The crony deal to lease out the town hall has been ended,
thanks to the efforts Clement and Surman (the latter is 2 for 2 in
recent
votes).
This deal was not about doing what’s good for the "town" (whoever that is).
It’s about top-down molding of Exeter into a Portsmouth-lite city and creating
tax “revenue” frenzy. As usual, Dan “beautify my storefront” Chartrand did not
acknowledge his conflict of interest in using government power to increase business
activity downtown.
If crony deals shouldn't be enacted for town hall use, what should be done with the building? We get an insight
from a great
line by Surman:
The taxpayers of this town own this building and they should
have access to do whatever they want to do.
Wow. If she really means what she
says, then a taxpayer who wants to demolish it should be allowed to do so. (I doubt that Surman would support that, but she does demonstrate leanings in favor of private property.) Based on this insight that
taxpayers are the real owners of government property, what would be the way to
actualize the taxpayer ownership of the town hall? Here’s a suggestion: every
taxpayer receives a share of the building, like a joint stock company (maybe
this is pro-rated based on property tax or something). Now privately owned,
individuals could buy and sell shares until a smaller group of individuals owns
it. Then, just like any other business, they can decide what to do with it.
In passing, it is important to look at the common theme: the underlying source
of the conflict is the existence of “public property.” The people moaning about having an open mind or how there should be more voices are just
trying to get dissenters on board with this crony deal. They want to use the force
of government to provide them with an increased basket of goodies. If they
really cared about having a vibrant arts community, why don’t they raise money
for a theater voluntarily? Because, as we've seen from the Ioka, Exeter residents really don't demand such things.
