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.

Another stop sign!

Some hearsay complaints, and the busybodies will further strangulate traffic flow. (Have you crawled along Water St. recently?)

Note a few things:

1. The local complainer's comment that "it is only a matter of time" before an accident occurs. I can't remember the last time there was an accident there. That there hasn't been suggests that there is no need for a stop sign. This is mini-Mussolini fear mongering.

2.Chief Shupe comments that cars blow by at 49 mph. I'd like to know how many cars (as a percentage) that is. My hunch is that it's very few, and that that's the maximum number, and that it's at off peak times. It is not a good metric.

3. Stratham cop mentions the school bus stop in the typical "Think of the children!" screeching. 

4."Educational enforcement" means a warning as long as you sufficiently grovel at the EPD SUV. Eventually, of course, it will be another place for EPD SUVs to loiter and issue tickets for rolling through.

5. Even if the carnage they warn about comes to fruition, a yield sign is only the proximate cause. The real problem is road socialism: government has a monopoly of road production, and like any monopoly, it leads to low quality, high prices products. It's time for an alternative approach.

The tentacles of the Exeter government continue to tighten their grip. As I noted before, as signage increases, liberty decreases. More and more is commanded by government, and less is left for individual volition.

Surprise, surprise

The Exeter government needs to spend more money.

Dan Chartrand doesn't think it's enough a hike in how the government spends the money it expropriates from us. Perhaps he should go do some fundraising.

Dan Winham wants a parking lot. Maybe "we" can turn the town offices into one. That'll be a far better use of them to have a central location for paying our ransoms.

Live free or die--but only if you pay up first.

LOL: Board of selectmen

The kerfuffle about the company that is providing a report about the Exeter government's obvious ineptitude is quite interesting.

Naturally, Dan-beautify my storefront-Chartrand and Russ-100k-Dean have no issue handing more tax money to Municipal Resources Inc. (MRI) for an "impartial" recruitment of a new "town planner." My guess is that they support MRI because they will use negative report to argue for more government, more taxation, and more power given to the Exeter bureaucracy. (Note that Chartrand has already floated this campaign.)

Of course, this makes no sense. A negative report indicates to a normal person that the Exeter government should be relieved of its ill-gotten powers, just as a bad business would downsize. Notice that Exeter did not break off the planet and spiral to the sun without a town planner. It will not do so. The Exeter government is better off without one, and, in fact, should reduce its scope even further. 

Additionally, Chartrand humorously claims to want to avoid politicization. I'm not sure what he means by that, because politics is nothing but lying, conniving, and stealing to gain wealth at the expense of others. Using tax money to give to an ostensibly private company for their (Chartrand's and MRI's) mutual benefit already reeks of it. Avoiding "politicization" must mean "shut up, Citizen, and don't peek behind the curtain."

Don't ratchet up Exeter bureaucracy

The Exeter News-Letter editorial board is sinking it's teeth in. If there's ever a prospect to expand government power, taxation, and spending, this board seems to support it.

As before, ENL thinks in aggregates and compares the political boundary called Exeter with surrounding political boundaries.  These comparisons are made in population numbers, so we are left wondering what the issue is with, say, Brentwood compared to Portsmouth. But, we could guess.  Portsmouth is a "happening" town (which, according to ENL, is due to political decisions rather than individual entrepreneurship.) ENL supports expansive bureaucracy to keep the "engine of government" running. We know their answer: cede more power and money to the politicians. Government exists and creates problems. So, more government is needed to address the problems. The ratchet turns.

How "historic"?

There is a funny article about the upcoming "historic" selectmen decision about the multi-million dollar waste water treatment plant. This word "historic" belies an over-inflated self image of the selectmen. They are somehow determining the destiny of Exeter, and only they, the all-knowing selectmen, have the intelligence and prescience to make such a decision.

It is important to realize that they are not experts in the water services industry. Neither is the politically appointed Water/Sewer Advisory Committee.  Neither are they entrepreneurs, and so they make poor predictions about whether people will be satisfied. None of them can direct scarce goods to satisfy the most urgently desired demands. There is no price system, which requires private property and consumer feedback. 

Moreover, The idea of "saving money" is a null point. Consumers spend as much or as little money as they must in order to acquire the goods and services that they want. They do so freely, of their own will. For Exeter's waste water, "saving money" is just an artifice to make it sound like these people are being responsible and making judicious choices. They cannot be judicious because they are using money that was expropriated from people. (Incidentally, even the ostensibly private engineering firm Write Pierce does not change this argument. And Wright Pierce is just capitalizing from a crony deal with the Exeter government.)

Exeter bureaucrats are just playing business with other people's money. If their "historic" decision fails, no sweat. Maybe they don't get re-elected, though blame for political blunders is usually spread evenly so as to preclude a single person being held responsible.

Real entrepreneurs make "historic" decisions every day, and they do so with their own resources or resources voluntarily entrusted to them. The burden of failure lies with them. And they don't go on and on about how historically relevant they are.