Tiny step toward liberty in Exeter!

Pop the champagne: an Exeter resident has a popular (!) warrant article to reduce the winter parking ban to only those nights when a bad storm is predicted. Good for him!

I wonder who will make the argument that this will "reduce revenues" to the police department, and when that person will claim that it represents an increased tax burden. (Obviously, the solution is to cut the police budget!)

Chartrand and Dean: corrupt as ever

Pay no attention, Citizen. Dan "beautify my storefront" Chartrand and Russ "100k in perpetuity" Dean have no interest in even the facade of honesty. They feed off each other: Chartrand supports Dean's crazy 7-year contract, and Dean supports Chartrand's wild spending. Both are corrupt cronies robbing the taxpayer blind. They are thieves.

Of note is Chartrand's (and Belanger's and Gilman's) excuse that their lawyer argues that the prior warrant article is non-binding. All well and good, but I'd say that doesn't matter. If the people vote for something that Dan Chartrand doesn't like, who is he to do otherwise? Nobody. Government lawyers aid and abet the crooks and use all sorts of twisted logic so that the crooks can do what they please. Committees, lawyers, etc., are used by government to make excuses

Who votes for these people?

Gilman on the way up in her political career

Yikes: Exeter's "representation" in the NH House has one thing in mind: more government spending and control. Gilman supports a $15 minimum wage. What a cheapskate--why not raise it to $50. It's surprising how little she cares for the working class. Well, at least she's out of Exeter. I see her move to the statehouse as doing less harm to more people.

She nabbed 4700 votes. There are 14000 Exeter residents. A third of the population is not a mandate to me. 2/3 did not vote for her. (I know I am including children, but minimum age requirements are a form of ageism anyway, right?)

EPD: reckless driving

Epping Road, ~6:30 pm, Saturday 11/12. Somebody was passing Front Row toward town. Maybe he was going a few mph over 30. Maybe his lights were a little too bright. Whatever it was, the loitering EPD SUV pulled out of the brush on the outbound sound and almost caused an accident. No sirens and no flashing lights until after he pulled onto the right. Good thing oncoming traffic was far enough way.

Gotta issue those tickets!

Rose farm signs

Out of curiosity, I drove around the jailhouse spring neighborhood, and I saw easily over two dozen signs about the Rose Farm development. This is a much higher sign density compared to other parts of the town, so it looks like a "not in my backyard" phenomenon. People on the other side of town don't seem to express as much interest. Fair enough. If the sign holders organized a plan to collect voluntary contributions to purchase the property themselves and maintain it as they envision it, I would be happy to donate. It looks like they want to use government force to prohibit development.

Nobody talks about the underlying issue: who owns the water, the roads, the property, the woods, and the air? "We" do, which means the government rulers ultimately decide, and they choose based on how it benefits themselves.

Exeter's "sterilized" Halloween

A wonderful message about Halloween: kids should be a little mischievous. It's fun. It's part of growing up, learning, facing fears, and making mistakes.

What do we get instead? Official trick-or-treating hours, given to us from on high and a map of sex offenders on Patch. I wonder if former police chief--now cushu security director--Richard Kane is imposing increased security theater at the local schools.

We've come a long way.

Rose Farm development

Fascinating. A very vocal contingent has formed to oppose the Rose Farm condos that are being proposed. I wonder how many of these people support all the downtown beautifying projects that are going on? Or is it just a “not in my backyard” response?

My own view has been clear: the Exeter government has caused the overgrowth of the town in the name of increasing tax revenue and continues to do so. This would be just another example of it. I can picture Darren "Aroma Joe" Winham’s wide-eyed face at the prospect of all the new customers to this mini-Portsmouth.

At, the same time, however, private property owners should do what they please on their own property. The real conflict comes over the allegedly “public” property: the rivers, the roads, the forests. Who owns them? In practice, it is the government rulers, and they get to decide who gets to use it based on their own political machinations. This is a conflict created by government to enrich government. In truth, the homesteaders and taxpayers own the “public” property, and once ownership is ceded to them, individuals can sort out how to deal with it voluntarily.

Exeter taxes go up

Property taxes rise again. What’s the reason: bureaucratic pay scales in the public prisons schools. Ho hum, mulct the taxpayer even more.

Exeter government failures inspire more failures

“I was always confused and apprehensive about making my turn.”  This is a statement from someone whom I would not trust with my car. Maybe this driver should not be driving.

Instead, this person wants everyone to pay to make sure she feels at ease. Dan beautify-my-storefront Chartrand of course has no problem spending $15k for the mere “study” of whether a roundabout by the Catholic church is a “good” idea. Too bad the entire B.S. team concurred.

The bad driver goes on: “They can't (use the intersection) safely with the way it's set up now.” Who? I can. I use that intersection a lot. Sometimes it’s busy, and I have to wait. Sometimes I have to be assertive. This is called driving. It’s not an easy intersection to navigate for inexperienced drivers.

And, for sake of argument, let’s say it would be “better” if it were a roundabout. I’m not a road engineer, so I don’t know. But it must be be emphasized that this "dangerous" intersection is a problem caused by government. The town of Exeter is exploding with traffic thanks to the advances of Chartrand, Russ 100k Dean, Darren Aroma Joe Winham, and everyone else who has the dream of increasing “tax revenue” by transforming Exeter into Portsmouth. Why would anyone think that these same people could somehow improve a road?

If the bad driver above really wants a roundabout, she should have the town cede ownership of the roads to the taxpayers, acquire a major stake in them, and improve them herself through voluntary means. She should also read Frederic Bastiat:

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

"Sharrows": make-work that will create conflict

Metal signs. Digital signs. Painted signs. They all command us to do thus and so.

For no reason at all, we will now have to see "sharrows"as we crawl through town. These are just another waste of tax money to protect people from themselves. Of course, without them, cyclists would be crashing into parked cars, drives into bikers, and pedestrians will be caught in the cross-fire, right?

In reality, they will cause conflict. Now, a cyclist and a driver must navigate the road simultaneously. Neither wants to crash and neither are prohibited from the road. Spontaneously, everyone manages to figure it out. Now, with these arrows, cyclists will be able to say, "Hey I'm in the 'right' area, so don't even think of getting me to move." Likewise, a driver who sees a cyclist outside the proper area will become agitated and more susceptible to aggressive passing.

Just another small step toward transforming Exeter into a "tax revenue" mini-Portsmouth.

Civil disobedience!

Probably not...

But, I did notice that one of signs of the obnoxious, sing-songy command "throttle down in town" has been defaced! On it is a sticker encouraging us to drink Smuttynose! I'll drink to that!

Chartrand, Winham, and Dean plotting continues

This time on Epping Rd., where that 60 acre lot remains unused. These people want to build up Exeter so that it looks like Portsmouth. This is about their own crazy visions about what the town "should" be. It is about "increasing revenue," i.e., increasing the expropriation and waste of government operation.

The other day, as I sat in my car by the post office in line to get out of town, I realized: Exeter is not under-build. It is over-built. Too many people, too many coffee shops, to many overpriced sandwiches for sale, too many bureaucrats, too many taxes...

Some people actually value open spaces, wide fields, big skies, and towns with no stores. Who are Darren "aroma joe" Winham, Dan "beautify my storefront" Chartrand, and Russ "100k" Dean to say otherwise? Answer: they claim to be the wise rulers who know what "we" need.

All government rules already have "teeth"

Because of the government caused water shortage, we "customers" (read: mulcted taxpayers) must not use goods in a way that the government Rulers think is evil. Soon, the Exeter government's water restrictions will have "teeth," which will fine naughty taxpayers and even shut off their water supply.*

First, any real producer of goods would be ecstatic when demand for a good is high. If Poland Springs produced "municipal" water, they would encourage us to use as much water as we like. There'd be commercials for us to water our lawns, wash our cars, and have water balloon fights. High demand would stimulate increased production. More water would be available. There would be no "shortage" of water because a company has far more foresight than a bunch of tax-funded civil servants. 

But, instead, we get threatened with robbery not to use a good. This is an important lesson: every demand of government is backed up by physical force. Don't forget that.

*It's also useful to point out some hypocrisy. The same people who support these punishments would be outraged if a private company prohibited someone a basic necessity like water. In fact, this is the very reason why so many people support all the islands of socialism in society: water production, utilities, roads, etc. 

Crony theater threat ended...for now

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.

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.