Jill and I were discussing the events in St. Louis over the weekend, in which the two wealthy lawyers "defended their home" from protesters moving through their gated community, by pointing firearms at them. Jill--while acknowledging that the use of firearms was inappropriate--tried to see it from the "defenders" point of view. They had spent a literal fortune to restore their home--a mansion that once belonged to the Busch family of brewery fame--to its former glory; they felt they had much to protect. And then we got into the whole question of gated communities...and especially the idea that the mayor of St. Louis (whose home was the eventual destination of the protest) lives in that same gated community.
I had to think about why gated communities offend me....and I've finally come up with an answer. Those who live in a gated community want all the advantages of living in a municipal environment--police and fire protection, museums and theaters nearby, paved streets, sewer and water utilities, etc.--but none of the disadvantages--people you don't know walking on your street, for example. If you want to live that way, move out to a rural area and build yourself an estate surrounded by acres of open land--but don't expect to be able to wall yourself off from the rest of humanity in the middle of a densely populated urban area.
And the mayor living there? I can see that the mayor may need added protection...but that's why many cities have "executive mansions" (like Gracie Mansion in NYC) for the mayor to occupy while he/she is in office. But to live in a neighborhood that the vast majority of her constituents have no access to? Is she afraid of her fellow citizens?
Your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment