This is a copy of a response I recently offered to raised concerns about some of the mixed messages shared by some of the candidates for City Council. In sharing this communication it is not my wish to be personally critical of any of the candidates. I do, however, have philosophical and conceptual concerns that merit open discussion~
A majority of the candidates currently running for office are strong affordable housing advocates who present an equally strong concern for neighborhoods. You cannot authentically be a strong advocate for both and the probabilities are that subsidized (by tax dollars and forced developer participation) affordable housing will be the truer priority of the "liberal/progressive/socialist" candidates. There success very likely means "use by right" changes in neighborhoods, adjustments of the UDO to allow further density in neighborhoods, tax increases and other changes that will dramatically exceed current realities.
The point of confusion for many who buy the spin that these folks are "neighborhood advocates" is that they publicly resist the concept of "greedy developers" (overlooking the fact that reasonable development is a crucial key to keeping residential tax rates down and producing new jobs). Neighborhoods have a legitimate reason to fear excessive intrusion of commercial development -- subsidized affordable housing initiatives, forced density increases on existing neighborhoods, and UDO amendments, however, are the overlooked back door to neighborhoods.
There is nothing wrong with being a reasonable advocate for affordable housing, neighborhoods, development, business or whatever. Problems develop around the level of advocacy. In truth, all of these issues have relevancy in Asheville. It's when one issue or the other starts pushing others aside that we loose balance and place our economy, stability, and communities at risk.
One of the points of seduction in this election pushed by some media outlets and voices in the community is that a good Council member should work toward compromise and cooperation. That's great if what is being produced is constructive, helpful, and grounded in rationale thinking. More accurately, the voices crying for unity and less conflict on the Council are speaking to concensus -- around their own issues and priorities. If the majority of voters in Asheville persist in their passive interest in this election, there will likely be a majority of mutually supportive and unified voices on the Council. What that unity produces will be a loss of responsible, restrained and balanced local government.
Socialism is not a bad word -- it is, from my perspective, a bad concept. It represents a philosophy of government redistribution of wealth and opportunity that sounds goods, but invariably (look to history and other countries) leads to attitudes of entitlement and dependency with a resulting loss of personal responsiblity and liberty. It sounds appealing to many, because the emphasis is placed on the feel good part (what is in it for me and others) while the accountability (what it is going to cost me and others) is minimized.
The moderate and conservative people of Asheville were not invested in the recent primary election. The neighborhoods are ignoring the spin of candidates who are claiming to be all things to all people. The outcome, if we do not speak to one another and raise voices of concern, will be a socialist council majority comprised of predators pretending to be sheepdogs.
