Are you, or have you ever been, a
columnist? Yes,
Senator, I am both a columnist a commonist. What, pray tell, is a “commonist”?
Senator, a commonist is one who believes in the
primacy of the commons, those things of great value that are owned and shared
by a community, a culture, a civilization or a planet. The commons can be
things that we inherit or that we create, ranging from the global climate and
“ecosystem services” like air and water purification, to my home town’s
standards for open government and its self-reinforcing identity as a unique and
caring community. The commons both make life possible and make life worth
living.
Do you reject the concept of private
property rights, then? No, I own land, and I treasure the rights that ownership justly confers.
But I reject the presumption that private property rights are above the rights
of the commons. That is a flat earth philosophy. Flat earth? Explain. The notion that land becomes ours when
we claim possession and, through our labor, change the land is a recent human
invention. It originated in 1690 with John Locke’s Second Treatise of
Civil Government. Locke’s idea became the basis of Western property law. But
Locke rests his theory on his false assumption…Which is? …which is that one man’s appropriation of part of the
commons to himself, whether it be forest, farmland, or water, cannot be seen as
diminishing the rights of others because, and here’s the catch, the resources
of the commons are essentially infinite. Locke’s England didn’t know what we’ve
learned from modern science: that the earth is finite, and that human numbers
and technology are fully capable of diminishing and destroying it.
As I explained in my earlier column,
the “tragedy” of this system is that it allows those whose actions diminish the
commons – by polluting the air, destroying a scenic ridgeline, or increasing
traffic congestion – gain all of the immediate financial benefit yet bear a
relatively tiny fraction of the cost. “Externalizing” costs, as this is known, is
both immoral and unsustainable in a closed system. Be specific. Give me an example.
Okay, a “business-friendly” Petaluma City Council might approve the Davidon project at D and Windsor, an out-of-town housing
developer’s large edge-of-town subdivision, with minimal conditions. Scaling it
back by 2/3 for open space, park, landslide, flood and traffic mitigations
would be a violation of the developer’s property rights, they might say. So the
developer gets all the profit benefit of those extra houses, but incurs little
or no cost for the loss of a treasured public view and future nature park, for
the flooding downstream, the Petaluma River siltation,
and the traffic congestion. Not to mention water; recycling and conservation
buys time, but someday growth will outrun even those options. What then?
What remedy do you propose? First, policymaking at every level needs to formally and
properly recognize the value of the commons. For example, understanding that
our global climate system is the foundation for our biosphere, our civilization,
and trillions of dollars of economic
value gives businesses the reason to reverse the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions, and gives public institutions the authority, legal and moral, to induce
or require them if to do so. Turning
locally, how does a “commonist” treat land developers
and the Council Members they support? Firmly, with respect.
The absolutist “you’re either with us or you’re with the bad guys” mindset was rejected
by the national electorate in 2006, and it makes no sense locally, either.
Petaluma’s new Mayor has the right approach: use the marketing appeal of the local
commons to bring in development proposals that help protect and enhance that
commons. If you still want to build “cut and run” developments, you’ll have to get
at the end of the line. We’ll make it profitable for the purveyors of products which
benefit the community, today and forever. At the same time, we’ll need to
restore the campaign finance reforms, including public funding, that help
ensure a voice for the commons.
Do you think Petaluma can protect the commons by changing the rules for
property development? It wouldn’t be the first time.