4 ms·

I'm not going to expand on the huge issues there are with state and local funding in Texas, but the perennial underfunding of state and local government service

I'm not going to expand on the huge issues there are with state and local funding in Texas, but the perennial underfunding of state and local government services in Texas (a hugely powerful state economically) is another clear example of exactly what this article is talking about. This isn't a discussion about whether the Texas state government should fund basic public services in colonias (or any poor localities that can't pay for them with property taxes), it's about whether there are people living in third world conditions in the United States. Well, there are half a million people living in colonias in Texas (and some, like you it seems, are fine with that)... Also, as an illustrative anecdote, I grew up in one of the wealthiest suburbs of Austin and in the state. Our neighbors also had to dig a well and put in a septic tank because they couldn't get city water or sewer (they're less than 15 minutes from downtown Austin and the state capital). That's the state of local government in Texas.

dahdum 8y ago
I think we just have a difference in core principles - I see the community I grew up in and the "colonias" as inevitable in a free society. The colonias they described in the article was 22 miles out of El Paso, and was just inexpensive land someone bought and sold off as plots. People chose to buy those plots, build whatever they wanted, and to live out there. They chose that lifestyle instead of scraping by in the cheapest areas of El Paso, one would assume. I've known many people who've taken that same choice, living up in the mountains accessible only by logging roads, or sitting right up against the Canadian border an hour from the nearest small town. The only way to "solve" the colonias problem is to legally prevent people from making that decision, and I don't believe in making that choice for them. If people want to throw up off-grid tiny homes an hour from town, what would our justification for stopping them be?
- ravitation 8y ago
  I said this in my last comment, this is only a discussion about whether people in the United States live in third world conditions. They do. Addressing what you consider equivalent examples, there is a fundamental difference between choosing to live "off the grid", and having no choice economically. The development of colonias is deeply tied to the industrialization of the border, predatory developer practices, and physical isolation, which makes escaping the economic bubble of colonias even harder (something that public services are specially meant to address). When you grow up in what is essentially a third world country, with a third world public education, can you not see how escaping that environment would be incredibly difficult? The idea that everyone in a "free society" is inherently equally free is, to be perfectly honest, absurd. It takes a lot of work from society to make this true. To expand a bit on my anecdote, having to dig a well and put in a septic tank didn't affect my neighbors that much... Because their home is a multimillion dollar custom built home. They chose to build their house where they did, but that took certain financial freedoms that not everyone in the United States has, which is exactly the point. Also, just to expand on your last paragraph, we as a society already enforce many requirements on land developers. Colonias developed in areas specifically where enforcement of a lot of these regulations was weak (or at a time prior to regulation), in many cases the was done purposefully by developers and not by the people that went on to live there. To be clear, I'm not proposing a clear alternative here. I am however asking that you acknowledge the fact that your libertarian approach is equivalent to accepting millions of people living in slums in the United States, and living in economic conditions that severely limits their ability to escape. This is exactly the state that many in third world countries find themselves in.
  - pm90 8y ago
    Excellent comment. The real travesty to me personally as a person who grew up in India is: Governments in the US actually work. Sure there is corruption, super inflated infrastructure costs and waste, but for whatever reasons, shit gets done. If Texas were to have only slightly less libertarian policies, I believe a lot more services could be provided to a lot more people that need them.

dahdum 8y ago

I think we just have a difference in core principles - I see the community I grew up in and the "colonias" as inevitable in a free society. The colonias they described in the article was 22 miles out of El Paso, and was just inexpensive land someone bought and sold off as plots. People chose to buy those plots, build whatever they wanted, and to live out there. They chose that lifestyle instead of scraping by in the cheapest areas of El Paso, one would assume. I've known many people who've taken that same choice, living up in the mountains accessible only by logging roads, or sitting right up against the Canadian border an hour from the nearest small town. The only way to "solve" the colonias problem is to legally prevent people from making that decision, and I don't believe in making that choice for them. If people want to throw up off-grid tiny homes an hour from town, what would our justification for stopping them be?

ravitation 8y ago
I said this in my last comment, this is only a discussion about whether people in the United States live in third world conditions. They do. Addressing what you consider equivalent examples, there is a fundamental difference between choosing to live "off the grid", and having no choice economically. The development of colonias is deeply tied to the industrialization of the border, predatory developer practices, and physical isolation, which makes escaping the economic bubble of colonias even harder (something that public services are specially meant to address). When you grow up in what is essentially a third world country, with a third world public education, can you not see how escaping that environment would be incredibly difficult? The idea that everyone in a "free society" is inherently equally free is, to be perfectly honest, absurd. It takes a lot of work from society to make this true. To expand a bit on my anecdote, having to dig a well and put in a septic tank didn't affect my neighbors that much... Because their home is a multimillion dollar custom built home. They chose to build their house where they did, but that took certain financial freedoms that not everyone in the United States has, which is exactly the point. Also, just to expand on your last paragraph, we as a society already enforce many requirements on land developers. Colonias developed in areas specifically where enforcement of a lot of these regulations was weak (or at a time prior to regulation), in many cases the was done purposefully by developers and not by the people that went on to live there. To be clear, I'm not proposing a clear alternative here. I am however asking that you acknowledge the fact that your libertarian approach is equivalent to accepting millions of people living in slums in the United States, and living in economic conditions that severely limits their ability to escape. This is exactly the state that many in third world countries find themselves in.
- pm90 8y ago
  Excellent comment. The real travesty to me personally as a person who grew up in India is: Governments in the US actually work. Sure there is corruption, super inflated infrastructure costs and waste, but for whatever reasons, shit gets done. If Texas were to have only slightly less libertarian policies, I believe a lot more services could be provided to a lot more people that need them.