An odd editorial.

When the SMN didn't print my letter to the editor the week for which I submitted it, I sent it to the WPDQ, the Hill 'n Holler Review, and HOST Weekly. The WPDQ printed it Thursday or Friday.

The editor of HOST Weekly called me Saturday night to tell me she was going to print it, but apparently in a very odd format.

Don't most newspapers print the bulk of the letter, then if necessary, write their own editorial seperately? Well, this one seems to plan on taking apart my letter and answering each (obviously rhetorical) question piece by piece.

I received an email with her "answers" this morning. As a professional courtesy, I'm going to repress my blogger's instinct to scoop her with her own story, which will come out about Wednesday, I think. I'll print them after that.

But I WILL let you in on my response to her answers.

You have my permission to print the letter, and any part of the following you wish.

Just FYI, the business owner who the mayor tried to stop from opening a business was Bob Crase, with whom the mayor has a long-standing feud. He may have legitimate points for disliking Mr. Crase, but he should be able to not let his personal beef with Mr. Crase affect his decision-making. The city should encourage any business that wants to open in Thayer to do so, not fight tooth-and-nail to keep it from happening.

I'm afraid I don't understand your points about the inner workings of this community or that I am asking the wrong questions. These are the questions that interest me, and the answers to them will weigh on my vote. I have lived in Thayer five years, and have seen no evidence of any grassroots support for ANY tax increases. Those that do pass are pushed down our throats by city government and a very small but very vocal group who have never met a tax increase, or a city power grab, they didn't like.

What we have to remember is that many abuses of the rights of individuals have started with the ostensibly noble goal of "economic development." If you need an example, just take a look earlier this year at the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. That whole fiasco started with the formation of the New London Development Commission and ended with the de facto abolition of property rights everywhere in the country.

How long will it take for Thayer's economic developer's mission to move from getting government grants encouraging new businesses to forcing out the "undesirables" in favor of more wealthy businesses?

If central planning was the key to economic development, the Soviet Union would still be around and would be the richest country on earth.

The way Thayer can encourage economic development is LESS government intervention, not more. We can't even have a yard sale in this town without a city permit.

If the city government wants economic development, the way to do it is to go to Wal-Mart and offer them a deal -- if they upgrade to a Supercenter and keep it open ten years, they don't have to pay any city property taxes. Go to K-Mart and Target and Starbucks and Barnes & Noble (have you tried to buy a book or a Time magazine in this town? It's near impossible.) and offer them the same deal. Bring in other companies with the same offer, and it's not long until we've got economic development out the yin-yang.

That is how you do economic development, not through government central planning, which offers benefits only to those adept at jumping through the government's hoops and kissing it's butt.

Regards,
John

She did point out what I'd noticed about the ballot simply calling for a tax increase, but not earmarking it for economic development. I managed to get that point into the letter to the Hill 'n Holler Review.

And she also pointed out that there is no sunset clause in the tax increase, a point I'd also noticed but chose not to include in my letters, because you hit people with too many questions and they tend to zone out.

Because of these two things, she's opposing the tax increase, but she basically disagrees with the premise of every question I asked. But I guess that checking the 'no' oval is all that matters. Motives are irrelevant.