Community Member or Consumer?

Years ago, while I was in the middle of a career in boarding schools, I became intrigued by the work of Amitai Etzioni.  He wrote about democracy and morality in communities and was central in the American iteration of the communitarian movement.  As I was living in a small, highly interdependent community, I was affected by his work and have always felt an obligation to the communities within which I live, probably as a result of that influence.

Recently there seems to have been a confluence of reminders that voluntary investment in one’s communities isn’t universal and that it may be becoming less common.  Two very local reminders have come from a sewer district and a school district.

Last week, I attended a public hearing at a selectmen’s meeting in which sewer rates were being discussed prior to a vote on changing the rate structure.  Testimony ranged from thoughtful review of the proposed rate structure to shrill complaints about perceived personal inequities.  A surprising drumbeat had developed among those who wanted to pay only  for actual water consumption (the basis for sewer rate computation), not for being connected to a system that was always available.  There was even a suggestion that building owners currently on the sewer district infrastructure be empowered to disconnect their homes from the system and build septic systems if they chose.

Over the last several years, one town has withdrawn from our local, multi-town, school district, and a second has been trying to do the same.  The first town withdrew over the impending closure of a small elementary school.  The second town, a ski resort town, wants to withdraw because of tax-based assessment. The town pays more per student attending the district than do other towns in the district. Even though the town has the lowest tax rates in the district, some citizens see the tax-based funding as unfair and would prefer to pay per student.

In each of these instances the respective community, a sewer district and a school district, is being adversely impacted by strong differences in the way community members perceive their relationship to the community.  In each case, there is an emerging difference between the perceptions of belonging and consuming.  Affinity organizations, community districts, and safety services have traditionally been viewed as those deserving support of their communities.  Over the years this support has taken the form of financial and volunteer support.

In an increasing number of cases we can see that perception morphing in favor of support for the individual consumer position. 

That trend will create conflict between the two disparate points of view and will likely lead to the dissolution of numerous smaller affinity organizations and service providers that are dependent upon broad infrastructure support to provide services whenever they’re required.

Means of supporting highway infrastructure and the electric grid costs could create strong precedent.  We are burning less fossil fuel, the basis for highway funding, and doing more co-generation, reducing commercially produced power demand while leaving the need for immediate replacement service intact.