I wish to respond to an editorial in the September 2006 issue of Bay Crossings concerning the Oak to 9th project. Mr. Winston, the author, lauds the effort as a means primarily of providing affordable high-density housing for the economically disadvantaged. At first glance, a noble undertaking. The editorial calls the opposition spurious, and includes a reference to racism (politely referred to in the article as ...the queasy issue of equality) that is sure to get everyone’s attention.
Published: October, 2006
So I see another equally queasy subject here that requires our attention. One that the media does not address adequately (it is not a PC topic). One that is clearly taboo to express openly. It is that of over-population.
The issue of open space goes beyond the scope of just one geographical location, such as the San Francisco Bay Area waterfront; it is a global problem. It encompasses more than politics, economics and elitism.
The decrease in our open spaces has accelerated at an increasing rate over the past 40 years or so, and the population in the Bay Area (as well as the world at large) has increased at an alarming rate as well, doubling worldwide. Ultimately it comes down to a quality of life issue. Urbanizing our remaining open spaces takes away from all of us.
Packing even more people into a smaller tighter space is a short-term solution to what is a long-term problem. (Remember the overcrowding studies done by John Calhoun on rats in the 1960s? When too many rats were placed in too small a living space they turned on each other; the implication being that human beings do too.) I merely wish to point out that building more and more houses, and more and more bridges and roads, and providing more and more methods of transportation, though sorely needed, are not long-term solutions. But education and the inclusion of all relevant facts on the topic are.
Why does this matter? On the surface it isn’t just a racial issue (if it is a racial issue at all); it isn’t just the generation of tax revenues to fund social action programs. (I thought the reference to Trotsky was a bit of a stretch.)
In expressing opposition to support for more open space than that which is planned in the Oak to 9th project, all pertinent facets of what make up the problem need to be considered and discussed. This includes the over-population aspect and other questions such as: Why is this other group asking for more open space than that encompassed in the Oak to 9th proposal? The editorial hints at an elitist group of Trotskyites, which implies that they want it for their exclusive use, but not enough information is given about these apparent obstructionists and their intentions for land usage for the reader to make an informed decision.
Over-population and the environmental devastation that accompanies it are well documented, but were omitted from this editorial. If this is a racial issue, the text of the editorial did not tell us how this is so.
The struggle to maintain the open space we have left is precisely because of our burgeoning population / environmental problems. This is not and should not be a racial issue. One just needs to read a book such as Jared Diamond’s Collapse to get a good idea of the effects on this, or any, country with too many people occupying too little land. I don’t like to see the race card employed in an effort to manipulate the public by pressing buttons that cloud the issue and exacerbate the problem.
Hermy Picon
