Portsmouth rulers: taxpayers have no property

Besides property taxes in perpetuity, eminent domain is another example showing the hapless taxpayer really owns no property. Note the comments by the city's attorney (i.e., the person who acts to justify government actions). He says that the city "worked in good faith." What does this mean other than the dealership owner denied the city's tax funded offer? If a private individual made an offer and were denied, he would simply be out of luck and have to make other plans. The Portsmouth Rulers, instead, simply attempt to commandeer the Toyota property by force. Eminent domain belies any claim of "good faith," which really means the first warning: we're taking your property whether you like it or not.

At the other end, a man in a teepee is selling his land to the Portsmouth rulers, potentially at 60% more than the appraised land value. Who pays for this? The hapless taxpayer, of course! 

These wheelings and dealings benefit the politically connected at the expense of the vast majority. Not only are taxes mulcted from productive members of society, but the subsequent spending diverts resources to bureaucratic consumption (to promote their political power and buy votes).

Government causes another long-term problem

This is a fascinating article about a Portsmouth community complaining about the noise from I95. It appears bland, but it is an excellent exercise in property rights and conflict. 

 Based on the article, I will presume that the homeowners owned their properties before the existence of the I95 behemoth. “…in the 1950s…you could walk across I-95 to go to Sherburne School.” I’ll also assume that they are the proper owners (because no one has claimed the contrary, and anyone who does would have to prove it). These homeowners, therefore, own their property rights with the pre-existing noise levels. Thus, the expansion of the highway, because it raised local, average noise levels, easily measurable, is a clear trespass. A court injunction against the highway would be appropriate. So would noise barriers. 

However, who “owns” the highway? Nobody and everybody, as usual, when it comes to public property. So, the problem is that any damages would be paid by the unseen man, i.e., by the hapless taxpayer. This, too, is unjust. So, here’s the problem: the government, which is “responsible” for the road owes damages to the Portsmouth people, but if they were to pay restitution, they would commit another unjust act by taxing other people. What to do? 

The solution is unclear to me, though it is very important to point out that this is completely a government problem*. Maybe existing bureaucrats should pay for mitigation/compensation out of their own pockets. After all, they’ve “inherited” the government largesse, so maybe they also inherit the claims against them. Also, although their paychecks are based 100% on taxes, at least the tax bill won’t increase. I’m not sure, but it’s a suggestion. 

*I remember reading about Robert Moses who used eminent domain, seized thousands of apartments, and destroyed local communities in order to build the Cross Bronx Expressway in NY, which is currently a terrible road—busy and hazardous—embedded in a impoverished-looking neighborhood. We don’t need no stinkin’ leaders!

Fascinating property rights dispute in Stratham

Someone alleges that a neighbor's wood cutting caused medical problems. I am curious to know if he spoke to the offender first, but that's by the way.

There are two interesting pieces to this story. The first is whether or not the wood cutter is violating property rights. Now the wood cutter--let's call him Woody--is generating noise and pollution, both of which are going onto the alleged victim's (let's say Victor's) property. If we suppose that both Woody and Victor are legitimate owners of their properties, then the pollution is a clear trespass, and Woody is 100% liable. What about noise pollution? That's more challenging, but it has been addressed here. The question that has to be answered is: what were the average noise levels from Woody when Victor moved in?

The second interesting issue is the obvious inability of the Stratham government to enforce property rights. Naturally, a government-run "business" (here, the business of property protection) is a disaster. (Of course, Victor still better pay his property taxes.) This is a reason to disband the Stratham government, to "fire" them, so to speak. Of course, that's never an option because the earth would spin off its axis into the sun.