You're making an fallacious argument that is, unfortunately, prevalent in the current economic and political climate.
"The will of the masses is always right."
When logical, detailed arguments are made that a planned change or plan is intelligently thought out, good for the town, good for the community, and good for the future, it is unfortunately rare that the community, when asked to vote on said change, will vote in favor of it. This is the flaw in a Direct Democracy - that 'mob rule' is always right, despite the needs of the society as a whole.
I understand that my stating this viewpoint goes at odds with your personal positions. But the constitution was set up with a representational governmental structure, where elected officials were put in place to make informed, detailed decisions on issues that arise. That I fully support. But the current trend toward "We don't trust our elected officials, lets rule by referendum" was in fact opposed by the authors of the constitution:
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" - James Madison
In the case of Mosaic, the expressed democratic will of the elected town officials and the boards set up to analyze our project was positive. It was portrayed as good for the town, good for the community, good for the tax rolls, just good in general. However, had we gone to town vote, history has shown, we would likely have been denied our variance. (It did NOT go to town vote due to 40b).
The arguments for developing something like MC are vast, not only from an energy conservation standpoint, but also in the realm of sane development practices and land use. In short, had we not built SawyerHill, the land would have been developed via a traditional manner, likely with mcmansions, acres of driveways, and cleared land - an anachronistic holdover from early agrarian designs ("Got a house? Gotta have LAND!"). Yes we wanted it - anyone wants their dream home. We just wanted to do it a certain way, and because of 50+ year old zoning laws, we couldn't. We had no choice but to use 40b as a path to success.
(For the record, I can state without equivocation, there were no excess profits from our project to be paid to the town :)
I'm honestly willing to let this lie with "we agree to disagree" but I wanted to state our position - we're not evil, we're not forcing our will on those who oppose us just because it will make us rich or feel good. We're doing what we believe to be right, not only for us, but for society in general. We're frustrated that every study, every model, every analysis done regarding communities such as ours says that we're doing the right thing - economically, ecologically, and sustainably - and still we get opposition for no logical reason. Why are we being punished for doing the right thing? We are forcing no one to live with us. We're simply asking that we be allowed to build our homes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-02 03:43 pm (UTC)"The will of the masses is always right."
When logical, detailed arguments are made that a planned change or plan is intelligently thought out, good for the town, good for the community, and good for the future, it is unfortunately rare that the community, when asked to vote on said change, will vote in favor of it. This is the flaw in a Direct Democracy - that 'mob rule' is always right, despite the needs of the society as a whole.
I understand that my stating this viewpoint goes at odds with your personal positions. But the constitution was set up with a representational governmental structure, where elected officials were put in place to make informed, detailed decisions on issues that arise. That I fully support. But the current trend toward "We don't trust our elected officials, lets rule by referendum" was in fact opposed by the authors of the constitution:
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" - James Madison
In the case of Mosaic, the expressed democratic will of the elected town officials and the boards set up to analyze our project was positive. It was portrayed as good for the town, good for the community, good for the tax rolls, just good in general. However, had we gone to town vote, history has shown, we would likely have been denied our variance. (It did NOT go to town vote due to 40b).
The arguments for developing something like MC are vast, not only from an energy conservation standpoint, but also in the realm of sane development practices and land use. In short, had we not built SawyerHill, the land would have been developed via a traditional manner, likely with mcmansions, acres of driveways, and cleared land - an anachronistic holdover from early agrarian designs ("Got a house? Gotta have LAND!"). Yes we wanted it - anyone wants their dream home. We just wanted to do it a certain way, and because of 50+ year old zoning laws, we couldn't. We had no choice but to use 40b as a path to success.
(For the record, I can state without equivocation, there were no excess profits from our project to be paid to the town :)
I'm honestly willing to let this lie with "we agree to disagree" but I wanted to state our position - we're not evil, we're not forcing our will on those who oppose us just because it will make us rich or feel good. We're doing what we believe to be right, not only for us, but for society in general. We're frustrated that every study, every model, every analysis done regarding communities such as ours says that we're doing the right thing - economically, ecologically, and sustainably - and still we get opposition for no logical reason. Why are we being punished for doing the right thing? We are forcing no one to live with us. We're simply asking that we be allowed to build our homes.