Tokyo on the outside but Moscow on the inside. And China loves its monuments. Dongtan could easily devolve into a Potemkin eco-village, a show-offy display of green technology that fails as a living, working community. "We were dubious, of course, at the beginning as to whether the client was really committed," Gutierrez says. And even if SIIC stayed idealistic, nobody had ever designed and built a green city before. Arup could get it wrong and simply push sprawl into one of the few remaining green spaces around Shanghai. But China is in a position to chart a smarter path, not just for its own exploding cities but for the booming urban hubs around the world — Dubai, Khartoum, Lagos, Mumbai, Rio de Janeiro — where populations are set to double in the next 30 years. "We thought Dongtan was a rare chance," Gutierrez says, "to demonstrate that growth could happen a different way."

When he sees Shanghai for the first time, in May 2004, Gutierrez is wide-eyed with excitement and wide-awake with jet lag. He meets an SIIC delegation downtown, and they drive an hour north, through Shanghai's brutal traffic, to the Yangtze River. There, the group sets off on a ferry for Dongtan.

Inside the crowded cabin, a television plays soap operas. Outside, men in baseball jackets and fake leather bombers line the railing and smoke. The water is a milky brown, full of silt from upriver that, about a millennium ago, began to pile up where the river and ocean currents meet — a sandbar that has grown into a 470-square-mile alluvial island.

The SIIC group drives Gutierrez through the island's biggest port, a short strip of low concrete boxes where locals sell vegetables, sugarcane, and cold drinks. Pedal-powered rickshaws outnumber automobiles, making Shanghai's neon swagger seem far away. They turn onto a narrow, newly paved road to Dongtan, and development disappears. Flat fields of bok choy and swampy rice paddies stretch to the horizon, crisscrossed by long irrigation canals carved out by banished Shanghai intellectuals during the Cultural Revolution. The site is gigantic. And except for the occasional, rickety shed, built for farmworkers who stay in the fields overnight, it's completely empty. Because Gutierrez came here to think about bird habitat, they drive to the marsh at the eastern edge of the island, a huge expanse of tall, golden grass that seems to extend over the horizon into the East China Sea.

Nearly all land in China is owned by the state. But SIIC, the second biggest builder in China, owns Dongtan. In the 1990s, when China's business climate was less liberal than it is today, many Chinese firms ran parallel businesses in Hong Kong, where it was easier to attract foreign capital. SIIC was the Shanghai mun icipal government's Hong Kong operation, a public-private pharmaceutical and real estate company. When most of Asia's economy tanked in the late 1990s — and Hong Kong had it especially rough — many of the businesses in that city went under. To replenish SIIC's shrinking assets, Shanghai gave the company a piece of Chongming Island. That land ownership allows SIIC an unusual degree of freedom to think longer-term and do something bold.

Shanghai's bureaucrats let it be known that Chongming Island must stay green, and SIIC agreed. The developer commissioned a series of ecological studies. Then it invited Philip Johnson, the late icon of American architecture, to design a master plan. SIIC showed Johnson's staff the site and briefed them on the environmental constraints. For months, designers flew back and forth to the site, making plans for a leafy, low-density garden suburb built around a huge man-made lake. Finally Johnson's team arrived in Shanghai to present its plan — and found it was not alone. London-based Atkins and Paris-based Architecture-Studio, both giants in the architecture world, had also created master plans for SIIC. Nobody knew it was going to be a competition. Dinner afterward was awkward, and none of the proposals went anywhere.

Part of the problem was that SIIC wasn't sure yet what it wanted. Its people talked about Dongtan as an eco-city, but they also talked about it as a quaint green suburb or as Shanghai's Hamptons, a place for the city's wealthy to flee for the weekend. They seemed to have good intentions but little direction.

That night of Gutierrez's trip to Chongming Island, Arup's team huddled in their Shanghai hotel rooms, calling colleagues in London and Hong Kong. They had decided to do the bird thing for McKinsey, but they would also shop some bigger ideas directly to SIIC. Dongtan could be the kind of grand project Arup had been looking for.

Founded by engineer Ove Arup in the 1940s, London-based Arup has 86 offices in more than 30 countries and a staff of nearly 9,000, including 1,500 in China. The firm dispatches engineers and architects but also economists, environmental scientists, MBAs, energy experts, transportation gurus, and cultural anthropologists to projects around the globe. Still, its work is often anonymous: When a famous architect designs a dramatic skin for some big building, Arup designs the guts. It engineered the overlapping shells of the Sydney Opera House and figured out how to turn a building inside out when it worked on the Centre Pompidou in Paris.

Gutierrez, though, was part of an ambitious new initiative at Arup, a kind of skunkworks, organized around something the firm called "integrated urbanism." Instead of focusing on something like water or stadiums or waste management, this team would pull expertise from every corner of the firm. If the idea worked, Arup could get in earlier on big planning projects. This way it could help design cities that work better — not just as grids or transport networks or skylines but as ecosystems engineered from the start to foil gridlock, energy waste, pollution, even economic inequality. Instead of sketching out the look of a future city, Gutierrez would avoid form altogether. He'd focus on coming up with the rules and standards Arup would follow to deliver a city. SIIC was intrigued.

Later that May, Gutierrez joined a team back at Arup's headquarters near the University of London, across an old stone courtyard from a house where Virginia Woolf and George Bernard Shaw had once lived (at different times). There was Roger Wood, a manager who joined Gutierrez in Shanghai; an environment expert from the Newcastle office; a pair of economists; some urban designers; and of course, the bird guy. They were also about to get a boss: Arup hired Peter Head, a prominent member of the London Sustainable Development Commission and green guru for London's Olympic Construction task force, as the firm's first director of Planning and Integrated Urbanism. He would negotiate a contract to design Dongtan. Gutierrez and the rest of the team had to turn abstract concepts of urbanism into a real city. The team began to gather around a long table and debate. Gutierrez would usually lead the conversation, sketching the group's ideas on copier paper.

Their first decision was big. Dongtan needed more people. Way more. Shanghai's planning bureau figured 50,000 people should live on the site — they assumed a green island should not be crowded — and the other international architects had agreed, drafting Dongtan as an American-style suburb with low-rise condos scattered across the plot and lots of lawns and parks in between. "It's all very nice to have little houses in a green field," Gutierrez says. But that would be an environmental disaster. If neighborhoods are spread out, then people need cars to get around. If population is low, then public transportation is a money loser.

But how many more people? Double? Triple? The team found research on energy consumption in cities around the world, plotted on a curve according to population density. Up to about 50 residents per acre, roughly equivalent to Stockholm or Copenhagen, per capita energy use falls fast. People walk and bike more, public transit makes economic sense, and there are ways to make heating and cooling more efficient. But then the curve flattens out. Pack in 120 people per acre, like Singapore, or 300 people, like Hong Kong, and the energy savings are negligible. Dongtan, the team decided, should try to hit that sweet spot around Stockholm.

Next, they had to figure out how high to build. A density rate of 50 people per acre could mean a lot of low buildings, or a handful of skyscrapers, or something in between. Here, the land made the decision for them. Dongtan's soil is squishy. Any building taller than about eight stories would need expensive work at the foundation to keep it upright. To give the place some variety and open up paths for summer wind and natural light, they settled on a range of four to eight stories across the city. Then, using CAD software, they started dropping blocks of buildings on the site and counting heads.

The results were startling. They could bump up Dongtan's population 10 times, to 500,000, and still build on a smaller share of the site than any of the other planners had suggested, leaving 65 percent of the land open for farms, parks, and wildlife habitat. A rough outline of the city, a real eco-city, began to take shape: a reasonably dense urban middle, with smart breaks for green space, all surrounded by farms, parks, and unspoiled wetland. Instead of sprawling out, the city would grow in a line along a public transit corridor.

That was pretty much it for the easy stuff.

Arup had to figure out how to keep Dongtan above water. Chongming Island is flat and barely higher than sea level. The previous planners, thinking defensively, had pulled development back to the middle of the site, imagining Dongtan as an island city with no harbor, no waterfront caf s, no ocean-view condos. Gutierrez thought that was kind of a waste.

"We went back to the site," he recalls, "and, being completely ignorant Westerners, we asked the client, 'Have you seen Venice?'" Gutierrez had been sketching Venice's waterways and floodgates. "They said, very politely, 'Yeah, we know about Venice,'" Gutierrez recalls, smiling sheepishly. "Then they took us to see these fantastic, beautiful water towns in the Yangtze River Delta that are much older. They have decks and terraces and promenades that are very close to the water," Gutierrez says. "In one part of a town, they developed a pond to control water levels, in another they had a wider canal, in another they developed a lake. They had a much more fine-tuned understanding of how to manage water than the Italians did."

Inspired by those ancient Chinese water towns, Gutierrez began drawing canals in one zone, ponds in another, and a big lake in a third. He designed courtyards and lawns to drain away from buildings. And he created flood cells within the city, like chambers in a submarine, so if Dongtan got slammed by a once-in-a-century storm, the seawater would stay in a single cell. At the water's edge, instead of a high levee, he drew a gentle hill that would recede into a wide wetland basin — a park, bird habitat, and natural storm barrier.

Next, the city needed green power. But the planning process grew complicated. A city is a huge mess of dependent variables. The right recycling facility can turn trash into kilowatts. The right power plant can convert waste energy into heat. The right city map will encourage people to walk to the store instead of drive. "These are things people don't normally plan together," Gutierrez says.

They needed something they started calling an "integrated resource model," something to show how each change would ripple across the city plan. So Arup's programmers wrote software that stitched together databases detailing the inputs (say, the cost of photovoltaic panels) and outputs (electricity generated per panel) of any facility, process, product, and human activity on the island. If the team moves an office park a mile, the software can recalculate average walking distances for commuters, figure how many people will drive or take public transit instead of walk, and then add up the ultimate change in energy demand. Maybe more important, the software makes it easy to spot places where one process creates waste that another process could recycle. "Design was very trial-and-error," Gutierrez says. "The only thing we knew was that we wanted to connect things, to create virtuous cycles."

A power scheme started to take shape. Dongtan's plant would burn plant matter to drive a steam turbine and generate electricity. What to burn, though? They could have planted miscanthus, a tall, feathery grass. It sprouts fast and burns clean. But if Arup planted miscanthus fields, it would sacrifice lots of land to a single purpose. Then it struck them: rice husks. China already grows mountains of rice, and farmers just trash the husks. Dongtan could take a useless byproduct and use it to light the city.

Instead of building the plant far away and out of sight, Arup would put it up near the city center, capture waste heat, and pipe it throughout the town. With good insulation and smart design, the plant could heat and cool every building in Dongtan. "We can get something like 80 percent efficiency in our fuel conversion," says Chris Twinn, the Dongtan team's energy chief. "The Prius is probably only 20 percent efficient. The rest is wasted. Why are we satisfied with that?"

Between biomass, a big wind farm, and numerous tiny contributions to the grid — including photovoltaic panels and small wind turbines — Arup figured Dongtan could get 60 percent of its energy from renewable sources when the city opened in 2010, and 100 percent within 20 years.

As the plan expanded, so did Gutierrez's team, from about a dozen in May 2004 to more than 100 today. And as they pulled in new experts from around the firm, they saw new virtuous cycles. Arup investigated hollowing out the hills at the edge of the city and installing underground "plant factories" — stacked trays of organic crops, growing under solar-powered LEDs, that seem to yield as much as six times more produce per acre than conventional farming. Arup would run twin water networks throughout the city: one that supplies drinking water to kitchens and another that supplies treated waste water for toilet flushing and farm irrigation. Trucks delivering goods from across China would park at consolidation warehouses on the edge of the city, then load up shared, zero- emission delivery trucks to reduce traffic and save gas. Waste would be either recycled or gasified for energy, and the captured heat would be converted into more power; no more than 10 percent of the city's trash would be permitted to end up as landfill. To invite in cooling summer breezes, block winter winds, and reduce demand for heat and air-conditioning, they would position trees strategically and persuade the client to twist the city grid slightly off a traditional north-south axis (a feng shui idea that has become an almost inviolable rule of Chinese city planning). Meanwhile, traveling spoonbills would find their marshy grassland undisturbed — far from the center of town and sheltered from people and industry by a wide buffer of farmland.

Dongtan was looking less like a city, at least the urban resource hogs that exist today, and more like an ecosystem, a closed loop. "It's a green island that shows you can decouple economic development from environmental impact," Gutierrez says.

In October 2005, armed with a city design and a strategy to build it, Gutierrez, Head, and a handful of specialists returned to Shanghai and presented their plans to SIIC. Dongtan will go up in three phases, each one adding a new, mixed-use neighborhood, complete with condos, offices, and retail space that will all sprout up at once. Gutierrez cleverly designed each neighborhood with two downtowns: one at the center, modest and intimate, within easy walking distance from homes and offices, and one at the edge. The three at the edges will overlap and gradually grow into metropolitan Dongtan. "Our worst-case scenario is that Dongtan starts out as a tourism-based settlement," Gutierrez explains, "but grows over time to include other industries." Best-case scenario: China's huge market for renewable energy and Dongtan's bright-green reputation persuade clean technology firms to set up labs and commercial outposts in the city.

The presentation lasted a couple of hours. When it was over, SIIC's chair spoke. He liked Arup's plan a lot. But he wanted Dongtan to draw every bit of its power from local renewable energy starting the first day. "We had been very proud that we could get 60 percent of our energy from renewables!" Gutierrez says, smiling. "But the client said that's not good enough." Arup was thrilled — kind of. If anything, the firm expected pressure to simplify Dongtan, not to make it more ambitious.

The answer, the team decided, was building up the green power infrastructure faster and slashing energy demand further. A recent change in China's energy law would allow Dongtan's power company to sell surplus green energy to Shanghai's grid, justifying the expensive new hardware until the new city grew into its supply. Reducing demand was harder. But Arup hit upon a clever solution. Instead of hiding indecipherable energy meters behind buildings, it would put a simple meter in an obvious location like a kitchen or office. Residents could track their own use — and get regular reminders over SMS and email. Up to a reasonable limit, energy is pretty cheap. Go over and the price spikes.

SIIC approved Arup's master plan last summer: hundreds of pages covering everything from the permissible range of heat transfer through condo walls to the surface area of ponds and canals that must feature native aquatic plants. By the end of the year, builders will begin installing the city's infrastructure, and SIIC will hire architects to start planting buildings in Arup's ecosystem. Arup, meanwhile, is already considering a pair of modest Dongtan sequels — a small neighborhood outside Shanghai and a town near Beijing — and is working on several other green communities across China, plus one in St. Petersburg, Russia.

This year, for the first time in history, the majority of the world's population lives in cities. By 2050, two-thirds will call a city home. Most of that urban growth will happen in the developing world. "Tokyo, London, and New York are extremely interesting," says Ricky Burdett, director of the Cities project at the London School of Economics. "But their massive development has already happened — in London, 150 years ago, in New York, 100 years ago, in Tokyo, 50 years ago." Shanghai represents the forward edge of the planet's next urban explosion.

These new megacities could evolve into sprawling, polluting megaslums. Or they could define a new species of world city. Unlike New York or London, they are blank slates — less affluent, perhaps, but also free from legacy designs and technologies tailored to the world of the 19th and 20th centuries. That is a huge advantage. It took Boston 20 years and more than $14 billion just to reroute a freeway underground. New York can hardly install a second network of water pipes. Most of Los Angeles is too spread out for fast public transit or combined heat and power plants. And because these cities are so isolated from agricultural land, most of the food that locals eat gets shipped hundreds of miles. "Shanghai today is making 90 percent of the mistakes that American cities made," Burdett argues — spreading out, building up single-family homes, replacing naturally mixed-use neighborhoods with isolated zones for living, shopping, and working, and connecting it all with car travel. But fixing these problems is still possible.

If Dongtan lives up to expectations, it will serve as a model for cities across China and the rest of the developing world — cities that, given new tools, might leapfrog the environmental and public health costs that have always come with economic progress, a relationship Gutierrez calls "the nightmare of the 20th century." Even old American and European cities may find bits and pieces of Dongtan that they can use, especially when they redevelop industrial plots or build out at the edges. Arup would like to apply lessons from Dongtan to a pair of new developments in San Francisco and Napa County. Parts of urban Europe are approximately the right density for a combined heat and power system to work. London mayor Ken Livingstone visited Dongtan hoping to get inspiration for a huge zero-emission development about to break ground in East London.

"Shanghai will grow," Gutierrez says. "The question is how it will grow. We can program into its DNA a sustainable growth pattern. We have to make cities, as much as we can, future proof ."

Douglas McGray (mcgray@newamerica.net), a fellow at the New America Foundation, wrote about the designer of the $100 laptop in issue 14.08.]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 -0700 pop-up-cities-|-wired-magazine
Just One Thing Missing | This American Life http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/this_american_life_5124 JUST ONE THING MISSING

By Douglas McGray

Martha doesn't like to talk about her future anymore. She'd wanted to go to med school, become an OB-gyn. And she's exactly the kind of kid everyone roots for. She grew up in a poor, mostly immigrant neighborhood in East Los Angeles, where most people didn't graduate from high school, and nobody talked about college. But Martha got into UCLA. She couldn't believe it: UCLA.

She majored in chemistry, threw herself into six-hour lab sessions, ran a volunteer organization on campus. But the fact is, she can't become a doctor. She can't work at all in the United States, not legally anyway. She’s an undocumented immigrant; her mother brought her here from Mexico when she was nine. So now she’s a waitress, earning minimum wage, working off the books, and it may be the best job she can hope to get.

A bill called the Dream Act would offer conditional citizenship to those few kids, like Martha, who grow up in the United States and make it to college, or the military. If they get a degree, or finish their service, they become full citizens. Since it was proposed in 2001, the Dream Act has gathered powerful supporters from both the left and the right. But it keeps getting bogged down in immigration politics.

This piece aired as part of the April 7, 2007, edition of "This American Life." It is a radio follow-up to "The Invisibles," an award-winning article about the sad, inspiring, surreal lives of undocumented students at UCLA, and the bipartisan push in Congress to accept these kids -- raised as Americans from a young age -- as citizens.

Listen to the radio segment using the player above, or download it as an MP3 file at the bottom of this page.

Copyright 2007, Douglas McGray, Chicago Public Radio and Ira Glass]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:00:00 -0700 just-one-thing-missing-|-this-american-life
The Downhill Battle | Travel + Leisure THE DOWNHILL BATTLE

Climate change is pushing ski resorts around the world to save their snowy whites—by turning green. As the Aspen Ski Company demonstrates, these efforts extend well beyond the mountains themselves.

By Douglas McGray

When the aspen Ski Company launched its environment division—a kind of green management team, think tank, and consultancy—it was the first of its kind in the ski industry: an in-house watchdog to prevent the resort from gorging on energy and trampling its fragile ecosystem. Ten years later, the division’s director, Auden Schendler, spends at least as much time thinking about saving Aspen as he does about saving its environment. Both, it turns out, are highly vulnerable to climate change.

"I’m not concerned about all the snow going away in the year 2100," says Schendler’s longtime boss, Pat O’Donnell, who just stepped down as Aspen’s CEO. The real threat is less dramatic, and more immediate. Most American ski resorts pull in as much as a quarter of their earnings during Christmas vacation. And December snow packs and freezes into a thick floor of ice that can sustain man-made flurries when spring comes. But powder, natural or man-made, only piles up nicely when the weather stays between 18 and 24 degrees at night. An increase in temperature means steeper snowmaking costs and a shorter season—both money-losing prospects for resorts.

Since the 1950’s, temperatures across the American West have climbed an average of 1.4 degrees—and nearly all scientists believe that warming will continue, and accelerate. "I talked to my head of snowmaking and asked, ’What happens if I take away a degree and a half?’" O’Donnell recalls. "His answer was, ’Holy shit.’"

That realization has spread across the U.S. ski industry since the early part of this decade. Dozens of resorts, including Aspen’s Rocky Mountain neighbor, Vail, and Mammoth Mountain in California’s Sierra Nevada (even more vulnerable than the Rockies, according to climate models), have copied Aspen’s example and opened their own environment divisions. Once wary of Aspen’s activism, the National Ski Areas Association has partnered with the Natural Resources Defense Council to lobby Congress on behalf of climate-change legislation, and produced public service announcements for its members. Even some smaller mountains are investing in green projects. Last year, Jiminy Peak, in Massachusetts, built a $3.9 million wind turbine on the mountain, and Sugar Bowl, near Lake Tahoe, became the first resort to offset all of its emissions with green-energy purchases. More than 20 mountains, including Aspen, had followed by the start of this ski season.

To be sure, ski resorts, although resource hogs, barely register as contributors to climate change compared with heavy industry or the world’s half billion cars and trucks. Conservation on the slopes can only accomplish so much. Schendler believes, in fact, that it may be off the mountain where ski companies can do the greatest good. That means lobbying for new legislation; presenting the threat to ski business as an early warning of harmful climate change (one that is easier to grasp than slushy polar caps or migrating butterflies); and turning mountains into labs to experiment with the kinds of green innovations bigger industries could adopt.

"My mandate to Auden was to become an activist," O’Donnell says. "We have to get involved at the state and national level. Otherwise, we’ll be sitting around with a squeaky-clean record, and we’ll say, ’We did everything.’ And we’ll be bankrupt, because of climate change."

"Historically, the ski industry was perceived as environmentally benign," says Schendler, who previously worked as an analyst at the Rocky Mountain Institute, an environmentalist think tank. Still, by the 1990’s, skiing and snowboarding had become big business. Resorts cleared forest for expansions and drew more power from the grid every year. When O’Donnell came to Aspen from Patagonia in 1994, he figured the company had an obligation to its natural surroundings. And if the bigger resorts around the Rockies continued their sprawling development, Aspen might flourish as a boutique, back-to-nature alternative.

Aspen’s green experiment started small, in 1997, with a beefed-up recycling program and an employee-run charitable foundation to fund environmental projects. That probably would have been enough to give Aspen’s brand a progressive sheen. But the company soon turned its attention to trickier, costlier issues, like power and water conservation. Aspen tried little things, like building half-pipes in the summer, out of dirt, instead of in the winter, out of a small mountain of man-made snow, saving both power and water. "More and more resorts are adopting that technique," Schendler says. Other projects were more exotic—for instance, installing a micro power station that captures runoff water and converts it into clean electricity. Since lifts and snowmaking machinery are tough to run more efficiently, short of buying all-new equipment, Aspen has focused on reducing the environmental footprint of its buildings and vehicles, which account for roughly one-third of the resort’s energy use. Today, the mountain spends about $300,000 annually on a range of green initiatives. (Aspen earns back about $60,000 a year in energy savings, but other financial benefits—significant ones, anyway—are awfully hard to quantify.)

For all of Aspen’s progress, no change has been easy. (Lisa Isaacs, Schendler’s counterpart at Mammoth Mountain, and one of the top environment directors in the industry, actually developed an ulcer during her first year on the job.) Take the decision to convert much of Aspen’s heavy machinery from gas to cleaner-burning biodiesel, which, as far as Schendler knew, had never seen much use in the cold or at high altitudes. It was a hard sell: "You’re a vehicle mechanic. You grew up on a ranch and you wear Carhartts so greasy they don’t bend. You have a fleet of 20 snowcats that cost a quarter of a million dollars," Schendler says. "I’m a college boy, office guy. I say, ’Let’s use biodiesel in your snowcats.’" If they break down, the mechanics will be the ones working overtime to fix them. "I’ve got a slide of one of these guys giving me the finger," Schendler says, laughing. Aware of how often his activist colleagues fail to appreciate the demands they make on businesses, Schendler decided to push gently. He joined a team of mechanics building a catapult in their spare time for an annual melon-chucking contest. And eventually, he talked them into converting one snowcat for a biodiesel test. The very day they did it, Schendler says, a neighboring resort, Arapahoe Basin, called with questions about converting their own snowcats. Now all of Aspen’s snowcats run on biodiesel. At first, the greener gas cost an extra $50,000 a year, but a new tax credit covers the difference, and dozens of other mountains have adopted the technology.

A big proponent of transparency, Aspen has opened all of this environmental work to formal scrutiny. The resort asked the U.S. Green Building Council to LEED-certify a new lodge and clubhouse (an expensive, time-consuming process) and Audubon to certify its golf course; it joined the Chicago Climate Exchange, a carbon-trading market, in order to validate its carbon reductions; and it hired auditors to check the resort for ISO 14000 certification, a benchmark of good environmental practice developed by the International Organization for Standardization, in Geneva, Switzerland. Since 1999, Schendler has published a detailed annual report on Aspen’s environmental footprint, including gas, water, and power consumption, which the resort posts prominently on its Web site.

Ultimately, though, Aspen’s activism could mean more for the environment than anything the resort can install or upgrade on its property. "You could eliminate all the emissions in the ski industry, and we could still be out of business by 2100," Schendler says. But a high-profile company like Aspen can have an outsize influence on politics, public opinion, and even other industries.

When Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman proposed sweeping new regulations on greenhouse gases in 2003, Aspen was the first of more than 70 ski resorts to endorse their bill. Aspen then supported a successful state initiative that requires 10 percent of Colorado’s energy to be renewable by 2015, and lobbied Congress for a federal version. In November, the company debuted a series of pointed ads in sports magazines to try to provoke skiers into political action, and published environmentalist strategies on the resort’s Web site. "We want to get away from the idea that if you drive a Prius and change some lightbulbs, you’re done," Schendler explains. This winter, he convinced Aspen’s leadership to file an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting a lawsuit that would force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant. Aspen was one of only a few business interests to file with the plaintiffs, a coalition of state and city governments and environmental nonprofits. "To me, that’s the most important thing we’ve ever done as a ski resort," Schendler says.

Aspen still isn’t sure whether, in the short term, any of this is good for business. The company saves money on energy, gets press coverage (ahem), and feels pretty sure that having a social mission is good for hanging onto employees. But some critics still accuse Aspen of pushing an environmental agenda as a way to make more money. Schendler talks a lot like a green radical, but he would be thrilled if those critics were right. "If we protect the climate out of greed, that’s even better," he says, laughing. "Greed works."

]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:28:35 -0700 the-downhill-battle-|-travel+leisure
Network Philanthropy | West magazine (Los Angeles Times) http://www.douglasmcgray.com/networkphilanthropy.html NETWORK PHILANTHROPY

The men behind EBay are leading a high tech revolution that is turning charitable giving on its head.

By Douglas McGray

They seemed so young. That's what Peter Hero remembers most about the day, nine years ago, when Pierre Omidyar and Jeff Skoll walked into his office at Community Foundation Silicon Valley with an odd idea to give away a fortune. Omidyar wore jeans and a T-shirt; his thick black hair was tied back in a ponytail. Skoll had on what looked to Hero like a varsity jacket. He couldn't still be in high school, could he? Hero thought they were smart kids, nice kids too, but he'd never heard of their company and he was unsure about its prospects. "I don't know," he said to a colleague after they left. "Would you buy something from an online auction?"

EBay was still a quirky little online network, and philanthropy a strange concept for the executives who ran it. Omidyar and his wife Pam, a college crush, shared a suburban apartment. Skoll lived in a group house while he paid off business school loans. (When he finally bought his own place, a big place, he lived in the guest apartment over the garage.) As for the company, it was profitable, but not so rich that it could divert cash to charity.

Omidyar, though, had created EBay as a tool to empower small buyers and sellers, and Skoll, the site's first full-time employee, shared his democratic values. They didn't talk about customers; they talked about "the community." Shutting the community out of EBay's upcoming IPO—a practical necessity—seemed ungrateful. So they decided that EBay would endow a charitable foundation with pre-IPO stock and share its wealth that way.

Omidyar and Skoll offered Hero $1 million worth. But nobody had ever endowed a foundation with pre-IPO stock, and none of the other nonprofit partners they had approached wanted to experiment. Foundations did things a certain way, it seemed, and it was hard to persuade them to change. "We were told no so many times, I lost track," recalls Brad Handler, then EBay's lawyer.

Hero wavered, but finally agreed to the pair's only condition: Hold the stock for at least 12 months. When Community Foundation Silicon Valley sold the shares a year later, they were worth more than $40 million.

Suddenly, the idea seemed a lot less odd.

Since EBay went public in 1998, Omidyar, now worth about $8 billion, and Skoll, worth about $5 billion, have become two of the nation's leading philanthropists. And they have done so in ways that seem likely to shape their generation's philanthropic legacy—first poking at the firewall between the nonprofit and business worlds, then punching through and building a network of investments that cross back and forth.

Skoll runs an influential foundation that gives mezzanine funding (in venture capitalist lingo) to small nonprofits that, with infusions of cash, are ready to grow. He also runs for-profit Participant Productions, which he hopes can move public opinion with films such as "Fast Food Nation" and "An Inconvenient Truth." Omidyar's approach is more radical. He has completely abandoned the traditional foundation structure—endowment money managers invest in whatever will make the most profit, and 5% a year is set aside for noble causes—and is putting up his entire fortune to back both for-profit and nonprofit projects that will add up to social good and market-rate returns.

When fortunes shift, ideas tend to follow. In 1975, New York-based foundations controlled eight times more wealth than those in California, which, in terms of institutional philanthropy, was comparable to Indiana. By 2005, Calfornia had pulled nearly even. Throw in Microsoft-powered Washington state, and the high-tech West accounts for more than $100 billion in foundation wealth—40% more than New York and growing more than twice as fast since the early '90s.

Once at the forward edge of the Internet age, Skoll and Omidyar today are at the edge of something else—a wave of new thinking out of Silicon Valley that, if the tech industry keeps minting new billionaires, could shape the way huge sums of private capital get invested in social change.

Loyalty to customers is an unlikely path to charity. But the tech economy offered guys like Omidyar, 39, and Skoll, 42, few philanthropic role models. In Seattle, Bill Gates set up a fledgling foundation in 1994 in his dad's basement, but the Microsoft founder still had a reputation as a ruthless businessman—surely his charity served some ulterior motive. Closer to home, William Hewlett and David Packard were famous for their generosity, but they built their charitable institutions as gray-haired titans. As for the established East Coast foundations, to a cocky dot-commer they could look an awful lot like the enemy—big, bureaucratic, Industrial-era firms.

In the early '90s, a handful of wealthy executives and investors, most of them connected in some way to the budding tech boom, began to think about how else philanthropy might work, about how they could take what made them rich in business and apply those tactics to charity. One was George Roberts, a Bay Area financier who thrived on Wall Street in the '80s. Roberts was eager to do something about the widespread homelessness in San Francisco, but he wanted to know that his contributions would make a difference. He wanted to track his contributions the way he tracked his investments. So he hired the former director of a downtown clinic for homeless teens, Jed Emerson, and told him to find organizations that moved people permanently off the streets. "I'm going to think about this as an investment fund," Roberts told him. "I'll give you a checkbook. I'm investing in you, and I'm going to hold you responsible."

"I was really shocked," Emerson recalls. "I had never heard any of this language before." Still in his 20s, Emerson moved easily among San Francisco's squatter hovels and shooting galleries. He wore ripped jeans and a black leather jacket to the office. Now he began to plow through business books. He signed up for accounting seminars and subscribed to the Wall Street Journal. "It was pretty pathetic for a while," he says with a laugh. He picked a new kind of nonprofit for Roberts to support—mostly small enterprises that would employ the homeless and feed profits back into support services such as job training. And gradually, a method emerged: focus on a small portfolio of grantees that make the most of a buck; give them large, long commitments, including money for infrastructure such as staff and computers, so they don't spend all their time fundraising; get in their offices and work with them like partners instead of waiting for rosy annual reports; and hold the groups to quantifiable goals—or, as Emerson called it, "social return on investment."

Down the peninsula, one of the valley's most influential venture capitalists, John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins, had a similar take on local education reform. Up in Seattle, Aldus founder Paul Brainerd and a young Microsoft refugee named Paul Shoemaker were about to launch a venture-giving circle, Social Venture Partners, that would spread to more than 20 cities. These new-style funders were mostly unaware of each other, and the philanthropic community mostly unaware of them, until a 1997 Harvard Business Review article—"Virtuous Capital: What Foundations Can Learn from Venture Capitalists"—gave the movement buzz and cemented a name: venture philanthropy.

Venture philanthropy appealed to young millionaires and billionaires fresh off their own venture capital-fueled successes. Skoll and Omidyar both gave to a new social venture fund while they were still at EBay; so did the founders of Web search pioneers Yahoo and Infoseek. But dot-com celebrity began to give venture philanthropy a complicated reputation. "The 'Virtuous Capital' article unintentionally drew a hard line between venture philanthropy and traditional philanthropy. That piece, and the natural arrogance of youth and wealth, set a real negative tone," Emerson says.

There were also big parts of venture capitalism that simply didn't translate to the nonprofit world. Venture philanthropists preached greater impact with every dollar, but venture capitalists make their money backing a lot of losers in search of a few blockbuster successes. And there is no such thing as a nonprofit IPO.

Ultimately, venture philanthropy was at least as much a metaphor as it was a set of practices. And the metaphor suffered badly when the Internet bubble burst. But if the label "venture philanthropy" has become something of a dated dot-com brand, the cultural and economic climate that created it remains. And along with it, so do most of venture philanthropy's good ideas, part of a broader trend that is gaining in influence.

Foundations and small nonprofits continue to co-opt the tactics and the vocabulary of business. The number of graduate programs in nonprofit management has increased from 17 in 1990 to more than 200. More and more nonprofits open storefront and online businesses and ditch the clunky "nonprofit" identity for a new handle, "social entrepreneur." But the co-option goes both ways, a phenomenon that venture philanthropy never accounted for. Whole Foods and American Apparel have built big consumer brands out of social responsibility. Commercial investors such as Generation Investment Management market portfolios that support progressive industries. Forget for a moment that philanthropy is supposed to mean simply giving money away, and a whole array of tools to do good appear—tools a network-minded philanthropist might think to connect.

Skoll is shortish and trim, with an eager, gap-toothed smile and a quiet, aboot-accented voice (he has lived in the U.S. since his late 20s and holds dual Canadian-American citizenship). He is calm and curious and determined to convince you that he is unimportant. Failing that, he gets restless, like he's trying to shrug off the weight of undeserved attention.

It is hard to imagine him provoking his staff. Yet that's what he did when, in 2004, after three years of earnest but unfocused charity, he proposed bringing in marketing consultants to hone the foundation's brand. "I thought it was self-aggrandizing," recalls Sally Osberg, the foundation's president and CEO.

The consultants poked around the office and quizzed the staff. They interviewed entrepreneurial nonprofits and competitors in the foundation market. Bill Drayton, founder of Ashoka, which gives grants to social entrepreneurs around the world, made a strong impression. "What a social entrepreneur needs," Drayton told the consultants, "and what a foundation provides is an almost perfect mismatch."

Skoll came to agree with Drayton's assessment. The organizations Skoll admired needed longer-term funding than most foundations offered. They needed more flexibility with their money. They needed a funder to partner with them and brainstorm on how to measure success (most foundations measure inputs and outputs—the amount spent on a tutoring program and the number of kids served—and then ignore more meaningful data, such as who those kids are and how tutoring affected their grades). They needed help getting their message to a wide audience. And they needed their own professional field: Inhabiting an ill-defined space between the nonprofit and for-profit worlds, many entrepreneurial do-gooders felt isolated and misunderstood.

When the consultants left, the Skoll Foundation had some nice new graphics, a tighter slogan and a new purpose. The staff got away from thinking about issues such as education and health—program areas, in foundation jargon—and focused on a method: social entrepreneurship. Take Benetech, one of Skoll's newer grantees. Founder Jim Fruchterman came up with the idea for a company that would develop and sell socially beneficial technology, such as reading machines for the blind or low-cost land mine detection. "My venture capitalist just barfed on the idea," Fruchterman says. The markets were too small. The big foundations, meanwhile, thought his organization sounded too much like a company. But Skoll saw Benetech as a nonprofit that could earn some revenue, and maybe even break even, offering a high social yield on his nonprofit dollar.

Skoll endowed a center at Oxford's Said Business School to study and nurture this kind of social entrepreneurship. (U.S. business schools educate too few foreign students, Skoll says; the movement has to be global.) Meanwhile, his Skoll Foundation began to identify nonprofits with ideas capable of transforming a political, social or economic market, giving them three to six years of "mezzanine capital" to help them "achieve scale"—that is, to go from local to regional, or regional to national.

The approach has a lot in common with the ideals of venture philanthropy. But there are important differences. "I hear venture philanthropy and literally the hair on the back of my neck stands up," Osberg says. While venture philanthropy was supposed to get away from the high-handed treatment that remains too common among big foundations and the nonprofits they support, many venture philanthropists could seem even more arrogant. "I remember sometimes feeling totally insulted by these venture funders, who seemed to think that the nonprofit world is full of people who can't manage, or think, or don't really know how to run things," says the former director of a highly regarded San Francisco nonprofit that received venture philanthropy funds. "These business people are going to come in, it's going to be really whiz bang, they'll get out their spreadsheets, crunch some numbers, pound their fists on the table, and get things going like a business."

Skoll, however, "was always humble," Osberg says. "He didn't think that he had all the answers." Skoll's work isn't about holding flaky nonprofits to account, she explains, but about identifying great ones and amplifying their effect. He tends to seek out organizations that already have a well-developed sense of the ends they want to achieve, clear early success and a realistic plan to get bigger.

That isn't just a departure from venture philanthropy; it's a departure, too, from the practice of many established foundations, which often encourage nonprofits to adapt to their narrow interests—poor women, healthcare for kids—by drawing up new initiatives, then soliciting bids for the work. "Nonprofits twist themselves into knots trying to convert their business into something that appeals to a funder," Pierre Omidyar says. "Then when they pitch to another funder, they twist themselves into different knots."

The Skoll Foundation, Osberg explains, is the sum of its grantees, a network of peers. They want to grow, connect and promote partner organizations. It is a subtly radical way of thinking, but one rooted in the networked culture of Silicon Valley. "In the old American business model, the relationships between a firm and its investors, bank, suppliers and customers tended to be very arm's length," says Annalee Saxenian, dean of UC Berkeley's School of Information. "You would make a deal and report back after some specified period of time. The new business model is much more engaged. Everyone learns from one another, and there is a continuous flow of information. The firms are more specialized, but they see each other as collaborators."

That culture is also restless, and Skoll is no exception. He began to worry that his network of nonprofits reached a relatively small number of people and to wonder how else he could invest his money. Electoral politics seemed like a bad investment—a common sentiment in libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley. Books? Authors such as Ayn Rand, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell had made a huge impression on Skoll as a young man, but that kind of literature hardly struck him as a growth market. Then he wondered about movies—"the books of our generation," he calls them.

It was on his mind in 2002 at a small dinner party hosted by venture capitalist George Zachary. Skoll wound up sitting next to Richard Barton Lewis, a producer of "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves" and "Backdraft." Skoll asked him why activist movies such as "Gandhi" had become so rare. Lewis explained that the studio system was set up in a way that discouraged them. "If a studio puts out 12 movies in a year, and the average cost is $100 million," Skoll says, "one movie could be the difference between a good year and a bad year. If you bet on the superhero movie, people will understand. If you bet on the 'issue' movie, you'd lose your job."

Skoll could afford to bet wrong quite a few times. After an abortive investment with Lewis, Skoll headed south to try and start something of his own. In Los Angeles, a former head of Columbia Pictures, Peter Schlessel, a young studio staffer and Skoll holed up in Schlessel's office on the Sony lot and began to screen old movies and study old scripts, trying to figure out what a world-changing film looks like. At first, their definition was pretty narrow—heavy dramas like "Gandhi." Gradually, they began to think bigger.

In 2005, Participant Productions released its first four films to theaters: "Syriana," "North Country," "Murderball" and "Good Night, and Good Luck." Skoll went to the Oscars with 11 nominations. Then came the release of "An Inconvenient Truth," the third-highest-grossing documentary in history. Richard Linklater's take on "Fast Food Nation" followed last fall, and a pair of movies about the Middle East and Central Asia are in production—adaptations of "The Kite Runner" and "Charlie Wilson's War."

A Participant movie is just one thread in a whole web of activity. "An Inconvenient Truth" generated unprecedented public interest about global warming. It inspired online guides to conserving energy at home, a school curriculum to accompany the DVD release, Hollywood's first green publicity campaign, pledges of money from Paramount Studios (5% of profits to climate change research), and the participation of Al Gore, who is training 1,000 fans around the country to give his famous global warming slide show.

In many ways, Participant's success has come quickly. Still, Skoll says, "I'm kind of glad I don't have to make a living doing this." His risk assessments hinge less on pure commercial viability and more on what Jed Emerson calls blended value and others refer to as a double or triple bottom line. "An Inconvenient Truth" was unlikely to be a big commercial hit, but it would be cheap and bring an important argument to a decent-sized audience. In other words, it offered pretty good value. "Gridiron Gang"—a recent movie about kids in a juvenile detention center, starring the Rock—didn't make the cut. "We really liked the script," Skoll explains. "But we realized, if we invest, we're going to lose $5 to $10 million. If we were to invest that in groups that work in juvenile justice, would that do more good than the movie?" They decided it would.

Omidyar hasn't paid close attention to Skoll's foundation, but Participant fascinates him. "Jeff has discovered that film is a way to give someone a near-experience," he says. "It's not a public-service announcement that says you can make a difference. It's helping people discover their own power."

Participant's for-profit activism has begun to influence Skoll's nonprofit ventures. Skoll Foundation staff members have started to look at potential grantees as a movie producer might, evaluating their work as narratives, to figure out which approaches to social change might inspire public interest. Participant has also helped shift the culture at Capricorn Management, the firm that invests Skoll's personal billions and his foundation's endowment. "We're thinking about ways to align our investments with those of the foundation or Participant as well as to avoid any direct misalignment," says Stephen George, Capricorn's chief investment officer. The trick, George says, is to invest in a sector's best companies rather than blacklist entire industries. "Toyota over Ford," he says.

He defends the strategy as more than just feel-good investing. "We believe these kinds of companies will be more valuable over time." Capricorn has also started investing in progressive funds—one focuses on clean energy, another on microenterprise—and George believes it can do more without jeopardizing returns.

Skoll stepped down as CEO of Participant in August. As chairman, he will guide the company's expansion into new forms of media ("TV, newspapers, satellite, digital media," he says) and that means new avenues for activism. A television drama, for instance, might be on the air long enough to propel legislation through Congress. Most of all, Skoll anticipates looking at his ventures in an increasingly integrated way—argument and entertainment and entrepreneurship, nonprofit and for-profit and break-even. His foundation's chief operating officer, Richard Fahey, sums up the variety and the convergence: "We have the view that our capital is a continuum."

Scott Heiferman, the CEO of Meetup.com, remembers the first time he saw Pierre Omidyar's name appear in his e-mail in-box. Omidyar was something of a hero to the geeks at Meetup. The values he built into EBay—a free market built on trust, a profit model based on empowering individuals—inspired an entire generation of online social networks. (Plus, EBay helped Heiferman build an extensive collection of "Where's the Beef?" memorabilia.) But nobody at Meetup had ever seen the guy. "Getting an e-mail from Pierre Omidyar is like getting an e-mail from Elvis," Heiferman laughs. "Does he exist? Is he dead?"

I had the same impression of Omidyar: a media-shy billionaire with a mysterious foundation that isn't actually a foundation. His intensely protective staff said little to change my mind in the dozen or more conversations that it took to arrange a visit to Omidyar's office. But when we finally met last fall, I found him to be surprisingly unguarded. He was warm, thoughtful, talkative, even charming. In his loose blue polo shirt, tucked into pressed khakis, he looked more like the guy who shows up when the network goes down than someone with his own jet.

His staff insists he isn't actually reclusive, just uncomfortable with notoriety. Helicopters have buzzed a couple of his houses, flying low so photographers could snap his property. If he goes out for coffee in Silicon Valley, strangers corner him with business proposals. "I walked into the grocery store with Pierre once and people turned around and pointed," Brad Handler says. When Omidyar quit his day-to-day responsibilities at EBay, soon after the IPO, he and his wife moved to France, where he had lived as a child; now they spend most of their time at a house in Nevada. His efforts to live a sleepy suburban life create some tension with his star status in Silicon Valley.

When Omidyar's e-mail arrived in the summer of 2002, Meetup was experiencing something of a moment. Conceived as an online platform to bring strangers together around shared interests such as Sci-Fi television or purebred dogs, the website turned out to be a great tool for grass-roots political organizers. Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, once an obscure presidential candidate, at one point looked like he might ride a wave of Meetup support all the way to the White House. Robert Kagel, a venture capitalist who bet on EBay, was interested in backing Meetup and wanted to know what Omidyar thought. In the end, Kagel backed away, but Omidyar stepped in.

When Omidyar offered to invest, Heiferman asked if Meetup should be a nonprofit. "I was surprised by his strong, instant reaction," Heiferman says. "He said no. In order for it to be huge, it's got to be a for-profit."

The conversation stuck with Omidyar. He had opened a private foundation around the same time Skoll did and funded similarly entrepreneurial nonprofits. He took his philanthropy seriously. But he never could have built something as big as EBay with grant money. He asked his financial advisor what would happen if his foundation invested in both nonprofit organizations and for-profit firms. His advisor: "You'd have to pay more taxes." Omidyar: "Is that it?"

In the spring of 2004, Omidyar threw out his foundation letterhead, fired staff, dissolved his private investment office and moved everyone into a building south of San Francisco. He established the new entity, Omidyar Network, as an organization with three checkbooks—a for-profit checkbook for investments, a for-profit checkbook for overhead and a 501c3 checkbook for traditional foundation stuff. Omidyar took a desk in a cubicle, like the one he had at EBay, decorated with a bust of Adam Smith and not much else.

"People in the field were shocked and disappointed when it happened," says Laura Arrillaga, founder of SV2, a venture philanthropy fund, and a lecturer at Stanford. "This is one of the most high-profile new generation technology tycoons, and he has such an opportunity to influence the giving of tens of thousands of people, and for him to essentially combust his private foundation . . . it concerned me."

He wasn't abandoning philanthropy, though; he was marking a new avenue for altruism. He built a network that could align strategic philanthropy, socially responsible investing and sustainable business. Research, lobbying, political advertising—Omidyar Network would be a platform that could do it all.

He began to find for-profits that advanced social goals like nonprofits, and nonprofits that earned money like for-profits. He ignored traditional corporate social responsibility (where good works tend to be side projects) and looked for businesses where the social mission and the business mission were inseparable. For instance, the website Global Giving, a hybrid nonprofit/for-profit investment, publishes a catalog of entrepreneurial projects around the developing world—a computer lab in rural Thailand, a crisis hotline for women in India—and takes a tiny cut of each small online contribution. In order to survive, Global Giving must grow; when it is doing a high enough volume of good, it will be self-sufficient.

Putting callous investors and nonprofit do-gooders in one office (and one with few walls, at that) led to some culture clash. Especially when Omidyar decided that everyone, regardless of his or her professional background, would be responsible for both nonprofit and for-profit deals. He believes it's making them more imaginative, and more rigorous. "For an early-stage investment of $250,000 in a start-up, you do a lot of due diligence," he says. "You spend a quarter of that time to give a $5-million grant to a nonprofit." He laughs. "We've tried to apply a little more for-profit due diligence to our nonprofits."

Omidyar found the first big application for his platform at a dinner for Mohammad Yunus, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who invented microcredit and founded the Grameen Bank. Most of the world's microlending, Omidyar learned, is done with nonprofit cash. The more he heard about it—the high success rates at getting people permanently out of poverty, the low default rate on small business loans—the more he believed it was a viable business opportunity. He wondered what it would cost to bring microloans to every poor family in the world, based on the Grameen Bank's experience. After a few rough calculations, he figured it was probably $50 or $60 billion.

"You're like, that's a lot of money," he says, and it is—if it has to come from foundations. But private capital is functionally limitless. Look at it that way, he says, and "$60 billion is nothing."

Today, Omidyar Network is committing most of its money and energy to commercializing microfinance—turning it into a mainstream investing opportunity. Omidyar gave $100 million to the investment office at Tufts University, his alma mater, with the condition that money managers only invest in for-profit microfinance institutions. "It's a $100-million carrot," Michelle Goguen, a family advisor, explains. Omidyar is also funding academic research, and this year will begin lobbying foreign governments to reform local banking regulations so microfinance outfits will have an easier time attracting global capital.

"Banking is not the most exciting business in the world," he says, smiling. "But it's a business. If you can apply business principles to this segment, you can lift people out of poverty."

"I don't believe that there is a for-profit answer to everything," he adds. But if for-profit capital can do more good than it does today, foundations can concentrate their resources where they are most needed. "The largest impact we can have with this wealth," he says, "will be testing a theory that business can be a tool for good."

Together, Skoll and Omidyar control a tiny share of the nation's foundation wealth. But just as clusters of small firms have shifted the American economy since the 1990s, they are showing disproportionate cultural and intellectual clout. "We used to kid at Harvard that every MBA wanted to make a million dollars and then go be secretary of the Treasury," says Kirk Hanson, Stanford's first professor of business ethics in the 1960s and a member of the Skoll Foundation's board. "The dream today is every MBA wants to make $100 million, create a foundation at age 50 and start giving it away." He pauses, and laughs. "Or 40."

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Google's founders, followed EBay's example and endowed a philanthropic organization, Google.org, with pre-IPO stock now worth about $1 billion. Then they followed Omidyar's example and set themselves up as a for-profit network. "I can do investment, grants, lobbying," says Larry Brilliant, head of the Google network. "Pierre has been a huge influence."

When I catch up with Brilliant, he is at the airport, returning home from a visit to the Rockefeller Foundation in New York. "Rockefeller is almost the country's oldest foundation, we're almost the newest," Brilliant says, "and we have come to almost identical conclusions about the way to address the world's problems." Judith Rodin, the Rockefeller Foundation's new president, says the meeting with Brilliant was "magical."

"We realized we both were trying to imagine a different way of working," she says. "We're both seeking ways to structure ourselves to be nimble and flexible."

Neither Skoll nor Omidyar set out to remake philanthropy. They're simply doing what Silicon Valley entrepreneurs do: testing new markets, teaching and learning from competitors and diversifying their industry. If their attention holds, they will be able to focus their market-tested creativity on the world's biggest problems for decades—an opportunity their Industrial Age predecessors never had. "I've got a good 50 years ahead of me," Omidyar says. "Knock on wood."

Douglas McGray is a contributing writer at West and a fellow at the New America Foundation.]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:28:52 -0700 network-philanthropy
"Going the Distance" | Travel + Leisure http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/going-the-distance-february-2004 GOING THE DISTANCE

By Douglas McGray

Melanie Dow was always the beach and spa type. But you can really spend only so many vacations lying around, she says, as our taxi weaves up a pitted dirt road crowded with trucks, gas-powered rickshaws, and young boys with livestock in tow. She's 32, she tells me, and until a few months ago she had a great job at Goldman Sachs in New York City. She liked her colleagues; she liked the money. One Saturday at the office, though, she decided she was tired of fluorescent-lit, carpal-tunnel weekends. She needed a vacation—but not just any vacation. She needed a change.

Our driver speeds into a narrow, blind turn (as most turns are here in the foothills south of Dharmsala, India), then jams on the brakes and jerks us to the shoulder of the road so a freight truck can pass. Around the bend, the road narrows and drops away into a valley. Only a shallow river and a clutter of boulders come in anything but a shade of monsoon green.

When we get to Dharmsala, a slow-paced town of 19,000 not far from Tibet, Melanie will swap her jeans and T-shirt for a traditional Indian salwar suit—loose cotton pants and a flowing, square-cut top that falls to her knees—and report for work at the local Red Cross building. She hadn't volunteered much back at home ("I couldn't even find time to talk to my mother," she says, laughing, "so how could I find time to work with kids?"), but for the next few weeks she will spend her mornings leading a group of Indian police officers and soldiers through drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Cross Cultural Solutions, a nonprofit New York-based tour company that specializes in such increasingly popular "volunteer vacations," arranged all the details: the job placement, the modest house where Melanie and I and half a dozen other American volunteers will live, daily home-cooked meals, translators, afternoon field trips—even the taxi ride into town.

By now, Melanie knows what to expect. She gave up her apartment and quit her job to spend the past five months on one CCS trip after another, moving from an orphanage in Brazil to a home for the mentally disabled in Thailand to here, the Indian countryside. I ask her about the cost—approximately $2,400 for each three-week trip, not counting airfare. She laughs. "I would have just wasted the money going out to eat in New York."

Until recently, volunteering abroad had far more to do with activism than with tourism. French pacifist Pierre Ceresole organized the first formal volunteer trips shortly after the end of World War I. His organization, Service Civil International, rallied groups of young people from France and Germany to rebuild towns wrecked by the war. Although volunteer work camps later appeared across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, and some travelers set off on kibbutz or missionary trips, international volunteering didn't really hit the mainstream in the United States until Operation Crossroads Africa sent its first wave of workers on a six-week trip to Ghana in 1958; three years later, President John F. Kennedy created the Peace Corps. Still, these programs were largely for idealistic kids, not affluent adults.

An organization called Earthwatch began to change that in the seventies, though entirely by accident. Federal funding for scientific field research had ebbed, and foreign research stations were struggling to keep their projects alive. Earthwatch emerged to try to make up the difference with tourist dollars. Travelers would pay generously, the founders believed, for the chance to watch scientists track wild animals or dig up ancient ruins. They were half right. Donors did sign up for the trips. "But they decided they didn't just want to observe—they wanted to participate," says Earthwatch president Roger Bergen. "And scientists discovered that the volunteers, surprisingly, had the ability to do a lot of data collecting."

Although Earthwatch started pitching itself as a kind of scientific Peace Corps, it was, in fact, something quite new: a first stab at work-based tourism. Unlike the Peace Corps, Earthwatch demanded only a few weeks from its volunteers, so most traveled during their regular vacations; unlike a work camp, an Earthwatch trip was relatively costly, something only older professionals could afford. A decade later, St. Paul-based Global Volunteers brought the Earthwatch approach to Peace Corps-style projects—building houses and roads in developing countries, assisting in health clinics, teaching English—and a volunteer-travel industry began to mature.

Saul and Ann Goldstein, two other participants in Cross Cultural Solutions' program in Dharmsala, have watched it happen. They're on their 15th volunteer vacation—the first 14 with Earthwatch. "When we started, in 1986, nobody had heard of Earthwatch," Ann says. "Now we have to register early. The trips fill up way in advance." Bill McMillon, who first published his popular guide Volunteer Vacations in 1987, has seen that growth play out in unexpected ways. "In the first couple of editions, I had a lot of religious organizations," he says. "After about the fourth or fifth edition, they started asking to be taken out." They worried about secular vacationers muddling their evangelical, and often denominational, message. "One organization not only got out of the book but on its Web site and printed material it says, 'This is not a volunteer vacation.'"

The rise of volunteer vacations seems to be the product of a serendipitous alignment: 10 to 15 years ago, at the same time that trips abroad became easier and less expensive and better-traveled Americans began to seek out more unusual travel experiences, volunteering also became the stuff of national conversation. Every president since Ronald Reagan has pushed service as a high-profile campaign issue, from George Bush Sr.'s Points of Light to his son's faith-based initiatives. Today, somewhere between one in two and one in four Americans volunteer, and according to Independent Sector, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that tracks volunteering, most of the growth lately has been in "episodic" service—short-term commitments including volunteer vacations. An IS survey has found that 70 percent of volunteers do it for the same reason many people travel: to gain a new perspective on things.

Much of the recent growth in volunteer travel has come from trips that emphasize social work, many run by relatively young organizations like Cross Cultural Solutions. Founded in 1995, CCS has tripled the number of volunteers it sends abroad since 2000. "This year we're going to send maybe fifteen hundred," says executive director Steve Rosenthal. CCS plans to double the number of programs it offers within the next five years, to more than 20. "Can we send fifteen thousand volunteers?" Rosenthal asks. "Easily. There's massive potential here."

Volunteer travel is still too new to the mainstream for reliable statistics to exist, but according to Kristalina Georgieva, a director at the World Bank, ecotourism and cultural tourism, both closely related to volunteer trips, are the fastest-growing segments of the global travel industry. Every volunteer outfitter I talked to, from CCS to older companies such as Global Volunteers, has drawn travelers in record numbers the past few years, with only a brief lapse in interest following 9/11. "Initially, we figured this would be a novelty," says David Minich, director of Habitat for Humanity's Global Village arm, which runs trips to build houses in poor communities. "Someone would do this in place of a fishing vacation, or a trip to Cancún, but wouldn't necessarily come back. What we find is people return a third time, a fourth time, a fifteenth time. They realize this kind of travel is how you really get to see the world and experience more of the food, the culture, the camaraderie."

Even traditional travel providers such as Hilton Hotels are beginning to respond to consumer demand. Three years ago, Hilton's Caribbean group launched an effort to raise money for poor island communities and encourage its staff to volunteer—the hotels never intended to involve guests. But in Nassau, when a group of guests spotted hotel employees filling backpacks with school supplies for kids, they asked if they could help; Hilton staffers across the region began to report similar requests. "We weren't prepared for it," admits Danny Hughes, the company's Caribbean vice president of operations. "You're going into some unpleasant areas. What if a guest is attacked? What about liability insurance? That's when we said, We've got to get serious about this."

Now Hughes is preparing to introduce formal volunteer opportunities for guests; he hopes an airline partnership might provide discount fares to travelers willing to set aside part of their stay for public service. "In Kingston, we're helping to renovate an orphanage. We're thinking: What if we create an option for guests to come and help?" he says. "In Puerto Rico, we visit sick children in hospitals and bring them books. We've done some reading classes. That could be a great thing for guests if they wanted to come along."

Hughes is frank about his doubts. The for-profit tourism industry, he says, sells escapism. A company like Hilton has little incentive to advertise that just down the postcard-perfect beach, there are some desperately poor communities. Nevertheless, most travelers are better educated these days about economic underdevelopment wherever they go, and most of them know perfectly well what lies at the end of the beach. A little volunteer work can help many feel better about their luxury island vacation, in part by assuaging pangs of liberal guilt. Of course, it's a complex balance. But complexity seems to define this kind of travel for everyone involved.

The Red Cross building in Dharmsala rises high above a quiet, crumbling street. It is dark inside. Two "inmates," as the rehab clinic calls them, look up listlessly from a row of hospital beds as we pass. Ann fusses with the purple scarf that accompanies her cream-colored salwar with flowers embroidered around the neckline. She didn't want to wear it, but CCS encourages volunteers to adopt as many local customs as they can. Melanie walks along quietly in a pink salwar, her hair pulled back into a ponytail.

The local Red Cross director, Harsh Vardhar, and his deputy, Sandeep Parmar, debrief us in a small office. The inmates, Karsh explains, have a full day, beginning with a yoga class (led by a pair of college-age CCS volunteers), followed by doctors' appointments, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and individual counseling sessions. Melanie, he says, will loosen them up in the morning with games and activities, helping them to feel comfortable talking to strangers and to one another. Ann, meanwhile, will work downstairs, at a tutoring facility for mentally disabled children. (Saul, a retired periodontist, is across town, working in the local hospital's dentistry ward.)

That is as far as the guidance goes. To prepare, Melanie studies a schedule and diary left by her predecessor, a CCS volunteer who has just returned home. It is a chronicle of earnest guesswork. "Music was played and the men were encouraged to dance," one entry reads. "Even those who we thought would not dance were dancing." Another session, involving animal masks, seemed to fail badly. "The men put the masks on and were asked to walk around like the animal...they didn't understand how it applied to their life in any way, and they didn't like it."

Melanie is tough-minded and versatile, and she adapts quickly to her assignment. Trying an icebreaker she learned during a Goldman Sachs retreat, she passes a box of toothpicks to the 15 inmates who file in and gather in a circle before her. "Take as many as you think you will need for the game," she explains through a CCS translator. When everyone has a small clutch of toothpicks, she continues. "For each toothpick, you have to tell the group one thing about yourself." The men talk about family, work, and the neighborhoods where they grew up. Later, she puts on a New Agey CD and asks everyone to write or draw in a journal for 10 minutes without stopping. A few minutes in, two burly, middle-aged men put down their pens and begin to chat. "You're supposed to be writing," she scolds. They smile sheepishly and return to their journals.

Downstairs, Ann is having a more difficult time. Two teachers sit at a table with a tiny girl in a green sari. One teacher says in English that the girl, Pooja, is 17, though we assume she means seven until a translator corrects us. Pooja is severely disabled. For more than a week, she has been tracing the numbers one and two on sheets of paper.

The teachers turn to Ann and, through the translator, ask how she plans to work with Pooja. Ann, taken aback, produces a stack of exercises she brought from home (CCS staff had let her know she would be working with children in a pre-departure phone call they schedule with every volunteer). She spreads out pages with blank faces for coloring, worksheets on feelings, and a few issues of the kids' magazine Highlights. Then she settles on the idea of making puppets. But when the teachers balk at the supplies she expects, Ann grows impatient. "You need tinfoil, feathers, glitter! I would have brought this stuff from home. They told me, 'Don't bring!'" she huffs. "I have everything, and I could have brought it!" The teachers try to change the subject, but Ann talks over them. "At home, I have a room full of puppets. I have finger puppets, I have hand puppets, I have big puppets. I have so much stuff. They said, 'Nooooo, it won't fit in with the culture.' " CCS discourages vacationers from bringing anything more than books for the communities they work in, urging them instead to buy supplies at local markets.

"I've seen this a lot with some of the older volunteers," Melanie confesses when I join her in a foyer outside the classroom. Ann's voice rises again, loud and bossy, and Melanie cringes. "They've traveled all over the world, but they're also very set in their ways."

It seems as if it should be easy to do good when you travel, if that's what you set out to do. Cross Cultural Solutions' Rosenthal knows better. "It's really hard," he says.

Travelers and community organizations can have incompatible ideas about volunteer work, so tour organizers must watch the relationship carefully. "Our misconception on this side is that volunteers are needed to dig ditches and paint fences," Rosenthal says. That was what he had in mind when he first started CCS, until he met with community leaders in New Delhi. "They said, 'You're kidding, right? First of all, there's no shortage of manual labor. And second of all, we don't think your people are going to work as well.'"

"On their side," he says, "the misconception is that Americans can come in and sort things out that they can't." Rosenthal founded CCS on the principle that community organizations know best what their communities need, but locals still tend to treat volunteers like experts. In fact, most volunteers bring little expertise to their work. CCS asks travelers to send a résumé and fill out a four-page questionnaire, ranking both their work experience and their interest in everything from arts and crafts and sports to counseling, medicine, and computers. Many do have useful professional experience, and some of them, like Saul Goldstein, are eager to share it. But at least as often, travelers prefer to do something besides what they do for a living, and CCS respects that—after all, they aren't hiring aid workers, they're sending people on a vacation. "Some teachers will tell us, 'I don't care what I do, just don't put me in front of a room full of kids,'" Rosenthal says.

Then there are the logistics. When you run an organization like CCS, Rosenthal explains, "you're also running a hotel, a restaurant, and a taxi service. And you're dealing with human beings who are going through a potentially life-changing experience." Sometimes, travelers don't respond well to the frustrations of working in a developing country. Rosenthal, a bit perversely, thinks that's a valuable part of any volunteer vacation. "The role of international volunteering is to build bridges of understanding and to provide cultural immersion through service. It's not providing service—it's cultural immersion through service," Rosenthal says. "And cultural immersion doesn't mean walking through the street in a dreamlike state. It means being frustrated when things aren't working the way you expect them to."

Still, he knows that an international incident can be just one outburst away. Shortly before I traveled to India, a CCS volunteer lost patience with the conditions of the health clinic where he worked and lashed out at the directors; after he left, the clinic refused to accept any more volunteers.

Sometimes, worthy work can be tedious. On an Earthwatch trip to Bali, Saul and Ann spent two weeks recording the number of times male macaques thrust when they get amorous with a lady macaque ("Bang, bang, bang—it's over," Saul recalls.) And sometimes, it can be dangerous. A young volunteer who left Dharmsala just before I arrived was badly bitten by one of the ragged dogs that run through the streets in packs after dark. On an Earthwatch program in the Congo, Saul had an unnerving exchange with drunken rebels.

Faced with a world of complexities, even highly regarded tour companies like CCS and Global Volunteers disagree on some fundamental elements of a good program. CCS, for instance, encourages travelers to work half-day shifts and then sightsee in the afternoons or arrange informal visits with locals. CCS held a picnic for us one afternoon outside the Masroor Rock Temple, a short drive from Dharmsala. They also brought us to the Norublingka Institute, an art and theology school for the region's large Tibetan community (the Dalai Lama lives a couple of miles up the road). Global Volunteers, on the other hand, urges participants to work a 40-hour week.

In addition to insisting that volunteers shop at local markets, CCS contributes to community economies by hiring locals as staff—more than a half-dozen in Dharmsala, including cooks, drivers, translators, and organizers. But it won't give money to organizations that accept CCS volunteers. "There's a whole set of people out there who look at volunteers as a moneymaking opportunity," Rosenthal says. "It's just rotten to the core." Global Volunteers and Habitat for Humanity, however, make donations of cash or materials a priority. "In India, where we care for children, they really have no money," Global Volunteers president Bud Philbrook says. "For four hundred dollars a year, we can provide a kid's food, lodging, medicine, tuition, clothing, and athletic equipment. And we do." He argues that anything less would be irresponsible. "There's no debate among development experts that there should be capital infusion," he says.

Michael Edwards, a development scholar with the Ford Foundation and a veteran of Britain's answer to the Peace Corps, Voluntary Service Overseas, thinks either approach can work. What's most important, he says, is being honest about the kind of difference volunteer vacations can make: "It's extremely unlikely that the major benefit of these trips will be developmental or technical." Meaningful cultural exchange, he stresses, is benefit enough. "It's absolutely essential that people from different parts of the world have face time together if we're going to forge international relationships—which we have to do if we're going to survive."

"I'm frustrated," Ann says. She is sitting on the front porch of the CCS apartment, the bottom floor of a sunny yellow house perched on the edge of a steep hillside. From our white plastic lawn chairs, we can see dozens of blue-gray Himalayan peaks fading out to the horizon.

"I get disappointed, too," Melanie says. "But you have to lower your expectations."

"You're here only a few weeks," Ann agrees, sighing heavily. "And you can't just walk over them."

"You have Pooja," Melanie answers. "You can make a difference in her life."

Anil Bhatnagar, the site manager in Dharmsala, brings over Saul and a handful of college-age women, who round out this month's batch of volunteers. He gathers the group together at the end of each week, to check in on the projects and to give everyone a chance to vent.

"I love the challenge we're facing at work, but it kept me up last night," Melanie says, reflecting on her time at the rehab center. "They put a lot of responsibility on the volunteers. I'm up for the challenge..." She pauses. "But I just feel like the staff expects us to be cure-alls."

Anil nods knowingly. "That's the way it is. They look up to America."

"I think someone needs to tell them that Americans don't know everything," Melanie says.

"You have to be really clear—"

"But I sense disappointment, which, to a perfectionist, is hard," Melanie says.

Maybe. But when I return to the Red Cross building alone, to see what the counselors have to say about Melanie's efforts, they heap praise on all of the volunteers. In a small office where he spends his day leading one-on-one rehab sessions, R. K. Tripathi explains that the biggest challenge is getting inmates to buy into the treatment. They may ignore a counselor, but they are curious about foreign visitors. "If the inmates are interested in the volunteers," he says, "they will be more motivated in our program." The dentists at the hospital are just as effusive. They value Saul's expertise, but even more, they appreciate the novelty of talking shop with an American colleague.

Ann gets a more immediate sense of the impact of her work a few days later, when she helps out at a rural day-care center outside Dharmsala (volunteers can opt to balance two work placements, instead of spending all their time at one). We walk single-file along a narrow dirt trail between two rice paddies dense with spry green shoots, until the path reaches a simple, mud-packed house with rows of stars carved into turquoise wood trim. Ann steps over nine pairs of tiny flip-flops and into a small, windowless room covered in old educational posters: numbers, letters, fruits and vegetables, animals. Behind a desk, the teacher beams. She leaves her class, nine kids between two and four years old, with Ann and a CCS translator, who teach them how to blow bubbles with soap Ann brought from the States; they play games with a pack of balloons from the market. While the children recite from the animal chart in English—"Yak! Mongoose! Jackal! Monkey!"—the teacher takes advantage of the break to fill out a stack of paperwork for the government. Visitors interrupt her every few minutes. In addition to teaching and feeding lunch to the community's children, her $12-a-month job puts her in charge of all pre- and post-natal care, health checks for girls, and distributing wheat subsidies.

When it is time for Ann to leave, the harried teacher looks at her, pausing a moment before saying anything. "Do you like it here?" she asks, finally. "Yes!" Ann says; she will be back tomorrow. The teacher sighs in relief and smiles.

"Sometimes we don't know what effect our work has, or if we're doing anything at all," says Bela Singh, country director for India and a co-founder of CCS. For many volunteer travelers, that will be a trip's greatest hardship. But Singh recalls the year CCS launched a program in Rajgarh, an isolated spot about eight hours southeast of Dharmsala. "Electricity had just come to the town," she recalls. One of the volunteers that season was a naval engineer. "She was a very bright girl; she stood out in the group." One afternoon, she talked to children at a local school about her job. Three years later, Singh was visiting volunteers in

Rajgarh when a schoolgirl raced up to her. "She said, 'Guess what? I've just been admitted to engineering college. I'm going to build ships, too.'"

Melanie wonders what will become of the people she helped, and whether future volunteers will continue her work. But she knows she found the change she was looking for. She wants to do more volunteering when she returns to New York, something CCS encourages throughout its trips. The brevity of a volunteer vacation is one of its chief drawbacks—one that is mitigated, however, if CCS inspires travelers to continue giving back when they return home, either by finding ways to help the countries or organizations they visited or by simply bringing the culture of volunteerism back to their own communities. "I've already started looking for places where I can volunteer when I get back," Melanie says. "I just want to contribute."

]]>
Douglas McGray (dmcgray@comcast.net) Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:00:00 -0800 going-the-distance-|-travel-+-leisure
"Exit Date" | New York Times Magazine EXIT DATE

By Douglas McGray

On a snowy January evening, in the kitchen of a powder blue colonial at the end of a still, winding block in the suburbs of Washington, Titia and her husband, Kaprr, two immigrants from Sierra Leone, enjoyed a rare family evening together. Their youngest children, a giddy pair of elementary-schoolers, rushed in and out of the room. Their teenage daughter chattered about her ''cheerleading skills.'' Even the 17-year-old Deen made an appearance, slouching up from the basement to pick at leftovers from dinner. It seemed a storybook image of the American immigrant dream.

But across the room, in low voices so the kids couldn't hear, Kaprr spoke about the circumstances threatening to break up his family. Kaprr and Titia have been living in the United States for 13 years. By the time they moved into this house five years ago, they had legal status, steady jobs, a growing family, night-school degrees well under way and a mortgage. Despite appearances, though, Kaprr and Titia are not Americans, or even on a certain path to citizenship. Rather, they are among at least 2,700 Sierra Leoneans living and working legally across the United States who face deportation unless they leave the country by May 3.

Kaprr and Titia settled in America as illegal immigrants after they overstayed their tourist visas, and Titia then tried and failed to win asylum. But they lucked into legal status in 1997, when the United States granted all Sierra Leoneans living within its borders something called temporary protected status, or T.P.S. On the books since the first Bush administration, T.P.S. was designed by Congress to shelter those who cannot benefit from refugee and asylum laws: foreign visitors staying in the United States on short-term visas or working illegally when their homeland suffers a humanitarian crisis. Recently, a vigorous lobby has urged the extension of temporary relief to Haitians, Colombians and Zimbabweans.

T.P.S. grants the right to work and live here legally, but provides no other perks of citizenship. At the end of a year, if a crisis persists, the government can offer another year of legal status; and at the end of that year, another, and so on. Of course, many crises, civil wars in particular, have a way of dragging on. Of the nine immigrant communities under T.P.S. protection, seven have been living year to year since 1997 or earlier; most of the 10,000 Liberians and 360 Somalis with temporary protected status have been legal residents since 1991, although the Liberians are most likely next up for deportation, and someday, the Somalis will have to follow.

Kaprr first heard the rumors late last summer. Everyone in the Sierra Leonean community was talking about it: this would be the year T.P.S. ends, they said. Kaprr grew sick with worry. ''I couldn't think about anything else,'' he said. Under different circumstances, Kaprr and Titia might not mind this temporary life coming to a stop. Both of them miss Sierra Leone, even though the house they left was destroyed in the fighting, and their families were devastated -- Kaprr's parents and sister were killed, as was Titia's sister, and many others. Both of them want to return, eventually. But Titia's mother, who lives with the family, had a liver transplant last fall at Georgetown University Hospital; Kaprr and Titia pay for her health insurance. ''She's taking all these medications that we cannot afford if we go back,'' Titia said -- if the drugs are even available there.

And then there are the four thoroughly American kids. When, cautiously, Kaprr and Titia broached the topic of a possible move back to Sierra Leone, they were anxious and full of questions. ''They wanted to know about the electricity,'' Kaprr said, ''if there are going to be any medical facilities.'' Titia laughed. ''They wanted to know about the Cartoon Network. And do people have shoes? They asked: 'Do you sleep in trees?' '' When Titia and Kaprr brought home a series of documentaries about the war, their teenage daughter fled the room, terrified. The 8-, 11-, and 13-year-olds are all born American citizens; the 17-year-old is here on T.P.S. and eligible for deportation. ''If they have to go home. . . . '' Kaprr said, then paused. ''For them, it's not home.''

The alternative, it seemed, was to stay illegally, until the kids finished school. But after so many years of legitimate American life, Kaprr did not want to live in hiding. ''We are law-abiding citizens,'' he said. Besides, the risk of sudden deportation seemed too great. All they would have to do is slip up at work, or run afoul of the law, and they could end up in detention. Their kids had never known such a fearful life and he didn't want to subject them to it now. (The family members have been identified in this article by their middle names.)

Like most Sierra Leoneans facing the likely end of their time in America, they could do little. They hoped the rumors were wrong and that T.P.S. would continue. They hoped they might qualify for a green card or that they would be recognized as good Americans and allowed to stay. They hoped for impossible things and tried not to think about those things too hard, so they could still take comfort in them.

One of Kaprr's night jobs had petitioned the Department of Labor to give him a permanent work visa, and his family a shot at permanent citizenship. But almost two years had passed since then, with no word. After hearing the rumors this summer, he feared he was running out of time.

One night late last summer, Titia came home from work with an idea, one they had never talked about before. She mentioned a woman from work, a nurse. She is a Sierra Leonean, Titia said. And an American citizen. And single. ''She is willing to marry you,'' Titia said. Just like that. Thou