COMMENTS: 122
This Land Is Their Land: How the Rich Confiscate Natural Beauty from the Public
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
I took a little vacation recently -- nine hours in Sun Valley, Idaho, before an evening speaking engagement. The sky was deep blue, the air crystalline, the hills green and not yet on fire. Strolling out of the Sun Valley Lodge, I found a tiny tourist village, complete with Swiss-style bakery, multistar restaurant and "opera house." What luck -- the boutiques were displaying outdoor racks of summer clothing on sale! Nature and commerce were conspiring to make this the perfect micro-vacation.
But as I approached the stores things started to get a little sinister -- maybe I had wandered into a movie set or Paris Hilton's closet? -- because even at a 60 percent discount, I couldn't find a sleeveless cotton shirt for less than $100. These items shouldn't have been outdoors; they should have been in locked glass cases.
Then I remembered the general rule, which has been in effect since sometime in the 1990s: if a place is truly beautiful, you can't afford to be there. All right, I'm sure there are still exceptions -- a few scenic spots not yet eaten up by mansions. But they're going fast.
About ten years ago, for example, a friend and I rented a snug, inexpensive one-bedroom house in Driggs, Idaho, just over the Teton Range from wealthy Jackson Hole, Wyoming. At that time, Driggs was where the workers lived, driving over the Teton Pass every day to wait tables and make beds on the stylish side of the mountains. The point is, we low-rent folks got to wake up to the same scenery the rich people enjoyed and hike along the same pine-shadowed trails.
But the money was already starting to pour into Driggs -- Paul Allen of Microsoft, August Busch III of Anheuser-Busch, Harrison Ford -- transforming family potato farms into vast dynastic estates. I haven't been back, but I understand Driggs has become another unaffordable Jackson Hole. Where the wait staff and bed-makers live today I do not know.
I witnessed this kind of deterioration up close in Key West, Florida, where I first went in 1986, attracted not only by the turquoise waters and frangipani-scented nights but by the fluid, egalitarian social scene. At a typical party you might find literary stars like Alison Lurie, Annie Dillard and Robert Stone, along with commercial fishermen, waitresses and men who risked their lives diving for treasure (once a major blue-collar occupation). Then, at some point in the '90s, the rich started pouring in. You'd see them on the small planes coming down from Miami -- taut-skinned, linen-clad and impatient. They drove house prices into the seven-figure range. They encouraged restaurants to charge upward of $30 for an entree. They tore down working-class tiki bars to make room for their waterfront "condotels."
Of all the crimes of the rich, the aesthetic deprivation of the rest of us may seem to be the merest misdemeanor. Many of them owe their wealth to the usual tricks: squeezing their employees, overcharging their customers and polluting any land they're not going to need for their third or fourth homes. Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need -- housing, for example. Gentrification is dispersing the urban poor into overcrowded suburban ranch houses, while billionaires' horse farms displace rural Americans into trailer homes. Similarly, the rich can easily fork over annual tuitions of $50,000 and up, which has helped make college education a privilege of the upper classes.
There are other ways, too, that the rich are robbing the rest of us of beauty and pleasure. As the bleachers in stadiums and arenas are cleared to make way for skybox "suites" costing more than $100,000 for a season, going out to a ballgame has become prohibitively expensive for the average family. At the other end of the cultural spectrum, superrich collectors have driven up the price of artworks, leading museums to charge ever rising prices for admission.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the Pew Research Center finds happiness to be unequally distributed, with 50 percent of people earning more than $150,000 a year describing themselves as "very happy," compared with only 23 percent of those earning less than $20,000. When nations are compared, inequality itself seems to reduce well-being, with some of the most equal nations -- Iceland and Norway -- ranking highest, according to the UN's Human Development Index. We are used to thinking that poverty is a "social problem" and wealth is only something to celebrate, but extreme wealth is also a social problem, and the superrich have become a burden on everyone else.
If Edward O. Wilson is right about "biophilia" -- an innate human need to interact with nature -- there may even be serious mental health consequences to letting the rich hog all the good scenery. I know that if I don't get to see vast expanses of water, 360-degree horizons and mountains piercing the sky for at least a week or two of the year, chronic, cumulative claustrophobia sets in. According to evolutionary psychologist Nancy Etcoff, the need for scenery is hard-wired into us. "People like to be on a hill, where they can see a landscape. And they like somewhere to go where they can not be seen themselves," she told Harvard Magazine last year. "That's a place desirable to a predator who wants to avoid becoming prey." We also like to be able to see water (for drinking), low-canopy trees (for shade) and animals (whose presence signals that a place is habitable).
Ultimately, the plutocratic takeover of rural America has a downside for the wealthy too. The more expensive a resort town gets, the farther its workers have to commute to keep it functioning. And if your heart doesn't bleed for the dishwasher or landscaper who commutes two to four hours a day, at least shed a tear for the wealthy vacationer who gets stuck in the ensuing traffic. It's bumper to bumper westbound out of Telluride, Colorado, every day at 5, or eastbound on Route 1 out of Key West, for the Lexuses as well as the beat-up old pickup trucks.
Or a place may simply run out of workers. Monroe County, which includes Key West, has seen more than 2,000 workers leave since the 2000 Census, a loss the Los Angeles Times calls "a body blow to the service-oriented economy of a county with only 75,000 residents and 2.25 million overnight visitors a year." Among those driven out by rents of more than $1,600 for a one-bedroom apartment are many of Key West's wait staff, hotel housekeepers, gardeners, plumbers and handymen. No matter how much money you have, everything takes longer -- from getting a toilet fixed to getting a fish sandwich at Pepe's.
Then there's the elusive element of charm, which quickly drains away in a uniform population of multimillionaires. The Hamptons had their fishermen. Key West still advertises its "characters" -- sun-bleached, weather-beaten misfits who drifted down for the weather or to escape some difficult situation on the mainland. But the fishermen are long gone from the Hamptons and disappearing from Cape Cod. As for Key West's characters -- with the traditional little conch houses once favored by shrimpers flipped into million-dollar second homes, these human sources of local color have to be prepared to sleep with the scorpions under the highway overpass.
In Telluride even a local developer is complaining about the lack of affordable housing. "To have a real town," he told the Financial Times, "Telluride needs some locals hanging out" -- in old-fashioned diners, for example, where you don't have to speak Italian to order a cup of coffee.
When I was a child, I sang "America the Beautiful" and meant it. I was born in the Rocky Mountains and raised, at various times, on the coasts. The Big Sky, the rolling surf, the jagged, snowcapped mountains -- all this seemed to be my birthright. But now I flinch when I hear Woody Guthrie's line "This land was made for you and me." Somehow, I don't think it was meant to be sung by a chorus of hedge-fund operators.
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BJB on Jun 17, 2008 1:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a well-paid federal employee, I have lived, on and off over the years, on the spectacular Monterey Peninsula, where I have worked at the Presidio of Monterey. In recent years, housing has become so expensive in Monterey, Carmel, and Pacific Grove (nicknamed "America's last hometown") that it is out of range for professional or middle class people. Friends of mine, who might be very gregarious, living in some neighborhoods in Carmel or Monterey, find it difficult to meet people in their neighborhoods...because no one really lives there! Many houses are 2nd or 3rd homes, used rarely, or only owned as "investments" by wealthy people living in the Bay Area, LA, or anywhere else.
Carmel, which was originally founded as a funky left-wing, Bohemian town, for artists and "misfits," is now a strangely sterile boutique town of unbelieveably expensive cottages. Unfortunately, this is happening also in lovely Pacific Grove (rapidly becoming a town of renters and not home owners). Even though I make a very good salary I probably can't afford to return to the Monterey area again to live. I re-read Steinbeck's "Cannery Row" last year, when I was still in Monterey. Forget about finding locally colorful characters like "Doc" on the Monterey Peninsula these days. They'd have to live in trailer parks somehwhere in the
Salinas valley now, and even that would be a struggle.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bruce
Posted by: racetoinfinity
Comments are closed-
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Jun 17, 2008 2:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't agree more.
I love this line: "the superrich have become a burden on everyone else." I'm going to use it as a signature with an attibution to you, if you don't mind.
The last two senteces re Woody's great song were wonderful writing, and say it all!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Woody Guthrie's forgotten verse
Posted by: bornxeyed
» This is happening everywhere.
Posted by: wisegalah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: khansahib44 on Jun 17, 2008 3:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Osman
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 17, 2008 3:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One tactic after another has been employed to keep the general public herded into small parts of our national heritage while the few enjoy it's vast beauty.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fosters005 on Jun 17, 2008 3:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The rich fare very well in a "total economic collapse"
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: View wanted? Try being poor in Hawai`i
Posted by: Libsrule
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Jun 17, 2008 3:48 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, it doesn't connect with my experience of the US. It seems that some incredibly beautiful places, such as Southeast Ohio, are off the radar for rich people. Most of Montana is another example. If we consider only waterfront property or ski real estate, then the story has more validity. In some places it's a mixed bag. For example, I went to Canada once to drive across from West to East. At Lake Louise there's a victorian resort, packed with people with more money than sense. The lodge is right across from a gorgeous emerald lake with a glacier coming down to it. Tiring of the social atmosphere, I drove further down the road for an hour or so, and found, right by the side of the road, a picnic table, overlooking... a gorgeous emerald lake with a glacier coming down to it.
All I'm saying is, yes, the environment is being degraded, and yes, rich people are coveting and controlling many beautiful places, but, the earth is a big place, and in fact natural beauty is still one thing that is, for the most part, free. Not in the shanty towns, no. But it doesn't take long to find plenty of counter examples. I, for one, can never understand why rich people seem so attracted to Manhattan and LA, two of the most degraded environments in the US.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're wrong
Posted by: janvdb
» No Jan, You're wrong.....
Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Welll....
Posted by: fork
» RE: Welll.... Barbara Ehrenreich is a just another American fool ...
Posted by: Cathyc
» Read the article again.
Posted by: wisegalah
» I am glad...
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» I'm talking about Everyday Life
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 17, 2008 3:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hey Max, remember this song?
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Hey Max, remember this song?
Posted by: badkitty
» No, but I already understand that one.
Posted by: maxpayne
» You're stupid
Posted by: janvdb
» So, you want to let another Christo/Islamo/Corporatist fundie MUG you?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Jun 17, 2008 4:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billgee on Jun 17, 2008 4:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But whom are you speaking to?
Maybe youre not going far enough.
It aint just the rich
In your own example of the luxury boxes at the good old american ballgame, its the corporations who buy the boxes and shower good little employees with free tickets and food to unwanted games.
Maybe there is no answer to this particular question
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tigana on Jun 17, 2008 4:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And those Chinese own America.
This is an interesting article, but does not begin to touch the real problems Americans will soon wake up to face.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wow.....
Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Wow...Truth hurts..
Posted by: mindtrvlr
» Foreign ownership is a valid topic presenting distinct problems
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 17, 2008 4:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I went walking, I saw a sign there
And on that sign it said "No Trespassing"
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
That side was made for you and me.
Good article. It's happening where I live, not far from Cape Cod, and here the superrich are getting significant help from local officials, who (I hope) mean well but are so short-sighted that they're giving away the farm. If you're lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that includes beautiful places, take a look at property tax policy. In New England, property taxes often account for a larger share of municipal revenues than they do elsewhere. Property taxes are based on the market value of the property -- what you theoretically could sell it for even if you have no intention of selling, even if the property has been in your family for several generations. Superrich sharks with sky's-the-limit budgets grab a beautiful place or two for three or four or ten times more than anyone ever paid in that neighborhood, and presto! everyone else's assessed value -- and property tax -- goes up and up and up. Fighting the assessments takes time, money, and (usually) lawyers. The pressure to sell to one of those superrich sharks gets more and more intense, even if that's the last thing you ever wanted to do, and you're afraid you won't be able to look yourself in the mirror if you do it.
So slowly but inexorably the neighborhood, the area, the whole region changes. Local officials and many townspeople don't catch on till it's way too late. All along they've been seduced by the apparent short-term benefits: if the beautiful places are taxed out the wazoo, then taxes on the not-so-beautiful places can hold steady while the town spends whatever it wants.
Push does have this way of catching up with shove, however. Where I live, everyone's forever bleating about the environment -- water quality is a particularly important issue. So now we're routinely treated to little absurdities: the conservation commission can cite you for pruning a few bushes close to a wetland, and to build an ordinary house you have to jump through all sorts of hoops that are meant to promote responsible growth, but at the same time the beautiful, environmentally fragile places are passing into the hands of the superrich whose sense of stewardship is minimal to nonexistent, and who have the legal clout to beat any restrictions you put in their way.
The brilliant, brilliant thing about our market economy, which sets a price even on the priceless, is the way it seduces so many of us into working against our long-term interests. If you're fighting to hang on to your own home, how much energy do you have to spare for the beautiful places?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This land is whose land?
Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: This land is whose land?
Posted by: mystere2
» RE: This land is whose land?
Posted by: NDK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Farasien on Jun 17, 2008 5:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the beginning, gravity packs this dust and gas into tighter and smaller spaces which causes friction, thus heat. Once the heat gets high enough, fusion sparks off and a star is born. As a star ages, its internal furnaces collapse in on itself, getting denser and hotter until a critial mass is reached. Once it gets to that point, it detonates in a supernova.
In america, and has happened in the past in hisory, we are doing the same thing with money.
As the rich conglomerate more and more in trendy areas, they drive out the locals. At some point, nobody will be able to even travel there for work (what happens when gas gets so expensive only local people -on foot- are able to afford the commute?). At that point, the supernova happens and the rich move out, leaving a place desolate. This has happened before. There are areas in Africa where the nobles of the old english empire had their vacation homes a century or two ago- and now, they are overgrown jungle and have collapsed into 3'd world battlefields.
America is likely going to follow the same pattern.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Infantile (Christian) America is finally ...
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: In astrophysics...
Posted by: logos7
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Jun 17, 2008 5:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Land use = huge huge fights.
The problem is -- there is no good solution.
Land -- you can either save it for the rich or you can let the poor ruin it.
There has to be a middle path. A little of both. Because you can't stop the river of money. Tighter land use law, much touted as a "solution" by the "left," merely effectuates the exclusion of the poor from the land.
The left's solution is actually the hand of the rich, pushing the poor out.
All legal tools -- planning -- are in the hands of county governments. County governments inevitably come under the control of local elites (the poor are busy working), which then pass laws to push out the poor and the middle class.
San Miguel Cty, which contains T-ride, is completely controlled by the local elites, who have utterly failed to force developers to provide affordable housing as a condition of approval for subdivisions and building permits for high-end housing.
The best land for worker housing was sold, instead, to the Nature Conservancy. So, drive!
Ditto Pitkin County, which contains Aspen.
Result: 3 to 4 hours a day on the highways wasting gas, spewing exhaust and ruining homelives for most workers in both towns.
Who cares: No one.
And the process is spreading to less attractive areas of Western Colorado. In my heretofore humble and friendly corner of Western Colorado, increasingly, unless you can afford 40 acres, you are not welcome.
Not welcome by whom? People who just moved here -- but they are seizing control.
Soon, all the natives will be crowded into the towns in trailers, while mansions command a landscape of huge lawns called "hayfields."
It is extremely difficult to prevent the wealthy from taking control of these small governments and they just don't want the workers living in proximity.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You make a good point, but expect to be attacked by Alternet's readers
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: This is the most important political issue in the West
Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: This is NOT!!!!!!the most important political issue in the West
Posted by: Fencerider
» Development impacts global warming - sure is important!
Posted by: carbon-based
» Wake up, Fencerider
Posted by: hagwind
» OK, this is the most important LOCAL issue in the West
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 17, 2008 5:43 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To admire someones Possesions only vindicates their behavior. I see it as a neurosis which should be recognized and professional Treated.It is the outward symptoms of a major Personality disorder which seeks validation through objects- but fails to ever truely satisfy the persons desire for Real self Esteem.They continue to purchase whatever and who ever they can, while pushing out/back any thing that would reflect their own short comings. Like those with actual personal fortitude and a sense of responsiblity.How many of US have worked for someone who rides our asses on their way out to the Golf course.Blames Us for our inability to drive a Hummer -even though they are the ones setting our pay?And claims 'sour Grapes' when we inform them we have no desire to drive a gas guzzling phallic symbol?
but then we go home to kids who are glad to see us- not for the cash in our pockets, but because they need to talk about the fight they had with their Boyfriend- who are the Truely rich and blessed?
so Keep the Aspen Cabins- I'll keep the ever maturing relationship with my daughter as she builds her sense of self from her Accomplishments.Priceless.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Massive broadstroke....
Posted by: Fencerider
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bdcroan on Jun 17, 2008 5:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Boohoo -- did you see the lake homes disappear into the water?
Posted by: bdcroan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara is getting lazy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Groundhog Day" with the super-rich?
Posted by: war_on_tara
» I say.....
Posted by: Fencerider
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, most of the very rich abuse everything they get their hands on. This new gilded age, is but a sad example of the republic that is suppose to be the United States being systematically destroyed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nobody Ever Wrote A Song About Rent Receipts
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 17, 2008 6:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one who feels America belongs to Americans I often have problems with restricted land especially here in the northeast. But it’s hard to deny that beautiful areas are kept beautiful by those rich types buying there.
Seems we are bashing the rich for being rich? Somehow I doubt the author would turn down the lifestyle if she could afford it. If one knows anything about those areas before they became the home of the mega rich, jobs, if you could find them, were low paying. Having family in Grand Junction, I know they flock to these areas on season and make quite a good living.
The down side is I know of two people that grew up in Jackson hole but had to move as they couldn’t afford to live there.
“Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need -- housing, for example.” --- The other way to look at this is the poor farmer in those areas are making a windfall as some dumb Hollywood type decides they can drop a few million for that perfect spot. The local population, after decades of being ignored or suffering through hard times see the gold and understandable take it whether it’s land prices or selling $5 “made in China” goods for $100.
There are still millions of acres of land for sale in beautiful areas.. They are just hundreds of miles from anywhere. It seems what the author finds so endearing about these areas is not only the views but the amenities. Amenities only come if someone will pay for it. Pitch tent in the “boundary waters” area, no amenities, and it doesn’t get any better!
If one spends a lot of time hiking (I do nature photography as a side) you come to realize that Americans are slobs and many don’t belong out side a city where they can throw their garbage anyplace they want!. Maybe the rich are actually preserving the environment for all of us to appreciate?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» AMEN! Get off your butts..
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: AMEN! Just move in to the empty McMansions
Posted by: mindtrvlr
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: sanity
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: sanity
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: carbon-based
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justaperson on Jun 17, 2008 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few people I know down there couldn't afford to eat anymore or pay the rising taxes, so they planned to move to Wilton Manors near Lauderdale which wasn't any place very thrilling before. Now it's obvious Wilton Manors will be gentrified and those older residents will have to move on, and the old housing pecking order grinds on.
Because I like nice views and pleasant environments I've been doomed to be a rent-nomad most of my life, always priced out of my habitat and searching for another. There are places left that people can afford, but as soon as they become known the rich hear about them--and here they come!
I think you should have included pets in your rant toward the rich. It now costs almost $300 to adopt a mongrel from a shelter because they have built fancy new buildings to accomodate their unfortunate tenants. The average person has to struggle to pay that, yet there are millions of dogs and cats euthanized every year because they couldn't fnd "suitable homes" for them. That means a fenced yard which usually is expensive and an interview on a par now with adopting a child.
In some circles you simply have to have a vet dentist, a vet shrink, and even a vet chiropractor, and pet insurance is becoming popular even though the cost is high and the service often unreliable.
If anyone complains, the usual response is," Well if you can't afford a dog don't get one."
No one seems to care that poor people, who once loved and cared for their pets as well as anyone else, are now deprived from owning one or have to consider pet ownership a real luxury because pet costs have gotten out of hand.
The good things in life aren't always puchased with money, but in order to live a champagne life on a hamburger budget these days you have to be an absolute wizard!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Welcome to the new world order. Consider yourself lucky they aren't gassing the poor yet.
Posted by: blogbooks
» Gassing the poor yet?
Posted by: Fencerider
» Ok, ok. Let me bring it back to reality. Also, I meant tear gas.
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: Gassing the poor yet?
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheDreamer on Jun 17, 2008 6:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New England has a lot of natural beauty, from it's sea shores, mountains and forrests, to the multitudes of quaint New England towns steeped in history.
Boston/Cambridge used to be a funky/gritty area, rich in culture and the arts, but since the 80's in it's race to become "world class" it's become just another "desireable" zip code for the filthy rich to claim as their own. Harvard Square is now just another corporate strip mall...hell Harvard the spawning ground for thousands of MBA's with one thing on their mind...money!
I vacationed on the lower Cape since 1970, when Provincetown was a struggling artist colony and fishing village. Where protected dunes stood McMansions have popped up like mushrooms, carrying price tags well into the millions. The rest of the Cape is no exception.
I spent close to 2 years in P-Town until 2 years ago when hundreds of long time residnets were getting evicted due to condo conversions and the wealthy class wanting a more upscale clientel. The lower Cape has become nothing but another Hamptons where the rich can park their luxury water and land yachts.
Other favorite getaways like Western Mass, the lakes and White Mountain region of NH are no different. All of the local color and culture has been driven out my the rich as soon as they find an area "desireable"
I visited a friend some time back who was part of a homesteading group in Western mass, struggling people who got into land collectives, helping each other build cabins and gardens, a self sustaining community. Again monstrous homes with 4-8 car garages began croppings up, raising property values to where many who had staked a claim were driven out due to rising prices.
Not to far from my apartment entire tracts of post WWII small Cape and Ranch style homes have been clear cur and replaced by huge "estate" homes (gated communities for the rich).
I have dealt with too many of teh rich and they honestly feel it is their birth right to own everything and have the best, screw everyone else.
I don't know where all this money is coming from and neither do the growing number of edged out diappearing middle class people I talk to.
God help the rest of us, because these maruaders destroy everything they lay their hands on at the expense of the rest of us.
I'm sure their dream is to have the majority of breathing space for tehmselves while the rest of us languish in planned compact mega gulags.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Poor people never know where all the money comes from
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: where all the money comes from
Posted by: gsmiley
» RE: They destroy everything they touch
Posted by: TheDreamer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jun 17, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lorenbliss on Jun 17, 2008 6:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the common denominator that unites a breathtakingly broad spectrum of U.S. domestic policies -- outsourcing; downsizing; the methodical denial of adequate education, housing, health care and public transport; the socioeconomic cleansing euphemistically called “urban renewal”; even allegedly environmentalist policies such as those imposed by Washington state that turn the wilderness into a private playground for the very rich by limiting back-country access to equestrians only. Every one of these measures help convert North America into a country-club community for the ruling class. The rest of us are either ghettoized or exterminated outright by the deliberate euthanasia of neglect and deprivation.
Our public-transport crisis -- the fact we are the only industrial nation without adequate mass transit -- provides a textbook example of how clandestine gentrification operates. Since the 1930s, the politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties have conspired with the upper-level executives of Big Oil and Big Automotive to force the U.S. into total dependence on the automobile and the internal combustion engine in general. The conspiracy was exposed by a major Congressional investigation during the late 1940s -- something about which the late Jack Anderson wrote extensively during the fuel-crisis years of the 1970s -- but all records of the investigation have apparently since been erased.
No matter; nothing could stop the methodical dismantling of the electrically powered trolley lines and local railroads that, through World War II and immediately afterward, gave the U.S. the finest public transport network on the planet. Even towns as small as Roanoke, Virginia had trolley networks. The Puget Sound area -- a locale ironically now infamous for its bigoted and xenophobic hostility to light rail -- had an electric railroad that linked Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham and was to have been extended south to Olympia when the politicians began destroying the system.
Since then, despite the fact the federal Bonneville project provides Washington state with the second cheapest electricity in the nation, Puget Sounders have been taught to despise light rail as “Manhattanization” -- the ultimate threat to their “Pacific Northwest lifestyle“ -- with all the unspoken ethnic and racial bigotry such characterizations imply. Thus the region’s 40-year history of fanatical opposition to adequate transit: of six light-rail proposals, five were overwhelmingly defeated, and the one that passed did so by the narrowest of margins. The resultant system is about 99 percent buses -- so herky-jerky slow, normal household chores that require four or five hours by automobile may take as long as four or five days by bus -- the horrendous time requirements due to shopping facilities hopelessly scattered by decades of Mad Mall Disease. Meanwhile the influence of Big Oil and Big Automotive is so toxic that, in 1980, a transit official was summarily fired for merely suggesting the electrification of certain bus routes: buses, with their internal engines, are another Big Oil/Big Automotive product.
Now -- with gasoline already nearing $5 per gallon and sure to hit $7 sometime next year -- the gentrification function of runaway fuel prices comes into sharp focus: many people -- I am one -- can no longer afford to operate an automobile but cannot replace car with bus simply because the bus service is too slow and limited. Thus we have no choice but to move somewhere that offers real public transport. The ruling class is already applauding: in a few years they’ll have the Pacific Northwest all to themselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Jun 17, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I don't understand when it comes to the rich, is when is enough, enough. How much of a home does anyone really need. 1000 sq feet, 5,000 sq ft, 20,000 sq ft? How much property does one need to live comfortably? How many homes does a person need?
(I'm thinking one, you?) Why is it that the rich seem to waste more in terms of resources and energy than anyone else? Why, if you are rich, aren't your mansions incredibly energy efficient or solar/wind powered? And why do you need a mansion in the first place? Why do you need a second, third, or fourth home and hundreds of acres or the most prime land to set them on? Do you actually believe that you can derive more happiness from owning those things, as opposed to taking the wealth that you have earned, inherited, or fallen into, and helping someone else less fortunate than yourselves whether that person live in the US or in some 3rd world country? Do you not see or feel the good that you have the potential to offer their local community through donating their money to worthy civic causes and understand how good that would make you feel to accomplish those things?
Although this is in no way a blanket statement as there are some truly generous and kind rich people in this world, but most of the "Rich" people I have encountered are some of the most cold, insensitive, self centered, self serving, isolated, fearful, and insecure folks I have known. They have so much to offer others due to their good fortune in this life without having to sacrifice a good life for themselves or their families, yet they would no sooner do that than jump off the Golden State Bridge. It is just a strange and sad situation, but that is the way it seems to be....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Um, yes, they do get more happiness from spending money on themselves
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: Um, yes, they do get more happiness from spending money on themselves
Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
» infinite need, infinite greed,
Posted by: Forrest
» RE: infinite need, infinite greed,
Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: What I don't understand... Rich -v- Poor = Insanity -v- Sanity
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 17, 2008 7:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As owners (all multi-millionaires), aka extortionists, feel the need to "capture" the skybox revenue, they come looking to the public for handouts to finance the new stadiums.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wireup on Jun 17, 2008 7:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I was deciding where to move, I looked online at various cities.
In NYC I spoke to a few real estate agents on the 'phone. When I told the what I could afford to pay in monthly rent (not a small amount, to me), each one laughed at me and told me that if I couldn't afford at LEAST $1800 a MONTH, to forget it! And what do you get for $1800 a MONTH? An apartment the size of a closet.
I looked at rents and purchase prices of apartments in each city that interested me. And in each case, it was the same. Rents were high. Prices were high. And both continued to escalate.
I wound up moving to the best kept secret in America: Philadelphia, PA.
Bought a 1-bedroom apartment in a wonderful, vibrant, alive, rather progressive city with a great public transportation system so that I could get rid of my car. Haven't driven since. If I WANTED to drive (which I don't), we have a car-rental service which allows one to rent a car by the hour.
Since I moved here I've been keeping my eyes on the local real estate market and what I have seen is an escalation in the prices of both rentals and purchases. In other words, Philadelphia is going the way of all the other cities I looked at. I've seen ads for apartments well over $1 million - just like New York.
There's still affordable housing here, but for how long?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You have good advice about Philadelphia... & consider Scranton
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Consider Buffalo and/or its suburbs
Posted by: Maryanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Forrest on Jun 17, 2008 8:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even as recently as the 1970's in Florida, I remember being able to walk over primary dunes to reach the beach from A1A. not today. In fact, the state had actually moved A1A inland around the private beach resort at Ponte Vedra.
Numerous Florida springs and sinks which anyone could enjoy on a hot summer afternoon in the 1960's and 1970's are now private property restricted to those who can afford to pay the price.
Here in Lafayette Louisiana where we now live, the president of the local university is still engaged in a very shady deal to convert public land into privately owned land- land that would make a great public park in a place where there are so few public spaces. This is just one example of what is happening around the country.
"privatization" is so deeply ingrained in today's America that it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Same thing is happening in Chicago...
Posted by: Farasien
» PRIVITIZATION and the american collective psyche
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alturn on Jun 17, 2008 8:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have another parcel - the last remaining open bayfront property in downtown San Diego. To get around public reuse, the Navy Broadway complex is a "public-private partnership" between the Navy and a well-connected local developer to put up hotels and office towers on this public land.
The only people who will be able to afford the hotel rates and office rents will of course be those on government contracts / expense accounts and the wealthy.
It is happening everywhere. We have to re-exert the imperative for the common good to have priority over self-interest now.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So why didn't you do it?
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Jun 17, 2008 8:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, no mention of the famous Kondratieff Wave, which will eventually hit us like a tsunami in Thailand.
That'll be the equivalent of Leviticus 25's Year of Jubilee.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sean000 on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in the Pacific Northwest where we are fortunate to have quite a lot of park space set aside. There are also public land trusts that use private donations to purchase land that would otherwise be sold to developers, and there are a lot more restrictions placed on sprawl than in some parts of the country. I live in a small city that has in recent years become a highly desirable place to move...especially for retirees. Even though sprawl is curtailed, the new infill is mostly in the form of luxury condos. It's a city with a lot of working class people in a very scenic spot on Puget Sound. There are many places where the public can enjoy the scenery, but they seem small compared to the vast stretches of private land. The areas where low to middle income people can afford to live are shrinking dramatically. Still, there at least seems to be more awareness regarding these issues than I've encountered in other places I've lived.
Nearby British Columbia is very similar, but something struck me about Vancouver. We once went for a walk in a very ritzy Vancouver neighborhood with multi-million dollar homes overlooking the water. Every block there was a small public park with benches and access to a stretch of public beach. Even though much of the beach front belonged to residents, we did not see any private property signs. Nor did the residents look down on us as we walked through their exclusive neighborhood. In fact they were very courteous, and one couple even gave us some suggestions for finding nice views along our "urban hike." It was obvious that we did not live there, but we felt welcomed. All we kept thinking was that this would never happen in an exclusive American neighborhood. Wealthy Americans are far more suspicious and don't like mingling with the riff-raff. They'd rather cut down trees and build gated communities around golf courses.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
H.G. Wells wrote about the ultimate result of gentrification in "The Time Machine." Looks like the Eloi and the Morlocks might not be so far off the mark. But who wants to wait nearly a million years to eat the rich?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magistre on Jun 17, 2008 10:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well Said Bro
Posted by: mindtrvlr
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jun 17, 2008 10:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ihugtrees on Jun 17, 2008 11:04 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Go to the Wilderness
Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: Go to the Wilderness,HUH ?
Posted by: mindtrvlr
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phatkhat on Jun 17, 2008 11:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it is still MUCH less expensive here, and still beautiful and still wild. I suppose the "gentry" will find us, though, and it will get harder to afford.
Thankfully, though, our SALES tax is horrendous and property taxes are very low. Puts the burden where it belongs - on those who consume. (There's a break on taxes on food.)
If you want beauty, authenticity, and a reasonable cost of living, y'all come. If you want a gated community, go to Hell. ;-)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's the same everywhere.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: It's the same everywhere.
Posted by: scryberwitch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lutragrrl on Jun 17, 2008 12:50 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is just not true that the high price of some art causes museums to charge more admission than in the past. If you want to buy good quality art at a decent price, it is really not difficult to do so. There are many, many high quality artists who can not get good money for their work. And as a former art critic for Art In America and other publications, I promise you I know what I am talking about here. No, money is no obstacle to purchasing some nice art. However, if you want blue chip art of a very certain pedigree, than yes, you need money and more - connections - to purchase that work. However, regardless of the putative availablity of quality art, museums are unaffected in terms of day to day operating costs by whatever may occur at auction. There is an elision here that is just - pardon me, B - sloppy.
Operating costs for public institutions, eliminated by the wholesale privatization of the public sector by Reagonomics and beyond, is what is at root for many of the problems pointed to in this article. If the public actually had monies to spend on public good - infrastructure, health care, mandatory daycare, eldercare, and yes, environmental beauty, all of which it did within recent memory, then we would have a better and more just society. This is not just the fault of the rich, however appealing that line of thinking may be.
Public policy is in our control to at least some degree, after all. Go vote! Read a newspaper! Improve your vocabulary and give a damn! Take positive action. It's not just a lost cause and Ehrenreich should know better than to promote such a simple, reductive classist argument when the real stakes are so much higher than that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Jun 17, 2008 1:32 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stop having babies
Posted by: goldenta
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Jun 17, 2008 1:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be this arts festival with misfits and freaks and wild, ultra-creative types. Now, thanks to tickets costing around $210 if you get them months in advance, and $295 if you get them now, it's become this playground for yuppies and the super-rich, just like Manhattan.
You can apply for a "low-income" ticket, which is about $140.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Vince on Jun 17, 2008 2:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the super rich have taken over the macros: the mountain, the lake, the seashore, the river.
And who is not to say these are all beautiful and to be enjoyed be all.
Have we been brain washed to believe that the macro destinations are the only places where we can recreate? Travel logs, magazines, TV? Antarctica is beautiful and wonderous. Lets go there. There are not enough beautiful places within the United States. So, we have to visit a foreign country.
With only the high price of fuel we, the unsuper rich, may have to stay closer to home and to come to appreciate that there is much beauty and enjoyment right close to home. The back yard. The street we live on. Our own current home town are all wonderful places. There is plenty of enjoyment and fulfillment to be had. It is who you are with and not who you go to be near. And, if you want adventure, there is a lifetime of unexplored nitches right in the county you live in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TERRIROBSON on Jun 17, 2008 3:18 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: museonit on Jun 17, 2008 4:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: verything for the Rich
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Some fight but look at their adversary.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Some fight but look at their adversary.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jhc335 on Jun 17, 2008 8:04 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldenta on Jun 17, 2008 8:10 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Control over humans still exist today that is why you are able to make such a comment with ease:~( Live and let live!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honestly, all this could be solved if people were only allowed up to one primary residence per person. Any other homes need to be occupied (by a tenant, family, or housekeeper) and declared as inhabited. This would instantly solve the housing crisis for low-wage employees, lack of affordable housing, and over development of natural habitats.
In compromise, privately held properties zoned as conservation easements should have reduced or NO TAXES. It's ridiculous to tax someone the same amount for property they cant freely develop.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenocyd on Jun 17, 2008 10:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But where do I read an article written by someone poor who is lambasting the middle-class above them for doing this same thing to the land that wasn't quite good enough for the upper-class?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mombot on Jun 18, 2008 9:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mr. joshua on Jun 18, 2008 12:28 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, I'm sitting in my office right now, looking out a second-story window at Tom McCall Waterfront Park, which runs along the river for over a mile -- right in downtown Portland. Don't mean to sound smug; just reflecting on how lucky I am to have been born here, and how wise to have stayed. ;)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm soooo spoiled
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: I'm soooo spoiled
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jun 18, 2008 8:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow we were duped by the trickle down, supply sider devils who said we too would be rich if we'd just let them have all of the money. Well, the emperor has no clothes and now you can see it just made us all broke. And look who wins.
I miss the seventies alot...when we had hope, not gross income inequality...when we had morals (ask not what you can do for your country and so on...)...instead what we have is the most egregious selfishness promulgated by the "frat house"....just run everything up in price for the investors...let the corporations rule our lives and forget about having an enjoyable, ordinary life. That's what I miss and that's what was taken from us. Let's hope we can get it back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stellabloo on Jun 19, 2008 8:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to live and work in Whistler, before moving to another developing resort area. From my naive backwoods POV, Whistler seemed like a veritable Sodom or Gomorrah, but hey, they offered me a job so I went.
Now Whistler is REALLY located in a giant clearcut, which used to be more obvious in the 80's before the scrubby balsam took over. Basically I have watched the GOVERNMENT rape and pillage the province over my lifetime and the Squamish-Pemberton forestry-based area was no exception!
So then we had these superrich people flying into Whistler in their private planes and helicopters, flying over the Pemberton icecap and the Upper Elaho, going "wow, look at all this beautiful scenery threatened by all those icky clearcuts - we MUST do something!"
And because of those treehugging rich people (and finally some major First Nations protests) the last tattered remnants of the 3000 yr old rainforest slated for clearcutting have been set aside (however temporarily).
There is talk of a new mega ski resort going into my area - I say GOOD - the GOVERNMENT has slated every last tree in this province for logging (this is not a public fact - this is out of the foresters' manual!) unless nailed down in a park or private property. We need some nature-loving superrich to embrace our remaining wilderness, the ones we have right now just want to drive their SUVs to the golf course :(
BTW we could prob both get decent jobs in the city - but just can't bring ourselves to go there. Our house is a shack, the truck has 400 000 km on it - but REALLY we don't care!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amiabledave on Jun 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kicked out of school at age 15 and mostly self-educated -- at least enough to become a field engineer and, later, a free-lance technical/promotional writer for many top firms, I've managed to enjoy lots of freedom and scenic beauty because of my occupational choice and non-materialistic philosphy. Never owning a home I've managed to live and play in awesomely beautiful places on both coasts and many places in between. I now live in Las Vegas, but I've spent many years in places like San Diego, Glendale, and Huntington Beach. As a cyclist (bicyles and motorcycles), I've spent many an hour tooling round the towering heights of Mt. Wilson and the Griffith Observatory. Living on the beach in San Diego, Clearwater, Palm Beach, and Ft. Lauderdale was exhilarating.
I'm not sure about any equivalency between money and happiness. At least I've not witnessed it -- quite the opposite!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kelli's Mom on Jun 20, 2008 7:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was born in San Francisco, but raised in Marin County. I moved to Austin, Texas 5 years ago b/c my husband took a job here. We also needed a change of scenery as I felt increasingly suffocated by the atmosphere in Marin County. We are a middle-class couple, both raised by lower-class, single working mothers. I loved growing up in Mill Valley and have many fond and lovely memories of that time in the early to late-'70s.
However, we noticed a disturbing shift in the late '90s when it seemed people were less tolerant (we are non-whites) and more focused on money. My husband kept being mistaken for the gardner at our condo complex!
When a job possibility came available to move to Austin, we jumped at it. What a contrast. Most people are middle-class like us, there isn't a significant divide between our neighbors and us, even though we live in a pretty nice neighborhood. There is a nice harmony to this. There isn't the "Keeping up with the Jones" syndrome here. People are more thrift conscious and much less status oriented. When I go back to the B.A. for a visit, the tension is noticeable and palpable between the "Haves" and "Have Nots".
I really miss some things about the Bay Area, mostly the natural beauty and the cutting edge politics but I sure don't miss the Rat Race element!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BJB on Jun 17, 2008 1:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a well-paid federal employee, I have lived, on and off over the years, on the spectacular Monterey Peninsula, where I have worked at the Presidio of Monterey. In recent years, housing has become so expensive in Monterey, Carmel, and Pacific Grove (nicknamed "America's last hometown") that it is out of range for professional or middle class people. Friends of mine, who might be very gregarious, living in some neighborhoods in Carmel or Monterey, find it difficult to meet people in their neighborhoods...because no one really lives there! Many houses are 2nd or 3rd homes, used rarely, or only owned as "investments" by wealthy people living in the Bay Area, LA, or anywhere else.
Carmel, which was originally founded as a funky left-wing, Bohemian town, for artists and "misfits," is now a strangely sterile boutique town of unbelieveably expensive cottages. Unfortunately, this is happening also in lovely Pacific Grove (rapidly becoming a town of renters and not home owners). Even though I make a very good salary I probably can't afford to return to the Monterey area again to live. I re-read Steinbeck's "Cannery Row" last year, when I was still in Monterey. Forget about finding locally colorful characters like "Doc" on the Monterey Peninsula these days. They'd have to live in trailer parks somehwhere in the
Salinas valley now, and even that would be a struggle.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bruce
Posted by: racetoinfinity
Comments are closed-
Posted by: racetoinfinity on Jun 17, 2008 2:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I couldn't agree more.
I love this line: "the superrich have become a burden on everyone else." I'm going to use it as a signature with an attibution to you, if you don't mind.
The last two senteces re Woody's great song were wonderful writing, and say it all!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Woody Guthrie's forgotten verse
Posted by: bornxeyed
» This is happening everywhere.
Posted by: wisegalah
Comments are closed-
Posted by: khansahib44 on Jun 17, 2008 3:01 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Osman
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Jun 17, 2008 3:03 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One tactic after another has been employed to keep the general public herded into small parts of our national heritage while the few enjoy it's vast beauty.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fosters005 on Jun 17, 2008 3:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The rich fare very well in a "total economic collapse"
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: View wanted? Try being poor in Hawai`i
Posted by: Libsrule
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Jun 17, 2008 3:48 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, it doesn't connect with my experience of the US. It seems that some incredibly beautiful places, such as Southeast Ohio, are off the radar for rich people. Most of Montana is another example. If we consider only waterfront property or ski real estate, then the story has more validity. In some places it's a mixed bag. For example, I went to Canada once to drive across from West to East. At Lake Louise there's a victorian resort, packed with people with more money than sense. The lodge is right across from a gorgeous emerald lake with a glacier coming down to it. Tiring of the social atmosphere, I drove further down the road for an hour or so, and found, right by the side of the road, a picnic table, overlooking... a gorgeous emerald lake with a glacier coming down to it.
All I'm saying is, yes, the environment is being degraded, and yes, rich people are coveting and controlling many beautiful places, but, the earth is a big place, and in fact natural beauty is still one thing that is, for the most part, free. Not in the shanty towns, no. But it doesn't take long to find plenty of counter examples. I, for one, can never understand why rich people seem so attracted to Manhattan and LA, two of the most degraded environments in the US.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You're wrong
Posted by: janvdb
» No Jan, You're wrong.....
Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Welll....
Posted by: fork
» RE: Welll.... Barbara Ehrenreich is a just another American fool ...
Posted by: Cathyc
» Read the article again.
Posted by: wisegalah
» I am glad...
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» I'm talking about Everyday Life
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 17, 2008 3:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hey Max, remember this song?
Posted by: kegbot1
» RE: Hey Max, remember this song?
Posted by: badkitty
» No, but I already understand that one.
Posted by: maxpayne
» You're stupid
Posted by: janvdb
» So, you want to let another Christo/Islamo/Corporatist fundie MUG you?
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: beautifulady2003 on Jun 17, 2008 4:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: billgee on Jun 17, 2008 4:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But whom are you speaking to?
Maybe youre not going far enough.
It aint just the rich
In your own example of the luxury boxes at the good old american ballgame, its the corporations who buy the boxes and shower good little employees with free tickets and food to unwanted games.
Maybe there is no answer to this particular question
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tigana on Jun 17, 2008 4:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And those Chinese own America.
This is an interesting article, but does not begin to touch the real problems Americans will soon wake up to face.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Wow.....
Posted by: Fencerider
» RE: Wow...Truth hurts..
Posted by: mindtrvlr
» Foreign ownership is a valid topic presenting distinct problems
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 17, 2008 4:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I went walking, I saw a sign there
And on that sign it said "No Trespassing"
But on the other side it didn't say nothing
That side was made for you and me.
Good article. It's happening where I live, not far from Cape Cod, and here the superrich are getting significant help from local officials, who (I hope) mean well but are so short-sighted that they're giving away the farm. If you're lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that includes beautiful places, take a look at property tax policy. In New England, property taxes often account for a larger share of municipal revenues than they do elsewhere. Property taxes are based on the market value of the property -- what you theoretically could sell it for even if you have no intention of selling, even if the property has been in your family for several generations. Superrich sharks with sky's-the-limit budgets grab a beautiful place or two for three or four or ten times more than anyone ever paid in that neighborhood, and presto! everyone else's assessed value -- and property tax -- goes up and up and up. Fighting the assessments takes time, money, and (usually) lawyers. The pressure to sell to one of those superrich sharks gets more and more intense, even if that's the last thing you ever wanted to do, and you're afraid you won't be able to look yourself in the mirror if you do it.
So slowly but inexorably the neighborhood, the area, the whole region changes. Local officials and many townspeople don't catch on till it's way too late. All along they've been seduced by the apparent short-term benefits: if the beautiful places are taxed out the wazoo, then taxes on the not-so-beautiful places can hold steady while the town spends whatever it wants.
Push does have this way of catching up with shove, however. Where I live, everyone's forever bleating about the environment -- water quality is a particularly important issue. So now we're routinely treated to little absurdities: the conservation commission can cite you for pruning a few bushes close to a wetland, and to build an ordinary house you have to jump through all sorts of hoops that are meant to promote responsible growth, but at the same time the beautiful, environmentally fragile places are passing into the hands of the superrich whose sense of stewardship is minimal to nonexistent, and who have the legal clout to beat any restrictions you put in their way.
The brilliant, brilliant thing about our market economy, which sets a price even on the priceless, is the way it seduces so many of us into working against our long-term interests. If you're fighting to hang on to your own home, how much energy do you have to spare for the beautiful places?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This land is whose land?
Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: This land is whose land?
Posted by: mystere2
» RE: This land is whose land?
Posted by: NDK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Farasien on Jun 17, 2008 5:36 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the beginning, gravity packs this dust and gas into tighter and smaller spaces which causes friction, thus heat. Once the heat gets high enough, fusion sparks off and a star is born. As a star ages, its internal furnaces collapse in on itself, getting denser and hotter until a critial mass is reached. Once it gets to that point, it detonates in a supernova.
In america, and has happened in the past in hisory, we are doing the same thing with money.
As the rich conglomerate more and more in trendy areas, they drive out the locals. At some point, nobody will be able to even travel there for work (what happens when gas gets so expensive only local people -on foot- are able to afford the commute?). At that point, the supernova happens and the rich move out, leaving a place desolate. This has happened before. There are areas in Africa where the nobles of the old english empire had their vacation homes a century or two ago- and now, they are overgrown jungle and have collapsed into 3'd world battlefields.
America is likely going to follow the same pattern.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Infantile (Christian) America is finally ...
Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: In astrophysics...
Posted by: logos7
Comments are closed-
Posted by: janvdb on Jun 17, 2008 5:40 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Land use = huge huge fights.
The problem is -- there is no good solution.
Land -- you can either save it for the rich or you can let the poor ruin it.
There has to be a middle path. A little of both. Because you can't stop the river of money. Tighter land use law, much touted as a "solution" by the "left," merely effectuates the exclusion of the poor from the land.
The left's solution is actually the hand of the rich, pushing the poor out.
All legal tools -- planning -- are in the hands of county governments. County governments inevitably come under the control of local elites (the poor are busy working), which then pass laws to push out the poor and the middle class.
San Miguel Cty, which contains T-ride, is completely controlled by the local elites, who have utterly failed to force developers to provide affordable housing as a condition of approval for subdivisions and building permits for high-end housing.
The best land for worker housing was sold, instead, to the Nature Conservancy. So, drive!
Ditto Pitkin County, which contains Aspen.
Result: 3 to 4 hours a day on the highways wasting gas, spewing exhaust and ruining homelives for most workers in both towns.
Who cares: No one.
And the process is spreading to less attractive areas of Western Colorado. In my heretofore humble and friendly corner of Western Colorado, increasingly, unless you can afford 40 acres, you are not welcome.
Not welcome by whom? People who just moved here -- but they are seizing control.
Soon, all the natives will be crowded into the towns in trailers, while mansions command a landscape of huge lawns called "hayfields."
It is extremely difficult to prevent the wealthy from taking control of these small governments and they just don't want the workers living in proximity.
Jan VanDenBerg
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You make a good point, but expect to be attacked by Alternet's readers
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: This is the most important political issue in the West
Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: This is NOT!!!!!!the most important political issue in the West
Posted by: Fencerider
» Development impacts global warming - sure is important!
Posted by: carbon-based
» Wake up, Fencerider
Posted by: hagwind
» OK, this is the most important LOCAL issue in the West
Posted by: janvdb
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jun 17, 2008 5:43 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To admire someones Possesions only vindicates their behavior. I see it as a neurosis which should be recognized and professional Treated.It is the outward symptoms of a major Personality disorder which seeks validation through objects- but fails to ever truely satisfy the persons desire for Real self Esteem.They continue to purchase whatever and who ever they can, while pushing out/back any thing that would reflect their own short comings. Like those with actual personal fortitude and a sense of responsiblity.How many of US have worked for someone who rides our asses on their way out to the Golf course.Blames Us for our inability to drive a Hummer -even though they are the ones setting our pay?And claims 'sour Grapes' when we inform them we have no desire to drive a gas guzzling phallic symbol?
but then we go home to kids who are glad to see us- not for the cash in our pockets, but because they need to talk about the fight they had with their Boyfriend- who are the Truely rich and blessed?
so Keep the Aspen Cabins- I'll keep the ever maturing relationship with my daughter as she builds her sense of self from her Accomplishments.Priceless.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Massive broadstroke....
Posted by: Fencerider
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bdcroan on Jun 17, 2008 5:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Boohoo -- did you see the lake homes disappear into the water?
Posted by: bdcroan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Barbara is getting lazy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "Groundhog Day" with the super-rich?
Posted by: war_on_tara
» I say.....
Posted by: Fencerider
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thebeerdoctor on Jun 17, 2008 6:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, most of the very rich abuse everything they get their hands on. This new gilded age, is but a sad example of the republic that is suppose to be the United States being systematically destroyed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Nobody Ever Wrote A Song About Rent Receipts
Posted by: hagwind
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carbon-based on Jun 17, 2008 6:10 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one who feels America belongs to Americans I often have problems with restricted land especially here in the northeast. But it’s hard to deny that beautiful areas are kept beautiful by those rich types buying there.
Seems we are bashing the rich for being rich? Somehow I doubt the author would turn down the lifestyle if she could afford it. If one knows anything about those areas before they became the home of the mega rich, jobs, if you could find them, were low paying. Having family in Grand Junction, I know they flock to these areas on season and make quite a good living.
The down side is I know of two people that grew up in Jackson hole but had to move as they couldn’t afford to live there.
“Once they've made (or inherited) their fortunes, the rich can bid up the price of goods that ordinary people also need -- housing, for example.” --- The other way to look at this is the poor farmer in those areas are making a windfall as some dumb Hollywood type decides they can drop a few million for that perfect spot. The local population, after decades of being ignored or suffering through hard times see the gold and understandable take it whether it’s land prices or selling $5 “made in China” goods for $100.
There are still millions of acres of land for sale in beautiful areas.. They are just hundreds of miles from anywhere. It seems what the author finds so endearing about these areas is not only the views but the amenities. Amenities only come if someone will pay for it. Pitch tent in the “boundary waters” area, no amenities, and it doesn’t get any better!
If one spends a lot of time hiking (I do nature photography as a side) you come to realize that Americans are slobs and many don’t belong out side a city where they can throw their garbage anyplace they want!. Maybe the rich are actually preserving the environment for all of us to appreciate?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» AMEN! Get off your butts..
Posted by: edgeofnowhere
» RE: AMEN! Just move in to the empty McMansions
Posted by: mindtrvlr
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: sanity
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: sanity
» RE: America the beautiful
Posted by: carbon-based
Comments are closed-
Posted by: justaperson on Jun 17, 2008 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few people I know down there couldn't afford to eat anymore or pay the rising taxes, so they planned to move to Wilton Manors near Lauderdale which wasn't any place very thrilling before. Now it's obvious Wilton Manors will be gentrified and those older residents will have to move on, and the old housing pecking order grinds on.
Because I like nice views and pleasant environments I've been doomed to be a rent-nomad most of my life, always priced out of my habitat and searching for another. There are places left that people can afford, but as soon as they become known the rich hear about them--and here they come!
I think you should have included pets in your rant toward the rich. It now costs almost $300 to adopt a mongrel from a shelter because they have built fancy new buildings to accomodate their unfortunate tenants. The average person has to struggle to pay that, yet there are millions of dogs and cats euthanized every year because they couldn't fnd "suitable homes" for them. That means a fenced yard which usually is expensive and an interview on a par now with adopting a child.
In some circles you simply have to have a vet dentist, a vet shrink, and even a vet chiropractor, and pet insurance is becoming popular even though the cost is high and the service often unreliable.
If anyone complains, the usual response is," Well if you can't afford a dog don't get one."
No one seems to care that poor people, who once loved and cared for their pets as well as anyone else, are now deprived from owning one or have to consider pet ownership a real luxury because pet costs have gotten out of hand.
The good things in life aren't always puchased with money, but in order to live a champagne life on a hamburger budget these days you have to be an absolute wizard!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Welcome to the new world order. Consider yourself lucky they aren't gassing the poor yet.
Posted by: blogbooks
» Gassing the poor yet?
Posted by: Fencerider
» Ok, ok. Let me bring it back to reality. Also, I meant tear gas.
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: Gassing the poor yet?
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheDreamer on Jun 17, 2008 6:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New England has a lot of natural beauty, from it's sea shores, mountains and forrests, to the multitudes of quaint New England towns steeped in history.
Boston/Cambridge used to be a funky/gritty area, rich in culture and the arts, but since the 80's in it's race to become "world class" it's become just another "desireable" zip code for the filthy rich to claim as their own. Harvard Square is now just another corporate strip mall...hell Harvard the spawning ground for thousands of MBA's with one thing on their mind...money!
I vacationed on the lower Cape since 1970, when Provincetown was a struggling artist colony and fishing village. Where protected dunes stood McMansions have popped up like mushrooms, carrying price tags well into the millions. The rest of the Cape is no exception.
I spent close to 2 years in P-Town until 2 years ago when hundreds of long time residnets were getting evicted due to condo conversions and the wealthy class wanting a more upscale clientel. The lower Cape has become nothing but another Hamptons where the rich can park their luxury water and land yachts.
Other favorite getaways like Western Mass, the lakes and White Mountain region of NH are no different. All of the local color and culture has been driven out my the rich as soon as they find an area "desireable"
I visited a friend some time back who was part of a homesteading group in Western mass, struggling people who got into land collectives, helping each other build cabins and gardens, a self sustaining community. Again monstrous homes with 4-8 car garages began croppings up, raising property values to where many who had staked a claim were driven out due to rising prices.
Not to far from my apartment entire tracts of post WWII small Cape and Ranch style homes have been clear cur and replaced by huge "estate" homes (gated communities for the rich).
I have dealt with too many of teh rich and they honestly feel it is their birth right to own everything and have the best, screw everyone else.
I don't know where all this money is coming from and neither do the growing number of edged out diappearing middle class people I talk to.
God help the rest of us, because these maruaders destroy everything they lay their hands on at the expense of the rest of us.
I'm sure their dream is to have the majority of breathing space for tehmselves while the rest of us languish in planned compact mega gulags.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Poor people never know where all the money comes from
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: where all the money comes from
Posted by: gsmiley
» RE: They destroy everything they touch
Posted by: TheDreamer
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Jun 17, 2008 6:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lorenbliss on Jun 17, 2008 6:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the common denominator that unites a breathtakingly broad spectrum of U.S. domestic policies -- outsourcing; downsizing; the methodical denial of adequate education, housing, health care and public transport; the socioeconomic cleansing euphemistically called “urban renewal”; even allegedly environmentalist policies such as those imposed by Washington state that turn the wilderness into a private playground for the very rich by limiting back-country access to equestrians only. Every one of these measures help convert North America into a country-club community for the ruling class. The rest of us are either ghettoized or exterminated outright by the deliberate euthanasia of neglect and deprivation.
Our public-transport crisis -- the fact we are the only industrial nation without adequate mass transit -- provides a textbook example of how clandestine gentrification operates. Since the 1930s, the politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties have conspired with the upper-level executives of Big Oil and Big Automotive to force the U.S. into total dependence on the automobile and the internal combustion engine in general. The conspiracy was exposed by a major Congressional investigation during the late 1940s -- something about which the late Jack Anderson wrote extensively during the fuel-crisis years of the 1970s -- but all records of the investigation have apparently since been erased.
No matter; nothing could stop the methodical dismantling of the electrically powered trolley lines and local railroads that, through World War II and immediately afterward, gave the U.S. the finest public transport network on the planet. Even towns as small as Roanoke, Virginia had trolley networks. The Puget Sound area -- a locale ironically now infamous for its bigoted and xenophobic hostility to light rail -- had an electric railroad that linked Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham and was to have been extended south to Olympia when the politicians began destroying the system.
Since then, despite the fact the federal Bonneville project provides Washington state with the second cheapest electricity in the nation, Puget Sounders have been taught to despise light rail as “Manhattanization” -- the ultimate threat to their “Pacific Northwest lifestyle“ -- with all the unspoken ethnic and racial bigotry such characterizations imply. Thus the region’s 40-year history of fanatical opposition to adequate transit: of six light-rail proposals, five were overwhelmingly defeated, and the one that passed did so by the narrowest of margins. The resultant system is about 99 percent buses -- so herky-jerky slow, normal household chores that require four or five hours by automobile may take as long as four or five days by bus -- the horrendous time requirements due to shopping facilities hopelessly scattered by decades of Mad Mall Disease. Meanwhile the influence of Big Oil and Big Automotive is so toxic that, in 1980, a transit official was summarily fired for merely suggesting the electrification of certain bus routes: buses, with their internal engines, are another Big Oil/Big Automotive product.
Now -- with gasoline already nearing $5 per gallon and sure to hit $7 sometime next year -- the gentrification function of runaway fuel prices comes into sharp focus: many people -- I am one -- can no longer afford to operate an automobile but cannot replace car with bus simply because the bus service is too slow and limited. Thus we have no choice but to move somewhere that offers real public transport. The ruling class is already applauding: in a few years they’ll have the Pacific Northwest all to themselves.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Tim Chadron on Jun 17, 2008 7:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I don't understand when it comes to the rich, is when is enough, enough. How much of a home does anyone really need. 1000 sq feet, 5,000 sq ft, 20,000 sq ft? How much property does one need to live comfortably? How many homes does a person need?
(I'm thinking one, you?) Why is it that the rich seem to waste more in terms of resources and energy than anyone else? Why, if you are rich, aren't your mansions incredibly energy efficient or solar/wind powered? And why do you need a mansion in the first place? Why do you need a second, third, or fourth home and hundreds of acres or the most prime land to set them on? Do you actually believe that you can derive more happiness from owning those things, as opposed to taking the wealth that you have earned, inherited, or fallen into, and helping someone else less fortunate than yourselves whether that person live in the US or in some 3rd world country? Do you not see or feel the good that you have the potential to offer their local community through donating their money to worthy civic causes and understand how good that would make you feel to accomplish those things?
Although this is in no way a blanket statement as there are some truly generous and kind rich people in this world, but most of the "Rich" people I have encountered are some of the most cold, insensitive, self centered, self serving, isolated, fearful, and insecure folks I have known. They have so much to offer others due to their good fortune in this life without having to sacrifice a good life for themselves or their families, yet they would no sooner do that than jump off the Golden State Bridge. It is just a strange and sad situation, but that is the way it seems to be....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Um, yes, they do get more happiness from spending money on themselves
Posted by: blogbooks
» RE: Um, yes, they do get more happiness from spending money on themselves
Posted by: Outsidetheboxlookingin
» infinite need, infinite greed,
Posted by: Forrest
» RE: infinite need, infinite greed,
Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: What I don't understand... Rich -v- Poor = Insanity -v- Sanity
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chaoslegs on Jun 17, 2008 7:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As owners (all multi-millionaires), aka extortionists, feel the need to "capture" the skybox revenue, they come looking to the public for handouts to finance the new stadiums.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wireup on Jun 17, 2008 7:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I was deciding where to move, I looked online at various cities.
In NYC I spoke to a few real estate agents on the 'phone. When I told the what I could afford to pay in monthly rent (not a small amount, to me), each one laughed at me and told me that if I couldn't afford at LEAST $1800 a MONTH, to forget it! And what do you get for $1800 a MONTH? An apartment the size of a closet.
I looked at rents and purchase prices of apartments in each city that interested me. And in each case, it was the same. Rents were high. Prices were high. And both continued to escalate.
I wound up moving to the best kept secret in America: Philadelphia, PA.
Bought a 1-bedroom apartment in a wonderful, vibrant, alive, rather progressive city with a great public transportation system so that I could get rid of my car. Haven't driven since. If I WANTED to drive (which I don't), we have a car-rental service which allows one to rent a car by the hour.
Since I moved here I've been keeping my eyes on the local real estate market and what I have seen is an escalation in the prices of both rentals and purchases. In other words, Philadelphia is going the way of all the other cities I looked at. I've seen ads for apartments well over $1 million - just like New York.
There's still affordable housing here, but for how long?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You have good advice about Philadelphia... & consider Scranton
Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: Consider Buffalo and/or its suburbs
Posted by: Maryanne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Forrest on Jun 17, 2008 8:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even as recently as the 1970's in Florida, I remember being able to walk over primary dunes to reach the beach from A1A. not today. In fact, the state had actually moved A1A inland around the private beach resort at Ponte Vedra.
Numerous Florida springs and sinks which anyone could enjoy on a hot summer afternoon in the 1960's and 1970's are now private property restricted to those who can afford to pay the price.
Here in Lafayette Louisiana where we now live, the president of the local university is still engaged in a very shady deal to convert public land into privately owned land- land that would make a great public park in a place where there are so few public spaces. This is just one example of what is happening around the country.
"privatization" is so deeply ingrained in today's America that it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Same thing is happening in Chicago...
Posted by: Farasien
» PRIVITIZATION and the american collective psyche
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alturn on Jun 17, 2008 8:28 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have another parcel - the last remaining open bayfront property in downtown San Diego. To get around public reuse, the Navy Broadway complex is a "public-private partnership" between the Navy and a well-connected local developer to put up hotels and office towers on this public land.
The only people who will be able to afford the hotel rates and office rents will of course be those on government contracts / expense accounts and the wealthy.
It is happening everywhere. We have to re-exert the imperative for the common good to have priority over self-interest now.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» So why didn't you do it?
Posted by: suprmark
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Jun 17, 2008 8:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, no mention of the famous Kondratieff Wave, which will eventually hit us like a tsunami in Thailand.
That'll be the equivalent of Leviticus 25's Year of Jubilee.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sean000 on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in the Pacific Northwest where we are fortunate to have quite a lot of park space set aside. There are also public land trusts that use private donations to purchase land that would otherwise be sold to developers, and there are a lot more restrictions placed on sprawl than in some parts of the country. I live in a small city that has in recent years become a highly desirable place to move...especially for retirees. Even though sprawl is curtailed, the new infill is mostly in the form of luxury condos. It's a city with a lot of working class people in a very scenic spot on Puget Sound. There are many places where the public can enjoy the scenery, but they seem small compared to the vast stretches of private land. The areas where low to middle income people can afford to live are shrinking dramatically. Still, there at least seems to be more awareness regarding these issues than I've encountered in other places I've lived.
Nearby British Columbia is very similar, but something struck me about Vancouver. We once went for a walk in a very ritzy Vancouver neighborhood with multi-million dollar homes overlooking the water. Every block there was a small public park with benches and access to a stretch of public beach. Even though much of the beach front belonged to residents, we did not see any private property signs. Nor did the residents look down on us as we walked through their exclusive neighborhood. In fact they were very courteous, and one couple even gave us some suggestions for finding nice views along our "urban hike." It was obvious that we did not live there, but we felt welcomed. All we kept thinking was that this would never happen in an exclusive American neighborhood. Wealthy Americans are far more suspicious and don't like mingling with the riff-raff. They'd rather cut down trees and build gated communities around golf courses.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Jun 17, 2008 9:09 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
H.G. Wells wrote about the ultimate result of gentrification in "The Time Machine." Looks like the Eloi and the Morlocks might not be so far off the mark. But who wants to wait nearly a million years to eat the rich?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: magistre on Jun 17, 2008 10:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Well Said Bro
Posted by: mindtrvlr
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Jun 17, 2008 10:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ihugtrees on Jun 17, 2008 11:04 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Go to the Wilderness
Posted by: bdcroan
» RE: Go to the Wilderness,HUH ?
Posted by: mindtrvlr
Comments are closed-
Posted by: phatkhat on Jun 17, 2008 11:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it is still MUCH less expensive here, and still beautiful and still wild. I suppose the "gentry" will find us, though, and it will get harder to afford.
Thankfully, though, our SALES tax is horrendous and property taxes are very low. Puts the burden where it belongs - on those who consume. (There's a break on taxes on food.)
If you want beauty, authenticity, and a reasonable cost of living, y'all come. If you want a gated community, go to Hell. ;-)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's the same everywhere.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: It's the same everywhere.
Posted by: scryberwitch
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lutragrrl on Jun 17, 2008 12:50 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is just not true that the high price of some art causes museums to charge more admission than in the past. If you want to buy good quality art at a decent price, it is really not difficult to do so. There are many, many high quality artists who can not get good money for their work. And as a former art critic for Art In America and other publications, I promise you I know what I am talking about here. No, money is no obstacle to purchasing some nice art. However, if you want blue chip art of a very certain pedigree, than yes, you need money and more - connections - to purchase that work. However, regardless of the putative availablity of quality art, museums are unaffected in terms of day to day operating costs by whatever may occur at auction. There is an elision here that is just - pardon me, B - sloppy.
Operating costs for public institutions, eliminated by the wholesale privatization of the public sector by Reagonomics and beyond, is what is at root for many of the problems pointed to in this article. If the public actually had monies to spend on public good - infrastructure, health care, mandatory daycare, eldercare, and yes, environmental beauty, all of which it did within recent memory, then we would have a better and more just society. This is not just the fault of the rich, however appealing that line of thinking may be.
Public policy is in our control to at least some degree, after all. Go vote! Read a newspaper! Improve your vocabulary and give a damn! Take positive action. It's not just a lost cause and Ehrenreich should know better than to promote such a simple, reductive classist argument when the real stakes are so much higher than that.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Jun 17, 2008 1:32 PM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Stop having babies
Posted by: goldenta
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Jun 17, 2008 1:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It used to be this arts festival with misfits and freaks and wild, ultra-creative types. Now, thanks to tickets costing around $210 if you get them months in advance, and $295 if you get them now, it's become this playground for yuppies and the super-rich, just like Manhattan.
You can apply for a "low-income" ticket, which is about $140.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Vince on Jun 17, 2008 2:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the super rich have taken over the macros: the mountain, the lake, the seashore, the river.
And who is not to say these are all beautiful and to be enjoyed be all.
Have we been brain washed to believe that the macro destinations are the only places where we can recreate? Travel logs, magazines, TV? Antarctica is beautiful and wonderous. Lets go there. There are not enough beautiful places within the United States. So, we have to visit a foreign country.
With only the high price of fuel we, the unsuper rich, may have to stay closer to home and to come to appreciate that there is much beauty and enjoyment right close to home. The back yard. The street we live on. Our own current home town are all wonderful places. There is plenty of enjoyment and fulfillment to be had. It is who you are with and not who you go to be near. And, if you want adventure, there is a lifetime of unexplored nitches right in the county you live in.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TERRIROBSON on Jun 17, 2008 3:18 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: museonit on Jun 17, 2008 4:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: verything for the Rich
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Some fight but look at their adversary.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: Some fight but look at their adversary.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jhc335 on Jun 17, 2008 8:04 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: goldenta on Jun 17, 2008 8:10 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Control over humans still exist today that is why you are able to make such a comment with ease:~( Live and let live!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cyr3n on Jun 17, 2008 9:35 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honestly, all this could be solved if people were only allowed up to one primary residence per person. Any other homes need to be occupied (by a tenant, family, or housekeeper) and declared as inhabited. This would instantly solve the housing crisis for low-wage employees, lack of affordable housing, and over development of natural habitats.
In compromise, privately held properties zoned as conservation easements should have reduced or NO TAXES. It's ridiculous to tax someone the same amount for property they cant freely develop.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenocyd on Jun 17, 2008 10:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But where do I read an article written by someone poor who is lambasting the middle-class above them for doing this same thing to the land that wasn't quite good enough for the upper-class?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mombot on Jun 18, 2008 9:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mr. joshua on Jun 18, 2008 12:28 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, I'm sitting in my office right now, looking out a second-story window at Tom McCall Waterfront Park, which runs along the river for over a mile -- right in downtown Portland. Don't mean to sound smug; just reflecting on how lucky I am to have been born here, and how wise to have stayed. ;)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm soooo spoiled
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: I'm soooo spoiled
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CommonDreamer on Jun 18, 2008 8:40 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Somehow we were duped by the trickle down, supply sider devils who said we too would be rich if we'd just let them have all of the money. Well, the emperor has no clothes and now you can see it just made us all broke. And look who wins.
I miss the seventies alot...when we had hope, not gross income inequality...when we had morals (ask not what you can do for your country and so on...)...instead what we have is the most egregious selfishness promulgated by the "frat house"....just run everything up in price for the investors...let the corporations rule our lives and forget about having an enjoyable, ordinary life. That's what I miss and that's what was taken from us. Let's hope we can get it back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: stellabloo on Jun 19, 2008 8:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I used to live and work in Whistler, before moving to another developing resort area. From my naive backwoods POV, Whistler seemed like a veritable Sodom or Gomorrah, but hey, they offered me a job so I went.
Now Whistler is REALLY located in a giant clearcut, which used to be more obvious in the 80's before the scrubby balsam took over. Basically I have watched the GOVERNMENT rape and pillage the province over my lifetime and the Squamish-Pemberton forestry-based area was no exception!
So then we had these superrich people flying into Whistler in their private planes and helicopters, flying over the Pemberton icecap and the Upper Elaho, going "wow, look at all this beautiful scenery threatened by all those icky clearcuts - we MUST do something!"
And because of those treehugging rich people (and finally some major First Nations protests) the last tattered remnants of the 3000 yr old rainforest slated for clearcutting have been set aside (however temporarily).
There is talk of a new mega ski resort going into my area - I say GOOD - the GOVERNMENT has slated every last tree in this province for logging (this is not a public fact - this is out of the foresters' manual!) unless nailed down in a park or private property. We need some nature-loving superrich to embrace our remaining wilderness, the ones we have right now just want to drive their SUVs to the golf course :(
BTW we could prob both get decent jobs in the city - but just can't bring ourselves to go there. Our house is a shack, the truck has 400 000 km on it - but REALLY we don't care!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: amiabledave on Jun 20, 2008 12:00 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kicked out of school at age 15 and mostly self-educated -- at least enough to become a field engineer and, later, a free-lance technical/promotional writer for many top firms, I've managed to enjoy lots of freedom and scenic beauty because of my occupational choice and non-materialistic philosphy. Never owning a home I've managed to live and play in awesomely beautiful places on both coasts and many places in between. I now live in Las Vegas, but I've spent many years in places like San Diego, Glendale, and Huntington Beach. As a cyclist (bicyles and motorcycles), I've spent many an hour tooling round the towering heights of Mt. Wilson and the Griffith Observatory. Living on the beach in San Diego, Clearwater, Palm Beach, and Ft. Lauderdale was exhilarating.
I'm not sure about any equivalency between money and happiness. At least I've not witnessed it -- quite the opposite!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kelli's Mom on Jun 20, 2008 7:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was born in San Francisco, but raised in Marin County. I moved to Austin, Texas 5 years ago b/c my husband took a job here. We also needed a change of scenery as I felt increasingly suffocated by the atmosphere in Marin County. We are a middle-class couple, both raised by lower-class, single working mothers. I loved growing up in Mill Valley and have many fond and lovely memories of that time in the early to late-'70s.
However, we noticed a disturbing shift in the late '90s when it seemed people were less tolerant (we are non-whites) and more focused on money. My husband kept being mistaken for the gardner at our condo complex!
When a job possibility came available to move to Austin, we jumped at it. What a contrast. Most people are middle-class like us, there isn't a significant divide between our neighbors and us, even though we live in a pretty nice neighborhood. There is a nice harmony to this. There isn't the "Keeping up with the Jones" syndrome here. People are more thrift conscious and much less status oriented. When I go back to the B.A. for a visit, the tension is noticeable and palpable between the "Haves" and "Have Nots".
I really miss some things about the Bay Area, mostly the natural beauty and the cutting edge politics but I sure don't miss the Rat Race element!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
Why Is Obama Trying to Prop Up a Doomed 'Nuclear Renaissance'?




