Dean Preston, Executive Director of Tenants Together, reported on the suggestion by Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, that tenants should not be allowed to vote, as we don't have the same vested interest in our communities that homeowners do. Numerous studies funded by the real estate industry have shown that to be true, and also that homeowners have children who perform better in school, are more involved in their communities, and are just generally more attractive than tenants. (Okay, I made that last part up.) The only problem is that research conducted by uninterested parties has found that tenants are just as attractive as homeowners. No, really. Once you correct for one very obvious variable (security of tenure), most of the differences between tenants and homeowners disappear. Tenants who remain in a community for long periods are just as likely to show up for community clean-up day as homeowners. And they're somewhat more likely to participate in citywide community groups. They're somewhat less likely, though, to participate in NIMBY organizations, for what should be obvious reasons. The main point should be, however, that allegedly serious studies didn't correct for an important variable; I thought they taught that in Statistics I.
But because I'm, as someone once described me, "bent", it occurred to me that tenants might take the deal. Given what we get from our local, state and federal officials, tenants might be willing to give up voting in exchange for our tax monies. Remember--no taxation without representation. So if we don't have representation, we don't have to pay taxes. Hmmm.
And as for the Kings, I really don't care much whether they stay or go. Apparently the Maloofs really need a cash infusion, so they're essentially selling a piece of the team. But I do know one teacher who's going to lose one of his long-standing examples with the Kings' move.