When do the wealthy become champions of the commons? Here’s my guess — it’s when market activity begins to destroy things that they value, and it becomes clear that only an intact commons can save them. This was my first thought upon learning that the island of Nantucket — an historic whaling port south of Cape Cod — voted to ban most chain stores from its quaint downtown. The town wants to preserve its local, idiosyncratic charm. It wants to protect its diverse independent businesses and small-town feel. It didn’t want to become the latest outpost of the market’s Anywhere.
The town of Hercules, California — an upscale bedroom community east of San Francisco — apparently had a similar revelation. It recently voted to use the power of eminent domain to block a Wal-Mart from building a 99,000 square foot store on the town’s waterfront — a move that shocked big-box retailers around the state. “This is the beginning of a very slippery slope,” complained the head of a trade association that represents large retailers. “Next year [eminent domain] could apply to Target, Home Depot, Lowe’s; it just keeps right on going.” (Now there’s a thought!)
As wealthy communities begin to draw limits on the market, and instigate steps to defend the commons, it seems as if there is a competition underway. Which is the more credible force of populist progress — the market or the commons? Which offers a better “value proposition”?
In rejecting Wal-Mart, the residents of Hercules said they don’t want regional businesses that bring in lots of traffic. They want to maintain their quality of life. They consider certain non-market values too important to sacrifice for a new Wal-Mart. Or put another way, they want the market development that does occur to be tempered by a larger community vision.
Market libertarians can be clever people, and have come to castigate such claims as “class warfare.” A policy guy at the Cato Institute told Reuters (May 28, 2006), “The people in Hercules are coming across as looking down their noses on those who shop at Wal-Mart, as not wanting ‘those people in our neighborhood.’” By this reckoning, an unfettered market is a force for populist progress. The more Wal-Marts, Targets and Lowe’s, the better. The commons is an elitest indulgence.
Debates like these are a good reason to open up a broader discussion about inequality and the market, and social justice and the commons. The executive director of Sustainable Nantucket, Christine Silverstein, told The New York Times (April 12, 2006), that her organization wants a balance between economic development and community preservation: “What you don’t want to end up with is the Caribbean, where you have the rich flying in on jets and the poor who work for them in a tin shanty.” Maintaining a stable balance between market and commons is not elitism; it is about preserving the diversity and social vitality that we all want. It?s about preserving the non-market values that make a town more livable.
That said, market libertarians love to cast themselves as democratic zealots by denouncing their opponents as “elitists.” This tactic often works because it can be far easier for rich people to defend the commons than it is for communities of low-income people, who may have few political choices. Wealthy towns have already got theirs, and can more easily “afford” to forgo that last, extra increment of market gain. Poorer towns are forever scrambling for whatever economic gains they can eke out. Corporations are only too aware of this vulnerability and have become experts in preying upon it, donning a mantle of populism to push through projects that will enrich their shareholders. The ultimate effects on the commons tend to be ignored.
The real challenge lies is avoiding this polemical trap — a false either/or proposition — and finding ways to make the commons more broadly available to all communities. People of modest means, after all, are the one who benefit most from having unmetered access to commons resources (libraries, parks, municipal wifi, social services). Imagine if all of these benefits had to be paid for, one by one; it would be far more expensive.
The commons mitigates the inherent inequalities of markets. And if basic social amenities and graces can only be had through the market, we know who will win there. How interesting that even rich communities realize that the commons must be protected in order to temper the anti-social inequities of the market.
Recent comments