Refusing the Perks
The New York Times apparently thinks it strange when elected officials refuse the perk of an official residence. There seems to be a growing trend of governors maintaining a private residence rather than subjecting themselves to living in the people's houses.
And in Idaho, a state that acquired a governor’s mansion only as recently as 2005 (thanks to a generous French fry magnate), no one has ever moved in, despite the six figures the state pays annually to maintain it.
Blame a desire to minimize the ever-greater scrutiny of public life, along with changing tastes and the current politics of austerity. Who wants to live in a Downton Abbey house on a Tea Party budget?
For a new governor to live in his or her own home is to maintain a modicum of privacy and control. Spending even a few nights a month in an official state residence means dodging tourists and security cameras while you’re in your bathrobe; mixing your private household budget with the public one, with any accounting error a potential scandal; and sometimes having to deal with pest and plumbing problems of biblical proportions, then begging divided legislatures and state bureaucracies to come up with the funds to fix them.
I'm a little mixed on the issue. Rick Perry landed in some bad publicity when it came to light that the state has spent over half a million dollars to put up the first family while the official residence in Texas is undergoing renovation and restoration. Governors and their families have to stay somewhere, but do we really need the types of grandiose facilities normally provided? Does the treatment of our elected officials like royalty lead to them believing they are?
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: Refusing the Perks
The home of the governor represents the people of the state just as the governor does. A shabby governor, and a shabby mansion, and a shabby office says a lot about a state.
Its all a function of everybody wanting too much from government. The idea that hte governor is leading some oppulant life, and there isnt enough money for some ridiculous pork project or entitlement program is met with a response of "FOAD."
Penny pinching meets extreme hostility towards others.
May '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
It's an odd impulse, to put your top guy in a special house. Heck, even the University of Michigan has a nice (but only moderately over-sized) Italianate home which is the university president's official residence. Just as with many of these governor's mansions, it sits on a busy street, waaaay too close to the sidewalk where students walk and congregate. It's an anti-perk.
Still, I'm a fan of these 100-year-old homes (especially the Italianates; oooh, I think eaves brackets are yummy!) so, if I were governor, I'd probably buck the trend and move in. In the case of that delectable Californian governor's mansion that you've pictured, I'd consider the responsibilities of that office--financial doom and an idiot legislature to butt heads with--almost worth it.
Dec '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
Indeed. It is troubling that California sold it's mansion (first picture) to save money. On the right we seek reasonable government, but is it possible we've gone so far in this desire that we run the risk of becoming a shabby people too cheap to demonstrate our greatness?
Aug '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
Canuckistani provincial premiers do not get an official residence. Instead, they get a housing allowance to pay for a residence in the provincial capital, since most of 'em have their primary residence in a different city.
On the other hand, in six (out of ten) provinces the unelected and largely ceremonial Lieutenant-Governors does get an official residence.
Feb '11
Re: Refusing the Perks
I don't dislike governors living in a style that befits their status as the executive of the people of their state, but I must say that I like this story about the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, selling off the mansion that has been home to archbishops since 1935 and features an indoor pool, 6-car garage, and once boasted a par-3 golf course and putting green. Chaput is a Capuchin Franciscan and has taken a vow of poverty. As archbishop in Denver, he moved into the seminary residence after selling off the mansion. Go go go Archbishop!!!
More fun facts about the Archbishop -- He is a direct descendant of Saint Louis IX, the King of France. He is also a member of the Potawatomi tribe -- his Indian name is Pietasa, or "Rustling Wind." I love diversity...
Edited on April 12, 2012 at 6:13pmAug '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
Now, the official residence of Canada's Prime Minister has been falling apart due to neglect for decades now. Nobody wants to be the Prime Minister that approves the millions it'll require to renovate the place.
May '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
In RE your ultimate question, one would never imagine that access to The People's House and Air Force 1 and. Any golf course that he wants has ever gone to Obama's head.
Jun '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
I'm reminded of Golda Meir. On independence she was made Israel's secretary of housing and given a villa for her personal residence. She refused the perk as a matter of principle because other Israelis were still living in tents. It's called "character."
May '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
I've been through the CA Govs Mansion. It is a lovely old home, but no way would I want to live there. The style doesn't lend itself to what is expected of a modern governor, and the location -- on two busy streets across from a hotel and other businesses -- would be anything but relaxing after a day at the office. It would be akin to having a State Car that was a 1920 Ford Touring car: beautiful lines but no windows, ragged top, needs paint, and won't go more than 28 miles per hour. It's beautiful, but it is definitely a White Elephant.
May '11
Re: Refusing the Perks
Putting aside whether the gov should live there, do your states/provinces have names for their governors' mansions? I'll wager ours is one of the most unusual: http://www.drumthwacket.org/
Hard to say it without laughing.
Edited on April 12, 2012 at 8:32pmMay '11
Re: Refusing the Perks
For 40 years in the desert, a tent was good enough for G-d.
Dec '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
Paul Erickson: Putting aside whether the gov should live there, do your states/provinces have names for their governors' mansions? I'll wager ours is one of the most unusual: http://www.drumthwacket.org/
Hard to say it without laughing. · 5 minutes ago
Maybe that's why Christie doesn't stay there...
May '11
Re: Refusing the Perks
The King Prawn
Paul Erickson: Putting aside whether the gov should live there, do your states/provinces have names for their governors' mansions? I'll wager ours is one of the most unusual: http://www.drumthwacket.org/
Hard to say it without laughing. · 5 minutes ago
Maybe that's why Christie doesn't stay there... · 7 minutes ago
I've driven past it. Looks a lot seedier in real life than in the pictures. Also, not exactly an easy commute to Trenton or elsewhere.
May '11
Re: Refusing the Perks
Here in Indiana, some locals got a bit huffy when Mitch decided to remain in his home on the (very affluent) far north side of Indianapolis rather than moving into the Governor's Mansion not far from downtown. The sentiment seemed to be "what do you MEAN, you're not moving into a house that you didn't purchase, didn't decorate, and with considerably less privacy?" Personally, I'd just as soon let governors live in (and pay for) their own homes if they'd prefer. As a taxpayer, I think it's better to pay our governors well for the responsibility they bear and the long hours they work; after that, let them budget and pay for their housing just like their constituents must.
Aug '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
Per Adam Smith, part of the legitimate expenses of government is to pay for "the dignity of the sovereign". This includes upkeep of the official meeting houses, stately embassies, and suitably magnificent trappings of state. The general purpose is to look good and impressive to foreigners, and when entertaining officials and dignitaries.
Now there is a good question as to why state-level "sovereigns" need to look impressive. Most people foreign to the state are also Americans. Without applying too much extra analysis, I would think the concept holds for most government buildings that may be used for official business, inter-state summits, and local celebrations.
If the governor needs a mansion to host such events, it is fine for the state to keep one. If they've already got enough building capacity kicking around to handle it all, then I don't see the need to keep your governor in impressive digs just for the sake of the state's own people.
Aug '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
Does the benefit of "looking good to outsiders" outweigh the cost of "being damned inconvenient for the governor in the 21st Century"?
It seems that these particular houses really aren't suited to the realities of a modern state governor's actual lifestyle, so it might be better to give the governor a housing allowance and let him/her decide where to live.
On the other hand, it might actually be cheaper to put the governor up in the mansion. The annual cost of upkeep might be lower than the annual cost of a rental property. The big ticket expenses on these suckers are the major renovations that are periodically required.
Also, the security measures are already in place for the permanent mansion. Imagine finding out your governor was moving into the house next door and your street was being semi-militarized overnight. Eek.
Aug '10
Re: Refusing the Perks
I don't know, but I have to say in that calculation, the benefit to the state should outweigh the personal costs to the individual governor, nominally a "public servant". He can't run for top office without expecting some interruption in his life.
It's really a case-by-case question. If the state has a tradition where the governor hosts a huge barbecue every 4th of July, and he's already got a large enough lawn to accommodate a few hundred people, then give him an allowance and let him stay home. But it's unreasonable to expect every governor to have this level of personal wealth, so I am fine with the state keeping a mansion where it makes sense.
If he wants to change tradition, live in an apartment and host barbecues at a fairground, great; that's between him and his constituents.