Glen writes:
I use it myself in choosing to donate money, rather than labor to the community
garden.
At some cost premium, and perhaps quality penalty, I pay money at this
place called a grocery store.
On 1/14/14, 12:34 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
The rest of the "commons" *was* managed by taxes... this was a tiny
oasis within it. It had a quality that could not be bought with taxes
or any other mode. Too bad if you have never experienced something
like that.
When people care about something, especially when they are skilled,
cooperative people that have time and motivation it shows. It's
better. On the other hand, there's the possibility that contributors
(generically speaking, not just the case you describe) just see a
`community' project as better because they have investment in it, or
because that is the context in which they see or make friends.
It is obviously the sensible thing to do, and because makes many more
big things possible. I want professionals to do the job. I don't
want to be sneered at when I accidentally sit on a `community' swing
or picnic table or whatever because I don't show up for the weekend
love-in. (I'm not going to show up.)
If you read what I wrote you might recognize that roughly half the
population in the neighborhood did *not* show up for the love in. The
homeless who slept there and hung out mid-day did not show up... or
the teens.. and nobody ran any of them off, nor sneered at them.
They were all relatively welcome, and they did their part by NOT
abusing the situation... fading out when it was time to fade perhaps?
Abuse the situation? Fade out? Norms are being asserted here. But
provincialism is not my main objection. My main objection is to the
possibility of cutting professional maintenance and city planning
assuming volunteers will step in. In the interest of some implied
merit of `investing in my neighborhood', which defined in some way that
I'm not getting to define, and I mostly don't care about. My true
neighborhood consists of that which is in my working memory, over time.
That may or may not include other objects or activities in my geographic
proximity. Some geographically-local infrastructure is necessary to
support those other dimensions, but otherwise is incidental. So I
expect to pay taxes to support that platform, like I would anywhere.
If the platform is falling apart (in some objective way, not that the
color of varnish on the play equipment isn't beautiful enough), spend
more on it and raise taxes to pay for it.
Then I do what I'm relatively good at, and the the landscaping
people, etc. do what they are good at.
Landscaping people aren't good at investing themselves in their own
neighborhood. They are good at (if you are lucky) doing what they
are paid to do better than those who pay them.
I would say that's fine, provided they enjoy their work. (See adjacent
remark.)
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
