QUALITY OF LIFE

Why do you live where you live? Was it choice or fate? Are you where you grew up or did you move for work? Did you move for schools? For the climate? For family?

Were pollution, congestion, or traffic part of the equation? Was it commonality of interest with your neighbors?

Did you decide that you’re a mountain man? Or a surfer girl? Did you discover that you are a born desert flower, or an aged hippie who needs to be under redwoods where pot is prevalent? Maybe you’re a night owl who can’t live without New York-style energy?

Chances are certain “quality of life” issues shaped your decision.

Quality of life issues are generally “Ipso Facto”--before the fact. Before you move, you anticipate that certain things will be one way--or another. Now you may be disappointed that what you thought you’d find, isn’t there—or that what you thought you’d enjoy, you didn’t. But you had reasonable expectations, right?

Move to New York and you have every reason to expect Broadway Shows, Times Square lights at Midnight; the Village shuckin’ and jivin’; Wall St. movin’ and shakin’.


How would you react if suddenly some local pols said Time Square lights must be turned off at dusk, Broadway shows can’t be performed on weekends, Clubs have to close at midnight? All for “some greater good.”

Sure things change. If a century ago one moved to New York because he liked to see horses and buggies, and then Henry Ford appeared, it’s unreasonable to complain that one’s buggy whip had lost its re-sale value.

But what about unilateral, arbitrary change—which comes from on high and is just one person or one group’s opinion versus another’s?

Think of why you came to St. Helena. What were the quality of life issues that brought you here—or if you’ve lived here all your life, which are the ones you enjoy?

Is it the climate? The changing seasons? The people? Do you like the Farmer’s market? Attending the Harvest Festival? Going to Crab Feed’s at Native Son’s? Voting with neighbors at your polling place? Do you like walking to church, Saints games on Friday nights, or concerts in the Park on summer evenings? Maybe it’s the clean air, the lack of traffic, the hillsides, hiking, raising livestock, kids playing tag on your lawn, pruning roses you planted?

Could it be a roaring fire on rainy Sunday mornings, swimming in your back yard on hot summer afternoons, fishing, hunting, riding bikes, galloping through your neighbor’s vineyard, the sound of roosters in the morning; deer, coyotes, jack rabbits, pigs, and skunks in the hills? Do you feel good about working your own land, harvesting your own crops, repairing your own fences?

Do you like just being “around” the wine business even if you aren’t in it? The smell of pumice during harvest and the color of the vines during fall?

There are downsides to living in an Agricultural community. Traffic is worse during the harvest, wind machines wake us during frost periods, dust is inevitable during disking, wells run dry and cattle break through fences. But that’s life in the country. It’s why we all embrace the Ag Preserve.

Yet, for some odd reason, we have local politicians who would take all of these things away from us. Why?

In the hills, they would de-commission dirt roads and horse trails. They claim it’s about erosion, be we know that these roads help us to fight fires which cause much more severe erosion.

Suddenly, they want to limit the number of horses, chickens, sheep (and soon) the number of cattle one can have per acre. They’ve already limited where one can plant in the hills—where, what and how large one can build on private property. Some of this may be good public policy. Most of it is not.

By ballot, they attempted to end planting near streams, cutting down trees, clearing private land, building fences at right angles to creeks and limiting homes to 2,500 sqft. in the hills.

In St. Helena certain pols want to eliminate fireplaces, pools and lawns; require “drought resistant” landscaping, and dictate whose trees can be cut, where. Didn’t this town become beautiful without these government restrictions, not because of them?

It is all about eliminating personal freedoms in the name of some “greater communal good.” Someone, somewhere knows what’s best for us, and they’re going to take “quality of life items” from us, under the rubric of health, safety and welfare.

Promoting health, safety and welfare is fine. Using that catch-all to eliminate lawns, swimming pools, trees or fire places is despicable and anti-intellectual. Telling folks what to plant is like telling people what to wear. Central planning went down with the Berlin Wall.

Zoning is a defensible, rational argument. We can all agree on the need for certain businesses to be confined to certain areas, and that setbacks, height limits, lot coverage etc. (though restrictive to the individual) benefit the community as a whole.

The 2010 election was on of the most astounding elections in history. Whomever you were for-- it’s right and proper to rally around the will of the majority—but not let anyone, or any group tyrannize the individual.

Beware of power corrupting local officials. It’s human nature. Local Governments are instituted to enhance “Quality of life.” Not restrict it.

Government should promote freedom not narrow it. Government exists to make our lives better, not worse. It is up to us to hold officials accountable. “Life, Liberty, and (especially) the Pursuit of Happiness,” are self-evident truths. You can look it up.