When I was a
young engineer, long before the days of electronic communication, I often found
myself giving my name when leaving a message.
If the person taking the message was of a certain age, let’s say at
least two decades older than me, the response upon hearing my last name was
often, “Any relation to John?”
Over time,
the frequency of the question waned. The
older message-takers retired and their younger replacements were from an era
after Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s “The Courtship of Miles Standish” had
disappeared from high school syllabi. I can
guess a number of reasons why Longfellow was dropped, but still miss the days
when I was regularly asked about John Alden.
(For those not familiar with the narrative
poem, Longfellow writes of the early days of the Pilgrim settlement in what is
now Massachusetts. The photo above is of
a replica of the Mayflower, the ship in which the Pilgrims arrived.
Miles
Standish was a military officer for the colony, responsible for maintaining
peace with the Native Americans. But
whatever confidence he may have shown in military affairs was lacking in his
relationship with the opposite gender.
Arguing that
his time was better spent in managing the weaponry of the colony, he asked his
good friend John Alden to ask on Standish’s behalf for the hand of Priscilla
Mullins, another young Pilgrim. John,
although he also fancied Priscilla, agreed to undertake the duty for his friend.
Priscilla,
perhaps deciding that a good-natured dupe was a better catch than a preening
but cowardly military man, responded with the words that were among
Longfellow’s most famous, “Why don’t you speak for yourself, John?” Nuptials followed shortly afterwards.)
To answer
the long-ago question, yes, the John Alden of the Longfellow poem is my distant
grandfather, thirteen generations distant.
Indeed, John and Priscilla are the progenitors of everyone in the U.S.
named Alden and a great many more also.
One estimate is that a half-million people are descended from the
original two Aldens.
And so it is
that a small handful of my ancestors were Pilgrims. Starting with John and Priscilla and then counting
the in-laws of their son from whom I’m descended and continuing for another
generation or two before the Pilgrims began to disperse and to meld into the bigger
world, there might be twenty Pilgrims of John and Priscilla’s generation in my
family tree.
However, one
has 8,192 ancestors thirteen generations back, so twenty would seem to have a
relatively minor effect on my genetic makeup.
Nonetheless, I sometimes feel a tug of Puritanism, the belief system
that drove the Pilgrims to the New World, when I ponder municipal
finances. And that tug will dictate how
on I vote on a key ballot measure in Petaluma this November, a ballot measure that
has its equivalents in many communities.
As I’ve
often written in this blog, our modern suburban world relies on a web of
subsidies. People who live closer to the
urban core, and therefore need less infrastructure to live their lives,
nonetheless pay property taxes that support those near the fringe.
Buyers of
new homes, through impact fees, are expected to cover the infrastructure cost
of the increasing population of which they’re a part, but many of those fees go
toward maintenance and upgrade costs that would have been required even without
population growth. (This is what StrongTowns
calls the suburban Ponzi scheme.)
The next
generation is expected to cover the costs of infrastructure maintenance that we
choose to defer in this generation.
And the
general taxpayers, regardless of their own reliance of petroleum, are expected
to cover many of the environmental and geopolitical costs and risks of petroleum
use.
The Puritanism
in me, although heavily diluted, quails at benefiting from any of these
subsidies. Puritanism is about
self-sufficiency, about not having a negative balance in what Tom Wolfe, in
“Bonfire of the Vanities” described as the “favor bank”, the sum total of favors owed to and due from others. I don’t find it necessary to have a positive balance, but find that a negative balance in my favor bank is morally uncomfortable.
“Bonfire of the Vanities” described as the “favor bank”, the sum total of favors owed to and due from others. I don’t find it necessary to have a positive balance, but find that a negative balance in my favor bank is morally uncomfortable.
And thus I’ll
vote yes this November on Petaluma’s Measure Q, a sales tax increase intended
to restore funding for deferred municipal obligations such as infrastructure
maintenance and vehicle replacement. My
vote is in keeping with my oft-stated philosophy, “We built this stuff, we
really should take care of it.”
I understand
that the new tax will be a burden on some.
However, that burden is the result of having built a world for which
upkeep is expensive. The challenge
should be finding a way to build a world that is more affordable, not finding
someone on whom to offload the expenses.
To be fair,
I should note that some of the people with I share an urbanist philosophy will
be voting against Measure Q. They aren’t
trying to duck their share of the deferred costs. However, they’re uncomfortable with the plan
to use some of the proceeds from Measure Q to build the Rainier Connector, finding
it unwise to build more infrastructure that we’ll struggle to maintain.
I see their
point and share their discomfort with the Rainier
Connector, but feel that the need to cover deferred expenses is the greater
good at this time. Also, I can hope that
over the next five years, before the earliest date on which the Rainier
Connector can go into construction, the community will realize the need to
build a more affordable world. Which is
one reason that I’ll continue to write this blog.
Thinking back
to John and Priscilla Alden, I suspect that they would have been puzzled that
we even needed to discuss whether to maintain the stuff we built. But once they understood the issues, I
believe they would have also voted for Measure Q, although also being hesitant to
build new infrastructure that will be financially difficult to maintain. It was the way Puritans thought.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment