The link that you posted takes one to a memorandum from the office of the city manager of Greensboro, NC. On page two a discussion ensues regarding the options regarding funding of the greenway situated near downtown Greensboro. The discussion, prepared by the Finance Director states:
“The Downtown Greenway is a collaborative undertaking by the City of Greensboro and Action Greensboro, which will loop downtown with a unique 4-mile multi use trail. The total cost of the entire Downtown Greenway is estimated at $26 million.”
Note: That is quite the statement from the finance director or any finance director. Problem is, the “total cost” would be the alternatives forgone by building the greenway. On the other hand, the total “price” would be $26 million. One must worry a bit when the finance director mixes up the concept of cost with the concept of price. Sweet!
Regarding “greenways” one first needs to understand Director’s Law. Aaron Director was an economist at the University of Chicago. Director put forward the following proposition which became known as Director‘s Law: most public programs (collective action) are to provide benefits to the middle class but are financed by taxes paid by the upper and lower classes. That the middle class is the predominant group in a democracy and hence influence public programs in such a way to maximize their [middle class] benefit and minimize their price for such benefit.
Now one needs to examine the lower classes and “greenways”. Moreover, is a “tax” applied per Director’s Law to the working poor and to lower income earners? In many cases the answer is yes. How so?
The working poor and lower income earners need affordable housing given their budgets. Many times such housing is available around downtown areas. The housing is of lower or moderate quality but fits the needs of these income classes.
Enter the politico and the middle class. One needs to note the incessant discussion of what the politico is going to do for the middle class. The politico is always referencing to the middle class and how he/she is going to do this and that for the middle class. Why? The politico wants to cater to the dominant group which is the middle class. Being the predominant class in a democracy means the most votes appear in the middle class segment.
Now comes politico monument building and the always present politico hallmark of “doing something”. What about that “blighted housing” around downtown? How about a nice “greenway” for the middle class to walk their dog, children in strollers, jog, bike, etc. A standard “feel good” politico proposition. How warm and fuzzy!
Problem is that supposed “blighted housing” is the lower or moderate quality housing the working poor or lower income earners call home. Hence the politico bulldozes down the housing and builds a “greenway” and the working poor and lower income earner must move away and find other housing with the same price structure, which in many cases, is not available. Hence the working poor and lower income must devote more of their income to housing at their new location.
Further, the working poor and lower income earner may well find their relocation to higher priced housing also locates then further from their place of employment further driving up price for these groups.
Now we must visit Bastiat’s “the seen and the unseen“. What is seen is the politico building the wonderful green walking path with somebody else’s money for the coveted middle class and its associated votes. What is unseen is the working poor and lower income earners suffering from higher prices to produce such “greenways“.
1 comment:
George:
The link that you posted takes one to a memorandum from the office of the city manager of Greensboro, NC. On page two a discussion ensues regarding the options regarding funding of the greenway situated near downtown Greensboro. The discussion, prepared by the Finance Director states:
“The Downtown Greenway is a collaborative undertaking by the City of Greensboro and Action Greensboro, which will loop downtown with a unique 4-mile multi use trail. The total cost of the entire Downtown Greenway is estimated at $26 million.”
Note: That is quite the statement from the finance director or any finance director. Problem is, the “total cost” would be the alternatives forgone by building the greenway. On the other hand, the total “price” would be $26 million. One must worry a bit when the finance director mixes up the concept of cost with the concept of price. Sweet!
Regarding “greenways” one first needs to understand Director’s Law. Aaron Director was an economist at the University of Chicago. Director put forward the following proposition which became known as Director‘s Law: most public programs (collective action) are to provide benefits to the middle class but are financed by taxes paid by the upper and lower classes. That the middle class is the predominant group in a democracy and hence influence public programs in such a way to maximize their [middle class] benefit and minimize their price for such benefit.
Now one needs to examine the lower classes and “greenways”. Moreover, is a “tax” applied per Director’s Law to the working poor and to lower income earners? In many cases the answer is yes. How so?
The working poor and lower income earners need affordable housing given their budgets. Many times such housing is available around downtown areas. The housing is of lower or moderate quality but fits the needs of these income classes.
Enter the politico and the middle class. One needs to note the incessant discussion of what the politico is going to do for the middle class. The politico is always referencing to the middle class and how he/she is going to do this and that for the middle class. Why? The politico wants to cater to the dominant group which is the middle class. Being the predominant class in a democracy means the most votes appear in the middle class segment.
Now comes politico monument building and the always present politico hallmark of “doing something”. What about that “blighted housing” around downtown? How about a nice “greenway” for the middle class to walk their dog, children in strollers, jog, bike, etc. A standard “feel good” politico proposition. How warm and fuzzy!
Problem is that supposed “blighted housing” is the lower or moderate quality housing the working poor or lower income earners call home. Hence the politico bulldozes down the housing and builds a “greenway” and the working poor and lower income earner must move away and find other housing with the same price structure, which in many cases, is not available. Hence the working poor and lower income must devote more of their income to housing at their new location.
Further, the working poor and lower income earner may well find their relocation to higher priced housing also locates then further from their place of employment further driving up price for these groups.
Now we must visit Bastiat’s “the seen and the unseen“. What is seen is the politico building the wonderful green walking path with somebody else’s money for the coveted middle class and its associated votes. What is unseen is the working poor and lower income earners suffering from higher prices to produce such “greenways“.
Not all is as it seems.
Post a Comment