Letter to East Billings Redevelopment Board  EBURD 7/21/2011

I was, to say the least, disappointed in the gathering at First Interstate Bank yesterday.  I can’t say the intent was in any way obfuscated, since it began with the premise that “form”,in the minds of the presenters, is of more virtue and importance than “use” or function. The underlying rule of comedy, coincidentally, is “if they buy the premise, they’ll laugh at the joke”.

At its inception, EBURD was created as a means to suspend the redistributions ofgovernment in an effort to stimulate the development and redevelopment of the affected area.  The question was what might be done, such as improving infrastructure, to encourage rehabilitation and promote the best use of the area.

As demonstrated yesterday, the current uses, which were the originals the free market prescribed, remain substantially unchanged. The problem, so ably presented, is that there are those who believe that if a place is just pretty enough (form), then the market will find a way to make it work (function).  The problem is, of course, that government is a trailing indicator of market needs- not a leading indicator.  The real question worth considering is which barriers caused by the impediment of government intrusion need to be lifted to clear the way for the market to work its magic.

Unfortunately, what we saw was the typical response of government- ‘more government is required’. More regulation, more usurpation of property rights, more top down dictations with goals of ‘pretty” and ‘sustainable” and “green” placed in front of, instead of in response to, and in concert with, the needs of the free market.

In their zeal to turn Billings into ‘somewhere else’, the Planning Department has repeatedly demonstrated their ineffectiveness. As I have pointed out on previous occasions, the dead zone, generating virtually no productive sector revenue, of South 27th Street, is a prime example. What could have been the primary gateway to the Central Business District has been rendered useful only to prisons, halfway houses and union halls.

A more recent example is Shiloh Road- with its very own code- the content of which is quite literally written to keep small businesses from participation and success. The focus, is in overriding degree, a codification of the wants of larger developers of big box stores and the ravings of City Council ideologues which, unfortunately, are again represented in this discussion.

What we are seeing here is exactly what we have seen before. Bureaucracies benefit by insinuating themselves into day to day life to the greatest extent possible. Making codes that are opinion based patchworks make the bureaucrat indispensable. Let’s not forget the camp followers of that bureaucracy- those that go along to get along, availing themselves of the inherent irresponsibility of those who spend other people’s money.  That’s why we have a palatial Health Department, Swords Park engineered by an outfit from Seattle, and imported zoning “experts” (read: someone from out of town). How much would it REALLY cost a productive sector entity to change 18 blocks of one way streets to 2 way streets? When you are a bureaucrat, everything requires a bureaucratic answer, much like ‘when all you have is a hammer,…’

We must be careful to maintain focus for EBURD, namely how to attract the attention of the appropriate market(s) to this area and secure their investment within it. Would this area benefit from more diverse zoning? Probably. Would it benefit from more arbitrary and obtuse zoning? Not likely. The examples cited in the handout “EBURD CODE” are good evidence to illustrate the proclivity of the Stateist (control) tendency to withhold reason in order to secure leverage and dictation over the use of private property. This, rather than one of governance; the protection of rights through due process.

For this redirection to succeed, the reins need to be held by those that can generate the revenue to pay for it. Gone are the days of Social Engineering at any cost. Why on earth would we allow those with the loudest voices- and the least skin in the game- to dictate a proven failed ideology?

I’m not falling for it. We have seen before the rubber stamp approval of elected officials, based the opinions of bureaucrats, the politics of cronyism and the emotions of ideologues. Until our elected officials stop being Bobbleheads for Bureaucracy, we need to keep our focus clear, and on the proven success of making ourselves competitive in the market and not just another failure at the hands of the collective.

The articles followed the typical premise of anyone generally, and in this case Montana state GOP legislators specifically, must be wild eyed crazy.  Well, it turns out they are not, they are just tired of bending over in front of the federal government, so…

These “crackpot attempts” are nothing more than reclaiming the rights of the states from the very begining to be individually autonomous. The Constitution was authorized by the states (plural)as individual entities with the power to so authorize. The authorizing conventions of the states acted based on that specific understanding. The Bill of Rights’ 9th and 10th Amendments reitierate it and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 reinforce it.

The United States was never envisioned to be the homogeneous, centrally dictated mass that inflicts the will of the central power over the wishes of the people. Georgia should and does have different priorities than Massachusetts. Montana different than Oregon. Federal dictates do not allow for individual states to deal on their own terms with their own priorities. Allowing experimentation by states allows us to examine what works and what doesn’t and why. What business is it of the central government if issues such as speed limits, abortion, gun rights, welfare specifics, gay marriage or legalized drugs vary from state to state? None.

The states have had the right to choose to honor federal mandates or not from the begining. It was the intention that they have that choice with the original role of the Supreme Court to mediate disputes between states. Failing agreement, the states had the right, among others, to secede. It wasn’t until Abraham Lincoln defied the Constitution and denied the southern states their right by force of arms that central power actually overpowered the rights guaranteed the states in the founding documents.

If the State government has no authority to intercede on behalf of citizens and counter to Federal Central control, what is the purpose of having states at all? Lacking any authority except what central power “grants” it is pure despotism and no less dictatorial than Mobarak’s Egypt. It often even comes complete with a single federally employed, political appointee in a black robe to dictate what is “Constitutional”. Federation, Confederation, fiefdom- what does it matter- if the states are impotent.

Operating under the assumption that a central government’s propensity to usurp more and more power, and by virtue of power knows what is good for us, is a ridiculous notion. Such a system has been proven time and again to be oppressive by design and in implementation. Egypt should serve as a current reminder just how quickly a tipping point can be reached. Vigilance (a virtue we have sucked at for some time) is our only defense. The “crackpot” Thomas Jefferson, author of the Principles of 98, said ‘the price of liberty is eternal vigilance’.

Those interested in further research and discussion of the topic might enjoy:

http://mises.org/media/1422
in either audio or video form.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods121.html

There is well documented perspective on the “lunacy” and “crackpot” nature of Jefferson, Madison and others and their view of responsibility of the state to citizens relative to the power of the central government.

Letter to Editor, Billings Gazette:

Vote against mill levy10-5520. This measure is the very method by which big government and bureaucracy get bigger. The ballot wording is patently false in explanation of true costs. Further, the method of funding is a direct affront to the property rights- and so freedom-of individual citizens.

Planning must be kept localized to reflect the community affected. Local funding is currently based on permit fees and property values, a true market indicator of local conditions. Increasing the mill levy artificially increases both power over and disengagement of local bureaucracy from local market conditions. Increasing the mill levy is giving a 40% tax raise to bureaucracy in defiance of reason.

The verbiage on the ballot is unequivocally, misleadingly false. Ballot tactics of late make it a point to break down cost to individuals in order to disguise overall costs of issues in both money and, more subtly, freedom. Based on published numbers provided by the city, the out of pocket cost to the owner of a $200k house for “our” planning department will actually be more than $16.00 every year.  See www.rabblereport.com posting “Vote Against Mill Levy 10-5520″ for calculations.

Your taxes, laundered through federal bureaucracy, comprise 50% of planning department funding (read: half federally owned). Of course your taxes, and foreign loans (your children’s heritage), also fund the $90 billion USDOT bureaucracy. Stipulations, which do not respond to local needs, accompany federalized money (central planning) and devalue property rights are the very whisper of tyranny. Vote against mill levy10-5520.

Against Mill Levy10-5520, continued.

At the August 9^th Council meeting there was much opining about Planning not being present prior to 1985, apparently with the assumption that they would have been able to see 35 years into the future. The evidence, however, is that Planning has demonstrated that it can’t see 10 years into the future. Read “The Cost of Free Money” elsewhere on this site for examples. In fact, there was an appalling consensus that the Planning Department was somehow entitled to a raise in budget in direct contradiction to the current welfare and plight of the citizens of Billings. Since when is a bureaucracy entitled just for being there?

It has been the tactic of the supporters of increasing this bureaucracy to cloud the ballot issue with disinformation about what terrible consequences would result from not passing this raise.  Under the guise of “informing” the public through a one sided presentation in your PUD bill, radio ads and Gazette guest opinion, they have made it sound as if zoning would cease to exist in Billings.  This simply is not the case.  What has been presented is one side of the story- the one that likes to spend everyone’s tax dollars for the benefit of tiny minorites of citizens.  “Part time alternative transportation modes coordinator?”  Think Bike Path Czar.  Check and see how many Zoning Board meetings have been cancelled this year for the lack of anything to do.  Let’s see where the money we already spend is going, and to whom.

City Council sees the people of the Planning Department far more often than they see you. Human nature dictates that a certain co-relationship develops with regular exposure. I have come to the realization that, while the City Council is elected by us, it is not seen as their responsibility to protect our rights as citizens from bureaucracy. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Council has an equal partnership with a federal bureaucracy and is but 1% share from being completely superfluous in this matter. They have become, more accurately, a panel we have elected to represent bureaucracy to the people. In the end, it is our responsibility to protect our rights. This fact has been demonstrated unequivocally in the landmark case Fox v Henhouse.

I have had recent experience with the Planning Department in front of the County Commission. During that process, it became painfully apparent that, if the facts presented by staff were true, that department is not fiscally responsible in its function, or at least in the representation of their competence. I would challenge either city or county officials to produce an outside audit of the spending of the Planning Department. If one has ever been done, I have never seen evidence of it. If such audit can present a realistic evidence of good management and additional need, I’m all for it.  Then all we would need to address is the fact that we are paying 100% of the bill and have only 50% say in the operation.  It’s long past time to stop overpaying the federal government only to have our own money leveraged against us.

And speaking of that, it is also worth mentioning that the Planning Department has actually mentioned potential participation in a regional zoning scheme to the County Commission. This direct affront to personal property rights (much more than land at stake here) is the very core of the tyrannies of National Socialism (Nazi Germany) and Communism (USSR) which resulted in World War 2 and the Cold War. ** Full documentation shown at the end of this article.

From City Council Minutes 8-9-10: ”Planning Division Manager Wyeth Friday reviewed the process that led to the current proposal to place a 1 mill levy for planning services on the November 2, 2010, ballot. He noted that the consideration was to amend the City Charter to add that mill levy to it. He briefly reported that one mill was estimated to generate about $158,000 per year for planning services and would increase the tax on a $200,000 home approximately $2.82 per year, for a total of $6.26 per year.“

From Gazette article 8-21-10: “In the county, one mill raises about $246,000, and the 1.22-mill levy adds up to about one-quarter of the planning department’s annual budget. Another quarter comes from fees for services collected by the department, while the remaining 50 percent comes from federal transportation funding sources.” (Permit fees from the city are also included in the aforementioned quarter of the budget).

Computation of cost using figures provided above:

$6.26 ($3.44 existing levy + $2.82 proposed levy) + $6.26 (federalized match) + $3.44 (federalized match to permit fees) = $15.96 per year. I think we can safely assume that the federalized money lost more that 4 cents in the processing by a 90 billion dollar bureaucracy so amount rounded up to $16.00 per year. This mill levy is not temporary. It will continue in perpetuity.  This is all REAL cost to tax payers.  Not a misrepresentation or partial accounting of what you really pay. To say $2.82 is all you need to worry about is a lie, plain and simple.  Just more government bureaucracy at work.

So enough half truths from government. Enough increasing the tax funding this bureaucracy by more than 40% without cause or at least accountability on their part. They are counting on your apathy and your ignorance to pass this levy. I think ignorance is no longer on the table. Don’t let apathy keep you from applying the brakes to runaway government. Vote HELL NO. Vote against Mill Levy 10-5520!

___________________

**Reported by the Big Sky Business Journal: ”The City/County Planning Board, in its capacity as the Billings Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), has applied for a grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) which would facilitate “sustainable” planning of the greater Yellowstone Park region, in a national effort to solidify federal centralization of land-use planning and economic development.

In doing so the Planning Board expressed its support of an organization called the Yellowstone Business Partnership, (YBP) a regional consortium of public and private organizations, with the goal of coordinating planning and development efforts throughout a tri-state area of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, as the states surround Yellowstone National Park.

Staff of the Planning Department gave Yellowstone County Commissioners a “heads up” regarding the application during discussion on Monday. The Yellowstone Business Partnership is interested in “helping the county and city working at a higher level,” explained Planner Wyeth Friday.”

This past weekend the Billings, Montana community once again came together to help raise money for the Billings Schools at Saturday Live.  Saturday Live is one of many events and causes in Billings that bring a smile to my face and make me proud to be a member of this community.  However, this year’s event exposed me to less pleasant efforts and how some will go to great lengths to abuse rules, and use others and their causes for their own gain.

Our student volunteered this year to help work a booth at Saturday Live and witnessed firsthand the following:  just after opening an individual approached the booth that our student was at and stated that she had some “sports schedules” to leave at their booth.  This individual did not introduce herself to the students or her intentions but did indicate that she had spoken to their teacher and that permission had been given to leave a number of schedules on their table for people to take.  As the woman left she also gave each student a copy of this schedule.  These schedules, while having high school sports events on them, were in fact advertisements for a political candidate running for office this November.

Since learning of these events I have been able to glean from our student’s teacher that this individual sent an email regarding displaying and distributing these schedules and had in fact received the teacher’s approval.  In her email it did not mention in any regard that the schedules were political advertisements. The email also mentions a second teacher that was going to help gather volunteers to distribute more schedules before games.  While it would be easy to jump all over the teachers involved, I found in at least our student’s teacher’s case there were some very honest mistakes and misunderstandings due to how the email was worded.  I can say thus far our student’s high school has been very responsive to our inquiries and has taken responsibility for shortcomings. That being said, there were and still are teachers involved either by proxy or directly in assisting this candidate’s campaigning at school functions.

Had I seen one of these schedules just sitting out somewhere I don’t think I would have thought much of it.  However, the context, manner and venue that these schedules showed up and were distributed have certainly opened my eyes to how some individuals and organizations are actively bending and breaking school and campaign rules along with general etiquette.

Here are the facts of this candidate’s actions at Saturday Live: She used a school event (and plans to use additional school events), school faculty,  a high school as an entity and a sports team, students, and more specifically our child, to promote herself and as a delivery vehicle for political gain.  Saturday Live doesn’t endorse any candidate nor should it.  The high school doesn’t endorse the candidate.  Neither do the students or the teacher directly involved.

If a candidate wants to meet and greet folks at Saturday Live or a school sports event in person using their own resources I have no issue.  But if a candidate is going to try and use our child, fellow students,  our school, teachers and faculty to promote their cause by association or directly they should not be allowed at these events.

In this particular case the candidate is Pam Ellis that is running for HD#47 in the Heights but this certainly applies to ALL candidates.   I really don’t care what letter a candidate has behind their name – anyone that uses students, teachers and school events in this manner isn’t worthy of my vote and shouldn’t be of yours.

UPDATE 9/30/10:  It has been confirmed that School District 2′s resources were also used by Pam Ellis in the organization of this effort.

Ya know, if the Federal Government really wanted to help us, which they say they do, a different tack would be taken with almost all of the solutions to issues we have seen in recent history. Additionally, am getting tired of hearing how much smarter than the regular folk all of these people are.

BAILOUTS-
Loaning our tax money to corporations to prop up failing companies. Really? Is this the best our “betters” could come up with? “The fire is burning really bad now, let’s try to smother it with someone else’s cash”. Wow. I am stunned. What is the Federal government doing giving out interest bearing loans to private companies? In what part of the Constitution are they delegated that power? One round of bailouts was 700 billion, that is around $2280 for every American citizen, or around $5223 for every taxpayer. Now, what if the government had just sent us a check? In essence they would just be giving us our tax money back to stimulate the economy. What would people do with that money? Maybe they would catch up on their mortgage, increase the value of their home, pay off some debt, buy goods and services,or just save it to make their futures a little more secure. Boy, that would be terrible wouldn’t it? The great part is that the Government would have made that money back. As soon as the money gets back into the economy, it gets taxed at every transaction one way or another. Eventually it changes hands enough times for the tax revenues to come back to the IRS. The bad mortgages would have disappeared because people could have caught up or at least had enough money to make other arrangements.

Now why would the Government not do this? Because they don’t want the people to pull us out of a problem, they want to try to do it, no matter the consequences. They want it to look like they rode in on the white horse and pulled us serfs out of the mud. If they can look like the hero, then they can continue with the power-grabbing and the constitutional-overstepping. They chose the interests of large campaign contributing organizations over the American people.

HEALTHCARE-
I am still completely floored that this happened. I cannot comprehend the bold disregard for the constitution, not to mention utter lack of common sense, it takes to initiate or allow this to happen. There is no way the Federal Government has any jurisdiction in this manner. None. All of the people who were a part of this should be immediately removed from office. I am willing to make a one time concession: step down from office, forfeit all benefits associated with your office, and never run for public office again, and you will not be tried for treason, corruption, fraud, and breach of contract (when you took office you swore to us that you would uphold and defend the constitution).
The worst part is that it is painfully obvious that the government running healthcare could never be a good idea. “To bring the price of healthcare down we are going to cover more patients for free, and add an entirely new layer of bureaucracy”. Please. This isn’t even a good attempt. At least we used to get a thin veneer of public service on this kind of blatant power grab. Not anymore.
What if we did something completely different. I think we all want healthcare prices to come down, and also insurance rates. Since healthcare is a “vital” industry, why not make it a tax free one. Yep, that’s right. Like churches, hospitals and healthcare providers would operate on a tax exempt status. This would make healthcare a more lucrative and attractive industry, bringing more people to the dance. More providers, more competition, LOWER PRICES! Student loans for a healthcare education? Interest free. All the money out of your own pocket for a healthcare education. Tax free. More degrees, more workers, more competition, lower wages, LOWER PRICES. Hospitals would have lower costs, so they could provide more pro bono care. More hospitals and healthcare providers would necessitate more insurance companies. More competition, LOWER PRICES.

These are just a couple of ideas on a couple of issues. We have to ask ourselves if our elected officials really have our best interest at heart and are incapable of suitable solutions, or if they are grabbing for unconstitutional power and are that corrupt. Either way they need to leave public office. It would be nice to know, though, whether they are idiots or crooks, we have history books to write after all.

Don The Rabble Rouser

Public hearing, Billings City Council 8/9/10

What is the cost of free money? I don’t think anyone here is gullible enough to think that there is such a thing. Money buys things. Money conveys ownership. Money is a projection of power. Money, as the projection of the power of government, is a corruption of the public trust. Money is accompanied by caveats and always has expectations.

The question before us is, “What do we get for our money and what do we give up?”. It is my understanding that the Department of Transportation (and associated acronyms) provide 50% of the funding for our Planning Department. Fifty percent ownership. The Planning Department has loyalty to- and is indebted to- a remote central planning influence. One that makes demands and requires expenditures whether the citizens of Billings want them or not. In fact, many of those plans bear little or no relevance to us in Billings, Montana. Fifty percent. One more percent and the facade of local control over the planning of our own community would fall.

Let’s talk about the players here. As we know, the USDOT is also a government agency. In this case, a $90 Billion subsidiary of a large conglomerate.. What is their incentive to fund local planning departments? Are we so naïve as to think this is an act of shear benevolence? Would you have us believe that an unelected bureaucracy of that size, commensurate appetites and with no competition, will act in the best interest of the people? We do know that they are careful to only exert 50% ownership- plenty to manipulate the proceedings, not enough to be accused of outright ownership.

Where does the money come from? It comes from us, and taxpayers everywhere. It’s money we pay to the Federal government. The Federal government keeps enough of it to fund the $90 billion bureaucracy then buys influence with the rest- with major strings attached of course. They have bought off the mantel of the planning entity- the senior partner, the one that knows better than anyone else.

What do we get for overpaying the federal government? In Montana’s case more money that we gave them, at everyone else’s expense. “Montana, the welfare state”. Maybe that could be our new slogan. Matching funds. The concept is the antithesis of budget efficiency since these funds are a reward for both actual and trumped up costs. They are willing to match whatever number we put up.

What do we give up? First, the choice of how we run our city and any pretext of local governance. Maybe worst of all, we pledge our subservience to a government that extorts our freedom by using our own money against us as if matching funds meant matching sacrifice. We pledge our hard earned income, they also pledge our hard earned income, and something much more perverse. In addition to printing money with impunity, thus debasing our sacrifice, they also borrow money with the expectation that future generations will pay the bill. Sugar coat that as you like, that’s selling future generations of citizens, without representation, into slavery.

How does that relate to tonight’s discussion? We have an opportunity to evaluate the value of a planning department with split allegiance and the actual value of services we receive relative to the monetary and moral price we have to pay. I have recently had direct experience that would seem to indicate a huge disconnect between what is apparently the norm in the Planning Department’s own representation of time use when compared to what could be considered reasonable in the private sector. To extrapolate the magnitude of that disconnect would easily discount the value of any matching money it might represent. Has anyone ever done an outside audit of this department to evaluate how well they use the resources they have to serve the citizens of Billings?

The strategy of Planning in this, and indeed most all attempts bureaucracies use to justify themselves, are named “the tyranny of the minority”. In that model, a small group can organize to promote great gain to themselves while underselling the cost to the majority– those actually responsible for the shouldering the cost. The tactic here is to make the cost spread out so thin that the individual payers don’t have enough incentive to oppose the program. That’s why we see statements like ‘(Planning) gets $159,000 dollars and only costs you $1.24′. If you are to truthfully represent the cost of this measure to those who actually pay, it must read, “(Planning) gets $318,000 dollars and only costs you $1.24 in additional mill levy, at least $1.24 in federal taxes, and a percentage of your grand children’s liberty.”

When we find the City Council buying into big government thinking, it becomes too easy to for it to forsake its responsibility to the citizens to protect them from bureaucracy’s appetites. We then may fall prey to the projects serving the utopian notions of Central Planning and the whims of bureaucrats and their pet projects. While we are supposed to be enticed by future planning on the horizon, I am reminded of the failures that lay squarely at the doorstep of the Planning Department.

When they speak of an East Billings Urban renewal plan, remember that it was they that salted the earth for commercial development on South 27th Street. What should have been the entrance to the downtown business district is now only suitable for halfway houses, prisons and union halls.

More recently we see (and shall live with) Shiloh Road, with great nods to Central Planning and the re-establishment of feudalism in the guise of large developers. This is Big box zoning with a purposeful slant against small business with its extremely restricted accesses, visibilities and prejudices in ordinance. What we shall see there is the further degradation of Billings as a unique entity with the exclusion of middle class businesses and employees underpinning our community in deference to out of state corporations and minimum wage clerk jobs. Homogenized America. Now that’s planning.

Would we even be having this discussion if you plugged in “International Corporation in place of Federal Government”? If Exxon walked in the door and said “we want you to have a bike path. If you put up ½ the cost, we’ll put up ½ the cost. Of course, it will need to be built to our specifications and with our asphalt. Also, we’ll need to raise the price of gasoline 3 cents and we’ll also need to take out a loan for part of it. It will be up to your grandchildren to pay off the loan”. Anybody in favor of that plan??

So how attentive are we to the local citizenry? Rather than look at reduced local revenues as the local market speaking to local market conditions, we act to increase the cost of doing business in fee and now in tax? All for the sake of that “free money”. All so we can spend against our own will and general well being on multimillion dollar projects and bloated infrastructure in service to tiny minorities and on behalf of inefficient bureaucracies. What would it look like to have a planning department that isn’t half in the tank to someone else? Free money is certainly easier than actual management. Being complicit in the degradation of local control in matters of planning is an affront to liberty. What value is local government when it is but an extension of federal bureaucracy? How long? How long shall we be willing to to just pay and obey?