Some times, small stories* can be revealing, for example, this one on the P-Patch community gardens in Seattle.
Harvest-season thefts have been challenging the good will, optimism and sense of harmony in the city's 50-plus P-Patches. Tomatoes vanish. Peppers disappear. Even tools, hoses and paving stones have wandered away.
No one knows just how much food has been taken, but this year's thefts have sparked a spirited online discussion among P-Patch gardeners, whose outlooks range from a get-tough stance to a philosophical acceptance.
There are two aspects to this story that I find interesting, ethically. First, there is the thinking of the thieves, who are not, if these reports are correct, starving.
Some gardeners say they might be less upset if the produce was going to truly needy people. But stories circulate about apparently middle-class people helping themselves to the crops.
"People have seen a lady in a well-kept Mercedes drive up, get out with her shopping bags and go out into the gardens and just start filling them up," said Ray Schutte, president of the P-Patch Trust, a nonprofit group that supports community gardens.
Most gardeners value their own vegetables far above what they would cost in a store, but these same vegetables would be worth little to most thieves. I can understand — though not forgive — thieves who grab something of great value, but I find it hard to understand thieves who take something of little value to themselves, but possibly great value to someone else.
Second, there is the attitude of some of the gardeners. At least a few think that everyone should just accept the thefts.
In contrast, Vade Donaldson, 37, wrote that theft is an unavoidable part of P-Patch life. "This sounds crass, but I think we all, as gardeners, just need to get over it."
. . .
Donaldson was angry and frustrated when every bell pepper was stolen from his first P-Patch in 2002.But his wife, Stephanie Kellner, 36, helped him focus on why people participate in the community garden. "I hope it's because they enjoy the activity itself, of putting their hands in the soil, connecting with the earth and our food, and because of the community," he said. "Gardening is the end in itself."
Now I can understand why some might tolerate thefts, simply because it is too expensive to stop them. (Most large stores balance the cost of theft against the cost of preventing theft, in just this cold blooded way and try to prevent most, but not all, shop-lifting.) But that isn't quite what Donaldson and Kellner are saying. Instead, they appear to be rationalizing their losses because they do not want, in any way, to confront the thieves.
There are two objections to that way of thinking. First, it is unkind, in the long run, to the thieves. That may seem strange, so let me bring in a parallel. I have long argued that the worst thing about welfare was what it did to the recipients. (And many recipients agree with that argument.) Similarly, when we tolerate theft we tempt some to become thieves, which nearly always leaves them worse off in the long run.
That first objection may mean most to the saintly among us, but almost everyone should be able to to understand the second objection. When we tolerate some theft, we get more theft, which imposes heavy costs on all of us. As it happens, the poor are especially big losers from these crimes, as they often are, because the P-Patch gardeners contribute tons of produce to food banks every year — but not as much as they could if some were not being stolen.
Is the tolerance that Donaldson and Kellner show toward the theft of their vegetables found elsewhere in Seattle? I am sure it is, though I have no idea how widespread their attitudes are. (And if you happen to know more about that question, I would be interested in hearing from you, either directly or in the comments at Sound Politics, where this is cross posted.) Without knowing more about the couple, I can not be sure what led them to this way of thinking, but I suspect that they, along with many others, simply do not want to face the hard choices that life often brings us. And so they rationalize the theft of their beloved vegetables, and many others in Seattle minimize the dangers from Islamic extremism. Both involve difficult choices; for some it is easier to pretend that there is no loss, that there is no danger.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(*Although it is a small story, the Seattle Times put it on the front page last Friday, above the fold.
Here's the official P-Patch web site. You'll note that they only allow "organic" gardens.)
Posted by Jim Miller at October 23, 2006 10:52 AM | Email This"Organic" is just a way of explaining to other people that you don't really understand agriculture in any meaningfull way....
Posted by: H Moul on October 23, 2006 12:17 PMthis is the crux of Seattlespeak & its mindset. the victim is the problem--not the perp. this view permeates all of Seattle. no wonder things are awry & the tail wags the dog. spoken about a vegetable theft, but applies to cars, assaults and all Seattle crime.
'recycle' & disinfect the nearby druggies' tossed syringes that appeared when neighborhood homeless & bums were not arrested & moved in the first place.
then, inject the remaining vegetables with strong, non-lethal laxatives or blazing habanero sauce. watch, wait & film for Funniest Videos.
Same is true of public toilets. And the refridgerator at work.
Posted by: Palouse on October 23, 2006 12:52 PMWell everyone has their priorities/breaking point don't they.
Posted by: Troll on October 23, 2006 12:53 PMLife, Liberty and Property
Why did Locke so elevate PROPERTY, why are THINGS so important to him?
Because by utilizing the LIBERTY and choosing an activity or pursuit (hence happiness) to expend ones LIFE on we acquire property.
LIFE and PROPERTY are interchangeable. For X portion of my life spent working, I exchange that time spent for a house, a car, a iPod. While the medium of exchange is money, the principle is valid. I give my employer a fraction of my lifetime factoring in skill sets, and via the exchange medium of money buy stuff. The bottom line is I spent a portion of my life to obtain that thing.
For the P-Patchers they exchange a certain defined portion of their LIVES for vegetables.
If folks understood this fundamental CONSERVATIVE principle. Theft would be a much more serious offense.
Ask the P-Patchers if someone stole a year of their lives would they be so sanguine about it.
Posted by: JCM on October 23, 2006 01:21 PM"Organic." "Perhaps they could discourage some of the thefts by smearing fecal matter on all their treasured veggies!" I would strongly suggest that this is a done deal, from what I've seen of organic farming.
Pardon the pun, but when activities like pea patches take root, they become institutionalized. A conservative would ask the rhetorical question "Is the best use of a public asset?" And the pea patchers wouldn't understand the question.
It was the inherent lack of understanding of history and economics that caused my initial doubt about the viability of liberal thinking years ago. It was later that the lack of intellectual integrity and honesty cemented the deal and lowered my expectation of reasonable discourse with the left.
What a city! ROFL!
I thought Seattleites loved redistribution of wealth?
Posted by: Tyler Durden on October 23, 2006 02:48 PMI did have to laugh, it is that absurd to think that might even possibly exist.
1. The families participating in the P-Patch program pay a fee to do so and work their own plots to have healthy food to eat. To say that this "demonstrates the disconnects in pink thinking between the economic factors of investment/capital, the added value of physical labor, and profit" is an absurdity. The people who participate pay their money and put in their time. Some are more upset than others at the stealing of their food. But to attack the victims is ridiculous. For more basic info on the p-patches, go to: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/gardening.htm
2. Says H Moul: "'Organic' is just a way of explaining to other people that you don't really understand agriculture in any meaningfull way." Moul, please explain your solemn decree on organic fariming to the thousands of commercial organic farmers and the many hundreds of Seattle p-patch farmers who are practicing agriculture using brilliant pest-control techniques (some innovative, and some developed over thousands of years). By the way, Moul, you might want to use spell-check the word "meaningful" before you attempt to insult the intelligence of others. Just a thought.
3. Says Scott158: "'Organic.' Perhaps they could discourage some of the thefts by smearing fecal matter on all their treasured veggies! I would strongly suggest that this is a done deal, from what I've seen of organic farming." Scott, you should probably keep your odious personal experiences and practices to yourself, and leave organic farming to the hundreds of millions of people who participate in it every day, either by buying or supplying healthy organic foods.
But the ideal is not what gardeners must address. The question here is what is the appropriate response to that theft.
When a theft at my P-Patch can be attributed to a specific person (like a known gardener stealing from another gardener's plot, or by noting the license plate number of the thief's vehicle), they get a letter or visit from the Seattle Police department. Gardeners risk losing their gardening rights from the Department of Neighborhoods and a fine from the police department. Non-gardeners risk a fine.
Gardening at a community P-Patch is ultimately a social outlet as well as a way to grow food or flowers. What each gardener must make work for themselves is the quality of their gardening experience and produce output. As each P-Patch is open to the public, preventing theft is an expensive proposition - in both time and money. Not every theft is witnessed. Who's going to volunteer or pay for the night watch?
Without accepting that theft should be tolerated, you can resign yourself to a certain amount of loss simply to retain your sanity, or prevent a coronary.
So in addition to aggressively pursuing theives that can be identified, gardeners also have coping strategies to deal with situations where the culprit cannot be identified. I plant my more prized crops further from public paths. It seems any extra effort a thief must make reduces the rate of pilfering. Sometimes I will plant a tempting sacrificial plant near the edge of my plot in order to prevent other theft from the middle of the plot.
Other gardeners' coping strategies may extend to rationalizing theft. Mine does not.
Posted by: Brian Ballard on October 23, 2006 04:53 PM
I think that's how organic gardening is defined. The city that defends the rights of bums to sleep and defacate wherever will not be disturbed by a little thing such as theft.
Posted by: South County on October 23, 2006 09:25 PMMaybe Raj the Sucessful School Guy can get a new gig? and we need a new property tax--(only 1%) & "it's for the buds" (the children)
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 24, 2006 10:42 AMAdditionally, not all P-Patch land is owned by the city. Some has been purchased by the P-Patch Trust, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting community gardens and preserving land to be used for those gardens.
Posted by: Karen Whitner on October 24, 2006 03:06 PMBrian, I understand the point perfectly. I don't believe most p-patchers have legitimate leaseholds on public property (with the exception of those actually owned by a P-Patch Trust, entities that I did not know existed and which, I assume, have a deed for the property they have purchased).
Ray, your analogy is idiotic. I purchase my golf balls and simply use them on a public park (when I play a public course). The balls remain mine. When you plant a seed on public property, the thing that grows is appurtenant to the land, like a fixture installed by a tenant in a leased building. The plants belong to the landowner (the public), just as the fixture belongs to the landlord, not the p-patcher or the lessor. So it may be the case, depending on whether common law has been superceded by local laws and precedential litigation, that p-patch plants don't actually belong to the p-patchers even if there IS a legitimate lease. That might not sound fair, but it is logical, and it may be the law. You plant on public property at your own risk.
Jim, the reason for the organic policy is because these plots are rented, not sold or granted. This policy helps future gardeners of the same plot know what has (and what has not) gone into the soil they will likely be eating from. Without such a policy, honestly, who knows what some avid gardener may put into the dirt someone else will eventually use. I'm not an organic nut, and if you actually stopped by one of the P-Patches you'd learn that while most gardeners appreciate knowing what's gone into their dirt, most are not organic absolutists eiter. And if you really don't care for the organic "religion", try it out just for taste. It can be empirically shown (by measuring sugar content) that this intensive, organic method produces tastier fruits and vegetables.
Posted by: Brian Ballard on October 24, 2006 10:26 PMThat doesn't mean I don't appreciate the contribution to local food banks made by p-patchers, it doesn't mean I hate fresh vegetables or fail to appreciate the joy or peace of mind some people find in gardening. It does mean I am open to facing reality - if you garden in public, be aware that some members of the public may help themselves to "your" produce. If you want to prevent that, grow your own vegetables on your own property.
Oh, and Brian, using "it" to describe me is what's known as an ad hominem attack - you simply reveal your own childishness.
Posted by: srogers on October 25, 2006 08:05 AM