--------------
In an astounding display of ignorance, double think, and illogic, the editorial board of the Chronicle provides us with this opinion piece. The premise is, President Reagan opposed big government, so when the state of Montana tells the city of Bozeman it can't do things, Reagan would apparently approve when the city resists.
In an astounding display of ignorance, double think, and illogic, the editorial board of the Chronicle provides us with this opinion piece. The premise is, President Reagan opposed big government, so when the state of Montana tells the city of Bozeman it can't do things, Reagan would apparently approve when the city resists.
We, your humble bloggers, were unable to type for some period of time, so boggled we were by the pure, unadulterated nonsense found in this editorial. We make no guarantees, but will do our best to untangle this mess.
-------------------------
“It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed,” — Ronald Reagan.
Those words from The Gipper feel especially relevant in Montana today. (Only one sentence in and the opinion writers can't even get their premise right. Reagan clearly says that the matter at hand is the "consent of the governed," not the allocation of state or local power.
“It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed,” — Ronald Reagan.
Those words from The Gipper feel especially relevant in Montana today. (Only one sentence in and the opinion writers can't even get their premise right. Reagan clearly says that the matter at hand is the "consent of the governed," not the allocation of state or local power.
More to the point, the Left hates, hates, hates Reagan. Thus the fact that these leftists are quoting him is for the purpose of manipulation, not explanation.)
Last week, the Bozeman City Commission took a stand, not for any particular ideology or cultural symbol, but on the principle that local decisions should be made by local people. (Whaaaaat? The "pride" flag vote is at its core ideological, and has an obvious fundamental impact on culture.
Last week, the Bozeman City Commission took a stand, not for any particular ideology or cultural symbol, but on the principle that local decisions should be made by local people. (Whaaaaat? The "pride" flag vote is at its core ideological, and has an obvious fundamental impact on culture.
That's the whole reason for the vote, not to transact city business, but to make an ideological statement.)
In doing so, the commission pushed back against a pattern of top-down control that’s become all too common in recent years. (Did the commission actually say this, that they are resisting state power? And this is the hill they chose to die on?)
They said “yea.” And they could’ve said “nay.”
Either way, the decision was made in Bozeman, by Bozeman on behalf of We The People of Bozeman. (Oh, so The People didn't vote on this? Does that mean the City's vote was top down over the people of Bozeman?)
Whether one agrees with the 4-1 vote to re-raise the Pride flag isn’t the point. (It most certainly is the point. A highly controversial and devisive issue was made law by the vote of four out of five commission members, regardless of the opinion of Bozeman residents.)
They said “yea.” And they could’ve said “nay.”
Either way, the decision was made in Bozeman, by Bozeman on behalf of We The People of Bozeman. (Oh, so The People didn't vote on this? Does that mean the City's vote was top down over the people of Bozeman?)
Whether one agrees with the 4-1 vote to re-raise the Pride flag isn’t the point. (It most certainly is the point. A highly controversial and devisive issue was made law by the vote of four out of five commission members, regardless of the opinion of Bozeman residents.)
The satisfaction comes in rebuking the Legislature, a body that routinely espouses “limited government” and then wields a heavy hand when we try to chart our own course. (So, was the state in some way expanding its legal powers by intervening in city business? Did the state violate the state constitution? Were its actions tyrannical? No, no, and no.
This is not an issue of "limited government.")
Until recently, legislative intrusions into local affairs were less onerous. But over the past three sessions the Powers Denied section of the Montana state code (That would be 7-1-111.)
Until recently, legislative intrusions into local affairs were less onerous. But over the past three sessions the Powers Denied section of the Montana state code (That would be 7-1-111.)
has grown faster than the federal deficit. (Apparently it's better for the city to gain and exercise these powers. Why this is the case is a mystery, for the wielding of power, whether the city or the state, is the problem.)
And is it our imagination that Bozeman is a primary target?
We’ve been told we can’t require a minimum availability of affordable housing or solar/EV capabilities with new developments, (More powerful government.)
can’t zone to monitor density, (More powerful government.)
can’t require minimum parking for smaller housing units, (More powerful government.)
and can’t let neighbors protest many new projects.
We can’t use cameras at intersections to nab speeders and red-light runners. (More powerful government.)
We can’t set local vaping regulations. (More powerful government.)
And our vote to ban single-use plastic bags was squashed. (More powerful government.)
As if our local law enforcers are underworked, the state also says we must police our public restrooms to ensure proper gender alignment. (This would be H.B. 121, which says nothing about policing public restrooms.)
Just up the hill, Montana State University can’t regulate firearms on its own campus. ("Montana State University was established on February 16, 1893, by an act of the State Legislature.")
Then there’s a resort tax or, at least, a targeted sales tax. (More powerful government.)
Our voters aren’t allowed to determine whether we want to join Big Sky, Gardiner, West Yellowstone, Whitefish and Red Lodge in asking the hordes of tourists who descend upon us each year to help with infrastructure and amenities we provide at no charge. ("Asking?" Actually, requiring.
The obvious question to ask is, does Bozeman ordinarily come up short on its budget for "infrastructure and amenities?" What are these, anyway?
Aren't "amenities" the nice little things that attract tourists? So the "resort tax" would be used to build "amenities" to attract tourists who would be taxed in order to pay for the amenities that attracted them. Hmm.
Further, these "hoards of tourists" drop oodles of money into the local economy, for which our local businesses are taxed. It sounds like the "resort tax" would be double-dipping.)
As we continue to get clobbered by property taxes — with, ahem, little relief from the Legislature — we bear the full burden of sun- and snow-bird wear and tear while our pleas die in legislative committees. (Is there some evidence that the above towns lowered property taxes because of their "resort tax?")
Think of what we might do with those tourist dollars: (Yes, yes, spend that pile of money.)
As we continue to get clobbered by property taxes — with, ahem, little relief from the Legislature — we bear the full burden of sun- and snow-bird wear and tear while our pleas die in legislative committees. (Is there some evidence that the above towns lowered property taxes because of their "resort tax?")
Think of what we might do with those tourist dollars: (Yes, yes, spend that pile of money.)
Fund more police officers, build a new fire station, repair bridges, fill potholes, purchase new snowplow equipment ... the list goes on and on. (Don't forget about those amenities...
Sayyy, wait. Did the editorial board forget about property tax relief?)
But no, Helena tells us we’re too big for our potential riches. (Lefists loooove-luv-lub tax money.
But no, Helena tells us we’re too big for our potential riches. (Lefists loooove-luv-lub tax money.
Isn't it astonishing that the editorial board is using Reagan's statement about wanting smaller government to argue in favor of big, oppressive local government?)
It’s true the state created local government and is responsible for how authority is exercised. (What happened here? The whole argument gets ceded!)
It’s true the state created local government and is responsible for how authority is exercised. (What happened here? The whole argument gets ceded!)
Hence, as one former local Republican lawmaker puts it, the Legislature must occasionally “clip the wings” of city and county governments, especially on taxation, property rights and regulations. (So, it's completely proper and legal for the state government to reign in local governments. Hmm.)
To that end, communities have two options: General Powers, where the state delegates specific authority, or Self Governing Powers, where towns get free rein except when the state feels it must flex its muscles. Bozeman chose the latter and has the bruises to show for it.
In those cases, the state’s attitude is, as one city official puts it, “We know better than you”. It isn't about who knows what, it's about who possesses the legal power to implement policy. The editorial board has already ceded that argument.)
If Montanans resent being told what to do by Washington, D.C., why should we tolerate the same overreach from Helena? (Why didn't the editorial board write that editorial, the one explaining the concept of federalism and how D.C. has encroached on state's rights? That would be the 600 pound gorilla the editorial board is ignoring. Instead, it wants cities to be able to raise taxes and have men in women's bathrooms. Hmm, again.)
We can make our own decisions. (No, "we" sometimes can't. That has already been established.)
To that end, communities have two options: General Powers, where the state delegates specific authority, or Self Governing Powers, where towns get free rein except when the state feels it must flex its muscles. Bozeman chose the latter and has the bruises to show for it.
In those cases, the state’s attitude is, as one city official puts it, “We know better than you”. It isn't about who knows what, it's about who possesses the legal power to implement policy. The editorial board has already ceded that argument.)
If Montanans resent being told what to do by Washington, D.C., why should we tolerate the same overreach from Helena? (Why didn't the editorial board write that editorial, the one explaining the concept of federalism and how D.C. has encroached on state's rights? That would be the 600 pound gorilla the editorial board is ignoring. Instead, it wants cities to be able to raise taxes and have men in women's bathrooms. Hmm, again.)
We can make our own decisions. (No, "we" sometimes can't. That has already been established.)
We can say “yea” or “nay.”
And if we get it wrong, we’ll hear about it from our neighbors — at the ballot box, (If "we" get it wrong, the ballot box will not correct that. Our neighbors' vote might also be wrong. Voting does not determine truth, morality, or correctness.)
not in the Capitol rotunda.
“Government is not the solution to our problem,” Reagan reminded us. “Government is the problem.” (Including local government, it seems clear.)
Let’s keep that in mind the next time a distant lawmaker tells Bozeman how to run our own house. (Well, the law says otherwise. Bozeman doesn't have unrestrained power to run its own house. And that's clearly a good thing.)
No comments:
Post a Comment