|
MAIL TRIBUNE > LOCAL > EDITORIALS Time to choose Ashland can't maintain its diversity without subsidizing affordable housing As home prices continue to rise and incomes don't, Ashland appears to have become a victim of its own success. Now Ashland Community Action, a group of young residents, wants city leaders to do something about it. The town is becoming gentrified, they say, inhabited by wealthy newcomers and retirees, and the city should take steps to reverse the trend. That may be a laudable goal, but some unpleasant realities stand in the way. A local developer says Ashland's long-standing policy of not expanding its urban growth boundary is contributing to the rise in property values in the city. He has a point. And that presents a dilemma. Allowing the city to expand outward might mean more affordable housing on the edges of town. But it also would gradually change the small-town feel that makes Ashland so attractive in the first place. Pointing to a proposed mixed-use development on vacant land in the city's Railroad District, the activists say the city should preserve some of the land as open space and make a greater commitment to affordable housing there. There's just one problem. As long as real estate markets determine land value, there is no financial incentive to build low-cost housing unless the deal is subsidized in some fashion. And that will happen only if the residents of Ashland are willing to devote tax dollars. If they are, we would applaud their commitment to a more diverse community. But if they aren't, we have to agree with former Mayor Cathy Shaw, who says she doesn't think the problem can be fixed from the government level. As City Planning Director John McLaughlin put it, "We may have to find a way to tax ourselves to keep our diversity. If that's what we truly value, that's what we will have to do." City leaders should determine the answer to that question, soon.
New beginning It was a sad day when the Boys and Girls Clubs of White City were forced to close in December 2000 for budgetary reasons. If there is any place in the Rogue Valley that needs after-school and summer child care, it is White City, an area of mostly low-cost housing and lower-income residents. But the clubs are slated to reopen Feb. 4 thanks to their merger with the chapter in Grants Pass; new management; more resources, including a new line-up of grants; and a number of improvements donated by the community. Former backers of the clubs in White City acknowledge that in the prior effort they bit off more than they could chew, expanding too quickly and eschewing fiscal conservatism. The clubs must not make these mistakes again, but must count every nickel and dime to ensure that the center doesn't go down a second time. The agency recently received grants that will fund the center's $100,000 annual budget, and more than $50,000 in improvements donated by a number of businesses. All contributors deserve a large thanks from the community. This new beginning is a good deal for White City, which has been working hard over the the past decade to improve community amenities. Support should not end with these recent contributions
- Guest Opinion Free market a myth when it comes to setting wages By HARRY L. COOK The opinion piece by Lee Morris critiquing Ashland's living wage ordinance is a good example of the triumph of neo-liberalism - the gospel of the free market. This is the magnificent delusion that markets are competitive and corporate market power is insignificant. He follows the precepts of neo-liberalism to reach his conclusions that living wage agreements are unfair and accomplish little by simplistically assuming away the realities of the labor market. He thinks that employers don't have superior bargaining power, that they don't collude and that labor is mobile and informed. In other words that wages are set in a competitive market. About 60 years ago, after 150 years of living in the classical dream world of competitive markets, the economics profession finally woke up to the real world of business trusts and consumer fraud. It was an awakening, much like Saul's experience on the road to Damascus. The light finally dawned that there was an economic role for government to control the excesses and deficiencies of the (supposedly) free market. On top of this Keynes showed that the "free market" was also flawed on the macro side and had no inherent tendency to move toward full employment, thereby adding another economic role for government. However, the idea of government regulation did not sit well with business. But there was a glimmer of hope. There was a fringe element of what were generally regarded as right-wing zealots in economics in the persons of Friedrich von Hayek (The Road to Serfdom), Milton Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom), William J. Buckley and his magazine "The National Review" and a few others that staunchly held that there was almost no legitimate economic role for government. The bases for this remarkable conclusion were always a little hazy. They seem to boil down mainly to either simply ignoring the business record or alleging that whatever problems unregulated business might pose, they were far less horrendous than the consequence of big government, which was bound to be utterly inefficient and sure to wipe out all of our freedoms. At the time (60 years ago) almost everybody felt that laissez faire policy was a bill of goods that had been so thoroughly repudiated that you couldn't sell it to the village idiot. But almost anything is possible if you have vision, perseverance and lots of money. The vision was the perception that people had to be taught to think differently about such things as liberalism, conservatism, freedom and the role of government. Liberalism had to be turned around in the public mind from meaning progressive, enlightened public policy to stand for big, oppressive government and high taxes. Conservatism meant to most people big business and the welfare of the rich. This had to be radically changed to being associated with freedom (from government) and a philosophy of individualism. To deliver the message there emerged from the aforementioned core a corporate sponsored worldwide network of foundations, institutes, research centers, publications, scholars and public relations specialists all dedicated to promoting the "ideals" of neo-liberalism and demolishing the specter of liberalism. The success of the whole movement is all the more remarkable because the entire edifice rests upon such foundations of sand. All of neo-liberalism depends upon the (almost always hidden) assumption of competitive markets and the absence of market power, which plain observation and common sense indicate is nonsense. On Ashland's living wage Mr. Morris implicitly accepts the neo-liberal thesis that everything takes place in competitive markets and therefore the result is the economically right one, and to change it would be economically wrong. The living wage issue pertains to the setting of wages, which is an institutional process. Wages are never set in a competitive market, defined in economics as a market in which no single individual or organization can affect the outcome. Wages are set by public officials as a matter of policy and can be set within broad limits. Generally, the institutional process is such that they are often set closer to the lower limit. The living wage concept would set them higher. The issue is one of public policy and economic theory cannot provide the answer. Harry L. Cook is emeritus professor of economics at Southern Oregon University. He lives in Ashland. |
Note: Guest Opinions are added to this page on an intermittent basis. Click here to contact your elected representatives To participate in National polls & discussions, or to start a petition or contact elected officials, go to "e-thepeople interactive town hall"
The Mail Tribune welcomes letters on any topic of general public relevance and interest. Please include a daytime phone number and address for verification. We cannot print letters, even e--mail letters, without verification. We're interested in the comments of all our on--line readers, but we can only publish letters from residents within our Southern Oregon and Northern California circulation area. Sorry, we cannot publish poetry. Writers are limited to one letter every 30 days. Address your letters of 250 word or less (150 words for thank you or election letters) to: Letters to the editor Or send your e--mail letter to: The Mail Tribune offers its opinion pages to stimulate discussion and understanding of issues important to our community. Editorials in this column reflect the opinions of the Mail Tribune.
|
