Page Two: Terms of Entitlement
In a growing city, are some citizens more equal than others?
By Louis Black, Fri., Sept. 5, 2008
In those 27 years, one of the most consistent ideas expressed by our readers is how much better Austin used to be back in the day, whatever day that happens to be. Sometimes it's the Sixties, sometimes it's when the Armadillo World Headquarters was still around, and, probably most regularly, it's back when this was one of the cheapest places in the country to live (not, as it is now, one of the most expensive).
Over the years, since very early on, two major variants on what is essentially this same theme have been the most recurring opinions offered by readers in "Postmarks" (in the print edition and online), as well as the most commented-on and contributed-to threads running in the online Forums. There are various shades to these opinions, though most are hostile toward the change, so I'm not going to nail this exactly.
The gist of these letters is that: Austin is changing (has changed) for the worse. Developers, yuppies, Californians, the bourgeois, Yankees, carpetbaggers, and the like have moved to town, ruining it. This is because, even if any of these people ever had some kind of reasonable moral and social value systems, they are now long broken and mostly forgotten.
They don't understand Austin, the argument continues; they have too much money; they spend too much money: As a result, too many different professions are both pricing up to and trying to serve them (and therefore become too expensive and really cannot be bothered with the real, often less wealthy Austinites). The barbarians have come, destroying our city. The fault is greedy builders, insensitive immigrants, and corrupt, useless politicians.
Which means, accordingly:
1) Austin is being changed forever, and – though it may already be too late – real Austinites need to rally together to try to save our city. Even though outsiders are causing the changes, it is our responsibility as residents to fight for Austin's integrity.
2) It's too late: Austin used to be great, but it sucks now. Here is a list of the individuals or groups that have made it suck. I (whoever is making the statement) have not made it suck, because I'm a true Austinite.
The last statement is the most crucial, as most writers begin by removing themselves from the equation. They know that, being "real" Austinites, they belong here. In rare cases, their families have been living here for three or four generations. Others claim this standing because they came here before it was cool – or they've come more recently but don't have much money, so they are not part of the enemy, or their rhythms and values, who they really are, are in sync with "pure" Austin.
Regardless of when or how or why they came, they've asked their own higher consciousness for a ruling on who are legitimate and who are illegitimate residents. After careful consideration, the ruling comes down: Without bias, it is decided they belong here and that "others," as defined by them, do not belong here.
Many really do believe, though not explicitly, that once they got here or because they were born here, the door to Austin should be shut as much as possible on all growth and definitely on growth that they dislike – no more condos or high-rises or developments. They ask, "Why don't our politicians have the backbones to stop this growth rather than allowing themselves to be corruptly bought off?"
As with all political matters currently, it is more important to make it clear who the bad guys to be blamed are than it is to deal with or think about the actual complexity of the issues. Instead of recognizing the problem as not being terribly specific but having to do with all of "us" who want to live here, it is easy to personify the it.
Few issues are black and white. Often, government literally can't do what citizens demand of it and/or accuse it of being corrupt for not doing. There are all kinds of restrictions, including constitutional guarantees, as well as legal and legislative considerations. All too often, folks offer up snap judgments on one major development issue or another, claiming they are just common sense. Usually this involves preventing any more building. Only, this is easier said than done. While almost no one wants to be told what to do with his or her land, many sure want to dictate to and restrict others.
In Austin, the ongoing traffic jam of so many conflicting interests invites gridlock. The congestion all too often makes it seem as though both government and the process are hopelessly damaged. This ignores the reality that there are way too many different agendas, all aggressively being advanced.
There is a great contradiction at the very heart of our society (and societies like ours). There are the social obligations each of us has – as a member of not only a greater community but one that, in theory at least, wishes to empower all citizens equally. Then there is individual freedom. There are inherently conflicting concerns associated with these two, as they clearly have dramatically contradictory priorities.
The problem is us, all of us – that there are so many of us, all feeling entitled. We do feel some kind of obligation to the greater community (in varying degrees) while also insisting upon our individual rights and personal freedoms.
Which is to say, "Ain't it strange."
Sure, there are insensitive idiots who want to build everywhere and greedy developers who care more about profit than quality and environmental integrity. But there are many who are just serving the larger "us," people who want their own homes. There is a large, extended "us," all with somewhat similar desires – not a villainous "them," being everyone else but us and our community.
Many speak up eloquently for the city, its values, and its culture. Unfortunately, what they are all too often really saying is, "I don't like it (this, that, or the other thing), so it shouldn't be."
Then they indulge in the greatest disease that has ever invaded the body politic: the assumption that they speak for the majority of the people. Without polling, elections, or any kind of study, they somehow know that the majority of citizens share the exact same feelings.
Agnew called it "the Silent Majority." This happens when a person or persons are convinced that there is a vast community of disenfranchised citizens sharing their exact same beliefs who have become too discouraged from public participation and protest because politicians don't listen to them, while corrupt, powerful people behind the scenes run everything.
Since there is this perceived unity, rather than just speaking for themselves, they position themselves as spokespeople for the majority. Part of this mantra is the belief that there are no significant differences between the two political parties, which is the ideal excuse to dream of bigger revolutionary changes while not getting involved in the constitutionally mandated, complicated, and deliberately slow-moving process.
The maxim "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" may strike some as hokey, but it still seems the best rule of thumb for living among other people. Two accompanying thoughts help further define this basic guideline:
Speak for yourself, say what you want, express any opinion, but do not take on the unelected role of spokesperson.
Do not damn, demonize, and degrade those with whom you disagree or, more correctly, those who don't agree with you. As soon as any group dehumanizes those whose ideas are different from its own, it creates the first step toward genocide. Lest that seem too dramatic, consider that when we feel morally superior and more righteously motivated than other people, we stop listening to them, guaranteeing that, even if there is a resolution, it won't be permanent.
In this context, the actual conflicting ideas and ideologies are not nearly as important as the attitude that insists those with different views are evil and dangerous. This belief eliminates the idea that they are principled and well-intentioned, though possessing different world-views and/or moral values and/or religious beliefs and/or political ideas.
I do not believe that any person, people, or group is in possession of the "truth." There are many intelligent, informed, educated opinions. Those who claim to know the "truth" set themselves above all others, grant themselves God-like powers, and inherently are going to be unrestrained, uncompromising fanatics. They do not feel the need to question themselves or consider the views of others.
Why do all the people who write to us about how much they hate Austin now, how it is a rotting, maggot-infested corpse of what it once was, stay here? This is not "love it or leave it." I am encouraging no one to go, to be silent about his or her opinion, or to moderate his or her views. I'm just curious about why some people who write in expressing how terrible Austin has become and how much they hate it don't leave. If you really dislike it all that much, why stay?
Sure, sometimes I despair over Austin: how crowded it's become, how much traffic there is, and how, despite the fact that you used to be able to get outside of town by driving in almost any direction for 10 minutes, it now often seems as though much of rural Texas has succumbed to suburban sprawl.
Then I leave town. When I come back, what really stands out are the many reasons I love this community.
What has made and still makes Austin what it is was never lack of traffic, cheap rents, and chicken-fried steak at the Stallion. I'm not disparaging any of those, and if my vote mattered, they'd all still be here. The richness of this community is now and has always been the people who live here. Their attitudes, careers, creativity, and concerns define Austin. This hasn't changed.
Last time I brought this up, as usual, the Chronicle received a flurry of letters damning Austin while declaring it putrid. In particular, anyone successful was dismissed by some as not being a real Austinite. Does one have to be poor to be of this community?
Ironically, of course, when those who dismiss others for having too much money themselves gain wealth – well, that's different. They've earned it and deserve it.
The Chronicle exists and is what it is because of this community. The paper has thrived here and continues to do so. On this, its anniversary, late at night I'll go for a walk, to think and celebrate, to breathe in deeply the fleeting summer-evening air. There has been change; there will be more. If those changes had really killed "Austin," then it really wouldn't have been much in the first place, would it?
