On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 09:17:18AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
This is a minor, but illustrative, example of why the problem is best fixed by property rights, not collectivism.
Yup, for sure, but community gardens are a nice answer for city dwellers. We own property in the city, but the house takes up 90% of the land, no room for any real garden other than shrubs and flowers. We have no lawn to mow. We also have 40 acres, half fields/half woods, in MN, but can't live there right now.
(Funny, the word "collectivism" rarely pops up here. We ought to use it more, as it better describes a bunch of things we often call socialism.)
On your own property, in your own garden, one doesn't have to argue with committees and government officials and city councils about spraying or when one can start working the soil.
This is the commons problem cropping up again in this common garden.
Me, I have my own garden plot on my own land. And even if I didn't own land, working out a deal with someone who _did_ have land would be preferable to working in a so-called "community garden."
Yes, that's what we've done this year.
(We have a few here in Santa Cruz. Bums and winos make a token effort to stand around and rake. Mostly it's an excuse for community money to be handed out to the "farmers." I've also walked past the weed-choked community garden in Berkeley, on the site of "People's Park," IIRC. Skanks and bums. New slogan for these urban community gardens: "Hoes fo da hoes!
Hmm, I've never seen that sort of a problem with community gardens anywhere. The vast majority of the people work pretty hard on their plots. And also there's no reason for tax dollars going into it, especially most places where they don't plow, etc. In fact, it should be fee-generating. Each plot costs $20 @ year here to rent. Why would community money be handed out to the gardeners? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com