Nov 3, 2011
Which Takes Priority - Personal or National Interests
A question that sometimes bothers me, and I am sure many people grapple with this issue, is when do I put my personal desires and concerns first and when do I give way for the "greater good", the national interests, the communal interests?
An example of that, not the subject of this post but just an example, is the recent protests by many against expanding construction in Bet Shemesh to further hills. On the one hand there is a personal concern, a possible decline in quality of life as the city gets more people and more congested, traffic will get worse, perhaps the cleanliness of the city will decrease from the level it is already down to, environment, infrastructure, perhaps political and demographic reasons concern people etc. On the other hand, there is a greater good - expand the city, construction can bring about a boom for a city and/or country, partial solution to a national housing crisis, etc.
Which is more important - my personal concerns or the "national" benefits? It is never an easy answer.
Ramat Shlomo in Jerusalem is experiencing a similar dilemma right now. The government announced a while back, to the chagrin of the "international community", that they have approved construction tenders for 1600 more housing units in Jerusalem, specifically in Ramat Shlomo. This caused a diplomatic crisis internationally, but many Israelis and especially Jerusalemites were happy to hear the announcement.
Harm the peace process on one hand, or solve a housing shortage plus show we own Jerusalem on the other hand. Most people I know were happy to hear the announcement, even considering it short-handed, nice but not enough.
Now, as the plans move forward, it seems that the plan is meeting serious opposition. People are protesting the plan to expand the neighborhood. Leftists! Palestinians! United Nations! Boo!
not really. The people opposing the construction are residents of Ramat Shlomo. In a situation very similar to the example above, the local residents are concerned that the neighborhood cannot bear an increase of 1600 homes which would bring serious stress on the current infrastructure.
The main complaint is against the planning of the construction, specifically that the neighborhood already suffers from a serious shortage of parking spaces for cars, and that the construction will damage the already insufficient amount of "green space" in the neighborhood. Another concern is that their own homes will devalue. As well, the neighborhood will get more congested and quality of life will go down.
Source: NRG
The same dilemma - the national interest of construction, building Jerusalem, housing shortage or the personal interest of high value of house, quality of life, etc. Even if some of the problems are solved by improving the level of infrastructure planning, many of the serious questions will remain, such as value and congestion (quality of life).
An example of that, not the subject of this post but just an example, is the recent protests by many against expanding construction in Bet Shemesh to further hills. On the one hand there is a personal concern, a possible decline in quality of life as the city gets more people and more congested, traffic will get worse, perhaps the cleanliness of the city will decrease from the level it is already down to, environment, infrastructure, perhaps political and demographic reasons concern people etc. On the other hand, there is a greater good - expand the city, construction can bring about a boom for a city and/or country, partial solution to a national housing crisis, etc.
Which is more important - my personal concerns or the "national" benefits? It is never an easy answer.
Ramat Shlomo in Jerusalem is experiencing a similar dilemma right now. The government announced a while back, to the chagrin of the "international community", that they have approved construction tenders for 1600 more housing units in Jerusalem, specifically in Ramat Shlomo. This caused a diplomatic crisis internationally, but many Israelis and especially Jerusalemites were happy to hear the announcement.
Harm the peace process on one hand, or solve a housing shortage plus show we own Jerusalem on the other hand. Most people I know were happy to hear the announcement, even considering it short-handed, nice but not enough.
Now, as the plans move forward, it seems that the plan is meeting serious opposition. People are protesting the plan to expand the neighborhood. Leftists! Palestinians! United Nations! Boo!
not really. The people opposing the construction are residents of Ramat Shlomo. In a situation very similar to the example above, the local residents are concerned that the neighborhood cannot bear an increase of 1600 homes which would bring serious stress on the current infrastructure.
The main complaint is against the planning of the construction, specifically that the neighborhood already suffers from a serious shortage of parking spaces for cars, and that the construction will damage the already insufficient amount of "green space" in the neighborhood. Another concern is that their own homes will devalue. As well, the neighborhood will get more congested and quality of life will go down.
Source: NRG
The same dilemma - the national interest of construction, building Jerusalem, housing shortage or the personal interest of high value of house, quality of life, etc. Even if some of the problems are solved by improving the level of infrastructure planning, many of the serious questions will remain, such as value and congestion (quality of life).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
possible decline in quality of life as the city gets more people and more congested, traffic will get worse, perhaps the cleanliness of the city will decrease from the level it is already down to, environment, infrastructure, perhaps political and demographic reasons
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that the above are "personal" reasons? They seem like collective reasons to me.
because that seems subjective to me. one person might see a decline while another might not. perhaps some of the examples mentioned are more communal and others more personal, but overall they seem more personal to me
ReplyDeleteIn the end, perhaps the national interests are the sum total of all the citizens personal interests ... as they express those interests at the ballot box.
ReplyDelete