Public Policy & Family
Your ability to grow a strong family is often undermined by public policy.
For example you can take decades to build a local family owned business, only to see it destroyed by a public act. As in the following case sited in The New York Times :
"My family has owned this land for 36 years," said Eric Lau, who laid bricks to shore up the building that would become his thriving restaurant, which is adjacent to the hole. "And now they're trying to erase us from this place, to take it and say we don't have any choice."
Mr. Lau's family business is under threat from a controversial use of eminent domain. Unlike most adverse public policy, eminent domain has a way of alarming people in general. Most adverse policy goes about business with little controversy because, it is not our Ox being gored.
Also, it seems that we all have a way of being far more outraged about the taking of property then we do about taking away our family's ability to grow strong and live together. For example, when was the last time you heard public outrage for restrictive zoning laws and ordinances that limited the construction of the three family houses or the use of garage apartments and in-law suites.
Are we more interested in property values than building economically strong families? Our we even ready to allow for economically strong families?
The inability of a family to live together and to share the cost of housing, is directly related to the cost of health care, the burden of child care, the behavioral problems we see among our youth and many more social problems. While we may not choose this option in our own life, why not allow the option for those families that want or need it?
Important, is our willingness to see our individual attitudes reflected in public policy. Is it good public policy that subtracts from the ability to form strong extended families?
For example you can take decades to build a local family owned business, only to see it destroyed by a public act. As in the following case sited in The New York Times :
"My family has owned this land for 36 years," said Eric Lau, who laid bricks to shore up the building that would become his thriving restaurant, which is adjacent to the hole. "And now they're trying to erase us from this place, to take it and say we don't have any choice."
Mr. Lau's family business is under threat from a controversial use of eminent domain. Unlike most adverse public policy, eminent domain has a way of alarming people in general. Most adverse policy goes about business with little controversy because, it is not our Ox being gored.
Also, it seems that we all have a way of being far more outraged about the taking of property then we do about taking away our family's ability to grow strong and live together. For example, when was the last time you heard public outrage for restrictive zoning laws and ordinances that limited the construction of the three family houses or the use of garage apartments and in-law suites.
Are we more interested in property values than building economically strong families? Our we even ready to allow for economically strong families?
The inability of a family to live together and to share the cost of housing, is directly related to the cost of health care, the burden of child care, the behavioral problems we see among our youth and many more social problems. While we may not choose this option in our own life, why not allow the option for those families that want or need it?
Important, is our willingness to see our individual attitudes reflected in public policy. Is it good public policy that subtracts from the ability to form strong extended families?
posted by Dominic Siclare at 6:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home