#E007
We couldn't afford to worry about a few ducks.
December 20, 2024
The Story
Keyrock, the “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer,” was a recurring character played by Phil Hartman on Saturday Night Live in the early 1990s. Keyrock’s backstory is that, after being discovered and thawed out by scientists, he goes on to law school and becomes a stereotypically oily lawyer. In my favorite sketch, Keyrock presents his plans for a new development project to the fictitious Zanderville City Council. He begins disingenuously, claiming he's "just a caveman ... your world frightens me." He confesses his fear of flying machines and other modern things before sliding into his pitch: “But there is one thing I do know: The new resort housing development being proposed by my partners and myself will not only provide much-needed property taxes, but it will also include more than adequate green belts here, here, and here (tapping a site map with a pointer), for recreation and aesthetic enhancement.” As people start clapping, the exasperated mayor bangs her gavel and says, “But Mr. Keyrock, won’t this subdivision of yours destroy an environmentally sensitive wetland area and all the wildlife that lives there?” Chuckling confidently, Keyrock approaches the dais and says, “Madam Mayor, in my time, we couldn’t afford to worry about a few ducks. Maybe we were just cavemen, but with us, people came first.” The other council members start clapping, and Keyrock smirks into the camera, clearly having won the argument. Keyrock, The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, is a pretty original idea from the folks at SNL, and this sketch is a particularly funny one. But for Reflective Urbanists like us, it also provides some insight into what's happening in public meetings. [1]
The Theory
Adam Smith first introduced the idea of differentiating between “use value” and “exchange value” with the “diamond-water paradox.” This economic problem contrasts a diamond, which has no use value but a very high market value because of its scarcity, with water, which has little market value because of its ubiquity but great use value, as it is essential to life.[2] Karl Marx later expanded on Smith’s idea, recognizing the roles played labor and industrial production: "As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality, while as exchange-values they can only differ in quantity, and therefore do not contain an atom of use-value."[3] But Marx also argued that, in capitalist economies, commodities take on a “dual nature,” possessing both use and exchange value. Here are three examples of the duality Marx was talking about:
1. A cup has use value because you can drink from it, but if it is a Baccarat crystal water glass, it also has an exchange value of $300.
2. A wristwatch has use value because it can tell you the time, but an entry-level (used) Patek Philippe Grand Complication has an exchange value of $47,000.
3. And if you like conceptual art, you might appreciate the use value you gain from admiring Maurizio Cattelan’s “Comedian,” a banana attached to a wall with duct tape. But if you are crypto entrepreneur Justin Sun, you could prove its exchange value by outbidding six rivals at Sotheby’s auction house and buying it for $6.2M including fees, paying in crypto, and then eating the banana a week later, recognizing a different use value for “Comedian” — as food.
What's really happening in Zanderville
Disagreements over development projects at public meetings are often based on conflicts between these two different kinds of value. In the case of Zanderville, Keyrock cares only about exchange value. He hopes to earn a handsome profit but also makes a compelling exchange value argument to the city council when he promises increased tax revenues. For the mayor, however, the land has use value. Her concern is with the loss of nature and wildlife — the ducks — not just Keyrock’s profits or the growth of the city’s tax base. Keyrock and the mayor are not talking about the same thing. They are arguing about use value vs. exchange value, or, in this case, the environment vs. development.
Our SNL Caveman sketch is barely a parody of the dynamics of a typical community meeting, where a developer focused on exchange value proposes an apartment project on a vacant parcel. The developer seeks profit while promising the city and residents increases in real estate taxes and property values—things everyone should want, right? The neighbors, however, are worried about what they will lose in use value: no more informal dog park, increased traffic on the neighborhood’s already congested streets, blocked skyline views for some residents, and new shadows on the old park. These are all use value arguments. Again, the developer and the neighbors are arguing about entirely different things: The developer is making an economic case for what can be, while the neighbors are concerned with their subjective experience of the place and what they stand to lose.
The Lesson
Whenever you are in a public meeting, listen carefully to the arguments. Some will be focused on use value, and others on exchange value. Community members and non-experts often rely on emotion-based use value arguments that favor the status quo — as they fear losing what they have — while the developer’s exchange value arguments are selling a better future for everyone, at least in terms of economic value. By paying attention to who is focused on use value and who is focused on exchange value, you can better understand the perspectives of the different stakeholders and help steer them toward compromise and a solution that addresses the interests of all parties.
“A cynic is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. ”
- Oscar Wilde
[1] I want to thank my lawyer friend, Peter Berrie, for introducing me to Keyrock, The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer. I share this video with students in my private sector development course because, despite being satire, it is a surprisingly accurate portrayal of a typical developer presentation.
[2] Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of The Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 4, pages 44 - 45. Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc., 1982 (originally published in 1776).
[3] Marx, Karl and Ben Fowlkes (translator), Capital: Volume 1, Chapter 1; Commodities, New York: Penguin Classics, 1992, page 138.