Campers of the World, Unite!
Socialism with Rock Island Characteristics
I have a confession to make: I’ve been wandering through the proverbial wilderness with respect to Socialism. This past fall, I stopped associating with the Quad Cities chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America—the chapter that I co-founded with my comrade Chase Burghgrave back in 2017. I recently paid my annual dues to the national organization, so I’m not totally out, but I am far less invested in the work and future of DSA. Fear not, comrades, this is not a tell-all post sensationalizing a DSA elected official’s souring on DSA (we had enough of those from long-time DSA members in the fallout of Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel). No, this is simply an honest accounting of my continued interest in Socialism—where I’ve been and where I’m going. As a DSA elected official (whatever that is), I have the unique experience of having to actually make decisions and be accountable for them. Like all political circles, armchair quarterbacks abound, swaddling themselves in their particular ideology and never coming anywhere close to actual power to see if their ideas bear fruit. DSA—or Socialists more broadly—is full of these types. Again, no shade, as this is certainly not unique to the left, but moreso a critique of anyone who espouses certainty with respect to political thought who never actually has to act on their convictions. The point of this substack, however, is to pull back the curtain and share my more intimate thoughts—doubt, curiosity and critique included. If you want comforting (or infuriating, if you’re on the right) hot-takes that cheer the party line, you can find me on X. That’s a joke, for the record. I’m not very active on X. You can follow me, nonetheless, if you want. I guess.
I’m very curious about the Peoples’ Republic of China and, specifically, the Communist Party of China. Please do not mistake this curiosity as me picking a side in the geopolitical conflict between the PRC and the USA. As it was in the cold war, when political or intellectual freedom comes into conflict with “national security,” we know how it plays out: not well for political and intellectual freedom. To be clear, I am primarily curious about how the PRC and CPC were able to introduce economic reforms. By that I mean my curiosity is moreso of how Communists were able to reform their economic thinking while remaining Communists, versus the effectiveness of the actual reforms. I mean, how is it that Chinese Communists were able to accept and introduce markets into their economy while today’s DSA gets quagmired in endless debates about holding elected officials “accountable?” Stalin himself wrote a book titled Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR yet tankies today insist that somehow the USSR’s economy was perfect. The motivation is to be right—in some kind of academic sense—versus actually improving people’s lives. A bit harsh. Sorry. I don’t mean to stray into a critique of DSA, I just mean to highlight how incredible China’s economic reforms were.
I still consider myself a Socialist, but I gotta be honest, at the most recent Rock Island City Council Study Session, I suggested the private sector may be a better candidate to finance, construct, own and operate a proposed RV Park and Campground at Sunset Park rather than the City government.
Call it Socialism with Rock Island characteristics.
For those of you interested in the proposal, here’s the feasibility study that the City recently procured. Here is the presentation that our consultants gave to the City Council. To be clear, this is extremely preliminary. The City’s Parks and Recreation Department was tasked with exploring the feasibility of adding an RV park and campground to Sunset Park, which they did. The study concluded that such a proposal was entirely feasible. We are now in the part that is uncertain and therefore uncomfortable: do we build it? We can procure as many feasibility studies as we want—and it was absolutely prudent of us to do so—but no such study will ever guarantee success. The proposed price tag is $18,000,000. Admittedly, this includes more fanciful amenities, like tree- and boat-house rentals in addition to RV and tent sites. It could be whittled down to a more reasonable cost, but that may affect the overall success and profitability of the endeavor.
The point, after all, is to create a profit-center for the City of Rock Island to assist in the upkeep of Sunset Park. Budget squeeze is a very real thing as more of the City’s revenues are dedicated to ever-increasing pension obligations. “Non-essential” departments of the City—like the Parks and Recreation Department—are squeezed out of funding. This effects the ability of the Parks and Recreation Department to maintain the City’s numerous parks. The recent decision to close and sell off Campbell Sports Complex is part of this “right-sizing.” The “naturalization” areas at Longview or Lincoln parks are another symptom of the ever-shrinking capabilities of the City’s Parks and Recreation Department.
At the end of the day, the question remains: should the City of Rock Island invest $18M into a feasible plan to add an RV park and campground to Sunset Park? Or, as I suggested during the recent Study Session, should the private sector bear the risk (and potential rewards) of doing so? We could always offer the land as part of a long-term lease arrangement with a private campground operator to build and operate an RV park and campground on the public land. That eliminates the opportunity for the City of Rock Island to plow whatever profits the campground could generate into park upkeep, but it would also shield taxpayers from any botched plan, too. Perhaps we continue to experience record flooding and the rosy pro forma included in the feasibility study doesn’t pan out? At least taxpayers wouldn’t be stuck with the debt. This is not an unheard of situation for the City of Rock Island, too. In 2008, the City of Rock Island purchased the Sears Hydroelectric Power House on the Rock River in hopes of lowering the City’s utility bill while pursuing a rather aggressive environmental policy for the mid-2000s. Regrettably, the power house never generated the kind of energy needed to offset the City’s energy consumption—largely thanks to fluctuating river levels often leaving the plant unusable. The initial debt to purchase the plant, combined with the operating expenses associated with maintaining a hydroelectric plant built in 1912, resulted in a net loss for the City of Rock Island. In the early 2020s, facing more maintenance expenses, the City Council voted to shutter the plant. We continue paying on the original bonds to this day.
I don’t need to bring up the Wal-Mart fiasco; another example of significant public investment failing to generate intended economic activity. Rock Island taxpayers will be paying off that debt for a long time—with nothing to show for it.
Some will say I’m being unfair to the public sector; the City of Rock Island, for example, successfully built and operates an aquatic park. Really, while I am no parks professional, I assume there is very little difference between managing an aquatic park and an RV park and campground. Additionally, the City owns and operates multiple utilities with long term success. If we can provide clean drinking water, we can surely run a campground, right? Neighboring public bodies run RV parks and campgrounds: Scott County Park, Loud Thunder, and several US Army Corps of Engineers parks are perfect examples. The notion of a publicly owned and operated RV park and campground is far from unusual and controversial.
What do you think?
What does it mean to be a DSA elected official, anyway? How does my identity as a Socialist affect my decision-making and choices in Rock Island’s City Hall? If you type “What is Socialism” into google, you get the following response:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The most orthodox understanding of Socialism would suggest that, for our current consideration, the City of Rock Island should finance, build and operate an RV park and campground at Sunset Park. This, however, ignores the lived history of Socialism in the world with both the USSR’s New Economic Policy and the PRC’s economic Reform and Opening-Up. Both policies created what the Chinese now call a Socialist market economy, facilitating an economic system that is largely dominated by state-owned large industries, but allowing for small- and medium-sized private enterprise. My point, I guess, is to call into question orthodoxy—which runs rampant in so many political circles. Is it ok for a Rock Island DSA Alderperson to consider the benefits of small-scale private enterprise if it was ok with Lenin?
This isn’t to say I’ve become a born-again free market capitalist. Let’s not get carried away. Rock Island is a unique example of market fundamentalism falling flat on its face. It’s called market fundamentalism because of an orthodox belief in markets being the supreme vehicle to generate prosperity. Said otherwise: any encumbrance on markets (regulations), will necessarily result in less prosperity. Ergo, as many folks have decried, the absence of prosperity in Rock Island must be due to an overabundance of government regulation. Property taxes are often the whipping boy of this equation. This is a gross misdiagnosis that ignores far more problematic challenges for the City of Rock Island.
I don’t mean to diminish folks’ concerns about property taxes. I am sensitive to the need to remain competitive with respect to housing costs, including taxes. My point, however, is to underline how ideology leads to policy prescription, which clearly hasn’t been working for the City of Rock Island. Market fundamentalists have been laser focused on a policy of austerity for decades and it has yet to create prosperity. Again, there’s nothing wrong with being mindful of government spending and ensuring efficiency and accountability with tax expenditures; the problem is an assumption that low taxes and regulation (or the pursuit thereof) will automatically create prosperity. It’s lazy thinking.
Take, for example, the recent decision by the downtown business and real estate community to tax itself and fund downtown improvements to the tune of $500,000 annually. Additionally, it’s becoming clear through the work of the West End Revitalization project that the solution lies in additional investment. These exciting projects demonstrate a break from this kind of market fundamentalism and recognize the benefits that come from public investment. In Rock Island, much can be said for public investment.
Thanks to public investment, hundreds of new homes have been built in Rock Island over the past few decades. Whether downtown or on the west side, non-profit publicly-funded organizations like the Rock Island Economic Growth Corporation and the Rock Island Housing Authority/Community Home Partners have invested millions of dollars where private capital dare not invest. I’m not ignorant to the need for additional private-sector investment in Rock Island housing, but I mean to point out how much worse the situation would be if we listened to the market fundamentalists and looked solely to the private market to sort out Rock Island’s housing needs. No Sala Flats, Goldman Lofts, Jackson Square, The Locks, Renaissance Lofts, Star Block Lofts, Voss Brothers Lofts, Lincoln Residences, Lynden Lane, Cascade Gardens, 3rd & 11th Townhomes, or Douglas Park Place.
Like I said, I appreciate the willingness of the 1980s Communist Party of China to overlook dogma and see what was right in front of their face: that being, a change was needed. For the communists, change meant introducing markets. Ironically, for us and our market fundamentalism, it means the opposite: less blind faith that the market will sort everything out equally. Maybe a little more public/government intervention is a good idea. Downtown seems to think so. The West End is coming around to the idea.
But what about that RV Park?
Everything based on regressive, exploitative taxation is toxic. This kind of choice shows it. Neither choice will benefit the working class. Both choices are exploitative. What is the answer that stops punishing the poor for being poor? Sounds like any campsite will participate in economic apartheid. The socialist thing would be to create a free campsite for citizens to enjoy their property. Or let the city take it over and charge on a sliding scale making the rich pay more. A voice agitating to overthrow economic apartheid and poor punishing is important even if the capitalists steamroll them with false choices.
I imagine a public ally funded treehouse campground would need to address those who need wheelchairs whereas a private campground might not? Whether that is a pro or con I suppose depends on how you think about people with handicaps.