Crony comfort stations in the Exeter metropolis

Good for Anne Surman on voting against the COAST “comfort station.” Contrary to the claims, it will not alleviate taxpayers. The proposition that businesses will pay for advertising is a bureaucratic forecast and not definite. It is impossible to know exactly what will happen: what will the capital investment be? What will the capital maintenance be? For COAST and the Exeter Rulers, this is a risk-free venture, all borne by the taxpayer.

Even if it could “generate revenue,” the mulcted Exeter taxpayers will not see in their mailboxes paychecks from the Town Rulers. No, quite the contrary: it would be an excuse to raise government spending. I can hear Dan Chartrand now: “Let’s spend an extra $1500 to beautify downtown Exeter.”

What is the right approach to COAST? Well, first start by looking at its website:

In 2011, fare revenues covered approximately 10% of our overall operating costs. COAST relies on the support of taxpayers to cover the majority of the remaining costs to operate our service.  

This transit is a tax-funded organization, originally a private company that couldn’t survive. It now get a share in the tax loot. By directing resources (land, labor, and capital goods) to it, more urgently demanded consumer goods are not produced. We are worse off. The right thing to do is to slash funding immediately, ideally down to zero.

Incidentally, “comfort stations” often become dirty, stinky and a general eyesore that is subject to vandalism. This is another example of how the Exeter Rulers (save for Surman in this case) want to mold this town into a bigger city that it can support. The goal of this Porstmouth-lite initiative is to increase tax “revenue” to the bureaucratic coffers, regardless of the aesthetic harm to the area.