|
|
|

November 25, 2006
Greed, Not Enlightened Self-Interest, Is The Principle That Area Developers, The Villages Of Bourbonnais And Bradley Are Acting On.
The Journal Editorial of Nov. 22, 2006 describing the actions of homebuilders who contribute money to campaigns to pass school referenda instead of paying impact fees to build schools as “enlightened self interest” is ethically, economically and definitionally incorrect.
Enlightened self-interest is the ethical principle that when persons act to further the interests of others or at least the interests of the group or groups of which they belong to, that such persons ultimately serve their own self-interests.[1] It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good”.*(1) In this case the payment of sufficient school impact fees by builders and their move-ins would constitute “Enlightened Self interest.”
This is in contrast to greed or "unenlightened self-interest", in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests.*(2) In the case of the recently rejected BBCHS referenda, the public boldly stated that they would not reward the selfish interests of the builders and the villages.
Impact fees accelerate growth, stabilize homeowner and business taxes, protect discretionary incomes and from runaway growth and provide a linear system of funding for new schools. This is “enlightened self interest.”
The voters will not pass any school referenda until the school districts, the home builders and the villages, all come together to form a funding system that embraces the enlightened self-interest of all affected parties.
Keith L Runyon, President
Concerned United Taxpayers
* (1), (2) Wikipedia Internet Encyclopedia