Say no to a charter

Unsurprising: Dan "Beautify Downtown" Chartrand is interested in making the Exeter government more powerful. The local editorial news group believes the same thing. 

Unfortunately, their value judgments sneak in every which way. They assume that a streamlined government is a "good." But, the goal is to make government spending and government make-work  easier enact. This, to many, is a “bad.” More government spending means more resources wasted on unproductive projects. For sure, all the cronies who get cushy government contracts benefit, but not the taxpaying peons or the legitimately private businesses that can't compete with government contracts. Why should their subjective valuation of government bureaucracy be higher valued than someone else's?

A charter would exploit "Exeter’s strengths and weaknesses." Huh? Is this talking about individuals' strengths and weaknesses?  People can decide for themselves how best to produce and consume. Exeter residents might work in Newmarket and vice versa. So what? If so, it shouldn't matter what some political body does. (Of course, an oft-stated goal in such economic "policy" is to "increase the tax base." Read: expropriate and distribute more loot to make buying votes easer. Whenever someone talks about strengthening the "Town" or the "Community" or whatever, always ask: cui bono?)

No, the opposite action better promotes prosperity and peace: decrease Exeter governmental power. Sell off “town-owned” lands and parks. Cede ownership of the roads to the storefronts, shipping companies, and other homesteaders. Eliminate all zoning laws. Private property is the only way. The Exeter government should not (and logically cannot) run in an "orderly" fashion. (To me, this goal reeks of the goal of silencing spirited debate and vitriol against Exeter’s government bureaucrats.) 

By the way, the Newmarket government just raised the sewer rates for the town’s residents. How streamlined.