Anyone who’s read this blog for any period of time can probably tell that I value freedom above all other things. I honestly and truly believe that freedom is the best way to live our lives and to make this nation strong. I oppose anything that I feels limits freedom, and I pretty much always have. I oppose gun control and the sign ordinance as aspects of the same coin of government control. To me, freedom equals right. Plain and simple.
However, sometimes, freedom can give you some outcomes that can suck.
I equate taxation with slavery in many ways. The idea that a percentage of each day is worked to benefit someone else bothers me a bit. But the idea that my wages belong to another with me having no say so really crosses a line with me. While I do understand where taxation stands, and I do understand that some form of financing for the government is needed, it doesn’t mean I have to like it. Instead, I favor non-income taxes since I can often find a way around those, and thereby making them more voluntary…more or less.
However, sometimes tax dollars get spent on things that are wrong, but do benefit some folks. Take the downtown redevelopment plan. People all over Albany are paying taxes to the city. Property taxes and sales taxes alike. Yet some of these tax dollars are being funneled to redevelop downtown. For some who own property downtown, it’s very easy to be in favor of it. For many, it’s truly a belief that it’s a good plan. They’d be in favor of it if the plan involved East Albany instead. For others, it’s easy to be in favor of downtown redevelopment because they get to benefit. They’d oppose redevelopment plans anywhere else, but support downtown.
Let’s be honest folks. That is nothing more than intellectual and philosophical dishonesty. If redevelopment is good, and you believe the city should be involved in that, why would East Albany be less worthy of redevelopment? The reasons may be different, but why?
I use that as an example, and nothing more, to illustrate a point. Sometimes, taking the “free road” ain’t easy. A couple of days ago, I blogged about zoning laws and other things that code enforcement does. Once commenter brought up all the horrible things that zoning laws prevent. One example, a liquor store, actually sounded more like a feature of no zoning laws than a bug. After all, a liquor store next door? No more having to drive to go get some beer! Others were less pleasant, like a crematorium.
Frankly, the commenter was right. All of those things would greatly suck. Any of those things would cause my property values to decline and I’d lose money on my investment. Not only that, but my neighborhood wouldn’t be the kind of place I’d want to continue living, so I’d have to move.
So what?
Let’s ignore the fact that home ownership is a type of investment, and the only type where the law protects your investment from things other than fraud. Let’s focus instead on freedom.
If someone buys the property next door to my house and plans on building an industrial plant, then yeah…it sucks for me. But since I have the freedom to live there and build whatever type of house I want (hypothetically), how then can I block that property owner from doing whatever he wanted to do? If I do, I’m a hypocrite because I expect to do whatever I want with my property, but won’t let him do the same.
In Albany, it’s a violation of city code for someone to have a piece of furniture on their front porch that isn’t specifically designed for outdoor use. Why? What difference does this make in the grand scheme of things? However, some people are glad to see this ordinance. They don’t want to see the couches and stuff chairs on folks’ front porches. That’s their right to not want that. But I don’t want to hear a damn thing from them when the city tramples on their property rights in some way. Whether it’s the use of imminent domain to get property for Phoebe, or a new law that tells them they have to cut down that old oak tree in their front yards. I don’t care.
Yes, you may not like what your neighbor does. But sometimes, you just have to deal with it. Sometimes, doing what’s right can really suck.
A friend of mine just contacted me and brought up a good point. It actually is possible to support redevelopment in one area and not another without it being intellectual dishonesty or anything else. It does depend on the underlying circumstances, and for that I apologize to anyone I may have mischaracterized.
Intellectual dishonesty comes in when you don’t really care a damn about the underlying reasons in either case. You support downtown redevelopment when you stand to benefit, but don’t support East Albany redevelopment when you won’t. Only the individual knows for certain though, as the intellectually dishonest will make the same arguments as the “true believers”.
Again, my apologies to anyone anyone I may have insulted accidentally. I promise, it wasn’t intentional.
Now Tom, I was just going to put your blog down for a couple of days (after I sent you Part Three of your previous post) and then you have to go and make this post. Well, your comment softened it a bit, but whole volumes are written about laws and human nature and the human condition and social order and anarchy and the prisons within total freedom and Janice Joplin and self-interest and the free market…it goes on and on.
But man, you do not have one instance of ANY downtown property owner opposing RESPONSIBLE economic development and its support in any part of this city let alone being dishonest about motive. I am not aware of any such instance.
What’s up, man?
No, I don’t. It was designed to merely illustrate a point. That’s all. That’s why I added the comment to clarify it and didn’t name anyone in particular. Frankly, I don’t know who may or may not qualify as intellectually dishonest and who doesn’t. Personally, without evidence to the contrary, I default with them not being intellectually dishonest.
While these people may or may not exist in Albany (we really won’t know until/unless tides shift to reveal their true nature), they do exist in the world in general and should be called for what they are.
Honestly, I didn’t see this as something that would touch a nerve with you, which it seems to have. For that, my apologies. I had emailed you at the address you provided a day or two ago. If you could just reply to that address (not even in reference to my email from earlier), I’d like to talk to you more in depth about this.
And also for clarification, there feasibly others who could benefit from downtown redevelopment but not from a hypothetical East Albany development.
On the old TV show L.A. Law, the firm represented a developer who wanted to building a condo community in a transitional suburban area. The biggest opponents were rich estate owners who pointed out that the area was zoned agricultural. So, the developer put in a smelly pig farm.
.-= slyram´s last blog ..Palin, Isakson and The Healthcare Reform Debate =-.
Hey, I’ll check my email…sorry I didn’t respond, but if I don’t recogninze the source right away, I generally skip it. Sorry.
I don’t think it hit a nerve, really, and I did not think there were any concrete instances…I guess I wish you might have considered a different hypothetical these days
Brothers in spirit all the way!!!
I can certainly understand that, and I can understand your desire regarding me possibly having chosen a different hypothetical considering the current climate. However, that’s the precise reason I used it. It’s on people’s minds. They’re thinking about downtown redevelopment with a more critical eye.
Frankly, I oppose government involvement in economic redevelopment in general, though I am currently finding a lot to like about the independent authority proposed by Commissioner Marietta. While technically government, it wouldn’t be using taxpayer money to accomplish the job. It’s something I plan to look into further.
A lot of these zoning regs are not to preserve your investment but for health and safety. Would you want a factory next door spewing toxins into the air for your children to breathe or a hog farm and the accompanying bugs and smells? How about all the traffic that would come from a strip mall in the middle of your subdivision? Yes, you could move but good luck when all you have available is a cardboard box under a bridge. I would certainly like to see how quick NIMBY syndrome would hit you if one of the situations hit your neighborhood. I am a firm believer in limiting growth of government but this is one of those fundamental areas that government needs to deal with. I believe they need to encourage but not fund development.