Dream House

As a clever blogger I avoid using the first person pronoun as it turns off readers.   For this blog which stirs strong emotional feelings I feel I must state my personal stake in the game.  I am 73 and have owned my current home for almost 40 years and before that owned two other houses for shorter periods of time.  My income and that of my wife never was high enough to get out of the first tax bracket.  We were given breaks by relatives, but were not able to live in the more expensive locations in any town.  My current house is two stories with a finished basement, a small pond in the back yard and lots of flowers.  I can easily walk downtown or to Bayfront Park.

Times have changed.  The value of my house has gone up well over ten fold, but the people bidding up the prices are coming from further away and in most cases commuting a distance to afford.  If I were to give in to the real estate agents that pester me, I would have to find another house and it is not likely to be better located or offer as much space.

That is my situation and I fear the future will be a bigger challenge for those coming behind me.  In Hamilton (as elsewhere) we are having a big debate about the future.  Recently there was a big campaign to protest possible plans to expand housing including to farm land.  Not surprisingly many residents are horrified.  Building developers and some politicians are fighting back and have a case.  I noticed that the signs protesting urban sprawl were at single dwelling houses.  One of the politicians backed by a developer pointed out that the survey was very biased and offered their own supposedly less biased poll.  See below for a different political view.

The problem boils down to we who have an established house (relatively speaking"dream houses") don't want to rock the boat.  We don't want big huge buildings with multitudes in our neighborhood and we don't like the idea of farm land being turned over to greedy developers.  I fit into that category.  BUT everyone agrees that more people are coming. 

Where are these people supposed to go?  I don't envy their choices.  Cramped in an apartment or condo might be one choice.  Another would be way out in the suburbs requiring longer commuting.  Another choice to somehow get more money (an unhealthy pressure in itself) or accept that a higher percentage of their income is going to be devoted to housing. 

The basis of the frustration is the pursuit of the "dream house".  More "dream houses" can be built, but yes they will be more expensive, further away, maybe not quite as ideal and yes they will cut into our precious farm land and add pollution and accelerate climate change.

Anther political view was picked up from John-Paul Danko to Steve Paikin.  My phrasing:  The government empowered by greedy developers has extended the time frame, hyped up population projections and taken on a larger planning function.  I agree there needs to be a wider view of the problem, but hopefully not financed solely by "special interests".

Are there solutions to the dilemma?  There are ideas, but they are dependent on people who can help work out the big plan and the little details that impinge on them.  There will have to be adjustments or not only will people be unhappy, but they may not have much of a planet left.

Cars are part of the problem, especially as more people may be commuting further and on more crowded roads.  Extended infrastructure will also add another element of pollution and attack our climate.  Transit is cheaper and more environmentally friendly.  If people insist on living in detached houses far from city centers can we somehow put them into the transit network?  Better yet, in the future will more of us be able to do most of our work from home?  Working from home has mixed blessing in that human contact is still vital for many interactions.  We may be aggravating inequality as some will have the luxury of working from home while others can't.

At bottom the real pressure comes from population.  Some have a vested interest in ever growing population which really are markets for whatever they are trying to sell.  Part of a dream for many families is deferred because they don't have the resources to bring up another human.  We would like to support families as they are the base of society as we know it.  Large families may be difficult to maintain, and for the world as a whole and individual families some disincentives should be established.   Part of the strategy to curb excessive population growth would include sex education, availability of contraceptives, but more basic is our attitudes.

Compromise is how we have traditionally dealt with conflicts.  I learned that the city of Hamilton has limited downtown buildings to a height that does not obstruct the view of the escarpment.  I would keep that sort of restriction but perhaps we need to examine other building restrictions.  Along with that would be improved transit which always seems to run against budget concerns.  Farmland could well be our saviour, but we need to expand our food growing resources which have been done in some urban centers. Many compromises would be easier if more money was included.  That of course relates right back to inequality.  An earlier blog on taxation has some relevance:  http://www.therealjohndavidson.com/2021/05/taxation-necessary-tool-for.html

Happiness is being satisfied with what you have while unhappiness is not being satisfied with what you have.  Having said that, human progress has come from those overcoming dissatisfaction.  What can we do to make life more satisfying.  Make living spaces more livable with more community space and also concern for privacy.  We take for granted that more people can mean more cultural opportunities, etc.  Each of us needs to examine what is really important including independence, relationships and purpose.  What joy can we find?   It might be too much to put this burden on education, but that has to be an important component.  Schools needs to be more than learning job skills.

It is good that the issues are being raised, but each of us needs to be open minded.  We have to acknowledge other people have their needs.  We should admit that we have achieved at least part of our dream and that others have not been quite as lucky. 

TRUMP PERSONIFIES SHORT TERM THINKING

Trump is not the only one guilty of short term thinking.  For instance I have indulged in it too often.  Furthermore pretty much all of you have occasionally exercised short term thinking.

When we get up in the morning most of us have a routine which is a good way to start the day, but sometimes it gets interrupted and our first thought is how to get back to what we were expecting.  A lot of our day is to get through to the next expected thing.

When it comes to things like getting married, getting a job, living a long healthy life, saving up for something more costly than our pay cheque, dealing with an unco-operative foreign nations, or global crises it pays to give some forethought to the matter and generally the more consistent we are in these efforts the more successful are the results.  On a national scale when there are serious problems all eyes and ears go to the leader.  Leaders do all sorts of things that we don't know and don't care about, but when it comes to life and death or our financial survival we look for guidance from our leaders.

The Covid-19 pandemic is one example.  It took quite awhile for Trump to recognize it as a national threat and the first we heard were efforts to dismiss and later to blame others.  We learn he had unpacked some of the preparations made by Obama.  Other nations identified it as a threat and took steps to deal with it.  Trump fairly soon identified it as a threat to his re-election, particularly when it effected job statistics and the stock market, his measures of success.  His focus has been on how to minimize the danger.  One recurring theme was that tests only made the situation worse by revealing more cases.  Other nations realized they needed to get a grip on the real facts before deciding on a course of action.  Instead of taking a tough stance and setting an example Trump continues to downplay the health dangers.

Lately Trump has come to realize that schools serve as a sort of baby sitter that allows parents to work without worry.  That is true.  But it is more complicated.  Although youngsters are apparently not as vulnerable as healthy adults, they are vulnerable and some are dying plus they are also carriers to those more susceptible.  Their teachers, school janitors, school bus drivers, etc are more vulnerable, but are necessary for children to get the full learning experience.  Parents are protective of their children and would need to be reassured that the danger is manageable, but Trump belittles many guidelines.  Parents are afraid for themselves.

Other leaders intuitively understand that the solution to the problems of the economy has to take a back seat to controlling the virus.  A long term strategy is to listen to experts, keep measuring results and set a good example.  Leaders who fail in this should be kept away from power.

This crisis is only one example, but as one of life and death it will not be ignored by all rational people.  Unfortunately it mirrors other examples.

Tax cuts are a short term action.  Of course everyone likes a little more money in their pocket and it has been constantly promoted that the wealthy are job creators.  First many wealthy people are not big job creators and put their money in safe places such as government bonds which their taxes would have minimized the need for.  Others calculate how they can optimize their profits such as more automation, company buybacks, more dividends and giving themselves raises.

Two impacts are important.  First the deficit grows meaning the government has to borrow more money and pay interest.  Second and related is they have less money to pay for programs and it is all too often programs that benefit the poor, but everyone loses a bit and the government has less flexibility for emergencies.

John Maynard Keynes had the idea that when times were good, the government should maintain taxes and let a surplus develop.  Taxes helped to curb inflation and encourage innovation.  When things inevitably turned down, it was a good time to cut taxes so that consumers would be encouraged to spend more.  Trump and his Republicans ignored that in a short term desire for personal gain.

Climate change is another area for long term thinking.  A short term strategy employed by those in power is to optimize profits from fossil fuels.  A long term strategy would require re structuring and inconvenience for many.  But if not done the long term result would be disastrous.  It is one of those things where the expenses for necessary changes increases exponentially the longer they are ignored.

Along the same line is pollution control.  Pollution cleanup should be paid for by the ones who create it, but such cleanup would raise prices or cut profits.  De-regulation is a regular promise of Republicans, but in most cases they really want to do away with protections.  The real costs of pollution include life threatening disease.

Racist immigration policies may make some of his base happy, but there are long term consequences.  To others, not necessarily racists he is appealing to their fears of terrorism.  Americans, like most modern industrial economies are not replacing themselves and so with an aging population there are fewer people to perform taken for granted services.  Plus there are many jobs considered undignified.  At the other end technology experts are coming from Third World Countries.  If a door is closed people look for alternatives.  Canada has been one of the beneficiaries, but there are others.

When the inadequacies of short term solutions become more obvious hopefully there is still time to plan long term.

The real scary thing is the only way a short term thinking candidate could get elected (disregarding the Electoral College and the Mueller Report) was by getting the support of other short term thinkers.  The irony is short term thinking hurts everyone.  We all do it, but first we need to recognize it and make a conscious effort to think long term.  The more long term thinkers the world has the better chance we will all survive.  Even if the majority of us are short term thinkers we benefit from long term thinking leaders.  I fervently hope voters take a long term viewpoint before the November election.

the photo is from an installation by Edwin Dam and Veronica De Nogales at Hamilton Harbour.