Dutch tolerance led to New York's greatness

 

Great op-ed by Russell Shorto in today's Times showing that the secret to New York's success lay in the roots of the Dutch 17th century tolerance for others. Here is the full essay but I'd like to pull some excerpts here:

 

 In founding New Amsterdam in the 1620s, the Dutch planted the seeds for the city’s remarkable flowering. Specifically, the Dutch brought two concepts that became part of New York’s foundation: tolerance of religious differences and an entrepreneurial, free-trading culture.

In the 17th century, when it was universally held elsewhere in Europe that a strong society required intolerance as official policy, the Dutch Republic was a melting pot. The Dutch codified the concept of tolerance of religious differences, built a vast commercial empire and spawned a golden age of science and art in part by turning the “problem” of their mixed society into an advantage. Dutch tolerance was transplanted to Manhattan: They were so welcoming that a reported 18 languages were spoken in New Amsterdam at a time when its population was only about 500.

While many economies elsewhere in Europe were still feudal, the Dutch pioneered an economic system based on individual ownership of real estate. That came about because the Dutch provinces occupied a vast river delta, in which land was at or below sea level and therefore constantly under threat. People in those communities banded together to build dams and dikes and reclaim land. The new land was not owned by a king or a church. Instead, the people who had created it divided it and began buying and selling parcels. That incentivized a whole society, fueled the growth of an empire, turned the Dutch into entrepreneurs and made them the envy of other Europeans.

Diners that linger could bankrupt restaurant

Chang Lee  NY Times

There is a phenomina where elderly men gather in fast food joints to socialize with their peers. Sounds like a good deal until you find out that they are lingering all day over one cup of coffee and are denying seats to other paying customers. While these places don't want to reject paying customers, there is a limit to how much they can extend their welcome to men who split a small fries between four and sit from dawn to dusk.

A recent NY Times article shows how the owners resorted to asking police to get these men to leave. The men chose the McDonalds because it is closer than their social club a mile away. One man argued that it takes more than 20 minutes to drink a large cup of coffee. True but it doesn't take more than an hour.

So what's the win win solution? There must be one since you have two groups that are pretty close together. One group wants a place to eat, drink and socialize and the other group wants paying cutomers to eat and drink but needs a certain amount of income to stay profitable. Could the social club pay money to the McDonalds to subsidize the visits? Should the men agree to spend a certain amount per hour to keep the restaurant from failing? Can McDonalds or the social group open up the space above or next door for the  men? Surely by working together a solution can be reached.