 TIPS: Changing the Conversation By Kim Klein
"A society that reduces everything to a market inevitably divides those who can buy from those who cannot, undermining any sense of collective responsibility and with it, democracy." Gary Cross, An All Consuming Century, 2000. Much is being written and discussed about the privatization of public space. This column will be devoted to that topic, especially with how privatization effects the nonprofit sector. First, what is "public space?" It is anything that belongs to the public, and is financed by the public for the use of the whole public. For example, public schools, parks, ball fields, and the like which are free and open to the public; museums, theaters, swimming pools, tennis courts, which may charge a nominal admission but which are subsidized by the public through taxes and are supposed to serve a broad swath of the public; and of course, police and fire protection, and emergency room care. "Public space" also includes fresh air and fresh water, access to a wide range of information through the airwaves, and access to the political process through voting. Why do we call things "space" that are not spatial? We think it is important to call attention to the idea that there are certain elements that are indispensable in a free and open society. These are elements support a baseline quality of life, and thus, must be available to the whole public, even those not able to pay. "Baseline quality of life" includes not only that which is required to survive, but also other essential aspects of our communities. Arts and culture are baseline, as are recreation centers and community forums. These elements cost money, and this money is provided by the public through taxation. They take up space, literally, figuratively, or virtually. This public space is rapidly being privatized. In order for "public" schools to have art and music programs, and sometimes even libraries, parents must raise the money privately. In order for national and state parks to balance their budgets they must charge admission fees; ditto for museums and artistic venues. Even highways are adopted by service clubs and small businesses for litter pick-up and beautification. These spaces may be publicly owned, but they are privately financed. Further, a community is often divided between those who can afford private health clubs, roads, schools, after school programs, and the like, and those who cannot. The quality of the public parks, community centers, daycare programs (for children, seniors, people with disabilities), becomes of lower and lower quality because there is no commitment to insuring that these are a part of a community’s life. We believe that the nonprofit sector is unduly burdened with the fall out from this privatization. When people are excluded from "public space" because they cannot pay (health care, food, housing) or as access to public space closes (shrinking public transportation, child care facilities, job training) people turn to nonprofits to meet their needs. The nonprofit sector is being asked to do more and more with less and less. We think this has to stop, but we also think that nonprofits must begin to raise some fundamental questions about how our society is structured. It is not enough to call for restoration of funding, to add a percent here and there to sales tax or licensing fees in order to raise money. The questions are simple: Let’s start with two examples: One of the most recent examples of privatizing public space comes from our military. Several pro-war disc jockeys have started a movement to donate diapers, canned goods, flour and other non-perishables to the families of servicemen. Why? Because people in the service are notoriously underpaid, with the starting salaries of soldiers being equivalent to those of theater ushers, childcare workers and crossing guards. The base pay of a private with one year of service is $15,480; base pay for a corporal with three years of service is $19,980. Commissioned officers do better with salaries starting at $26,000–hardly a living wage for someone with a family. (Bureau of Labor Statistics and Department of Defense). Even General Tommy Franks, with 36 years of service makes $153,940. (Compare Frank’s salary to the average compensation package for a CEO in 2001 which was $11 million). The attraction of the military for most of the "volunteers" in it now is the promise of a quality education in return for some years serving your country. The military is thus largely made up of poor and working class people who do not have other access to the quality of education they can get in the service. Because they are so poorly paid, soldiers often qualify for food stamps and other forms of government assistance. However, when they go into combat, they get combat pay. They no longer qualify for food stamps, but the pay is not really enough to replace the benefits they have lost. So their families left behind have less to live on than they did before their loved one went off to combat. Hence, the collection of stuff for these families–a private solution to a public problem. Regardless of how any of us feel about the war, I am sure no one begrudges the families of the troops food and other necessities. It is just a question of why the almost 46% of our income tax that goes to support the military isn’t enough to pay soldiers a living wage? Our second example is an older one, and probably more important in the scheme of things. This is the worldwide effort to privatize water. According to the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, to understand how little water is actually fresh and available to humans, imagine an aquarium filled with five gallons of water representing all of the water on earth. Fill two empty soda cans from the aquarium–one completely and the other halfway. The cans represent the earth’s total supply of freshwater. The full soda can represents water locked up in polar ice caps, glaciers, topsoil and suspended in the atmosphere. Set it aside. Pour off half of the remaining can, representing either inaccessible or polluted fresh water. The three ounces of remaining water represent all of the liquid freshwater found on earth in ponds, lakes, rivers, and groundwater. In other words, less than one-half of one percent of the world’s water is accessible and drinkable. It is not entirely surprising, then, that one billion people (one-sixth of the world’s population) lack access to safe water and two billion lack safe sanitation. It is also not too surprising that water is being seen as a commodity. Ten major transnational organizations now deliver private water and wastewater services to more than 200 million customers in 150 countries–at a huge profit. According to Fortune magazine, the annual profits of the water industry are close to $1 trillion, substantially higher than the pharmaceutical sector and about 40% of the oil sector. Right now only 5% of the world’s water supply is in private hands, so there is potential for far greater profits. Before anymore water gets into private hands, we must ask who does water belong to? Should anyone profit from the sale of water–should this, arguably the greatest necessity to sustain life–be a commodity? We say no, and suggest that law and public policy keep corporate profit out of the water supply. In our next column, we will discuss how public policy can shape these debates and the role nonprofits must take in creating and informing that discussion. Some sites worth visiting on these topics: www.redefiningprogress.org/commonassets |