Learning What Doesn't Work

Years ago my father told me something I’ve never forgotten. He
said, “The secret to happiness in life is to find out what
doesn’t work for you, and don’t do that.”

In recent months, we’ve learned a big lesson on what doesn’t
work. Looking at statistics for the incidence of Covid-19 around the
world, two conclusions leap out with crystal clarity:

1. Viruses thrive in areas of high human population density
2. Viruses are deadly in humans who have existing health problems

These are two things that obviously don’t work well for humans,
so according to Dad’s aphorism, we shouldn’t do dense human
populations and poor health.

So, why is it then, in our local community of Santa Cruz County
(as well as most of the rest of the world), local government
encourages increased population density, and our culture encourages
poor public health?

Population Density

The County of Santa Cruz and the incorporated municipalities in
our county: Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley and Watsonville, all
have Economic Development Departments (EDDs), Planning Departments
(PDs) and Public Works Departments (PWs), all of which are busily
engaged in increasing population densities in our county and
communities.

… we’re passionate about supporting a flourishing and expansive local economy. Santa Cruz City EDD

One of the greatest challenges of living in Santa Cruz County is
the cost of housing, one of the highest in the nation. Because Santa
Cruz is a desirable coastal destination, our economy is based on
tourism, and our housing stock is largely dedicated to second homes,
vacation rentals, B&Bs, hotels and motels. During the Covid-19
shelter in place, many of our homes stand empty, while many of our
residents lack sufficient housing. There is no lack of housing in the
county, but there is a lack of affordable homes
for the people who live here.

Local government responds to this condition by falling back on the
age-old economic principle of supply & demand, that is, build
more housing to lower the per unit cost. But in a tourist
destination, this principle doesn’t work. There are millions of
people just over the hill who want a house here to either come to on
vacations or to use as an investment to make more money so they can
afford to vacation in exotic places.

Since Santa Cruz is largely built out, there is little undeveloped
space available to build more single family housing, so the answer is
always to build up. This, of course, greatly increases population
density in developed areas, thus creating an ideal breeding ground
for the transmission of viruses.

In the face of what we’ve learned about spreading viruses, after
months of (ineptly named) “social distancing” and mask-wearing,
do the people of Santa County really want to risk our health by
creating even more high population density? What would it take to not
do that?

Human Health

Global Covid-19 statistics clearly show that humans with existing
health problems have compromised immune systems that make them more
susceptible to the virus and its resultant disease. The majority of
deaths of individuals tested positive for the virus have underlying
unhealth conditions, such as cardio-pulmonary disease, obesity, and
diabetes all of which add to the lethality of the virus-born disease.
Whether or not death is caused by the virus, or by other causes
exacerbated by the virus, underlying ill health has contributed to
the Covid-19 death rate throughout the world.

It obviously doesn’t work to have a large percentage of the
population at risk due to general ill health. So, what would it take
to not do that?

Lessons to be Learned

As we begin to contemplate an end to the Covid-19 pandemic, and
lifting of government edicts on how we live our lives, now would be a
good time to pause, contemplate the lessons to be learned from the
pandemic, and think about how we want to live from here on out.

• Would it be wise to continue to increase local population density?
• Would it be wise to encourage local population growth beyond what can be sustained with local resources (think, water)?
• Would it be wise to return to “nonessential” business and activities?
• Would it be wise to continue to live far away from where we work and drive personal automobiles there and back every day?
• Would it be wise to continue to encourage unhealthy diets, sedentary live styles and frenetic daily activities that interfere with sleep.
• Wouldn’t it be wiser to encourage eating good, nutritious locally grown food, more local exercise, less travel and more engagement in local, meaningful work that supports the community?

Wouldn’t it be wiser to learn what doesn’t work and don’t
do that?