It's about liberty, responsibility and opportunity...
This is a
copy of a response I recently offered to raised concerns about some of
the mixed messages shared by some of the candidates for City Council.
In sharing this communication it is not my wish to be personally
critical of any of the candidates. I do, however, have philosophical
and conceptual concerns that merit open discussion~
A majority
of the candidates currently running for office are strong affordable
housing advocates who present an equally strong concern for
neighborhoods. You cannot authentically be a strong advocate for both
and the probabilities are that subsidized (by tax dollars and forced
developer participation) affordable housing will be the truer priority
of the "liberal/progressive/socialist" candidates. There success very
likely means "use by right" changes in neighborhoods, adjustments of
the UDO to allow further density in neighborhoods, tax increases and
other changes that will dramatically exceed current realities.
The
point of confusion for many who buy the spin that these folks are
"neighborhood advocates" is that they publicly resist the concept of
"greedy developers" (overlooking the fact that reasonable development
is a crucial key to keeping residential tax rates down and producing
new jobs). Neighborhoods have a legitimate reason to fear excessive
intrusion of commercial development -- subsidized affordable housing
initiatives, forced density increases on existing neighborhoods, and
UDO amendments, however, are the overlooked back door to neighborhoods.
There
is nothing wrong with being a reaso!
nable ad
vocate for affordable
housing, neighborhoods, development, business or whatever. Problems
develop around the level of advocacy. In truth, all of these issues
have relevancy in Asheville. It's when one issue or the other starts
pushing others aside that we loose balance and place our economy,
stability, and communities at risk.
One of the points of
seduction in this election pushed by some media outlets and voices in
the community is that a good Council member should work toward
compromise and cooperation. That's great if what is being produced is
constructive, helpful, and grounded in rationale thinking. More
accurately, the voices crying for unity and less conflict on the
Council are speaking to concensus -- around their own issues and
priorities. If the majority of voters in Asheville persist in their
passive interest in this election, there will likely be a majority of
mutually supportive and unified voices on the Council. What that unity
produces will be a loss of responsible, restrained and balanced local
government.
Socialism is not a bad word -- it is, from my
perspective, a bad concept. It represents a philosophy of government
redistribution of wealth and opportunity that sounds goods, but
invariably (look to history and other countries) leads to attitudes of
entitlement and dependency with a resulting loss of personal
responsiblity and liberty. It sounds appealing to many, because the
emphasis is placed on the feel good part (what is in it for me and
others) while the accountability (what it is going to cost me and
others) is minimized.
The moderate and conservative people of
Asheville were not invested in the recent primary election. The
neighborhoods are ignoring the spin of candidates who are claiming to
be all things to all people. The outcome, if we do not speak to one
another and raise voices of concern, will be a socialist council
majori!
ty compr
ised of predators pretending to be sheepdogs.
|
