Airports are where people behave in extremes. Stressful situations do that to people — this is far less of an excuse and more of a recognition of a very real human condition and our varying ability to compartmentalize and adapt. But they can also be a place where we witness and participate in some of the best that humanity has to offer.
As I write this column, it’s 9:49 p.m. at a small regional airport in Southern California. The restaurants and shops have all closed hours ago and whoever is left is waiting for one of three extremely delayed flights. It was just announced that security was closing in 15 minutes — we are now at the airport either overnight or leaving when a plane and crew magically show up. I had promised my 5-year-old that I would tuck her in tonight, and that promise has been long broken.
A few rows away, some people are hugging each other. One woman was crying and then she turned around and boarded the plane for which we were on standby.
She had been trying all afternoon to get back to San Francisco because her mother was in the ICU, but was on the same flight we were. The Romeros decided to give up their seats so she could get home faster, even though the rest of their family had already boarded the plane. They had all been in town for their niece’s wedding — an epic one at that from all recounts.
We are in an era of travel where people are forced to pay more for specific seats on an airplane even when those are the only seats they can select, and this only drives feelings of deservedness and ownership. So when an exhausted mom asks the person sitting next to her if they are willing to switch so her partner can help take care of the baby too and that person says no, it’s rooted in this place of feeling like a transaction has taken place and they are entitled to that space. And it has. And they are.
But we are also humans who live in community with one another.
This idea of living in community was spotlighted throughout the week for me in various ways — as my childhood friends and I spent two days listening, sharing and reminiscing, as my neighborhood came together for our annual holiday party and lights judging contest, through weddings and other celebrations. But we also were served an important reminder of what living in community means by San Mateo Sustainability and Infrastructure Commissioner Kimi Narita:
Recommended for you
“Streets belong to all 105,000 of us … and some of the language used [in public comments] makes it sound that that square footage in front of someone’s home belongs to that home and the people in that home. But in fact, that piece of street belongs to me, it belongs to you, and it belongs to all 105,000 of us in the city. It is the definition of living “in community” that sometimes we have to be inconvenienced for the sake of our fellow community members.”
There is a lot more to Commissioner Narita’s and other commissioners’ comments that warrant listening to (that I don’t have the word count to print), and ask that you take the time to do so.
But what is very clear here is that the notion of being “in community” in a post-internet and hyper-connected world has to evolve. It can no longer just be about who you immediately know but also about who you come in contact with throughout your days and weeks. The stranger in 14C. The couple that gave up their spot on the flight. The exhausted gate agent rebooking 200 passengers.
We each hold an enormous amount of power to impact those around us in so many of our choices. And the strange thing about the internet is that it simultaneously shrinks and expands our sense of community. We can feel deeply connected to someone across the world we’ve never met and completely ignore the person standing right next to us in line. We can feel deep pain in scrolling through tragedy on our phones while tuning out the heartbreaking conversation happening at the next table.
The Romeros didn’t know the woman trying to get to her mother’s bedside and they will probably never see her again. And yet, in that moment, they treated her like family because they understood something fundamental about what it means to be human alongside other humans.
Late into the evening as we await the arrival of our plane, the Romeros are tired but in good spirits. They did an incredibly selfless thing to no fanfare and showed that living in community also means being inconvenienced for the sake of someone you’ll never see again — because it very much matters.
Annie Tsai is chief operating officer at Interact (tryinteract.com), early stage investor and advisor with The House Fund (thehouse.fund), and a member of the San Mateo County Housing and Community Development Committee. Find Annie on Twitter @meannie.
The situations are really not comparable.ost.people are willing to offer temporary help in dire times of need. The street in front of your home is longer term.peolle.in new communities literally pay additional taxes for the street in front of their home.We.cry about the inequality, and then pursue cadillac bike lanes for the privileged. This impacts the livelihood of some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Having children ride on dangerous streets in order to win an intellectual battle is child abuse. By vulnerable I mean poor many children have bike that cost more than the poorest make in a month.
1. Based on county records I paid more property taxes on my home in the first three years I owned it combined than the previous owner paid in the 40 years he owned it combined. Thanks to Prop 13, newer homeowners often pay orders of magnitude more property taxes than long term homeowners.
2. Data from the Humboldt bike lane surveys show that newer residents to North Central and San Mateo are much more supportive of having / keeping bike lanes than long term residents.
Seema - I am a long term homeowner and have been the beneficiary of Prop 13. If it weren't for Prop 13 we would likely be living in a trailer somewhere. Over time you will also reap those benefits. It may not be apparent now but assuming you can keep your house for at least 10 years, you will be grateful that the Assessor's Office, fueled by insatiable school districts and other yet unknown community organizations would tax you out of your home.
Thanks for your column today, Ms. Tsai, cherry-picking examples of why folks should sacrifice for “living in community.” But as Mr. Morgan asserts, the situations are not comparable. To me, it sounds like you’re making the case that the many must sacrifice their living in community for the needs of the few. Or in the case of cyclists on Humboldt, perhaps the very few because there’s no data (that has been shared) on how many cars use the road vs. cyclists using the bike lane. And how often. Or how many of these cyclists live in the area. Or how many are cycling through the area for recreation.
So does living in community apply to biological women being forced to compete against biological men who claim (that’s all they need to do) to be women? Or biological women being forced to share their “safe” spaces with biological men? Does living in community mean legal residents must live with the criminals and terrorists Democrats have chosen to prioritize over us? You give us a few examples supporting your cause; I’m giving you millions supporting my cause. Seems to me the community’s most vulnerable these days are not only women (and children) but all legal residents.
A person willingly helping another, as in your example of the people who gave up their seats is nowhere near the same thing as a government entity forcing people to do something "for the community".
Things like giving up your seat, donating your own money to charities, performing volunteer work, assisting your neighbors in need- those are good and moral things one can do to help the community.
Insisting that the government take OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in the form of taxes in order to fund what you think is a benefit to the community is not good or moral. It's always funny to me when it is framed this way and it is a huge difference between a liberal vs. conservative mindset.
Even if the majority of residents wanted bike lanes instead of parking spaces, there is still part of the community that wanted the opposite- why did the city favor one group over the other? A comparable example would have been if the passengers on your plane had voted and forced the Romero family to give up their seats to the woman flying to see her sick mother.
It's funny how people from both major parties are getting these simple things all wrong.
Streets are made for transportation, why would any "Self-respecting Republican" ("personal responsibility") or "Green Democrat" ("sustainability") support free car storage on public streets?
The only acceptable answer is: Addiction.
Humans have basic needs and governments exist solely to provide these basic needs. Basic human needs are clean air, clean water, quality food, shelter, clothes, education, health and safety.
"Transportation" however has NEVER been one of the basic human needs. Historically it has been treated as an expensive luxury built for military logistics or commerce. But merchants paid toll for using streets, bridges, ferries.
Over the years the lawmakers made all the human needs so expensive that they have become even out of reach for many. BUT they sure made sure that needless "transportation" is as cheap as possible. Why? Because it's an addiction, and by playing into this addiction no one is noticing that this infrastructure is paid for by putting higher cost on all the basic needs.
Prop 13 is a false flag story - our schools are all called "Excess ERAF" or "Excess Tax", which means they are filthy rich. They are cutting services to look poor, but look closely what your politicians are doing. All San Mateo cities are suing the state now, because they want that education money for themselves. If the schools were poor, they would be suing, but it's the county and the cities.
The same is true with Caltrain and SamTrans - filthy rich, but cutting services to look poor.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(8) comments
The situations are really not comparable.ost.people are willing to offer temporary help in dire times of need. The street in front of your home is longer term.peolle.in new communities literally pay additional taxes for the street in front of their home.We.cry about the inequality, and then pursue cadillac bike lanes for the privileged. This impacts the livelihood of some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Are the community’s children not included in the definition of “the community’s most vulnerable?” Who gets to decide that?
Having children ride on dangerous streets in order to win an intellectual battle is child abuse. By vulnerable I mean poor many children have bike that cost more than the poorest make in a month.
1. Based on county records I paid more property taxes on my home in the first three years I owned it combined than the previous owner paid in the 40 years he owned it combined. Thanks to Prop 13, newer homeowners often pay orders of magnitude more property taxes than long term homeowners.
2. Data from the Humboldt bike lane surveys show that newer residents to North Central and San Mateo are much more supportive of having / keeping bike lanes than long term residents.
Seema - I am a long term homeowner and have been the beneficiary of Prop 13. If it weren't for Prop 13 we would likely be living in a trailer somewhere. Over time you will also reap those benefits. It may not be apparent now but assuming you can keep your house for at least 10 years, you will be grateful that the Assessor's Office, fueled by insatiable school districts and other yet unknown community organizations would tax you out of your home.
Thanks for your column today, Ms. Tsai, cherry-picking examples of why folks should sacrifice for “living in community.” But as Mr. Morgan asserts, the situations are not comparable. To me, it sounds like you’re making the case that the many must sacrifice their living in community for the needs of the few. Or in the case of cyclists on Humboldt, perhaps the very few because there’s no data (that has been shared) on how many cars use the road vs. cyclists using the bike lane. And how often. Or how many of these cyclists live in the area. Or how many are cycling through the area for recreation.
So does living in community apply to biological women being forced to compete against biological men who claim (that’s all they need to do) to be women? Or biological women being forced to share their “safe” spaces with biological men? Does living in community mean legal residents must live with the criminals and terrorists Democrats have chosen to prioritize over us? You give us a few examples supporting your cause; I’m giving you millions supporting my cause. Seems to me the community’s most vulnerable these days are not only women (and children) but all legal residents.
A person willingly helping another, as in your example of the people who gave up their seats is nowhere near the same thing as a government entity forcing people to do something "for the community".
Things like giving up your seat, donating your own money to charities, performing volunteer work, assisting your neighbors in need- those are good and moral things one can do to help the community.
Insisting that the government take OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY in the form of taxes in order to fund what you think is a benefit to the community is not good or moral. It's always funny to me when it is framed this way and it is a huge difference between a liberal vs. conservative mindset.
Even if the majority of residents wanted bike lanes instead of parking spaces, there is still part of the community that wanted the opposite- why did the city favor one group over the other? A comparable example would have been if the passengers on your plane had voted and forced the Romero family to give up their seats to the woman flying to see her sick mother.
It's funny how people from both major parties are getting these simple things all wrong.
Streets are made for transportation, why would any "Self-respecting Republican" ("personal responsibility") or "Green Democrat" ("sustainability") support free car storage on public streets?
The only acceptable answer is: Addiction.
Humans have basic needs and governments exist solely to provide these basic needs. Basic human needs are clean air, clean water, quality food, shelter, clothes, education, health and safety.
"Transportation" however has NEVER been one of the basic human needs. Historically it has been treated as an expensive luxury built for military logistics or commerce. But merchants paid toll for using streets, bridges, ferries.
Over the years the lawmakers made all the human needs so expensive that they have become even out of reach for many. BUT they sure made sure that needless "transportation" is as cheap as possible. Why? Because it's an addiction, and by playing into this addiction no one is noticing that this infrastructure is paid for by putting higher cost on all the basic needs.
Prop 13 is a false flag story - our schools are all called "Excess ERAF" or "Excess Tax", which means they are filthy rich. They are cutting services to look poor, but look closely what your politicians are doing. All San Mateo cities are suing the state now, because they want that education money for themselves. If the schools were poor, they would be suing, but it's the county and the cities.
The same is true with Caltrain and SamTrans - filthy rich, but cutting services to look poor.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.