Mark Bittman’s column in The New York Times makes the case that the unacceptably large portion of humanity that regularly faces hunger is not about food. There is enough food to go around; the issue is that too many lack the resources to buy into the food system as it currently exists.
The difference between you and the hungry is not production levels; it’s money. There are no hungry people with money; there isn’t a shortage of food, nor is there a distribution problem. There is an I-don’t-have-the-land-and-resources-to-produce-my-own-food, nor-can-I-afford-to-buy-food problem.
His point is pretty simple. We produce plenty of food, so much, in fact, that we have created entire food products with no nutritional value and have opted to use others to feed our cars’ engines. We have, he said, a “virtually unregulated food system that is geared toward making money rather than feeding people.”
What struck me about his piece is not only his prescription — shift to a more sustainable agricultural model — but that the points he makes can be applied to other issues. Consider the housing dilemma. We have enough space — whether it is land or existing housing — to provide for the vast majority of people who need a roof over their heads. The problem is that our zoning and tax rules make the development of affordable rentals cost prohibitive. Throughout Central Jersey, for instance, we have endorsed 1-acre lots and other large-lot development — ostensibly, to reduce the number of children who may enroll in local schools and, therefore, to control local school spending. But taxes continue to rise, even as the zoning rules create sprawl, drive up the price of housing and lead to economic (and often racial/ethnic) segregation. This, of course, is the goal.
We can build more houses for more people, but we need to change the way we think about zoning and taxes, and we need to rethink the kind of housing we need — especially in our more well-off communities. Towns throughout the state have pushed the construction of warehouses to offset their tax burden. At the same time, these same towns have pushed hard to limit the number of moderate- and low-income housing units that can be built. Basically, they want the taxes that the warehouses pay, but they don’t want the people who work in the warehouses to move into the neighborhood.
We also need a more robust minimum wage (more of a living wage), income supports and housing subsidies so that the poor can afford the housing that does exist.
As things stand, to paraphrase Bittman, we have a badly regulated housing system that is geared toward making money and insulating the affluent rather than putting a roof over everyone’s head.”
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 