Pride & Privilege
I spent a quiet Thanksgiving with my wife and our fur babies. Still, prepping our meal, I couldn't help think of holidays spent with extended family and the discussions that invariably bubble up around the dinner table.
My relatives, like many people's, cut across political affiliations. They include my cousin who's a rare Republican in his deep-blue town and siblings-in-law who feel the Democratic party has left them out on the left. Others are Democrats, moderates or moderate Democrats. With any of them, talking politics isn't idle chitchat.
We all had different upbringings. I grew up in Los Angeles; my cousin was raised where he still lives, Marin County; my in-laws here, in Chico and on the Paradise ridge. Our communities had — have — distinct demographics.
Experience shapes our outlooks.
Holding a hard line on social issues is easier in an enclave where most everyone lives comfortably. Confronted with wider-spread realities, with existential challenges of people down the street and living on the streets, it's harder to intellectualize plight.
Likewise with holding a hard line on ideological purity. Bernie-or-busters went further to the left than the candidate they admired by refusing to rally around the nominee Sanders ultimately endorsed. I expect a reprise of this debate over the next few months as the primary approaches. Republicans have a comparable divide.
Recently, the word “privilege” has taken on a fresh meaning in conversations about gender and racial diversity. One needn't be
“woke” (another such word) to recognize how life — income, background, social standing — shapes worldview. That should be obvious, not controversial.
So, pre-Thanksgiving, this train of thought had started chugging along when it ran smack into the latest provocative statement from Tom van Overbeek at Tuesday night's Chico City Council meeting.
During the lone item of regular business, a bump in pay for councilors starting Jan. 1, the councilor from District 6 questioned the merit of such a dramatic raise (from $600 to $1,900 a month). Had that been the extent of his argument — the city having more pressing needs for tight funding — it would have passed without consequence. However, van Overbeek tagged on a comment that elicited gasps from the audience:
“If you have to depend on your city council stipend to serve on the council, you probably shouldn't be making land-use decisions.”
I'll let that sit for a second. Besides being flippant, his remark embodies his privilege. Van Overbeek came to Chico after making enough in big business to invest in real estate development and property ownership. The stipend isn't a consideration for his service.
That's not the case for everyone. Just across the dais, his fellow first-term colleague, Addison Winslow, came into office as a 27-year-old who cobbled together jobs to earn a living. His stipend allowed him to secure health insurance and defray some rent for housing.
Moments before van Overbeek spoke, City Clerk Debbie Presson explained the impetus for the raise. Chicoans in 2004 tied council compensation to the amount set out in California's government code. A new state law, Senate Bill 329, amended the pay scale — citing among the rationale that more substantial stipends “may help city councils become more diverse because increased compensation can help individuals from across different economic levels receive sufficient income from their service to help ensure that they can continue to serve the public and support their families.”
That's a compelling reason. At $1,900 a month, councilors won't get rich from the city's coffers. They will, however, get a better offset for work they miss and time they spend performing their duties, which include committee assignments and communicating with their constituents on top of council meetings.
I spoke with van Overbeek the next morning and asked if he regretted the comment. As he has in previous instances, such as when he apologized to California Park hotel developers for “being tortured by our citizens,” he stood by his statement, which he grouped among others he characterized as “occasional spontaneous outbursts.” He didn't plan to say it, he didn't have to say it, but it conveys his truth.
Van Overbeek believes service is “an honor” for which councilors should be qualified based on their accomplishments, given the implications of their decisions on a city of over 100,000 people. He harkened to our country's founding as a republic instead of a pure democracy and noted the right to vote initially required ownership of land.
The only qualifications for a Chico councilor are age and residency. Everything else is up to citizens to decide. Van Overbeek's view strikes me as pride and privilege intertwined.