From: Dale McMillen <dmcmillen@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens
Date: 01 Jan 93 22:19 PST
Subject: Re: Greens vs. Property Rights
Nf-ID: #R:1hs8brEINNfle@uni-erlangen.de:-1634168734:cdp:1678600006:000:9113
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dmcmillen    Jan  1 22:19:00 1993


> I don't see that the subdivider's profits, large or small, have anything
> to do with the fact that the person who built first got used to having
> an empty lot next door and is inconvenienced ("harmed") when someone
> builds on it.
 
John,
 
I didn't expect my comments about "victims of a system that allowed the
orginal subdivider reap windfall profits" to go unchallenged.  In fact,
it has been challenging trying to state logically, what I deeply believe
in my heart.  But here goes....
 
Let's start with some propositions.
 
1. In this world where the vast majority of people live in abject poverty,
wealth beyond what one needs to take care of one's self and family is
immoral.
 
2. Reaping windfall profits to gain weath beyond one's needs is therefore
immoral.
 
3. People naturally want to live in communities to work and play together
and to share with each other provided they feel that all members assume
their responsibility for the community's work.  (Based on observations
of indiginous peoples from around the world.)
 
4. People need to eat and many like to work the soil to grow some of
their own food, at least part time.
 
5. People find spiritual inspiration by being grounded in their communities,
their soil, and their natural surroundings.
 
6. People, left to their own, would organize their communities in close
proximity to each other, interspersed with gardens, and near natural
areas.
 
7. Land, the earth, is a limited and infinitely valuable resource, since
it is the source of life itself.
 
8. Therefore, treating the earth as a commodity to be subdivided and sold
for profit is absurd.  (Can you sell your mother?)
 
9. So, the earth should instead be revered above all, and cared for to
the utmost.
 
10. And, one can only truly care for something that one truly knows.
 
11. But, how can a subdivider (who presumably does not live in on the
land) or an absentee land-lord truly care for that piece of earth if
if s/he does not live there?
 
These propositions, some which follow simple logic and others admittedly
statements of faith, lead me to believe that ownership of land itself
is immoral.  Or at least, ownership which is intended solely for the
purpose of profit (I am referring to the subdivider, not the absentee
land-lord).
 
But lets take a look at "the system" which created this problem of
the homeowner which did not want the other property owner to build
in the first place.  In fact, what I am about to describe is just
about exactly what my parents experienced in their community in
rural New Jersey about 20 years ago.
 
A developer/subdivider purchased a tract of forest, about a mile
square, on the edge of a couple of farms and about three miles
from the closest town.  Presumably he bought the land for a low
cost of only a couple of hundred dollars per acre.  He got permission
from the town to begin to develop by putting in roads and selling
lots.  Presumably he sold the lots, mostly about quarter acre lots,
for a couple of thousand each, giving him a gross profit of forty
times the cost of the land.  Even with the net profits, providing
for the cost of road building (which in this case was not more than
putting gravel on dirt roads), survey and legal fees, one would be
clearly justified in labelling this a "windfall".
 
Now, people start move in and build.  Initially, they must go in
debt for their lot to pay for the subdivider's windfall.  They must
further go in debt by building stand-alone single family houses,
which is what the zoning laws called for.  They must go even further
in debt by purchasing and maintaining automobiles because their work,
schools, and stores average more than 15 miles away, because the
zoning laws only allow single family houses in the community.
 
Here is where the residents of this community are victims of "the system".
They must find and continue to work at high-paying but spiritually
deadening jobs to pay off this debt.  Their reliance on the automobile
and the time that commuting consumes takes valuable hours away from
their family and community.  It also pollutes the air and the water,
and makes them rely on foreign oil which caused our country to go to war.
They did not have any say about the zoning laws and the way they might
have wanted to organize their homes.  They were not able to devote a
portion of their land to more compact housing, perhaps co-housing.
Neither were they able to devote a sufficient portion of their land
for vegetable gardens.  They also unwillingly participated in the
destruction of the forest which could bring them spiritual health
and provide a home for wildlife.
 
The homeowners of this community, however, have been lulled to sleep
over their misfortune.  They justified their lifestyle because they
believed it would get better, because, of course, their homes were
appreciating in value.  They justified their reliance on the automobile
because "that's what everyone else did".  And they ignored their
spiritual needs to connect to nature, to have a meaningful job, to be
a part of a caring community.  And they die of stress and boredom.  Or,
they get stuck.  Recession hits and they can't sell their homes.  They
look around and find theirs is merely a "bedroom community".  They don't
know their neighbors.  The local kids are into drugs and vandalize the
place.  But, they have no time to build community.  It's off to work
again.  Got to pay the mortgage and the car payment.
 
I wonder how this situation would be different if the families in
this community got together to purchase the entire track of land in
the first place.  They wouldn't have had to pay the windfall profit
to the subdivider and nor deal with restrictive zoning laws.  Perhaps
the families would all build their homes near each other build schools
and shops in the immediate vicinity.  Perhaps there would be enough
land available to feed the entire community.  (An adult male can survive
with all Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances on the vegetables produced
on one-thirty-fifth of an acre.) And, there would be ample land left for
nature.  The community would work and play together, walking mostly rather
than driving, and would be nearly debt-free.  Pollution would be minimized,
and municipal solid waste would primarily be organic because of the minimal
packaging required for locally grown foods.  And this organic waste would
eagerly be composted to replenish the nutrients in the garden.
 
So, why doesn't this happen?  The "system" that we are victimized by
is capitalism.  It is the system which is designed to maximize profits
out of people and the land without any concern for people's lives
or the health of the environment.  This is the system which allows
developers and governments to conspire to set up zoning laws which
maximize profits and taxes, but which keep ordinary citizens from
participating.  This is the system which allows road-builders,
cement manufacturers, oil companies, and auto manufacturers to
conspire to make sure that all of us are forced to purchase 
automobiles for their profit.  (Note how the car companies bought
up the trolly systems in the 1920s and 30s, only to dismantle them!)
This is the system which makes sure that food and most of our other
necessities are shipped the maximum distance possible so transport
companies and energy producers can profit.  (Note how Florida oranges
are sold in California, or how our clothes are made in the Orient when
they can be made as cheaply here.)  This is the system, as Marx said,
that would sell a capitalist the rope to hang himself, if he could
profit by it.
 
I could go on, but my point is that both owners of the lots are victims
of the system.  And, yes, it is the system which thrives by setting
its victims against each other, as in the case of the one not wanting
the other build on the adjacent lot.  This both diverts the victims'
attention from their victimization, and it seemingly justifies
competition rather than cooperation as a valid method for solving
problems.
 
I know I have not yet directly answered your question about the two
individuals who have this dispute over whether to build on an adjacent
lot.  As you can probably see, I don't consider this abstract situation
by itself relevant to discussing what I consider the more fundamental
concerns surrounding property rights, which I have stated in detail above.
 
However, if this were an actual situation and I were on a zoning board
and needed to vote on the issue, I would let the property owner build,
provided that building would not damage the community or the environment,
and, I would hope, that the original zoning decisions were made with
full community input.
 
I am sorry for this lengthy response, but the question, in my opinion
touched on one of the most fundamental crises that world is currently
facing.
 
Dale
 
P.S. As an active member of The Greens, I would be confident in saying
that these views are shared by other Greens I know.  However, I am only
speaking for myself.  Therefore, these comments should not necessarily
be construed as representing any Green Party Policy.