Gated Communities and the Demise of Civic Culture

[Gadarene]

So I’m sure that everyone who’s been to Southern California, New York, Arizona, or Florida (in my case, Boca Raton) in the last few years has noticed the proliferation of gated communities. Hell, some of you probably live in 'em, or have relatives that do. For the uninitiated, I’m talking about the lush, spacious, walled-off, guarded, private enclaves that you find wherever wealth wants to be left alone with wealth. Country clubs, basically, that you live in…with Wackenhut heavies patrolling the entrances like castle guards in some medieval fiefdom.

Not that I’ve got anything against fiefdoms, necessarily, but the longer I think about the popularity of these gated communities, the more uncomfortable I get. They’re the stuff of privilege, see, the haute of couture–the upper-class suburban ideal surrounded by a big stone barrier. And there’s nothing wrong with this per se–freedom of association, and all that–except that it seems to be atomizing everyone into smaller and smaller groups of “us”, if you know what I mean. No coincidence that the only dark-skinned faces you’ll usually see inside those gates are pushing a lawnmower. Which is fine, you know, on the face of it: wealth has its privileges, and a disproportionately small number of minorities (for whatever reason) happen to be wealthy.

But the consequences for citizenship, for the health, the existence of the USA as a whole?–less fine, I think. If you think of those gated communities as city-states with some voting power over the welfare of a larger territory, and no particular inclination to think in terms of a larger territorial interest…well, let me give you a smaller example. The town where I went to high school (in Oregon) has a large population of senior citizens–the climate’s mild, the coast is gorgeous, prices are reasonable. So whenever a local school bond comes up for a vote (you know, a few dollars more in county taxes in exchange for better facilities, better teachers, better education), the bond fails because the seniors vote against it en masse. They don’t have school-age kids anymore, you see, and most of them don’t see why they should have to pay extra (however much extra) so someone else’s child can have a better school.

The problem is, we all lose at the end of that equation–where’s the virtue in this selfishness? Democracy, roughly (and ours is rough), is supposed to result in the most good being done for the most people most of the time…the nearest thing to Benthamite utilitarianism, for better or worse, that we’ve yet managed to devise. That’s why we’re given a voice in the first place. (Though certain bits of our electoral system could assuredly stand revision, to align more with democratic theory–proportional representation, anyone? …But I digress.) But if sizeable minorities no longer feel their interests vested in the well-being of the country as a whole, they’re largely freed of any civic obligations they might have. So as long as they’ve got their private homes, and their private schools, and their private security from the brutish masses just outside their walls, then why should they spend their tax dollars on the publicly funded equivalents of those things? Laissez faire, y’know…why should someone have to pay for something that doesn’t directly benefit them in the least? So what if the benefits of a healthy society can for the most part only be seen in the long-term…lest the barbarians, in their degradation, storm those rarefied battlements by force. Worse luck for everyone.

Anyway, that’s why I feel the growing “gated” phenomenon to be so dangerous–especially because it just happens to stratify along lines of both income and ethnicity. Am I making any sense here, despite my likely impenetrable imagery?

[Odesio]

**
But the consequences for citizenship, for the health, the existence of the USA as a whole?–less fine, I think. If you think of those gated communities as city-states with some voting power over the welfare of a larger territory, and no particular inclination to think in terms of a larger territorial interest…well, let me give you a smaller example.

**

Why shouldn’t they have the power to vote over the welfare of a larger territory? They are after all being taxed for the welfare of the larger territory.

**

The problem is, we all lose at the end of that equation–where’s the virtue in this selfishness? Democracy, roughly (and ours is rough), is supposed to result in the most good being done for the most people most of the time…the nearest thing to Benthamite utilitarianism, for better or worse, that we’ve yet managed to devise.

**

It sounds to me like democracy is working just fine over there. There are way more people who dislike the idea of the bonds therefore they vote against it. That’s democracy right?

**
But if sizeable minorities no longer feel their interests vested in the well-being of the country as a whole, they’re largely freed of any civic obligations they might have.

**

What civic obligations do they have?

**
So as long as they’ve got their private homes, and their private schools, and their private security from the brutish masses just outside their walls, then why should they spend their tax dollars on the publicly funded equivalents of those things?

**

They already pay plenty. Let’s not pretend like they don’t.

**
Anyway, that’s why I feel the growing “gated” phenomenon to be so dangerous–especially because it just happens to stratify along lines of both income and ethnicity. Am I making any sense here, despite my likely impenetrable imagery? **

Is it a growing phenomenon?

Marc

[Boris_B]

You raise a lot of good points. Unfortunately, I’m in a terrible mood right now, so your points are hitting me a little harder than they probably should.

Gated communities make me very sad. I mean, people are terrified of crime, and the statistics be damned, so I guess I can’t fault them for doing stuff to protect themselves. I just think it’s too bad that this is somebody’s preferred method of self-defense.

What worries me a lot more than gated communities is the abandonment of public education. There is a small degree of self-interest involved here, but I think it is outweighed by a much greater desire to not help anyone. Some people really hate public schools just because of that. Sure, they say it’s because the schools are mismanaged, or they teach the wrong stuff, or whatever, but it doesn’t explain why they always emphasize the taxes. The taxes that get attacked the least or the ones that don’t help people too far away; heaven forbid someone from a whole nother district would benefit from yer tax money. So the schools that are funded most consistently are the ones near wealthy neighborhoods. I think if there is a real social upheaval in this country, it will come when there is no public education left and we are left with an illiterate underclass complete separate from a well-educated elite. In that case, the community gates will prove scanty protection.

No, I don’t usually think that’s going to happen, but I’m in an unusually bad mood today.

[matt_mcl]

Gated communities are what you get when you take the opposite of democracy and construct it in brick.

The inhabitant of a gated community has ceased to be a public citizen. Their dissociation from the rest of the city symbolizes their ceasing to maintain a civil discourse or day-to-day communion with the rest of society. They have become private citizens: people to whom the rest of society has no import, except as a mass of barbarians which must be either controlled or, that being impossible, walled out by sheer battlements. Private citizens occupy themselves exclusively with their own private affairs to the exclusion of the affairs of the rest of society. It’s not for nothing that the Ancient Greek word for such a person was idiotes.

[2sense]

When I see a gated community I think of a burbclave ala Snow Crash.

[labdude]

I’m not a big fan of walled and gated communities but I have a little trouble with the notion of how they cause problems. Specifically, how are the civic life and voting patterns of a walled and gated community of 300,000$ houses different than the civic life and voting patterns of a suburb of $300,000 dollar houses. I don’t think its much different. The gates and walls are just a symbol of the class problems in the USA. Removing the gates would change the problems. Disagree?

Also, whats “proportional representation”? please define.
I’ve never heard of this term before.

[Gilligan]

A proportional representation voting system has the goal of making the group of representatives at a level of government proportional to the votes of the electorate. There are several different systems in use around the world, and it is used in a few locations in the U.S. Voting in the U.S. is almost exclusively winner-take-all, where voters in individual districts must choose between two (or more, sometimes) candidates, of which only one will win and take office. This often results in outcomes in which a legislative body is far out of proportion to the desires of the voters.

An example: A state has ten representatives. The voters in that state are divided 60% Republican and 40% Democrat. (They don’t like alternative parties here.) Currently the ten reps are elected in ten different districts. If within each district, the proportion of voters remains 60-40, then all ten reps elected are going to be Republicans; they will win each district because they have the majority in each one. In a PR system, all the voters choose all ten reps. A more likely (though not guaranteed) outcome then is that there will be 6 Reps and 4 Dems elected; proportionally representing the entire electorate.

The Center for Voting and Democracy has more information for those interested.

[Lissa]

• The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap * had an interesting point in saying that air conditioning may have been the start of the slow demise of what we consider “community.” Back in the “olden” days before air conditioning, families sat outside on their porches in the cool of the evening and chatted with the neighbors. During the day, people were outside more, interacting socially with other people. As soon as AC came around, people started spending more time inside and less time with the Joneses next door. Over time, we evolved to to the present state where a good portion of Americans never speak to their neighbors. This trend of family isolationism has led us to want more privacy . . . tall fences that seperate our yards, gated communities to keep outsiders outside where they belong, and expansive yards that give us a feeling of safe distance from others.

[kiffa]

One of our criteria when looking to buy a house last year was that it NOT be located in a gated community for many of the reasons cited above. In addition, gated communities are private property which means that everyone needs an invitation to get in; service/repair folks, public services such as the police and fire dept staff etc. Emergency services can override this if need be. However, it also means that the community pays for all physical repairs, maintenance and extensions. We moved into an ungated community with all the amenities of a gated community down the street. In fact, our community probably has greater security in how it was developed than “those folks down the street” ie: open land leading into the community rather than gates, trees, shrubbery which can hide those who want to be hidden… In fact, there were two violent crimes in the gated community within three months of moving in [one still unsolved] inspite of the fact that it has increased security. It’s your choice if you want to buy into this type of living, however it’s buyer beware.

There is no guarantee that you will receive improved or higher quality services just because it is private rather than public. There are plenty of shitty private schools.
Again, buyer beware.

Not voting for services that do not benefit you directly is like shooting yourself in the foot. You will have to deal with those “uneducated or poorly educated idiots” in the long term; they are the dolts that cannot make correct change, who can’t figure out your simple question and probably will vote to reduce your social security benefit.

[whitetho]

Recently in North Carolina a gated community got incorporated as a town. Thus, a community which is closed to 99.9% of the state population is qualified to receive state taxes for its support. The legislature is looking into seeing if maybe the incorporation law needs to be adjusted.

[Doug_Bowe]

Remember that a lot of gated retirement communities are populated by people who were born and lived most of their lives somewhere else.
These people didn’t graduate from the local school system and so feel no personal need to support it. They’re also likely living on fixed incomes (granted that in their case it’s relatively high) and will do what it takes to keep their overhead level.
The civic funding problems you’re bringing up here were first brought to light years ago in Arizona. The positives of a retirement community included: new money coming in from people who earned it somewhere else; the creation of this new money was pollution free; the new citizens have a low crime rate, etc.
The negatives came to light later. One of them was failure to get another bond election passed. This resulted in deterioration of public schools and potholes in the streets.
One area you might get support for will be hospital and health care initiatives.

[Odesio]

**

The inhabitant of a gated community has ceased to be a public citizen. Their dissociation from the rest of the city symbolizes their ceasing to maintain a civil discourse or day-to-day communion with the rest of society.

**

How are they any different then any other wealthy community? There are plenty of communities without actual gates that have a neighborhood association. Why would you say they have ceased maintaining a civil discourse? Personally I can only commune with so much of society on any given day. I probably don’t commune with most of society. Have I abandoned civil discourse and day to day communion with society at large?

**
They have become private citizens: people to whom the rest of society has no import, except as a mass of barbarians which must be either controlled or, that being impossible, walled out by sheer battlements. Private citizens occupy themselves exclusively with their own private affairs to the exclusion of the affairs of the rest of society. It’s not for nothing that the Ancient Greek word for such a person was idiotes. **

I consider myself a private citizen. In fact I pretty much consider everyone else I meet to be a private citizen as well. I occupy myself primarily with my own problems and my own affairs. To act as though these people don’t contribute anything is unfair.

Marc

[Odesio]

**
The negatives came to light later. One of them was failure to get another bond election passed. This resulted in deterioration of public schools and potholes in the streets.
One area you might get support for will be hospital and health care initiatives. **

These retirement people are unlikely to be bringing children into the public schools. So why would the public schools be suffering?

Marc

[Gadarene]

*Originally posted by MGibson *
These retirement people are unlikely to be bringing children into the public schools. So why would the public schools be suffering?

Because if the school bonds or tax levies in question are the sole sources by which those schools can get new facilities, new equipment, new repairs, or new teachers–and for many districts, they are the sole sources, or nearly so–then the schools are doomed to deterioration as long as there is a sizeable enough voting bloc (retirees, people with children in private school) that decides that their interests aren’t directly benefited by the levies or bonds.

Originally posted by labdude
I’m not a big fan of walled and gated communities but I have a little trouble with the notion of how they cause problems. Specifically, how are the civic life and voting patterns of a walled and gated community of 300,000$ houses different than the civic life and voting patterns of a suburb of $300,000 dollar houses. I don’t think its much different.
The gates and walls are just a symbol of the class problems in the USA. Removing the gates would change the problems. Disagree?

Well, the problem I have, believe it or not, isn’t primarily one of class. If people in gated communities have their own security firms, their own beautification projects, their own schools–in essence, their own municipality–it seems to me that they’ll be less likely to vote to fund public police, public works, or public schools. Like I said, the fact that these enclaves of private services do tend to separate themselves along the lines of income and ethnicity make it all the more troubling.

Of course, I’d argue that this all stems from a larger problem concerning this country’s priorities. The fact that public education is part of the discretionary budget, so often left up to individual states and districts to fund effectively, opens the door for that funding to be constricted by the divestiture of short-term self-interest. It’s not possible, on the other hand, for some friends and I to put a giant net above our houses and so opt out of helping to fund the proposed missile defense system. If ya know what I mean.

[PatrickM]

The logical problem with saying, “I’m not supporting taxes for (fill in the blank) because I personally derive no benefit” is that it relies on the false premise that the person has achieved all that he or she has on his own. Old codgers who say “My kids are all out of school, so I’m not paying for the current schoold” ignore the fact that when they did have kids in public school, the whole community, and not just those with kids, paid the bill.

[Johanna]

You know what these gated communities remind me of?

That underground artificially re-created whitebread right-wing world, in the film A Boy And His Dog.

[Odesio]

**

Because if the school bonds or tax levies in question are the sole sources by which those schools can get new facilities, new equipment, new repairs, or new teachers–and for many districts, they are the sole sources, or nearly so–then the schools are doomed to deterioration as long as there is a sizeable enough voting bloc (retirees, people with children in private school) that decides that their interests aren’t directly benefited by the levies or bonds.

**

There's always going to be a sizable portion of any population that won't vote to increase their taxes. In my state schools are primarily paid for by property taxes.

**
Well, the problem I have, believe it or not, isn’t primarily one of class. If people in gated communities have their own security firms, their own beautification projects, their own schools–in essence, their own municipality–it seems to me that they’ll be less likely to vote to fund public police, public works, or public schools.

**

Which is ok. After all they're entitled to vote however they feel would be best. That is the essence of a democracy, correct?

**
Like I said, the fact that these enclaves of private services do tend to separate themselves along the lines of income and ethnicity make it all the more troubling.

**

Most of these places still need fire departments and public utilities. So no matter what they’re not completely shut out from the rest of the world. And so far as I can recall almost every neighborhood I’ve seen has been divided by income and ethnicity. It isn’t a quirk found only in gated communities.

I doubt most who move into these places do so to get away from society. Most of them probably look at the neighborhood and think it will be a nice place to live.

**
Of course, I’d argue that this all stems from a larger problem concerning this country’s priorities. The fact that public education is part of the discretionary budget, so often left up to individual states and districts to fund effectively, opens the door for that funding to be constricted by the divestiture of short-term self-interest.

**

It could be that some people think that the school is getting plenty of money and not spending in properly. Why would they wish to pay more tax dollars in that case?

**
It’s not possible, on the other hand, for some friends and I to put a giant net above our houses and so opt out of helping to fund the proposed missile defense system. If ya know what I mean.
**

Gated communities can’t throw a net over their heads and opt out of anything. Last time I checked their votes didn’t count any more then yours or mine.

Marc

[doreen]

I’m not a big fan of walled and gated communities but I have a little trouble with the notion of how they cause problems. Specifically, how are the civic life and voting patterns of a walled and gated community of 300,000$ houses different than the civic life and voting patterns of a suburb of $300,000 dollar houses. I don’t think its much different. The gates and walls are just a symbol of the class problems in the USA. Removing the gates would change the problems. Disagree?

Removing the gates will change some of the problems. People in gated communities sometimes don’t feel any connection to the larger community outside the gates. If they feel they are not using a service, whether it be the police ( because they have private security ) or road repair ,street cleaning and snow removal ( because thay have to pay for service to the streets inside the community), they are not likely to support taxes or bonds for those services,although in actuality they do use those services ( if a resident is a crime victim, the police handle it, and I doubt if anyone travels exclusively within the gates) . It’s similar to the school voucher issue. One of the most common reasons I hear from people who support vouchers is that they shouldn’t have to pay twice ( tuition for their kids plus taxes to public schools).
The suburb of $300,000 houses, however,is usually part of a larger community which imposes taxes ( a town, county etc). Even in a mostly wealthy area, there are more or less expensive parts.( around here $300,000 houses may be one of the less expensive parts}. Those in the more expensive part don’t generally pay privately for services to their area ,and then oppose financing for those services to the larger area.

[sailor]

I thought this was supposed to be a free country. If you don’t like that lifestyle don’t do it. But why should other people not be allowed it?

And do you really think the people who hang out selling drugs in bad neighborhoods are caring about the community? Those are the people the other people are trying to get away from and I do not blame them.

[Gadarene]

Because if the school bonds or tax levies in question are the sole sources by which those schools can get new facilities, new equipment, new repairs, or new teachers–and for many districts, they are the sole sources, or nearly so–then the schools are doomed to deterioration as long as there is a sizeable enough voting bloc (retirees, people with children in private school) that decides that their interests aren’t directly benefited by the levies or bonds.*

There’s always going to be a sizable portion of any population that won’t vote to increase their taxes. In my state schools are primarily paid for by property taxes.

Right, but upkeep on the schools can be tied exclusively to those property taxes, as is the case in my old district. This is why I brought up Star Wars, Episode Two. My interests aren’t directly benefited by sinking my tax dollars into a billion-dollar boondoggle, but the interests of others surely are (military contractors, for one). I can’t, however, vote “No” on the missile-defense tax levy–even though the benefits of a literate, civic public (engendered through education) are far more tangible than those embodied in the National Missile Defense Program.

Well, the problem I have, believe it or not, isn’t primarily one of class. If people in gated communities have their own security firms, their own beautification projects, their own schools–in essence, their own municipality–it seems to me that they’ll be less likely to vote to fund public police, public works, or public schools.*

Which is ok. After all they’re entitled to vote however they feel would be best. That is the essence of a democracy, correct?

I’m not saying it’s not their right, Marc. I’m saying it’s dangerous, because these people may no longer feel their welfare or their best interests tied to the welfare or best interests of their community, or state, or country. See my sig. Specifically, they could do a short-term cost-benefit analysis (“I’ll be forced to pay more in taxes if this bond passes, and I don’t use the public services enough for those taxes to be worth it.”) which will cost them in the long run, as the community services outside their walls deteriorate through lack of funding. Far too libertarian for me, in a “fee-for-service, let’s-think-only-of-our-immediate-self-interest, there’s-no-such-thing-as-the-good-of-the-community” kind of way.

Like I said, the fact that these enclaves of private services do tend to separate themselves along the lines of income and ethnicity make it all the more troubling.*

Most of these places still need fire departments and public utilities. So no matter what they’re not completely shut out from the rest of the world. And so far as I can recall almost every neighborhood I’ve seen has been divided by income and ethnicity. It isn’t a quirk found only in gated communities.

I doubt most who move into these places do so to get away from society. Most of them probably look at the neighborhood and think it will be a nice place to live.

Nice because it’s clean, and safe, and upscale. I agree with you. It’s a nice place to live in all the ways that most of society isn’t. So should the characterization be revised? How’s “people move into gated communities to get away from the negative parts of society?”

Anyway, I’m not begrudging them their right to live where they want, with whom they want. What’s at issue is the level of detachment that’s being exhibited, as far as the state of the community as a whole. People who live in the Broken Sound community in Boca Raton still live in Boca Raton, even if their contact with the less-affluent is minimal. They still reap the benefits of being citizens of that city (and that state, and this country). But when all the rich, white people move behind their walls and say, “We’ve got our own policemen now,” I think I have a right to be a little concerned.

Of course, I’d argue that this all stems from a larger problem concerning this country’s priorities. The fact that public education is part of the discretionary budget, so often left up to individual states and districts to fund effectively, opens the door for that funding to be constricted by the divestiture of short-term self-interest.*

It could be that some people think that the school is getting plenty of money and not spending in properly. Why would they wish to pay more tax dollars in that case?

Good point. So let’s expand this beyond tax dollars. The point is that it’s not in the immediate interest of someone whose children go to private school, or who have already graduated, to spend any of their resources–time, money, energy–fighting to see that the public education system spends its dollars more efficiently, or of someone who lives under the auspices of a private security firm to make sure, through civic processes, that the city’s police force is well-enough funded.

It’s not possible, on the other hand, for some friends and I to put a giant net above our houses and so opt out of helping to fund the proposed missile defense system. If ya know what I mean.*

Gated communities can’t throw a net over their heads and opt out of anything. Last time I checked their votes didn’t count any more then yours or mine.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don’t have the option of voting against funding for missile defense or B-1 bombers. Even if I could provide for my own protection just fine (I’m going to dig a really big hole!), such budgetary decisions are made at the national level, by the Pentagon and the legislature. The funding of schools, though, is subject to the approval of the voters in the district. If, say, 51 percent of a district utilizes private schools, and 49 percent public schools, a tax bond to ease overcrowded classes or add much-needed teachers could well fail, leaving nearly half that district completely screwed. (The other 51 percent, of course, would be largely unaffected…at least in the short-term.) The “yes” side and the “no” side in the tax bond issue don’t have an equal stake in the outcome. One side stands to lose a couple of bucks in property tax, and the other stands to lose its children’s education! The example is exaggerated, obviously, since I doubt there are many districts in which most children are private-schooled, but the point is valid: a minority of voters can make decisions in which their potential personal benefit is nil, their potential personal cost is minimal, and the potential benefit and cost to the community at large is huge…yet because they’ve walled themselves in, the outcome of those decisions are disproportionate.