Collectivism in "community gardens"

Tim May timcmay at got.net
Sat May 10 21:25:51 PDT 2003


On Saturday, May 10, 2003, at 08:32  PM, Harmon Seaver wrote:

> On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 08:00:46PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>
>> I said I saw the same thing in Berkeley and Santa Cruz. Both are said
>> to be "progressive" communities, but in both places the so-called
>> community garden areas are essentially for hoboes and deadbeats to
>> scratch at.
>>
>> Why would a "clean and sober" person (I'll call them this instead of
>> "gentrified") want to go dig in the dirt where the dogs have crapped,
>> where the addicts have shot up, and where their best tomatoes and
>> zuchinis and whatnot get filched by the bums and addicts?
>
>     Sounds like a very poorly administered community garden. The only 
> big city
> gardens I've seen were in Portland, OR, and they were fenced and gated 
> and
> locked at night. The gardens themselves looked very productive and well
> tended. As are all the ones I've ever seen in smaller communities. And 
> as are
> the ones in NYC that Tyler's reported on. For a short while I was on a 
> list of
> community garden administrators, I can post the address if you like, 
> perhaps you
> could get feedback on these particular gardens being the way they are. 
> From that
> traffic on that list, what you are seeing is not at all the norm.

Declan described the same thing I see. And my brother in LA is a 
traffic engineer, one responsibilty being traffic issues in and around 
such "homeless gardens." He reports even worse situations.

You still have not explained why government-operated gardens are a good 
idea. Believe me, there is plenty of land in America, even in cities. 
And markets solve the problems you described (arguing with city 
planners about fertilizers and times of operation).
>
>    5x9? Why the hell would I bother with a 5x9 plot? The plots in the 
> local
> gardens here are 20x40 and I had two of them, and even that isn't 
> really at all
> sufficient. We used to have one garden of 100'x100' down by the house, 
> then
> another 50x80 up above the house mainly for potatoes and berries, 
> things the
> deer wouldn't eat, plus my wife's flower gardens.

I gave an example of a garden plot and you argue for statism on the 
grounds that my example is too small.

A 5 x 9 raised bed plot is much larger than most people can handle as a 
hobb, while doing other things in their life. If they need large 
amounts of space, even more justification for doing things 
noncommunally.

(My sister sublet her couple of acres just north of Sacramento to a 
Hmong family. Sure enough, several members of an extended family worked 
their gardens many hours a week. This is not "hobby" or "incidental" 
gardening, this is food production for sale at farmer's markets. Which 
is fine, but it is not the job of a city to buy land to let food 
producers farm it. It's also not the job of a city to acquire land for 
hobby producers, either, lest there be any doubt.)

You were the one complaining that you had to argue with the communal 
czars about fertilizer usage and hours of operation. This is like 
arguing with a "community television board" about which channels are 
acceptable and which are not, and what the hours of operation should 
be, when the obvious and cypherpunkish solution is to bypass the 
community board and and get a satellite dish with Playboy, CNN, Spice, 
ESPN, and 200 other channels.

Or to acquire your own land, or go in with others, where you can set 
your own policy on fertilizers and operating times.

You remind me of the small-town busybodies who attend city council 
meetings and argue endlessly about what software should be on the 
"community" computers, when of course the answer is obvious: "none, 
because it is not the job of government to provide "community access" 
to computers."


--Tim May
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."--Barry Goldwater





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list