My response to Mr. Farrell

Mr. Farrell,

I read your letter to the editor with interest. Please permit me a response. I must admit, I am a little perplexed. Did you read my entire column? I ask this because of some of your statements seem to suggest that you did not.

I will quote you and then provide my responses:

“I am tired of all of the people who insist on getting a free ride on the backs of everyone else.” Where, exactly, did I insist on such a thing?

”The city, as far as I know, does not receive any money from vehicle taxes. How is it supposed to maintain those streets?” I did not suggest that the city receives money from vehicle taxes. I said, “…maintaining the streets ought to be already contained in the vehicle taxes I pay.” Ought to be.

“You vote for the city officials; I don’t.” Actually, I don’t either. Although I own property and run a business within the city, because I do not live in the city I cannot vote.

“Current residents are already paying for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure. Why should they also pay for the new infrastructure required for the additional population?” Nowhere did I say that existing residents should pay for development. I said, “[developers] build wonderful creations like office condos, which are subsequently taxed in perpetuity.” In other words, once a structure is built the city receives property taxes on it forever. Development is a source of new revenue. Any impact is only temporary. This means impact is eventually erased by the continuing property taxes from that new development.

In addition, shouldn’t we all bear the burden of new development, since we all have to bear the burden of public schools and tree maintenance? Why create an artificial category called “impact?” When people with school-age children move into Bozeman we don’t charge them for building a new school, do we? This is one of the central points of my column, in fact.

”… the idea that the total population should pay to put money in the pockets of the developers might be objectionable to some of your fellow citizens…” Please point out where I suggested this. Frankly, I don’t understand your comment at all.

The money a developer pays for impact fees was first in his pocket. He earned it. He is the one who is paying to put money in the pockets of the city via what I consider to be an unjust tax. If this tax was discontinued, the developer then keeps his own money. The “total population” is not paying the developer anything.

”Do you take the position that no government is necessary?” I quote myself: “The purpose of taxes is to fund the constitutionally mandated functions of government…” Did you not read this? Does it sound to you like I’m advocating no government?

This is a false binary equation that seems to be tossed out whenever someone advocates limited government. It isn’t about government vs. no government. The issue is about the size, scope, and processes of government.

“If not, I would be interested in just where you would draw the line. What should we have in the way of government and how should we pay for it?” Good question. This is the Grand Debate, isn’t it? I have written dozens of columns. Before that I wrote scores of letters to the editor. So, I have already explained my positions thoroughly. Since you appear to be unaware of my many statements, you may review them on the Chronicle website if you wish.

Once you have done so, feel free to respond to me with any further questions you might have. In the meantime, it may profit you in the future to respond to what I wrote, and not what you think I might have wrote.

Thank you very much for your time.