The Cost Of Socialism ?

  Laurel, Delaware is a small to medium sized town on the west side of Sussex County. At some point in the town’s history the town decided to offer police protection for it’s citizens, all of it’s citizens.

   But a recent study by the town has shown that a majority of the town’s police calls come from apartment renters and that a large number of these calls are what they consider to be nuisance calls.

  The study has prompted the town to consider having these renters pay for their own police calls.

  Excuse me ? But don’t the apartment’s property owners already pay property tax like everyone else within the town limits along with who knows how many fees and permits , don’t the renters pay a capitation fee like every other renter within the town limits.

   Is the town saying that home owners are more important than renters? Doesn’t the town have an obligation to protect and serve all of their citizens equally ? What gives the town of Laurel the right to decide that one citizens tax dollars are not enough to cover the same service that they offer to other town residents based on whether they are renters or land owners. And as is the case so many times, this type of law will affect the lower income families the most.

  This would be a dangerous precedent if this type of law were to be enacted.How long would it be before other small towns would enact similar laws , or even the state police? And who gets to decide what is a nuisance call?

  Is the town of Laurel willing to risk the lives of it’s citizens because some elderly woman doesn’t call the police  when she hears a noise because she can’t afford the cost? Or will a battered wife be hesitant to call the police the first time her husband smacks her because of this extra charge?

  I hope that when the town council considers this at their July 20th meeting they will see that this was just a bad idea and will find other ways to protect all of their citizens fairly.

  Now I also believe that having a town even consider enacting this sort of law is a symptom of government’s growth in both size and scope . As governments have attempted to provide that which the people would be better served by the private sector , we see government failing to provide that which only government can , such as police protection.

  This is the failure of a socialistic agenda to be able to deliver the promises of socialism. These small towns are trying to follow the lead of the state and federal governments . They enact more regulations and fees on their citizens who are already under water due to the regulations and taxes of the state and federal government and when the town council realize they have maxed out on taxes , then they start to look to special charges for basic services.

  The real issue here is that the town of Laurel ,if it enacts such a charge would be charging these renters twice for the same protection that it supplies to land owners just for paying their taxes. But land owners of Laurel , don’t be surprised that if the town council enacts this law ,that some time in the future they decide to charge every citizen extra for every police call.

  This is what comes from people running to government for the things that they could do for themselves, it overloads the infrastructure to the point that the government becomes top heavy and falls over.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “The Cost Of Socialism ?”

  1. Tim J Says:

    That is the SOP renters don’t have as many rights and protections as homeowners. I agree that making renters pay for 911 is outrageous. It highlights the failings in the system more than any intrinsic difference in the people covered by it.

    The main problem is that some renters do not feel like part of the community. Hmm, that could be due in part to the fact that local governments treat them differently than the rest of the community. If the city is not prepared to work on that root problem then I hope the citizens will do what they can to remedy it.

  2. frankknotts Says:

    And Tim as always for them to do that they need only to avail themselves of their right and duty to vote. Unfortunately to often the new voters who are driven to act after something like this type of issue make the mistake of associating government with the Republican party and will be drawn in by the lies of the left, not realizing that it is the left and the Democrats that often are the cause of such treatment. Now in all honesty I am not sure of the make up of the Laurel town council as to party affiliation, but I can tell you this much, that if they institute such a law as this they are not conservatives in my view.

  3. Lenhurd Says:

    The article is very much a good example of “cost of Socialism” on a small scale. However, I feel the problem is more basic than what political party you side with. It is our attitude toward unlimited government.

    For example, we look the other way on 2nd Amend rights limit and allow another bureaucracy take over the “our protection” at an inadequate level, but with irrevocable power over us. Check the crime rates for states that really allow the right to bear arms.

    Now as the Police or any agency’s costs increase, we hollar “too much”, yet, we still think in terms of the police having the responsiblity to handling all calls. You either have to pay for the services or manage the scope of what you allow the agency to have as resourses.

    Maybe a “service fee” would more evenly spread the cost to all the residences actually using the resourses the most. I think it is socialist to assume somebody else can pay the costs unlimited services.

    But as far as getting back your property taxes, too late, the Genie is out of the bottle. Even our Sussex county bureaucracy decided they could better spend our 25% tax surplus of a few years ago, rather than give back to the payers.

    Even today, there is discussion on “leveling the Sussex sewer charges to avoid confusion”. This is but another arguement to increase your sewer service charges to a higher than the cost level basis you agreed to when your Sewer system was installed.
    Are you really confused about why newer systems cost more than a system installed few years ago?

  4. frankknotts Says:

    Lenhurd, the point of the article was the in-equality of the proposal. The fact that the city would treat one citizen paying taxes differently than another based on whether they were renting or buying. I agree that most of the taxes we are forced to pay are excessive and could be scaled down if we the people would take control of our government by voting for people who would actually reduce the size of government. And then vote them out if they don’t.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: